AARoads Forum

Which do you prefer? Personally, I like both, but sequential seem to make more sense to me because it helps me to find an exit better than distance based kind. What about you, guys?

Distance based for me.  I use exit numbers as an identity, and to judge how far into a state I will be going.

Quote from: WolfGuy100 on February 14, 2011, 08:49:23 PM
Which do you prefer? Personally, I like both, but sequential seem to make more sense to me because it helps me to find an exit better than distance based kind. What about you, guys?

Perhaps it's just that I grew up with it, but I FAR prefer sequential.  Considering I never go anywhere without google maps (or similar) directions, for me personally the extra information provided by the mile marker count is totally superfluous.

The only good thing I can see about it is that if/when a new exit is put in between two existing ones, the mile marker gives you a ready-to-use value and you don't have to worry about unpleasant contingencies like renumbering or adding letters to the exit (unless the new exit is right where the neighboring one is)

Personally, mileage-based actually helps me to find an exit better.  If I'm in Washington, and I'm at Exit 230, I know I'm about 22 miles from Exit 252.  If I'm in New York and I'm at Exit 12, I know it's 4 exits until Exit 16, but that doesn't really tell me how far away it is.  (Plus, if I'm on the Thruway, I'd be wrong.  It's actually 8 exits from 12 to 16 - 9 if you count 13N&S separately.)

Distance based I think is better, but I don't totally hate sequential exits, as I am used to seeing it in places like New York and most of New England.

I grew up in a state that (until I was 13 or so) used sequential numbers, but I'm in the mileage-based camp.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 14, 2011, 08:57:16 PMIf I'm in New York and I'm at Exit 12, I know it's 4 exits until Exit 16, but that doesn't really tell me how far away it is.  (Plus, if I'm on the Thruway, I'd be wrong.  It's actually 8 exits from 12 to 16 - 9 if you count 13N&S separately.)

This is one of the big reasons why.  When sequential exits aren't sequential, the numbers are frankly useless.  When the exit number sequence goes something like 81, 80, 78, 77, 76, 75A, 75, 73, 72* it sort of defeats the purpose.  More important, though, is the on-the-fly distance measurement ability.

* Real-world example; GA I-75 SB, current exits 238-222

Distance based (even though I grew up in sequential country).

"X miles from start of freeway" is more useful information than "Xth exit from start of freeway (after accounting for missing and additional interchanges)"

Sequential does have one advantage for roadgeeks: a gap in the numbering can indicate where another interchange was planned and never built (or, less likely, removed). Exit 43 on the Merritt Parkway and Exit 14 on CT 2 (the 66 freeway???) are good examples.

Much, much prefer distance-based, and it seems the MUTCD is now making this required, disallowing sequential-based numbering entirely.

As already stated, what happens if a new offramp is to be added to a freeway between Exits 1 and 2? It might be called Exit 1A, but sooner or later things are just going to fall out of order. I recall reading about a real-life example where there was an Exit 2 before an Exit 1E or something like that.

Also, since sequential exit numbers increase from south to north and west to east, it's useful to figure out roughly how far you are from a state border. For example, California is about 800 miles south to north, so if I'm on I-5 at Exit 780, I know I'm almost to Oregon.

I've never liked sequential - it seems like it was an early development which was quickly supplanted by mileage-based in several places but not in others.  

(and don't even get me started on California's un-numbered exits.  They should've let that 1971 experiment be a permanent thing.)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 14, 2011, 10:05:43 PM
I've never liked sequential - it seems like it was an early development which was quickly supplanted by mileage-based in several places but not in others. 

(and don't even get me started on California's un-numbered exits.  They should've let that 1971 experiment be a permanent thing.)

Seems a lot of CA interstates are finally getting their exit numbers. Last time I drove all the way through the state on I-5 it seemed everything north of Sacramento was numbered.

at the cost of so many porcelain signs, though...

I too much prefer distance based exit numbering.

Quote from: kurumi on February 14, 2011, 09:53:30 PM
Sequential does have one advantage for roadgeeks: a gap in the numbering can indicate where another interchange was planned and never built (or, less likely, removed). Exit 43 on the Merritt Parkway and Exit 14 on CT 2 (the 66 freeway???) are good examples.

Yes, that may be true, but don't forget the granddaddy of 'em all... the first exit on the Merritt in CT is #27.  Sure, it would make more sense if NY didn't renumber the exits on the 'Hutch, but since they did, the last NY exit is now #30 and the next/same exit is #27 in CT. 

I say start the renumbering of exits in CT with the Merritt/WCP/Berlin Tpke/WCH, and watch the chaos unfold! 

Hopefully the day will come soon, not just CT, but also VT and the rest of the Northeast!

Definitely mileage-based. Sequential only works, barely, in small states (NH, VT, MA, RI, CT) where the plethora of exits-to-miles ratio is close. On the NY Thruway, it can get boring not knowing exactly how many miles to go before your exit. Sure, you might be at Exit 61 and going to 47, but that means absolutely nothing in terms of how long it will take, how many miles will you travel, etc.

Mileage-based does two things: ID the exit, and give near accurate driving distance to said exit without the use of an additional sign indicating distances to city.

Sequential does one thing: ID the exit. it does not give any clue as to how far to said exit.

Anyone who claims they like 'sequential', I feel, haven't really thought out why they like it.

Sykotyk

One thing I've found odd, though, is that some states, like Oregon, increase the mileposts from north to south, while mileage-based exits increase from south to north. So sometimes, the exit mileage will still not match up with the highway mileage.

I'd prefer mileage-based exit numbers.

Distance based, for the reasons mentioned above.

Having lived part-time in a sequential-numbered state (Georgia in the early 90's), the rest in distance-numbered (NC/SC/MD) I much prefer the distance number.

Those 84 miles from the GA/SC line (Milepost 179) to Spaghetti Junction (Exit 95) sure seem faster when I know how many miles I have to drive.  ANd, from where the band bus (Clemson) gets on I-75 to where it gets off to go to Tallahassee (Exit 251 at the northern 75/85 split to Exit 62 for US 319 South) now we know it's 189 miles, rather than 65 exits (Exit 103 at the split to Exit 18 for US 319 South).

Mileage based hands down.  It's annoying when sequential exit numbers get out of wack like this 64 > 65 > 65C > 65A/B > 66 all because they had to add a new exit between 65 and 65A and all three exits are 5 miles apart from each other.

wow, guess i'm definitely in the minority.. something like 16-1  :no: -- I can't really explain it myself, either.

Maybe it's just that i like the numbers staying lower overall?   Is it easier to remember smaller numbers?  I dunno --  but that doesn't really apply in a large state where even sequential exits could reach a very high number.

I just hope they never change the exits on my old stomping grounds (I-95, I-84, CT-8, etc).. that would feel too, too weird.   Every time I would see the signs I'd think i was in a totally different part of the state just because I connect the exit numbers SO closely with an area and even their on/off ramps.

In a smaller state with closer together exits, it might be even more confusing because areas might have ALMOST the same exit numbers as they used to have, but now signifying mileage instead. 

Quote from: relaxok on February 15, 2011, 02:28:01 AM
I just hope they never change the exits on my old stomping grounds (I-95, I-84, CT-8, etc).. that would feel too, too weird.   Every time I would see the signs I'd think i was in a totally different part of the state just because I connect the exit numbers SO closely with an area and even their on/off ramps.

Aren't all states supposed to switch to mileage-based exit numbering by 2020 or so? Most states have already switched, but a few haven't.

Quote from: Quillz on February 15, 2011, 03:20:29 AM
Aren't all states supposed to switch to mileage-based exit numbering by 2020 or so? Most states have already switched, but a few haven't.

2009 MUTCD section 2E.31 (04-05) requires states to switch to mileage-based exit numbering, but does not mandate a specific deadline for doing so:

"04 Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The
consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used.
Support:
05 Reference location sign exit numbering assists road users in determining their destination distances and travel
mileage, and assists highway agencies because the exit numbering sequence does not have to be changed if new
interchanges are added to a route."

It would be great if all states used the mileage-based exits. And so, I support it all the way! Easier to know how far along you are within a given state.

Distance-based. Not only for those reasons stated above, but for safety reasons in the event that your car breaks down.

I don't really think safety concerns apply here. If you're on a mileage based highway, but you're not paying attention to the little mileposts, then all you can tell the dispatcher is that you're between Exits 270 and 274. Had the exits been numbered 99 and 100 instead, you'd still be giving them the same information.

Or,if you are paying attention to mileposts, you could give them a more specific location in either case.

Mileage based is most preferable.

However, Kacie, the emergency services know that there is only a four mile stretch you can be in between exits 270 and 274.  With exits 99 and 100 in a sequential numbering scheme, it could be anywhere from 1/2 mile to 40 miles to search.

Anyway, I personally like the newer 1/4 mile posts the ISTHA has been using over the older one milepost per mile scheme or the silly decimal point that FHWA is pushing.  Fractions are good.

I am in the mileage-based camp.  Like some who have already posted, I grew up in a sequential state (Pa), but moved to a mileage state (Md).  I work in a state that uses both (NJ) -- the turnpike is sequential, but the rest of the state is mileage-based.

Mileage-based exits are especially helpful entering a state or highway eastbound or northbound, when exit numbers increase.  If I am unfamiliar with an area, I can better gauge time to a destination.

An interesting item -- In New Jersey, I-295 and the Turnpike roughly parallel each other to just north of Trenton.  They meet a mile or so from the Delaware Memorial Bridge, so distances are roughly the same.  Exit 60 on I-295 (mileage-based) and Exit 7A (sequential, at about mile 58) of the Turnpike intersect the same roughly east-west roadway (I-195), so the pros and cons of both methods are in full display in a small area.

I much prefer mileage-based exits.

Quote from: Brandon on February 15, 2011, 12:24:02 PM
However, Kacie, the emergency services know that there is only a four mile stretch you can be in between exits 270 and 274.  With exits 99 and 100 in a sequential numbering scheme, it could be anywhere from 1/2 mile to 40 miles to search.

Not exactly.

If I tell you I'm between exits 99 and 100, without giving you any other information, then you're right, you'd really have no idea how big a range that is.

But - and switching to real world numbers here - I'd make sure to tell 911 what highway I was on. (Plus, if it's a moderately advanced system, they'd already be looking at a map locating my cell phone.) So if I told them I was between exits 4 and 5 on the New Jersey Turnpike, they'd know to search the 10-mile range between mileposts 34.5 and 44.1. So it wouldn't really make a difference if I'd been able to tell them I was between exits 34 and 44 instead.

Quote from: Sykotyk on February 14, 2011, 11:22:02 PM
Definitely mileage-based. Sequential only works, barely, in small states (NH, VT, MA, RI, CT) where the plethora of exits-to-miles ratio is close. On the NY Thruway, it can get boring not knowing exactly how many miles to go before your exit. Sure, you might be at Exit 61 and going to 47, but that means absolutely nothing in terms of how long it will take, how many miles will you travel, etc.

