From WINY Radio:
"FROM THE NEWSROOM: There are big changes on the way for Interstate 395, according to Thompson First Selectman Larry Groh.
Groh says he has been informed by officials out of the state Department of Transportation that exit numbers on the highway will be altered in the coming years.
According to Groh, the DOT will be working to shift the exit numbers to reflect the miles on the highway, with each ...exit number representing a mile marker.
Groh says the change is slated to occur next year, and plans should be finalized by July of 2013.
According to Groh, current signage on the interstate has not been replaced or tended to since 1986, so changing out the signs is a much needed update.
Tune in for the full report."
Did hell freeze over?
I wonder if this change is a study to determine the feasibility of converting other roads. A conversion of CT to mileage-based would essentially tell the other sequential states "you have no excuse".
Quote from: vdeane on May 08, 2013, 03:47:50 PM
A conversion of CT to mileage-based would essentially tell the other sequential states "you have no excuse".
Except Alaska. Because bears with guns.
Goodbye to one of the last remnants of the Connecticut Turnpike signed as a thru route.
But... wow... mileage-based exits in CT! Seeing as there's a sign contract to be released later this year on I-395, it makes sense. Hopefully, CT 15 will be in line next to get mile-based exits, as that starting with #27 thing is ridiculous.
If we're going to try it on a trial basis, then I-395 would be ideal because it is the mostly lightly traveled interstate in CT. Might be a little fun in Downtown Hartford and New Haven, where exits are so close together. Question is, will the directional suffixes on the exits (N,S,E,W) be disposed of? Interesting, because I noticed they've started to replace (read: put in after it's been missing for 20 years) mile markers on I-84 east in Hartford.
So much for our area's only 3-digit exit #. This would make Exit 100 something like Exit 54 now.
The real hell freezing over would be if RI ever changed.
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 08, 2013, 06:05:37 PM
So much for our area's only 3-digit exit #. This would make Exit 100 something like Exit 54 now.
Define "area".
Maine's highest exit number is in the 300s and they're mile-based.
Massachusetts has plans to go mile-based. The Mass Pike would get a number of 100 or greater.
And if/when all of Connecticut goes mile-based, there still would be an Exit 100 in Eastern Connecticut, but it would be on I-95 and it would be Exit 111.
Quote from: shadyjay on May 08, 2013, 06:18:39 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 08, 2013, 06:05:37 PM
So much for our area's only 3-digit exit #. This would make Exit 100 something like Exit 54 now.
Define "area".
Maine's highest exit number is in the 300s and they're mile-based.
Massachusetts has plans to go mile-based. The Mass Pike would get a number of 100 or greater.
And if/when all of Connecticut goes mile-based, there still would be an Exit 100 in Eastern Connecticut, but it would be on I-95 and it would be Exit 111.
A little birdie tells me that I-395 in MA will be one of the first routes to be converted to mileage-based exits when MassDOT begins changing numbers, which I understand is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2014. If so, it makes sense that CT would do I-395 as their pilot route.
And on the MassPike, the first three digit exit number would be Westborough I-495 (currently Exit 11A, future exit 106).
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 08, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
If we're going to try it on a trial basis, then I-395 would be ideal because it is the mostly lightly traveled interstate in CT. Might be a little fun in Downtown Hartford and New Haven, where exits are so close together. Question is, will the directional suffixes on the exits (N,S,E,W) be disposed of? Interesting, because I noticed they've started to replace (read: put in after it's been missing for 20 years) mile markers on I-84 east in Hartford.
I posed the issue of "how do you number multiple separate exits (as opposed to an A-B interchange) that are less than a mile apart" in my comments to FHWA on the NPA for the 2009 MUTCD. It was never addressed in either the 2009 MUTCD nor in the NPA responses.
While using letter suffixes appears to be the logical solution to the problem, it also conflicts with the present convention of using "A-B" for same interchange. As such, IMO, it should be at least clarified in the current MUTCD (if for no other reason than to head off those lawyers who will look for every excuse to divert fault from clients who smashed up their vehicles).
Quote from: roadman on May 08, 2013, 07:57:39 PM
I posed the issue of "how do you number multiple separate exits (as opposed to an A-B interchange) that are less than a mile apart" in my comments to FHWA on the NPA for the 2009 MUTCD. It was never addressed in either the 2009 MUTCD nor in the NPA responses.
While using letter suffixes appears to be the logical solution to the problem, it also conflicts with the present convention of using "A-B" for same interchange. As such, IMO, it should be at least clarified in the current MUTCD (if for no other reason than to head off those lawyers who will look for every excuse to divert fault from clients who smashed up their vehicles).
Doesn't seem to be a problem on I-75 in Cincinnati.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 08, 2013, 08:45:22 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 08, 2013, 07:57:39 PM
I posed the issue of "how do you number multiple separate exits (as opposed to an A-B interchange) that are less than a mile apart" in my comments to FHWA on the NPA for the 2009 MUTCD. It was never addressed in either the 2009 MUTCD nor in the NPA responses.
While using letter suffixes appears to be the logical solution to the problem, it also conflicts with the present convention of using "A-B" for same interchange. As such, IMO, it should be at least clarified in the current MUTCD (if for no other reason than to head off those lawyers who will look for every excuse to divert fault from clients who smashed up their vehicles).
Doesn't seem to be a problem on I-75 in Cincinnati.
Nor in Kansas City.
Quote from: roadman on May 08, 2013, 07:57:39 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 08, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
If we're going to try it on a trial basis, then I-395 would be ideal because it is the mostly lightly traveled interstate in CT. Might be a little fun in Downtown Hartford and New Haven, where exits are so close together. Question is, will the directional suffixes on the exits (N,S,E,W) be disposed of? Interesting, because I noticed they've started to replace (read: put in after it's been missing for 20 years) mile markers on I-84 east in Hartford.
I posed the issue of "how do you number multiple separate exits (as opposed to an A-B interchange) that are less than a mile apart" in my comments to FHWA on the NPA for the 2009 MUTCD. It was never addressed in either the 2009 MUTCD nor in the NPA responses.
While using letter suffixes appears to be the logical solution to the problem, it also conflicts with the present convention of using "A-B" for same interchange. As such, IMO, it should be at least clarified in the current MUTCD (if for no other reason than to head off those lawyers who will look for every excuse to divert fault from clients who smashed up their vehicles).
We have an example of (maybe unintended trial run) A/B/C/D in CT, and they are not for the same interchange.
CT 2 Exits 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D
https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.734574,-72.624092&spn=0.013258,0.027874&t=h&z=16
Quote from: roadman on May 08, 2013, 07:57:39 PM
While using letter suffixes appears to be the logical solution to the problem, it also conflicts with the present convention of using "A-B" for same interchange. As such, IMO, it should be at least clarified in the current MUTCD (if for no other reason than to head off those lawyers who will look for every excuse to divert fault from clients who smashed up their vehicles).
What conflict? If exits 2S-N are at MP 1.77 and exit 3 is at MP 2.31, the former can be exits 2A-B and the latter 2C. Or, if the single exit comes first, it's 2A while the pair is 2B-C. Simple.
Nice to see Connecticut bending on this. Didn't expect that so soon.
It's interesting how the holdouts in the northeast seem to be more inclined to convert highway by highway on a "come as it may" basis, rather than go for the huge all at once changeover that other states have done. From a practical perspective it is seemingly more manageable that way.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 08, 2013, 09:36:59 PM
What conflict? If exits 2S-N are at MP 1.77 and exit 3 is at MP 2.31, the former can be exits 2A-B and the latter 2C.
One problem: what if in the other direction you have only one exit 2? Then you either use the awkward 2AB for a single exit (Florida does this) or the incomplete 2A (using either 2B or 2C for the other). California went with the 2B approach, and in general assigned letters independently in each direction, leading to a lot of mismatching between the same exit in opposite directions.
Florida's sequential approach to this was that if a new exit was added between 2 and 3, it would be 2C (with the possibility of 2CA and 2CB). Then 2 could be reconfigured as 2A and 2B in the future with no issues.
Quote from: roadman on May 08, 2013, 07:41:11 PM
A little birdie tells me that I-395 in MA will be one of the first routes to be converted to mileage-based exits when MassDOT begins changing numbers, which I understand is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2014. If so, it makes sense that CT would do I-395 as their pilot route.
And on the MassPike, the first three digit exit number would be Westborough I-495 (currently Exit 11A, future exit 106).
Makes sense to me too that I-395 would be first in MA since it is a relatively short distance (I-84 would be another good early switch candidate). What about the numbering of I-290? Currently the consecutive numbers simply continue I-395's after I-290 begins at the Mass Pike. It wouldn't be true milepost based numbers if they weren't reset, but any worry about some possible confusion with repeat exit numbers within a few miles of each other?
A spokesman for RIDOT in a column from 2010 said they were considering adopting mile-post based numbers as well. Meanwhile MUTCD suggests loop routes have one set of exit numbers even if they cross state lines. Would MassDOT want to consult with RI about the renumbering of I-295? It might make sense then for RI to switch at the same time as MA.
One local example from California: Going WB on I-8 Greenfield Drive is Exit 20 and Main Street is 20A. Going EB there is no Main Steet exit, but there is Greenfield Drive and it is just exit 20.
Finally, I am conflicted on mileage-based numbering, for purely selfish reasons. I've always been pro mileage-based, but I've spent decades crossing Connecticut (about three months in the car in CT going between places at either end, very roughly calculated). I still have a hard time remembering what the last exit on 84 is 25 years after it was changed (74? 106? 98?).
I wonder if they would change the neon
EXIT
24
on the Super Duper Weenie billboard on the Connecticut Turnpike in Fairfield to 26 or 27. It is decades old and advertised a motel for many years. A lot of towns with the genteel air of Fairfield don't allow new neon signs, but allow those grandfathered in.
One other issue that CT has to deal with is what to do about the 84 West and 91 South out of sequence exit numbers at exits 27/28. On I-84 Exit 27 (I-691) would be Exit 39, and Exit 28 (CT 322) would be Exit 40. Would the exits on the westbound side go 41 (29), 39 (27), 40 (28), or do they just make 27 + 28 40A and 40B? On, I-91, both exits are within the 36th mile, so my proposal to clear up a reverse number is 27 becomes 36, and 28 becomes 36S because it's for US 5/CT 15 South.
Vermont should be sequential already, since it's mostly a rural state like Maine. Starting with Brattleboro's three exits:
1- US Route 5 | BRATTLEBORO [new 7]
2- To VT 9 West | BENNINGTON [new 9]
3- US Route 5/VT 9 East | KEENE, NH [new 11]
I was so happy when Maine made their change! The old exits from Kittery to Saco on I-95 (portions Maine Turnpike) had been 1/2/3/4/2/3/4/5. Now they're 1/2/3/7/19/25/32/36, etc.
The three exits on Massachusetts I-84 would likely shift from 1/2/3 to 3/5/7. I can't speak for I-395 to the east of that, since I've never been on that road south of the US Route 20 exits in Auburn.
Getting this back to the Constitution State...
I totally agree about the exit numbers needing to be reset at the NY/CT line on CT Route 15 (Merritt Parkway)! Also, we can solve the missing exit 1 issue in Greenwich on I-95.
Now this is making me think of something: Would the Connecticut Turnpike now end at the I-95/I-395 split in Waterford? (I think it's really only on paper once the exits change.)
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 08, 2013, 10:45:32 PM
One other issue that CT has to deal with is what to do about the 84 West and 91 South out of sequence exit numbers at exits 27/28. On I-84 Exit 27 (I-691) would be Exit 39, and Exit 28 (CT 322) would be Exit 40. Would the exits on the westbound side go 41 (29), 39 (27), 40 (28), or do they just make 27 + 28 40A and 40B? On, I-91, both exits are within the 36th mile, so my proposal to clear up a reverse number is 27 becomes 36, and 28 becomes 36S because it's for US 5/CT 15 South.
As with everything else, there will no doubt be some
fudge factors involved when assigning mile-marker-based exit numbers in some areas; particularly where interchange ramps don't fall in the same order as those along the opposite direction. That said, in the case of the two I-84 (Exits 27 & 28), I do not see the westbound ramp to I-691 carrying a
completely different number than the eastbound ramp (40 vs. 41). What ConnDOT could do in this area is redesignate Exits 27/28 as either 39A-B or 40A-B, depending on where the
MILE 40 is actually located or use 39 and 40 for
both directions.
Though off-topic in terms of state, MassDOT's going to have a similar challenge when it comes time to redesignate the exits numbers along I-95, Exits 22 through 25 (near I-90/Mass Pike). The order of the exit ramps along the southbound direction indeed differ from the northbound ramps.
Maybe they should follow the Garden State Parkway's type of a-b-c. Look at the Springfield Avenue/ Lyons Avenue Exits in Irvington, NJ. NB you have the Exit 143 for Lyons Avenue, but southbound you have Lyons Avenue for Exits 143A (West) and 143B (East) and plain 143 for Springfield Avenue to the north before a SB driver reaches Lyons Avenue.
Now this works out real well because Exit 143 is for Springfield Avenue in both directions (as the NB Lyons Avenue acts as connection to that via local streets being there is no direct ramp at that location) and 143 A & B for the same Lyons Avenue NB that still has the whole number.
I would have to see those CT locations in person to see just exactly how you can incorporate this one that way, but something similar along the lines might work. Anyway, you cannot have everything perfect! Hey look at concurrencies, you have to have one route sacrifice its exit numbers throwing the one route that does out of sequence hence I-85 in Atlanta.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 09, 2013, 12:27:50 AM
Now this is making me think of something: Would the Connecticut Turnpike now end at the I-95/I-395 split in Waterford? (I think it's really only on paper once the exits change.)
I think the Connecticut Turnpike has been officially dead for decades now, so probably not even a consideration.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 09, 2013, 08:49:34 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 08, 2013, 10:45:32 PM
One other issue that CT has to deal with is what to do about the 84 West and 91 South out of sequence exit numbers at exits 27/28. On I-84 Exit 27 (I-691) would be Exit 39, and Exit 28 (CT 322) would be Exit 40. Would the exits on the westbound side go 41 (29), 39 (27), 40 (28), or do they just make 27 + 28 40A and 40B? On, I-91, both exits are within the 36th mile, so my proposal to clear up a reverse number is 27 becomes 36, and 28 becomes 36S because it's for US 5/CT 15 South.
As with everything else, there will no doubt be some fudge factors involved when assigning mile-marker-based exit numbers in some areas; particularly where interchange ramps don't fall in the same order as those along the opposite direction. That said, in the case of the two I-84 (Exits 27 & 28), I do not see the westbound ramp to I-691 carrying a completely different number than the eastbound ramp (40 vs. 41). What ConnDOT could do in this area is redesignate Exits 27/28 as either 39A-B or 40A-B, depending on where the MILE 40 is actually located or use 39 and 40 for both directions.
