Farthest distance depicted on Interchange Sequence Signs?

[KCRoadFan]

You've seen them - they're those double-sided signs in the medians of urban and suburban freeways, giving the distance to the next three (or sometimes four) exits to the nearest quarter of a mile. The MUTCD calls them "Interchange Sequence Signs."

Anyway, I have a question: what's the longest distance you've seen on one of these signs? Presumably, the most promising candidates would be in outer suburbia or exurbia - areas that are built-up enough (or becoming so) to warrant such signs being installed, but still sparse enough for the exits to be spaced relatively far apart.

The longest distance I've seen depicted on an Interchange Sequence Sign is 8 1/2 miles, on I-64/Highway 40 eastbound through rapidly growing St. Charles County, as you make your way towards St. Louis - more specifically, just east of the MO 364 interchange (GSV link: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7620465,-90.7658816,3a,15y,131.32h,95.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spY5sDMprCiuyLjAnPGqjKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Has anyone elsewhere in the country seen any longer distances displayed on one of these signs? I'd be interested to know.

[gonealookin]

I-580 in south Reno.  1/4, 9 and 20.  Mt. Rose Highway (1/4) and Old US 395 (9) are the next two exits, but there are two more exits in Washoe Valley before you get to Carson City.  I think the Bellevue Road exit, the next exit after Old US 395, is approximately 13 miles from there. 

Also, for a real oddball on I-580, try this one.  26, 112 and 217.  I know it's not exactly what you're looking for but it's double-sided, listing the Carson City exits in the southbound direction, and I've always thought that was a strange place for that particular sign.

[US 89]

I've found the best places to find stuff like this are at the fringes of urban areas. Largest one I recall seeing is the 14.25 on this sign in Santaquin, Utah on I-15:

[Brandon]

Interchange sequence signs aren't used in Illinois that way; however, ISTHA does post the signage for the next exit.  Here's I-88 west at Rochelle (IL-251): https://goo.gl/maps/Hi2yhqS69Ywd5C796

[formulanone]

Near the westbound "start" of I-70 near Baltimore:





However, it doesn't meet the OP's criteria for "double-sided".

[webny99]

Largest one I recall seeing is the 14.25 on this sign in Santaquin, Utah on I-15:
[img snipped]

But in this case, doesn't Mona refer to the place, not the interchange?

Near the westbound "start" of I-70 near Baltimore:
[img snipped]
However, it doesn't meet the OP's criteria for "double-sided".

It's also just a standard mileage sign, not an interchange sequence sign.

[kphoger]

Interchange sequence signs aren't used in Illinois that way; however, ISTHA does post the signage for the next exit.  Here's I-88 west at Rochelle (IL-251): https://goo.gl/maps/Hi2yhqS69Ywd5C796

Thanks for posting that.  I immediately thought of the sign but couldn't remember where it was.

Largest one I recall seeing is the 14.25 on this sign in Santaquin, Utah on I-15:
[img snipped]

But in this case, doesn't Mona refer to the place, not the interchange?

Maybe, maybe not.  The exit at the interchange itself does indeed say "Mona" as the only legend.  However, it also has a UT-54 shield, so that probably discounts it.

However, the challenge was for "interchange sequence signs", which US 89's example certainly is.  You could claim that "Mona" shouldn't be included on the interchange sequence sign, but it's an interchange sequence sign none the less.

[webny99]

However, the challenge was for "interchange sequence signs", which US 89's example certainly is.  You could claim that "Mona" shouldn't be included on the interchange sequence sign, but it's an interchange sequence sign none the less.

It would be good to get clarification from the OP as to whether locales posted on interchange sequence signs can still be counted.

States vary tremendously in their application of interchange sequence signs. New York doesn't use them at all, for example. PennDOT does this, but not consistently. Some states use a "hybrid" version that includes the control cities for the route in addition to upcoming exits. And some states use the classic double-sided version in the median; no control cities, just upcoming exits only, like the one posted in the OP.

(I would call the Utah example a variation of this last type, given that no exits are "skipped" by the sign: Mona is the next exit after Summit Ridge Pkwy, not a control city for I-15.)

[vdeane]

New York doesn't use them at all, for example.

