https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2012/2012--8-20 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2012/2012--8-20)
I just drove up US 15 today - I drive this stretch monthly. The paving of the new US 15/I-99 is virtually complete - they are putting up guide rail, regular and exit signs, and milepost markers. They have also begun paving in the tie-in of southbound US 15 at the north end. It also looks like, when heading northbound towards the north end of the two-lane section, they are going to utilize the old US 15, that was closed off years ago.
Bridge piers are already being constructed. I wasn't able to get any pics as it was raining pretty good.
And further to the south, this new sign was installed in US 15 north, just north of I-180 in Williamsport. I don't know if the space to the right of the US 15 shield is intentionally there for a I-99 shield, or just an error.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fbdeb48e035f74da7851fe4ecef25e445&hash=41bcf086d765673cbd59d24d0af10f0333737268)
does that 15 shield have a black border around it? didn't know PA was still doing that - I associate that shield style with demountable shields on non-reflective backgrounds, immediately after button-copy shields stopped being used.
There shouldn't be a black border, but we need a less rainy photo to tell for sure. I think it's just artifacts of the way the photo was taken. And for the record, there are no errors besides a) use of Clearview and b) failure to put the exit arrow in the EXIT ONLY box.
That shield does not have a black border.
And PA seems to never put the exit arrow in the EXIT ONLY box.
The only state that I know of that uses black borders around route shields on BGSs is Iowa.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 20, 2012, 11:07:17 PM
The only state that I know of that uses black borders around route shields on BGSs is Iowa.
New Jersey (specifically NJDOT) uses them religiously. The only cutouts are Interstate shields and the toll road logos. They used to post backplate versions of those from time to time too, along with county road pentagons.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 20, 2012, 11:07:17 PM
The only state that I know of that uses black borders around route shields on BGSs is Iowa.
Mike
Oklahoma does it from time to time, too.
PennDOT puts the arrow in the EXIT ONLY tab if it's pointing down, like for an advance notice of the exit. They tend to use the up-right pointing arrow on the side at the actual exit point like they would any other exit, with the EXIT ONLY tab empty.
I never really knew that that wasn't really correct (or is it?) until now, and I've been drawing my BGSes that way on all my paper my-designs. (Featuring quarter-inch-wide lanes, no shoulders, and square corners at intersections, but still giving you the intended idea. :P)
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 20, 2012, 08:36:41 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2012/2012--8-20 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2012/2012--8-20)
I just drove up US 15 today - I drive this stretch monthly. The paving of the new US 15/I-99 is virtually complete - they are putting up guide rail, regular and exit signs, and milepost markers. They have also begun paving in the tie-in of southbound US 15 at the north end. It also looks like, when heading northbound towards the north end of the two-lane section, they are going to utilize the old US 15, that was closed off years ago.
Bridge piers are already being constructed. I wasn't able to get any pics as it was raining pretty good.
Exit signs? Where are they going to have exits on that stretch; Presho is exit 1, so I guess they'll have to renumber everything.
QuoteAnd further to the south, this new sign was installed in US 15 north, just north of I-180 in Williamsport. I don't know if the space to the right of the US 15 shield is intentionally there for a I-99 shield, or just an error.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fbdeb48e035f74da7851fe4ecef25e445&hash=41bcf086d765673cbd59d24d0af10f0333737268)
That would indeed be for I-99; PA is designing all their signs to accommodate it, even though it's unlikely to be designated any time soon (if ever) unless PA allows a gap.
Virginia also places arrows in relation to exit only panels as described above
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 20, 2012, 08:36:41 PMAnd further to the south, this new sign was installed in US 15 north, just north of I-180 in Williamsport. I don't know if the space to the right of the US 15 shield is intentionally there for a I-99 shield, or just an error.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fbdeb48e035f74da7851fe4ecef25e445&hash=41bcf086d765673cbd59d24d0af10f0333737268)
Given the Interstate - US - State Route hierarchy; I'm surprised that the blank for the I-99 shield (along w/its NORTH cardinal) isn't on the
Left side of the BGS.
Quote from: Steve on August 20, 2012, 08:42:21 PMthere are no errors besides a) use of Clearview
FWIW, those BGS actually display the proper use of Clearview; street names and control destinations and nothing else in that font. One may not like Clearview being used at all, but those BGS' are not erroneously using the font.
Personally (yes, I'm aware that this falls in the 'Fictional Highways' category); the section of US 15 slated to be designated as an Interstate
should be I-186 instead of I-99.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 21, 2012, 06:48:47 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 20, 2012, 11:07:17 PM
The only state that I know of that uses black borders around route shields on BGSs is Iowa.
Mike
Oklahoma does it from time to time, too.
we might be conflating these two styles:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NJ/NJ19590032i1.jpg)
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NM/NM19790403i1.jpg)
NJ is the only state I know that regularly puts their BGS shields on a black square background, while the black outline is used in many places, but primarily Iowa, Oklahoma, and New Mexico come to mind.
sometimes, older shields have a black border and a white margin, similar to old-style stand-alone installations
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MT/MT19610151i2.jpg)
that is obsolete by Montana standards, but I just saw some brand new signs in Arizona that had that style (I-40 eastbound approaching Kingman, with US-93 shields of that style)
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 20, 2012, 08:36:41 PM
And further to the south, this new sign was installed in US 15 north, just north of I-180 in Williamsport. I don't know if the space to the right of the US 15 shield is intentionally there for a I-99 shield, or just an error.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fbdeb48e035f74da7851fe4ecef25e445&hash=41bcf086d765673cbd59d24d0af10f0333737268)
Some carbon copy action on the Foy Avenue / Lycoming Creek Road panel from the original sign bridge:
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/us-015_nb_at_third_st.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/us-015_nb_at_third_st.jpg)
Quote from: deanej on August 21, 2012, 11:40:18 AM
QuoteAnd further to the south, this new sign was installed in US 15 north, just north of I-180 in Williamsport. I don't know if the space to the right of the US 15 shield is intentionally there for a I-99 shield, or just an error.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fbdeb48e035f74da7851fe4ecef25e445&hash=41bcf086d765673cbd59d24d0af10f0333737268)
That would indeed be for I-99; PA is designing all their signs to accommodate it, even though it's unlikely to be designated any time soon (if ever) unless PA allows a gap.
While I personally would bet a bunch of Monopoly money on there eventually being a gap (and this section designated), I do find it interesting that this section just has Exit tabs ready, but with no exit numbers........
But the freeway stretch in the section from I-80 to I-180 that will either hold up the signing of Williamsport <-> Corning, or be a gap in I-99, had a resigning project a couple of years ago that resulted in exit tabs and gore signage WITH I-99 exit numbers currently signed.
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Bedford,+PA&daddr=40.82375,-77.86362+to:US-220+N&hl=en&ll=41.109575,-77.477367&spn=0.004624,0.022724&sll=41.080386,-77.312164&sspn=0.326595,0.727158&geocode=FQSjYgIdHSBS-ykjuzNGXFLKiTEM3_WEdxfG7A%3BFcbrbgIdPOVb-yl_yBbLRqbOiTEJyZqFuQnEAA%3BFWKHcwId8lVi-w&t=h&mra=dme&mrsp=2&sz=11&via=1&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.10957,-77.477367&panoid=Qu2nVCSBfnETVQrrzbPR2g&cbp=12,55.24,,0,-5.61 (http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Bedford,+PA&daddr=40.82375,-77.86362+to:US-220+N&hl=en&ll=41.109575,-77.477367&spn=0.004624,0.022724&sll=41.080386,-77.312164&sspn=0.326595,0.727158&geocode=FQSjYgIdHSBS-ykjuzNGXFLKiTEM3_WEdxfG7A%3BFcbrbgIdPOVb-yl_yBbLRqbOiTEJyZqFuQnEAA%3BFWKHcwId8lVi-w&t=h&mra=dme&mrsp=2&sz=11&via=1&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.10957,-77.477367&panoid=Qu2nVCSBfnETVQrrzbPR2g&cbp=12,55.24,,0,-5.61)
I'm also pretty sure someone has actual (non-streetview) pics of the new signs /W I-99 Exit #'s.