Though off-topic in terms of state, MassDOT's going to have a similar challenge when it comes time to redesignate the exits numbers along I-95, Exits 22 through 25 (near I-90/Mass Pike). The order of the exit ramps along the southbound direction indeed differ from the northbound ramps.
For the 691/322 location, the 40 MM is just beyond the Exit 27 EB off ramp but before the 28 off ramp, which is about 500 ft. later, and near the Exit 28 WB on ramp; the 27 on ramp is at about 39.7. The sequence both EB and WB is is 27 off, 28 off, 28 on, 27 on. Here's an image of the two flyovers from I-84W to I-691 E, and from I-691W to I-84W
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nycroads.com%2Froads%2FI-691_CT%2Fimg7.gif&hash=f6684f1f48d71ce8664c2eae41744d7094550ba6)
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2013, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 09, 2013, 12:27:50 AM
Now this is making me think of something: Would the Connecticut Turnpike now end at the I-95/I-395 split in Waterford? (I think it's really only on paper once the exits change.)
I think the Connecticut Turnpike has been officially dead for decades now, so probably not even a consideration.
Does anyone even call it that anymore?
On I-76 in NJ, which is less than 3 miles in length, nearly every conceivable issue mentioned above is accounted for on this highway. Like many other states which don't use Exit 0, the Interchange with I-295 North is Exit 1B on I-76 West (Note: There is no 1A on the Westbound side, so the first exit one encounters is Exit 1B). On the EB side, I-295 North is again Exit 1B, and I-295 South is Exit 1A.
Then, US 130 in the true MP 1 area is a completely separate interchange. US 130 South is Exit 1C for both 76 EB & WB, and on the 76 WB side only, there's Exit 1D for US 130 NB.
On I-676 in NJ, there are Interchanges 1, 2 and 3 in the area between MP 0.00 and 1.99.
So...if it can be done here, there's no reason to fret it can't be done in CT.
Oh then you have Exit 11 and Exit 11A on I-280 in Orange. Eastbound it has always been Exit 11 for Center Street and the Westbound Exit 11A for Day Street/ Essex Avenue was added later to the system. Both exits are in the same general location, but WB travelers do encounter an Exit 11A but no other suffixes.
The problem is, like I said, you cannot always get things perfect and in urban areas you are going to get a lot of this. I am actually supporting your point of the fact that NJ can do it, so it will work well in CT when the time comes.
Perhaps the other northeastern states will follow suit, and all 48 of the continental states will have the system in place. Maybe in the next 25 years...
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 12:35:48 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2013, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 09, 2013, 12:27:50 AM
Now this is making me think of something: Would the Connecticut Turnpike now end at the I-95/I-395 split in Waterford? (I think it's really only on paper once the exits change.)
I think the Connecticut Turnpike has been officially dead for decades now, so probably not even a consideration.
Does anyone even call it that anymore?
I've seen ConnDOT press releases in the past year say "Connecticut Turnpike", plus its used on ConnDOT's rest area page: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=3535&q=292578
What I would like to see is I-395's exits numbered based on mileage from the NY state line in Greenwich, up to the Danielson connector, then I-290 beginning there and running north. I-395 can stay on the turnpike (replacing SSR 695) out to the RI border. Then again, I'd also like to see the turnpike logo come back into use. Fat chance in any of that happening, I know.
More realistically, I can see I-95's exits not even changing, up to New Haven. Everything's pretty much mile-based already, by coincidence. There'd still be no EXIT 1, though.
I am wondering if NYSDOT is going to give the Northway portion of I-87 its own set of mile based numbers based on its present system of starting at US 20 near Albany?
It would be nice to see the NYS Thruway and the Major Deegan Expressway have the same mile marker and exit scheme with the Northway picking up from where it stopped exiting the Thruway at present day Exit 24. I-90, there is nothing you can do about as if you gave the I-90 Thruway its own scheme, it would give the Thruway two sets of exit numbers and thus making it more confusing and with the closed toll system it could not work either. At least this way would give I-87 one set of exits.
Anyway, back to Connecticut it sure will be nice to see it convert like most of the U.S. and you are right about I-95 from Greenwich to New Haven having its exit numbers already almost mile based. I believe that you cannot go more than a mile without seeing an interchange along any part from New York to East Haven, CT.
Heading west from Southington into Cheshire, it's in this order:
Exit 27 - CT 322 | Marion (section of Southington)| Wolcott
Exit 28 - I-691 East | Meriden
(on-ramp from CT 322 to I-84 West)
CHESHIRE town line (also New Haven County line, though unsigned)
(on-ramp from I-691 West to I-84 West)
MM 40 (at the very end of this on-ramp)
Marion Road overpass
Exit 26 - CT 70 | Cheshire [could become new Exit 39]
Another issue of I-84 exits would be by the Plainville/New Britain city line:
Exit 33 - CT 72 West | Bristol
Exit 34 - Crooked Street | Plainville [Eastbound exit only]
Exit 35 - CT 72 East to CT 9 | New Britain
Exit 36 - Slater Road | New Britain
All four of those exits are within a mile or slightly over 1 mile. Although the mile marker is missing, the one which is closest to mile marker 50 is the CT Route 72 East exit.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 09, 2013, 01:49:22 PM
Heading west from Southington into Cheshire, it's in this order:
Exit 27 - CT 322 | Marion (section of Southington)| Wolcott
Exit 28 - I-691 East | Meriden
(on-ramp from CT 322 to I-84 West)
CHESHIRE town line (also New Haven County line, though unsigned)
(on-ramp from I-691 West to I-84 West)
MM 40 (at the very end of this on-ramp)
Marion Road overpass
Exit 26 - CT 70 | Cheshire [could become new Exit 39]
Another issue of I-84 exits would be by the Plainville/New Britain city line:
Exit 33 - CT 72 West | Bristol
Exit 34 - Crooked Street | Plainville [Eastbound exit only]
Exit 35 - CT 72 East to CT 9 | New Britain
Exit 36 - Slater Road | New Britain
All four of those exits are within a mile or slightly over 1 mile. Although the mile marker is missing, the one which is closest to mile marker 50 is the CT Route 72 East exit.
Here's what I have for I-84/I-691: CT 70 would be Exit 38, I-691 would be Exit 40, CT 322 Exit 40A. And for the I-84/CT 72 area:
Exit 33 becomes 49
Exit 34 becomes 49A
Exit 35 becomes 50
Exit 36 becomes 51.
To make it even more fun, the substitute Exit 34 westbound, Exit 2 on Rt 72, becomes Exit 16 (CT 72 mileage from the end at CT 4 in Harwinton)
I'm actually working on a spreadsheet to make all CT highways mileage based going from West-East and South-North. As a new feature, all exit numbers that come at the end of the highway southbound and westbound would be unnumbered unless the highway continued into NY State, then you would have an Exit 0. So Saw Mill Rd off I-84 and King St. on the Merritt would be Exit 0, but the North/south Highways that end at I-95 would not have exit numbers for the junction, but would at their northern or eastern terminus. the only exception would be the CT 34 Exit off I-91 as Exit 0W. CT 11 exits would be based on a completed highway, I-395 would reset to 0, CT 695 exits would be unnumbered, and the CT 66 exits east of I-91 would maintain I-691 mileage.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 12:35:48 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2013, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 09, 2013, 12:27:50 AM
Now this is making me think of something: Would the Connecticut Turnpike now end at the I-95/I-395 split in Waterford? (I think it's really only on paper once the exits change.)
I think the Connecticut Turnpike has been officially dead for decades now, so probably not even a consideration.
Does anyone even call it that anymore?
There's one place I'm aware where there's still a sign that reads "Connecticut Turnpike." It's at the eastern end of the Cross Westchester Expressway (I-287), just over the border in New York. There's also a sign at the very beginning of I-95 in Connecticut that reads "Governor John Davis Lodge Turnpike."
Quote from: dgolub on May 09, 2013, 07:00:52 PM
There's one place I'm aware where there's still a sign that reads "Connecticut Turnpike." It's at the eastern end of the Cross Westchester Expressway (I-287), just over the border in New York. There's also a sign at the very beginning of I-95 in Connecticut that reads "Governor John Davis Lodge Turnpike."
is this a shield?
I believe the last Conn Tpke shield was this one, on Lincoln Ave. in Mt. Vernon. I think it is gone.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CT/CT19560952i1.jpg)
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 01:24:08 PM
I am wondering if NYSDOT is going to give the Northway portion of I-87 its own set of mile based numbers based on its present system of starting at US 20 near Albany?
It would be nice to see the NYS Thruway and the Major Deegan Expressway have the same mile marker and exit scheme with the Northway picking up from where it stopped exiting the Thruway at present day Exit 24. I-90, there is nothing you can do about as if you gave the I-90 Thruway its own scheme, it would give the Thruway two sets of exit numbers and thus making it more confusing and with the closed toll system it could not work either. At least this way would give I-87 one set of exits.
Last I knew, the Thruway would have it's own set of numbers with Ripley being Exit 1 and Hall Place being Exit 496. The Major Deegan and the Northway would have their own set of numbers, with Albany Airport being labeled Exit 150 on the documentation I saw, but in reality it should be Exit 158 and I pointed that out to NYSDOT.
I don't suppose it would be possible to link to or upload this documentation, is there?
I have seen some of the old trailblazers in Greenwich and Stamford. They have since been removed.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 07:04:29 PM
Quote from: dgolub on May 09, 2013, 07:00:52 PM
There's one place I'm aware where there's still a sign that reads "Connecticut Turnpike." It's at the eastern end of the Cross Westchester Expressway (I-287), just over the border in New York. There's also a sign at the very beginning of I-95 in Connecticut that reads "Governor John Davis Lodge Turnpike."
is this a shield?
I believe the last Conn Tpke shield was this one, on Lincoln Ave. in Mt. Vernon. I think it is gone.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CT/CT19560952i1.jpg)
It is indeed gone, although an original white sign remains for another highway (which one escapes me at the moment).
A couple years ago, a contact at ConnDOT sent a spreadsheet of proposed mile-based exit numbers. Here's the table for I-395.
Note that for mile x.00 through x.99, Connecticut tends to use Exit X, while California tends to use Exit X+1 (see http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/calnexus/). I favor California's approach, mainly for its treatment of exits in the first mile of freeway (CT uses exit 1A, 1B, etc. for mile 0.00 through 1.99).
| Alt. | Current | Current | NB/EB | SB/WB | Proposed | Proposed |
| Cross Rte | Cross Rte | Exit No. | Suffix | Gore Pt. | Gore Pt. | Exit No. | Suffix |
| 85 | | 77 | | 1.95 | 2.3 | 2 | |
| 693 | | 78 | | | 5.48 | 5 | |
| 163 | | 79 | | 6.33 | 6.73 | 6 | |
| 2A | | 79 | A | 9.29 | 9.87 | 9 | |
| 82 | | 80 | | 10.87 | 11.34 | 11 | |
| 2 EB | | 81 | E* | 13.57 | 13.66 | 14 | A |
| 2 WB | | 81 | W | 13.8 | | 14 | B |
| 642 | W Town St | 82 | | 14.07 | 14.41 | 14 | C |
| 97 | | 83 | | 17.93 | 18.11 | 18 | |
| 169 | | 83 | A | 19.31 | | 19 | |
| 12 SB | | 84 | S | | 21.08 | 21 | A |
| 12 | | 84 | | 21.2 | | 21 | |
| 12 NB | | 84 | N | | 21.3 | 21 | B |
| 164 | 138 | 85 | | 21.66 | 22.46 | 22 | |
| 201 | | 86 | | 24.13 | 24.5 | 24 | |
| 647 | Lathrop Rd | 87 | | 28.06 | 28.44 | 28 | |
| 14A | | 88 | | 29.5 | 29.83 | 30 | |
| 14 | | 89 | | 32.14 | 32.36 | 32 | |
| 695 | | 90 | | 35.5 | | 35 | |
| 6 EB | | 91 | E | | 37.59 | 37 | A |
| 6 WB | | 91 | W* | 37.62 | 37.91 | 37 | B* |
| Knox Ave | 607 | 92 | | 38.05 | 39.02 | 38 | |
| 101 | | 93 | | 40.98 | 41.39 | 41 | |
| Attawaugan Cx | | 94 | | 42.73 | 43.11 | 43 | |
| Kennedy Dr | | 95 | | 45.24 | 45.51 | 45 | |
| Heritage Rd | | 96 | | 45.88 | 46.23 | 46 | |
| 44 | | 97 | | 47.05 | 47.46 | 47 | |
| 12 | | 98 | | 49.01 | | 49 | |
| 200 | | 99 | | 49.88 | 50.39 | 50 | |
| Wilsonville Rd | | 100 | | 53.37 | 53.78 | 53 |
|
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 09, 2013, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 01:24:08 PM
I am wondering if NYSDOT is going to give the Northway portion of I-87 its own set of mile based numbers based on its present system of starting at US 20 near Albany?
It would be nice to see the NYS Thruway and the Major Deegan Expressway have the same mile marker and exit scheme with the Northway picking up from where it stopped exiting the Thruway at present day Exit 24. I-90, there is nothing you can do about as if you gave the I-90 Thruway its own scheme, it would give the Thruway two sets of exit numbers and thus making it more confusing and with the closed toll system it could not work either. At least this way would give I-87 one set of exits.
Last I knew, the Thruway would have it's own set of numbers with Ripley being Exit 1 and Hall Place being Exit 496. The Major Deegan and the Northway would have their own set of numbers, with Albany Airport being labeled Exit 150 on the documentation I saw, but in reality it should be Exit 158 and I pointed that out to NYSDOT.
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2013, 08:14:23 PM
I don't suppose it would be possible to link to or upload this documentation, is there?
The report was released in January 2003. I have it on a hard drive somewhere or it might be around on the nysdot website still. I'll do some searching this weekend.
Regarding this soon-to-be travesty....
As i recall, the unsigned Exit 1 on the Connecticut Turnpike was I-95 continuing south into New York for the westbounders
And plenty of people still call it "The Turnpike"...usually the locals...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 07:04:29 PM
Quote from: dgolub on May 09, 2013, 07:00:52 PM
There's one place I'm aware where there's still a sign that reads "Connecticut Turnpike." It's at the eastern end of the Cross Westchester Expressway (I-287), just over the border in New York. There's also a sign at the very beginning of I-95 in Connecticut that reads "Governor John Davis Lodge Turnpike."
is this a shield?
No, it just has an I-95 shield with the name written under it. I have photos on my site at http://www.greaternyroads.info/roads/nyinter/i287/photogal/page1. It's the last two pictures on the page.
Quote from: kurumi on May 10, 2013, 01:03:05 AM
Note that for mile x.00 through x.99, Connecticut tends to use Exit X, while California tends to use Exit X+1 (see http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/calnexus/). I favor California's approach, mainly for its treatment of exits in the first mile of freeway (CT uses exit 1A, 1B, etc. for mile 0.00 through 1.99).
Ugh. Apparently nobody taught either DOT how rounding works.