Mileage-based does two things: ID the exit, and give near accurate driving distance to said exit without the use of an additional sign indicating distances to city.

Sequential does one thing: ID the exit. it does not give any clue as to how far to said exit.

Anyone who claims they like 'sequential', I feel, haven't really thought out why they like it.

Sykotyk

Doesn't the New York Thruway include little panels saying things like "next exit 20 miles"?
But, yes, I prefer distance-based (miles in the U.S., please).  But it's not something I get worked up about, if only because I tend to over-value the little quirks that help you tell one place from another.

the bigger question is: if it's 40 miles between exits - sequential or mile-based - do I still remember the last exit number when I find myself splattered all over the road with much more important things on my mind?

Having grown up and lived in the Northeast, I was used to sequentially numbered exits.  Since traveling and moving to south Florida, I have to not only appreciate mileage-based exits, but prefer them.

I've always have had the sequential based exit numbers and I don't see anything wrong with them.  If one pays attentions to where they're going then one wouldn't have to worry about trying to identify their location to emergency services.  Also, the excessive gaps that come with mileage based system annoy me. 

What I expect is for the difference in exit numbers to be roughly proportional to the distance between them... especially true of long hauls. Sequentially numbered exits that are spaced out really make highways drag on... it's only 70 miles from the MA/VT state line to White River Junction on I-91, but it feels like it takes hours to get there because the lack of advancement in exit numbers (mile 70 and it's only exit 10. 10!) makes it seem like you aren't moving much. (I find it helpful to look at the mileposts and say "this should be exit XX").

On the other hand, on relatively short freeways or freeways with closely spaced exits, it matters a lot less. I-95 in Connecticut goes up to exit 93 sequentially; by milepost that would be 111. Not enough of a difference to notice.

Of course, you can start to have the opposite problem if the exits are too close. The Hutchinson River Parkway has 30 exits in 19 miles. Based on the exit numbers you tend to think it's further between them than it actually is. This is a case in which a little alphabet soup would be quite welcome... although, I'd also argue that they really ought to continue I-678's numbers rather than starting over The two highways are entirely continuous with each other, a change in designation should not warrant a reset. Same goes double for the Henry Hudson/Saw Mill, where there isn't even a change in class! And, while I'm ranting... NYSDOT would also be well advised to stop giving exit numbers to at grade intersections, and to actually number all their real exits (Taconic... :-|)

Quote from: Duke87 on February 15, 2011, 07:34:45 PM
On the other hand, on relatively short freeways or freeways with closely spaced exits, it matters a lot less. I-95 in Connecticut goes up to exit 93 sequentially; by milepost that would be 111. Not enough of a difference to notice.

That's one thing I feel like would happen in CT -- imagine if all your exits changed numbers but many of them only 1-3 numbers in either direction - talk about confusion.

Quote from: Sykotyk on February 14, 2011, 11:22:02 PM
Anyone who claims they like 'sequential', I feel, haven't really thought out why they like it.

Sykotyk

I do like sequential, and yes, I have thought it out.

There are two reasons one rational and one not:
The irrational one is simply, it's what I grew up with in PA.
The rational one is that I know roughly how many exits I have to pass before I get somewhere.  If I'm headed to exit 12 on a sequential system and I'm at exit 22 then there are about 9 exits in between.  Plus or minus given missing or added exits.  However, if I'm headed to exit 42 on a mileage system and am at exit 85, who knows how many exits I'll have to pass.

But, even so, the what I'm used to applies even in states that have always been mileage based.  I know that the easternmost exit in Ohio on I-80 is 234 and that TN 96 in Franklin is exit 65 on I-65.  But, even after conversion, I can't get the numbers right on I-80 in PA or the Ohio Turnpike.  Now, is the exit for US 11 now 240 or 241 (it's 241 btw) and what is the exit for Pocono Raceway now?  It was 43 just like Richard Petty's number, I had to look at my atlas to see that it's now 284.

Distance-based, simply because it's much easier for navigational purposes. If you're passing by Exit 3 and you're looking to get off at Exit 21, you know you have to drive about 18 miles to get there.

I think those of us who like or prefer sequential exits numbers are in the minority...

but it does need to be mentioned that on many northeast roads, to do the switch would make little sense for the expense of swapping out signs, especially given the current budgets/economies of several states...i-95 in Connecticut was built before the Interstate days, so it would definitely be non-standard in terms of how many exits (70+ within the first 79 miles)...and in an instance like that, it would be confusing to many locals who may be used to getting off the Turnpike at Exit 50 to get off at renumbered exit 52....if nothing else, two generations if not three in the New England and Northeast are used to sequential numbers....it wont be pretty to change things over to accommodate 'out-of-towners', as they might see it.

Ohio went from sequential to mileage based but in that instance the sequential numbers hadnt been on long enough for people to get used to them....if my memory serves me, the exit number first cropped up very early in the 70s and it wasnt more than just a couple of years later they went to mileage-numbers...but in a place with a lot of miles and comparatively few exits, the mileage system makes more sense....but, in the tightly knit Northeast?  Leave it alone...not too many places left to add exits anyway on the majority of highways there

Quote from: ctsignguy on February 15, 2011, 10:59:56 PM
Ohio went from sequential to mileage based but in that instance the sequential numbers hadnt been on long enough for people to get used to them....if my memory serves me, the exit number first cropped up very early in the 70s and it wasnt more than just a couple of years later they went to mileage-numbers...but in a place with a lot of miles and comparatively few exits, the mileage system makes more sense....but, in the tightly knit Northeast?  Leave it alone...not too many places left to add exits anyway on the majority of highways there

:clap:

I felt exactly as you do, however I'm a bit less optimistic as some have mentioned it's been somewhat 'mandated' - though without a deadline.  

Regardless of whether or not one or the other makes more sense as a travel aid, I'll be sad to see the systems I know so well completely change and in a deceptively subtle way (as we both stated, numbers changing slightly and confusingly - quite different than a long interstate whose numbers would be unrecognizable).

That being said, I'm kind of confused what business the locals or state would have going against it?  I can understand re-routing and such needing to jump through a lot of legal hoops, but couldn't the fed govt just send a contractor in to change them with no recourse?

Quote from: ctsignguy on February 15, 2011, 10:59:56 PM
but it does need to be mentioned that on many northeast roads, to do the switch would make little sense for the expense of swapping out signs, especially given the current budgets/economies of several states...

It's called small greenouts with new numbers.  No need to put up new signs (unless they were already planned to be replaced) except for a small plaque saying "OLD EXIT XX" like PA did.

Quotebut, in the tightly knit Northeast?

Which, in reality, is mostly limited to Connecticut, Rhode Island, and eastern Massachusetts.

Florida had the same small signs indicating the old exit number when they converted from sequential to mileage-based.  Many of the Interstate 95 "old exit XX" signs did not last long since they began the conversion a year or so before Hurricanes Frances, Jeanne and Wilma on the Atlantic Coast.  I would imagine it was much the same on the Gulf Coast where Hurricane Charlie wrecked heavy damage to signs, gantries and very tall light poles on Interstate 75.  Since the "old exit XX" signs were often mounted above the new or greened-out exit tabs on overhead sign gantries or placed off to the right on ground-mounted posts, the Hurricane force winds tore them away.

Quote from: ctsignguy on February 15, 2011, 10:59:56 PM
I think those of us who like or prefer sequential exits numbers are in the minority...

but it does need to be mentioned that on many northeast roads, to do the switch would make little sense for the expense of swapping out signs, especially given the current budgets/economies of several states...i-95 in Connecticut was built before the Interstate days, so it would definitely be non-standard in terms of how many exits (70+ within the first 79 miles)...and in an instance like that, it would be confusing to many locals who may be used to getting off the Turnpike at Exit 50 to get off at renumbered exit 52....if nothing else, two generations if not three in the New England and Northeast are used to sequential numbers....it wont be pretty to change things over to accommodate 'out-of-towners', as they might see it.

Ohio went from sequential to mileage based but in that instance the sequential numbers hadnt been on long enough for people to get used to them....if my memory serves me, the exit number first cropped up very early in the 70s and it wasnt more than just a couple of years later they went to mileage-numbers...but in a place with a lot of miles and comparatively few exits, the mileage system makes more sense....but, in the tightly knit Northeast?  Leave it alone...not too many places left to add exits anyway on the majority of highways there

Agreed.  I don't see why standardization of this sort of thing is so important (and I'm skeptical the MUTCD can, constitutionally, bind the states).

Quote from: xcellntbuy on February 16, 2011, 11:20:26 AM
Florida had the same small signs indicating the old exit number when they converted from sequential to mileage-based.  Many of the Interstate 95 "old exit XX" signs did not last long since they began the conversion a year or so before Hurricanes Frances, Jeanne and Wilma on the Atlantic Coast.  I would imagine it was much the same on the Gulf Coast where Hurricane Charlie wrecked heavy damage to signs, gantries and very tall light poles on Interstate 75.  Since the "old exit XX" signs were often mounted above the new or greened-out exit tabs on overhead sign gantries or placed off to the right on ground-mounted posts, the Hurricane force winds tore them away.

Most "old exit" tabs in Pennsylvania (well, at least the parts I drive in) are still there a decade after the conversion.  At this point, I wonder if it's a matter of having it both ways (not that there's anything wrong with that....)  I still have the Turnpike's old numbers in my head - can't get my head around the new ones.  Come to think of it, memorizing exit numbers may be the one context where sequential is helpful - because it's obvious if you're missing one - but it's a fairly silly exercise....

Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 16, 2011, 12:41:43 PM
Most "old exit" tabs in Pennsylvania (well, at least the parts I drive in) are still there a decade after the conversion.  At this point, I wonder if it's a matter of having it both ways (not that there's anything wrong with that....) 

Yeah... I remember reading that, when they started, the old numbers were supposed to be around for about 2 years.  I suppose once they were put up, until they really look like crap, it's cheaper to leave them up.

And, of course, here in PGH, with the I-376 extension, there's a whole new crop of "old exit" signs for the former mileage of the local interstates, that directly replaced the sequential "old exit" signs.

The Connecticut I-95 point is a good one; having driven it, I can see why a switchover might arguably not be a good idea there.  Perhaps there could be some sort of grandfather clause allowing a currently-sequential freeway to keep its existing numbers if there really wouldn't be much of a difference.  Maybe something like "if the average distance between exits is less than 1.5 miles" or something.

There can be some leeway in numbering, in my mind.

