Mileage Based Exits coming to CT

[Brandon]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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

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.

[roadman]

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.

[vdeane]

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

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.

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.

[PHLBOS]

The temporary sign below stood for over two years before the overhead was replaced, and many have survived for longer.

Man, that exit tab is rather tall.

[J N Winkler]

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.

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 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.

[roadman]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[wytout]

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

[connroadgeek]

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.

[vdeane]

It takes NYSDOT a LONG time to move from the screws and bolts sticking out to putting up the gantry.

[machias]

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

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.

[PHLBOS]

The 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

[machias]

The 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.

[mapman1071]

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?

[HurrMark]

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.

[vdeane]

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

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.

[machias]

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.

[KEVIN_224]

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...)

[Beeper1]

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.

[froggie]

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.

Per E-mails I've traded with VTrans, they're trying to hold out as long as possible.

[machias]

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.

[KEVIN_224]

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.

[agentsteel53]

what was the advantage of sequential exits, that everyone adopted it back in the day?

[J N Winkler]

what 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.