The really old tab-in-the-center signs on the US 220 freeway pieces from Williamsport southwest to I-80 have empty tabs from back when that would have been more of 180(?).
Quote from: Alex on August 21, 2012, 03:53:58 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fbdeb48e035f74da7851fe4ecef25e445&hash=41bcf086d765673cbd59d24d0af10f0333737268)
Some carbon copy action on the Foy Avenue / Lycoming Creek Road panel from the original sign bridge:
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/us-015_nb_at_third_st.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/us-015_nb_at_third_st.jpg)
I find it a bit ironic that the older BGS' do
not include a pull-through sign whereas the new BGS' include one. It's usually the other way around.
Quote from: deanej on August 21, 2012, 11:40:18 AM
Exit signs? Where are they going to have exits on that stretch; Presho is exit 1, so I guess they'll have to renumber everything.
The exit sign I saw posted was for Exit 1 - Presho, on NB 15. There aren't going to be any new exits on this new portion. (From the existing US 15, I could see the sign looking up the hill at the new roadway.)
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2012, 12:28:56 PM
Given the Interstate - US - State Route hierarchy; I'm surprised that the blank for the I-99 shield (along w/its NORTH cardinal) isn't on the Left side of the BGS.
Unless they're putting them in numerical order regardless of classification. That practice seems relatively common. Those examples from Montana and New Mexico upthread are evidence.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 21, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
Unless they're putting them in numerical order regardless of classification. That practice seems relatively common. Those examples from Montana and New Mexico upthread are evidence.
No they're not. I-40 goes before US 66 either way, and east generally goes before to.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on August 21, 2012, 04:04:41 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 21, 2012, 11:40:18 AM
QuoteAnd further to the south, this new sign was installed in US 15 north, just north of I-180 in Williamsport. I don't know if the space to the right of the US 15 shield is intentionally there for a I-99 shield, or just an error.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fbdeb48e035f74da7851fe4ecef25e445&hash=41bcf086d765673cbd59d24d0af10f0333737268)
That would indeed be for I-99; PA is designing all their signs to accommodate it, even though it's unlikely to be designated any time soon (if ever) unless PA allows a gap.
While I personally would bet a bunch of Monopoly money on there eventually being a gap (and this section designated), I do find it interesting that this section just has Exit tabs ready, but with no exit numbers........
But the freeway stretch in the section from I-80 to I-180 that will either hold up the signing of Williamsport <-> Corning, or be a gap in I-99, had a resigning project a couple of years ago that resulted in exit tabs and gore signage WITH I-99 exit numbers currently signed.
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Bedford,+PA&daddr=40.82375,-77.86362+to:US-220+N&hl=en&ll=41.109575,-77.477367&spn=0.004624,0.022724&sll=41.080386,-77.312164&sspn=0.326595,0.727158&geocode=FQSjYgIdHSBS-ykjuzNGXFLKiTEM3_WEdxfG7A%3BFcbrbgIdPOVb-yl_yBbLRqbOiTEJyZqFuQnEAA%3BFWKHcwId8lVi-w&t=h&mra=dme&mrsp=2&sz=11&via=1&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.10957,-77.477367&panoid=Qu2nVCSBfnETVQrrzbPR2g&cbp=12,55.24,,0,-5.61 (http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Bedford,+PA&daddr=40.82375,-77.86362+to:US-220+N&hl=en&ll=41.109575,-77.477367&spn=0.004624,0.022724&sll=41.080386,-77.312164&sspn=0.326595,0.727158&geocode=FQSjYgIdHSBS-ykjuzNGXFLKiTEM3_WEdxfG7A%3BFcbrbgIdPOVb-yl_yBbLRqbOiTEJyZqFuQnEAA%3BFWKHcwId8lVi-w&t=h&mra=dme&mrsp=2&sz=11&via=1&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.10957,-77.477367&panoid=Qu2nVCSBfnETVQrrzbPR2g&cbp=12,55.24,,0,-5.61)
I'm also pretty sure someone has actual (non-streetview) pics of the new signs /W I-99 Exit #'s.
The recently resurfaced section of US 220 in Clinton County has I-99 mile markers, but the overhead signs do NOT have space for a 99 shield. Seems like a miscommunication between PennDot districts 3 and 2. I'd assume they're going to sign it with a few small gaps - at two spots with I-80 and the six miles of US 220 between Jersey Shore and Williamsport.
Is I-99 following US-220 all the way up to the US-15/I-180 interchange (just south of the pictured signs)? If so, do they plan on rebuilding that interchange with more direct ramps? The current US-220N to US-15N ramp is a pretty tight loop.
No idea. The idea of interstates exiting themselves seems to have fallen out of favor though.
Quote from: LeftyJR on September 08, 2012, 07:53:10 PM
The recently resurfaced section of US 220 in Clinton County has I-99 mile markers, but the overhead signs do NOT have space for a 99 shield. Seems like a miscommunication between PennDot districts 3 and 2. I'd assume they're going to sign it with a few small gaps - at two spots with I-80 and the six miles of US 220 between Jersey Shore and Williamsport.
They probably just replaced the milemarkers with the resurfacing but not the signs. I've seen that happen before in NY.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 08, 2012, 08:37:12 PM
Is I-99 following US-220 all the way up to the US-15/I-180 interchange (just south of the pictured signs)? If so, do they plan on rebuilding that interchange with more direct ramps? The current US-220N to US-15N ramp is a pretty tight loop.
I think the original plan was to upgrade & utilize current US-220. But I don't know if there is an answer to that question anymore. I think the plans were pretty preliminary when it got put into "deferred" limbo.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on September 10, 2012, 01:58:13 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 08, 2012, 08:37:12 PM
Is I-99 following US-220 all the way up to the US-15/I-180 interchange (just south of the pictured signs)? If so, do they plan on rebuilding that interchange with more direct ramps? The current US-220N to US-15N ramp is a pretty tight loop.
I think the original plan was to upgrade & utilize current US-220. But I don't know if there is an answer to that question anymore. I think the plans were pretty preliminary when it got put into "deferred" limbo.
I worked for PennDOT from 2000 to 2010. The plans for I-99 from I-80 at Exit 178 to the I-180/US 15 interchange were deferred by then-Gov. Rendell and then-Secretary of Transportation Biehler.
PennDOT District 3 had identified a preferred alternate for the freeway gap (along US 220) just west of Williamsport. (To say they were pretty steamed by the decision to defer the project would be a wild understatement.) They hadn't begun to study yet in earnest the gap from I-80 at Exit 178 to US 220 at Salona. Similarly, they had not yet seriously considered whether or not (or how) the I-180/US 15 interchange should be reconfigured.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on August 21, 2012, 04:04:41 PM
I'm also pretty sure someone has actual (non-streetview) pics of the new signs /W I-99 Exit #'s.
I have some going SB on US-220 in that area, but I don't think I ever posted them online.
I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on January 27, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!
A) It's not a trap, it's what the FHWA mandates.
B) It can absolutely work on Long Island.
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on January 27, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!
Looks like the exit density on the LIE in NYC is about one exit per mile, and it only gets less dense from there! There's more than one pair of exits on I-495 separated by four miles. Plus most of the state is much less exit dense... 16 miles between exits is the norm on the Thruway for example.
I'm not sure what the thought was behind converting US 15, except maybe to see if NYSDOT could get away with not paying for PR concerning the switch. I don't know of any plans to convert anything else, but the newer distance based numbers (US 15 and I-781) came as a surprise. I-781's weren't even on the original signage plans!
