NY - Sequential vs. Mile Based Exits

[kalvado]

So, no, it is not impossible to develop quantitative evidence for benefits.  It becomes a little more difficult, but still not impossible, when it is desired to differentiate between stated and revealed benefits.  And the lack of existing evidence does not prove that there is no evidence to be found if it is searched for.  The large number of agencies that have started out with sequential numbering and changed to mileage-based in the absence of a federal mandate is in itself a significant willingness-to-pay argument.

With enough funding, data proving pretty much anything can be obtained. But there is not enough money in a system right now...
I, myself, got  lost in CA exits at some point, plainly due to the lack of marking. Getting straight to hotel instead of looking for someone who can give some directions would be a clear benefit for me at that point. Show me a person who got lost between Thruway sequential numbered exits, and now we're talking.

[J N Winkler]

. . . Commiting to a multi-million process of renumbering is not warranted . . .

Why multi-million?  Has an estimated cost of conversion actually been compiled, and if so, how does it break down?

[kalvado]

. . . Commiting to a multi-million process of renumbering is not warranted . . .

Why multi-million?  Has an estimated cost of conversion actually been compiled, and if so, how does it break down?

A somewhat close comparison: there are 500 Cuomo signs installed at a cost of $8M. Someone here commented that the cost is on a higher side, but within expected range.
If we talk  about replacing 1 sign per exit-direction, Thruway got about 100 signs; 50 for Northway, 50 for 88, 20 for free-90 (very rough numbers, but OK)
I believe there is more than 1 sign per exit-direction at least in some cases, as well as regional and attractions signs which would need to be updated.
So we're easily talking 300-400 signs overall - before 3DI comes into play, and not including I-81 where mileage may change due to rerouting in Syracuse..

[webny99]

I believe there is more than 1 sign per exit-direction at least in some cases, as well as regional and attractions signs which would need to be updated.

I'd figure a bare minimum of eight signs per interchange that display the exit number; a one mile advance sign and another sign at the exit for each direction, plus signs at the gore, as well as supplementaries (often at least two) including small towns/local attractions/etc.

Green-outs could probably work (though would not be optimal) on many of the smaller signs.

[SignBridge]

Empirestate, I think it was you who asked earlier if the New England Thruway ever had exit number prefixes? The answer is no. I started riding that road as a kid with my parents in 1960 right after it opened. And the original blue exit signs just had plain exit numbers beginning with Exit-1 at the Hutchinson Pkwy in the Bronx as that is where NYSTA maintenance began (as someone else pointed out above). I believe that is still the case with maintenance. Later the exits were renumbered starting at the NYC end of the Geo. Washington Br. and ending at the Connecticut state line.

Btw, thinking about it now, the New England always had duplicate exit numbers with the main-line Thruway and it must have not been a problem for toll record-keeping. I should have thought of that before.

[machias]

. . . Commiting to a multi-million process of renumbering is not warranted . . .

Why multi-million?  Has an estimated cost of conversion actually been compiled, and if so, how does it break down?

A somewhat close comparison: there are 500 Cuomo signs installed at a cost of $8M. Someone here commented that the cost is on a higher side, but within expected range.
If we talk  about replacing 1 sign per exit-direction, Thruway got about 100 signs; 50 for Northway, 50 for 88, 20 for free-90 (very rough numbers, but OK)
I believe there is more than 1 sign per exit-direction at least in some cases, as well as regional and attractions signs which would need to be updated.
So we're easily talking 300-400 signs overall - before 3DI comes into play, and not including I-81 where mileage may change due to rerouting in Syracuse..

I spoke to NYSDOT about I-81 last summer, no matter what happens in Syracuse with I-81 (more exits, less exits, rerouting), when the exits get renumbered it will be mileage based for the entire roadway.

[cl94]

Empirestate, I think it was you who asked earlier if the New England Thruway ever had exit number prefixes? The answer is no. I started riding that road as a kid with my parents in 1960 right after it opened. And the original blue exit signs just had plain exit numbers beginning with Exit-1 at the Hutchinson Pkwy in the Bronx as that is where NYSTA maintenance began (as someone else pointed out above). I believe that is still the case with maintenance. Later the exits were renumbered starting at the NYC end of the Geo. Washington Br. and ending at the Connecticut state line.

