NY - Sequential vs. Mile Based Exits

[jp the roadgeek]

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.

Certainly valid points.  Mileage based exits certainly would work.  The question is whether the natives will resist the movement to re-milepost the Northway based on I-87 mileage from the Bronx rather than from Albany?  Doesn't make a difference for tourists, but those familiar with the area it certainly does.

[J N Winkler]

The Thruway Authority has annual revenue of about $700 million.  The best estimate for the cost of "pure" exit numbering conversion we have been able to come up with is around $2.5 million.  ("Pure" here means that it includes no expenses that are not actually necessary for the conversion itself, one example of such an excluded cost being wholesale replacement of large sign panels.)  I can guarantee that the Thruway is spending many times this sum annually on goods and services for which the value-for-money concept is much hazier than it is for mileage-based exit numbering.

One reason I am able to do so is that the Thruway is a public agency like any other, and as such, procures some of its goods and services through RFPs with evaluation matrices that do not assign all, or even the majority, of their weighing toward an explicit value-for-money measure.

[empirestate]

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.

I'd probably rate it similarly. However, we need a scale of importance, not usefulness. We also need a scale to measure how much of a problem it is that NY doesn't have mileage-based numbering. I'm at a '1' on such a scale.

I also think you're correct to show that scales like this are probably the closest we'll get to actually quantifying the issue.

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.

Just so I understand, you're saying that mileage-based numbering would prevent unsafe lane changes?

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.

That's right, because I go onto internet bulletin boards and discuss subjects like exit numbering systems.

That's fine - but can we just leave google maps and GPS out of it? 

Not if we're still on the topic of the value of conversion, or of establishing that a problem exists. But if we've moved off to a pure discussion of whether someone's upbringing affects their reliance on mile-based systems, then yes, we can.

The Thruway Authority has annual revenue of about $700 million.  The best estimate for the cost of "pure" exit numbering conversion we have been able to come up with is around $2.5 million.  ("Pure" here means that it includes no expenses that are not actually necessary for the conversion itself, one example of such an excluded cost being wholesale replacement of large sign panels.)  I can guarantee that the Thruway is spending many times this sum annually on goods and services for which the value-for-money concept is much hazier than it is for mileage-based exit numbering.

Good point–there are doubtless many things on which the Thruway spends millions that can't be shown to have a return value of millions, so you can see why I don't think exit renumbering should be added to that list.

[webny99]

That's fine - but can we just leave google maps and GPS out of it? 

Not if we're still on the topic of the value of conversion, or of establishing that a problem exists. But if we've moved off to a pure discussion of whether someone's upbringing affects their reliance on mile-based systems, then yes, we can.

I'm looking forward to (and was under the impression that we would) do just that. My further point, on which you declined to comment, was made with that in mind.

Good point–there are doubtless many things on which the Thruway spends millions that can't be shown to have a return value of millions, so you can see why I don't think exit renumbering should be added to that list.

[sits back and watches]

[cl94]

That's not what I'm saying, per se. I'm saying it would stop the "oh, crap, my exit is coming up!" you get now. In most of the country, an exit number difference of 1 implies the exits are a mile apart and most people act accordingly.

[kalvado]

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? 

Of course, we cal leave GPS, maps, locals, tourists, drivers, truckers, governor, thruway, elections, traffic, roads out of it.
(checking what's left)
It's a nice weather, isn't it?

[J N Winkler]

I don't think it is fair to characterize mileage-based exit numbering as a niche technical concern.  It has surfaced even in this very normie context:

http://blogs.artvoice.com/avdaily/2014/01/31/things-to-ask-the-new-york-state-thruway-authority/

The flip side of the "exit numbering is not very important" argument is that it is also weak as an argument against spending 0.625% of the annual operating budget on a change that does noticeably improve convenience and user-friendliness for a significant segment of the motoring public.  And if it temporarily displaces expenditures in other areas where value for money is more questionable, so much the better.

Ultimately, exit numbering conversion is not as momentous a change as railroad gauge conversion, which is a costly change at a very basic level of the infrastructure and requires careful balancing of the initial capital commitment against returns arising from improved network utility and the like.

