Several years ago, signs were replaced on the Trans-Manhattan Expy and the Bruckner interchange on I-95 which showed a switch from mile-based to sequential exit numbering. Manhattan exits 1A, 1B, 1C became 1, 2, 3, and those at the Bruckner were renumbered, with I-678 becoming Exit 10 and I-295 becoming Exit 12. Intermediate exits on the Cross Bronx, and those on the Throgs Neck portion of I-95 along with the NE Thruway were never renumbered.
Now, while browsing dougtone's images on Flickr... I notice this....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/4290518608/sizes/l/in/set-72157623123440853/
.... which shows I-295 reverting back to Exit 6B. Is this because of the majority of the signs still are on the old system? Or is this a hint of New York going to mile-based exits, of which the old numbering system was based off? It's been a while since I've traveled the roads down there and all I have is the pics to go by. I just found the exit numbering/renumbering curious.
Thoughts?
Hmm, interesting thing to notice, its from 2009.
Its already going like 1-2-3-1C-2A-2B-3-4A-4B-5A-5B-11-12-8A-8B-8C-and so on.
Also this is the 2nd numbering system for the NE Thruway
New York is indeed going to mile-based exits due to the MUTCD mandate. When the rest of the state will see them, who knows.
Just curious... what are the implications of exit renumbering as far as things like GPS or Mapquest?
And how is the mile-based system going to work on the Thruway? Are they going to change every single milepost or is Exit 1 still going to be at the NYC/NYS line?
If they do change mileposts, that'd be about 700+ miles of mileposts to change (lengths of I-87 and I-90).
I asked CT this question..considering that I-95 exits are closely spaced. The response I got was CT has no plans to go to a mile based system because the exits are so close together and b/c of driver confusion. I then asked won't the feds stop funding because CT won't do it? The response was there is about 5 years and then CT would lose some funding. No mention of that they will do it.
I sure CT gets it's act together. This state can't afford to lose anymore funding. Then again CT is always late, we just started putting our exit tabs on the far right or left of BGS signs.
Note: I don't see the need for mile based numbering. With the pros and cons debated here before, I just don't see the need for it, the cons outweigh the pros. I expect exit 2 to come after 1 if going north and expect exit 3 after 4 going south. People usually say "well what happens when a new exit is added?" The chances of a new exit being added are slim and if so it's ONE time. Aren't there more pressing needs than exit numbering?
^^^ I couldn't have said it better myself.
The exit numbers on NYSDOT's portion of I-95 are a vestige of their 1970's experiment with Milepost numbering. 890 was also used as a guinea pig.
Their conclusion, of course, was that they didn't like alphabet soup were sticking with sequential. As such, a few years ago when some of the old signs on the Cross Bronx started getting replaced, they were done with sequential numbers. Then, all of a sudden, this stopped and most of the milepost numbers were put back (all signs for 1B and some signs for 1C still mark them as exits 2 and 3, respectively). Perhaps they realized that their partial redo was causing confusion and just decided to revert to the established numbers. Or perhaps they got wind of the fact that they might in the near future be required to start ditching their sequential schemes and decided it prudent to put back the milepost numbers on those grounds.
At any rate, new signs being put up now are using the milepost numbers. Yes, there seems to be a project underway to replace a lot of the ancient signs on the Cross Bronx and around the Bruckner interchange. Many are already gone. Some, hilariously, have been replaced but not removed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg132.imageshack.us%2Fimg132%2F1862%2Fdscn6688web.jpg&hash=0e531641ce70f7bc90a188728d7fe62b2443e5ce)
This particular setup has been in place for months now. :rolleyes:
Maybe its just me, but the control city change to NEW HAVEN and TRENTON for I-95 in NYC irritates me. I'd prefer NEW ENGLAND and NEW JERSEY.
Notice in the sign assembly above, CT is added to the control city, something omitted from the Bruckner interchange.
I am not a real fan of alphabet soup when exit number suffixes get past C, especially when they are independent exits. That seems confusing enough.
How palatable is this thought: Where exits are clustered so closely, such as in NYC, keep them sequential, except for cloverleaf-type arrangements, and "catch up" on the outskirts where the exits are spaced further apart. I don't think that distance is as much an issue in town as it is on the long-haul.
Thoughts?
Quote from: akotchi on April 15, 2010, 12:28:46 PM
I am not a real fan of alphabet soup when exit number suffixes get past C, especially when they are independent exits. That seems confusing enough.