Btw, thinking about it now, the New England always had duplicate exit numbers with the main-line Thruway and it must have not been a problem for toll record-keeping. I should have thought of that before.

The New England Thruway was always a barrier system with only one barrier. Think that's how they kept it separate. It is and always has been in the records as "New Rochelle". I also know that, even now, the NET is considered its own maintenance section. The spurs were always lumped in with nearby sections of the mainline.

[J N Winkler]

A somewhat close comparison: there are 500 Cuomo signs installed at a cost of $8M. Someone here commented that the cost is on a higher side, but within expected range.

I don't buy the Cuomo signs as a comparator, for these reasons:  (1) before $8.1 million was disclosed as the ultimate cost, the estimate was $1.8 million; (2) the work included furnishing and installing large sign panels, not just tabs and overlays; and (3) much of the work was done using overtime and emergency contracts (USA Today at one point reported going through 3000 pages of Cuomo signs contract documentation--AFAIK, the NYSDOT Cuomo signs contracts processed through the regular letting had a smaller aggregate page count).

NJDOT contract 17137 (I-295 redesignation between US 1 and SR 29) received bids ranging from $1.2 million to $2 million.  This is for nine interchanges.  Even $1.2 million seems high to me, so I suspect the cost includes large sign panel replacement, though it is difficult to tell without access to the plans and schedule of quantities, both of which require a BidX subscription or OPRA request.

MassDOT's statewide exit numbering conversion contract (MassDOT project 608024) had an engineer's estimate of $2 million and a low bid of $1.7 million.  That amount includes about 16,000 SF of new overhead sign panel and 19,000 SF of sign panel overlay, and covers both the new exit numbers and the "Formerly" tabs.  In scope and possibly also size it may be the closest available approximation to what would be involved in converting Thruway and Northway exit numbers.

[kalvado]

I spoke to NYSDOT about I-81 last summer, no matter what happens in Syracuse with I-81 (more exits, less exits, rerouting), when the exits get renumbered it will be mileage based for the entire roadway.

I'm thinking along the lines that mileage-based renumbering is not a good idea while exact mileage for half a road is still in limbo. Renumbering again once Syracuse is decided and built is somewhat stupid...

[kalvado]

A somewhat close comparison: there are 500 Cuomo signs installed at a cost of $8M. Someone here commented that the cost is on a higher side, but within expected range.

I don't buy the Cuomo signs as a comparator, for these reasons:  (1) before $8.1 million was disclosed as the ultimate cost, the estimate was $1.8 million; (2) the work included furnishing and installing large sign panels, not just tabs and overlays; and (3) much of the work was done using overtime and emergency contracts (USA Today at one point reported going through 3000 pages of Cuomo signs contract documentation--AFAIK, the NYSDOT Cuomo signs contracts processed through the regular letting had a smaller aggregate page count).

NJDOT contract 17137 (I-295 redesignation between US 1 and SR 29) received bids ranging from $1.2 million to $2 million.  This is for nine interchanges.  Even $1.2 million seems high to me, so I suspect the cost includes large sign panel replacement, though it is difficult to tell without access to the plans and schedule of quantities, both of which require a BidX subscription or OPRA request.

MassDOT's statewide exit numbering conversion contract (MassDOT project 608024) had an engineer's estimate of $2 million and a low bid of $1.7 million.  That amount includes about 16,000 SF of new overhead sign panel and 19,000 SF of sign panel overlay, and covers both the new exit numbers and the "Formerly" tabs.  In scope and possibly also size it may be the closest available approximation to what would be involved in converting Thruway and Northway exit numbers.

I was actually looking for MA contract.  It is a good comparison - and we land in several million territory anyway. And I suspect, NY has a bit more renumbering to do than MA.

[empirestate]

But that fails to consider the accruing benefits of the conversion.

