Bill would match N.Y. highway exits with mile numbers

Started by mapman1071, June 14, 2012, 12:27:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mapman1071

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20120613/NEWS01/206130333/Bill-would-match-

N-Y-highway-exits-mile-numbers
Bill would match N.Y. highway exits with mile numbers
11:10 AM, Jun. 13, 2012 




The state Senate passed legislation Tuesday that would change the exit numbers on interstates in New York from a chronological system to a mileage-based system.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Thomas Libous, R-Binghamton, passed the Senate last year but failed in the Democratic-led Assembly.

The bill memo said the Federal Highway Administration supports a mileage-based system, and 43 states use it.

"Advantages of a mileage-based system are also seen in the efficiency it provides emergency teams," the bill said. It said the mileage-based exit numbers system helps first-responders reach victims of traffic accidents quickly.

The bill said the cost would be minimized by reusing existing signs, and it said the total cost is "to be determined."

The bill would require the replacement of signs be completed by January 1, 2016.

– Gannett
 


Kniwt

Quote from: mapman1071 on June 14, 2012, 12:27:07 AM
from a chronological system to a mileage-based system.

Chronological?! Not enough roadgeeks working at newspapers anymore.

MrDisco99

I wonder if the Thruway would be included in that, and whether they'd redo the mileage on it so I-90 doesn't go backwards anymore.

1995hoo

Quote from: MrDisco99 on June 14, 2012, 07:49:08 AM
I wonder if the Thruway would be included in that, and whether they'd redo the mileage on it so I-90 doesn't go backwards anymore.

If the answer to the first question is "yes" but the second question "no," i.e. if the Thruway got mileage-based numbers but the direction were kept the same, I wonder if the Northway's exit numbers would be posted as an extension of the Thruway numbers to that point–i.e., making I-87's numbers a single mileage-based sequence from the origin of I-87 down in New York City. It seems sensible to me to do that instead of treating it as two separate roads.

I suppose I-90 would be a screwier situation due to its joining the Thruway mid-course and due to the Berkshire Extension exit numbering presumably trumping I-90 mileage-based numbering.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

vdeane

It gets more complicated because the Thruway has no plans to go all-electronic at this time, so they actually do need a coherent numbering system for their tickets.  Personally, I'd resolve this by making the Thruway's numbers an extension of the Deegan's (I-87 in the Bronx), making the Northway an extension of the Thruway's at that point, and make free 90 and the Berkshire's be a backwards extension of the Thruway's, with numbers fudged so there's no conflicts if necessary.  Then the only issue would be I-90 being backwards.

The Thruway is definitely included though; the only non-interstate portions of the Thruway don't have exit numbers.

I don't see why they would need to replace signs, especially since some regions are in major sign rehabs.  Region 3 used green-out to fix a boxed street name on I-81, so why not green-out the exit numbers?  I'm sure it costs less then all-new signs.  Note: I would have an exception for some signs on I-84 due to Thruway clearview.  I'd also sign I-781 with distance based numbers from the start (why pay twice for signs?).

Distance based numbers is something both NYSDOT and NYSTA have wanted for a while now; the problem has been funding (and in the case of NYSTA, waiting for NYSDOT to switch).  Now that the state budget is finally fixed, it could happen.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

empirestate

Quote from: deanej on June 14, 2012, 11:15:27 AM
The Thruway is definitely included though; the only non-interstate portions of the Thruway don't have exit numbers.

Well, the one exit on the GSP spur isn't numbered (along, I suppose, with the ramp to Nanuet), but on all other non-Interstate portions they are; can't help but be, in fact. One non-Interstate section is between Exits 21A and B1, and another is inside of Exit 24. That pretty well covers it!

Duke87

You would think this would be an opportunity to fix the screwy numbering surrounding the Thruway, but I doubt it.

Consider that the Northway and freebie 90 both currently have mile markers starting from 0 in Albany. Are they going to bother to change all of those? Doubt it. After all is said and done, I-87 will still have three exit 1's, and I-90 will still be mostly backwards and then start from 1.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

shadyjay

NYSTA/NYSDOT should take advantage of the opportunity and reroute I-90 to follow the Thruway between Exits 24 & 21A (multiplexed with I-87), and assign the entire Berkshire Spur as I-90.  Then, I-90 would only have two sets of exit numbers. 

This is what MaineDOT did a few years back when they went to mile-based exits.  Instead of having I-95 exit the turnpike and then reenter it further north, they made the whole turnpike I-95, and simplified the exit numbers.


