I-99 Update (Williamsport PA to Corning NY)

[Roadmaestro95]

I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!

[Alps]

I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!

A) It's not a trap, it's what the FHWA mandates.
B) It can absolutely work on Long Island.

[vdeane]

I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!

Looks like the exit density on the LIE in NYC is about one exit per mile, and it only gets less dense from there!  There's more than one pair of exits on I-495 separated by four miles.  Plus most of the state is much less exit dense... 16 miles between exits is the norm on the Thruway for example.

I'm not sure what the thought was behind converting US 15, except maybe to see if NYSDOT could get away with not paying for PR concerning the switch.  I don't know of any plans to convert anything else, but the newer distance based numbers (US 15 and I-781) came as a surprise.  I-781's weren't even on the original signage plans!

[machias]

I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!

Looks like the exit density on the LIE in NYC is about one exit per mile, and it only gets less dense from there!  There's more than one pair of exits on I-495 separated by four miles.  Plus most of the state is much less exit dense... 16 miles between exits is the norm on the Thruway for example.

I'm not sure what the thought was behind converting US 15, except maybe to see if NYSDOT could get away with not paying for PR concerning the switch.  I don't know of any plans to convert anything else, but the newer distance based numbers (US 15 and I-781) came as a surprise.  I-781's weren't even on the original signage plans!

Distance based numbering will definitely work throughout the entire Empire State, there is nothing particularly special about the five boroughs or Long Island to prevent this, the same interchange density exists elsewhere in the country.

As far as I-781 and US 15, I believe the new NYSDOT policy is that all new freeways will have their interchanges numbered by distance as of around the adoption time of the 2009 MUTCD. That might actually be limited to all new Interstate highways, which doesn't really make sense to me because motorists can benefit for interchange numbering regardless of the color of the route marker, but with the US 15 freeway slated to become Interstate 99, it might still fit that latter suspected criteria.

[Roadmaestro95]

I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!

Looks like the exit density on the LIE in NYC is about one exit per mile, and it only gets less dense from there!  There's more than one pair of exits on I-495 separated by four miles.  Plus most of the state is much less exit dense... 16 miles between exits is the norm on the Thruway for example.

I'm not sure what the thought was behind converting US 15, except maybe to see if NYSDOT could get away with not paying for PR concerning the switch.  I don't know of any plans to convert anything else, but the newer distance based numbers (US 15 and I-781) came as a surprise.  I-781's weren't even on the original signage plans!

Distance based numbering will definitely work throughout the entire Empire State, there is nothing particularly special about the five boroughs or Long Island to prevent this, the same interchange density exists elsewhere in the country.

As far as I-781 and US 15, I believe the new NYSDOT policy is that all new freeways will have their interchanges numbered by distance as of around the adoption time of the 2009 MUTCD. That might actually be limited to all new Interstate highways, which doesn't really make sense to me because motorists can benefit for interchange numbering regardless of the color of the route marker, but with the US 15 freeway slated to become Interstate 99, it might still fit that latter suspected criteria.

I guess it could work for Long Island/NYC, but my theory is that if it ain't broke don't fix it. The sequential-based exit system has been in place for so long here, and yes maybe mileage-based could work, but why change it to match what everyone else is "mandated" to do? We're so used to which exits we get off at and such by the number, not the road (so to speak). I can understand upstate roads receiving mileage-based numbering because of the space between the exits, and that I'm not really opposed to. But who knows, maybe eventually we'll all accept mileage-based when it comes to the region we live in.

[jeffandnicole]

I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!

Looks like the exit density on the LIE in NYC is about one exit per mile, and it only gets less dense from there!  There's more than one pair of exits on I-495 separated by four miles.  Plus most of the state is much less exit dense... 16 miles between exits is the norm on the Thruway for example.

I'm not sure what the thought was behind converting US 15, except maybe to see if NYSDOT could get away with not paying for PR concerning the switch.  I don't know of any plans to convert anything else, but the newer distance based numbers (US 15 and I-781) came as a surprise.  I-781's weren't even on the original signage plans!

Distance based numbering will definitely work throughout the entire Empire State, there is nothing particularly special about the five boroughs or Long Island to prevent this, the same interchange density exists elsewhere in the country.