They exist:
http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i81&state=NY&file=101_7243.JPG
http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i81&state=NY&file=101_7246.JPG
http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i88&state=NY&file=101_7295.JPG
http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i81&state=NY&file=100_7528.JPG
https://goo.gl/maps/jDFhYEjLHqLbtoS36

[webny99]

New York doesn't use them at all, for example.

They exist:
[links snipped]

You're right, I should have been more specific.
There are a few PA-style examples around, but they're used very sparingly, usually with shields instead of road names, not double-sided, not in the median, and usually for mid-sized towns/cities instead of larger urban areas.

I would say that's almost to the point of not being directly comparable to what the OP is looking for.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I thought I saw Erie on some Cleveland area center line signs.

[formulanone]

It would be good to get clarification from the OP as to whether locales posted on interchange sequence signs can still be counted.

It's the Original Poster's first thread and just their second post on this forum; there's no need to make it super-specific.

[J N Winkler]

New York doesn't use them at all, for example.

They exist:

http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i81&state=NY&file=101_7243.JPG
http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i81&state=NY&file=101_7246.JPG
http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i88&state=NY&file=101_7295.JPG
http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i81&state=NY&file=100_7528.JPG
https://goo.gl/maps/jDFhYEjLHqLbtoS36

With the exception of the next-to-last example, all of those are community interchanges signs.

PennDOT does this, but not consistently.

Yup.  That is a community interchanges sign.

PennDOT does use a few interchange sequence signs, but I'm noticing a definite preference for using ruled lines to separate exit listings, as in the next-to-last example Vdeane posted.  One example in my pile of PennDOT sign design sheets goes like this:  To [Pa. 60] South Crafton 1/2, [US 22] [US 30] West Weirton 1, Robinson Town Centre Boulevard 1 1/4.  Another, without ruled lines, is as follows (I-70 in Westmoreland County):  New Stanton 2, Pa Turnpike 2 1/4, US 119 3.

Some states use a "hybrid" version that includes the control cities for the route in addition to upcoming exits. And some states use the classic double-sided version in the median; no control cities, just upcoming exits only, like the one posted in the OP.

(I would call the Utah example a variation of this last type, given that no exits are "skipped" by the sign: Mona is the next exit after Summit Ridge Pkwy, not a control city for I-15.)

Yup.  The Utah example is a proper interchange sequence sign, but the fact Mona is actually the next exit in the sequence is the determining factor.  Going by the picture alone, without researching the geography, it is easy to suspect that this is a hybridization of an interchange sequence sign and a post-interchange confirmatory sign.  (Colorado DOT loves these hybrids.)

[webny99]

PennDOT does this, but not consistently.

Yup.  That is a community interchanges sign.

Thanks for the info! I was not aware there was a separate term for these. That certainly helps boil down and concisely express what I was trying to say in Reply #9.

Yup.  The Utah example is a proper interchange sequence sign, but the fact Mona is actually the next exit in the sequence is the determining factor.  Going by the picture alone, without researching the geography, it is easy to suspect that this is a hybridization of an interchange sequence sign and a post-interchange confirmatory sign.  (Colorado DOT loves these hybrids.)

I had wondered if that was the case, after double-checking and noticing that there were no intermittent exits.
It seems that when the town/city listed is not the actual control city for the route, it's likely to be true interchange sequence sign.

[webny99]

I thought I saw Erie on some Cleveland area center line signs.

Probably on I-90. I can picture them, but can't seem to find them on Street View.

It would be good to get clarification from the OP as to whether locales posted on interchange sequence signs can still be counted.

It's the Original Poster's first thread and just their second post on this forum; there's no need to make it super-specific.

But what better way to introduce him/her to the forum than with a pedantic reply? 