For I-87, if mileposts are not adjusted on the Northway, then you're still gonna have 3 sets of exit numbers:  Deegan, Thruway, and Northway.  It wouldn't make sense to change out every mile marker on the 400-mile route if the Thruway MP 0 at the NYC/Westchester line was eliminated and mileposts were made an extension of the Deegan. 

If this passes, it'll be interesting to see what they come up with.

mightyace

What's wrong with numbering the thruway continuing the Deegan numbers?

The Northeast Extension of the PA Turnpike (I-476) exit numbers and mileage include the free section south of the east-west mainline (I-276).  I don't see this as any different.
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

shadyjay

Quote from: mightyace on June 14, 2012, 07:42:53 PM
What's wrong with numbering the thruway continuing the Deegan numbers?

The Deegan and Thruway have a different set of mile markers.  Mile markers traveling north reset to "0" at the start of the Thruway at the NYC/Westchester county line.  If the exit numbers were continuous between the Deegan and the Thruway, then all mile markers north of the county line would have to be adjusted.  That's about 500 miles worth of mile markers to be changed.  They'd all have to be increased by about 8 miles since the Deegan is just over 8 miles long. 

If you're going to adjust 500 miles worth of mile markers, then you might as well adjust the 177 miles of the Northway to continue the Thruway's mileposts.  In that case, you'd have I-87 on a single set of exit numbers, with Exit 1 being in the Bronx and Exit 333 (approx) at US 9 in Champlain - Canadian border. 


rickmastfan67

Then why not have a duo-numbered exit numbers on the Thruway segments?  They did that on the PA Turnpike for awhile when PA switched to mileage based exit numbers. (examples here)

Just number the old Thruway Exit #'s as #56X, #56AX, ect. and add the mileage based ones beside them based on either I-90 or I-87?  It worked here.  Then after awhile, they could kill off the old numbers completely.

WNYroadgeek

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on June 15, 2012, 12:37:52 AM
Then why not have a duo-numbered exit numbers on the Thruway segments?

It could get a little confusing doing that, especially if a mile-based exit number happens to match a current exit number. Just number it with the mile-based number, and add a tab or banner that denotes the old exit number. Kind of like this:



roadman65

Will the NY Parkways be included?  If so, would NY and NJ have two separate exit numbers on the Palisades Interstate Parkway, or would NJ have to go along here?
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

MrDisco99

Which other states still haven't adopted mileage-based exits?

deathtopumpkins

Quote from: MrDisco99 on June 15, 2012, 07:53:45 AM
Which other states still haven't adopted mileage-based exits?

Most of the New England ones: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. I think that's it.
(plus some select roads in other states, like the New Jersey Turnpike, and the x64's in Virginia)
Disclaimer: All posts represent my personal opinions and not those of my employer.

Clinched Highways | Counties Visited

1995hoo

DC isn't a state, but it doesn't use mileage-based numbers either. In their case I think sequential makes more sense simply because of how short the routes are.

Virginia kept the old sequential numbers on a couple of routes having larger numbers of exits in a comparatively small distance–the x64 3dis have been mentioned, and I-395 is another. VA-267 (the Dulles Greenway and Toll Road) uses sequential as well. I've never really paid much attention to how far apart the exits are on there, but there are at least a couple of instances of gaps of over a mile between interchanges. I rather suspect the vast majority of that road's users are local traffic, rather than out-of-area drivers, so the numbering is probably significantly less important than on a major thru route.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Scott5114

Wow, NY uses chronological numbers? So the exits are numbered after the year they're built? :spin:
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

vdeane

VT uses mileage-based numbers on VT 289; if I had to guess, I'd say they switched for new construction and elected to keep existing numbers.

I-295 in Portland, ME uses sequential numbers until I-495.

PA still uses sequential for non-interstates (which is what it looks like here for NY).

As far as I know, there are no exit numbers in Alaska.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

NE2

Quote from: deanej on June 15, 2012, 11:31:55 AM
As far as I know, there are no exit numbers in Alaska.
City-maintained (?) Johansen Expressway in Fairbanks has them; looks sequential (but could be coincidentally mile-based).
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

elsmere241

Delaware uses sequential on I-95, I-495 and DE 141.  I-295 has no exit numbers.  DE 1 has exits by kilometer (from the south end/Maryland border).

Alps

Here's the deal, which hasn't been stated yet: Thruway Authority considers itself independent from the rest of the state. Without reading the bill, there's no way to know whether the state is also going to force the Thruway's hand or not. Let's say they do - well the NYSTA has a concept already of what they'll do, and I can state this much - I-90 WILL be numbered in the correct direction. The Berkshire Extension will be numbered as an exit from I-90 instead of vice versa, so the B1-B3 numbering disappears. Also, I-87 WILL have one set of exit numbers, not three.