How so? I said "the value in converting". That includes the immediate value, the accrued value, whatever. If there's any piece of that I haven't considered, it's because I don't have the information to consider. You guys have mentioned a lot of theoretical benefits–valid ones, to be sure–but I've never seen them quantified.

My response to kalvado above is very pertinent here. How do you suggest we quantify any of the benefits?

The same, I guess...dollars, lives, that sort of thing.

Also, there are no benefits to staying the same, other than to avoid the one-time cost, which is insignificant and petty at best.

That may well be, but I don't need to be persuaded to stay the same, so I don't need to consider the value of doing so.

Yes, you do; to prove that the value is greater than the value of converting. Surely you must be able to explain the benefits; I (and others) have done so extensively for the other side of the debate.

No, I don't, because I'm not trying to persuade anyone to adopt my viewpoint. I don't dispute the benefits of converting, and I don't fault anyone for coming to the conclusion that it should happen. You have indeed gone to great lengths to support your position, in the apparent hope that I'll come around to it. But I'm not asking the same of you.

Since Cuomo has been governor, the Thruway has had an awful lot of directors--how many is it now?  Seven?  Eight?  That alone raises the odds someone will be brought in from a state with mileage-based numbering, just to avoid promoting a coffee-getter straight into the wood-paneled office.

I wonder how much of the difference of opinion is simply this: being from a different state? You asked me if I had much experience navigation in mileage-based states, apparently with the idea that if I'd had very much, it would sway my opinion. Turns out I have, and it didn't...but how much of it has to do with simple exposure to the different systems, and how much with upbringing?

I grew up with my parents driving all over the Northeast, where nothing was mileage-based. They didn't navigate by exit numbers, and when I started driving myself, neither did I, having grown up instead following maps and just getting to know the territory. (And by "know the territory" I don't just mean memorizing the routes I frequently took, but also developing a sense of how the land and the roads are laid out, giving me the ability to predict what I might find along an unfamiliar route in similar territory.)

Once I got older and began to visit new areas with mile-based numbering, I did indeed see the benefit of their system–but I never came to rely on it, as I already had a different set of navigating skills ingrained. As Jim said above, being able to do the calculation in your head is "nice to have", but it's never risen above that level of importance for me; certainly not when I return to the Northeast where I can already guess with high accuracy how far apart the interchanges are.

But reading what you've written about navigating through Kansas and elsewhere, it does seem that you rely to a much greater extent on the exit numbers themselves, and that you'd find it a great hindrance to navigate without them. Certainly, the distances in a territory like Kansas are different than they are in the Northeast; and who knows, maybe if I had to navigate the Great Plains if they switched back to sequential exit numbers, I'd find it much more of a hardship than I would in an area that has always had them. But I'd be curious whether it's just a matter of what's "in our blood".

[PHLBOS]

The simplest solution to this problem would be to dispense with the overlapping systems. Cease and desist signing the New York State Thruway as a thing and just sign it as I-87 and I-90. Number all of the exits accordingly, and at the current location of exit 24 delineate what is the through route versus an exit accordingly.

This is how Connecticut solved this problem. It's a good solution.

The difference here is that CT's changes occurred long after tolls along the CT Turnpike were eliminated.  The NYS Thruway is still a tolled facility with ticketed interchanges in many locations.  A more appropriate example of what you're describing, and I don't believe I'm saying this, would be the PA Turnpike; particularly the main East-West (I-76/276) & the Northeast Extension (I-476).

[webny99]

Also, there are no benefits to staying the same, other than to avoid the one-time cost, which is insignificant and petty at best.

That may well be, but I don't need to be persuaded to stay the same, so I don't need to consider the value of doing so.

Yes, you do; to prove that the value is greater than the value of converting. Surely you must be able to explain the benefits; I (and others) have done so extensively for the other side of the debate.

No, I don't, because I'm not trying to persuade anyone to adopt my viewpoint. I don't dispute the benefits of converting, and I don't fault anyone for coming to the conclusion that it should happen. You have indeed gone to great lengths to support your position, in the apparent hope that I'll come around to it. But I'm not asking the same of you.