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2014, 09:24:14 PM
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on January 27, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!
Looks like the exit density on the LIE in NYC is about one exit per mile, and it only gets less dense from there! There's more than one pair of exits on I-495 separated by four miles. Plus most of the state is much less exit dense... 16 miles between exits is the norm on the Thruway for example.
I'm not sure what the thought was behind converting US 15, except maybe to see if NYSDOT could get away with not paying for PR concerning the switch. I don't know of any plans to convert anything else, but the newer distance based numbers (US 15 and I-781) came as a surprise. I-781's weren't even on the original signage plans!
Distance based numbering will definitely work throughout the entire Empire State, there is nothing particularly special about the five boroughs or Long Island to prevent this, the same interchange density exists elsewhere in the country.
As far as I-781 and US 15, I believe the new NYSDOT policy is that all new freeways will have their interchanges numbered by distance as of around the adoption time of the 2009 MUTCD. That might actually be limited to all new Interstate highways, which doesn't really make sense to me because motorists can benefit for interchange numbering regardless of the color of the route marker, but with the US 15 freeway slated to become Interstate 99, it might still fit that latter suspected criteria.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 28, 2014, 07:31:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2014, 09:24:14 PM
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on January 27, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!
Looks like the exit density on the LIE in NYC is about one exit per mile, and it only gets less dense from there! There's more than one pair of exits on I-495 separated by four miles. Plus most of the state is much less exit dense... 16 miles between exits is the norm on the Thruway for example.
I'm not sure what the thought was behind converting US 15, except maybe to see if NYSDOT could get away with not paying for PR concerning the switch. I don't know of any plans to convert anything else, but the newer distance based numbers (US 15 and I-781) came as a surprise. I-781's weren't even on the original signage plans!
Distance based numbering will definitely work throughout the entire Empire State, there is nothing particularly special about the five boroughs or Long Island to prevent this, the same interchange density exists elsewhere in the country.
As far as I-781 and US 15, I believe the new NYSDOT policy is that all new freeways will have their interchanges numbered by distance as of around the adoption time of the 2009 MUTCD. That might actually be limited to all new Interstate highways, which doesn't really make sense to me because motorists can benefit for interchange numbering regardless of the color of the route marker, but with the US 15 freeway slated to become Interstate 99, it might still fit that latter suspected criteria.
I guess it could work for Long Island/NYC, but my theory is that if it ain't broke don't fix it. The sequential-based exit system has been in place for so long here, and yes maybe mileage-based could work, but why change it to match what everyone else is "mandated" to do? We're so used to which exits we get off at and such by the number, not the road (so to speak). I can understand upstate roads receiving mileage-based numbering because of the space between the exits, and that I'm not really opposed to. But who knows, maybe eventually we'll all accept mileage-based when it comes to the region we live in.
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on January 28, 2014, 12:00:45 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 28, 2014, 07:31:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2014, 09:24:14 PM
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on January 27, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!
Looks like the exit density on the LIE in NYC is about one exit per mile, and it only gets less dense from there! There's more than one pair of exits on I-495 separated by four miles. Plus most of the state is much less exit dense... 16 miles between exits is the norm on the Thruway for example.
I'm not sure what the thought was behind converting US 15, except maybe to see if NYSDOT could get away with not paying for PR concerning the switch. I don't know of any plans to convert anything else, but the newer distance based numbers (US 15 and I-781) came as a surprise. I-781's weren't even on the original signage plans!
Distance based numbering will definitely work throughout the entire Empire State, there is nothing particularly special about the five boroughs or Long Island to prevent this, the same interchange density exists elsewhere in the country.
As far as I-781 and US 15, I believe the new NYSDOT policy is that all new freeways will have their interchanges numbered by distance as of around the adoption time of the 2009 MUTCD. That might actually be limited to all new Interstate highways, which doesn't really make sense to me because motorists can benefit for interchange numbering regardless of the color of the route marker, but with the US 15 freeway slated to become Interstate 99, it might still fit that latter suspected criteria.
I guess it could work for Long Island/NYC, but my theory is that if it ain't broke don't fix it. The sequential-based exit system has been in place for so long here, and yes maybe mileage-based could work, but why change it to match what everyone else is "mandated" to do? We're so used to which exits we get off at and such by the number, not the road (so to speak). I can understand upstate roads receiving mileage-based numbering because of the space between the exits, and that I'm not really opposed to. But who knows, maybe eventually we'll all accept mileage-based when it comes to the region we live in.
There is nothing unique here. Many toll roads, which typically are older than LI interstates, had sequential exit numbers, which have since become exit based numbering.
Lots of things are changed because of mandates. Can I avoid paying a sales tax or income tax because one didn't exist 40, 50 years ago? Can I smoke in a restaurant today because 20 years ago there was no mandate outlawing such conduct?
And as I learned thru the years, you or the people you talk with may be used to Exit numbers, but other people use route numbers.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 28, 2014, 12:53:29 PM
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on January 28, 2014, 12:00:45 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 28, 2014, 07:31:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2014, 09:24:14 PM
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on January 27, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!
Looks like the exit density on the LIE in NYC is about one exit per mile, and it only gets less dense from there! There's more than one pair of exits on I-495 separated by four miles. Plus most of the state is much less exit dense... 16 miles between exits is the norm on the Thruway for example.
I'm not sure what the thought was behind converting US 15, except maybe to see if NYSDOT could get away with not paying for PR concerning the switch. I don't know of any plans to convert anything else, but the newer distance based numbers (US 15 and I-781) came as a surprise. I-781's weren't even on the original signage plans!
Distance based numbering will definitely work throughout the entire Empire State, there is nothing particularly special about the five boroughs or Long Island to prevent this, the same interchange density exists elsewhere in the country.
As far as I-781 and US 15, I believe the new NYSDOT policy is that all new freeways will have their interchanges numbered by distance as of around the adoption time of the 2009 MUTCD. That might actually be limited to all new Interstate highways, which doesn't really make sense to me because motorists can benefit for interchange numbering regardless of the color of the route marker, but with the US 15 freeway slated to become Interstate 99, it might still fit that latter suspected criteria.
I guess it could work for Long Island/NYC, but my theory is that if it ain't broke don't fix it. The sequential-based exit system has been in place for so long here, and yes maybe mileage-based could work, but why change it to match what everyone else is "mandated" to do? We're so used to which exits we get off at and such by the number, not the road (so to speak). I can understand upstate roads receiving mileage-based numbering because of the space between the exits, and that I'm not really opposed to. But who knows, maybe eventually we'll all accept mileage-based when it comes to the region we live in.
There is nothing unique here. Many toll roads, which typically are older than LI interstates, had sequential exit numbers, which have since become exit based numbering.
Lots of things are changed because of mandates. Can I avoid paying a sales tax or income tax because one didn't exist 40, 50 years ago? Can I smoke in a restaurant today because 20 years ago there was no mandate outlawing such conduct?
And as I learned thru the years, you or the people you talk with may be used to Exit numbers, but other people use route numbers.
A mileage based exit numbering system is far better than a sequential based system. For starters, it is easier to number a new exit that is added to the highway. Also, it lets you know right away how far away you are from your exit.
And another thing, the highways should be designed for the benefit of all users, not just locals. Locals know their way around. Tourists and guests need help to get from place to place and mileage based exits are very helpful. If you are visiting a friend's house in an unfamiliar area, you follow their directions. With the exit number, you know how much further you have to travel. If you see a VMS that says 10 min to Exit 16 and you are on exit 6, that tells you right away that everyone is maintaining 60 MPH, even if you don't know the area well or the names of the intervening exits.