Logically, wouldn't it make most sense to follow what is the standard procedure for everything else and round x.50 and above up and round x.49 and below down?
I would also "spot" the exit at the midpoint between the two gore points, rather than at one gore point or the other.
Of course, to the general public, this level of precision is unimportant, so meh.
But still, seeing an exit that is blatantly right at the beginning of a freeway or right at the state line signed as exit 1 rather than exit 0 always bugs the hell out of me. I will never understand the aversion some states have to posting exit 0s.
This thread still needs an off-topic post about NH, so here I go: :D
Once they get their act together, maybe all their Interstate-to-Interstate junctions will finally be numbered...
Quote from: Duke87 on May 10, 2013, 07:35:49 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 10, 2013, 01:03:05 AM
Note that for mile x.00 through x.99, Connecticut tends to use Exit X, while California tends to use Exit X+1 (see http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/calnexus/). I favor California's approach, mainly for its treatment of exits in the first mile of freeway (CT uses exit 1A, 1B, etc. for mile 0.00 through 1.99).
Ugh. Apparently nobody taught either DOT how rounding works.
Logically, wouldn't it make most sense to follow what is the standard procedure for everything else and round x.50 and above up and round x.49 and below down?
I would also "spot" the exit at the midpoint between the two gore points, rather than at one gore point or the other.
Of course, to the general public, this level of precision is unimportant, so meh.
But still, seeing an exit that is blatantly right at the beginning of a freeway or right at the state line signed as exit 1 rather than exit 0 always bugs the hell out of me. I will never understand the aversion some states have to posting exit 0s.
Then you don't want to drive I-195 West and exit at MP 0, Exit 60. At least there's a 0 in 60.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2013, 01:26:59 PM
Then you don't want to drive I-195 West and exit at MP 0, Exit 60. At least there's a 0 in 60.
In the end it will work out in a weird way when I-295 north of there is re designated I-195.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 10, 2013, 07:35:49 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 10, 2013, 01:03:05 AM
Note that for mile x.00 through x.99, Connecticut tends to use Exit X, while California tends to use Exit X+1 (see http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/calnexus/). I favor California's approach, mainly for its treatment of exits in the first mile of freeway (CT uses exit 1A, 1B, etc. for mile 0.00 through 1.99).
Ugh. Apparently nobody taught either DOT how rounding works.
Logically, wouldn't it make most sense to follow what is the standard procedure for everything else and round x.50 and above up and round x.49 and below down?
I would also "spot" the exit at the midpoint between the two gore points, rather than at one gore point or the other.
Of course, to the general public, this level of precision is unimportant, so meh.
But still, seeing an exit that is blatantly right at the beginning of a freeway or right at the state line signed as exit 1 rather than exit 0 always bugs the hell out of me. I will never understand the aversion some states have to posting exit 0s.
Connecticut also has an aversion to exit 1's on 2DIs. Also, to address some of the complaints above, I don't know why having multiple exits within a mile is a problem. Other states deal with it just fine. Add the A, B, C suffixes and call it a day like everyone else. I'm not a proponent of doing the mileage based exit numbers, at least not in a state like Connecticut where all the exits are already about a mile apart. I could see in states where you can go 20 miles between exits, but the greatest distance between exits here is what 4, 5 miles and even 2 miles between exits is not all that common. Try this on I-95 and it will shift exits by one or two in either direction for the busy section below New Haven, so not much benefit there other than adding confusion. When an exit goes from #24 to #161 like when they renumbered I-80 through PA, there's little chance of confusion there as (almost all) the new exit numbers were never used on the renumbered route in the past.
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 11, 2013, 06:01:10 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 10, 2013, 07:35:49 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 10, 2013, 01:03:05 AM
Note that for mile x.00 through x.99, Connecticut tends to use Exit X, while California tends to use Exit X+1 (see http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/calnexus/). I favor California's approach, mainly for its treatment of exits in the first mile of freeway (CT uses exit 1A, 1B, etc. for mile 0.00 through 1.99).
Ugh. Apparently nobody taught either DOT how rounding works.
Logically, wouldn't it make most sense to follow what is the standard procedure for everything else and round x.50 and above up and round x.49 and below down?
I would also "spot" the exit at the midpoint between the two gore points, rather than at one gore point or the other.
Of course, to the general public, this level of precision is unimportant, so meh.
But still, seeing an exit that is blatantly right at the beginning of a freeway or right at the state line signed as exit 1 rather than exit 0 always bugs the hell out of me. I will never understand the aversion some states have to posting exit 0s.
Connecticut also has an aversion to exit 1's on 2DIs. Also, to address some of the complaints above, I don't know why having multiple exits within a mile is a problem. Other states deal with it just fine. Add the A, B, C suffixes and call it a day like everyone else. I'm not a proponent of doing the mileage based exit numbers, at least not in a state like Connecticut where all the exits are already about a mile apart. I could see in states where you can go 20 miles between exits, but the greatest distance between exits here is what 4, 5 miles and even 2 miles between exits is not all that common. Try this on I-95 and it will shift exits by one or two in either direction for the busy section below New Haven, so not much benefit there other than adding confusion. When an exit goes from #24 to #161 like when they renumbered I-80 through PA, there's little chance of confusion there as (almost all) the new exit numbers were never used on the renumbered route in the past.
Florida did it on I-4 with some numbers shifting near Tampa. Although, Exits 1 and 2 were able to keep their original numbers, Exit 7 that was for I-75 under the old sequential scheme is now for US 301, that was old Exit 6 one mile to the west. So Exit 7 actually moved over one interchange.
I know its an inconvenience, but if Tampa area residents can get used to it, so can Southern CT.
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 11, 2013, 06:01:10 PMConnecticut also has an aversion to exit 1's on 2DIs.
Really? I believe you forgot about Exit 1 (Saw Mill Road) off I-84 at the NY State line; which probably won't change once that road is converted to mile-marker-based exit numbering.
I-91 has exit 1 (CT 34) as well.
Quote from: vdeane on May 13, 2013, 12:53:02 PM
I-91 has exit 1 (CT 34) as well.
If they keep that as Exit 1 and don't change it to exit 0, you're really going to have alphabet city in New Haven. Current exits 1-6 would all fall in the less than 2 MM category. If I had my drothers, the exits within New Haven city limits on I-91 would be as follows:
I-95 Exits southbound remain unnumbered
Exits 1 and 2 become new exit 0, since exit 1 is SB only and Exit 2 is NB only, and only coming from I-95 S
Exit 3 becomes new Exit 1
Exits 4 + 5 each become exit 1A, since Exit 4 is NB only and Exit 5 is SB only
Exit 6 becomes Exit 1B
Exit 7 becomes Exit 2
Exit 8 becomes Exit 3
Another tricky area would be where CT Route 15 briefly runs outside of I-91 on either side in Meriden. Heading north is Exit 16 (East Main Street) and Exit 17 for CT Route 15 North. I believe Exit 18 involves I-691 (heading west) and CT Route 66 (heading east), while Exit 19 is for Baldwin and Preston Avenue (westbound exit only). Exit 20 for Country Club Road in Middletown could be either be the new Exit 21 or 22. Exit 21 in Cromwell (CT Route 372) could become Exit 26 while Exit 22 NS (CT Route 9) could become Exit 27.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 10, 2013, 07:35:49 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 10, 2013, 01:03:05 AM
Note that for mile x.00 through x.99, Connecticut tends to use Exit X, while California tends to use Exit X+1 (see http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/calnexus/). I favor California's approach, mainly for its treatment of exits in the first mile of freeway (CT uses exit 1A, 1B, etc. for mile 0.00 through 1.99).
Ugh. Apparently nobody taught either DOT how rounding works.
Logically, wouldn't it make most sense to follow what is the standard procedure for everything else and round x.50 and above up and round x.49 and below down?
I would also "spot" the exit at the midpoint between the two gore points, rather than at one gore point or the other.
Of course, to the general public, this level of precision is unimportant, so meh.
But still, seeing an exit that is blatantly right at the beginning of a freeway or right at the state line signed as exit 1 rather than exit 0 always bugs the hell out of me. I will never understand the aversion some states have to posting exit 0s.
Is there any state that does it that way? I've seen numbering according to the milepost before the exit or the milepost before the bridge even if the exit comes first. I've certainly seen fudging one way or another, but I've never seen consistent rounding up/down.
Quote from: yakra on May 11, 2013, 12:08:11 PM
This thread still needs an off-topic post about NH, so here I go: :D
Once they get their act together, maybe all their Interstate-to-Interstate junctions will finally be numbered...
That'll mean NHDOT will have to remove the "exit tabs" for Manchester Airport from the diagrammatic signs on I-93 and I-293.
Exit 2 is actually both. Since I round, here's how I'd do them:
1: 1A (or 0A)
2: 1B (or 0B; it's actually both directions)
3: 1C (or 1A)
4: 1D (or 1B)
5: 1D (or 1B; 4 is southbound only, 5 northbound only)
6: 2A
7: 2B
8: 3
9: 5
10: 6
11: 8
12: 9
13: 11
14: 12 and 13
15: 16
16: 19A
17: 19B
18: 20
That's where I decided to stop calculating the mileage.
Quote from: Steve on May 13, 2013, 07:35:44 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 10, 2013, 07:35:49 PM
Logically, wouldn't it make most sense to follow what is the standard procedure for everything else and round x.50 and above up and round x.49 and below down?
Is there any state that does it that way? I've seen numbering according to the milepost before the exit or the milepost before the bridge even if the exit comes first. I've certainly seen fudging one way or another, but I've never seen consistent rounding up/down.
I-95 in Pennsylvania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Pennsylvania#Exit_list). In Maryland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Maryland#Exit_list) it seems to follow this further south but then changes to "just round up" north of Baltimore (differing SHA/MdTA policy?). Florida (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Florida#Exit_list) has up/down rounding but there are several that are rounded the wrong way (no consistency as to which).
Continuing I-91:
19: 21 36: 43
20: 23 37: 44
21: 26 38: 46 (A+B SB)
22: 27 A+B 39+41 NB: 47
23: 29 40: 48
24: 32 41 + 39 SB: 49
25: 34 A+B 42: 49A
26: 34C 44: 50
27: 36 45: 51
28: 36A 46: 53
29: 37 47: 55 A+B
29A: 38 48: 56
30 (sb): 39C 49: 57
31: 39D
32: 39 A & B
33: 40
34: 41
35: 42 A+B
The fun part is the whole I-84 cross over where you have 3 1/2 exits within 500 ft. southbound.
I 84 Exit List:
1: 0 27: 40 51/52 (EB): 62B+C
2: 1 28: 40A 52 (WB): 62
3: 4 29: 41 (WB Only) 53: 63 (EB Only)
4: 4A 30: 42 54: 63 (WB Only)
5: 5 31: 44 55: 64
6: 6 32: 46 56: 64A
7: 7 33: 49 57: 65A (WB Only)
8: 8 34: 49A (EB Only) 58: 65
9: 11 35: 50 59: 66
10: 15 36: 51 60: 67
11: 16 37: 53 61: 68
13: 19 38: 54A (WB Only) 62: 69 (Signed as Exit 69+67 WB)
14: 20 39: 54 63: 71
15: 22 39A: 55 64-65 EB: 73 A+B
16: 25 40: 56 64 (WB): 73
17: 30 41: 57 65 (WB): 74
18: 31 42: 58A (WB Only) 66: 75
19/20: 32 A+B 43: 58 67: 77
21: 32C 44: 59 68: 81
22: 33 45: 60A (WB Only) 69: 84
23: 34 46: 60 70: 85
24: 35 (WB Only) 47: 61A (WB Only) 71: 87
25: 35 (EB), 36(WB) 48: 61 A+B (EB), 61 (WB) 72: 91
25A: 37 49: 62 (EB Only) 73: 92
26: 38 50: 62A 74: 97
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 14, 2013, 12:17:28 AM
I 84 Exit List:
1: 0
2: 1
You're assuming that ConnDOT will actually use 0 for an exit number. Do we know that for sure? How many states actually practice such? If not, I can easily see Exits 1, 2A & 2B not changing. Truth be told, I could easily see ConnDOT keeping the exit numbers the same through Exit 8. Kind of like what PennDOT did w/I-95 through Exit 9 (actually 9A & 9B) when they converted. The Highland Ave. & US 322 Exits were originally planned to change numbers from the current 3 (northbound), 3B-A (southbound) to 2A (Highland Ave. - both directions) and 3 (southbound only exit for US 322 West). Such a move was scrubbed.
The Lansdale exit (Exit 31) off I-476/NE Extension was originally planned to be redesignated as Exit 30 (the mile marker's right at the interchange) but PTC backed off on that change as well.
As stated earlier, there will be some
fudge factors enacted in certain areas; especially if the new exit number differs only by 1.
Back to I-84 in CT: since there is a
MILE 98 marker just prior to Exit 74, that exit will likely become Exit 98.
There's also no way that the current Exits 62 & 64 will be assigned completely different exit numbers for each direction. Exit 62 will likely be signed as Exit 68 while Exit 64 will be signed as either Exit 72 or 73 for
both directions. Again, the fudge factor will be in play.
QuoteBack to I-84 in CT: since there is a MILE 98 marker just prior to Exit 74, that exit will likely become Exit 98.
There's also no way that the current Exits 62 & 64 will be assigned completely different exit numbers for each direction. Exit 62 will likely be signed as Exit 68 while Exit 64 will be signed as either Exit 72 or 73 for both directions. Again, the fudge factor will be in play.
Only reason why I worked it this way is the way it is signed now. Westbound on 84, Exits 62 and 60 use a c/d road where the exit ramps are about 2 miles apart along the road (there's even a backdoor exit to I-384 east on the c/d road). Exit 61 does not use the c/d road. Eastbound, everything is in sequence. For the eastbound exit 64/65, it's a split exit ramp with 64 being for CT 83/CT 30 S, and 65 being for CT 30 N. Westbound, they are separate exits about a mile apart with 65 being for CT 30 and 64 for CT 83/30.
I'd like to see exit numbers on US 6.
In Willimantic: 88, 90, 92, 93
In Killingly: 112, 114
Quote from: kurumi on May 14, 2013, 11:30:56 AM
I'd like to see exit numbers on US 6.
In Willimantic: 88, 90, 92, 93
In Killingly: 112, 114
I second that. I believe every interchange should be numbered, even if it's just one interchange on an isolated portion of freeway/expressway. A numbered point of reference is much easier to work with when it comes to giving directions.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 14, 2013, 11:17:52 AMOnly reason why I worked it this way is the way it is signed now. Westbound on 84, Exits 62 and 60 use a c/d road where the exit ramps are about 2 miles apart along the road (there's even a backdoor exit to I-384 east on the c/d road). Exit 61 does not use the c/d road. Eastbound, everything is in sequence. For the eastbound exit 64/65, it's a split exit ramp with 64 being for CT 83/CT 30 S, and 65 being for CT 30 N. Westbound, they are separate exits about a mile apart with 65 being for CT 30 and 64 for CT 83/30.