For instance, if there's exits at 1.0, 2.8, 4.2, 4.8, 5.2, and 8 they could sign them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and not bother me. No need for 1, 2, 4A 4B, 5, and 8 in that circumstance. In CT, the first 50+ miles of I-95 are almost spot-on with the mile markers before starting to get further and further apart.

Sykotyk

In some cases (like I-95 in Connecticut), switching from sequential to distance would have no effect on the exit numbers, as all the exits are in place. I remember when Maine made the switch, the numbers didn't change along I-295 through Portland, leaving a few of these rather amusing set ups (this isn't on I-295, but it shows the same example):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frobertstevenson.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F06%2F24344258_8459aae327.jpg&hash=c3f23d0898f60c1d1d42927588e9316a1f106b50)

 ^^  :rofl:     :-D   :spin:   :-D    :clap:

Can you imagine the conversation between the state highway people putting this sign up?   :pan:

Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 16, 2011, 09:25:34 PM
If/when New York switches from sequential to distance, for example, the exit numbers along I-890 in Schenectady would need no changing.

That isn't a case of a switchover having no effect.  I-890 was numbered according to distance as part of an experiment in the 70s.  Though apart from exit 4C, you really can't tell.

Quote from: deanej on February 17, 2011, 09:00:33 AM

Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 16, 2011, 09:25:34 PM
If/when New York switches from sequential to distance, for example, the exit numbers along I-890 in Schenectady would need no changing.

That isn't a case of a switchover having no effect.  I-890 was numbered according to distance as part of an experiment in the 70s.  Though apart from exit 4C, you really can't tell.

And then you have the issue of the Thruway. Since it has a starting point of New York City, or somewhere close to it, when the Thruway turns onto I-90 at Albany, it continues to increase its mileage to the west, which would violate the numbering scheme for even-numbered interstates, whose miles normally increase to the east. Also, I-87 north of Albany would be another issue, seeing that its exits repeat in different places (mainly the ones that lie south of the Thruway's terminus).

The problem there is that NYSTA insists that its own mainline is more important than that of the interstates that use it, and NYSDOT has similarly refused to coordinate. The Northway has its own mileposts and exit numbers which count up from the stub end at US 20 and have nothing to do with I-87. At the very least, when distance-based numbers are put in, they should use I-87 mileage (as happens in other states with situations where an interstate leaves a toll road whose numbers do not match it - I-95 New Jersey, I-70 Kansas)... but I don't see that happening because it would make too much sense. And NYSDOT isn't going to bother changing the mileposts.

No, what we are going to see when the numbers change is basically a rehash of the status quo: the Thuway will do its own thing, and I-87 and I-90 will have three different sets of mileage-based numbers.

On the same vein, the Ohio Turnpike numbering is correct for the I-80/90 and I-80 only stretches as I-80 and the Ohio Turnpike start in the same place.  Of course, the I-76 portion still uses the overall turnpike mileage instead of I-76's.

And, in PA, I-276 uses the Turnpike mileage for it's stretch of the PA turnpike.  And, I assume, so will I-95 for it's brief sojourn on the Penn Pike once the exit is finished.

Though, PA did renumber the Northeast extension to integrate it with I-476 overall mileage and when the Toll PA 60 became I-376, those exit numbers were worked into I-376's system.

Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2011, 11:32:05 PM
One thing I've found odd, though, is that some states, like Oregon, increase the mileposts from north to south, while mileage-based exits increase from south to north. So sometimes, the exit mileage will still not match up with the highway mileage.

This is a feature of Oregon's dual highway (internal) and route (external) systems. With the exception of I-5 (Hwy 1) and I-205 (can't recall the Hwy number off hand), all north-south highways have their origin at the Columbia River or northern terminus, and mileage increases going south. The only freeway this affects is OR 217, with Exit 0 at US 26 and exit 8 at I-5, and it's not that much of an issue, as it's mileage based. Also, you'll often times see mileage resets on a given route, as the Hwy number doesn't correspond with the signed Route number. For example, OR 22 has Mile 0 at US 101, at the eastern end of the OR 18/22 duplex, and at I-5 in Salem, where it becomes a freeway (with that series of exit numbers). The underlying highway under the western portion of OR 22 could have followed OR 18 past the duplex, for example (it doesn't; this happens more with routes past Bend).

Kilometer-based exits. Baring that, mileage. To those who like Sequential, I give you this clusterfuck: E15 in Spain. Aside from the straight forward hopping back and forth between A-7 and AP-7 (and to A-70) and distance exits from its western end, things fall apart near the Murcia/Valencia border, where the origin swaps (France) and sequential exits start co-mingling and usurping the distance exits.

A7(103)/E5
A7(105)
A7(106A)
A7(106B)
A7(107)
CalleBar
A7(108)
A7(109)
A7(110A)
A7(110B)
A7(111)
A7(112)
A7(113)
A7(115)
A7(116)
A7(117)
A7(118)
A7(119)
A7(124)
A7(127)
A7(130)
A7(132)
A7(133)/AP7(133)
AP7(142)
AP7(153)/A7(153)
A7(155)
A7(157)/AP7(157)
AP7(172)
AP7(181)/A7(181)
A7(181A)
A7(182)
A7(184)
A7(185)
A7(186)/AP7(186)
AP7(200)
AP7(213)
AP7(214)/A7(214)
A7(217)
A7(222)
A7(226)
A7(227)
A7(229)
A7(235)
A7(238A)
A7(238B)
A7(238C)
A7(240)
A7(241)
A7(242)
A7(243)
A7(244)
A7(245)
A7(246A)
A7(246B)
A7(251A)
A7(251B)
A7(254)
A7(256)
A7(257)
A7(258)
A7(265)
A7(272)
A7(274)
A7(277)
A7(285)
A7(292)
A7(295)
A7(296)
A7(305)
N340
CalCor
CalMonCor
CalRanRioVer
AvFen
CalPueCru
CalCap
AvSal
PlaCab
CalRam
CalExt
CalA
E902
GR5300
N323
A44
A7(LasVentillas)
A7(Carchuna)
N340
(CastillodeBanos)-- N340
(LaRabita) -- N340
A7(375)
A7(384)
A7(389)
A7(391)
A7(398)
A7(400)
A7(403)
A7(404)
A7(406)
A7(409)
A7(411)
A7(414)
A7(416)
A7(418)
A7(420)
A7(424)
A7(429)
A7(438)
A7(443)
A7(446)
A7(448)
A7(452)
A7(456)
A7(460)
A7(467)
A7(471)
A7(475)
A7(479)
A7(481)
A7(487)
A7(494)
A7(504)
A7(510)
A7(513)
A7(514)
A7(516)
A7(520)
A7(525)
A7(529)
A7(534A)
A7(534B)
A7(537)
A7(543)
A7(547)
A7(549)
A7(553)
A7(559)
A7(563)
A7(565)
Andalusia/Murcia
A7(566)
A7(574)
A7(578)
A7(580)
A7(582)
A7(584)
A7(585)
A7(587)
A7(590)
A7(591)
A7(595)
A7(598)
A7(600)
A7(605)
A7(607)
A7(609)
A7(612)
A7(617)
A7(620)
A7(627)
A7(631)
A7(633)
A7(635)
A7(638)
A7(641)
A7(642)
A7(644)
A7(645)
A7(647)
A7(651)
A7(654)
A7(658)
A7(659)
A7(661)
A7(662/764)
A7(664/763)
A7(667/760)
A7(672/755/83)
A7(675/752/82)
Murcia/Valencia
A7(81A) http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.12264,-0.96817&spn=0.017927,0.036864&z=15
A7(81B)
A7(80)
A7(79)
A7(78)
A7(77)
A7(724)
A7(722)
A7(719)
A7(714)
A7(73)
A7(72)
A7(71B)
A70(71A)
A70(71)
A70(70)
A70(69)
A70(68)
A70(67)
A70(66)
AP7(67)
AP7(66)
AP7(65A)
AP7(65)
AP7(64)
AP7(63)
AP7(62)
AP7(61)
AP7(60)
AP7(59)
AP7(58)
AP7(535)
AP7(532)
AP7(527)/A7(890)
A7(524)
A7(517)
A7(514)
A7(512)
A7(508)
A7(504)
A7(501)
A7(497)
A7(494)
A7(488)
A7(48)
A7(484)
A7/AP7(480)
AP7(51)
AP7(50)
AP7(298)
AP7(49)
AP7(48)
AP7(47)
AP7(46)
AP7(45)
AP7(44)
AP7(43)
AP7(42)
Valencia/Catalonia
AP7(41)
AP7(40)
AP7(39A)
AP7(39)
AP7(38)
AP7(37)
AP7(35)
AP7(34)
AP7(33)
AP7(32)
AP7(31)
AP7(30A)
AP7(30)
AP7(29)
AP7(28)
AP7(27)
AP7(26)
AP7(25)
AP7(24A)
AP7(24)
AP7(23A)
AP7(23)
AP7(22)
B30(2)
B30(3)
B30(4)
AP7(21)
B20(7)
B30(8)
AP7(20)
AP7(19)
AP7(18)
AP7(17)
AP7(16)
AP7(15)
AP7(14)
AP7(13)
AP7(12A)
AP7(12)
AP7(11)
AP7(10)
AP7(9)
AP7(8)
AP7(7)
AP7(6)
AP7(5)
AP7(4)
AP7(3)
AP7(2)
AP7(1)
España/France

Quote from: Bickendan on February 18, 2011, 03:43:39 AMKilometer-based exits. Baring that, mileage. To those who like Sequential, I give you this clusterfuck: E15 in Spain. Aside from the straight forward hopping back and forth between A-7 and AP-7 (and to A-70) and distance exits from its western end, things fall apart near the Murcia/Valencia border, where the origin swaps (France) and sequential exits start co-mingling and usurping the distance exits.

A mass of logical fallacies in there, jumping to logical conclusions from looking at a straw man.

1)Sequential numbering isn't to blame for the idiosyncrasies of Spanish route classification - it doesn't cause the road to change numbers between AP-7 and A-7, the change in status does (I'm not sure about A-70 as I've not looked there, and the B30 exits aren't on the AP-7, though the B30 is frontage roads)
2)Sequential numbering isn't to blame for the Spanish political system - that the change from distance-based from the south to sequential from the north is at a border between two autonomous communities is telling.
3)This seems to be a mess as there are two different systems in play, and a conversion from sequential to km-based - with a change in end points (that happened slightly later than some of the exit number changes in the north) - is on-going. I find it hard to see how this is sequential exit numbers' fault!

Imagine that the US ended the horrible (if the roads are meant to be interstate, why do they not have one numbering system from end to end?) practise of resetting interstate exit numbers at state lines. Spain is federal, and autonomous communities are what they are labelled - autonomous: they are entities that are close to what states are. Take I-81, and imagine if New York, like today, was being stubborn about changing to distance-based, and Virginia was being slow about not having the mile markers start at the state line and NY and PA are being stubborn about the route changing from being north to south to being south to north. That's AP-7 in Spain.