[GaryV]

There are several in Metro Detroit, but they aren't always in the median.  Particularly if it's a depressed urban freeway like this example: 
I-696 Scotia bridge

[J N Winkler]

Other PennDOT examples:

Unruled:

Broad St 1/2, 8th Street 1, Ben Franklin Br 1 1/4 (temporary sign, I think)
Ridge Ave - Kelly Dr 1/2, I-76 1
Fox Street - Henry Ave 1 3/4, Ridge Ave - Kelly Drive 2 1/2, I-76 3
[I-279] South 1/4, 9TH St 1/2, N. Shore 3/4
McKnight Rd 1 3/4, [I-279] North 3, Perrysville Ave 3 1/4
[I-279] North 2 1/2, Perrysville Ave 2 3/4
[I-279] North 1 1/2, Perrysville Ave 1 3/4
[I-279] North 1/2, Perrysville Ave 3/4
Pa 56 East 1/2, Pa 756 1, Pa 56 West 2
New Cumberland 1/2, Camp Hill LEFT 1 1/4, Lemoyne 1 1/4
Hamilton Blvd 1/2, Cedar Crest Blvd 1 1/2, Lehigh Street 3 1/4
Cedar Crest Blvd 1/2, Lehigh Street 2 1/4, Summit Lawn 4

Ruled (horizontal line indicated by comma, line break within each destination group by slash):

PA 611 - Broad St 1/2, 8th Street 1, I-676 - US 30 East/Ben Franklin Br 1 1/4
Wissahickon Ave S 3/4, Wissahickon Ave N/Germantown Ave 1
Wissahickon Ave/Germantown Ave 1/4

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I thought I saw Erie on some Cleveland area center line signs.

Probably on I-90. I can picture them, but can't seem to find them on Street View.

I haven't been to Cleveland since at least 2008, so they could be gone now.

[Scott5114]

Interchange sequence signs aren't used in Illinois that way; however, ISTHA does post the signage for the next exit.  Here's I-88 west at Rochelle (IL-251): https://goo.gl/maps/Hi2yhqS69Ywd5C796

Thanks for posting that.  I immediately thought of the sign but couldn't remember where it was.

Largest one I recall seeing is the 14.25 on this sign in Santaquin, Utah on I-15:
[img snipped]

But in this case, doesn't Mona refer to the place, not the interchange?

Maybe, maybe not.  The exit at the interchange itself does indeed say "Mona" as the only legend.  However, it also has a UT-54 shield, so that probably discounts it.

However, the challenge was for "interchange sequence signs", which US 89's example certainly is.  You could claim that "Mona" shouldn't be included on the interchange sequence sign, but it's an interchange sequence sign none the less.

Of course, KDOT practice would be to place a 54 shield there and not include the word Mona at all. This is a practice that works wonders for reducing message loading, but does require the driver to be familiar with which route numbers correspond to road names. If you're on I-635 looking for Kansas Avenue, you won't find it until a mile out from the interchange. It will have appeared earlier on the sequence signs, but is listed solely as K-32.

This is mitigated somewhat by the KDOT policy of disallowing routes to exist solely in incorporated areas, so you don't see random important corridors getting highway designations like you do in other states (Springfield, MO's Route 744, for example).

[US 89]

Largest one I recall seeing is the 14.25 on this sign in Santaquin, Utah on I-15:
[img snipped]

But in this case, doesn't Mona refer to the place, not the interchange?

Maybe, maybe not.  The exit at the interchange itself does indeed say "Mona" as the only legend.  However, it also has a UT-54 shield, so that probably discounts it.

However, the challenge was for "interchange sequence signs", which US 89's example certainly is.  You could claim that "Mona" shouldn't be included on the interchange sequence sign, but it's an interchange sequence sign none the less.

Of course, KDOT practice would be to place a 54 shield there and not include the word Mona at all. This is a practice that works wonders for reducing message loading, but does require the driver to be familiar with which route numbers correspond to road names. If you're on I-635 looking for Kansas Avenue, you won't find it until a mile out from the interchange. It will have appeared earlier on the sequence signs, but is listed solely as K-32.

In Utah, route numbers are generally only useful to the general public if they are a) interstates, b) inter-city connectors, or c) out in the middle of nowhere with no towns in sight. 54 is none of those. The vast majority of people who use SR 54 regularly will know it as “that road that goes from I-15 to Mona” (as opposed to a route like nearby SR 28, which will be known by its number). UDOT doesn’t use route numbers on sequence or mileage signs unless the route in question is identifiable by number alone. 54 is not.

As for the label on the sequence sign: I don’t see how Mona doesn’t refer to the interchange. As far as I’m concerned, “Mona” is the best way to refer to exit 233, especially because there is only one Mona exit. SR 54 is unhelpful for the average motorist, so your other option is a street name - in this case “200 North”. Which is an even worse choice, given that nearly every city in Utah uses a grid system containing a street with that name.