[vdeane]

It's also worth noting that many parts of the state were unnumbered for a long time.  Rochester didn't have any exit numbers until the 80s when I-490 and I-390 were finally finished.  I-88 didn't have any until completion either.

Interestingly, NY almost converted to mile-based numbers in the 70s.  The only thing stopping the conversion?  The US was slated to go metric soon and nobody wanted to renumber the exits soon after to km-based numbers.

I'm not so sure the general public isn't aware that mile-based numbers exist.  My Uncle once asked in a Facebook comment "when will NY change the numbers to be based on distance like the rest of the world?" (cue a bunch of comments from roadgeeks about sequential numbering in Europe).

[kalvado]

The flip side of the "exit numbering is not very important" argument is that it is also weak as an argument against spending 0.625% of the annual operating budget on a change that doesn't noticeably improve convenience and user-friendliness for a significant segment of the motoring public, but definitely would please a small group of roadgeeks.  And if it temporarily displaces expenditures in other areas where value for money is more questionable, so much the better.

Ultimately, exit numbering conversion is not as momentous a change as railroad gauge conversion, which is a costly change at a very basic level of the infrastructure and requires careful balancing of the initial capital commitment against returns arising from improved network utility and the like.

FTFY

[webny99]

I'm not so sure the general public isn't aware that mile-based numbers exist.  My Uncle once asked in a Facebook comment "when will NY change the numbers to be based on distance like the rest of the world?" (cue a bunch of comments from roadgeeks about sequential numbering in Europe).

I can only assume this comment was mainly for my benefit. I should note I was referring to the public in NYS specifically.

[J N Winkler]

Interestingly, NY almost converted to mile-based numbers in the 70s.  The only thing stopping the conversion?  The US was slated to go metric soon and nobody wanted to renumber the exits soon after to km-based numbers.

I suspect this is the main reason conversion to distance-based numbering is not on the table in Britain.  Motorways are distance-marked in kilometers but signing is still based on miles.  As there is a vociferous anti-metric lobby, but official government policy is still that metric conversion will be carried through "once everybody has had a metric education," anything signing-related that touches on the underlying units system controversy languishes with minimum action other than dual-posting of clearances and the use of metric-based weight limit signing (both either required by the EU or provided for the specific purpose of accommodating lorry traffic from the rest of the EU).

I think driver location signs came about largely because the UK did not want to seem like a laggard to North America in using enhanced location reference markers for incident response, but did not want to develop a separate distance-marking system (thereby inviting controversy as to whether it should be based on miles) for this application.

FTFY

The underlying point (which I will say directly instead of slipping it in as a post repair) is that sticking to the existing system pleases an even smaller group of roadgeeks.

[kalvado]

FTFY

The underlying point (which I will say directly instead of slipping it in as a post repair) is that sticking to the existing system pleases an even smaller group of roadgeeks.

I don't know if you remember - there was another round of Thruway bashing sometime ago, regarding county lines being posted. It was much more enthusiastic compared to this thread, but pretty much the only valid argument for posting those was that NWS provided severe weather alert by county. I believe they switched since then. SO I am a bit skeptical about opinions..
And as an old wise man said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it

[webny99]

FTFY

The underlying point (which I will say directly instead of slipping it in as a post repair) is that sticking to the existing system pleases an even smaller group of roadgeeks.

We could narrow it down further, to one or two roadgeeks (status pending, at that), but perhaps we shouldn't 

[vdeane]

I'm not so sure the general public isn't aware that mile-based numbers exist.  My Uncle once asked in a Facebook comment "when will NY change the numbers to be based on distance like the rest of the world?" (cue a bunch of comments from roadgeeks about sequential numbering in Europe).

I can only assume this comment was mainly for my benefit. I should note I was referring to the public in NYS specifically.

My Aunt and Uncle lived near Rochester until a few years ago.  Now they live in the 1000 Islands, with a winter house in Florida.  I guess it's a judgement call whether they still count as "NYS driving public" or not.

I don't know if you remember - there was another round of Thruway bashing sometime ago, regarding county lines being posted. It was much more enthusiastic compared to this thread, but pretty much the only valid argument for posting those was that NWS provided severe weather alert by county. I believe they switched since then. SO I am a bit skeptical about opinions..
And as an old wise man said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it

How about the fact that it feels really weird to go from one county to another without a sign (I also get a similar feeling if I cross a state boundary without a sign)?