I still marvel at the fandom sequential-based exits maintains. They don't seem to understand the utility of marking exit numbers via mile markers to give you not just a designation for your exit, but give it to your sequentially, and let you know the distance to that exit. All with one small number. Sequential can only tell you how many more interchanges you will pass until your exit. Could be 8 miles, could be 300 miles. No real definitive way to tell just by the exit number.
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 01, 2014, 11:41:12 PM
I still marvel at the fandom sequential-based exits maintains. They don't seem to understand the utility of marking exit numbers via mile markers to give you not just a designation for your exit, but give it to your sequentially, and let you know the distance to that exit. All with one small number. Sequential can only tell you how many more interchanges you will pass until your exit. Could be 8 miles, could be 300 miles. No real definitive way to tell just by the exit number.
Some people find counting exits an easier way of counting down to their exit, rather than counting miles - often they can see your POV about distance-based*, they just find the distance to the interchange less useful information than how many interchanges they have to pass before they turn off.
Others think that distance-based is better, but feel that the benefits aren't enough to warrant the disruption and cost caused by the change from sequential exit numbers.
*You seem to be treating those that are fans of sequenced-based as zoo creatures/freak show exhibits to look at and marvel. You clearly have no understanding as why they are against it and have no interest in understanding. Personally, with no skin in the game, I'm in favour of New York, etc not changing for two reasons - diversity is good and interesting: something to talk about as roadgeeks; and as it winds you conformity zealots up the wrong way: which is good as you annoy me due to how you neither care for the concerns of, nor treat as humans, the people who are resisting the change...
Quote from: english si on February 02, 2014, 08:33:33 AM
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 01, 2014, 11:41:12 PM
I still marvel at the fandom sequential-based exits maintains. They don't seem to understand the utility of marking exit numbers via mile markers to give you not just a designation for your exit, but give it to your sequentially, and let you know the distance to that exit. All with one small number. Sequential can only tell you how many more interchanges you will pass until your exit. Could be 8 miles, could be 300 miles. No real definitive way to tell just by the exit number.
Some people find counting exits an easier way of counting down to their exit, rather than counting miles - often they can see your POV about distance-based*, they just find the distance to the interchange less useful information than how many interchanges they have to pass before they turn off.
Others think that distance-based is better, but feel that the benefits aren't enough to warrant the disruption and cost caused by the change from sequential exit numbers.
*You seem to be treating those that are fans of sequenced-based as zoo creatures/freak show exhibits to look at and marvel. You clearly have no understanding as why they are against it and have no interest in understanding. Personally, with no skin in the game, I'm in favour of New York, etc not changing for two reasons - diversity is good and interesting: something to talk about as roadgeeks; and as it winds you conformity zealots up the wrong way: which is good as you annoy me due to how you neither care for the concerns of, nor treat as humans, the people who are resisting the change...
I don't know, if I'm in a blinding snowstorm in the Lake Ontario snowbelt in Upstate New York, I'd much rather know that at milepost 113 I have the option of exiting in two miles to get off I-81 instead of just chanting to myself, "only one exit to go, only one exit go".
Pennsylvania seems to have survived the transition just fine and they've had interchange numbers longer than New York State has. In my limited sampling of folks it's usually the downstate motorists that resist the change of switching to a distance based system. But when we have idiotic sequential numbers like exit 21, 21 B, 21 A, 22, where it's 21 miles between exits 21 and 22, the whole "only two more exits!" theory kind of falls apart.
Well, as long as we're all re-stating our positions on the topic, I'm with english si. I fully understand the benefits of distance-based exiting and make full use of them when I'm in their territory, but they don't come close to mitigating the cost and effort of converting a state that already uses sequential. I think we, the general motoring public, are all grown up enough to make our way around New York with the numbers the way they are. If some day, all of the exit signage in the state spontaneously falls down and needs to be replaced, I suppose we can talk about mileage-based then!
Maine changed to mileage-based exits and rerouted a portion of I-95 to the Maine Turnpike 10 years ago. They survived it just fine.
Getting back on topic, how long will the New York portion of I-99 be, once everything with that and/or I-86/NY 17 is done?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 02, 2014, 01:07:05 PM
Maine changed to mileage-based exits and rerouted a portion of I-95 to the Maine Turnpike 10 years ago. They survived it just fine.
Getting back on topic, how long will the New York portion of I-99 be, once everything with that and/or I-86/NY 17 is done?
I believe Interstate 99 in New York is slated to run from the Pa. line to Interstate 86 west of Corning. I'm not aware of any plans to route it up current I-390 or anything like that.
QuoteSome people find counting exits an easier way of counting down to their exit, rather than counting miles
The fly in this ointment is that most sequential-based routes have had intermediate interchanges added over the years, and rather than renumber all of the exits "downstream", the transportation authorities added a suffixed exit number instead.
By the logic of "counting down to an exit", if one's traveling the Thruway north of Catskill, Exit 23 (I-787/Albany) should be two exists past where one got on at Exit 21 (NY 23/Catskill). But it's not. It's four.
Then you have cases of routes in some sequential states that lack exit numbers entirely for certain exits (thinking I-89 at I-91/White River Jct in Vermont here).
If transportation agencies that still use sequential-based want to hold true to the concept, they'd have to renumber most of their exits (or in the case of I-89 Vermont, ALL of the exits). Might as well go the extra step and change them to milepost-based while they're at it.
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 01, 2014, 11:41:12 PM
I still marvel at the fandom sequential-based exits maintains.
Sequential is the vinyl of exit numbering.
Quote from: english si on February 02, 2014, 08:33:33 AM
*You seem to be treating those that are fans of sequenced-based as zoo creatures/freak show exhibits to look at and marvel. You clearly have no understanding as why they are against it and have no interest in understanding. Personally, with no skin in the game, I'm in favour of New York, etc not changing for two reasons - diversity is good and interesting: something to talk about as roadgeeks; and as it winds you conformity zealots up the wrong way: which is good as you annoy me due to how you neither care for the concerns of, nor treat as humans, the people who are resisting the change...
Good grief, what a rant.
For the record, I don't understand why people are holding on to an exit numbering system that's clearly inferior.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on February 02, 2014, 11:18:57 AM
exit 21, 21 B, 21 A, 22, where it's 21 miles between exits 21 and 22, the whole "only two more exits!" theory kind of falls apart.
The poster child of why sequential numbers don't tell you anything unless you already have the exits memorized.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on February 02, 2014, 02:02:51 PM
I believe Interstate 99 in New York is slated to run from the Pa. line to Interstate 86 west of Corning. I'm not aware of any plans to route it up current I-390 or anything like that.
The use of exits 13 A-B for I-86 east and NY 352 and exit 12 for Robert Dann Drive and I-86 west would seem to indicate that I-390 is remaining exactly as-is.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 02, 2014, 04:03:19 PMFor the record, I don't understand why people are holding on to an exit numbering system that's clearly inferior.
I don't understand why people can't take the effort to try and see why people hold a divergent view that they are trying to render 'invalid' - especially one like this that was the way things were done by a majority in the US, and still is in a lot of Europe - it is rude.
If the EU aren't pushing for conformity, and allowing a great deal of diversity, on something, then you know that those pushing for conformity really are the Borg/Cybermen/<generic group demanding no dissent>. The EU love conformity and hate dissent, yet they don't care how states number exits - they view it as unimportant. Because it is.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 02, 2014, 01:07:05 PMMaine changed to mileage-based exits and rerouted a portion of I-95 to the Maine Turnpike 10 years ago. They survived it just fine.
Of course they survived it - that's totally missing the point. The question was "was it worth the disruption and cost?" not "is distance-based the end of the world?". Straw men fallacies like this don't help me feel that the conformists care about what others think as they steamroller over them - it's the kind of nonsense that turns me off supporting what I would prefer.