Fair enough, but one needs to keep in mind that the mile marker-based exit number for a particular interchange
should be based on where the actual interchange crossing is and
not necessarily where the exit ramps break off the mainline highway.
Again, like anywhere else, there will be some abnormalities (in terms of numbering) that have likely existed elsewhere. My earlier example of I-95 in Weston, MA near the I-90 & MA 30 interchanges (Exits 24 & 25) is similar to your E. Hartford I-84 example where in one direction the exit numbers are not in direct sequence (Exit 25 comes before Exit 24 along I-95 northbound).
As mentioned before, an interchange will typically
have the same primary number for both directions regardless of where the interchange ramps start.
I was reminded today of just how much I wish the northeastern states had mileage-based exits. I'm planning my trip to Portsmouth, NH, and that trip will include an effort to clinch New Hampshire's counties. The trip will require my use of I-91 north from Massachusetts to I-93, then a trip south on I-93 to the Boston area. If NH and MA had mileage-based exits, I'd be able to better calculate how long it will take me.
Figure approx. 3 hours from the CT/MA border to I-93 in St J... that's estimating 1 hour between CT/MA and MA/VT (at approx 53 miles), 1 hour between MA/VT border and I-89 in White River Jct (approx 70 miles), and another hour from there up to I-93 (St J). Can't help you for distances/drive times for that state "on the other side of the river". I-93 travels through major construction zones and a much larger metro area, so approx. drive times are tough there.
A few years ago I sent an email to VTrans asking them if they had plans to switch over to mileage-based exits. They said they had no plans. But then again, that was in '05. I'm sure CT didn't really have any plans for such in '05, let alone any signs with aligned exit tabs... now look at 'em.
Quote from: shadyjay on May 14, 2013, 05:03:18 PM
Figure approx. 3 hours from the CT/MA border to I-93 in St J... that's estimating 1 hour between CT/MA and MA/VT (at approx 53 miles), 1 hour between MA/VT border and I-89 in White River Jct (approx 70 miles), and another hour from there up to I-93 (St J).
Google Maps said something similar, and it usually overestimates travel times (and underestimates how fast I drive with my Valentine One as my co-pilot).
I'll end up posting my route plans in either the "Road Trips" or "meets" threads.
Going slightly off-topic with this, but if Vermont had mileage-based exits, the I-91/I-93 junction would be Exits 128 and 11 for the two routes, respectively.
IIRC, I-93 has somewhere between 128 and 133 miles in New Hampshire...this includes the Franconia Notch.
@ PHLBOS: If I-84 in Connecticut is 98 miles long, then the mile marker is missing. Whether it was in 1996 or August of 2012 (my last time in Union), I have NEVER seen mile marker 98. With that said, I would make the last exit in Connecticut as Exit 97. I know the MM 97 sign lies not far south of the present exit 74. The three Massachusetts exits of I-84 could become 3 (1), 5 (2) and 7A/B (3 A/B).
@ SHADYJAY: I believe the last mile sign on I-91 in Bernardston, MA is 54.8, seeing how MA and NH just love that 1/5 mile signing! ;)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 15, 2013, 01:37:33 PMIf I-84 in Connecticut is 98 miles long, then the mile marker is missing. Whether it was in 1996 or August of 2012 (my last time in Union), I have NEVER seen mile marker 98. With that said, I would make the last exit in Connecticut as Exit 97. I know the MM 97 sign lies not far south of the present exit 74.
I'll be passing through that area next Thursday (5/23) night so I can verify. Looking at Google Earth Street View in the area along I-84 Eastbound, there is indeed a mile marker of sorts just before the BGS for Exit 74. Unfortunately, the image of it (at least on my computer) is a bit blurred to read the actual number (if it's a 97 or 98). Again, I will confirm next week or someone else who happens to be in the area beforehand can confirm. Maybe the Mile marker I saw and am referring to is indeed MM 97 per your post.
If I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 15, 2013, 01:37:33 PMThe three Massachusetts exits of I-84 could become 3 (1), 5 (2) and 7A/B (3 A/B).
FWIW, Mile 7 (no marker present, at least per Google Earth Street View) is actually located beyond the US 20 interchange; there's a
MILE 6.6 marker just east of the US 20 Eastbound underpass and a
MILE 6.8 marker is located bewteen said-underpass and the US 20 West overpass, prior to the exit ramp for US 20 West (Exit 3B).
That said, MassDOT could redesignate Exits 3A-B as Exits 6A-B and not be wrong (per MUTCD standards). If the toll plaza wasn't there (another topic for another thread), the ramp to I-90 West would've likely been marked as Exit 4 or MM-based Exit 7.
Why are we doing this again? State has too much money and time on its hands? I'd rather more lane-miles of highway (or even better return all that extra money to the tax payers if there's such a big surplus) rather than new exit tabs, but maybe that's just me.
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 15, 2013, 08:14:30 PM
Why are we doing this again? State has too much money and time on its hands? I'd rather more lane-miles of highway (or even better return all that extra money to the tax payers if there's such a big surplus) rather than new exit tabs, but maybe that's just me.
Pretty sure that the FHWA or the MUTCD is mandating that the remaining states that have sequential-based exits (CT, RI, NY, MA, VT, NH, NJ tpke) convert over to distance-based exits at some point in the not-too-distant future. Since signs on I-395 are up for replacement, it makes sense to change over the exit numbers at the same time. It also makes sense since all of I-395's signs are up for replacement, vs the present piecemeal replacement of signs in sections along I-84 and I-95.
In addition to I-395, other routes which are most likely to have signs replaced "in total" in the years ahead are: CT 2, CT 8, CT 9, and CT 11. Signage on these routes was installed in the late 1980s timeframe.
I would love to see more lanes added to I-95 east of New Haven, or the completion of CT 11 over the replacement of exit numbers, but I'm pretty sure the exit number conversion is a federal mandate. On signs not up for replacement, it wouldn't involve new exit tabs for the new numbers, but rather overlays on existing tabs. Maybe ConnDOT would take that opportunity to properly align the existing exit tabs. Just look at what they've been doing to the old signs on I-95 in New Haven.... properly aligning the exit tabs when they've been moving signs to new gantries and such.
Then again, knowing ConnDOT, they would replace the entire exit tab. Anyone remember what they did when the speed limit changed from 55 to 65 in 1998? A few months before the changeover, they went and replaced EVERY SINGLE SPEED LIMIT SIGN in a future 65 zone with a brand new "SPEED LIMIT 65" sign, then put "5" overlays over the "6" until October 1, 1998. All other states I've seen change their speed limit signs have kept the existing sign, and just stick a "6" over the "5" when the limit increased.
Quote from: shadyjay on May 15, 2013, 08:30:02 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 15, 2013, 08:14:30 PM
Why are we doing this again? State has too much money and time on its hands? I'd rather more lane-miles of highway (or even better return all that extra money to the tax payers if there's such a big surplus) rather than new exit tabs, but maybe that's just me.
Pretty sure that the FHWA or the MUTCD is mandating that the remaining states that have sequential-based exits (CT, RI, NY, MA, VT, NH, NJ tpke) convert over to distance-based exits at some point in the not-too-distant future. Since signs on I-395 are up for replacement, it makes sense to change over the exit numbers at the same time. It also makes sense since all of I-395's signs are up for replacement, vs the present piecemeal replacement of signs in sections along I-84 and I-95.
I know. Just a waste of time in my opinion. There are so many better ways to spend that money that will make a real impact to users of the transportation infrastructure rather than changing all the exit numbers by 1 or 2 numbers just to match the mile markers.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 15, 2013, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 15, 2013, 01:37:33 PMIf I-84 in Connecticut is 98 miles long, then the mile marker is missing. Whether it was in 1996 or August of 2012 (my last time in Union), I have NEVER seen mile marker 98. With that said, I would make the last exit in Connecticut as Exit 97. I know the MM 97 sign lies not far south of the present exit 74.
I'll be passing through that area next Thursday (5/23) night so I can verify. Looking at Google Earth Street View in the area along I-84 Eastbound, there is indeed a mile marker of sorts just before the BGS for Exit 74. Unfortunately, the image of it (at least on my computer) is a bit blurred to read the actual number (if it's a 97 or 98). Again, I will confirm next week or someone else who happens to be in the area beforehand can confirm. Maybe the Mile marker I saw and am referring to is indeed MM 97 per your post.
If I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken.
There is a 97.8 or 97.9. I don't think there's a 98 mile marker. I'll be there Monday and will confirm.
Depends how you look at it. In the grand scheme of things, the cost of that sign replacement wouldn't get you much otherwise. At best, a few miles of road resurfacing (more if it's on a smaller, less busy road) or, if you're really lucky, a mile of road widening.
You're also underestimating what the impact of mile-based exit numbers can do. Makes it a lot easier to add interchanges without gumming up a sequential-based system. Also makes it a lot easier to figure out how much farther you have to go to get to your exit. These are impacts that aren't easily quantifiable, but are real nonetheless.
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 15, 2013, 09:21:12 PMThere are so many better ways to spend that money that will make a real impact to users of the transportation infrastructure rather than changing all the exit numbers by 1 or 2 numbers just to match the mile markers.
The
changing all the exit numbers by 1 or 2 numbers to match the mile markers, in most instances, only occurs along the routes westernmost's or southernmost's areas. As on travels further north or east, the numeric difference between the sequential exit number and mile marker expands greater; especially if the route in question doesn't have an interchange located at nearly every mile along the entire distance.
That's why in the case of I-84 in CT; the exit number conversion (IMHO) will likely only impact Exits 9 through 74, Exits 1 through 8 will
probably remain as is. Similar to what happened w/I-95 in PA; Exits 1 through 9A-B southbound (1 through 10 northbound)
did not change even though one or two interchanges fell slightly outside the nearest mile marker threshold.
IF Connecticut Route 9 went mileage based? Hmmmm! The road is a hair over 40 miles long, when it ends at I-84/US Route 6 in Farmington:
32- I-84/US 6 West | Waterbury (new 40 B) [US Route 6 not signed]
31- I-84/US 6 East | Hartford (new 40 A)
30- CT 71 | Corbin's Corner (new 39)
29- CT 175 | Newington
28A - Downtown New Britain
28- CT 72 West/to I-84 | Bristol/Waterbury
27- Chestnut Street | New Britain [Southbound Only]
26- Columbus Boulevard |Downtown New Britain [Northbound Only]
25- Ellis Street/To CT 71 | New Britain (new 35) [MM 35 is about 100 feet north of the Ellis Street overpass, but on and off ramps are on the southern side of the street: http://goo.gl/maps/PwSRx and http://goo.gl/maps/pJ0ud ]
24- To CT 71/CT 372 (Willow Brook Connector) |Kensington [Northbound Only] (new 34)
23- Christian Lane | Berlin [Southbound Only] (new 33)
22- CT 372
21- US 5/CT 15 Berlin Turnpike
20NS - I-91 | Hartford/New Haven (new 30)
Route 2A is next: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/entertainment/x914256966/Mohegan-Sun-Boulevard-exit-numbers-to-be-changed
Route 32 interchange (currently exit 1) moves to exit 5
Mohegan Sun Boulevard (exit 2) moves to exit 6.
This change might help roadgeeks with mild OCD, but the benefit to motorists is minimal and possibly negative.
The zero point for mileposts is Route 2A's official start at the CT 2/I-395 interchange, which includes a hidden overlap* with I-395 for 3.9 miles. To most people, that overlap does not exist, Route 2A begins at I-395 exit 79A, and the current exit numbers are already mileage-based as is.
* here's one the only series of BGS mentioning the 395/2A overlap: http://goo.gl/maps/G4hwc. And I'd guess many drivers interpret this as "take 395 to get to 2A", not "2A starts here".
** more trivia: CT 14A and CT 17A already start and end at their "parent" routes. CT 182A has a hidden overlap with CT 183 to complete its return to CT 182. As for CT 71A: ehhh. It just peters out in New Britain with no END sign or anything.
Quote from: kurumi on May 21, 2013, 11:51:15 AM
Route 2A is next: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/entertainment/x914256966/Mohegan-Sun-Boulevard-exit-numbers-to-be-changed
Route 32 interchange (currently exit 1) moves to exit 5
Mohegan Sun Boulevard (exit 2) moves to exit 6.
This change might help roadgeeks with mild OCD, but the benefit to motorists is minimal and possibly negative.
With the typical white-on-green mileposts, the benefit to motorists is not minimal, and is most certainly positive. It allows motorists to gauge their distance to the exit from the milepost they just passed. This is the major problem I had with the lack of white-on-green mileposts in California, and the problem I have with sequential-based exit numbering.
Quote from: kurumi on May 21, 2013, 11:51:15 AM
Route 2A is next: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/entertainment/x914256966/Mohegan-Sun-Boulevard-exit-numbers-to-be-changed
Route 32 interchange (currently exit 1) moves to exit 5
Mohegan Sun Boulevard (exit 2) moves to exit 6.
This change might help roadgeeks with mild OCD, but the benefit to motorists is minimal and possibly negative.
The zero point for mileposts is Route 2A's official start at the CT 2/I-395 interchange, which includes a hidden overlap* with I-395 for 3.9 miles. To most people, that overlap does not exist, Route 2A begins at I-395 exit 79A, and the current exit numbers are already mileage-based as is.
* here's one the only series of BGS mentioning the 395/2A overlap: http://goo.gl/maps/G4hwc. And I'd guess many drivers interpret this as "take 395 to get to 2A", not "2A starts here".
** more trivia: CT 14A and CT 17A already start and end at their "parent" routes. CT 182A has a hidden overlap with CT 183 to complete its return to CT 182. As for CT 71A: ehhh. It just peters out in New Britain with no END sign or anything.
Been under that gantry many times with DATTCO or friends, heading to/from the Mohegan Sun Casino!
As for CT Route 71A, it technically ends at the corner or Kensington Road and Buell Streets, which is only a couple blocks south of me. It's worth noting that there was once a CT 71A sign north of me near the Citgo/Food Bag convenience store (where the speed limit sign is now: http://goo.gl/maps/kAkQW ). I still think the route number should've stayed on the whole length of Arch Street and then go one block east on Chestnut Street. That way, it would end at the corner of CT Route 71 itself, at the southern foot of the Harry Truman Overpass.
http://goo.gl/maps/gmEQN
Quote from: kurumi on May 21, 2013, 11:51:15 AM
Route 2A is next: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/entertainment/x914256966/Mohegan-Sun-Boulevard-exit-numbers-to-be-changed
Route 32 interchange (currently exit 1) moves to exit 5
Mohegan Sun Boulevard (exit 2) moves to exit 6.
This change might help roadgeeks with mild OCD, but the benefit to motorists is minimal and possibly negative.
The zero point for mileposts is Route 2A's official start at the CT 2/I-395 interchange, which includes a hidden overlap* with I-395 for 3.9 miles. To most people, that overlap does not exist, Route 2A begins at I-395 exit 79A, and the current exit numbers are already mileage-based as is.