How palatable is this thought: Where exits are clustered so closely, such as in NYC, keep them sequential, except for cloverleaf-type arrangements, and "catch up" on the outskirts where the exits are spaced further apart. I don't think that distance is as much an issue in town as it is on the long-haul.
Thoughts?
In an ideal situation, the freeway should be designed so that there aren't a whole bunch of clustered exits within a mile anyway. Service drives and collector/distributor lanes have come a long way to help with that. As for situations where clustered exits exist, I can only hope that when the time comes for those stretches to be rebuilt that strong consideration is given to using either device, as that will obviously cut down on the exits that need to be numbered. As it stands now, however, it just isn't that wise to have a mileage-based system but then go to sequential if some of them fall within a mile. If I ever needed to use a clustered exit, I would rather have its number stick to the overall mileage of the highway than to realize the exit is a few to several miles short of where I would expect it. It is within urban areas where it is vital to keep expectations high.
I'm a huge proponent of using mile-based exit numbers. On the New York Thruway, how many miles is it between exits 55 and 48?
If you're driving down the road, that's pertinent information that isn't readily available to you. But, if you know you're at Exit 338, and you're taking exit 138, you've got 200 miles to go without doing anything more than simple mathematics.
And, if that's too much for the GPS faithful, I'm rather afraid for my safety driving, anyways.
Sykotyk
QuoteHow palatable is this thought: Where exits are clustered so closely, such as in NYC, keep them sequential, except for cloverleaf-type arrangements, and "catch up" on the outskirts where the exits are spaced further apart.
The Garden State Parkway does something similar through Union County.
Another idea is the "Virginia solution". While Virginia is nominally a milepost-based system, both I-581 and the Norfolk I-x64s still use sequential. Using this idea, New York could retain sequential-based for the 3di routes, while allowing the use of milepost-based for the more rural and/or longer-distance routes (i.e. the 2-digit Interstates). I-95 could go either way here.
Quote from: froggie on April 15, 2010, 10:03:58 PM
QuoteHow palatable is this thought: Where exits are clustered so closely, such as in NYC, keep them sequential, except for cloverleaf-type arrangements, and "catch up" on the outskirts where the exits are spaced further apart.
The Garden State Parkway does something similar through Union County.
Not really, that actually got screwed up. Milepost-wise, 136->137, 137->138, 138->140, 139->141, 140 and 141->142, 142->143... it goes on this way till about 157-159 when it suddenly comes back to normal. It's just that somehow, when estimating the final length of the Parkway, someone screwed up.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 14, 2010, 06:23:19 PM
. Some, hilariously, have been replaced but not removed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg132.imageshack.us%2Fimg132%2F1862%2Fdscn6688web.jpg&hash=0e531641ce70f7bc90a188728d7fe62b2443e5ce)
This particular setup has been in place for months now. :rolleyes:
I-278 is 54 miles long? If anything that project should actually sign some exit numbers on that road, most are missing. Using Trenton, NJ as a control city southbound would make sense if I-95 was built, but right now I-95 doesn't go near Trenton. Newark or New Brunswick might have worked better.
As for the GSP exits, I always thought they did that because there were more exits then miles of roadway. Also keep in mind the GSP is separately mileposted north and southbound and they car vary a bit depending on the area. Go figure, the country's first milepost based exits aren't even at the correct milepost. :P
I'm guessing that only I-95 is getting mile-based exits right now. 54 is near the proper sequential number for that exit.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 16, 2010, 12:56:24 AM
I-278 is 54 miles long? If anything that project should actually sign some exit numbers on that road, most are missing.
I-278 runs about 33 miles in New York + 1 or 2 in New Jersey. The 54 exit number is "sequential".
I put that in quotation marks because the exit numbers on I-278 simply aren't in order or even signed consistently. 895/Sheridan Expressway, is it exit 46 or exit 49? Depends on which sign you look at. By milepost, it would be exit 31A.
I really wish the MUTCD hadn't dropped support for sequential exit numbering. :angry:
Quote from: Michael on April 14, 2010, 03:46:50 PM
^^^ I couldn't have said it better myself.
Same here. I think that it's a Northeastern thing.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 16, 2010, 10:12:25 AM
I-278 runs about 33 miles in New York + 1 or 2 in New Jersey. The 54 exit number is "sequential".
I put that in quotation marks because the exit numbers on I-278 simply aren't in order or even signed consistently. 895/Sheridan Expressway, is it exit 46 or exit 49? Depends on which sign you look at. By milepost, it would be exit 31A.