[webny99]

I wish NY used text instead of shields on these type of signs. I would much rather see "Interstate 86 - XX miles" than an undersized, hard to read shield.

As for the label on the sequence sign: I don't see how Mona doesn't refer to the interchange. As far as I'm concerned, "Mona"  is the best way to refer to exit 233, especially because there is only one Mona exit. SR 54 is unhelpful for the average motorist, so your other option is a street name - in this case "200 North" . Which is an even worse choice, given that nearly every city in Utah uses a grid system containing a street with that name.

Before I realized it was the next interchange in sequence, I wondered if it might be a control city, but I don't think there's any disagreement on this now. This just isn't a concept I'm used to, coming from the Northeast, where the use of route numbers is more mainstream and it's rare for towns/cities to be identified with a single exit in this manner (though it can happen, like Batavia on I-90, for example).

[kphoger]

UDOT doesn't use route numbers on sequence or mileage signs unless the route in question is identifiable by number alone. 54 is not.

I wish NY had this policy. I would much rather see "Interstate 86 - XX miles" than an undersized, hard to read shield.

I think you may have misunderstood.  "Interstate 86" and an undersized shield both use route numbers.  I'll provide an example to clarify what I think US 89 was saying:

The next exit is referred to only as "8000 South" on this interchange sequence sign, even though UT-164 does appear on both the advance and the exit sign.  That's because UT-164 is not the only name for the road.  On the other hand, US-6 does appear on the interchange sequence sign because that's the only name the road goes by at that location.

[webny99]

UDOT doesn't use route numbers on sequence or mileage signs unless the route in question is identifiable by number alone. 54 is not.

I wish NY had this policy. I would much rather see "Interstate 86 - XX miles" than an undersized, hard to read shield.

I think you may have misunderstood.  "Interstate 86" and an undersized shield both use route numbers.

Yup. Sorry, my misunderstanding. Utah does use text instead of route shields for this type of sign, but I got two lines of thought conflated. My comment still holds, but doesn't makes sense as a direct response to that quote. Fixed to remove quote.

[J N Winkler]

In Kansas, KDOT uses shields for interchange sequence signs and text for route confirmatory signs.  (I personally prefer shields for both, which is Arizona DOT's approach.)

I can readily understand Utah DOT giving preference to signing street names rather than route numbers (either shields or text) in urban areas.  The underlying issue is map relatability:  it makes more sense to sign the street name rather than the state route number if the relevant exit is a service interchange and drivers will be relying primarily on the street to navigate.

Notwithstanding what the MUTCD says, I've noticed some spread in shield sizes on interchange sequence signs.  KDOT uses an uniform 24 in height and takes the shield into account in setting line height.  As a result, interchange sequence signs that have shields on all three lines are typically much larger than signs that have just text on each line.  Caltrans, on the other hand, requires just that the shield digits match the height of, and be vertically aligned with, any lowercase letters on the same line that do not have ascenders or descenders.  This means the heights of interchange sequence signs are essentially fixed according to the number of lines of legend used, and also incentivizes the use of unnecessary words as alignment controls when said words would simply be left off in other states (e.g., "Jct" as part of phrase "Jct [SR 91]" when other states would just use "[SR 91]").

[US 89]

The next exit is referred to only as "8000 South" on this interchange sequence sign, even though UT-164 does appear on both the advance and the exit sign.  That's because UT-164 is not the only name for the road.  On the other hand, US-6 does appear on the interchange sequence sign because that's the only name the road goes by at that location.

Yes. That and US 6 is a long-distance corridor with a recognizable route number - most people along the Wasatch Front are familiar with US 6 and have an idea of where that goes. If a numbered route with no name doesn't have a well-known number, that's when you'll start to see city names being used.

Yup. Sorry, my misunderstanding. Utah does use text instead of route shields for this type of sign, but I got two lines of thought conflated. My comment still holds, but doesn't makes sense as a direct response to that quote. Fixed to remove quote.

Utah has actually moved to shields for mileage and sequence signs in the past five years or so - here are a couple examples. But just like the text versions that preceded them, they still aren't used if the route number is obscure or if there's a better known street name.