For the record, I prefer distance-based. I think the change does tip into "worth it" in the few remaining roads (but mostly as they are few). But that doesn't mean I neither understand the dissent (even if I don't buy their argument), nor think that something is lost in converting to all being the same - and with the lack of empathy from the distance-based side, this side of the equations wins out.
I don't think changing France, Germany, the UK, Ireland, etc in Europe is worth the effort (nor changing Austria, Czech Republic, etc to sequential-based).
Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2014, 12:53:52 PMWell, as long as we're all re-stating our positions on the topic, I'm with english si.
Actually you aren't. However, I have lots of sympathy for that view, and as long as people refuse to bother to hear your concerns and just say "I don't understand", I will happily fight against a worthwhile change to what I view as a preferable system.
Jeeze everyone is making a big deal out of the way exit-numbering is...be respectful on what people are "sided" on. An opinion is one's right to an idea they prefer and/or support, please respect that when you say your side on whatever.
ANYWAY back onto I-99 and how the updates with whatever is going on with it...
A question though...how will exit numbering (assuming it is mileage-based) go if I-86/I-99 come together and extend northward. For instance, will I-86 get renumbered (if I-99 goes to I-390) into mileage-based or be kept as is? I feel like if (and that's a huge IF) I-99 would go northward, the concurrency with I-86 would seem weird if I-86 remains sequential and all of I-99 is mileage.
Does New York use demountable copy on its panel guide signs?
Kentucky had to change the exit numbers on the Natcher Parkway after the southern terminus was extended. Exit numbers on the US 60 Owensboro bypass were also changed when US 60 through downtown was decommissioned and routed onto the bypass. I'm not sure how much it cost to change those numbers, but it can't be that terribly expensive.
Quote from: english si on February 02, 2014, 06:03:02 PM
I don't think changing France, Germany, the UK, Ireland, etc in Europe is worth the effort (nor changing Austria, Czech Republic, etc to sequential-based).
Does Europe even use exit numbers? If they do, they're not very prominent. Definitely not like American exit numbers.
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on February 02, 2014, 06:59:46 PM
Jeeze everyone is making a big deal out of the way exit-numbering is...be respectful on what people are "sided" on. An opinion is one's right to an idea they prefer and/or support, please respect that when you say your side on whatever.
ANYWAY back onto I-99 and how the updates with whatever is going on with it...
A question though...how will exit numbering (assuming it is mileage-based) go if I-86/I-99 come together and extend northward. For instance, will I-86 get renumbered (if I-99 goes to I-390) into mileage-based or be kept as is? I feel like if (and that's a huge IF) I-99 would go northward, the concurrency with I-86 would seem weird if I-86 remains sequential and all of I-99 is mileage.
I-86 would likely stay the same as it's exit numbering would dominate (and NY 17/I-86 would be the most expensive road to convert to mileage based numbers by far, with about 50 more exits than any other road in the state). Plus extending US 15's numbers onto I-86 and I-390 just doesn't work (http://nysroads.com/us15list.php).
Quote from: english si on February 02, 2014, 06:03:02 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2014, 12:53:52 PMWell, as long as we're all re-stating our positions on the topic, I'm with english si.
Actually you aren't. However, I have lots of sympathy for that view, and as long as people refuse to bother to hear your concerns and just say "I don't understand", I will happily fight against a worthwhile change to what I view as a preferable system.
OK fine, so I'm not with you. I just agree with what you'd written up to that point. And you subsequently defended my point of view in all the same terms I would have, so close enough for me. And saves me the trouble of doing so myself. :-)
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2014, 10:49:08 PM
Quote from: english si on February 02, 2014, 06:03:02 PM
I don't think changing France, Germany, the UK, Ireland, etc in Europe is worth the effort (nor changing Austria, Czech Republic, etc to sequential-based).
Does Europe even use exit numbers?
Yes. France adds .1 instead of a letter suffix.
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2014, 05:15:48 PM
The poster child of why sequential numbers don't tell you anything unless you already have the exits memorized.
You will have this problem even with mileage based exit numbering. It's often not mentioned, but unless you happen to know that after exit 157 comes 134 you're kind of in the same boat. Except that it's much easier to know that after exit 8 comes 9 then 10 and so on. Sure there are screwy exceptions, but with sequential 99% of the time it goes in order. Plus if you're on the highway and have passed a few exits already you kinda have the gist of how far it's going to be to the next one (you figure out pretty quickly whether it's going to be a mile or a dozen) even if you're somewhere new. If you've got exits that are really spaced out, they generally aren't signed until 2 miles out anyway. Once in a while you're lucky and they post a sign saying next exit XXX miles or a really super-duper advance guide sign on the current exit's final gantry, but again that says nothing about the usefulness of mileage based numbering and has more to do with signing convention. Never mind the fact that most everyone has some kind of GPS device in their car or on their cell phone. Travelers needing to calculate distance between exits themselves is about as useful as all those emergency call boxes they've done away with because everyone has a cell phone now. Converting the exit numbers now is trying to solve a problem that no longer exists, if it ever really was one. For new pavement, I'm all for following whatever standard exists at the time. I do think it's a waste to retrofit existing roads, especially those where exits are on average a mile apart already and sequentially numbered with few exceptions. A lot of the really strange exit numbering occurs on state highways anyway, and no federal mandate will fix those. If the exit numbers change dramatically I think I'm more OK with it than doing something like making exit 6 exit 7 and then exit 7 exit 8 where it could be confusing to people familiar with the area. Personally I'd rather any spare $$$ go into doing something that will actually help, like adding some new lanes, reconfiguring underpowered interchanges, or better yet refund it to the tax payer.
Florida's Turnpike had an interesting solution: number exits sequentially, but in increments of 4 (5 after 60, which was coincidentally the SR 60 exit). New interchanges received numbers in between.
The truth of the matter is I was happy to see ANY interchange numbers appear on the US 15 freeway. NYSDOT had this weird belief that only interstates needed interchange numbers and usually didn't number the interchanges on non-Interstate routes (at least outside of the five boroughs and Long Island). Honestly, that makes absolutely no sense as seen with Interstate 290 and NY Route 33 in Buffalo - I-290 has 7 exits that are numbered yet NY 33 has 15 exits that are unnumbered. There's no reason for the interchanges on NY 33 to not be numbered aside from the fact that NYSDOT didn't deem it worthy due to the lack of interstate status. So on the count, I was quite pleased to see that US 15's exits are numbered and I'm even happier that they're numbered by distance like freeways in 44 other states in the United States.
There is nothing special nor unique about New York State. Interchange density, the number of lane miles, all of these conditions can be found in other states in the US. There's no reason that New York can't match the standard found elsewhere in the country. I really think that an interchange renumbering should be implemented slowly over the natural rotation of sign panel replacement, using the same approach that California used, put new numbers up when you can when the sign is replaced. Don't lay out a bunch of cash for some grand renumbering scheme, introduce the new numbers as the panels are replaced. The new exit number goes on the tab and the old number goes below the main panel, just as they did on US 15. It's not difficult. Replace panels based on interchange (like they did up until about 10 years ago) instead of just spot replacing panels here and there. People will adjust and budget hits will be kept to a minimum.
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 03, 2014, 08:30:57 PMPersonally I'd rather any spare $$$ go into doing something that will actually help, like adding some new lanes, reconfiguring underpowered interchanges, or better yet refund it to the tax payer.
The taxpayer had better not see a DIME of roads money until all of our bridges are replaced.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on February 03, 2014, 09:39:41 PM
There is nothing special nor unique about New York State. Interchange density, the number of lane miles, all of these conditions can be found in other states in the US. There's no reason that New York can't match the standard found elsewhere in the country. I really think that an interchange renumbering should be implemented slowly over the natural rotation of sign panel replacement, using the same approach that California used, put new numbers up when you can when the sign is replaced. Don't lay out a bunch of cash for some grand renumbering scheme, introduce the new numbers as the panels are replaced. The new exit number goes on the tab and the old number goes below the main panel, just as they did on US 15. It's not difficult. Replace panels based on interchange (like they did up until about 10 years ago) instead of just spot replacing panels here and there. People will adjust and budget hits will be kept to a minimum.
