Exit numbers: Distance based number or sequential?

[roadman65]

Distance based is best!  It helps you find mileage.  For example know one knows by looking at the map how far the points along NY I-495 are on Long Island from its western end without looking it up.  If the LIE had mile based numbers you can approximate how far each exit is from the Midtown Tunnel.

[vdeane]

True, but the point typically isn't to know how far it is to the next exit, but how far it is to your exit.

Information about a random intermediate exit is fairly useless, unless of course you're driving with a small child with a smaller bladder, and you need to know whether or not he can make it to the next public restroom, or if it's "side of the road" time.

And sequential doesn't give that info either.  The only way to solve that is by mandating "next exit x miles" panels when the distance is over a certain length.  The only people who would care to know the next exit number are roadgeeks (and even in sequential it's not always predictable; just look at exits 21, 21B, 21A, 22 on the Thruway, or many portions of NY 17).

[agentsteel53]

And sequential doesn't give that info either.  The only way to solve that is by mandating "next exit x miles" panels when the distance is over a certain length.  

I think "next services" is mandatory on the interstate system for 25 miles, but spottily enforced.  there is a 73 mile gap in services between Socorro and Truth or Consequences, NM on I-25!  Three intermediate gas stations went out of business in 2009-10.

[froggie]

If I'm on mile marker and exit 173, and I'm from out of town, how do I know whether the next exit is 172, 165 or 140?

If I'm on sequential and at Exit 5, and I'm from out of town, how do I know how far it is to Exit 4, 3, or 2?

[roadfro]

I think "next services" is mandatory on the interstate system for 25 miles, but spottily enforced.

The "Next Services" sign is optional, for use where services are 10 or more miles apart. The MUTCD does not require any motorist services sign to be used, merely providing most as options with required standards that apply if used.

[connroadgeek]

If I'm on mile marker and exit 173, and I'm from out of town, how do I know whether the next exit is 172, 165 or 140?

If I'm on sequential and at Exit 5, and I'm from out of town, how do I know how far it is to Exit 4, 3, or 2?

You don't, but there's no point in renumbering our state for basically no reason. There aren't going to be new highways or exits anywhere in the state any time soon if ever, so might as well leave it the way it is. I'd rather spend the money to fix out of sequence exit numbers or the half interchanges that go to different places despite having the same number. Anyway, given the persistent traffic on major highways like I-95, it would probably be a lot more useful to know time than distance.

[Mergingtraffic]

Distance based seems to be a roadgeek thing and most people don't care about distance based mileage exit numbers but they expect Exit 9 to be before 10 or vice-versa.  Like when you read a book you expect page 6 to be after page 5. 

I dont understand why the feds are taking this issue up when there are more pressing issues at hand. 

[froggie]

Doofy, you need to get out of New England more.  If this was such "a roadgeek thing", then why do all but 7 states use distance-based?

[Scott5114]

I dont understand why the feds are taking this issue up when there are more pressing issues at hand. 

Obviously FHWA needs to drop all these retroreflectivity and exit numbering mandates and work on solving the crisis in Libya.

Oh wait...

[Sykotyk]

Distance based seems to be a roadgeek thing and most people don't care about distance based mileage exit numbers but they expect Exit 9 to be before 10 or vice-versa.  Like when you read a book you expect page 6 to be after page 5. 

I dont understand why the feds are taking this issue up when there are more pressing issues at hand. 

Actually, anybody who drives a lot LOVES distance based. Nowhere in sequential can someone, while driving, figure out how much further it is to their exit on a particular roadway without a GPS or pre-written directions listing the distances.

In sequential, you basically just wing it. From exit 38 to 48 could be 8 miles, could be 100. Who knows, really.

Sykotyk

[mightyace]

If I'm on mile marker and exit 173, and I'm from out of town, how do I know whether the next exit is 172, 165 or 140?

If I'm on sequential and at Exit 5, and I'm from out of town, how do I know how far it is to Exit 4, 3, or 2?

But, if I don't know what the next exit number is in mileage based, I don't know how far it is to the next exit either.  And, whichever system is used, I doubt the average driver knows what exit number is next.

And, how many people know that the exit number is the mile marker number?  If you don't know that, then mileage based makes less sense.

[mightyace]

Actually, anybody who drives a lot LOVES distance based. Nowhere in sequential can someone, while driving, figure out how much further it is to their exit on a particular roadway without a GPS or pre-written directions listing the distances.

In sequential, you basically just wing it. From exit 38 to 48 could be 8 miles, could be 100. Who knows, really.

Sykotyk

I guess I'm nobody then.  I don't have the freakin' exit numbers memorized on any highway anymore.  I used to on I-80, 81 in PA, the PA, OH and IN turnpikes when they were sequential.

Now, I do admit that once you know your destination number it is easier to calculate distance.

