Mileage Based Exits coming to CT

[NE2]

Southbound I-71/I-75, Exit 180A is for Mall Road and then there's Exit 180 for US 42/127. How is that not a violation? (There is no Mall Road exit northbound).

At a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the same direction.

Y'all Road is a separate interchange.

[hbelkins]

Southbound I-71/I-75, Exit 180A is for Mall Road and then there's Exit 180 for US 42/127. How is that not a violation? (There is no Mall Road exit northbound).

At a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the same direction.

Y'all Road is a separate interchange.

Technically that's correct, but it still doesn't get past the the second sentence.

[NE2]

The second sentence is there to give an example of what the first sentence means. The whole thing is written poorly, but as is it allows Kentucky's case.

[hotdogPi]

How will they handle I-95 in Providence RI and I-84 in Hartford CT?

Will they have exits like 63F?

[Roadmaestro95]

How will they handle I-95 in Providence RI and I-84 in Hartford CT?

Will they have exits like 63F?

Handle it like they poorly handled I-95 in NY City...so many letters and none consistent on either side. And then try to renumber it again...and then just say "F*ck it let's go back to confusing New Yorkers with the original exit numbers anyway".

[froggie]

The GSP is a horrible example of tweaking exit numbers, as it violates the MUTCD
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31

Never said it followed the MUTCD.  Was pointing out an example of an existing milepost-based exit number scheme where some exit numbers are tweaked to avoid the letter suffix confusion.

[hbelkins]

The second sentence is there to give an example of what the first sentence means. The whole thing is written poorly, but as is it allows Kentucky's case.

I would argue that what I-68 does in Cumberland, Md. is an example of what the MUTCD wants.

[NJRoadfan]

The GSP numbers occasionally get fixed. Northbound at I-78 used to be Exit 142 (I-78 East) and 142A (Union Ave. local exit). Those exits have been renumbered 142A (I-78 East), 142B (new I-78 west exit), and 142C (Union Ave. local exit). The exit number "kludge" that starts at Exit 135 (actually at MM136) is fixed at NJ-3! Looks like its just a mile off at each exit though. Also the GSP has separate mile posting for the northbound and southbound lanes. It is not "centerlined" mileposted like the SLD.

[Alps]

The GSP numbers occasionally get fixed. Northbound at I-78 used to be Exit 142 (I-78 East) and 142A (Union Ave. local exit). Those exits have been renumbered 142A (I-78 East), 142B (new I-78 west exit), and 142C (Union Ave. local exit). The exit number "kludge" that starts at Exit 135 (actually at MM136) is fixed at NJ-3! Looks like its just a mile off at each exit though. Also the GSP has separate mile posting for the northbound and southbound lanes. It is not "centerlined" mileposted like the SLD.

Although off-topic, I'll point out that the entire GSP is getting fixed to match MUTCD on the A-B issue. The GSP won't convert to "centerline" mileposting because bridges and other landmarks are inventoried by milepost. But yes, their exit numbers are off by as much as a mile and a half - like Exit 139 being after Mile 141.

[Roadmaestro95]

The GSP numbers occasionally get fixed. Northbound at I-78 used to be Exit 142 (I-78 East) and 142A (Union Ave. local exit). Those exits have been renumbered 142A (I-78 East), 142B (new I-78 west exit), and 142C (Union Ave. local exit). The exit number "kludge" that starts at Exit 135 (actually at MM136) is fixed at NJ-3! Looks like its just a mile off at each exit though. Also the GSP has separate mile posting for the northbound and southbound lanes. It is not "centerlined" mileposted like the SLD.

Although off-topic, I'll point out that the entire GSP is getting fixed to match MUTCD on the A-B issue. The GSP won't convert to "centerline" mileposting because bridges and other landmarks are inventoried by milepost. But yes, their exit numbers are off by as much as a mile and a half - like Exit 139 being after Mile 141.

Which is going to mean sign replacements...and I'm going to miss out on getting those old odd GSP sign pictures...

[NJRoadfan]

Which is going to mean sign replacements...and I'm going to miss out on getting those old odd GSP sign pictures...

Plenty of old stuff to go around still. NJDOT era signing is still up on the "free" section in Union/Middlesex counties, but its days are limited as a signing contract has been let to replace them.

[KEVIN_224]

Getting this back to Connecticut again...

Were/are there any plans to do mileage-based exiting for I-291, I-384 or I-691?

[Roadmaestro95]

Getting this back to Connecticut again...

Were/are there any plans to do mileage-based exiting for I-291, I-384 or I-691?

Seems doubtful that CONNDOT would renumber those roadways because of them being pretty short.

[PHLBOS]

Getting this back to Connecticut again...

Were/are there any plans to do mileage-based exiting for I-291, I-384 or I-691?

Seems doubtful that CONNDOT would renumber those roadways because of them being pretty short.

Given that this upcoming exit number change is a federal mandate and the above-3 roads are part of the Interstate system; I could easily see these roads get renumbered as required/appropriate.  When PennDOT changed their exit numbers, short-distance Interstates that had exit numbers (I-176 & I-283 as examples) were included in the conversion.

Short-distance state highways OTOH, ConnDOT could either easily overlook or change those last.