NY also starts the numbering from the beginning of the road in NJ. Thats why when you enter SI the first exit isn't 1.
Quote from: Lyle on April 16, 2010, 04:27:15 PM
I really wish the MUTCD hadn't dropped support for sequential exit numbering. :angry:
Why?
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 22, 2010, 10:05:21 PM
Quote from: Lyle on April 16, 2010, 04:27:15 PM
I really wish the MUTCD hadn't dropped support for sequential exit numbering. :angry:
Why?
Well, for one thing, we just lost a lot of flexibility. Previously, each state could use purely sequential numbering, mileage-based numbering, or some combination of the two (for example, sequential numbering when exits are close together, and mileage-based numbering when exits are farther apart). Now, not only must exits be strictly based on mileage, but states that do not currently do so must renumber most of their exits, causing driver confusion and significant expense. Also, what about freeways that continue the exit numbers of other freeways, such as the Northern State Parkway continuing the exit numbers of the Grand Central Parkway in New York? Would exits numbers now have to be reset because of a simple highway name (and number) change? Yes, I know about all the advantages of mileage-based exit numbering, but is it really so important that we must be forced to adhere to it so strictly?
Quote from: Lyle on April 23, 2010, 01:14:20 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 22, 2010, 10:05:21 PM
Quote from: Lyle on April 16, 2010, 04:27:15 PM
I really wish the MUTCD hadn't dropped support for sequential exit numbering. :angry:
Why?
Well, for one thing, we just lost a lot of flexibility. Previously, each state could use purely sequential numbering, mileage-based numbering, or some combination of the two (for example, sequential numbering when exits are close together, and mileage-based numbering when exits are farther apart). Now, not only must exits be strictly based on mileage, but states that do not currently do so must renumber most of their exits, causing driver confusion and significant expense. [...] Yes, I know about all the advantages of mileage-based exit numbering, but is it really so important that we must be forced to adhere to it so strictly?
Yes, it is important for the entire country to be using the same thing... if you have three or four states doing something completely different from the others, but it
looks the same, then you'll cause driver confusion
that way too.
Expense shouldn't be a major issue since 1) a lot of these signs would have to be replaced anyway, because of the more stringent retroreflectivity standards in the 2009 MUTCD and of course general wear and tear and 2) the states affected have around a decade to get things done. If they schedule the changeover in an intelligent manner, they should be able to amortize the cost over the time period between now and the deadline.
You can add flexibility to the system if you allow yourself to fudge the number by a mile or so. Many states do that when they want to avoid an "Exit 0": you can number all of Mile 0's exits as if you had a really long Mile 1. Oklahoma does this, which is why there is an Exit 1G on I-35. (Some states will go ahead and post an Exit 0 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/blog/photos/078971.jpg) if an exit occurs between the state line and Mile 1.) If needed, you can also do something like Kansas City, Missouri does around downtown: there, all the highways were intersecting around Mile 2, so to keep from conflicting exit numbers, they numbered the exits around downtown as 2A through 2Y. Sounds like it'd be confusing, but it's really not.
Quote from: LyleAlso, what about freeways that continue the exit numbers of other freeways, such as the Northern State Parkway continuing the exit numbers of the Grand Central Parkway in New York? Would exits numbers now have to be reset because of a simple highway name (and number) change?
Not necessarily: the Kansas Turnpike carries I-35, I-335, I-470, and I-70, and keeps a consistent set of mileage-based numbers going (I-35's numbers, with the zero point at the Oklahoma state line).
I would argue that the exit numbers should reset when the names change anyway, since continuing numbers in that way really doesn't have any benefits (unless there would be multiple exits with the same number within close proximity), and breaks the reason for having two names in the first place. If there's a name or number change, that's a cue that they should be considered separate entities for some reason, and keeping the exit numbers going goes against whatever reason that may be.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2010, 01:51:45 AM
I would argue that the exit numbers should reset when the names change anyway, since continuing numbers in that way really doesn't have any benefits (unless there would be multiple exits with the same number within close proximity), and breaks the reason for having two names in the first place.
Not really. Using the Grand Central/Northern State example...
it's the same highway. The name changes at the county line between Queens and Nassau just kinda "because".
I would say that logically continuous pieces of the same highway should have a consistent exit numbering scheme even if the name (or the number!) changes. Otherwise, you create confusion and necessitate instructions "take this highway to exit 4.... no, not the first exit 4, the second exit 4". Only time the numbers should ever reset is at a state line.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 23, 2010, 02:27:39 PM
Only time the numbers should ever reset is at a state line.