[kalvado]

FTFY

The underlying point (which I will say directly instead of slipping it in as a post repair) is that sticking to the existing system pleases an even smaller group of roadgeeks.

We could narrow it down further, to one or two roadgeeks (status pending, at that), but perhaps we shouldn't 

You see, "keep it as is" approach can cause problems - but it is often an easier solution...  So I am claiming a benefit of "ain't broken" here. And feel free to point your finger at me, if that helps

[J N Winkler]

I don't know if you remember - there was another round of Thruway bashing sometime ago, regarding county lines being posted. It was much more enthusiastic compared to this thread, but pretty much the only valid argument for posting those was that NWS provided severe weather alert by county. I believe they switched since then. So I am a bit skeptical about opinions..

I understand your point of view.  I do remember that discussion and although I don't think I participated in it, I really do appreciate having county line signs.  I personally find them more valuable than the signs the Thruway posts to say that E-ZPass works in all toll lanes.  The Thruway is the only toll road with ETC where I have seen these signs, and I'm skeptical about how well they serve their apparent purpose of encouraging E-ZPass holders to use the cash lanes when the E-ZPass lanes are backed up.  I would expect drivers instead to subject themselves to some inconvenience to avoid a gated lane or the possibility of sideswiping a toll collector who leans out to take a ticket that is not coming.

[kalvado]

I don't know if you remember - there was another round of Thruway bashing sometime ago, regarding county lines being posted. It was much more enthusiastic compared to this thread, but pretty much the only valid argument for posting those was that NWS provided severe weather alert by county. I believe they switched since then. So I am a bit skeptical about opinions..

I understand your point of view.  I do remember that discussion and although I don't think I participated in it, I really do appreciate having county line signs.  I personally find them more valuable than the signs the Thruway posts to say that E-ZPass works in all toll lanes.  The Thruway is the only toll road with ETC where I have seen these signs, and I'm skeptical about how well they serve their apparent purpose of encouraging E-ZPass holders to use the cash lanes when the E-ZPass lanes are backed up.  I would expect drivers instead to subject themselves to some inconvenience to avoid a gated lane or the possibility of sideswiping a toll collector who leans out to take a ticket that is not coming.

Whatever it worth.. I twice ended up with a delay in a non-EZpass lane - once on a Masspike and once on a Thruway. So I do pay attention to those "in all lanes" signs ever since.
Did you ever got into a wrong county because of lack of signage?

[empirestate]

That's fine - but can we just leave google maps and GPS out of it? 

Not if we're still on the topic of the value of conversion, or of establishing that a problem exists. But if we've moved off to a pure discussion of whether someone's upbringing affects their reliance on mile-based systems, then yes, we can.

I'm looking forward to (and was under the impression that we would) do just that. My further point, on which you declined to comment, was made with that in mind.

OK, well just so you know, I won't necessarily quote and respond to every last thing you write; if I don't have anything further to add, I'll just leave it at that. The reason I didn't include your following comment is because you said something like "it's only fair that we keep to the standard," which I took to be a continuing argument in favor of converting. Since I thought we'd both agreed it was time to wrap up that line of discussion, I left it out.

That's not what I'm saying, per se. I'm saying it would stop the "oh, crap, my exit is coming up!" you get now. In most of the country, an exit number difference of 1 implies the exits are a mile apart and most people act accordingly.

I guess I don't quite follow you, then. In a sequential system, the numbers are always 1 apart, so you'd think motorists would be constantly ready for their exit, always thinking it was a mile away.

I don't think it is fair to characterize mileage-based exit numbering as a niche technical concern.  It has surfaced even in this very normie context:

http://blogs.artvoice.com/avdaily/2014/01/31/things-to-ask-the-new-york-state-thruway-authority/

Can't get the link right now for whatever reason, but yeah; I agree that "niche technical concern" isn't the right characterization. My opinion of it is better represented by how I phrased it earlier: an invention of which necessity is not the mother.