* here's one the only series of BGS mentioning the 395/2A overlap: http://goo.gl/maps/G4hwc. And I'd guess many drivers interpret this as "take 395 to get to 2A", not "2A starts here".
** more trivia: CT 14A and CT 17A already start and end at their "parent" routes. CT 182A has a hidden overlap with CT 183 to complete its return to CT 182. As for CT 71A: ehhh. It just peters out in New Britain with no END sign or anything.
Perhaps the CT 2A overlap with I-395 will be resolved with the upcoming I-395 signing project. Will we see CT 2A reassurance markers added to I-395 between [existing] Exits 79A and 81? Would there be dual mileposts?
Quote from: shadyjay on May 21, 2013, 05:29:22 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 21, 2013, 11:51:15 AM
Route 2A is next: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/entertainment/x914256966/Mohegan-Sun-Boulevard-exit-numbers-to-be-changed
Route 32 interchange (currently exit 1) moves to exit 5
Mohegan Sun Boulevard (exit 2) moves to exit 6.
This change might help roadgeeks with mild OCD, but the benefit to motorists is minimal and possibly negative.
The zero point for mileposts is Route 2A's official start at the CT 2/I-395 interchange, which includes a hidden overlap* with I-395 for 3.9 miles. To most people, that overlap does not exist, Route 2A begins at I-395 exit 79A, and the current exit numbers are already mileage-based as is.
* here's one the only series of BGS mentioning the 395/2A overlap: http://goo.gl/maps/G4hwc. And I'd guess many drivers interpret this as "take 395 to get to 2A", not "2A starts here".
** more trivia: CT 14A and CT 17A already start and end at their "parent" routes. CT 182A has a hidden overlap with CT 183 to complete its return to CT 182. As for CT 71A: ehhh. It just peters out in New Britain with no END sign or anything.
Perhaps the CT 2A overlap with I-395 will be resolved with the upcoming I-395 signing project. Will we see CT 2A reassurance markers added to I-395 between [existing] Exits 79A and 81? Would there be dual mileposts?
Would just be so much easier if they eliminated 2A altogether and just re-routed Route 2 onto it, since it seems to be the through route to Foxwoods and beyond. Just extend Rt. 169 into an overlap with Rt.32 through Norwich, then over the existing Route 2 to the 2A junction. If it is kept as is, eliminate the I-395 overlap, with 71A being precedent for the elimination.
ok here it is: the new I-395 signing contract, two on the CT DOT website.
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=29712
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=29929
Click on Plan Portfoliio for sign drawings..new exit numbers.
Ross Rd. on SR 695 is finally getting signage...and an exit number to boot!
I noticed that Worcester is not labeled "Worcester MA" and that Providence is not labeled "Providence RI." I was under the impression that out-of-state destinations had to list city and state abbreviation. Is this MUTCD or does it vary by state? Massachusetts is very good about listing city and state abbreviation (except on the Mass Pike, but that might change in their next signing contract).
Quote from: southshore720 on September 18, 2013, 04:18:25 PM
Ross Rd. on SR 695 is finally getting signage...and an exit number to boot!
I noticed that Worcester is not labeled "Worcester MA" and that Providence is not labeled "Providence RI." I was under the impression that out-of-state destinations had to list city and state abbreviation. Is this MUTCD or does it vary by state? Massachusetts is very good about listing city and state abbreviation (except on the Mass Pike, but that might change in their next signing contract).
There has never been any requirement in the MUTCD that destinations outside the state the sign is located in shall(or even should) include the state abbreviation.
And, now that the MassPike is part of MassDOT, you will see the addition of state abbreviations on applicable signs along I-90 within Massachusetts when the signs are replaced - hopefully starting in 2015 (pending available funding).
Quote from: doofy103 on September 18, 2013, 02:02:36 PM
ok here it is: the new I-395 signing contract, two on the CT DOT website.
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=29712
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=29929
Click on Plan Portfoliio for sign drawings..new exit numbers.
What is interesting to note in the plans is the removal of many overhead signs and conversion to "side mounted" signs, most notably for (present) Exits 90 and 98. Looks like CT 2A reassurance markers will be posted along I-395 as well. No signage shown for the service areas - hope the present "REST AREA - GAS/FOOD" signs get replaced at some point.
Looks like "status-quo" is being maintained for the BGSs. Exit 75-SB will not have Flanders added to the signs, even though it was added on the I-95 SB signs when they were replaced c 2000. Exit 78-SB will still just display "32" instead of 32 South.
Regardless, kudos to ConnDOT for starting to make the switch to mile-based exits, and these contracts prove it is going to happen, and soon.
I also noted the general change from overheads to ground-mounts with this project. Even though I-395 is two lanes each way, it seems to be a big step backwards, when you consider both visibility issues and the need for future clearing and thinning that ground BGSes will eventually require.
And "Type IV" sheeting for new signs?!?. Interesting that ConnDOT isn't making the switch to the better high intensity prismatic (HIP) sheetings (Type VIII or higher) that other states (like Massachusetts) have been specifying for some time now.
It's also interesting that the background color of the "backer" panel for the generic service LOGOs on the 1 mile advance exit signs is green, not blue.
And you'd think they could bother to square off the upper right corner of the sign border where the main sign meets the exit tab. Yah, it's a minor detail, but one that (IMHO) makes the signs look so much more professional in appearance.
Quote from: roadman on September 19, 2013, 12:48:53 PM
I also noted the general change from overheads to ground-mounts with this project. Even though I-395 is two lanes each way, it seems to be a big step backwards, when you consider both visibility issues and the need for future clearing and thinning that ground BGSes will eventually require.
And "Type IV" sheeting for new signs?!?. Interesting that ConnDOT isn't making the switch to the better high intensity prismatic (HIP) sheetings (Type VIII or higher) that other states (like Massachusetts) have been specifying for some time now.
It's also interesting that the background color of the "backer" panel for the generic service LOGOs on the 1 mile advance exit signs is green, not blue.
And you'd think they could bother to square off the upper right corner of the sign border where the main sign meets the exit tab. Yah, it's a minor detail, but one that (IMHO) makes the signs look so much more professional in appearance.
I was thinking overheads require more effort to maintain considering it's a structure over the highway. They did that with a few other signing contracts such as some on CT-40. On I-84 EB at Exit 10 a full gantry was changed to a right hand gantry.
Some of the yellow Left exit panels, and the other text doesn't line up. The word "EXIT" lines up to the "E" in "LEFT" on the yellow "LEFT" panel. It looks odd.
And for some of the mohegan Sun signs (new Exit 9), where the signs remain and a an exit number overlay is to be installed. Why not just install a new side alligned exit tab instead of leaving them centered??!!
I know why they did it but the new exit numbers don't make sense to the average driver on Route 2A. I can see people saying why is this exit 5 now?
I've never been a fan of ground-mounted BGS'. They are too prone to being slammed into by an out-of-control car, maintenance vehicle, or our four-legged deer friends. And once it's damaged, it takes forever to be replaced.
Quote from: southshore720 on September 19, 2013, 05:35:59 PM
I've never been a fan of ground-mounted BGS'. They are too prone to being slammed into by an out-of-control car, maintenance vehicle, or our four-legged deer friends. And once it's damaged, it takes forever to be replaced.
Why I'm not a fan: Too easy for trucks to get in the way.
Why ground-mounted guide signs tend to win out over overheads: cheaper, less maintenance required (yes, overheads require maintenance)
Quote from: shadyjay on May 15, 2013, 08:30:02 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 15, 2013, 08:14:30 PM
Why are we doing this again? State has too much money and time on its hands? I'd rather more lane-miles of highway (or even better return all that extra money to the tax payers if there's such a big surplus) rather than new exit tabs, but maybe that's just me.
Pretty sure that the FHWA or the MUTCD is mandating that the remaining states that have sequential-based exits (CT, RI, NY, MA, VT, NH, NJ tpke) convert over to distance-based exits at some point in the not-too-distant future.
I wish the FHWA would get on PennDOT case to finish the sequential > mileage based exit numbers. PA-28 is the only road I know of in PA that is still sequential based after the changeover in 2000.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 20, 2013, 07:53:09 AMI wish the FHWA would get on PennDOT case to finish the sequential > mileage based exit numbers. PA-28 is the only road I know of in PA that is still sequential based after the changeover in 2000.
I was under the impression that PennDOT's changeover to mile-marker-based exit numbers
back then were mandatory for Interstates, optional for non-interstates. The majority of PA's non-interstate highways (non-interstate PA Turnpike spurs aside) don't number their interchanges at all.
On http://www.pahighways.com/exits/ I see PA 29, PA 309, PA 378, and PA 581. All are close enough that they could be mile based depending on what system and how much fudging is used.
Quote from: NE2 on September 20, 2013, 08:18:36 AM
On http://www.pahighways.com/exits/ I see PA 29, PA 309, PA 378, and PA 581. All are close enough that they could be mile based depending on what system and how much fudging is used.
I believe that PA 581's numbers were indeed converted but only slightly (IIRC the road either opened right around the time PennDOT was changing their exit numbers or just prior to such); given the single-wide center-placed exit tab on the approach diagramatic BGS' to its western terminus w/I-81, it certainly gives the impression that its connection w/I-81 originally had no exit number(s).
http://goo.gl/maps/u1fMG (http://goo.gl/maps/u1fMG)
Similar likely holds true with its easterly terminus w/I-83; I-83 North in particular (it originally may not have had an exit number).
http://goo.gl/maps/Z3O9O (http://goo.gl/maps/Z3O9O)
Either way, PennDOT screwed up in that I-83 South exit ramp should be Exit 6A and not the I-83 North pull-through.
Since most if not all of PA 581's BGS' have been replaced; traces of any
OLD EXIT X signs or
covered-over exit tabs/signs weren't found when I last drove that road a couple of weeks ago.
In the case of PA 29 & 309, located much further north than where I live so I haven't had a chance to drive those, one could argue that the exit numbers are mile-marker based (within tolerances) with
respect to the highway itself rather than the route number. Similar could be said for the Cross-Westchester Expressway section of I-287 in NY; the mile markers reflect the expressway itself but not I-287, which multiplexes w/I-87 along the NYS Thruway for about 15-16 miles east of the CWE.
PA 378's numbers clearly never changed since some of the
sub-exits still use E & W suffixes rather than A & B; but, again the locations of the exits are within tolerances of the corresponding mile markers.
That could just as easily be because, at both termini, one exit is on the left and the other is on the right; when referring to both collectively, neither side of the sign works for the tab, so center would be used.
Quote from: vdeane on September 20, 2013, 01:01:43 PM
That could just as easily be because, at both termini, one exit is on the left and the other is on the right; when referring to both collectively, neither side of the sign works for the tab, so center would be used.
Look a tad closer to the BGS; the lower message lists
EXIT 1/2 MILE note the singular reference; that's one reason why I believe Exits 1A-B weren't the original exit numbers for this interchange.
Most dual-exit diagramatic BGS' have two single exit tabs mounted on each side per the below-example:
http://goo.gl/maps/cAGLz (http://goo.gl/maps/cAGLz)
Quote from: froggie on September 20, 2013, 07:28:03 AM
Why ground-mounted guide signs tend to win out over overheads: cheaper, less maintenance required (yes, overheads require maintenance)
OTOH, ground mounted signs are less visible to traffic, particularly on roads with heavy truck traffic. Ground-mount signs are also more vunerable to damage from errant vehicles than overhead signs are to damage from overheight vehicles. As for maintenance, ground-mounted signs eventually require clearing and thinning of brush and cutting of tree branchs. Believe it or not, this usually means the DOT has to clear a certian level of environmental review (varies from state to state), which often requires a sign-off from the local conservation commission - all to do what should be routine maintenance on an Interstate highway. Unless your trees are really overgrown, this isn't an issue with overhead signs.
And, while overhead sign structures ocassionally require some maintenance, it's normally fairly minimal. IMHO, these requirements are more that offset by the visiiblity improvements and overall lower maintenance requirements for overhead signs as compared to ground-mounts.
Seems to me that ConnDOT is being penny-wise and pound-foolish in regards to this aspect of the I-395 upgrade.
But how often does a ground-mount sign get taken out in an accident? Aside from some gore signs at problematic interchanges, in my experience it's quite rare, and often the sign is intact. Most I've seen in NY don't require much in the way of clearing beyond routine mowing either. Environmental review is typically minimal if you're just restoring the conditions that existed when something was built; this is how New Jersey managed to rebuild the shore so fast, for example. (and DOT's don't usually bother with brush clearing anyways; NYSDOT never has, at least, even when REPLACING signs!)
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 20, 2013, 01:43:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 20, 2013, 01:01:43 PM
That could just as easily be because, at both termini, one exit is on the left and the other is on the right; when referring to both collectively, neither side of the sign works for the tab, so center would be used.
Look a tad closer to the BGS; the lower message lists EXIT 1/2 MILE note the singular reference; that's one reason why I believe Exits 1A-B weren't the original exit numbers for this interchange.
Most dual-exit diagramatic BGS' have two single exit tabs mounted on each side per the below-example:
http://goo.gl/maps/cAGLz (http://goo.gl/maps/cAGLz)
Whether it says "exit" or "exits" doesn't have any bearing on whether it was renumbered (though why have a number here at all?): http://goo.gl/maps/g21Aq
Yes, gore signs are the most likely ground-mounted BGS panels to get whacked by an errant vehicle. But larger BGS panels on the roadside get whacked more often than you think. And they are expensive to replace.
As for environmental review, you are correct that "in-kind" sign replacement generally is exempt from Federal environmental review requirements (it's called an "automatic categorical exclusion"). The problem lies with state and local laws, which may or may not be more restrictive. For example, in Massachusetts, there are a number of "road maintenance" categories (BGS/LGS sign replacement and clearing and thinning among them) that qualify for an automatic CE under the Federal rules, but still require a review and sign-off by the state wildlife people, the state historical commission, and the local conservation commissions in the communities the work is being done in.
I could sort of understand ConnDOT's position on the matter if they were replacing existing ground-mount installations "in-kind" instead of upgrading to overhead mounting. But to replace overheads with ground-mounts is IMHO taking a big step backwards. Especially considering the need to improve sign visibility as a means of addressing the issue of older drivers (which is the principal reason using Type IV sheeting makes little sense).
From Roadman's last post, sounds to me like MassDOT has a lot more review involved than the typical state DOT does. Which would explain his preference for overheads. A lot of that extra "overhead" (pun intended) for ground-mounted sign approval just doesn't apply in the states I'm familiar with.
I wouldn't be surprised if the overhead mounts on I-395 are nearing the end of their life, so they might need to be replaced for new signs anyways. When NYSDOT does such things they often do a temporary ground-mount because the concrete the posts are anchored in takes two months to cure.