Look at, say, I-95 from DC to Boston to see a bigger mess of exit numbering: several different start points, a mix of both systems, low numbered exits close to each other (not to mention the mess wrt the gap, and also the two I-95 segments in the Newark area). The only thing going for it is that they do all increase in the same direction.

As for me, I can see the merits in both systems, and don't mind which system is used, provided that they are used well to make it easy to navigate. The problem with the E15/AP-7 route in Spain is that the system keeps changing - end points, sequential/distance-based - in a few years, provided things stay static, it will be sorted. It's the changing that is causing the mess, not either of the systems.

Quote from: english si on February 18, 2011, 07:48:26 AM
Imagine that the US ended the horrible (if the roads are meant to be interstate, why do they not have one numbering system from end to end?) practise of resetting interstate exit numbers at state lines.

You want four-digit exit numbers?  Last time I checked, the US is a LOT bigger than the UK (or Spain).

The current system of mileage based numbers is best because if you have a new exit built on the existing highway, it will not get placed out of order as opposed to sequenced exits.  I also think that all interstates and interstate-grade highways should use them.  Here in Illinois, the tollways don't use them although that is currently being added to the actual signs.  But highways like the Elgin-O'Hare Expy, US 20 around Rockford and IL 394 do not use the exit tabs at all.  They should have the miles based on a system similar to Wisconsin.  Both US 151 and US 41 use exit tabs now starting at the beginning of the route number and not at the physical beginning of the highway.

Quote from: english si on February 18, 2011, 07:48:26 AM

2)Sequential numbering isn't to blame for the Spanish political system

the average driver doesn't care about politics and bureaucracy.  he just wants to get to point B.

number the damn things consecutively. 

Quote from: deanej on February 18, 2011, 09:27:13 AM

Quote from: english si on February 18, 2011, 07:48:26 AM
Imagine that the US ended the horrible (if the roads are meant to be interstate, why do they not have one numbering system from end to end?) practise of resetting interstate exit numbers at state lines.

You want four-digit exit numbers?  Last time I checked, the US is a LOT bigger than the UK (or Spain).

That's one of the problems with distance-based numbering, that longer numbers (3- and 4-digits) come about, compared to sequential.

And sure it's the case that the US has a lot more longer routes that would trip the 4-digit mark. However, if France and Spain had a grid system, rather than a radial system, they'd have routes that would have that problem (E5 and E15 in both countries, E50, E60 and E70 in France, E90 in Spain). E15 in Spain is along the A-7/AP-7 that we talk about above, which would mean 4-digit exit numbers near French border once Catalonia sorts itself out. And Germany's A7 is close to that mark, but they use sequential exit numbering. Sweden and Norway have a couple of 1000+km routes as well.

But, yes I'd rather 4-digit numbers than having such things as two I-95 exit 1s within 15 miles of each other because I-95 in Delaware is short. The main navigational bonus of mile-based exit numbering isn't good if you need to be in the same state before knowing how far to go before your exit - in Europe it's harder to deal with, and less pressing, as the main road numbers change at the borders (E roads in Norway and Denmark as they enter Sweden excepted) but in America it can be done.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2011, 10:35:47 AM

Quote from: english si on February 18, 2011, 07:48:26 AM
2)Sequential numbering isn't to blame for the Spanish political system

the average driver doesn't care about politics and bureaucracy.  he just wants to get to point B.

number the damn things consecutively. 

My point was that sequential numbering isn't to blame for the mess of numbering on that road, not that the damn things shouldn't be numbered consecutively - Bickenden posted the exit numbers of a road during the middle of a change of exit numbering paradigm, where (like in America), some autonomous communities/states aren't up-to-date with changing the exit numbers.

I totally agree with your sentiment, hence why deanej had a go at me for saying that exit numbers on interstates shouldn't reset at state lines!

actually, upon closer inspection, it's not at the Valencia/Catalonia line that things change, but a few exits before it.  WTF?

how autonomous is this autonomous region anyway?  I-40 doesn't change exit numbering scheme when going through a reservation in New Mexico. 

No, the exits before have two numbers as they have only just changed to distance-based from the south and mapping is poor - notice that they have two (or three) numbers for those couple of junctions (perhaps signage north of the border refers to the old numbers, hence the confusion).

Autonomous communities have about the same level of autonomy as states - 18% of spending is federal, 51% of spending is by smaller entities (mostly autonomous communities and the provinces in them). The boundary we are talking about is also the boundary of the edge historic Catalunya, which doesn't aid (the Basque Country hasn't done the renumbering of autovia from Nx to A-x and autopista from Ax to AP-x yet) willingness to acquiesce to diktats from Castillian Madrid.

Mileage-based is far superior than sequential.  As much as I liked the Ohio Turnpike using sequential for almost 50 years, it was getting a bit confusing near the end when they were adding more exits.

For a while, in sequential order, there was:

Exit 7 (Now Exit 118) -- US-250
Exit 7-A (Now Exit 135) -- Baumhart Road
Exit 8-A (Now Exit 142) -- I-90/SR-2 East
Exit 8 (Now Exit 145) -- SR 57

Had the Ohio Turnpike stayed sequential, It would have been interesting to see the confusion had Exit 140/SR-58 would have been if numbered Exit 7-B. Going Exit 7, 7-A, 7-B, 8-A 8 just doesn't look or sound right. Plus SR-58 is a lot closer to the 8 & 8-A exits than the "parent" Exit 7.

I'm still ticked off that the OTC renamed Exit 10 as Exit 161 -- Exiting eastbound, mile marker 162 is just inside the first few feet of the exit lane.  It would have made more sense.

Quote from: english si on February 18, 2011, 07:48:26 AM
Imagine that the US ended the horrible (if the roads are meant to be interstate, why do they not have one numbering system from end to end?) practise of resetting interstate exit numbers at state lines.

Look at it this way: in Europe, is it typical for motorways to keep the same system of exit numbers between multiple countries, or do they reset at the border?
Well, it's the same here. They reset at the border. The only difference is that we have a system of freeways that is consistent across state lines whereas Europe does not (E roads don't count, they aren't all freeways and are more akin to our US routes).

There are good reasons why each state has its own set of numbers. First of all, each state maintains its own portion of the highway, so there would be a lot of coordination required to measure mileage and number exits continuously across state lines which is too much to expect. Realign the highway in one spot and you throw the mileage of the whole damn thing off. Can every state down the line be expected to adjust? (Answer: no. Look at the Hutch/Merritt situation) Secondly, it's simply for brevity's sake. Many interstates would have exit numbers stretching well past 1000 if continuously numbered by mileage (I-90 would go over 3000!). It starts to get clunky to say "take exit 2347".

Besides, the reset isn't arbitrary. It happens, reliably, at the state line. We're used to this and our speech adjusts for it. If I say "exit 3 off I-95" around here, I mean the one in Connecticut. If I mean the one in Rhode Island, I will say "exit 3 off I-95 in Rhode Island" (if that isn't already clear from the context).

Quote from: Duke87 on February 18, 2011, 07:31:14 PM
There are good reasons why each state has its own set of numbers. First of all, each state maintains its own portion of the highway, so there would be a lot of coordination required to measure mileage and number exits continuously across state lines which is too much to expect. Realign the highway in one spot and you throw the mileage of the whole damn thing off. Can every state down the line be expected to adjust?

Wow I hadn't even thought of that -- that's actually a reason against mileage based in general.  ALL the later numbers have to change if a highway's route gets significantly altered so that the mileage after that point (going up in numbers) has changed at all.. granted, that doesn't happen that often.  But in some areas, neither does adding new exits.

I'm still conflicted about it but that's an interesting wrinkle.

usually in the case of realignment they don't bother.  no one cares if it's exit 383 or 384 because of a shortening 200 miles back.

I wonder what they'll do with the exits on US-395 north of Reno when it re-enters California.  The exits start at 1, despite there being several hundred miles of US-395 south of there.  There is a freeway interchange at CA-203 heading to Mammoth on the south segment of the route, but it is unnumbered.  This implies the theoretical possibility of two exit 1's on US-395 if they make it a full freeway through Adelanto where it splits off I-15.

A minor realignment might make not much difference, of the sort that usually happens with interstates.. but what about a re-route of a highway that takes 5-10 miles of previously separate road and makes it part of a larger highway -- say, starting it earlier on a road that previously was not part of any route.    Then to keep with the scheme you would need to move every later exit further down since the new exits would be 'negative' numbers compared to say, exit 1 that was previously the first on a route.   What about state highways where this sort of major change happens more often? 

I'm not sure how often these various things happen compared to each other, but, it's worth considering that when the mileage is no longer correct, the distance method starts to get kind of head-scratchy (or else would keep getting renumbered past the location of the change.. which could be at the beginning!)

Quote from: relaxok on February 18, 2011, 09:11:41 PM
A minor realignment might make not much difference, of the sort that usually happens with interstates.. but what about a re-route of a highway that takes 5-10 miles of previously separate road and makes it part of a larger highway -- say, starting it earlier on a road that previously was not part of any route.    Then to keep with the scheme you would need to move every later exit further down since the new exits would be 'negative' numbers compared to say, exit 1 that was previously the first on a route.   What about state highways where this sort of major change happens more often?  

I'm not sure how often these various things happen compared to each other, but, it's worth considering that when the mileage is no longer correct, the distance method starts to get kind of head-scratchy (or else would keep getting renumbered past the location of the change.. which could be at the beginning!)

Ask the folks in Tennessee.
Due to the cancelation of Sam Cooper Blvd. in Memphis, I-40 was rerouted onto a beltway that added 5 miles to it's length.  

that is a problem of both mileage-based and sequential addressing, and the solution is either to renumber everything, or to have the spur have its own set of numbers.  for example, start at exit A1, and then after A33 or whatnot we join the older section and we start at 1.  

(I don't think drivers would be very good at dealing with negative numbers counting down, so I would not recommend that.)

Quote from: relaxok on February 18, 2011, 09:11:41 PM
A minor realignment might make not much difference, of the sort that usually happens with interstates.. but what about a re-route of a highway that takes 5-10 miles of previously separate road and makes it part of a larger highway -- say, starting it earlier on a road that previously was not part of any route.    Then to keep with the scheme you would need to move every later exit further down since the new exits would be 'negative' numbers compared to say, exit 1 that was previously the first on a route.   What about state highways where this sort of major change happens more often? 

I'm not sure how often these various things happen compared to each other, but, it's worth considering that when the mileage is no longer correct, the distance method starts to get kind of head-scratchy (or else would keep getting renumbered past the location of the change.. which could be at the beginning!)