Of course, and you don't have to persuade us of anything. But I guess the question is, why are you unwilling to accept an alternative viewpoint, if you don't even have any reasoning for the viewpoint you have?
I honestly am just interested in how you arrived at the concrete conclusion that value of doing nothing exceeds value of the conversion There must be at least some value we can easily assign to both sides of the coin, or else the whole discussion has been a total waste.

[seicer]

Also, there are no benefits to staying the same, other than to avoid the one-time cost, which is insignificant and petty at best.

That may well be, but I don't need to be persuaded to stay the same, so I don't need to consider the value of doing so.

Yes, you do; to prove that the value is greater than the value of converting. Surely you must be able to explain the benefits; I (and others) have done so extensively for the other side of the debate.

No, I don't, because I'm not trying to persuade anyone to adopt my viewpoint. I don't dispute the benefits of converting, and I don't fault anyone for coming to the conclusion that it should happen. You have indeed gone to great lengths to support your position, in the apparent hope that I'll come around to it. But I'm not asking the same of you.

Of course, and you don't have to persuade us of anything. But I guess the question is, why are you unwilling to accept an alternative viewpoint, if you don't even have any reasoning for the viewpoint you have?
I honestly am just interested in how you arrived at the concrete conclusion that value of doing nothing exceeds value of the conversion There must be at least some value we can easily assign to both sides of the coin, or else the whole discussion has been a total waste.

Can we just let this die already?

[Rothman]

Not until mileage-based exit numbers are installed in NY.

[kalvado]

Can we just let this die already?

Well, this is slightly more meaningful discussion than highway to Hawaii...

[J N Winkler]

I was actually looking for MA contract.  It is a good comparison - and we land in several million territory anyway. And I suspect, NY has a bit more renumbering to do than MA.

I suspect the cost works out about the same because the bulk of the mileage that would be renumbered in New York is rural freeways with fairly widely spaced exits like the Thruway and the Northway, while MassDOT is doing urban and suburban freeways like I-93, I-95, I-495, and I-290.  But I haven't actually drilled down to the level of detail that involves counting exits and checking which overlays and new tabs are applied to which signs.

Besides the expense involved in applying overlays and installing "Formerly"/"Old Exit" panels, I would expect it to cost at least a further $500,000 if NYSDOT and NYSTA decided to regularize milepointing on the Thruway and the Northway to secure 100% compliance with MUTCD requirements.

I would worry about these costs only if they were of the order of the final outturn cost of the Cuomo signs, which is easily enough to buy at least one bridge rehabilitation.  The bulk of signing work on freeways, both vertical and horizontal, is more about maintaining a certain minimum standard of service on an ongoing basis rather than investing in durable assets in the expectation of a precisely defined rate of return.  I suspect the cost of exit numbering changeover would be on roughly the same order as what the Thruway spends annually keeping the pavement striping nice and reflective.

I wonder how much of the difference of opinion is simply this: being from a different state? You asked me if I had much experience navigation in mileage-based states, apparently with the idea that if I'd had very much, it would sway my opinion. Turns out I have, and it didn't...but how much of it has to do with simple exposure to the different systems, and how much with upbringing?

I grew up with my parents driving all over the Northeast, where nothing was mileage-based. They didn't navigate by exit numbers, and when I started driving myself, neither did I, having grown up instead following maps and just getting to know the territory. (And by "know the territory" I don't just mean memorizing the routes I frequently took, but also developing a sense of how the land and the roads are laid out, giving me the ability to predict what I might find along an unfamiliar route in similar territory.)

I was wondering the same thing, which is why I asked about your experience of mileage-based systems.  Having heard your answer, I think the relevant factor is having made one's home for decades in the heart of a sequential-numbering area, rather than experience per se.  I have visited 49 states (all except Hawaii) and have driven in 48 of them, but I have never come closer than 70 miles to living in a US jurisdiction that had sequential numbering at the time (suburban Maryland at a time when Pennsylvania still had sequentially numbered exits).

But reading what you've written about navigating through Kansas and elsewhere, it does seem that you rely to a much greater extent on the exit numbers themselves, and that you'd find it a great hindrance to navigate without them. Certainly, the distances in a territory like Kansas are different than they are in the Northeast; and who knows, maybe if I had to navigate the Great Plains if they switched back to sequential exit numbers, I'd find it much more of a hardship than I would in an area that has always had them. But I'd be curious whether it's just a matter of what's "in our blood".