[shadyjay]

Short-distance state highways OTOH, ConnDOT could either easily overlook or change those last.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the state routes have their exits renumbered.  CT 25 will no doubt continue to have its exits based on CT 8's north of the 8/25 split.  Wonder if CT 11 will be renumbered based on "MP 0" at the I-95/I-395 interchange?  Will CT 184 get an "EXIT 1"?  What about CT 349?  Will CT 20 be the oddball, having its exits numbered based on mileage from its western origin out by Hartland, or will it be numbered with a preference given to the airport route (I-91 to airport)?  Many questions to be answered.   Time will tell.

As far as what's going to get renumbered next, I can see either CT 2, 9, or 11, based on the fact that those routes have the largest concentration of the old button copy signage (Phase III).   All 3 routes could have their signs replaced very similar to I-395's project presently, though I don't see CT 11 being broken into two projects, but rather lumped in with a CT 2 project. 

I remember when the present button copy signs were installed along Route 9 between Old Saybrook and I-91.  It was in the late 1980s, as the extension of CT 9 past I-91 wasn't open yet (that opened in '89 and was extended up through New Britain in 1990 and was finished to I-84 in '92).  It was big doings in Middletown - none of those overheads existed before the new signs were installed.  Well, there were two "thin" gantries SB for Exit 13 but that was it.

[KEVIN_224]

I think CT Route 9 being renumbered would make sense. Presently, I think there's one exit number missing southbound in Middletown for a side street, nearly under the Arrigoni Bridge.

If not CT Route 9, what about CT Route 8 through the Naugatuck River Valley?

[Mergingtraffic]

This project also means the lone non-reflective button copy sign on I-395 SB by US-6 will be replaced. 

[connroadgeek]

Given that this upcoming exit number change is a federal mandate and the above-3 roads are part of the Interstate system; I could easily see these roads get renumbered as required/appropriate.  When PennDOT changed their exit numbers, short-distance Interstates that had exit numbers (I-176 & I-283 as examples) were included in the conversion.

Short-distance state highways OTOH, ConnDOT could either easily overlook or change those last.

Interstate design and safety standards are also a federal mandate and there are practically an infinite number of exceptions to those that will live on forever, so take "federal mandate" for whatever that's worth which these days is apparently not a whole lot.

I do think doing this on I-395 isn't a bad idea, other than the fact that it's a complete waste of money at a time when the government is broke. The exit numbers would be drastically different from what they are now so there's little chance of confusing the new exit numbers with the old.

The problem with the new interchange numbering system is it came too late. This would have been a great idea as recently as 20 years ago, but now it attempts to solve problems that are no longer problems while unnecessarily creating new ones. Now that everyone has a GPS in their car or on their phone, it's not necessary to do the math between your current location and the next exit number to determine how far you have to go. The problem just went away because of technology. It's kind of like when they removed emergency call boxes because technology had advanced enough so that everyone had a cell phone to call for help, so maintaining call boxes to solve a problem that became obsolete was no longer necessary.

[vdeane]

everyone has a GPS in their car or on their phone

I don't.  Well, technically the phone, but it would hardly be useful (not a smartphone) and would be very expensive.

[froggie]

Now that everyone has a GPS in their car or on their phone,

Not everyone.  Plus it can be argued that, especially for solo drivers, looking up the GPS (regardless of the gadget) distracts from driving.  Drivers should be looking at signs anyway while they're driving, so it's safer to go off the signs than off a GPS.

[PHLBOS]

Now that everyone has a GPS in their car or on their phone,

Not everyone.  Plus it can be argued that, especially for solo drivers, looking up the GPS (regardless of the gadget) distracts from driving.  Drivers should be looking at signs anyway while they're driving, so it's safer to go off the signs than off a GPS.

Amen to that!  For the record, I don't have nor use a GPS either.



My thoughts regarding GPS usage for driving navigation are summed up and well documented in the below-thread:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8593.0

Interstate design and safety standards are also a federal mandate and there are practically an infinite number of exceptions to those that will live on forever, so take "federal mandate" for whatever that's worth which these days is apparently not a whole lot.

It's a lot cheaper and easier to change/update signs than it is to reconfigure roadway and ramp geometry.

The problem with the new interchange numbering system is it came too late. This would have been a great idea as recently as 20 years ago

I will give you that one.

it attempts to solve problems that are no longer problems while unnecessarily creating new ones.

Over the last decade, several states (FL, ME & PA being three of them) have already made the switch and the world didn't end.

It's kind of like when they removed emergency call boxes because technology had advanced enough so that everyone had a cell phone to call for help, so maintaining call boxes to solve a problem that became obsolete was no longer necessary.

Not all call boxes have been removed.  Additionally, there are still some areas that can't pick up cell phone signals and not everyone owns a cell phone.  SEND HELP sign anyone? 

[roadman]

Amen to that!  For the record, I don't have nor use a GPS either.

I really like that!  Do you remember where the sign was posted.


Fixed quote. - rmf67

[PHLBOS]

I really like that!  Do you remember where the sign was posted.

I don't.  I just copied it off Google Images.  I first saw the pic. in Facebook a couple weeks ago.

[NE2]

Original source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmmoop/8789867211/
Australia's Gold Coast.

[J N Winkler]

Before NE2 posted, I would have guessed Michigan since MDOT is now using temporary traffic control signs with similar legends.