In conclusion, I will also concede this.  Mileage based numbering is better for most people, just not for me.

[ctsignguy]

Distance based seems to be a roadgeek thing and most people don't care about distance based mileage exit numbers but they expect Exit 9 to be before 10 or vice-versa.  Like when you read a book you expect page 6 to be after page 5. 

I dont understand why the feds are taking this issue up when there are more pressing issues at hand. 

Actually, anybody who drives a lot LOVES distance based. Nowhere in sequential can someone, while driving, figure out how much further it is to their exit on a particular roadway without a GPS or pre-written directions listing the distances.

In sequential, you basically just wing it. From exit 38 to 48 could be 8 miles, could be 100. Who knows, really.

Sykotyk

When the exits were sequential, people were expected to know about how soon the next exit was.. back in the day, you would find signs attached to BGS stating "next exit is xx miles"...(My father once thought distance numbering was for idiots who were too lazy to keep track of their fuel levels....)

As Jeff at ConnDOT told me "We like things as they are...we don't like change just for the sake of change"

I still think the FHWA should forget trifles as this, and worry about more important issues

[Scott5114]

If I'm on mile marker and exit 173, and I'm from out of town, how do I know whether the next exit is 172, 165 or 140?

If I'm on sequential and at Exit 5, and I'm from out of town, how do I know how far it is to Exit 4, 3, or 2?

But, if I don't know what the next exit number is in mileage based, I don't know how far it is to the next exit either.  And, whichever system is used, I doubt the average driver knows what exit number is next.

Exactly. Sequential essentially has arbitrary numbering. You may as well name the exits after politicians or something; there's no guarantee that 32 will immediately be followed by 33, and if there isn't, what's the point?

And, how many people know that the exit number is the mile marker number?  If you don't know that, then mileage based makes less sense.

I believe it's in the driver's manual here. Most people I talk to know about it.

[Bickendan]

If I'm on mile marker and exit 173, and I'm from out of town, how do I know whether the next exit is 172, 165 or 140?

If I'm on sequential and at Exit 5, and I'm from out of town, how do I know how far it is to Exit 4, 3, or 2?

But, if I don't know what the next exit number is in mileage based, I don't know how far it is to the next exit either.  And, whichever system is used, I doubt the average driver knows what exit number is next.

Exactly. Sequential essentially has arbitrary numbering. You may as well name the exits after politicians or something

Pre-exit numbering California agrees!
Also, London Underground stations.

[Sykotyk]

Distance based seems to be a roadgeek thing and most people don't care about distance based mileage exit numbers but they expect Exit 9 to be before 10 or vice-versa.  Like when you read a book you expect page 6 to be after page 5. 

I dont understand why the feds are taking this issue up when there are more pressing issues at hand. 

Actually, anybody who drives a lot LOVES distance based. Nowhere in sequential can someone, while driving, figure out how much further it is to their exit on a particular roadway without a GPS or pre-written directions listing the distances.

In sequential, you basically just wing it. From exit 38 to 48 could be 8 miles, could be 100. Who knows, really.

Sykotyk

When the exits were sequential, people were expected to know about how soon the next exit was.. back in the day, you would find signs attached to BGS stating "next exit is xx miles"...(My father once thought distance numbering was for idiots who were too lazy to keep track of their fuel levels....)

As Jeff at ConnDOT told me "We like things as they are...we don't like change just for the sake of change"

I still think the FHWA should forget trifles as this, and worry about more important issues

But, that's true with mileage based as well. Nowhere do you know how far it is to the exit AFTER the next exit. They can still post "5 Miles to Next Exit" on distance based as there isn't any other system by which someone would know that, same with sequential.

One system is arbitrary and  let's you know, generally, that you're making progress toward your exit. The other is arbitrary and let's you know, generally, how far it is to your exit.

Anybody arguing against that might as well argue that we take down street blades, BGSs, etc, as making things easier for drivers to know where they're going, how far to get there, and rough indicators on distance are just too convenient for us. We need more difficulty in driving, not less. /snark

Sykotyk

[tollboothrob]

My preference is mileage based, and I think the reasons have been covered well. Both sides have, actually.

A problem I see with the current state of exit numbering is that mileage-based is used far more frequently than sequential, and most motorists expect it to be the case. Even if they are on a road that is sequentially numbered, they still may not realize that's how it is numbered. I've seen this in action taking calls from motorists on the New Jersey Turnpike. I ask what milemarker they are at, and they say, for example, right before Exit 14, so must be at MM 13. Also, they may just say MM 9, then upon further questioning they say they are at Exit 9.

Another interesting situation exists on the northern Turnpike on the eastern and western spurs. Milemarkers on these are supposed to have an E or W on top, i.e. E110.7, but the letters are only applied sporadically, giving no indication as to what spur they are on. To make matters worse, the exits are suffixed with an E or W, but some can be accessed by both spurs. You can exit at 15E from the SB western spur, and enter the NB westerly from 15E, and 15W has a SB exit and NB entrance on the westerly.