The flip side of the "exit numbering is not very important" argument is that it is also weak as an argument against spending 0.625% of the annual operating budget on a change that does noticeably improve convenience and user-friendliness for a significant segment of the motoring public.  And if it temporarily displaces expenditures in other areas where value for money is more questionable, so much the better.

Also agreed, assuming the premise (indicated by my added emphasis) is true. As of now, I haven't come to view it as such, and so it does not enter my thinking as to whether the argument is weak or not.

The underlying point (which I will say directly instead of slipping it in as a post repair) is that sticking to the existing system pleases an even smaller group of roadgeeks.

We could narrow it down further, to one or two roadgeeks (status pending, at that), but perhaps we shouldn't 

Well, don't look here. :-) Like I said before, this issue was dead for me before it came up, and it still is. I definitely admire you guys for your persistence in arguing for your position, but it's a bit of a quixotic goal if you're trying to change my mind from my current position to yours, because when you come right down to it, my position is the absence of a position. I see no problem, so I don't need to consider any solutions; therefore, I have no strong position on any solution, whether that be the one you favor, or some other one. It's not that I think keeping sequential numbering is the better solution to the problem; it's that I think there's no problem. Or, if we want to come back to the bridge analogy, you're saying "a bridge is the best way to get across the river," whereas I'm saying, "We don't need to get across the river." (But if we did, sure; a bridge would be ideal.)

I understand your point of view.  I do remember that discussion and although I don't think I participated in it, I really do appreciate having county line signs.  I personally find them more valuable than the signs the Thruway posts to say that E-ZPass works in all toll lanes.  The Thruway is the only toll road with ETC where I have seen these signs, and I'm skeptical about how well they serve their apparent purpose of encouraging E-ZPass holders to use the cash lanes when the E-ZPass lanes are backed up.  I would expect drivers instead to subject themselves to some inconvenience to avoid a gated lane or the possibility of sideswiping a toll collector who leans out to take a ticket that is not coming.

Yeah–after all, this is the same species where there will be a row of fourteen unlocked doors all leading the same place, but every single person will file in–and out!–through the same single door that happens to be open already.

[seicer]

Sequential exits are not always sequential. You have, in many instances, Exit 1, 2, 2A, 2B, 3, 4A, 4, 5 or other variants because of exits that were added after the numbering system was devised. In other words, sequential numbering is not future proof.

Even worse is when competing systems don't agree with each other, so you have Exit 1, 2, 2A, 1, 2... for Interstate 95 in New York.

[jp the roadgeek]

Sequential exits are not always sequential. You have, in many instances, Exit 1, 2, 2A, 2B, 3, 4A, 4, 5 or other variants because of exits that were added after the numbering system was devised. In other words, sequential numbering is not future proof.

Even worse is when competing systems don't agree with each other, so you have Exit 1, 2, 2A, 1, 2... for Interstate 95 in New York.

Plus, NY, CT, VT, NH, and (for a different reason), the NJTP, might be the only places that use directional suffixes.  For example, the I-91 exits for CT 9 are Exits 22S and 22N, which would be Exits 27 A-B in a mileage based system. The exits for I-84 on I-684 are 9E and 9W, which would (interestingly enough) also be 27 A-B.  The NJTP only uses it to differentiate between spurs (15X was added later).  The GSP used "155P" as a suffix for the NJ 19 exit northbound, but it has since been changed to a conventional 155A.  In the alphabet city section of Kansas, 2E does not denote an exit to the eastbound roadway of a route, but is just an exit number between 2D and 2F.

On I-84 in CT, you have both Exits 25 and 25A, and 39 and 39A. In both instances, the A exit was added later, and each is about a mile apart from the plain number.  In a mileage system, all would have different numbers; 25 would be 35 EB and 36 WB (the exits are for the same area but about a mile apart), 25A would be 37, 39 would be 54 EB and 54B WB (partial Exit 38 would be 54A), and 39A would be 55.   You would never have that in a mileage based system 

[webny99]

OK, well just so you know, I won't necessarily quote and respond to every last thing you write; if I don't have anything further to add, I'll just leave it at that.