I don't think a state that has their roadways numbered already can do what California did...even though LA did some type of "numbering" back in the day. If a renumbering is going to take place, like I-395 in CT this year, then do it all at once so the confusion is much less than alternating exit numbering by sign replacement. Because the way NYSDOT does it, not all the signs get replaced at the "same" time. There are still some button copy still left on the LIE after a complete sign replacement along the main artery of NY.
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 03, 2014, 08:30:57 PMNever mind the fact that most everyone has some kind of GPS device in their car or on their cell phone. Travelers needing to calculate distance between exits themselves is about as useful as all those emergency call boxes they've done away with because everyone has a cell phone now.
Granted this thread has already veered way off-topic; I have to chime in regarding the above-comment.
1.
Not everybody driving has nor uses GPS devices whether the device is separate or on a cell/smart phone; the percentages may not be as high as one thinks. I happen to be one of those individuals. I also know plenty of people, not necessarily roadgeeks, that find mile-marker based interchange-numbering helps them better remember how far it is between exits.
2. While you may think that call boxes along the highway are now rendered obsolete/useless but tell that to the lone traveler whose cell phone battery has just died or is not in a good signal area. IIRC, those old-school
SEND HELP signs one sees during a Road Meet (see below-pic)
are still being made; granted only in certain areas (where cell service is either weak or non-existant) on the backs of certain road maps.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6165%2F6194414349_ec8c9bfa02_z.jpg&hash=3067e4ba02b94222bf36712cacfc65f7182ab4cb)
Over-reliance on high-tech devices to get around is
not necessarily a good thing.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 04, 2014, 03:54:32 PM
IIRC, those old-school SEND HELP signs one sees during a Road Meet (see below-pic) are still being made; granted only in certain areas (where cell service is either weak or non-existant) on the backs of certain road maps.
http://www.kansashighwaypatrol.org/press/brochures/sendhelp.pdf
QuoteKeep a "SEND HELP" sign in your glove compartment. In case of emergency, it could become your most valuable possession.
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 03, 2014, 08:30:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2014, 05:15:48 PM
The poster child of why sequential numbers don't tell you anything unless you already have the exits memorized.
You will have this problem even with mileage based exit numbering. It's often not mentioned, but unless you happen to know that after exit 157 comes 134 you're kind of in the same boat.
What. The. Fuck? :confused:
Most states have mileage signs after interchanges with the distance to the next exit listed. With a distance-based system, one merely has to add to or subtract from the current exit number to get the next exit number.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3103_zps8805bf82.jpg&hash=e248cf3bc1514b23981ba6c8760fa99e703cbd8f) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3103_zps8805bf82.jpg.html)
Of course, then you have some places that actually place the bgs of the next ex it up even if it is a long distance away:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1412.jpg&hash=fea33f1387a5b404f39fa83304a578f63773489f) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_1412.jpg.html)
Quote from: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 05:39:52 PM
Of course, then you have some places that actually place the bgs of the next ex it up even if it is a long distance away:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1412.jpg&hash=fea33f1387a5b404f39fa83304a578f63773489f) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_1412.jpg.html)
So if the next exit is 25 miles away, and the number only decreases by 22 miles, does that mean we should all go back to sequential numbering? :bigass:
Math failure. 25 isn't even the distance to downtown Raygun Hometown.
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on February 03, 2014, 10:58:24 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on February 03, 2014, 09:39:41 PM
There is nothing special nor unique about New York State. Interchange density, the number of lane miles, all of these conditions can be found in other states in the US. There's no reason that New York can't match the standard found elsewhere in the country. I really think that an interchange renumbering should be implemented slowly over the natural rotation of sign panel replacement, using the same approach that California used, put new numbers up when you can when the sign is replaced. Don't lay out a bunch of cash for some grand renumbering scheme, introduce the new numbers as the panels are replaced. The new exit number goes on the tab and the old number goes below the main panel, just as they did on US 15. It's not difficult. Replace panels based on interchange (like they did up until about 10 years ago) instead of just spot replacing panels here and there. People will adjust and budget hits will be kept to a minimum.
I don't think a state that has their roadways numbered already can do what California did...even though LA did some type of "numbering" back in the day. If a renumbering is going to take place, like I-395 in CT this year, then do it all at once so the confusion is much less than alternating exit numbering by sign replacement. Because the way NYSDOT does it, not all the signs get replaced at the "same" time. There are still some button copy still left on the LIE after a complete sign replacement along the main artery of NY.
I think this is why NYSDOT was considering a new type of exit tab at one time: "NEW 115 | EXIT 34" or something of that nature. I don't know if that idea is still being kicked around or not. Personally, I would go with "OLD 34 | EXIT 115" on the tab, though for some unknown reason the use of "OLD" makes me cringe. I really like that NYSDOT uses "Formerly" on the panels under the main panel. MassHighway did the same thing when they changed the exit numbers on 128.
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 03, 2014, 08:30:57 PM
You will have this problem even with mileage based exit numbering.
Mileage based numbering tells you how far you have to get to your exit from the current point (last I checked, roads had regular mileposts installed). While it doesn't tell you how many exits there are between now and your exit, as I mentioned, sequential doesn't either (some roads also have gaps for no reason... just look at NY 17/I-86 (http://nysroads.com/i86list.php) for a road whose exit numbers can only be described as "clusterfuck"). And honestly,
nobody other than roadgeeks cares how many exits there are between their car and their destination. As a roadgeek who likes to know both, I find it far easier to remember the exits between two points than I do to memorize the mileposts for the exits of a road.
And no, exit distances are NOT consistent. Just look at the Massachusetts Turnpike. Same rural character across the entire route, yet the exits start relatively close together, you've got that 30 mile gap between exits 2 and 3, exits right on top of each other, exits a bit farther apart, close together again, and only then do you hit Boston. Thruway distances vary wildly too, as do the exits on NY 17 and I-88. I-81 has a couple of 12 mile gaps on a road where 4-6 miles is the norm. I-390 has a random cluster between Geneseo and Avon.
No, not everyone has GPS activated on their phones, especially those of us who haven't jumped on the iPhone/Android bandwagon.
See the aforementioned I-86/NY 17 for an example of an interstates whose exit numbers have a bunch of weird sequential anomalies. The aforementioned 21-21B-21A-22 sequence was also on an interstate. In fact, most of the anomalies are on interstates because many states, not just NY, refuse to number exits on non-interstates.
In the case where exit numbers are just off by 1 they're usually left alone. States that converted from sequential to mile-based numbers have a ton of psudo-sequential segments (for example, I-676 in NJ, or I-295 in Portland, ME).
Quote from: NE2 on February 04, 2014, 04:34:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 04, 2014, 03:54:32 PM
IIRC, those old-school SEND HELP signs one sees during a Road Meet (see below-pic) are still being made; granted only in certain areas (where cell service is either weak or non-existant) on the backs of certain road maps.
http://www.kansashighwaypatrol.org/press/brochures/sendhelp.pdf
QuoteKeep a "SEND HELP" sign in your glove compartment. In case of emergency, it could become your most valuable possession.
Will have to print that out for roadmeets, since the I-87 ones seem to be gone.
Quote from: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 05:39:52 PM
Most states have mileage signs after interchanges with the distance to the next exit listed. With a distance-based system, one merely has to add to or subtract from the current exit number to get the next exit number.