That sort of happened in New Jersey when the Somerset Freeway was finally officially cancelled.  I-287 was redefined to start at the Turnpike instead of where I-95 would have split off onto the unbuilt road, taking over 2-3 miles of what had been signed as I-95.  So the highway was re-mileposted, and every exit number went up by a couple (I forget exactly how much).

So it does happen, but I'd imagine it's fairly rare.

Usually if there is a plan from the beginning to extend a highway southward or westward, the exits will be numbered to account for this. For unplanned extensions of this nature, you have to renumber all the exits regardless of whether they are distance based or sequential.

As for mileage corrections in the event of a realignment, you might think the ideal way to do it would be to repost all the miles (though, not necessarily renumber all the exits) down the road, but this is usually not done. If a road is shortened, the mileposts will have a skip. If it is lengthened, some numbers will be used twice with "A" and "B" suffixed after them. Besides it generally not being worth the effort, the fact of the matter is that mileposts are not about precisely measuring distance (and hey, if something is 168 miles away rather than 167, who notices?) - they are about bookkeeping. Being able to say "I'm on I-999 at mile marker 123.4" and have that identify a specific unique location (for emergency response, structure indexing, etc.) is far more important than being able to say exactly how far you are from any other mile marker on the road.


I don't like kilometer based exit numbers because it seems like they advance too fast. But that's probably just bias of what I'm used to.

Most non-Interstate freeways (i.e., state and U.S. routes) that use milemarker exits, use them regardless where the road is a freeway, expressway, two-lane, etc. Now, the nasty little truth about mileposts is that they're not always entirely accurate themselves. For the same reason the exit numbers won't line up. If a state builds a bypass that adds 1 mile to the overall length, they may simply 'omit' a mile somewhere when there's a multiplex to make way. In fact, that is probably what can happen to US71 when it turns into I-49. Since nobody knows exactly. They may put up new mileposts, but they may leave them old ones alone for cost sake. If so, they can 'fudge' them a bit.

The greatest thing about mileage-based exits compared to sequential, that nobody seems to argue about, is that it gives you a handy rough guide of how many more miles you must travel to reach your exit by simply noting your milepost or the last exit you past. You get no advantage whatsoever to a sequential system. Small states can get away with it because you may never be too far from your exit. But, driving the NY Thruway will enlighten you to have annoying it is to never truly know how far you must travel to reach Exit 48. Even if you are counting down exits, the rare xA exit will just drive you crazy.

Sykotyk

Quote from: Sykotyk on February 18, 2011, 10:45:00 PM

The greatest thing about mileage-based exits compared to sequential, that nobody seems to argue about, is that it gives you a handy rough guide of how many more miles you must travel to reach your exit by simply noting your milepost or the last exit you past. You get no advantage whatsoever to a sequential system. Small states can get away with it because you may never be too far from your exit. But, driving the NY Thruway will enlighten you to have annoying it is to never truly know how far you must travel to reach Exit 48. Even if you are counting down exits, the rare xA exit will just drive you crazy.

Sykotyk

This to me is the best reason for mileage-based over sequential exits. It is so much easier to know at any point how far you are from your exit and in figuring up total mileage for a trip. I remember being annoyed back in the 90s when I was making trips to or through Georgia and Florida in having to actually count up the mileage between the red arrows on the interstates rather than being able to add things up quickly just by looking at the exit numbers. Fortunately, both states now use mileage-based exit numbers.

As a general rule, I think mileage-based exit numbers are better in most states. Especially in places where there are long stretches of highway in the same state sequential exits make almost no sense. If someone is traveling say from east Texas to west Texas on I-10, it is so much more useful to know at any point during that long trip how far they are from their destination just by doing easy math between the exit numbers than it would be knowing how many exits there are between the two points. There are some places however where I think sequential numbers can work. Sequential exits make more sense in small states in size, particularly in the northeast where exits are spaced closely together and have relatively short stretches of highway within the state. Those states also happen to be the ones that still have sequential-based numbers. New York is the only state I can think of that really should have mileage-based numbers-if not for the whole state at least having them for the Thruway would be helpful.

It would be interesting to see what California would do if I-40 is ever extended westward from Barstow to CA-99 or I-5 along what is currently CA-58.  I would guess that all exits along the current stretch of I-40 would have to get renumbered.  We're not talking a piddly 1 or 2 miles but at least 130 miles and potentially 160 miles depending on where the extension ends (CA-99 or I-5).

My take on the original topic is I prefer mileage-based exit numbering as it's easier to judge driving distances to your desired exit.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 18, 2011, 07:31:14 PM

Quote from: english si on February 18, 2011, 07:48:26 AM
Imagine that the US ended the horrible (if the roads are meant to be interstate, why do they not have one numbering system from end to end?) practise of resetting interstate exit numbers at state lines.

Look at it this way: in Europe, is it typical for motorways to keep the same system of exit numbers between multiple countries, or do they reset at the border?

The road number changes and exit numbers 'reset' as you are on a different road. However they don't reset when the numbers don't change. They don't reset at the borders of Spanish autonomous communities or German Lande, both of which are equivalent to states. Likewise crossing from Wales to England (Scotland-England is a bit different as the motorway changes number at the northernmost exit in England, due to a quirk of history), or Flanders to Wallonia and the exit numbers carry on as if the internal boundary wasn't there.

QuoteWell, it's the same here. They reset at the border. The only difference is that we have a system of freeways that is consistent across state lines whereas Europe does not

Which isn't true - in North America, motorways change number when they cross country boundaries, just like in Europe and just like in America, European motorways (with some exceptions) don't change number when they cross between 'states'. However, in Europe, these roads don't reset their exit numbering when they cross state lines and don't change numbers. They may reset their chainage, but not exit numbers. So there's the difference - Spain, Germany, Belgium and the UK don't reset exit numbers when roads cross 'state' boundaries, but the US does.

You make a huge category error when you equate European countries with US states - at least when it comes to roads (other issues are clouded by the EU, the Council of Europe and other international bodies).

QuoteThere are good reasons why each state has its own set of numbers. First of all, each state maintains its own portion of the highway, so there would be a lot of coordination required to measure mileage and number exits continuously across state lines which is too much to expect.

As do all Spanish autonomous communities, German Lande, Belgian linguistic areas and British nations, but exit numbers are continuous in those countries.

QuoteRealign the highway in one spot and you throw the mileage of the whole damn thing off.

A problem with mileage-based exit numbers, not a problem with treating interstates as inter-state roads rather than a load of state roads with one numbering system (although getting the other states to comply is).

QuoteSecondly, it's simply for brevity's sake. Many interstates would have exit numbers stretching well past 1000 if continuously numbered by mileage (I-90 would go over 3000!). It starts to get clunky to say "take exit 2347".

A problem aggravated with mileage-based numbers. Sequential will reduce the number of 4-digit exits, though you'd still have many. And yes it gets clunky, but that's the problem of having a big country. Perhaps get rid of the first number of 4-digit exits? At least then it would be 1000 miles between exits on the same road with the same number.

Quote from: myosh_tino on February 19, 2011, 03:25:50 AMMy take on the original topic is I prefer mileage-based exit numbering as it's easier to judge driving distances to your desired exit.

Only if you are in the same state as your exit, or know how far it is to get to the state line of the state where your exit is and can then add the two numbers together.

Okay, wait a second. Motorways in Europe aren't typically maintained on the national level? News to me!

I like my equation of EU countries to US states because it gives a more accurate (abeit far from perfect) comparison on political powers and certainly a much more accurate comparison in terms of scale - a factor whose importance is often underappreciated.

Quote

QuoteSecondly, it's simply for brevity's sake. Many interstates would have exit numbers stretching well past 1000 if continuously numbered by mileage (I-90 would go over 3000!). It starts to get clunky to say "take exit 2347".

A problem aggravated with mileage-based numbers. Sequential will reduce the number of 4-digit exits, though you'd still have many.

In fact, sequential would eliminate 4-digit numbers entirely. Even I-95 only has about 750 or so exits.

QuotePerhaps get rid of the first number of 4-digit exits? At least then it would be 1000 miles between exits on the same road with the same number.

No, because then that makes the reset point arbitrary.

And, really, this proximity of same numbered exits in different states is a non-issue. Nobody in America has trouble with it or is bothered by it. It's only when exit numbers randomly reset within the same state (see I-87) that people get confused.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 19, 2011, 05:38:50 PMOkay, wait a second. Motorways in Europe aren't typically maintained on the national level? News to me!

Given that the UK is 4 nations and Spain several, that's perhaps the wrong wording. But, for the UK, which I know best, there is no UK-wide body for road planning or maintainance. You have the the various local authorities maintaining non-trunk roads (except in Northern Ireland), the Highways Agency maintaining trunk roads in England (except in London, unless they are motorways, where trunk-roads are managed by Transport for London) and Transport Scotland, Transport Wales and the Northern Irish Roads Service dealing with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Other countries have national bodies, but in many of them it just does some of the planning and funding, co-ordinating more local places and give maintainance to more local levels (and the more federal countries are, the more devolved it is)

QuoteI like my equation of EU countries to US states because it gives a more accurate (abeit far from perfect) comparison on political powers and certainly a much more accurate comparison in terms of scale - a factor whose importance is often underappreciated.

Sure, America has got miles and miles of nothing that Europe doesn't have, but as I pointed out, Spain will have 4-digit exit numbers (and it's autonomous communities are the size of eastern US states).

And wrt roads, which is what we're talking about, they are sovereign nations (with a small pot of money at the EU to help get roads on their very limited network improved) - more autonomous than US states, where there's greater federal influence. Sure on other things they have lost political powers to the EU/Council of Europe and are more like states in a federation than sovereign countries on those grounds, but on the relevant things here (and other things, like foreign policy, taxation, etc), they are as separate as the US, Canada and Mexico. So, for equivalents of exit numbering changing at state lines, you have to look at federal countries in Europe, and it doesn't happen that exit numbers reset at geopolitical boundaries. Sure they change at country boundaries, but the road number does too (and whether they should or not is another question entirely).

QuoteNo, because then that makes the reset point arbitrary.

No more arbitrary than geopolitical boundaries, plus easier ones for working out the distance to your exit.

Of course, the confusion of changing exit numbers outweighs the benefits, but if starting from scratch, it would be way more logical and useful to not reset at state lines on an inter-state system. Same goes for changing system from distance-based to sequential or, say, adding exit numbers for motorway-motorway interchanges in France and the Netherlands. If there's several different systems on one road, then making it consistent is worth it (so mileage-based in states that aren't, numbers count up/down in a state - no having resets inside the state).

Quote from: english siWhich isn't true - in North America, motorways change number when they cross country boundaries, just like in Europe and just like in America, European motorways (with some exceptions) don't change number when they cross between 'states'. However, in Europe, these roads don't reset their exit numbering when they cross state lines and don't change numbers. They may reset their chainage, but not exit numbers. So there's the difference - Spain, Germany, Belgium and the UK don't reset exit numbers when roads cross 'state' boundaries, but the US does.