I can cope (and indeed have coped) with sequential exit numbers, but it is a significantly less handy system for me since progress tracking entails dead reckoning on the basis of mileage signs of unknown reliability (as an example, KDOT and Oklahoma DOT disagree on the location of Wichita by about seven miles).  If Kansas went to sequential numbers, I can see myself relying more on basic facts of the underlying geography and signing practice, such as a typical Kansas county being 30 miles on a side, KDOT fighting not to provide more than one exit per community, and post-interchange confirmation signs typically listing the distance to the next exit, county seat, and (sometimes) AASHTO control city.  Along the Thruway corridor in upstate New York, I can easily see someone relying on the fact that major communities--Albany, Amsterdam, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester--are separated from each other by (a very crude approximation) 50 miles between consecutive towns.

In the US, BTW, my experience with sequentially numbered exits is all in Pennsylvania and the Northeast.  I never travelled by car any significant distance in Colorado, Florida, or Georgia when they still had sequential exit numbers.  I did drive in California before exit numbers, and I remember what an absolute disaster that was in terms of trying to figure out how far Los Angeles (my destination) was from the Colorado River along I-10.  (Caltrans still won't give up postmiles for actual MUTCD mileposts, but at least the fact Blythe is reached from Exit 241 gives me information I didn't have in 1998.)

I suspect one reason the Northeast is the last region to move away from sequential exit numbering is its much higher degree of urbanization:  the kind of dead reckoning that matters in rural areas is of much less value inside cities.  As an example, I don't really have all of the exit numbers on I-135 and I-235 in Wichita memorized, because I treat city trips separately from out-of-town trips--I know I can get anywhere in my quarter (NW) of the city within 15 minutes while it is better to budget 30 minutes for SW and NE and 45 minutes for SE.  But even with a much higher level of urbanization, the Northeast still has some relatively less populated corridors like the entire Southern Tier Expressway, the Thruway between Albany and Buffalo, the MassPike from Worcester westward, and free I-95 in Maine, where mileage-based exit numbering provides a noticeably higher level of service to motorists.

The fact people living in these areas are used to sequential numbering is not a guarantee a majority of them won't wake up to the added value of mileage-based numbering if it is introduced, and come to prefer it.

I'm thinking along the lines that mileage-based renumbering is not a good idea while exact mileage for half a road is still in limbo. Renumbering again once Syracuse is decided and built is somewhat stupid...

I think the realignment that is being considered for Syracuse--moving I-81 to the I-481 bypass, thus creating a "gumboil" in an existing relatively direct route--is stupid at a conceptual level, but that is really a separate discussion.

In other jurisdictions that have found it necessary to establish milepointing for a route that has not been built all the way back to its predefined zero point, two basic approaches are used:  (1) identify a reasonably direct and feasible-to-build routing between zero point and start of existing route, and establish office milepointing for it, or (2) establish milepointing along an existing reasonably direct route between the zero point and start of existing route (Caltrans calls this a "traversable routing").  If the routing actually built ends up being longer or shorter than projected by either of these two methods, then the difference is covered by a mile equation.

Situations where the difference would be great enough to result in repeated exit numbers for a given route are rare.  Situations where mileage-based exit numbers are off by more than a mile or so are also uncommon--Utah I-15 is the only example I know of where exit numbers have had to be revised as a result.  I-10 in Arizona is a bit longer than originally projected in 1970, when exit numbering (mileage-based from the start) was introduced in Arizona, because the original plan was for it to follow the Durango Street corridor in west Phoenix while the eventually adopted routing runs midway between Roosevelt Street and McDowell Road, two miles north, adding about 2 1/4 miles to the total length of I-10 in Arizona.  The I-10 gap in Phoenix was not closed until about 1990.  As a result total length of route (per FHWA) is 392.33 miles, first milepost westbound in Arizona is 391, and first exit westbound (Cavot Road) is Exit 390.  There is presumably a mile equation somewhere around Phoenix, probably in an area where exit spacing is greater than two miles.