Likewise 

That's not what I'm saying, per se. I'm saying it would stop the "oh, crap, my exit is coming up!" you get now. In most of the country, an exit number difference of 1 implies the exits are a mile apart and most people act accordingly.

I guess I don't quite follow you, then. In a sequential system, the numbers are always 1 apart, so you'd think motorists would be constantly ready for their exit, always thinking it was a mile away.

This cracked me up  You've basically just helped summarize a major issue with sequential numbering.

Advance signage is only usually posted a mile in advance; it rarely overlaps the previous interchange in rural areas. As such, the average motorist/tourist has no idea when their exit will be, only that it's 60, and therefore must come after 59. If they're in the left lane expecting a long distance and suddenly those two exits are in quick succession - then crap - we have a problem.

It's not that I think keeping sequential numbering is the better solution to the problem; it's that I think there's no problem.

OK. Let me phrase it this way. Sequential numbering has no problems on its own merits - it works, it serves its purpose, and people make do. It's fine - some of us could proabably use it forever without batting so much as an eyelash. But it just so happens that it's inferior; there's a much better, more advanced, universally accepted, solution.

Similarly, there's no "problem" with typewriters. At some point, you come to grips with the fact that even though the typewriter is still in mint condition, working great, you should invest in a computer. It should be obvious -
it doesn't have to be broken before it's worth considering an upgrade. Progress is inevitable; an integral part of the world we live in. Like it or lump it, it's happening before your very eyes.

And that, in raw, simplistic terms, is the real crux of the issue with the stance that there isn't a problem.

[kalvado]

Advance signage is only usually posted a mile in advance; it rarely overlaps the previous interchange in rural areas. As such, the average motorist/tourist has no idea when their exit will be, only that it's 60, and therefore must come after 59. If they're in the left lane expecting a long distance and suddenly those two exits are in quick succession - then crap - we have a problem.

There is a line right below your username in right coloumn, I think it is the proper answer to your concerns...

[J N Winkler]

Advance signage is only usually posted a mile in advance; it rarely overlaps the previous interchange in rural areas. As such, the average motorist/tourist has no idea when their exit will be, only that it's 60, and therefore must come after 59. If they're in the left lane expecting a long distance and suddenly those two exits are in quick succession - then crap - we have a problem.

A variation of this problem with some (not all) sequential numbering schemes is skipped numbers.  Pass Exit 58, bed in for a cruise, mile . . . mile . . . OMG, next exit is 60! (often because Exit 59 exists only in the other direction).  And this can surprise even the wary driver who is prepared for a rapid-fire succession of exits.

[webny99]

There is a line right below your username in right coloumn, I think it is the proper answer to your concerns...

I'd love to think I could cruise 50 miles on the Northway without using the left lane. I'd love to think everyone else could too 
If they're passing, I have no objections to them being there.

A variation of this problem with some (not all) sequential numbering schemes is skipped numbers.  Pass Exit 58, bed in for a cruise, mile . . . mile . . . OMG, next exit is 60! (often because Exit 59 exists only in the other direction).  And this can surprise even the wary driver who is prepared for a rapid-fire succession of exits.

Extremely good point; and I find myself quite surprised that this has not been mentioned upthread.

I-490 is a prime example of this; the westbound numbering scheme is 29-27-26-25-23-21. This excludes three numbers (all of which are used eastbound) and as such must be hopeless at best for long-distance travelers.

Especially the absence of 22, since 21 is a major double-split junction with I-590. Combined with the lack of advance signage for 21, this leads to a lot of last minute weaving. Here all these years people have been merging right at the last second, and I've been blaming them for intentionally cutting the queue 

[cl94]

Also, what about the Thruway case south of Albany? Say you're going NB and looking for 21B. Think it'll be after 21A? Nope! The sequence is 21-21B-21A-22. And 22 is less than a mile north of 21A.

And as far as skipped numbers, TONS of cases of that in this state. Because of partial exits, I-190 jumps from 14 to 11 SB, NY 17 jumps from 126 to 129 SB, and there are a few other huge jumps throughout the state. I-87 (Northway) Exit 3, I-190 Exit 10, and NY 17 Exit 88 just don't exist. At least Massachusetts will post a "No Exit XX" sign in the event a number is skipped.