It seems that way, but bear in mind that several motorways retain their number crossing from the US into Canada. I-5 transitions to BC 99 because I-5 used to be US 99, making a number change disputable. I-15 does change numbers to AB 4, and I doubt there is a historical equivalent in Montana to AB 4. But then again, AB 4 isn't a motorway. I-29 switches to MB 29, so there is no numerical switch, even though MB 29 almost immediately terminates at MB 75 (which used to cross into the US as US 75); but MB 29 isn't a motorway. I-75 crosses into Sault Ste. Marie and has no direct connection to any Canadian highways. I-69 and I-94 both become ON 402, so here we have a legitimate number swap. ON 401 doesn't cross into Detroit yet, but it will be another legitimate swap when it finally does (as either an I-x75 or x94) unless it becomes M-401. The QEW does not have any direct connection to the Interstate system on the US side, while I-190 becomes ON-405. I-81 becomes ON 137, I-87 becomes A-15. I-89 doesn't transition to a motorway on the Canadian side, instead to QC 133. I-91 does with A-55, and I-95 retains its number as NB 95.
Inclusive of BC 99, three routes maintain their number and motorway status across the border (and I/MB 29 is a stretch, as it quickly becomes MB 75, an at-grade expressway): 'US'/BC 99, I/MB 29, I/NB 95. Five maintain motorway status but switch numbers: I-69 & 94 to ON 402, I-190 to ON 405, I-81 to ON 137 (debatable due to the Thousand Islands Bridge itself), I-87 to A-15 and I-91 to A-55.
The others, I-15/AB 4, I-75, ON 401, QEW, I-87/QC 133, don't maintain motorway status on both sides, don't have a direct connection to any highways on one side of the border, or don't cross yet.

(US 99, 97, 395, 95, 93, 75, 59, 71 all cross or crossed and retained their numbers; BC 101 was created to compliment US 101 even though they never meet).

On the Mexican side, literally only two motorway cross: I-5 and I-110 with no signed number on the other side. I-905 will at some point. I-19 and I-35 terminate to city streets before crossing. The only route that crosses the Mexican/US border and retains a number is MEX/US 57, but it isn't a motorway.

I think we're confusing the issue here, because the issue naturally gets more confusing when you start talking about other countries.  In other countries/continents, words like "state", "nation", and "country" have a tendency to mean different things.

Quote from: english si on February 19, 2011, 07:09:35 PM

QuoteNo, because then that makes the reset point arbitrary.

No more arbitrary than geopolitical boundaries, plus easier ones for working out the distance to your exit.

"Arbitrary" is one of those words that tends to get overused.  It's true that resetting the exit numbers after every 1000 would not be arbitrary, but I'd argue that it would be more confusing to motorists.  I think it's a perfectly reasonable expectation for exit numbers to reset at a state line, particularly if there's some geographic feature (river/mountain/etc) to mark the boundary.  If I'm driving through flat terrain and there happens to be a milepost 1000 between two exits, I'd be mighty confused with the sudden change in numbers with nothing but a little green sign on the side of the road to mark the reset point.

But then again, it could just be that here in the US, exit numbers and mileposts have always reset at state lines (at least since the advent of the Interstates, I don't know how they worked on U.S. Routes and auto trails -- although I know at least now they reset on the US Routes) so that's what I'm used to.

It may be worth starting a separate thread on "Should mileposts reset at state lines?", since I think that really is a totally separate topic from sequential vs. mileposts.

If mileposts didn't reset at state lines, it would make for an extremely expensive exercise if, say, California were to reroute I-10 for 10 extra miles to redo the posts/exits for the rest of I-10 to Jacksonville.

Plus, in the U.S., we have very strong identity to states. Despite it being a national roadway, the state is its own entity that we're visiting.

The exits, therefore, are exits into the state. Entry points to explore said state. Waypoints in the journey through that state. They receive their own identity because of the identity of the state itself.

That's how we can see Exit 399 and Exit 1 as completely logical, expected, and a marking point from one place to another.

Yeah, state lines are NOT arbitrary in the US.  There are many people who would like to see states given the same level of sovereignty that European countries had prior to the Lisbon Treaty.  And travel between the states without passing though customs is often cited as a freedom that makes America great.

Also, the words nation, state, and country mean the exact same thing to most Americans when talking about international politics (nation and country even mean the same thing when talking about local politics as well; they only acquire a different meaning when talking about Indian Reservations).

On exit numbers resetting within a state: this generally only confuses non-locals.  Using NY as an example, hardly anyone in NY thinks in terms of I-87 and I-90.  If they do, they're probably a roadgeek (note: people in Albany do think in terms of I-90, but their I-90 is just the free portion).

Quote from: english si on February 19, 2011, 08:20:51 AM
Only if you are in the same state as your exit, or know how far it is to get to the state line of the state where your exit is and can then add the two numbers together.

This will be the case 90% of the time. From my current location the nearest border with another state is 108 miles south of me. The next nearest one is about 117 miles north, and then I think east and west are something like 150 miles. States are big.

You're not going to mistakenly think exit 101 in Oklahoma is your exit when you're looking for Exit 101 in Iowa. You'll know you're not there yet.

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 20, 2011, 01:07:50 PM

Quote from: english si on February 19, 2011, 08:20:51 AM
Only if you are in the same state as your exit, or know how far it is to get to the state line of the state where your exit is and can then add the two numbers together.

This will be the case 90% of the time. From my current location the nearest border with another state is 108 miles south of me. The next nearest one is about 117 miles north, and then I think east and west are something like 150 miles. States are big.

You're not going to mistakenly think exit 101 in Oklahoma is your exit when you're looking for Exit 101 in Iowa. You'll know you're not there yet.

Exactly.  Outside of New England and the Northeast, there aren't many places where exit numbers and mileposts reset quickly.  In Illinois, I-94 has over 60 miles before the numbers reset for Indiana, then another 45 miles before they reset for Michigan.  Even the shortest mainline interstate in Illinois (I-24) has over 37 miles before it resets for Kentucky at the Ohio River.

Europeans have little idea of the scales involved here in North America from what I've seen.  When you have an interstate like I-10 crossing through a state like Texas, you already have high numbered three digit exit numbers (almost 900 miles in the state, IIRC).  And as for sequential numbers as they have in the UK, please get real.  In the well developed UK where there's little land left, yeah, exits shouldn't be added much to the system.  However, in under developed North America, exits get added to the interstate system all the time as growth occurs.  Please remember that this is a nation as big as China with a quarter of the population, and that population is dispersed much more so than most places in Europe or East and South Asia.  Think Russia for distances and density.

Replying to something on a previous page...

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2011, 08:55:59 PM
I wonder what they'll do with the exits on US-395 north of Reno when it re-enters California.  The exits start at 1, despite there being several hundred miles of US-395 south of there.  There is a freeway interchange at CA-203 heading to Mammoth on the south segment of the route, but it is unnumbered.  This implies the theoretical possibility of two exit 1's on US-395 if they make it a full freeway through Adelanto where it splits off I-15.

The northern segment of US 395 in California only has one exit immediately north of Reno, that's exit 8 at Hallelujah Junction (CA 70). After that interchange, the route becomes two-lane highway throughout the remainder of its time in California.

I think the best course of action for this scenario is exactly what has been done: disregard the mileage gap through Nevada and have each segment of US 395 stand on its own. Any attempt at reflecting the gap through Nevada would result in some weird unexpected exit number coming up at Hallelujah Junction.


Now I'm curious... Are there any other scenarios where a highway leaves and re-enters a state, and consideration of exit numbering (whether numbered by distance or sequentially) is needed?

Quote from: roadfro on February 20, 2011, 07:25:33 PM

Now I'm curious... Are there any other scenarios where a highway leaves and re-enters a state, and consideration of exit numbering (whether numbered by distance or sequentially) is needed?

I believe I-24, when it ducks into Georgia momentarily, keeps Tennessee's numbers as though it were still in that state.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 20, 2011, 08:13:00 PM

Quote from: roadfro on February 20, 2011, 07:25:33 PM

Now I'm curious... Are there any other scenarios where a highway leaves and re-enters a state, and consideration of exit numbering (whether numbered by distance or sequentially) is needed?

I believe I-24, when it ducks into Georgia momentarily, keeps Tennessee's numbers as though it were still in that state.

Yes, it does: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=34.971641,-85.442734&spn=0.050429,0.077162&z=14&layer=c&cbll=34.971639,-85.44297&panoid=8MgYK6HhvejjPOt1aIFWRQ&cbp=12,338.3452770000001,,0,0&photoid=po-17761319

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 20, 2011, 08:13:00 PM

Quote from: roadfro on February 20, 2011, 07:25:33 PM

Now I'm curious... Are there any other scenarios where a highway leaves and re-enters a state, and consideration of exit numbering (whether numbered by distance or sequentially) is needed?

I believe I-24, when it ducks into Georgia momentarily, keeps Tennessee's numbers as though it were still in that state.

Similar example: NY 17 (future I-86) in Waverly, PA passing by US 220.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 20, 2011, 08:13:00 PM

Quote from: roadfro on February 20, 2011, 07:25:33 PM

Now I'm curious... Are there any other scenarios where a highway leaves and re-enters a state, and consideration of exit numbering (whether numbered by distance or sequentially) is needed?

I believe I-24, when it ducks into Georgia momentarily, keeps Tennessee's numbers as though it were still in that state.

That's true.  It was even the case when every other Interstate in Georgia was numbering sequentially.

(Now, a tangent:  before I discovered, thanks to the Internet, that there were people besides me who cared about this sort of thing, and that there was therefore terminology, my term for "sequential" numbering was "consecutive."  Not sure one word's better than the other.  Any thoughts?)

Quote from: deanej on February 18, 2011, 09:27:13 AM

Quote from: english si on February 18, 2011, 07:48:26 AM
Imagine that the US ended the horrible (if the roads are meant to be interstate, why do they not have one numbering system from end to end?) practise of resetting interstate exit numbers at state lines.

You want four-digit exit numbers?  Last time I checked, the US is a LOT bigger than the UK (or Spain).

Well, if he's English, he's used to four-digit route numbers....

Quote from: relaxok on February 18, 2011, 09:11:41 PM
A minor realignment might make not much difference, of the sort that usually happens with interstates.. but what about a re-route of a highway that takes 5-10 miles of previously separate road and makes it part of a larger highway -- say, starting it earlier on a road that previously was not part of any route.    Then to keep with the scheme you would need to move every later exit further down since the new exits would be 'negative' numbers compared to say, exit 1 that was previously the first on a route.   What about state highways where this sort of major change happens more often? 