Even then I think this should be handled a certain way - if a route starts off for less than x amount of miles in one state, it shouldn't get new exit numbers in the other one (this is specifically true for 3dis).
I know I-86 spends very few miles in PA (eventually at Waverly, and presently towards the western terminus) and in both cases, the exit numbers are in line along with the New York milage.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 23, 2010, 02:27:39 PM
I would say that logically continuous pieces of the same highway should have a consistent exit numbering scheme even if the name (or the number!) changes. Otherwise, you create confusion and necessitate instructions "take this highway to exit 4.... no, not the first exit 4, the second exit 4". Only time the numbers should ever reset is at a state line.
Like *cough*, I-87... which has no less then THREE sets of exits and it doesn't even leave NY.
I see no reason why the exit numbers couldn't continue in this situation. I agree that they should, but I don't see how it ties in with sequential vs. distance-based numbers.
Quote from: akotchi on April 15, 2010, 12:28:46 PM
I am not a real fan of alphabet soup when exit number suffixes get past C, especially when they are independent exits. That seems confusing enough.
How palatable is this thought: Where exits are clustered so closely, such as in NYC, keep them sequential, except for cloverleaf-type arrangements, and "catch up" on the outskirts where the exits are spaced further apart. I don't think that distance is as much an issue in town as it is on the long-haul.
Thoughts?
Maine did this on I-295 during the 2004 renumbering.
Exits 1 thru 10 kept their numbers, even though the center of the Exit 7 interchange is at mp 5.9.
My notes list Exit 9 at mp 7.48... but don't note whether I'm referring to exit 9 north or south. Stupid notes!
Things finally catch up at Exit 10 @ mp 10.72, followed by Exit 11 @ mp 11.06.
If CT ever goes to mile-based, it'd be best not to even touch I-95's exits until you get some 60 miles from the border... why? Because those exits are essentially already mile-based, but by pure coincidence. Exit 56 is at Mile 56. In Bridgeport, things do get tight but is adjusting exit numbers by 1 really worth it?
Best place where it would help is the Merritt/W Cross, which starts at the border with Exit 27.
Worst location would be on I-84 in Hartford... though with the elimination of exits over the years, may not be all THAT bad, but still would involve some suffixes.
Quote from: shadyjay on April 26, 2010, 10:19:06 AM
If CT ever goes to mile-based, it'd be best not to even touch I-95's exits until you get some 60 miles from the border... why? Because those exits are essentially already mile-based, but by pure coincidence. Exit 56 is at Mile 56. In Bridgeport, things do get tight but is adjusting exit numbers by 1 really worth it?
New York is in the same position with NYSTA's portion of I-95. Compare existing sequential numbers to their milepost equivalents:
9 9A
10 9B
11 10A
12 10B
13 11A
14 11B
15 13
16 15
17 16
18 18
19 21
20 22A
21 22B
22 23
I'd show Connecticut as well but it'd make this post stretch down too long. Now if only we had spoiler tags here...
QuoteWorst location would be on I-84 in Hartford... though with the elimination of exits over the years, may not be all THAT bad, but still would involve some suffixes.
40 57A
41 57B
42 58A
43 58B
44 59
45 60
46 61A
47 61B
48A 62A
48B 62B
49 62C
50 63A
51 63B
52 63C
53 63D
54 63E
55 63F
56 63G
57 64
58 65
59 66
Yeah... "some". :ded:
I bet lot of those on I-84 could be combined. 55 and 56 are even the same exit, just with a different number for each direction!
Quote from: Duke87 on April 26, 2010, 03:07:58 PM
...
48A 62A
48B 62B
49 62C
50 63A
51 63B
52 63C
53 63D
54 63E
55 63F
56 63G
...
See, the problem with I-84 isn't mileposts are bad/sequential is good (or vice versa). It's why the f** are there 10 exits in a two-mile span???
Here in Washington, I-5 runs pretty much straight through downtown Seattle, and survives using milepost exit numbers. Every mile from 161 to 179 has an exit, but usually only one, and the suffixes never get higher than B. (I-90 has a 2C, but that's a quirk of history, there's no 2A.)