Syracuse is a purer example of self-sabotage because the added distance will be larger than typical exit spacing within urban Syracuse and will therefore be too great to paper over with a mile equation in the middle of nowhere.

[vdeane]

I spoke to NYSDOT about I-81 last summer, no matter what happens in Syracuse with I-81 (more exits, less exits, rerouting), when the exits get renumbered it will be mileage based for the entire roadway.

I'm thinking along the lines that mileage-based renumbering is not a good idea while exact mileage for half a road is still in limbo. Renumbering again once Syracuse is decided and built is somewhat stupid...

My guess is that this would be a renumbering as a result of whatever happens in Syracuse, so I don't see why it would be done before things are decided.

[webny99]

Can we just let this die already?

You don't have to read it all  Also, this -

Not until mileage-based exit numbers are installed in NY.

Since Cuomo has been governor, the Thruway has had an awful lot of directors--how many is it now?  Seven?  Eight?  That alone raises the odds someone will be brought in from a state with mileage-based numbering, just to avoid promoting a coffee-getter straight into the wood-paneled office.

I wonder how much of the difference of opinion is simply this: being from a different state? You asked me if I had much experience navigation in mileage-based states, apparently with the idea that if I'd had very much, it would sway my opinion. Turns out I have, and it didn't...but how much of it has to do with simple exposure to the different systems, and how much with upbringing?

I imagine it's related to those factors to quite an extent. I personally can get along just fine in New York with sequential numbers; but that comes from the experience I have driving our interstates; knowing many of the mileposts anyways, knowing the approximate distance between exits, etc.

I might make a rather interesting observation that those who grew up on mileage-based system seem to find it a real hardship to do without in places such as New York - but those who grew up on sequential get the bonus of having mileage-based systems almost everywhere they travel. As such, you and I have never had to deal with a sequential system in territory we are completely unfamiliar with. So I can't fully understand the loss experienced by out-of-state travelers in New York, as I've never taken the system used elsewhere for granted.

[empirestate]

No, I don't, because I'm not trying to persuade anyone to adopt my viewpoint. I don't dispute the benefits of converting, and I don't fault anyone for coming to the conclusion that it should happen. You have indeed gone to great lengths to support your position, in the apparent hope that I'll come around to it. But I'm not asking the same of you.

Of course, and you don't have to persuade us of anything. But I guess the question is, why are you unwilling to accept an alternative viewpoint, if you don't even have any reasoning for the viewpoint you have?

Who says I'm unwilling? I understand the alternative viewpoint, I accept it; I just don't share it.

I honestly am just interested in how you arrived at the concrete conclusion that value of doing nothing exceeds value of the conversion There must be at least some value we can easily assign to both sides of the coin, or else the whole discussion has been a total waste.

I haven't arrived at that concrete conclusion; I guess maybe you misunderstand my position. I'm saying, there is no perceivable need to convert the numbering system in New York, so there is no solution that needs to be considered. Other people have said they do perceive a need, and they've explained why. I understand their reasons and I don't dispute them, nor do I think they're wrong for holding those views. But I don't also hold that view.

So, it remains that I see no problem that needs to be solved, so there's nothing for me to weight against. And just to remain the same involves no action, so I don't have to consider the relative benefits or disadvantages of any action.

Maybe the best way for me to put it is this:

Can we just let this die already?

For me, it was dead before it was born. And it's still dead.

[webny99]

Maybe the best way for me to put it is this:

Can we just let this die already?

For me, it was dead before it was born. And it's still dead.

We'll leave it at that 

Here's an aspect of the discussion I am interested in continuing:

I might make a rather interesting observation that those who grew up on mileage-based system seem to find it a real hardship to do without in places such as New York - but those who grew up on sequential get the bonus of having mileage-based systems almost everywhere they travel. As such, you and I have never had to deal with a sequential system in territory we are completely unfamiliar with. So I can't fully understand the loss experienced by out-of-state travelers in New York, as I've never taken the system used elsewhere for granted.