As far as I-781 and US 15, I believe the new NYSDOT policy is that all new freeways will have their interchanges numbered by distance as of around the adoption time of the 2009 MUTCD. That might actually be limited to all new Interstate highways, which doesn't really make sense to me because motorists can benefit for interchange numbering regardless of the color of the route marker, but with the US 15 freeway slated to become Interstate 99, it might still fit that latter suspected criteria.

I guess it could work for Long Island/NYC, but my theory is that if it ain't broke don't fix it. The sequential-based exit system has been in place for so long here, and yes maybe mileage-based could work, but why change it to match what everyone else is "mandated" to do? We're so used to which exits we get off at and such by the number, not the road (so to speak). I can understand upstate roads receiving mileage-based numbering because of the space between the exits, and that I'm not really opposed to. But who knows, maybe eventually we'll all accept mileage-based when it comes to the region we live in.

There is nothing unique here.  Many toll roads, which typically are older than LI interstates, had sequential exit numbers, which have since become exit based numbering. 

Lots of things are changed because of mandates.  Can I avoid paying a sales tax or income tax because one didn't exist 40, 50 years ago?  Can I smoke in a restaurant today because 20 years ago there was no mandate outlawing such conduct?

And as I learned thru the years, you or the people you talk with may be used to Exit numbers, but other people use route numbers. 

[mrsman]

I just passed the recently opened freeway portion of US-15 in NY from I-86/NY-17 and apparently the exit numbers have been changed to mileage-based...looks like NY is falling into the mileage trap too. Wonder if all exited-roads will get replaced by this standard or keep the sequential system that's been in place forever. As a Long Islander, mileage-based would never work there!

Looks like the exit density on the LIE in NYC is about one exit per mile, and it only gets less dense from there!  There's more than one pair of exits on I-495 separated by four miles.  Plus most of the state is much less exit dense... 16 miles between exits is the norm on the Thruway for example.

I'm not sure what the thought was behind converting US 15, except maybe to see if NYSDOT could get away with not paying for PR concerning the switch.  I don't know of any plans to convert anything else, but the newer distance based numbers (US 15 and I-781) came as a surprise.  I-781's weren't even on the original signage plans!

Distance based numbering will definitely work throughout the entire Empire State, there is nothing particularly special about the five boroughs or Long Island to prevent this, the same interchange density exists elsewhere in the country.

As far as I-781 and US 15, I believe the new NYSDOT policy is that all new freeways will have their interchanges numbered by distance as of around the adoption time of the 2009 MUTCD. That might actually be limited to all new Interstate highways, which doesn't really make sense to me because motorists can benefit for interchange numbering regardless of the color of the route marker, but with the US 15 freeway slated to become Interstate 99, it might still fit that latter suspected criteria.

I guess it could work for Long Island/NYC, but my theory is that if it ain't broke don't fix it. The sequential-based exit system has been in place for so long here, and yes maybe mileage-based could work, but why change it to match what everyone else is "mandated" to do? We're so used to which exits we get off at and such by the number, not the road (so to speak). I can understand upstate roads receiving mileage-based numbering because of the space between the exits, and that I'm not really opposed to. But who knows, maybe eventually we'll all accept mileage-based when it comes to the region we live in.

There is nothing unique here.  Many toll roads, which typically are older than LI interstates, had sequential exit numbers, which have since become exit based numbering. 

Lots of things are changed because of mandates.  Can I avoid paying a sales tax or income tax because one didn't exist 40, 50 years ago?  Can I smoke in a restaurant today because 20 years ago there was no mandate outlawing such conduct?

And as I learned thru the years, you or the people you talk with may be used to Exit numbers, but other people use route numbers.

A mileage based exit numbering system is far better than a sequential based system.  For starters, it is easier to number a new exit that is added to the highway.   Also, it lets you know right away how far away you are from your exit.

And another thing, the highways should be designed for the benefit of all users, not just locals.  Locals know their way around.  Tourists and guests need help to get from place to place and mileage based exits are very helpful.  If you are visiting a friend's house in an unfamiliar area, you follow their directions.  With the exit number, you know how much further you have to travel.  If you see a VMS  that says 10 min to Exit 16 and you are on exit 6, that tells you right away that everyone is maintaining 60 MPH, even if you don't know the area well or the names of the intervening exits.