I'm kind of neutral on the whole issue - I somewhat prefer mileposts, but if some state wants to keep sequential numbers, IDGARA - but when a freeway
can't handle milepost numbers, that's a problem with the design of the highway, not a problem with using mileposts.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 27, 2010, 04:17:56 PM
See, the problem with I-84 isn't mileposts are bad/sequential is good (or vice versa). It's why the f** are there 10 exits in a two-mile span???
Well, let's examine the situation (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=41.768047,-72.66881&spn=0.015492,0.044889&t=h&z=15).
48A&B are actually only one exit, but the eastbound ramp splits into two branches that go in two different directions. It's signed as two exits eastbound (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=41.765918,-72.687864&spn=0,0.014269&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.765847,-72.688086&panoid=tqNei5IFaj_lYPCN1tlo1w&cbp=12,74.25,,0,3.65) so as to be able to get people into the proper lane for each ahead of actually leaving the freeway. Westbound it's only signed as one exit (48).
49 is EB off/WB on only, and all of two blocks from
50, where US 44 enters the freeway. Yeah, there's some redundancy there.
51&52 are for I-91 north and south, respectively. Since the ramps are separate, two numbers are needed. However, there are no WB-SB or NB-EB ramps (those movements use CT 15)
53 is where US 44 leaves the freeway. There is no WB offramp here.
54&55 are for CT 2 west and east, respectively. 54 is WB off/EB on.
56, scrunched with in the same interchange, is a long offramp to Governor street that was to be the beginning of I-284. With the freeway never built, it is largely redundant with 53 save for the lack of a WB offramp there.
All that considered, there are eight eastbound exits and seven westbound exits. Combining a couple numbers could eliminate the need for 62C and 63G, but you'd still have 62A-62B-63A-63B-63C-63D-63E-63F
Reconstruction to eliminate redundancy could cut the eastbound eight to six, eliminating the need for a 63F, but that means money.
On the other hand, beyond the six exit 63s you have 64, 65, and 66, alone and unsuffixed. Perhaps a little fudging to cut down on the progression in the alphabet is in order here?
I really don't see why the suffixes are considered a problem though: OKC gets up to 1G, Chicago has a 51I, and Kansas City has a 2Y, and nobody really seems to have much of an issue with it...
Also a valid point. :-)
Quote from: Duke87 on April 27, 2010, 07:25:51 PM
48A&B are actually only one exit, but the eastbound ramp splits into two branches that go in two different directions. It's signed as two exits eastbound (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=41.765918,-72.687864&spn=0,0.014269&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.765847,-72.688086&panoid=tqNei5IFaj_lYPCN1tlo1w&cbp=12,74.25,,0,3.65) so as to be able to get people into the proper lane for each ahead of actually leaving the freeway. Westbound it's only signed as one exit (48).
Then they should have only one number. Just use down arrows to tell people what lane to get in.
Quote from: akotchi on April 15, 2010, 12:28:46 PM
I am not a real fan of alphabet soup when exit number suffixes get past C, especially when they are independent exits. That seems confusing enough.
How palatable is this thought: Where exits are clustered so closely, such as in NYC, keep them sequential, except for cloverleaf-type arrangements, and "catch up" on the outskirts where the exits are spaced further apart. I don't think that distance is as much an issue in town as it is on the long-haul.
Thoughts?
A crazier thought: Kilometer based exit numbers. Given that they're only .625 of a mile, that would actually cut down on the use of 'higher' suffixes.
That, sir, is Communism!
And that would involve re-mileposting all of the country and attempting to teach us stubborn Americans metric.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 29, 2010, 02:38:50 AM
Quote from: akotchi on April 15, 2010, 12:28:46 PM
I am not a real fan of alphabet soup when exit number suffixes get past C, especially when they are independent exits. That seems confusing enough.
How palatable is this thought: Where exits are clustered so closely, such as in NYC, keep them sequential, except for cloverleaf-type arrangements, and "catch up" on the outskirts where the exits are spaced further apart. I don't think that distance is as much an issue in town as it is on the long-haul.
Thoughts?
A crazier thought: Kilometer based exit numbers. Given that they're only .625 of a mile, that would actually cut down on the use of 'higher' suffixes.
Quote from: yakra on April 29, 2010, 12:28:10 PM
That, sir, is Communism!
Thats not Communism its I-19.
I-19 Is 102km NB and 101km Sb
ADOT List The Mileage as 62mi
In light of this whole discussion, it's easy to understand why California never had exit numbers at all until recently. They saved themselves an awful lot of headaches over the years! (Chuckle!) Especially in the big metro areas like Los Angeles.