I'm not sure how often these various things happen compared to each other, but, it's worth considering that when the mileage is no longer correct, the distance method starts to get kind of head-scratchy (or else would keep getting renumbered past the location of the change.. which could be at the beginning!)

But the same thing could happen on a sequentially-numbered road, because it'll (probably) have more exits, unless I'm missing something or misunderstanding you....

Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 21, 2011, 10:58:00 AM
before I discovered, thanks to the Internet, that there were people besides me who cared about this sort of thing, and that there was therefore terminology, my term for "sequential" numbering was "consecutive."  Not sure one word's better than the other.  Any thoughts?

"Consecutive" works, I suppose, but "sequential" is the official term.

I honestly had no idea what milepost numbering was until I read about it online (hey, when you're from Connecticut, how much exposure do you get to it?). I did notice that some freeways in New Jersey skipped numbers, and I did notice that the places numbers were skipped were places that the exits were further apart, but I never made the connection that the numbers were actually proportionally distance-based. I had always just assumed that numbers were skipped when the exits were further apart to allow for the potential for future exits to be added in that space.
I also thought it was just another weird thing New Jersey did (New Jersey does a lot of weird things...). Looking at other states in Rand McNally atlases, I assumed that when numbers appeared to be skipped it was because not every exit was actually shown due to lack of space.

Then I read about it and all of a sudden it all made sense, and I thought "hey, that's pretty cool! What an interesting idea! Why isn't it done around here?".

Similar here.  I always assumed ON 401 was an oddity and that sequential was the norm before finding the road community on the internet.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 21, 2011, 07:46:41 PM

Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 21, 2011, 10:58:00 AM
before I discovered, thanks to the Internet, that there were people besides me who cared about this sort of thing, and that there was therefore terminology, my term for "sequential" numbering was "consecutive."  Not sure one word's better than the other.  Any thoughts?

"Consecutive" works, I suppose, but "sequential" is the official term.

I honestly had no idea what milepost numbering was until I read about it online (hey, when you're from Connecticut, how much exposure do you get to it?). I did notice that some freeways in New Jersey skipped numbers, and I did notice that the places numbers were skipped were places that the exits were further apart, but I never made the connection that the numbers were actually proportionally distance-based. I had always just assumed that numbers were skipped when the exits were further apart to allow for the potential for future exits to be added in that space.
I also thought it was just another weird thing New Jersey did (New Jersey does a lot of weird things...). Looking at other states in Rand McNally atlases, I assumed that when numbers appeared to be skipped it was because not every exit was actually shown due to lack of space.

Then I read about it and all of a sudden it all made sense, and I thought "hey, that's pretty cool! What an interesting idea! Why isn't it done around here?".

I, by contrast, got the connection from the start, thanks to being exposed at an early age to the Garden State Parkway.  What a difference 50 miles makes....

When I was a kid in the 70s and 80s we drove between Pt Pleasant, NJ and Jacksonville FL 1-3 times a year. i always liked the Carolinas because they had sequential exits at least going South your could tell how many miles to the next state real easily. Going North you had to know the mileage to be sure.  Early on Virginia has sequential numbers w a different sequece for the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike( that was changed in the early 80s(?)) That was confusing for a little road geek kid... coud you imagine the mind-numbed average American with that.

I learned the difference early on.

Probably because we made several visits to my mom's family in Wisconsin.

At the time, you had Pennsylvania, the Ohio Turnpike and Indiana Toll Road as sequential.  But, the free roads in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin were mileage based.  Plus a trip in 1972 to South Dakota via Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Though, we mainly went through Illinois on the Tri-State Tollway which, to this day, has no exit numbers.

Quote from: jwolfer on February 22, 2011, 11:50:06 AM
When I was a kid in the 70s and 80s we drove between Pt Pleasant, NJ and Jacksonville FL 1-3 times a year. i always liked the Carolinas because they had sequential exits at least going South your could tell how many miles to the next state real easily. Going North you had to know the mileage to be sure.  Early on Virginia has sequential numbers w a different sequece for the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike( that was changed in the early 80s(?)) That was confusing for a little road geek kid... coud you imagine the mind-numbed average American with that.

I don't know about the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike specifically, but I believe Virginia didn't switch to mileage-based exits on Interstates in general until the early '90s.

Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 22, 2011, 12:25:20 PM

Quote from: jwolfer on February 22, 2011, 11:50:06 AM
When I was a kid in the 70s and 80s we drove between Pt Pleasant, NJ and Jacksonville FL 1-3 times a year. i always liked the Carolinas because they had sequential exits at least going South your could tell how many miles to the next state real easily. Going North you had to know the mileage to be sure.  Early on Virginia has sequential numbers w a different sequece for the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike( that was changed in the early 80s(?)) That was confusing for a little road geek kid... coud you imagine the mind-numbed average American with that.

I don't know about the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike specifically, but I believe Virginia didn't switch to mileage-based exits on Interstates in general until the early '90s.

1991, IIRC.  At the same time, the R-P Turnpike was decommissioned.

Both, but the state I currently live in uses mileage base.

I prefer sequential. Perhaps just used to it in CT where the longest stretch of highway without an exit is not even 5 miles. Most of the time it's only a mile and often times less than that to the next exit. Besides, the whole distance to the next exit thing based on mileage based numbering only works if you're familiar with the highway and know what the next number is. If I'm on mile marker and exit 173, and I'm from out of town, how do I know whether the next exit is 172, 165 or 140?

True, but the point typically isn't to know how far it is to the next exit, but how far it is to your exit.

Information about a random intermediate exit is fairly useless, unless of course you're driving with a small child with a smaller bladder, and you need to know whether or not he can make it to the next public restroom, or if it's "side of the road" time.

Distance based is best!  It helps you find mileage.  For example know one knows by looking at the map how far the points along NY I-495 are on Long Island from its western end without looking it up.  If the LIE had mile based numbers you can approximate how far each exit is from the Midtown Tunnel.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 21, 2011, 09:09:53 PM
True, but the point typically isn't to know how far it is to the next exit, but how far it is to your exit.

Information about a random intermediate exit is fairly useless, unless of course you're driving with a small child with a smaller bladder, and you need to know whether or not he can make it to the next public restroom, or if it's "side of the road" time.

And sequential doesn't give that info either.  The only way to solve that is by mandating "next exit x miles" panels when the distance is over a certain length.  The only people who would care to know the next exit number are roadgeeks (and even in sequential it's not always predictable; just look at exits 21, 21B, 21A, 22 on the Thruway, or many portions of NY 17).

Quote from: deanej on March 22, 2011, 09:08:27 AM

And sequential doesn't give that info either.  The only way to solve that is by mandating "next exit x miles" panels when the distance is over a certain length.  

I think "next services" is mandatory on the interstate system for 25 miles, but spottily enforced.  there is a 73 mile gap in services between Socorro and Truth or Consequences, NM on I-25!  Three intermediate gas stations went out of business in 2009-10.

QuoteIf I'm on mile marker and exit 173, and I'm from out of town, how do I know whether the next exit is 172, 165 or 140?

If I'm on sequential and at Exit 5, and I'm from out of town, how do I know how far it is to Exit 4, 3, or 2?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 22, 2011, 11:48:22 AM
I think "next services" is mandatory on the interstate system for 25 miles, but spottily enforced.

The "Next Services" sign is optional, for use where services are 10 or more miles apart. The MUTCD does not require any motorist services sign to be used, merely providing most as options with required standards that apply if used.

Quote from: froggie on March 22, 2011, 12:08:23 PM

QuoteIf I'm on mile marker and exit 173, and I'm from out of town, how do I know whether the next exit is 172, 165 or 140?

If I'm on sequential and at Exit 5, and I'm from out of town, how do I know how far it is to Exit 4, 3, or 2?

You don't, but there's no point in renumbering our state for basically no reason. There aren't going to be new highways or exits anywhere in the state any time soon if ever, so might as well leave it the way it is. I'd rather spend the money to fix out of sequence exit numbers or the half interchanges that go to different places despite having the same number. Anyway, given the persistent traffic on major highways like I-95, it would probably be a lot more useful to know time than distance.

Distance based seems to be a roadgeek thing and most people don't care about distance based mileage exit numbers but they expect Exit 9 to be before 10 or vice-versa.  Like when you read a book you expect page 6 to be after page 5. 

I dont understand why the feds are taking this issue up when there are more pressing issues at hand. 

Doofy, you need to get out of New England more.  If this was such "a roadgeek thing", then why do all but 7 states use distance-based?

Quote from: doofy103 on March 26, 2011, 05:59:30 PM
I dont understand why the feds are taking this issue up when there are more pressing issues at hand. 

Obviously FHWA needs to drop all these retroreflectivity and exit numbering mandates and work on solving the crisis in Libya.

Oh wait...

Quote from: doofy103 on March 26, 2011, 05:59:30 PM
Distance based seems to be a roadgeek thing and most people don't care about distance based mileage exit numbers but they expect Exit 9 to be before 10 or vice-versa.  Like when you read a book you expect page 6 to be after page 5. 

I dont understand why the feds are taking this issue up when there are more pressing issues at hand. 

Actually, anybody who drives a lot LOVES distance based. Nowhere in sequential can someone, while driving, figure out how much further it is to their exit on a particular roadway without a GPS or pre-written directions listing the distances.

In sequential, you basically just wing it. From exit 38 to 48 could be 8 miles, could be 100. Who knows, really.

Sykotyk

Quote from: froggie on March 22, 2011, 12:08:23 PM

QuoteIf I'm on mile marker and exit 173, and I'm from out of town, how do I know whether the next exit is 172, 165 or 140?

If I'm on sequential and at Exit 5, and I'm from out of town, how do I know how far it is to Exit 4, 3, or 2?

But, if I don't know what the next exit number is in mileage based, I don't know how far it is to the next exit either.  And, whichever system is used, I doubt the average driver knows what exit number is next.

And, how many people know that the exit number is the mile marker number?  If you don't know that, then mileage based makes less sense.

Quote from: Sykotyk on March 27, 2011, 08:56:44 PM
Actually, anybody who drives a lot LOVES distance based. Nowhere in sequential can someone, while driving, figure out how much further it is to their exit on a particular roadway without a GPS or pre-written directions listing the distances.

In sequential, you basically just wing it. From exit 38 to 48 could be 8 miles, could be 100. Who knows, really.

Sykotyk

I guess I'm nobody then.  I don't have the freakin' exit numbers memorized on any highway anymore.  I used to on I-80, 81 in PA, the PA, OH and IN turnpikes when they were sequential.

Now, I do admit that once you know your destination number it is easier to calculate distance.

In conclusion, I will also concede this.  Mileage based numbering is better for most people, just not for me.