[Sykotyk]

I still marvel at the fandom sequential-based exits maintains. They don't seem to understand the utility of marking exit numbers via mile markers to give you not just a designation for your exit, but give it to your sequentially, and let you know the distance to that exit. All with one small number. Sequential can only tell you how many more interchanges you will pass until your exit. Could be 8 miles, could be 300 miles. No real definitive way to tell just by the exit number.

[english si]

I still marvel at the fandom sequential-based exits maintains. They don't seem to understand the utility of marking exit numbers via mile markers to give you not just a designation for your exit, but give it to your sequentially, and let you know the distance to that exit. All with one small number. Sequential can only tell you how many more interchanges you will pass until your exit. Could be 8 miles, could be 300 miles. No real definitive way to tell just by the exit number.

Some people find counting exits an easier way of counting down to their exit, rather than counting miles - often they can see your POV about distance-based*, they just find the distance to the interchange less useful information than how many interchanges they have to pass before they turn off.

Others think that distance-based is better, but feel that the benefits aren't enough to warrant the disruption and cost caused by the change from sequential exit numbers.

*You seem to be treating those that are fans of sequenced-based as zoo creatures/freak show exhibits to look at and marvel. You clearly have no understanding as why they are against it and have no interest in understanding. Personally, with no skin in the game, I'm in favour of New York, etc not changing for two reasons - diversity is good and interesting: something to talk about as roadgeeks; and as it winds you conformity zealots up the wrong way: which is good as you annoy me due to how you neither care for the concerns of, nor treat as humans, the people who are resisting the change...

[machias]

I still marvel at the fandom sequential-based exits maintains. They don't seem to understand the utility of marking exit numbers via mile markers to give you not just a designation for your exit, but give it to your sequentially, and let you know the distance to that exit. All with one small number. Sequential can only tell you how many more interchanges you will pass until your exit. Could be 8 miles, could be 300 miles. No real definitive way to tell just by the exit number.

Some people find counting exits an easier way of counting down to their exit, rather than counting miles - often they can see your POV about distance-based*, they just find the distance to the interchange less useful information than how many interchanges they have to pass before they turn off.

Others think that distance-based is better, but feel that the benefits aren't enough to warrant the disruption and cost caused by the change from sequential exit numbers.

*You seem to be treating those that are fans of sequenced-based as zoo creatures/freak show exhibits to look at and marvel. You clearly have no understanding as why they are against it and have no interest in understanding. Personally, with no skin in the game, I'm in favour of New York, etc not changing for two reasons - diversity is good and interesting: something to talk about as roadgeeks; and as it winds you conformity zealots up the wrong way: which is good as you annoy me due to how you neither care for the concerns of, nor treat as humans, the people who are resisting the change...

I don't know, if I'm in a blinding snowstorm in the Lake Ontario snowbelt in Upstate New York, I'd much rather know that at milepost 113 I have the option of exiting in two miles to get off I-81 instead of just chanting to myself, "only one exit to go, only one exit go".

Pennsylvania seems to have survived the transition just fine and they've had interchange numbers longer than New York State has. In my limited sampling of folks it's usually the downstate motorists that resist the change of switching to a distance based system. But when we have idiotic sequential numbers like exit 21, 21 B, 21 A, 22, where it's 21 miles between exits 21 and 22, the whole "only two more exits!" theory kind of falls apart.

[empirestate]

Well, as long as we're all re-stating our positions on the topic, I'm with english si. I fully understand the benefits of distance-based exiting and make full use of them when I'm in their territory, but they don't come close to mitigating the cost and effort of converting a state that already uses sequential. I think we, the general motoring public, are all grown up enough to make our way around New York with the numbers the way they are. If some day, all of the exit signage in the state spontaneously falls down and needs to be replaced, I suppose we can talk about mileage-based then!

[KEVIN_224]

Maine changed to mileage-based exits and rerouted a portion of I-95 to the Maine Turnpike 10 years ago. They survived it just fine.

Getting back on topic, how long will the New York portion of I-99 be, once everything with that and/or I-86/NY 17 is done?

[machias]

Maine changed to mileage-based exits and rerouted a portion of I-95 to the Maine Turnpike 10 years ago. They survived it just fine.

Getting back on topic, how long will the New York portion of I-99 be, once everything with that and/or I-86/NY 17 is done?