Quote from: vdeane on September 21, 2013, 07:06:45 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the overhead mounts on I-395 are nearing the end of their life, so they might need to be replaced for new signs anyways. When NYSDOT does such things they often do a temporary ground-mount because the concrete the posts are anchored in takes two months to cure.
I've seen that done in construction zones in more than a few states. Usually there's a temporary ground-mounted sign of some sort, maybe even the old sign in a new location. More often than not, the font on the temporary signage is something other than FHWA or Clearview.
Quote from: vdeane on September 20, 2013, 07:42:38 PMWhether it says "exit" or "exits" doesn't have any bearing on whether it was renumbered (though why have a number here at all?): http://goo.gl/maps/g21Aq
The point I was trying to convey is that,
due to the timing of PA 581's initial opening (either slightly before or when PennDOT started converting its exit numbers on Interstates & turnpikes), it's exit numbers changes to mile-marker-based ones (either in the design stage or out in the field) influenced the seemingly odd-ball exit number signage layout at 581's western terminus to I-81.
Addtionally, MUTCD
recommends (per Section 2E.33.08) that if exit tab(s) are used; the word
EXIT(S) should not appear anywhere else on the BGS (aside from yellow
EXIT ONLY tabs). While it is understandable that
unintended redundancies of the word
EXIT(S) with respect to the exit tabs can happen when an originally-unnumbered interchange receives exit number(s); but if the interchange is numbered from the get-go, the BGS'
should reflect such.
Based on your posted example (I-590 approaching NY 31), I'm guessing that either that interchange originally had no numbers when the main BGS was erected and/or only had one exit ramp rather than the current two. Nonetheless,
EXITS 2A-2B should be used on that particular BGS. An unnumbered interchange w/more than one ramp serving it would use the
EXITS 1/2 MILE listing on the main BGS panel.
My
guess on that I-81 diagramatac BGS along PA 581 is that the
EXIT 1/2 MILE originally had no exit tab and was intended for the single-lane exit to I-81 South. Why PennDOT centered the
EXIT 1/2 MILE wording rather than placing it underneath the
81 SOUTH Carlisle message is anyone's guess; there certainly is room for such.
Long story short; if Exits 1A-B were
originally assigned from the get-go for the I-81 exits off PA 581, then those diagramatic BGS' for I-81 should have been laid out per my posted example of MA 24 approaching I-93.
Quote from: vdeane on September 21, 2013, 07:06:45 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the overhead mounts on I-395 are nearing the end of their life, so they might need to be replaced for new signs anyways. When NYSDOT does such things they often do a temporary ground-mount because the concrete the posts are anchored in takes two months to cure.
Two months to cure?!? If this is true, then perhaps NYSDOT needs to re-examine their concrete specs. My experience has been that, for typical sign support installations, standard curing time for 4000psi concrete is 28 days or less.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2013, 10:23:49 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 20, 2013, 07:42:38 PMWhether it says "exit" or "exits" doesn't have any bearing on whether it was renumbered (though why have a number here at all?): http://goo.gl/maps/g21Aq
The point I was trying to convey is that, due to the timing of PA 581's initial opening (either slightly before or when PennDOT started converting its exit numbers on Interstates & turnpikes), it's exit numbers changes to mile-marker-based ones (either in the design stage or out in the field) influenced the seemingly odd-ball exit number signage layout at 581's western terminus to I-81.
Addtionally, MUTCD recommends (per Section 2E.33.08) that if exit tab(s) are used; the word EXIT(S) should not appear anywhere else on the BGS (aside from yellow EXIT ONLY tabs). While it is understandable that unintended redundancies of the word EXIT(S) with respect to the exit tabs can happen when an originally-unnumbered interchange receives exit number(s); but if the interchange is numbered from the get-go, the BGS' should reflect such.
Based on your posted example (I-590 approaching NY 31), I'm guessing that either that interchange originally had no numbers when the main BGS was erected and/or only had one exit ramp rather than the current two. Nonetheless, EXITS 2A-2B should be used on that particular BGS. An unnumbered interchange w/more than one ramp serving it would use the EXITS 1/2 MILE listing on the main BGS panel.
That sign pre-dates NYSDOT's adoption of the MUTCD; use of the word "exit" on signs with a tab was standard until the rounded exit tabs started appearing. Incidentally, the exit numbers are also backwards; being southbound, it should be 2B-2A, but the backwards numbering is an old quirk of region 4.
Quote from: roadman on September 23, 2013, 11:28:47 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 21, 2013, 07:06:45 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the overhead mounts on I-395 are nearing the end of their life, so they might need to be replaced for new signs anyways. When NYSDOT does such things they often do a temporary ground-mount because the concrete the posts are anchored in takes two months to cure.
Two months to cure?!? If this is true, then perhaps NYSDOT needs to re-examine their concrete specs. My experience has been that, for typical sign support installations, standard curing time for 4000psi concrete is 28 days or less.
I assume that's why there's such a long time period between when the underlying concrete is poured and when the sign post is actually mounted. Same thing happens for bridges; they'll pour the concrete for the base and then stop all work for the rest of the construction season. The temporary sign below stood for over two years before the overhead was replaced, and many have survived for longer.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fi590%2F100_2689.JPG&hash=3f5c0d59bc686dcbe6a4cb9de8b9c107544709e8)
Quote from: vdeane on September 23, 2013, 01:32:07 PMThe temporary sign below stood for over two years before the overhead was replaced, and many have survived for longer.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fi590%2F100_2689.JPG&hash=3f5c0d59bc686dcbe6a4cb9de8b9c107544709e8)
Man, that exit tab is rather tall.
Quote from: roadman on September 19, 2013, 12:48:53 PMI also noted the general change from overheads to ground-mounts with this project. Even though I-395 is two lanes each way, it seems to be a big step backwards, when you consider both visibility issues and the need for future clearing and thinning that ground BGSes will eventually require.
I think you are exaggerating the extent to which ConnDOT is abandoning overhead mounting. In contract 172-387, for example, I see removal of overhead mounting only for Exits 9, 11, and 14 (southbound direction) (new numbering), and in all cases except the signbridge at Exit 14, it is generally bridge mounting that is being removed.
I had a look at the Gallivan Lane bridge at Exit 9, which carries one of the mounts scheduled for removal. The girders have vertical steel stiffeners, which makes me think the bridge is a late 1940's/early 1950's design probably dating from initial construction of the Lodge Turnpike and needing replacement in the relatively near future. Ground mounting at this location may therefore be a stopgap until the bridge is replaced and the new sign is relocated to a new bridge mount.
If the story is similar for the other bridge mounts at Exits 9 and 11, then the only removal that is genuinely hard to explain is the signbridge (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Preston,+CT&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Preston,+New+London,+Connecticut&ll=41.56383,-72.098315&spn=0.00875,0.01929&t=k&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=41.563522,-72.098601&panoid=W4B3Psf9NChIPgVhezzgJg&cbp=12,213.98,,0,-3.14) on the approach to Exit 14 southbound. The rationale may be that since I-395 is in a cutting at this location, the marginal benefit of overhead mounting is less since a ground-mounted sign midway up the cut slope to the right will already be almost as high as an overhead-mounted sign.
In this contract, reuse of existing overhead mounts is quite extensive, and several overhead signbridges are being replaced as well. High-resolution Google StreetView imagery also shows brush clearance done to quite a high standard.
Thanks for the clarification J N Winkler. Only skimmed through the plans fairly quickly, so I thought the overhead structure removal was more extensive than what you described. And removing overhead sign supports from bridges is a good thing. Massachusetts has had several experiences where support "cages" added to existing bridges have prematurely damaged both the top coping and the fascia beams.
Mounting signs on overpasses has been a common practice in CT for years because it allows you to have overhead signs for less money than putting up a gantry. The problem is, it's been found that this can accelerate the aging of the overpass structures because water will get into the bridge via the holes drilled for mounting, spall the concrete, rust the rebar, etc. As such I do believe ConnDOT is moving away from this practice and relocating signs off of overpasses when they are replaced.
There is one example of where CT has move from an overhead gantry to a bridge mounting in recent history, from a 2009 sign spot replacement program , exit 42 Troutbrook exit on i 84 wb in West hartford.
the sign
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=exit+43+i+84+west+hartford&hl=en&ll=41.750138,-72.721521&spn=0.000832,0.001742&sll=41.986475,-72.306204&sspn=0.211299,0.445976&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.750137,-72.721402&panoid=tom3PUoRbJ07HULlS1BvLQ&cbp=12,251.62,,0,-25.84
close up of the new cage
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=exit+43+i+84+west+hartford&hl=en&ll=41.750137,-72.721403&spn=0.000832,0.001742&sll=41.986475,-72.306204&sspn=0.211299,0.445976&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.750138,-72.72152&panoid=E9q8r8tZwDMrIhZWJZmcqg&cbp=12,190.23,,0,-25.36
Quote from: vdeane on September 21, 2013, 07:06:45 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the overhead mounts on I-395 are nearing the end of their life, so they might need to be replaced for new signs anyways. When NYSDOT does such things they often do a temporary ground-mount because the concrete the posts are anchored in takes two months to cure.
I just assumed those anchors were pre-cast? I've seen new overheads put up here in a matter of days. You drive by one day and there's a hole in the ground where they drilled or excavated. A few days later there's a new white concrete thing in there with the screws and bolts sticking out. The next day the gantry goes up. The day after that the sign is mounted. The I-95 S/B exit 2 overhead gantry and new sign w/right aligned crown went up practically overnight.
It takes NYSDOT a LONG time to move from the screws and bolts sticking out to putting up the gantry.
Quote from: vdeane on September 23, 2013, 01:32:07 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2013, 10:23:49 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 20, 2013, 07:42:38 PMWhether it says "exit" or "exits" doesn't have any bearing on whether it was renumbered (though why have a number here at all?): http://goo.gl/maps/g21Aq
The point I was trying to convey is that, due to the timing of PA 581's initial opening (either slightly before or when PennDOT started converting its exit numbers on Interstates & turnpikes), it's exit numbers changes to mile-marker-based ones (either in the design stage or out in the field) influenced the seemingly odd-ball exit number signage layout at 581's western terminus to I-81.
Addtionally, MUTCD recommends (per Section 2E.33.08) that if exit tab(s) are used; the word EXIT(S) should not appear anywhere else on the BGS (aside from yellow EXIT ONLY tabs). While it is understandable that unintended redundancies of the word EXIT(S) with respect to the exit tabs can happen when an originally-unnumbered interchange receives exit number(s); but if the interchange is numbered from the get-go, the BGS' should reflect such.
Based on your posted example (I-590 approaching NY 31), I'm guessing that either that interchange originally had no numbers when the main BGS was erected and/or only had one exit ramp rather than the current two. Nonetheless, EXITS 2A-2B should be used on that particular BGS. An unnumbered interchange w/more than one ramp serving it would use the EXITS 1/2 MILE listing on the main BGS panel.
That sign pre-dates NYSDOT's adoption of the MUTCD; use of the word "exit" on signs with a tab was standard until the rounded exit tabs started appearing. Incidentally, the exit numbers are also backwards; being southbound, it should be 2B-2A, but the backwards numbering is an old quirk of region 4.
If I'm reading your reply here correctly, I don't think it was ever NYSDOT standard to put "EXIT 1 MILE" on exit panels that also had an exit number associated with it. It has popped up from time to time, but when I first saw it on NY 17 with the opening of Exits 23 and 24 (late 80s?), I found the use of "EXIT 1 MILE" as an anomaly. I can't think of any exit panels that had an exit number tab having "EXIT" elsewhere on the installation anywhere along the entire length of I-81, I-90 and many of the 3dis I traveled from around 1974 to the aforementioned panels on NY 17.
The interchanges on I-590/NY 590 were unnumbered for years and then the exit number panels were added later.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 29, 2013, 08:23:15 PMThe interchanges on I-590/NY 590 were unnumbered for years and then the exit number panels were added later.
That's what I thought and stated such in the opening of the last paragraph you quoted; re-posted below with
Bold emphasis added:
Based on your posted example (I-590 approaching NY 31), I'm guessing that either that interchange originally had no numbers when the main BGS was erected
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 30, 2013, 08:19:26 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 29, 2013, 08:23:15 PMThe interchanges on I-590/NY 590 were unnumbered for years and then the exit number panels were added later.
That's what I thought and stated such in the opening of the last paragraph you quoted; re-posted below with Bold emphasis added:
Based on your posted example (I-590 approaching NY 31), I'm guessing that either that interchange originally had no numbers when the main BGS was erected
I was referring to Valerie's message at the time, but thank you for pointing out your contribution, in bold no less. I shall pay closer attention.
Hutchinson River Parkway / Merritt Parkway
King Street NY 120A/CT 120A (Hidden):
This Will Be A Oddball
Will It Be Exit 1 or 0 IN CT?
I Assume with the NY Renumbering it would be Exit 18?
Quote from: mapman1071 on September 30, 2013, 02:49:07 PM
Hutchinson River Parkway / Merritt Parkway
King Street NY 120A/CT 120A (Hidden):
This Will Be A Oddball
Will It Be Exit 1 or 0 IN CT?
I Assume with the NY Renumbering it would be Exit 18?
Why 18? The Hutch goes past MM 20.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 29, 2013, 08:23:15 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 23, 2013, 01:32:07 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2013, 10:23:49 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 20, 2013, 07:42:38 PMWhether it says "exit" or "exits" doesn't have any bearing on whether it was renumbered (though why have a number here at all?): http://goo.gl/maps/g21Aq
The point I was trying to convey is that, due to the timing of PA 581's initial opening (either slightly before or when PennDOT started converting its exit numbers on Interstates & turnpikes), it's exit numbers changes to mile-marker-based ones (either in the design stage or out in the field) influenced the seemingly odd-ball exit number signage layout at 581's western terminus to I-81.
Addtionally, MUTCD recommends (per Section 2E.33.08) that if exit tab(s) are used; the word EXIT(S) should not appear anywhere else on the BGS (aside from yellow EXIT ONLY tabs). While it is understandable that unintended redundancies of the word EXIT(S) with respect to the exit tabs can happen when an originally-unnumbered interchange receives exit number(s); but if the interchange is numbered from the get-go, the BGS' should reflect such.
Based on your posted example (I-590 approaching NY 31), I'm guessing that either that interchange originally had no numbers when the main BGS was erected and/or only had one exit ramp rather than the current two. Nonetheless, EXITS 2A-2B should be used on that particular BGS. An unnumbered interchange w/more than one ramp serving it would use the EXITS 1/2 MILE listing on the main BGS panel.
That sign pre-dates NYSDOT's adoption of the MUTCD; use of the word "exit" on signs with a tab was standard until the rounded exit tabs started appearing. Incidentally, the exit numbers are also backwards; being southbound, it should be 2B-2A, but the backwards numbering is an old quirk of region 4.