[Brandon]

But, that's true with mileage based as well. Nowhere do you know how far it is to the exit AFTER the next exit. They can still post "5 Miles to Next Exit" on distance based as there isn't any other system by which someone would know that, same with sequential.

This is where I like how the Illinois Tollway signs exits.  Even with the new exit numbers on I-88, they still post the current exit and the next exit on the gantry, even if the next exit is some 17 miles away.  Solves the problem without a stupid "Next Exit XX Miles" sign.

[roadman65]

Hey did anyone realize that I-70's exit numbers in Illinois are not from the Missouri State Line on the Poplar Street Bridge in St. Louis where its true western terminus is in that state?
Only the duplex with I-55 are they correct, but after I-70 leaves I-55 it continues with mileposts started from I-270's entry into Illinois  and the exits are corresponding with I-270's mile posts that did not end with it. I-270 ends where I-70 leaves I-55 and is the same freeway that means someone did not figure that the exit numbers and mileposts are for the route numbers.

[Scott5114]

The I-70 thing may be intentional to prevent confusion between exit numbers after 70 and 55 diverge. That is one point I'll concede to sequential: since you're using arbitrary numbering anyway, it is a lot easier to get creative in situations like this.

[J N Winkler]

I believe the MUTCD advises fixing the zero point for mileposting and distance-based exit numbering at the start of route or entry point in a state (as applies), but I am not sure this guideline has been elevated to a Standard.  Depending in part on whether it has or not, oddities like I-17 in Arizona with its zero point at (approximately) MP 184 are likely to persist.

[Sykotyk]

Hey did anyone realize that I-70's exit numbers in Illinois are not from the Missouri State Line on the Poplar Street Bridge in St. Louis where its true western terminus is in that state?
Only the duplex with I-55 are they correct, but after I-70 leaves I-55 it continues with mileposts started from I-270's entry into Illinois  and the exits are corresponding with I-270's mile posts that did not end with it. I-270 ends where I-70 leaves I-55 and is the same freeway that means someone did not figure that the exit numbers and mileposts are for the route numbers.

I'm of the opinion that route numbers should always take the most direct route in a metro area. I-10 instead of I-12, I-271 in Ohio should be I-71, I-270 in MO/IL should be I-70, I-670 in KC should be I-70, etc.

The route does not NEED to go through downtown. A spur or loop is quite sufficient. As Rochester (I-490) or Cleveland (I-480) how well that works.

[roadfro]

I believe the MUTCD advises fixing the zero point for mileposting and distance-based exit numbering at the start of route or entry point in a state (as applies), but I am not sure this guideline has been elevated to a Standard.  Depending in part on whether it has or not, oddities like I-17 in Arizona with its zero point at (approximately) MP 184 are likely to persist.

In the 2009 manual, it is indeed a guidance statement.

[huskeroadgeek]

Hey did anyone realize that I-70's exit numbers in Illinois are not from the Missouri State Line on the Poplar Street Bridge in St. Louis where its true western terminus is in that state?
Only the duplex with I-55 are they correct, but after I-70 leaves I-55 it continues with mileposts started from I-270's entry into Illinois  and the exits are corresponding with I-270's mile posts that did not end with it. I-270 ends where I-70 leaves I-55 and is the same freeway that means someone did not figure that the exit numbers and mileposts are for the route numbers.

I just noticed that recently. Funny that I hadn't noticed it before now. Maybe it's because every time I've gone through the area on I-70, I always use I-270 around St. Louis. I would guess since most through traffic does that, that's why they did it that way.

Another example of a somewhat arbitrary beginning point for exit numbering on a freeway would be the US 67/167 freeway in Arkansas. Actually, the numbering makes sense as I-40 is where the freeway starts and the starting point for numbering, but it doesn't follow either US 67 or US 167's mileage. It's numbered as if it were a new route-being numbered from the point of origin.

[myosh_tino]

I believe the MUTCD advises fixing the zero point for mileposting and distance-based exit numbering at the start of route or entry point in a state (as applies), but I am not sure this guideline has been elevated to a Standard.  Depending in part on whether it has or not, oddities like I-17 in Arizona with its zero point at (approximately) MP 184 are likely to persist.

I-380 near San Francisco is similar to the I-17 situation in Arizona.  I-380 was supposed to continue west from I-280 to CA-1 near Pacifica and this is why exit numbers on I-380 start at Exit 5 instead of Exit 1.  I guess there's still a chance the western extension of I-380 will be built some day.

CA-65 kind of falls into this category too.  After getting onto CA-65 from I-80 near Roseville, the first exit is numbered 307.  The reason for this is because there's a huge chunk of CA-65 between CA-198 and I-80 that hasn't been constructed yet.