I believe Interstate 99 in New York is slated to run from the Pa. line to Interstate 86 west of Corning. I'm not aware of any plans to route it up current I-390 or anything like that.

[froggie]

Some people find counting exits an easier way of counting down to their exit, rather than counting miles

The fly in this ointment is that most sequential-based routes have had intermediate interchanges added over the years, and rather than renumber all of the exits "downstream", the transportation authorities added a suffixed exit number instead.

By the logic of "counting down to an exit", if one's traveling the Thruway north of Catskill, Exit 23 (I-787/Albany) should be two exists past where one got on at Exit 21 (NY 23/Catskill).  But it's not.  It's four.

Then you have cases of routes in some sequential states that lack exit numbers entirely for certain exits (thinking I-89 at I-91/White River Jct in Vermont here).

If transportation agencies that still use sequential-based want to hold true to the concept, they'd have to renumber most of their exits (or in the case of I-89 Vermont, ALL of the exits).  Might as well go the extra step and change them to milepost-based while they're at it.

[kurumi]

I still marvel at the fandom sequential-based exits maintains.

Sequential is the vinyl of exit numbering.

[hbelkins]

*You seem to be treating those that are fans of sequenced-based as zoo creatures/freak show exhibits to look at and marvel. You clearly have no understanding as why they are against it and have no interest in understanding. Personally, with no skin in the game, I'm in favour of New York, etc not changing for two reasons - diversity is good and interesting: something to talk about as roadgeeks; and as it winds you conformity zealots up the wrong way: which is good as you annoy me due to how you neither care for the concerns of, nor treat as humans, the people who are resisting the change...

Good grief, what a rant.

For the record, I don't understand why people are holding on to an exit numbering system that's clearly inferior.

[vdeane]

exit 21, 21 B, 21 A, 22, where it's 21 miles between exits 21 and 22, the whole "only two more exits!" theory kind of falls apart.

The poster child of why sequential numbers don't tell you anything unless you already have the exits memorized.

I believe Interstate 99 in New York is slated to run from the Pa. line to Interstate 86 west of Corning. I'm not aware of any plans to route it up current I-390 or anything like that.

The use of exits 13 A-B for I-86 east and NY 352 and exit 12 for Robert Dann Drive and I-86 west would seem to indicate that I-390 is remaining exactly as-is.

[english si]

For the record, I don't understand why people are holding on to an exit numbering system that's clearly inferior.

I don't understand why people can't take the effort to try and see why people hold a divergent view that they are trying to render 'invalid' - especially one like this that was the way things were done by a majority in the US, and still is in a lot of Europe - it is rude.

If the EU aren't pushing for conformity, and allowing a great deal of diversity, on something, then you know that those pushing for conformity really are the Borg/Cybermen/<generic group demanding no dissent>. The EU love conformity and hate dissent, yet they don't care how states number exits - they view it as unimportant. Because it is.

Maine changed to mileage-based exits and rerouted a portion of I-95 to the Maine Turnpike 10 years ago. They survived it just fine.

Of course they survived it - that's totally missing the point. The question was "was it worth the disruption and cost?" not "is distance-based the end of the world?". Straw men fallacies like this don't help me feel that the conformists care about what others think as they steamroller over them - it's the kind of nonsense that turns me off supporting what I would prefer.

For the record, I prefer distance-based. I think the change does tip into "worth it" in the few remaining roads (but mostly as they are few). But that doesn't mean I neither understand the dissent (even if I don't buy their argument), nor think that something is lost in converting to all being the same - and with the lack of empathy from the distance-based side, this side of the equations wins out.

I don't think changing France, Germany, the UK, Ireland, etc in Europe is worth the effort (nor changing Austria, Czech Republic, etc to sequential-based).

Well, as long as we're all re-stating our positions on the topic, I'm with english si.

Actually you aren't. However, I have lots of sympathy for that view, and as long as people refuse to bother to hear your concerns and just say "I don't understand", I will happily fight against a worthwhile change to what I view as a preferable system.

[Roadmaestro95]

Jeeze everyone is making a big deal out of the way exit-numbering is...be respectful on what people are "sided" on. An opinion is one's right to an idea they prefer and/or support, please respect that when you say your side on whatever.