Quote from: Sykotyk on March 27, 2011, 08:56:44 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on March 26, 2011, 05:59:30 PM
Distance based seems to be a roadgeek thing and most people don't care about distance based mileage exit numbers but they expect Exit 9 to be before 10 or vice-versa.  Like when you read a book you expect page 6 to be after page 5. 

I dont understand why the feds are taking this issue up when there are more pressing issues at hand. 

Actually, anybody who drives a lot LOVES distance based. Nowhere in sequential can someone, while driving, figure out how much further it is to their exit on a particular roadway without a GPS or pre-written directions listing the distances.

In sequential, you basically just wing it. From exit 38 to 48 could be 8 miles, could be 100. Who knows, really.

Sykotyk

When the exits were sequential, people were expected to know about how soon the next exit was.. back in the day, you would find signs attached to BGS stating "next exit is xx miles"...(My father once thought distance numbering was for idiots who were too lazy to keep track of their fuel levels....)

As Jeff at ConnDOT told me "We like things as they are...we don't like change just for the sake of change"

I still think the FHWA should forget trifles as this, and worry about more important issues

Quote from: mightyace on March 28, 2011, 06:58:47 PM

Quote from: froggie on March 22, 2011, 12:08:23 PM

QuoteIf I'm on mile marker and exit 173, and I'm from out of town, how do I know whether the next exit is 172, 165 or 140?

If I'm on sequential and at Exit 5, and I'm from out of town, how do I know how far it is to Exit 4, 3, or 2?

But, if I don't know what the next exit number is in mileage based, I don't know how far it is to the next exit either.  And, whichever system is used, I doubt the average driver knows what exit number is next.

Exactly. Sequential essentially has arbitrary numbering. You may as well name the exits after politicians or something; there's no guarantee that 32 will immediately be followed by 33, and if there isn't, what's the point?

Quote
And, how many people know that the exit number is the mile marker number?  If you don't know that, then mileage based makes less sense.

I believe it's in the driver's manual here. Most people I talk to know about it.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 28, 2011, 09:03:47 PM

Quote from: mightyace on March 28, 2011, 06:58:47 PM

Quote from: froggie on March 22, 2011, 12:08:23 PM

QuoteIf I'm on mile marker and exit 173, and I'm from out of town, how do I know whether the next exit is 172, 165 or 140?

If I'm on sequential and at Exit 5, and I'm from out of town, how do I know how far it is to Exit 4, 3, or 2?

But, if I don't know what the next exit number is in mileage based, I don't know how far it is to the next exit either.  And, whichever system is used, I doubt the average driver knows what exit number is next.

Exactly. Sequential essentially has arbitrary numbering. You may as well name the exits after politicians or something

Pre-exit numbering California agrees!
Also, London Underground stations.

Quote from: ctsignguy on March 28, 2011, 08:51:16 PM

Quote from: Sykotyk on March 27, 2011, 08:56:44 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on March 26, 2011, 05:59:30 PM
Distance based seems to be a roadgeek thing and most people don't care about distance based mileage exit numbers but they expect Exit 9 to be before 10 or vice-versa.  Like when you read a book you expect page 6 to be after page 5. 

I dont understand why the feds are taking this issue up when there are more pressing issues at hand. 

Actually, anybody who drives a lot LOVES distance based. Nowhere in sequential can someone, while driving, figure out how much further it is to their exit on a particular roadway without a GPS or pre-written directions listing the distances.

In sequential, you basically just wing it. From exit 38 to 48 could be 8 miles, could be 100. Who knows, really.

Sykotyk

When the exits were sequential, people were expected to know about how soon the next exit was.. back in the day, you would find signs attached to BGS stating "next exit is xx miles"...(My father once thought distance numbering was for idiots who were too lazy to keep track of their fuel levels....)

As Jeff at ConnDOT told me "We like things as they are...we don't like change just for the sake of change"

I still think the FHWA should forget trifles as this, and worry about more important issues

But, that's true with mileage based as well. Nowhere do you know how far it is to the exit AFTER the next exit. They can still post "5 Miles to Next Exit" on distance based as there isn't any other system by which someone would know that, same with sequential.

One system is arbitrary and  let's you know, generally, that you're making progress toward your exit. The other is arbitrary and let's you know, generally, how far it is to your exit.

Anybody arguing against that might as well argue that we take down street blades, BGSs, etc, as making things easier for drivers to know where they're going, how far to get there, and rough indicators on distance are just too convenient for us. We need more difficulty in driving, not less. /snark

Sykotyk

My preference is mileage based, and I think the reasons have been covered well. Both sides have, actually.

A problem I see with the current state of exit numbering is that mileage-based is used far more frequently than sequential, and most motorists expect it to be the case. Even if they are on a road that is sequentially numbered, they still may not realize that's how it is numbered. I've seen this in action taking calls from motorists on the New Jersey Turnpike. I ask what milemarker they are at, and they say, for example, right before Exit 14, so must be at MM 13. Also, they may just say MM 9, then upon further questioning they say they are at Exit 9.

Another interesting situation exists on the northern Turnpike on the eastern and western spurs. Milemarkers on these are supposed to have an E or W on top, i.e. E110.7, but the letters are only applied sporadically, giving no indication as to what spur they are on. To make matters worse, the exits are suffixed with an E or W, but some can be accessed by both spurs. You can exit at 15E from the SB western spur, and enter the NB westerly from 15E, and 15W has a SB exit and NB entrance on the westerly.

Quote from: Sykotyk on March 29, 2011, 12:36:22 AM
But, that's true with mileage based as well. Nowhere do you know how far it is to the exit AFTER the next exit. They can still post "5 Miles to Next Exit" on distance based as there isn't any other system by which someone would know that, same with sequential.

This is where I like how the Illinois Tollway signs exits.  Even with the new exit numbers on I-88, they still post the current exit and the next exit on the gantry, even if the next exit is some 17 miles away.  Solves the problem without a stupid "Next Exit XX Miles" sign.

Hey did anyone realize that I-70's exit numbers in Illinois are not from the Missouri State Line on the Poplar Street Bridge in St. Louis where its true western terminus is in that state?
Only the duplex with I-55 are they correct, but after I-70 leaves I-55 it continues with mileposts started from I-270's entry into Illinois  and the exits are corresponding with I-270's mile posts that did not end with it. I-270 ends where I-70 leaves I-55 and is the same freeway that means someone did not figure that the exit numbers and mileposts are for the route numbers.

The I-70 thing may be intentional to prevent confusion between exit numbers after 70 and 55 diverge. That is one point I'll concede to sequential: since you're using arbitrary numbering anyway, it is a lot easier to get creative in situations like this.

I believe the MUTCD advises fixing the zero point for mileposting and distance-based exit numbering at the start of route or entry point in a state (as applies), but I am not sure this guideline has been elevated to a Standard.  Depending in part on whether it has or not, oddities like I-17 in Arizona with its zero point at (approximately) MP 184 are likely to persist.

Quote from: roadman65 on March 29, 2011, 08:21:09 PM
Hey did anyone realize that I-70's exit numbers in Illinois are not from the Missouri State Line on the Poplar Street Bridge in St. Louis where its true western terminus is in that state?
Only the duplex with I-55 are they correct, but after I-70 leaves I-55 it continues with mileposts started from I-270's entry into Illinois  and the exits are corresponding with I-270's mile posts that did not end with it. I-270 ends where I-70 leaves I-55 and is the same freeway that means someone did not figure that the exit numbers and mileposts are for the route numbers.

I'm of the opinion that route numbers should always take the most direct route in a metro area. I-10 instead of I-12, I-271 in Ohio should be I-71, I-270 in MO/IL should be I-70, I-670 in KC should be I-70, etc.

The route does not NEED to go through downtown. A spur or loop is quite sufficient. As Rochester (I-490) or Cleveland (I-480) how well that works.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 29, 2011, 09:12:38 PM
I believe the MUTCD advises fixing the zero point for mileposting and distance-based exit numbering at the start of route or entry point in a state (as applies), but I am not sure this guideline has been elevated to a Standard.  Depending in part on whether it has or not, oddities like I-17 in Arizona with its zero point at (approximately) MP 184 are likely to persist.

In the 2009 manual, it is indeed a guidance statement.

Quote from: roadman65 on March 29, 2011, 08:21:09 PM
Hey did anyone realize that I-70's exit numbers in Illinois are not from the Missouri State Line on the Poplar Street Bridge in St. Louis where its true western terminus is in that state?
Only the duplex with I-55 are they correct, but after I-70 leaves I-55 it continues with mileposts started from I-270's entry into Illinois  and the exits are corresponding with I-270's mile posts that did not end with it. I-270 ends where I-70 leaves I-55 and is the same freeway that means someone did not figure that the exit numbers and mileposts are for the route numbers.

I just noticed that recently. Funny that I hadn't noticed it before now. Maybe it's because every time I've gone through the area on I-70, I always use I-270 around St. Louis. I would guess since most through traffic does that, that's why they did it that way.

Another example of a somewhat arbitrary beginning point for exit numbering on a freeway would be the US 67/167 freeway in Arkansas. Actually, the numbering makes sense as I-40 is where the freeway starts and the starting point for numbering, but it doesn't follow either US 67 or US 167's mileage. It's numbered as if it were a new route-being numbered from the point of origin.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 29, 2011, 09:12:38 PM
I believe the MUTCD advises fixing the zero point for mileposting and distance-based exit numbering at the start of route or entry point in a state (as applies), but I am not sure this guideline has been elevated to a Standard.  Depending in part on whether it has or not, oddities like I-17 in Arizona with its zero point at (approximately) MP 184 are likely to persist.

I-380 near San Francisco is similar to the I-17 situation in Arizona.  I-380 was supposed to continue west from I-280 to CA-1 near Pacifica and this is why exit numbers on I-380 start at Exit 5 instead of Exit 1.  I guess there's still a chance the western extension of I-380 will be built some day.

CA-65 kind of falls into this category too.  After getting onto CA-65 from I-80 near Roseville, the first exit is numbered 307.  The reason for this is because there's a huge chunk of CA-65 between CA-198 and I-80 that hasn't been constructed yet.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 29, 2011, 09:12:38 PM
I believe the MUTCD advises fixing the zero point for mileposting and distance-based exit numbering at the start of route or entry point in a state (as applies), but I am not sure this guideline has been elevated to a Standard.  Depending in part on whether it has or not, oddities like I-17 in Arizona with its zero point at (approximately) MP 184 are likely to persist.

I-17 First Mile is 194

Originally the exit numbers on 3dis in Oklahoma (in Tulsa, anyway, no idea if OKC did the same thing) would start with the same numbering that the parent highway had at their junction! That means that I-244 inherited I-44's exit numbering, starting at 92, and dinky little I-444 had exits 94A—D and 96A—C! (One 94D sign hung around on I-444 long after this system was abandoned and the other exit numbers removed.)