Ironically, the sequential states don't have them.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on February 04, 2014, 08:13:47 PM
I think this is why NYSDOT was considering a new type of exit tab at one time: "NEW 115 | EXIT 34" or something of that nature. I don't know if that idea is still being kicked around or not. Personally, I would go with "OLD 34 | EXIT 115" on the tab, though for some unknown reason the use of "OLD" makes me cringe. I really like that NYSDOT uses "Formerly" on the panels under the main panel. MassHighway did the same thing when they changed the exit numbers on 128.
They seem to have adopted large panels below the sign. Might be one reason why NYSDOT feels it would be too expensive. PA's were barely-there; NYSDOT's are larger than gore signs. For the tab, "Exit 115 | Formerly 34" would seem to keep with the usual verbiage.
Quote from: vdeane on February 04, 2014, 09:11:36 PM
PA's were barely-there
Yet I know of several that are still up, even after 10 years of being posted. lol.
Barely-there as in "barely-there bikini", not as in "quickly gone".
Quote from: vdeane on February 04, 2014, 09:11:36 PM
Ironically, the sequential states don't have them.
Massachusetts has lots of them, particularly on the Turnpike, after every interchange.
Quote from: vdeane on February 04, 2014, 09:11:36 PM
In the case where exit numbers are just off by 1 they're usually left alone. States that converted from sequential to mile-based numbers have a ton of psudo-sequential segments (for example, I-676 in NJ, or I-295 in Portland, ME).
I-676 was due to the re-routing of I-76 onto the Betsy Ross Bridge. If you count the mileage from I-295/NJ-42, I-676's exits line up. They "added" the missing exits by creatively numbering the ramps at its southern terminus with I-76.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 05, 2014, 12:32:11 AMI-676 was due to the re-routing of I-76 onto the Betsy Ross Bridge. If you count the mileage from I-295/NJ-42, I-676's exits line up. They "added" the missing exits by creatively numbering the ramps at its southern terminus with I-76.
I think you meant to say
"...the re-routing of I-76 onto the Walt Whitman Bridge".
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2014, 08:50:13 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 05, 2014, 12:32:11 AMI-676 was due to the re-routing of I-76 onto the Betsy Ross Bridge. If you count the mileage from I-295/NJ-42, I-676's exits line up. They "added" the missing exits by creatively numbering the ramps at its southern terminus with I-76.
I think you meant to say "...the re-routing of I-76 onto the Walt Whitman Bridge".
Which when I was a little boy was I-676 and the Ben Franklin got I-76.
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on February 02, 2014, 06:59:46 PM
Jeeze everyone is making a big deal out of the way exit-numbering is...be respectful on what people are "sided" on. An opinion is one's right to an idea they prefer and/or support, please respect that when you say your side on whatever.
ANYWAY back onto I-99 and how the updates with whatever is going on with it...
A question though...how will exit numbering (assuming it is mileage-based) go if I-86/I-99 come together and extend northward. For instance, will I-86 get renumbered (if I-99 goes to I-390) into mileage-based or be kept as is? I feel like if (and that's a huge IF) I-99 would go northward, the concurrency with I-86 would seem weird if I-86 remains sequential and all of I-99 is mileage.
I imagine I-86 will go mileage-based, as it hasn't reached I-87 as of yet. And even if I-99 doesn't make it up I-390 (which it should), I still don't think they should leave I-86 as is.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 05, 2014, 12:32:11 AM
Quote from: vdeane on February 04, 2014, 09:11:36 PM
In the case where exit numbers are just off by 1 they're usually left alone. States that converted from sequential to mile-based numbers have a ton of psudo-sequential segments (for example, I-676 in NJ, or I-295 in Portland, ME).
I-676 was due to the re-routing of I-76 onto the Betsy Ross Bridge. If you count the mileage from I-295/NJ-42, I-676's exits line up. They "added" the missing exits by creatively numbering the ramps at its southern terminus with I-76.
That's what I once said, but got shot down in that thread, probably because the exit numbers from I-295 technically go 1-2-1-3-4-5A-5B. Also, exit 2 is for I-676 when heading northbound (which is REALLY odd, because it's for I-76 southbound, and it can't be I-76's number for the junction either, as I-76 uses 354 there).
Quote from: Henry on February 05, 2014, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on February 02, 2014, 06:59:46 PM
Jeeze everyone is making a big deal out of the way exit-numbering is...be respectful on what people are "sided" on. An opinion is one's right to an idea they prefer and/or support, please respect that when you say your side on whatever.
ANYWAY back onto I-99 and how the updates with whatever is going on with it...
A question though...how will exit numbering (assuming it is mileage-based) go if I-86/I-99 come together and extend northward. For instance, will I-86 get renumbered (if I-99 goes to I-390) into mileage-based or be kept as is? I feel like if (and that's a huge IF) I-99 would go northward, the concurrency with I-86 would seem weird if I-86 remains sequential and all of I-99 is mileage.
I imagine I-86 will go mileage-based, as it hasn't reached I-87 as of yet. And even if I-99 doesn't make it up I-390 (which it should), I still don't think they should leave I-86 as is.
NY 17 already has exit numbers to I-87, and the last section of at-grades has hidden exit numbers for the major intersections. I don't see I-86 changing unless NY itself changes, even though it has a few really odd numbering sequences (87-87A-89 comes to mind).
Quote from: vdeane on February 05, 2014, 04:01:23 PMThat's what I once said, but got shot down in that thread, probably because the exit numbers from I-295 technically go 1-2-1-3-4-5A-5B. Also, exit 2 is for I-676 when heading northbound (which is REALLY odd, because it's for I-76 southbound, and it can't be I-76's number for the junction either, as I-76 uses 354 there).
It's worth noting that the
Exit 354 tabs along I-76 Eastbound (along & at the base of the Walt Whitman Bridge and was originally signed as Exit 48) have only been around since the late 90s at the earliest. The I-76 northbound (signed as Westbound) Exit 2 for I-676 North is more correct than 354 from I-76 southbound (signed as Eastbound).
The Exit 354 (old 48) tabs were a PennDOT/DRPA joint screw-up IMHO; PennDOT for giving direction for such, DRPA for complying.
I-676 Southbound's Exit 2 for I-76 West being the same as Exit 2 from I-76 Westbound for I-676 North is purely coincidental. Much like the Woburn, MA I-93/95 interchange both being Exit 37.
Technically, since I-76 in NJ is signed East-West (vs. North-South); the current exit numbering is actually backwards compared to other East-West routes (I-90 portion of the NYS Thruway exception notwithstanding).
NJDOT's reasoning for not switching the order likely stems from (
guess on my part) the street name for the entire NJ 42/I-76/676 freeway corridor being the
North-South Freeway. Encountering exit number changes where the route number changes along a single corridor is one thing; but changing from increasing increments to decreasing to increasing again (for 42 N/76 W/676 N) for such a short distance (I-76 in NJ is just barely 2 miles) could be a bit daunting for the average motorist. It's worth noting that exit numbers along the NJ 42 part of the N-S Freeway (the longest portion) were added decades later than the ones along I-76/676.
Quote from: Alps on February 04, 2014, 05:47:55 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 05:39:52 PM
Of course, then you have some places that actually place the bgs of the next ex it up even if it is a long distance away:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1412.jpg&hash=fea33f1387a5b404f39fa83304a578f63773489f) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_1412.jpg.html)
So if the next exit is 25 miles away, and the number only decreases by 22 miles, does that mean we should all go back to sequential numbering? :bigass:
This photo is a great example of an exit that can use "Next Exit 22 miles" in a way similar to what is done on the NJ Turnpike. We don't need to know the name of the exit at this point, but it is good to know that we have 22 miles before the next exit in case we need to use the restroom or get gas. It's one innovation from NJTP that I wish were incorporated more widely, since it is useful information.
The Mass Pike does it too.
The Thruway has "next exit XX" panels, as does the entire state of Vermont.
Pennsylvania seems to do this too (Except for on the turnpike, where it's written a little differently).