Now, what does this mean for emergency response? The MUTCD doesn't really address toll roads well, considering roads like the NJ Turnpike, Kansas Turnpike, and NY Thruway follow multiple route designations. The best solution I can think of is to use mile markers with the route shields on them - NYSTA has already done this on I-84 so it's not a stretch to extend that to the rest of the Thruway. The other solution would be to add the direction - so you'd have E1 to E250 (etc.) and W250 to W1 on I-90, and N10 to N130 (Etc.) and S130 to S10 on I-87.

As for exit numbers, I expect the same situation as the PA Turnpike. Renumber according to mileage, and if there's a conflict between 87 and 90, bump one of the numbers by one.

elsmere241

Quote from: Steve on June 15, 2012, 06:49:05 PMThe other solution would be to add the direction - so you'd have E1 to E250 (etc.) and W250 to W1 on I-90, and N10 to N130 (Etc.) and S130 to S10 on I-87.

As for exit numbers, I expect the same situation as the PA Turnpike. Renumber according to mileage, and if there's a conflict between 87 and 90, bump one of the numbers by one.

My idea was along those lines - the I-87 part of the Thruway would have an "A" in front of miles and exits, and the I-90 parts would have a "B".  Since the part of the Berkshire extension that isn't I-90 doesn't have any exits, there wouldn't be any conflict there.

Jim

I hope it happens, but only if it happens "all the way".  If they renumber exits based on current MMs, but do not redo the MMs properly for I-87 and I-90 and use those for exit numbering, I don't think the latter would ever happen.  Make all the changes at once.  There seem to be several viable options for exit numbers on the mainline Thruway that would fit with the overall mileage-based scheme and still keep driver confusion to a minimum.  As someone who travels 27-24 and back on the Thruway regularly, I can say that there already seems to be plenty of driver confusion now in the Exit 24 area, especially on Friday afternoons when it's not just us regulars.

As for the "chronological" numbering, maybe the writer thinks the Thruway was built from NYC north then west to PA and the exits were opened and numbered chronologically.  OK, maybe not.

Hoping my commute a few years from now is instead between I-90 exits 323 and 348.
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, skiing, weather, sports)

KEVIN_224

#23
I don't think mileage based exiting would ever work in Connecticut. What SHOULD be done is renumber the exits along the entire stretch of Route 15 from Greenwich to Meriden (Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways). After that's finished, they need to remove the numbers on the remaining section of Route 15 from Wethersfield to its end in East Hartford. As it is with the sequential exits now, they start as "27" at the New York border and go up to exit "68 NE" in Meriden. After you're done with the Berlin Turnpike portion of CT Route 15, the numbers come back with "85" in Wethersfield and end with (I think) "90" in East Hartford, near its end with I-84/US Route 6.

I think mileage based exits in Vermont could work. Using the southern end of I-91 in the Brattleboro area as an example:

1- US Route 5 - Brattleboro [new 7]
2- VT Route 9 WEST - Bennington [new 9]
3- US Route 5/VT Route 9 EAST - Keene, NH [new 11]

shadyjay

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 15, 2012, 08:30:13 PM
I don't think mileage based exiting would ever work in Connecticut. What SHOULD be done is renumber the exits along the entire stretch of Route 15 from Greenwich to Meriden (Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways). After that's finished, they need to remove the numbers on the remaining section of Route 15 from Wethersfield to its end in East Hartford. As it is with the sequential exits now, they start as "27" at the New York border and go up to exit "68 NE" in Meriden. After you're done with the Berlin Turnpike portion of CT Route 15, the numbers come back with "85" in Wethersfield and end with (I think) "90" in East Hartford, near its end with I-84/US Route 6.

CT 15 should be the posterchild for mileage-based exits in CT, numbering them from 1 at the NY line to Exit 83 at Silver Lane in E. Hartford.    The few Berlin Turnpike interchanges would get numbers.  CT 15 stands to gain the most from a mile-based exit system.  As far as other roads go, I wouldn't change I-95 until Branford... exits pretty much are mile-based there, but by coincidence only.

Mileage-based would work very easily in VT and NH. 

Now the question is if the NJ Turnpike ever converted, what would they do with I-95 coming in 50 miles from the start of the turnpike?  My guess would be that they would just ignore that fact and continue the mileage system from the Del Mem Br right up to the GWB. 

Now we're off topic... d'oh!



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.