[empirestate]

I suspect one reason the Northeast is the last region to move away from sequential exit numbering is its much higher degree of urbanization:  the kind of dead reckoning that matters in rural areas is of much less value inside cities.

I suspect this, too, and it probably explains why I see the problem as far less important than you do: because where I live and was raised, it genuinely is less important. And while it appears most of the forum members from the Northeast probably agree with the need to convert to mile-based numbering, I'm going to guess that my view is closer to that of the the general motoring public–you know, those who don't ever go onto internet bulletin boards and discuss the subject of exit numbering systems. :-)

The fact people living in these areas are used to sequential numbering is not a guarantee a majority of them won't wake up to the added value of mileage-based numbering if it is introduced, and come to prefer it.

Well, I think what's more likely is that those few of them who even notice these things might look up and say "oh, that's kinda neat. Wonder why we never did that before?"–and then just go back and plug the destination into their GPS anyway.

I might make a rather interesting observation that those who grew up on mileage-based system seem to find it a real hardship to do without in places such as New York - but those who grew up on sequential get the bonus of having mileage-based systems almost everywhere they travel. As such, you and I have never had to deal with a sequential system in territory we are completely unfamiliar with. So I can't fully understand the loss experienced by out-of-state travelers in New York, as I've never taken the system used elsewhere for granted.

Well, but again, we're talking only about that small segment of the public who actually navigates by these older methods. I can't think of the last time I took a trip to an unfamiliar place with a non-roadgeek who figured the distances using any other method than Google Maps. So to whatever extent there's a hardship to any group of people, that group is going to be only a small subset of the general population.

[Rothman]

I think the general motoring public didn't understand the need to change in any state, let alone Northeastern states.  That said, long-distance drivers surely did and do.

Someone wanted the benefit quantified.  Fine:  On a five-point likert scale, where 1 is useless and 5 is most useful, mileage-based exit numbers score a 4.

[cl94]

I think the general motoring public didn't understand the need to change in any state, let alone Northeastern states.  That said, long-distance drivers surely did and do.

Someone wanted the benefit quantified.  Fine:  On a five-point likert scale, where 1 is useless and 5 is most useful, mileage-based exit numbers score a 4.

Where I grew up (Queensbury), it probably scores a 5. Why? Amount of out-of-area tourists. Biggest tourist exits on the northbound Northway are 20-31. 23-24 and 29-30 are 10 mile gaps. 30-31 is 13 miles, one of the longest on I-87 and shorter than only a couple on the Thruway. Do you know how many times I have seen idiots frantically get over after 23/29/30 and then get off at 24/30/31 during tourist season? Quite a few. Yes, most of the population in this state lives places where the sequential numbers are close to what the distance would be. But in the tourist areas, they sure as heck aren't.

[webny99]

And while it appears most of the forum members from the Northeast probably agree with the need to convert to mile-based numbering, I'm going to guess that my view is closer to that of the the general motoring public–you know, those who don't ever go onto internet bulletin boards and discuss the subject of exit numbering systems. :-)

Unlike the general motoring public, though, you are aware that mileage-based systems exist, and you are aware of the benefits.

Well, but again, we're talking only about that small segment of the public who actually navigates by these older methods. I can't think of the last time I took a trip to an unfamiliar place with a non-roadgeek who figured the distances using any other method than Google Maps. So to whatever extent there's a hardship to any group of people, that group is going to be only a small subset of the general population.

That's fine - but can we just leave google maps and GPS out of it? 
You've never taken a mileage based system for granted the way people in other states do, so in that sense, you can't speak for out-of-state travelers in New York. Further, we get the benefit of mileage-based systems whenever we travel out-of-state ourselves.

So what I'm saying is that it's a double hit - out-of-state travelers have mileage-based numbering at home (where they need it least - but this also causes them to take it for granted/depend on it), and they don't have it when traveling in NYS, when they actually need it, expect it, and would use it, the most.
NYS residents, on the other hand, get two bonuses; not taking mileage-based for granted, but also having it when we need it most - in other states. I know that's very poorly worded, but you get the point - it's only fair that we keep up with the standard.