If I'm reading your reply here correctly, I don't think it was ever NYSDOT standard to put "EXIT 1 MILE" on exit panels that also had an exit number associated with it. It has popped up from time to time, but when I first saw it on NY 17 with the opening of Exits 23 and 24 (late 80s?), I found the use of "EXIT 1 MILE" as an anomaly. I can't think of any exit panels that had an exit number tab having "EXIT" elsewhere on the installation anywhere along the entire length of I-81, I-90 and many of the 3dis I traveled from around 1974 to the aforementioned panels on NY 17.
The interchanges on I-590/NY 590 were unnumbered for years and then the exit number panels were added later.
Well, seeing as the miles of freeway I've been on in my lifetime favor I-590/NY 590 by a VERY wide margin (there were several months where I didn't have a single car trip that didn't involve I-590), anything on that road is considered "normal" by my brain. I think NYSDOT had all the exits numbered by the time I was born, but that certainly explains why nobody in Rochester uses exit numbers.
Quote from: vdeane on September 30, 2013, 07:08:19 PM
Well, seeing as the miles of freeway I've been on in my lifetime favor I-590/NY 590 by a VERY wide margin (there were several months where I didn't have a single car trip that didn't involve I-590), anything on that road is considered "normal" by my brain. I think NYSDOT had all the exits numbered by the time I was born, but that certainly explains why nobody in Rochester uses exit numbers.
Actually, you bring up a good point here, because I don't think it was until the late 1980s or very early 1990s that I-490 had exit numbers posted consistently on the panels east of the Can of Worms. Now that I think about it, the Rochester area was very spotty with exit numbers until then, so now I understand your point of view.
Going back to Connecticut, I am very excited to see Connecticut switching to mileage based numbers. That will make the majority of states bordering the Empire State as mileage based and perhaps help influence NYSDOT to finally make the switch.
Why can't they just reset the exits for CT Route 15 first? NY Exit 30 and CT Exit 27 for the same interchange on the state line is utterly ridiculous.
As for the states which border NY, only 2 of the 5 are doing mileage-based exiting, in whole or part. 6 states if you count the water border with Rhode Island. (DUCKS...)
Actually 4 of the 5. PA and NJ already are mile-based, and CT and MA have plans to switch in the not-too-distant future. Only Vermont has no current plans to change.
QuoteActually 4 of the 5. PA and NJ already are mile-based, and CT and MA have plans to switch in the not-too-distant future. Only Vermont has no current plans to change.
Per E-mails I've traded with VTrans, they're trying to hold out as long as possible.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 30, 2013, 09:02:21 PM
Why can't they just reset the exits for CT Route 15 first? NY Exit 30 and CT Exit 27 for the same interchange on the state line is utterly ridiculous.
As for the states which border NY, only 2 of the 5 are doing mileage-based exiting, in whole or part. 6 states if you count the water border with Rhode Island. (DUCKS...)
Actually, three states and two provinces bordering New York are using distance based exiting in some manner: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Ontario and Québec. Massachusetts and Vermont are still on the sequential numbering scheme. Technically, New York is partially on distance based with US 15, I-890 and I-781 upstate and some of I-95 downstate.
I'm trying to think for your reference to NY...perhaps the Bronx at the I-87 interchange? I've seen signs which state both Exits 1 and 3 (especially on the down ramps heading to I-87 N and S). The last Exit on I-95 right now is Exit 22 NB in Rye, near the Port Chester village boundary. The last mile marker is for NE15 (NY Thruway - New England Section). It's literally about one foot behind the CT line on the Bryam River Bridge.
what was the advantage of sequential exits, that everyone adopted it back in the day?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 01, 2013, 01:13:38 PMwhat was the advantage of sequential exits, that everyone adopted it back in the day?
This is just speculation on my part, but here is what I think:
* Many state DOTs began numbering exits long before they reached substantial completion even of their rural Interstate mileage. It was easier to count access points than to guess mileage along route segments for which a corridor had been approved but a line had not actually been surveyed on the ground.
* Many state DOTs conceived of the Interstates (for which exit numbering was first introduced) primarily as a rural highway program, and failed to anticipate the demand for new access points that would result from suburbanization promoted by the Interstates. Added access points interfere with sequential numbering schemes because they have to be dealt with through letter suffixes or through complete revamp of the sequential numbering scheme.
* The turnpikes, which were the first rural freeways and the forerunners of the Interstates, uniformly had sequential exit numbering. Sequential numbering was therefore the incumbent standard and there would have seemed to most state DOTs to be less risk of future changes by sticking to sequential numbers versus adopting mileage-based exit numbers from the outset.
A number of early adopters of exit numbering (such as Colorado DOT and Georgia DOT) were "punished" for it by having to change to mileage-based exit numbers at a later point; in Colorado DOT's case this resulted in the operation of a dual numbering scheme ("MILE XX" numbers that were mileage-based, co-posted with "EXIT XX" numbers that were sequential). Other state DOTs that adopted exit numbering in the late 1960's or early 1970's, at which point most of their Interstate mileage had approved alignments, had the option of choosing either sequential or mileage-based exit numbering. The former was very much a minority choice because milepointing had come into fashion in the mid-1960's, and mileage-based exit numbering offers the synergy of having exit numbers coordinated with mileposts, which is not available with sequential numbering.
Internationally, it seems to be generally (not always) true that countries which have prominent milepointing (or kilometerpointing) tend to use distance-based junction numbering, while ones that de-emphasize distance indications tend to use sequential junction numbering. In Spain, for example, kilometerposts are prominent (one kilometerpost every kilometer showing route designation and kilometer, with the exception of fifth kilometerposts which are more elaborate and show route designation, kilometer, and crest of the maintaining authority), and junction numbering is usually kilometer-based. In contradistinction, before the very recent introduction of special driver location signs (similar in function to American enhanced location reference signs), in Britain kilometerposting was generally done through little numbers attached to flexible delineator posts, sort of like station markers on California state highways but even more inconspicuous. Junction numbering has been sequential from the start.
The "dual numbering" system ("MILE XX, EXIT YY") was actually promoted by BPR/FHWA and was used by a number of states in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Both Massachusetts and Rhode Island had dual numbering on some of their Interstates for awhile.
interesting that you should note California's small postmile paddles. not only are they tiny and inconspicuous, they also have their origin at a county line - rendering them pretty damn useless in many situations.
I remember attempting to find an old US-60/70 alignment on I-10, and my map showed that road as Chuckwalla Valley Road, exit 201. I missed the exit because
a) the postmiles were in the 70s or so.
b) the exit name was Corn Springs Road, which - while technically present in that area - was not the actual road being branched, and also is a road which is significantly less important.
c) California wasn't using exit numbers. at all.
since the next exit is 17 miles down the road, that's how I ended up detouring 34 miles out of my way. I'm not sure how Caltrans intended for me to find the correct exit given all three of these things stacked against me.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 01, 2013, 04:24:21 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 01, 2013, 01:13:38 PMwhat was the advantage of sequential exits, that everyone adopted it back in the day?
This is just speculation on my part, but here is what I think:
* Many state DOTs began numbering exits long before they reached substantial completion even of their rural Interstate mileage. It was easier to count access points than to guess mileage along route segments for which a corridor had been approved but a line had not actually been surveyed on the ground.
* Many state DOTs conceived of the Interstates (for which exit numbering was first introduced) primarily as a rural highway program, and failed to anticipate the demand for new access points that would result from suburbanization promoted by the Interstates. Added access points interfere with sequential numbering schemes because they have to be dealt with through letter suffixes or through complete revamp of the sequential numbering scheme.
* The turnpikes, which were the first rural freeways and the forerunners of the Interstates, uniformly had sequential exit numbering. Sequential numbering was therefore the incumbent standard and there would have seemed to most state DOTs to be less risk of future changes by sticking to sequential numbers versus adopting mileage-based exit numbers from the outset.
A number of early adopters of exit numbering (such as Colorado DOT and Georgia DOT) were "punished" for it by having to change to mileage-based exit numbers at a later point; in Colorado DOT's case this resulted in the operation of a dual numbering scheme ("MILE XX" numbers that were mileage-based, co-posted with "EXIT XX" numbers that were sequential). Other state DOTs that adopted exit numbering in the late 1960's or early 1970's, at which point most of their Interstate mileage had approved alignments, had the option of choosing either sequential or mileage-based exit numbering. The former was very much a minority choice because milepointing had come into fashion in the mid-1960's, and mileage-based exit numbering offers the synergy of having exit numbers coordinated with mileposts, which is not available with sequential numbering.
Internationally, it seems to be generally (not always) true that countries which have prominent milepointing (or kilometerpointing) tend to use distance-based junction numbering, while ones that de-emphasize distance indications tend to use sequential junction numbering. In Spain, for example, kilometerposts are prominent (one kilometerpost every kilometer showing route designation and kilometer, with the exception of fifth kilometerposts which are more elaborate and show route designation, kilometer, and crest of the maintaining authority), and junction numbering is usually kilometer-based. In contradistinction, before the very recent introduction of special driver location signs (similar in function to American enhanced location reference signs), in Britain kilometerposting was generally done through little numbers attached to flexible delineator posts, sort of like station markers on California state highways but even more inconspicuous. Junction numbering has been sequential from the start.
Interestinly, Vermont's interstates have very prominent mileposts. The only road there with mile-based numbers is non-interstate VT 289.
Re: why sequential?
Honestly I don't think anyone back in the day really put any thought into it. Counting things sequentially is by far the most obvious way to number them, so that is simply what was done without question until someone actually did the thinking and thought of a better way.
I still want to see how they'd renumber I-95, if ever. Delavan Avenue in Greenwich would finally be Exit 1 like it should be. Would the last exit in North Stonington be 111 or something?
I-84 renumbering would be interesting. The current Exits 3 and 4 in Danbury are very close.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 02, 2013, 10:36:45 PMRe: why sequential?
Honestly I don't think anyone back in the day really put any thought into it. Counting things sequentially is by far the most obvious way to number them, so that is simply what was done without question until someone actually did the thinking and thought of a better way.
Counting sequentially is the obvious choice only if you are dealing with just one isolated corridor instead of a network. This was probably the case for the first few public-authority turnpikes, but by the early 1960's serious consideration was being given to other choices, not just mileage-based exit numbering but also grid-based numbering (so that each exit has an unique number) or variants of either mileage-based or sequential exit numbering in which the exit number incorporates part of the route number.
The Garden State Parkway was the first, at least in the U.S., to use distance-based numbering. A 1956 map shows no exit numbers (and the parkway complete except north of NJ 17), but in 1960 it was all numbered.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 03, 2013, 11:24:53 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 02, 2013, 10:36:45 PMRe: why sequential?
Honestly I don't think anyone back in the day really put any thought into it. Counting things sequentially is by far the most obvious way to number them, so that is simply what was done without question until someone actually did the thinking and thought of a better way.
Counting sequentially is the obvious choice only if you are dealing with just one isolated corridor instead of a network. This was probably the case for the first few public-authority turnpikes, but by the early 1960's serious consideration was being given to other choices, not just mileage-based exit numbering but also grid-based numbering (so that each exit has an unique number) or variants of either mileage-based or sequential exit numbering in which the exit number incorporates part of the route number.
However, did not the Garden State Parkway include distance-based exit numbering from the start in the 1950s? I know that Michigan introduced distance-based numbering on I-94 early on (~1960) with no sequential numbering previously.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 03, 2013, 10:56:21 AMI-84 renumbering would be interesting. The current Exits 3 and 4 in Danbury are very close.
See Reply #73 a few pages back (below-link):
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9411.50 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9411.50)
I'll restate the upshoot what I mentioned then; I don't see I-84's Exits 1 through 8 changing.
All the benefits of the mileage based system are rendered moot in our little state. Most of our exits are under two miles apart and we're not going to be adding new exits to our highways unless Route 11 gets built. If they want to fix any out of sequence exit numbers that might be worth doing, but there aren't too many instances of that. The only benefit to converting is uniformity, which I know most road geeks love, but in these financially difficult times, doing something that will cost money "just because" isn't fiscally prudent. I'd prefer every last available penny go towards increasing capacity or mass transit options, not renumbering exits or new signage. People stuck in traffic on I-95 on a daily basis don't give a damn whether the exits go in order or follow mileposting.
Quote from: HurrMark on September 30, 2013, 03:03:32 PM
Quote from: mapman1071 on September 30, 2013, 02:49:07 PM
Hutchinson River Parkway / Merritt Parkway
King Street NY 120A/CT 120A (Hidden):
This Will Be A Oddball
Will It Be Exit 1 or 0 IN CT?
I Assume with the NY Renumbering it would be Exit 18?
Why 18? The Hutch goes past MM 20.
Then would MM 0 Be at the Bronx/Queens County Line On the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge (Hutchinson River Expressway)?
Quote from: mapman1071 on October 03, 2013, 11:16:19 PM
Quote from: HurrMark on September 30, 2013, 03:03:32 PM
Quote from: mapman1071 on September 30, 2013, 02:49:07 PM
Hutchinson River Parkway / Merritt Parkway
King Street NY 120A/CT 120A (Hidden):
This Will Be A Oddball
Will It Be Exit 1 or 0 IN CT?
I Assume with the NY Renumbering it would be Exit 18?
Why 18? The Hutch goes past MM 20.
Then would MM 0 Be at the Bronx/Queens County Line On the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge (Hutchinson River Expressway)?
I am not sure where MM 0 is exactly, because I don't recall signs south of Westchester, but I am pretty sure that the last mile marker on the highway is 20. Granted, Wikipedia states it is only 18.78 miles long, so I would guess you are right and that the mileage would theoretically continue on 678 (when it is no longer a parkway) down to the Bronx/Queens Line.
The last mile marker on the Hutchinson River Parkway is definitely 20. My travel notes all show hitting the Connecticut border 20-some seconds after that mile marker. CT mile marker 0 sits north of the King Street overpass by a couple of feet. Pictures are from April 7, 2012 and then July 2012:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPFs25Rz.jpg&hash=fb665bd539e68de95911ec88ff7570cd964e8414)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fr6rvtCs.jpg&hash=3a68429184876be8b4f82224568e818086bd2784)
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 03, 2013, 09:06:14 PM
All the benefits of the mileage based system are rendered moot in our little state.
Right. Distance-based exits would at least be a navigational aid in figuring how far one is from one's destination exit. That's how we use them here in the Midwest, even with areas where exits are only a mile or two apart.
Quote from: Brandon on October 04, 2013, 11:14:29 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 03, 2013, 09:06:14 PM
All the benefits of the mileage based system are rendered moot in our little state.
Right. Distance-based exits would at least be a navigational aid in figuring how far one is from one's destination exit. That's how we use them here in the Midwest, even with areas where exits are only a mile or two apart.
But when it comes to the Northeast...a lot of exits are close together and all those A-B-C-D's get confusing after awhile. Knowing Connecticut, exits are not that spaced apart as say like the New York State Thruway (which needs to be milage based instead of NJ Turnpike exit numbered based...and renumbered no less).