I don't see the need of knowing the information of the exit when it is still 25 miles away.
Quote from: JawnwoodS96 on February 13, 2014, 11:26:15 AM
Pennsylvania seems to do this too (Except for on the turnpike, where it's written a little differently).
I don't see the need of knowing the information of the exit when it is still 25 miles away.
Ask Illinois that question, they can't math right supposedly.
Quote from: vdeane on February 12, 2014, 10:29:30 PM
The Thruway has "next exit XX" panels, as does the entire state of Vermont.
And the original Connecticut Turnpike signage had this as well, at least in Branford-Guilford. I chuckled a bit when I saw "NEXT EXIT 2 MILES". Seeing a distance like that now would make me laugh out loud!
The Thruway must have some kind of distance cutoff since signage for I-81 and Electronics Parkway doesn't have those panels (the interchanges are less than a mile apart).
Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2014, 07:29:30 PM
The Thruway must have some kind of distance cutoff since signage for I-81 and Electronics Parkway doesn't have those panels (the interchanges are less than a mile apart).
The cutoff is probably 10 miles. On I-88, there is a sign saying 12 miles.
Both the Thruway and I-88 have ones for less than 10 miles:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fi88%2F100_5344-s.JPG&hash=52a14ba7f3f80a71c55348a14a75123287e9efd2)
NYSDOT doesn't use them anywhere except a couple locations on I-88, so they're an anomaly more than anything else off the Thruway.
Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2014, 10:25:14 PM
Both the Thruway and I-88 have ones for less than 10 miles:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fi88%2F100_5344-s.JPG&hash=52a14ba7f3f80a71c55348a14a75123287e9efd2)
NYSDOT doesn't use them anywhere except a couple locations on I-88, so they're an anomaly more than anything else off the Thruway.
I think there's a thought process with the NYSDOT maintained freeways that if the gap between interchanges is more than 6 or 7 miles, they might consider signing it. At one time, NY 17 had a similar sign with a black on yellow panel that said "NEXT EXIT 7 MILES" on WB Exit 27. It has since been replaced by this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upstatenyroads.com%2Fregion-photos%2Fregion5%2Fi86exit27.jpg&hash=4b34d1ee0feb453b3da99fd22c03fa1da27925a8)
In that case, I know of a couple locations on I-81 that could use them. Actually, probably more than a couple.
Just drove down the corridor this weekend. Don't know if this has been posted in the thread yet, but 99I reference markers have been posted along the route in NY (and many of the numerals have fallen off them already...). Also spotted some 86I markers from Painted Post to I-390.
Quote from: SidS1045 on February 04, 2014, 10:45:38 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 04, 2014, 09:11:36 PM
Ironically, the sequential states don't have them.
Massachusetts has lots of them, particularly on the Turnpike, after every interchange.
Connecticut has them in places. Pennsylvania had them when sequential. Which states are we talking about?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 28, 2014, 12:25:13 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on February 04, 2014, 10:45:38 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 04, 2014, 09:11:36 PM
Ironically, the sequential states don't have them.
Massachusetts has lots of them, particularly on the Turnpike, after every interchange.
Connecticut has them in places. Pennsylvania had them when sequential. Which states are we talking about?
New York in particular, but I don't recall seeing them in my travels elsewhere (other than VT) either.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 28, 2014, 12:25:13 PM
Connecticut has them in places.
Where? I think Kurumi found the greatest distance between exits anywhere in the state was something like 4 or 5 miles and that was a one-off case. I would guess most are a mile or less apart, and 95% less than 2 miles apart negating the need for "next exit XX miles" signs.
I'm actually mistaken because I'm thinking of signs periodically indicating distances to major destinations (control cities, etc.) rather than the immediate next exit.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 28, 2014, 08:13:43 PM
I'm actually mistaken because I'm thinking of signs periodically indicating distances to major destinations (control cities, etc.) rather than the immediate next exit.
Oh those are pretty rare too. There are only two of them on I-95 and they are both in Greenwich on the northbound side. Actually I lied. I think there might be one S/B between Groton and the RI state line, and there's another, or there used to be one, in Old Lyme showing the distance to New Haven.
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 01, 2014, 11:38:02 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 28, 2014, 08:13:43 PM
I'm actually mistaken because I'm thinking of signs periodically indicating distances to major destinations (control cities, etc.) rather than the immediate next exit.
Oh those are pretty rare too. There are only two of them on I-95 and they are both in Greenwich on the northbound side. Actually I lied. I think there might be one S/B between Groton and the RI state line, and there's another, or there used to be one, in Old Lyme showing the distance to New Haven.
I believe there is also a distance sign on southbound I-95 in Fairfield or Westport that indicates the distance to Stamford and New York City.
Quote from: Jake2000 on March 01, 2014, 11:52:57 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 01, 2014, 11:38:02 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 28, 2014, 08:13:43 PM
I'm actually mistaken because I'm thinking of signs periodically indicating distances to major destinations (control cities, etc.) rather than the immediate next exit.
Oh those are pretty rare too. There are only two of them on I-95 and they are both in Greenwich on the northbound side. Actually I lied. I think there might be one S/B between Groton and the RI state line, and there's another, or there used to be one, in Old Lyme showing the distance to New Haven.
I believe there is also a distance sign on southbound I-95 in Fairfield or Westport that indicates the distance to Stamford and New York City.
Yes there is. I forgot about that one too. I guess I only pay attention to them in states where you're driving through the middle of nowhere and there's not going to be anything for 50 or 100 miles so those distance signs become more important!
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 01, 2014, 11:38:02 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 28, 2014, 08:13:43 PM
I'm actually mistaken because I'm thinking of signs periodically indicating distances to major destinations (control cities, etc.) rather than the immediate next exit.
Oh those are pretty rare too. There are only two of them on I-95 and they are both in Greenwich on the northbound side. Actually I lied. I think there might be one S/B between Groton and the RI state line, and there's another, or there used to be one, in Old Lyme showing the distance to New Haven.
There are some on both directions of I-84 east of Hartford.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 01, 2014, 04:20:14 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 01, 2014, 11:38:02 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 28, 2014, 08:13:43 PM
I'm actually mistaken because I'm thinking of signs periodically indicating distances to major destinations (control cities, etc.) rather than the immediate next exit.
Oh those are pretty rare too. There are only two of them on I-95 and they are both in Greenwich on the northbound side. Actually I lied. I think there might be one S/B between Groton and the RI state line, and there's another, or there used to be one, in Old Lyme showing the distance to New Haven.
There are some on both directions of I-84 east of Hartford.
Also on CT 9 in both directions south of Middletown and CT 2 eastbound south of Glastonbury.
Now that I remember, I think there is also one on the Wilbur Cross Parkway ( CT Route 15 ) just south of the I-91 interchange in Meriden that gives the distance to New Haven, Bridgeport, and New York City.
Here's what I recall from CT:
I-84 WB in Union, with HARTFORD and WATERBURY
I-95 NB in Greenwich, with STAMFORD and BRIDGEPORT mileage
I-95 SB in Westport, with STAMFORD and NEW YORK CITY mileage
I-95 NB in Stonington, with NORTH STONINGTON and PROVIDENCE
I-95 SB in Stonington, with NEW LONDON and NEW HAVEN
I-95 SB in Groton, with NEW HAVEN and BRIDGEPORT
CT 2 EB in Marlborough, with COLCHESTER, NORWICH, and NEW LONDON
CT 2 WB in Marlborough, with GLASTONBURY and HARTFORD
CT 9 NB in Haddam with MIDDLETOWN-10 and HARTFORD-26
CT 9 SB in Haddam with ESSEX-11 and OLD SAYBROOK-15
CT 15 SB in Meriden with NEW HAVEN/BRIDGEPORT/NY CITY
In VT, we have them after just about every exit, except in Burlington where the exits get closer together.