QuoteBut when it comes to the Northeast...a lot of exits are close together and all those A-B-C-D's get confusing after awhile.
Even milepost-based exit numbers can be tweaked, like what's done on the GSP in Union County.
Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2013, 01:44:29 PM
Even milepost-based exit numbers can be tweaked, like what's done on the GSP in Union County.
The GSP is a horrible example of tweaking exit numbers, as it violates the MUTCD
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31
QuoteAt a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the same direction.
Interestingly, this doesn't prohibit having exits 1 and 1A if they are two separate interchanges, rather than two ramps at the same interchange.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2013, 01:44:29 PM
Even milepost-based exit numbers can be tweaked, like what's done on the GSP in Union County.
The GSP is a horrible example of tweaking exit numbers, as it violates the MUTCD
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31
QuoteAt a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the same direction.
Interestingly, this doesn't prohibit having exits 1 and 1A if they are two separate interchanges, rather than two ramps at the same interchange.
Exit 180 and Exit 180A on I-75 in Kentucky say hello.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 04, 2013, 02:27:13 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2013, 01:44:29 PM
Even milepost-based exit numbers can be tweaked, like what's done on the GSP in Union County.
The GSP is a horrible example of tweaking exit numbers, as it violates the MUTCD
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31
QuoteAt a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the same direction.
Interestingly, this doesn't prohibit having exits 1 and 1A if they are two separate interchanges, rather than two ramps at the same interchange.
Exit 180 and Exit 180A on I-75 in Kentucky say hello.
The GSP exits for both directions of the AC Expressway are 38 for GSP Eastbound and 38A for GSP Westbound.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 04, 2013, 03:20:56 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 04, 2013, 02:27:13 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2013, 01:44:29 PM
Even milepost-based exit numbers can be tweaked, like what's done on the GSP in Union County.
The GSP is a horrible example of tweaking exit numbers, as it violates the MUTCD
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31
QuoteAt a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the same direction.
Interestingly, this doesn't prohibit having exits 1 and 1A if they are two separate interchanges, rather than two ramps at the same interchange.
Exit 180 and Exit 180A on I-75 in Kentucky say hello.
The GSP exits for both directions of the AC Expressway are 38 for GSP Eastbound and 38A for GSP Westbound.
I think everyone's missing the restriction here.
As NE2 posted,
QuoteAt a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the same direction.
Emphasis mine.
It's on the road in the same direction. Hence, a route can have Exit 1A and Exit 1B in one direction and Exit 1 in the other. It cannot have Exit 1 followed by Exit 1A
in the same direction.
I think Brandon's missing the fact that these examples are in the same direction. The GSP/ACE example violates the MUTCD, but the Florence Y'all example does not.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 04:02:49 PM
I think Brandon's missing the fact that these examples are in the same direction. The GSP/ACE example violates the MUTCD, but the Florence Y'all example does not.
Yes, but the GSP was previously mentioned as an example of a road where the numbering is screwed up.
Are there any other roads, other than the GSP, out there that have distance-based exit numbers and do not follow the MUTCD as mentioned above?
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 04:02:49 PM
I think Brandon's missing the fact that these examples are in the same direction. The GSP/ACE example violates the MUTCD, but the Florence Y'all example does not.
Southbound I-71/I-75, Exit 180A is for Mall Road and then there's Exit 180 for US 42/127. How is that not a violation? (There is no Mall Road exit northbound).
Well holy shit. I just looked at the example from HB, and I do believe it may make a photo op during the tour for the Cincy meet next Saturday.
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.994952,-84.644868&spn=0.002406,0.005284&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.995205,-84.645992&panoid=Hz8xT8HXqUuuUCdkTBY5yg&cbp=12,176.6,,2,-7.62
KYTC really screwed this.
I had just gone to get the Google Map link.
http://goo.gl/maps/udbv8
The Mall Road exit was built after the US 42 and KY 18 exits, and I don't think there has been a sign replacement project there since then. Perhaps it will be corrected when they replace signage in that area.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 04, 2013, 04:12:08 PM
Southbound I-71/I-75, Exit 180A is for Mall Road and then there's Exit 180 for US 42/127. How is that not a violation? (There is no Mall Road exit northbound).
QuoteAt a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the same direction.
Y'all Road is a separate interchange.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 05:03:49 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 04, 2013, 04:12:08 PM
Southbound I-71/I-75, Exit 180A is for Mall Road and then there's Exit 180 for US 42/127. How is that not a violation? (There is no Mall Road exit northbound).
QuoteAt a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the same direction.
Y'all Road is a separate interchange.
Technically that's correct, but it still doesn't get past the the second sentence.
The second sentence is there to give an example of what the first sentence means. The whole thing is written poorly, but as is it allows Kentucky's case.
How will they handle I-95 in Providence RI and I-84 in Hartford CT?
Will they have exits like 63F?
Quote from: 1 on October 04, 2013, 08:52:12 PM
How will they handle I-95 in Providence RI and I-84 in Hartford CT?
Will they have exits like 63F?
Handle it like they poorly handled I-95 in NY City...so many letters and none consistent on either side. And then try to renumber it again...and then just say "F*ck it let's go back to confusing New Yorkers with the original exit numbers anyway".
QuoteThe GSP is a horrible example of tweaking exit numbers, as it violates the MUTCD
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31
Never said it followed the MUTCD. Was pointing out an example of an existing milepost-based exit number scheme where some exit numbers are tweaked to avoid the letter suffix confusion.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 08:00:27 PM
The second sentence is there to give an example of what the first sentence means. The whole thing is written poorly, but as is it allows Kentucky's case.
I would argue that what I-68 does in Cumberland, Md. is an example of what the MUTCD wants.
The GSP numbers occasionally get fixed. Northbound at I-78 used to be Exit 142 (I-78 East) and 142A (Union Ave. local exit). Those exits have been renumbered 142A (I-78 East), 142B (new I-78 west exit), and 142C (Union Ave. local exit). The exit number "kludge" that starts at Exit 135 (actually at MM136) is fixed at NJ-3! Looks like its just a mile off at each exit though. Also the GSP has separate mile posting for the northbound and southbound lanes. It is not "centerlined" mileposted like the SLD.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 05, 2013, 03:00:19 PM
The GSP numbers occasionally get fixed. Northbound at I-78 used to be Exit 142 (I-78 East) and 142A (Union Ave. local exit). Those exits have been renumbered 142A (I-78 East), 142B (new I-78 west exit), and 142C (Union Ave. local exit). The exit number "kludge" that starts at Exit 135 (actually at MM136) is fixed at NJ-3! Looks like its just a mile off at each exit though. Also the GSP has separate mile posting for the northbound and southbound lanes. It is not "centerlined" mileposted like the SLD.
Although off-topic, I'll point out that the entire GSP is getting fixed to match MUTCD on the A-B issue. The GSP won't convert to "centerline" mileposting because bridges and other landmarks are inventoried by milepost. But yes, their exit numbers are off by as much as a mile and a half - like Exit 139 being after Mile 141.
Quote from: Steve on October 05, 2013, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 05, 2013, 03:00:19 PM
The GSP numbers occasionally get fixed. Northbound at I-78 used to be Exit 142 (I-78 East) and 142A (Union Ave. local exit). Those exits have been renumbered 142A (I-78 East), 142B (new I-78 west exit), and 142C (Union Ave. local exit). The exit number "kludge" that starts at Exit 135 (actually at MM136) is fixed at NJ-3! Looks like its just a mile off at each exit though. Also the GSP has separate mile posting for the northbound and southbound lanes. It is not "centerlined" mileposted like the SLD.
Although off-topic, I'll point out that the entire GSP is getting fixed to match MUTCD on the A-B issue. The GSP won't convert to "centerline" mileposting because bridges and other landmarks are inventoried by milepost. But yes, their exit numbers are off by as much as a mile and a half - like Exit 139 being after Mile 141.
Which is going to mean sign replacements...and I'm going to miss out on getting those old odd GSP sign pictures...
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on October 06, 2013, 02:38:56 PM
Which is going to mean sign replacements...and I'm going to miss out on getting those old odd GSP sign pictures...
Plenty of old stuff to go around still. NJDOT era signing is still up on the "free" section in Union/Middlesex counties, but its days are limited as a signing contract has been let to replace them.
Getting this back to Connecticut again...
Were/are there any plans to do mileage-based exiting for I-291, I-384 or I-691?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 06, 2013, 05:08:40 PM
Getting this back to Connecticut again...
Were/are there any plans to do mileage-based exiting for I-291, I-384 or I-691?
Seems doubtful that CONNDOT would renumber those roadways because of them being pretty short.
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on October 06, 2013, 06:15:26 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 06, 2013, 05:08:40 PM
Getting this back to Connecticut again...
Were/are there any plans to do mileage-based exiting for I-291, I-384 or I-691?
Seems doubtful that CONNDOT would renumber those roadways because of them being pretty short.
Given that this upcoming exit number change is a federal mandate
and the above-3 roads are part of the Interstate system; I could easily see these roads get renumbered as required/appropriate. When PennDOT changed their exit numbers, short-distance Interstates that had exit numbers (I-176 & I-283 as examples) were included in the conversion.
Short-distance
state highways OTOH, ConnDOT could either easily overlook or change those last.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 07, 2013, 08:10:17 AMShort-distance state highways OTOH, ConnDOT could either easily overlook or change those last.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the state routes have their exits renumbered. CT 25 will no doubt continue to have its exits based on CT 8's north of the 8/25 split. Wonder if CT 11 will be renumbered based on "MP 0" at the I-95/I-395 interchange? Will CT 184 get an "EXIT 1"? What about CT 349? Will CT 20 be the oddball, having its exits numbered based on mileage from its western origin out by Hartland, or will it be numbered with a preference given to the airport route (I-91 to airport)? Many questions to be answered. Time will tell.
As far as what's going to get renumbered next, I can see either CT 2, 9, or 11, based on the fact that those routes have the largest concentration of the old button copy signage (Phase III). All 3 routes could have their signs replaced very similar to I-395's project presently, though I don't see CT 11 being broken into two projects, but rather lumped in with a CT 2 project.
I remember when the present button copy signs were installed along Route 9 between Old Saybrook and I-91. It was in the late 1980s, as the extension of CT 9 past I-91 wasn't open yet (that opened in '89 and was extended up through New Britain in 1990 and was finished to I-84 in '92). It was big doings in Middletown - none of those overheads existed before the new signs were installed. Well, there were two "thin" gantries SB for Exit 13 but that was it.
I think CT Route 9 being renumbered would make sense. Presently, I think there's one exit number missing southbound in Middletown for a side street, nearly under the Arrigoni Bridge.
If not CT Route 9, what about CT Route 8 through the Naugatuck River Valley?
This project also means the lone non-reflective button copy sign on I-395 SB by US-6 will be replaced.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 07, 2013, 08:10:17 AMGiven that this upcoming exit number change is a federal mandate and the above-3 roads are part of the Interstate system; I could easily see these roads get renumbered as required/appropriate. When PennDOT changed their exit numbers, short-distance Interstates that had exit numbers (I-176 & I-283 as examples) were included in the conversion.
Short-distance state highways OTOH, ConnDOT could either easily overlook or change those last.
Interstate design and safety standards are also a federal mandate and there are practically an infinite number of exceptions to those that will live on forever, so take "federal mandate" for whatever that's worth which these days is apparently not a whole lot.
I do think doing this on I-395 isn't a bad idea, other than the fact that it's a complete waste of money at a time when the government is broke. The exit numbers would be drastically different from what they are now so there's little chance of confusing the new exit numbers with the old.
The problem with the new interchange numbering system is it came too late. This would have been a great idea as recently as 20 years ago, but now it attempts to solve problems that are no longer problems while unnecessarily creating new ones. Now that everyone has a GPS in their car or on their phone, it's not necessary to do the math between your current location and the next exit number to determine how far you have to go. The problem just went away because of technology. It's kind of like when they removed emergency call boxes because technology had advanced enough so that everyone had a cell phone to call for help, so maintaining call boxes to solve a problem that became obsolete was no longer necessary.
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 09, 2013, 07:18:44 PM
everyone has a GPS in their car or on their phone
I don't. Well, technically the phone, but it would hardly be useful (not a smartphone) and would be very expensive.
QuoteNow that everyone has a GPS in their car or on their phone,
Not everyone. Plus it can be argued that, especially for solo drivers, looking up the GPS (regardless of the gadget) distracts from driving. Drivers should be looking at signs anyway while they're driving, so it's safer to go off the signs than off a GPS.
Quote from: froggie on October 10, 2013, 12:05:13 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 09, 2013, 07:18:44 PM
Now that everyone has a GPS in their car or on their phone,
Not everyone. Plus it can be argued that, especially for solo drivers, looking up the GPS (regardless of the gadget) distracts from driving. Drivers should be looking at signs anyway while they're driving, so it's safer to go off the signs than off a GPS.
Amen to that! For the record, I don't have nor use a GPS either.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2F0c%2Fe8%2F2f%2F0ce82fcd352f759e521be6e5d8a16fad.jpg&hash=89ac39f99e6214020d84811f412bdd258309f0d2)
My thoughts regarding GPS usage for driving navigation are summed up and well documented in the below-thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8593.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8593.0)
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 09, 2013, 07:18:44 PMInterstate design and safety standards are also a federal mandate and there are practically an infinite number of exceptions to those that will live on forever, so take "federal mandate" for whatever that's worth which these days is apparently not a whole lot.
It's a lot cheaper and easier to change/update signs than it is to reconfigure roadway and ramp geometry.
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 09, 2013, 07:18:44 PMThe problem with the new interchange numbering system is it came too late. This would have been a great idea as recently as 20 years ago
I will give you that one.
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 09, 2013, 07:18:44 PMit attempts to solve problems that are no longer problems while unnecessarily creating new ones.
Over the last decade, several states (FL, ME & PA being three of them) have already made the switch and the world didn't end.
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 09, 2013, 07:18:44 PM
It's kind of like when they removed emergency call boxes because technology had advanced enough so that everyone had a cell phone to call for help, so maintaining call boxes to solve a problem that became obsolete was no longer necessary.
Not all call boxes have been removed. Additionally, there are still some areas that can't pick up cell phone signals and not everyone owns a cell phone.
SEND HELP sign anyone? :sombrero:
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 10, 2013, 09:11:07 AM
Amen to that! For the record, I don't have nor use a GPS either.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2F0c%2Fe8%2F2f%2F0ce82fcd352f759e521be6e5d8a16fad.jpg&hash=89ac39f99e6214020d84811f412bdd258309f0d2)
I really like that! Do you remember where the sign was posted.
Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Quote from: roadman on October 10, 2013, 02:12:07 PMI really like that! Do you remember where the sign was posted.
I don't. I just copied it off Google Images. I first saw the pic. in Facebook a couple weeks ago.
Original source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmmoop/8789867211/
Australia's Gold Coast.
Before NE2 posted, I would have guessed Michigan since MDOT is now using temporary traffic control signs with similar legends.