ANYWAY back onto I-99 and how the updates with whatever is going on with it...
A question though...how will exit numbering (assuming it is mileage-based) go if I-86/I-99 come together and extend northward. For instance, will I-86 get renumbered (if I-99 goes to I-390) into mileage-based or be kept as is? I feel like if (and that's a huge IF) I-99 would go northward, the concurrency with I-86 would seem weird if I-86 remains sequential and all of I-99 is mileage.

[hbelkins]

Does New York use demountable copy on its panel guide signs?

Kentucky had to change the exit numbers on the Natcher Parkway after the southern terminus was extended. Exit numbers on the US 60 Owensboro bypass were also changed when US 60 through downtown was decommissioned and routed onto the bypass. I'm not sure how much it cost to change those numbers, but it can't be that terribly expensive.

[vdeane]

I don't think changing France, Germany, the UK, Ireland, etc in Europe is worth the effort (nor changing Austria, Czech Republic, etc to sequential-based).

Does Europe even use exit numbers?  If they do, they're not very prominent.  Definitely not like American exit numbers.

Jeeze everyone is making a big deal out of the way exit-numbering is...be respectful on what people are "sided" on. An opinion is one's right to an idea they prefer and/or support, please respect that when you say your side on whatever.

ANYWAY back onto I-99 and how the updates with whatever is going on with it...
A question though...how will exit numbering (assuming it is mileage-based) go if I-86/I-99 come together and extend northward. For instance, will I-86 get renumbered (if I-99 goes to I-390) into mileage-based or be kept as is? I feel like if (and that's a huge IF) I-99 would go northward, the concurrency with I-86 would seem weird if I-86 remains sequential and all of I-99 is mileage.

I-86 would likely stay the same as it's exit numbering would dominate (and NY 17/I-86 would be the most expensive road to convert to mileage based numbers by far, with about 50 more exits than any other road in the state).  Plus extending US 15's numbers onto I-86 and I-390 just doesn't work.

[empirestate]

Well, as long as we're all re-stating our positions on the topic, I'm with english si.

Actually you aren't. However, I have lots of sympathy for that view, and as long as people refuse to bother to hear your concerns and just say "I don't understand", I will happily fight against a worthwhile change to what I view as a preferable system.

OK fine, so I'm not with you. I just agree with what you'd written up to that point. And you subsequently defended my point of view in all the same terms I would have, so close enough for me. And saves me the trouble of doing so myself. :-)

[NE2]

I don't think changing France, Germany, the UK, Ireland, etc in Europe is worth the effort (nor changing Austria, Czech Republic, etc to sequential-based).

Does Europe even use exit numbers?

Yes. France adds .1 instead of a letter suffix.

[connroadgeek]

The poster child of why sequential numbers don't tell you anything unless you already have the exits memorized.

You will have this problem even with mileage based exit numbering. It's often not mentioned, but unless you happen to know that after exit 157 comes 134 you're kind of in the same boat. Except that it's much easier to know that after exit 8 comes 9 then 10 and so on. Sure there are screwy exceptions, but with sequential 99% of the time it goes in order. Plus if you're on the highway and have passed a few exits already you kinda have the gist of how far it's going to be to the next one (you figure out pretty quickly whether it's going to be a mile or a dozen) even if you're somewhere new. If you've got exits that are really spaced out, they generally aren't signed until 2 miles out anyway. Once in a while you're lucky and they post a sign saying next exit XXX miles or a really super-duper advance guide sign on the current exit's final gantry, but again that says nothing about the usefulness of mileage based numbering and has more to do with signing convention. Never mind the fact that most everyone has some kind of GPS device in their car or on their cell phone. Travelers needing to calculate distance between exits themselves is about as useful as all those emergency call boxes they've done away with because everyone has a cell phone now. Converting the exit numbers now is trying to solve a problem that no longer exists, if it ever really was one. For new pavement, I'm all for following whatever standard exists at the time. I do think it's a waste to retrofit existing roads, especially those where exits are on average a mile apart already and sequentially numbered with few exceptions. A lot of the really strange exit numbering occurs on state highways anyway, and no federal mandate will fix those. If the exit numbers change dramatically I think I'm more OK with it than doing something like making exit 6 exit 7 and then exit 7 exit 8 where it could be confusing to people familiar with the area. Personally I'd rather any spare $$$ go into doing something that will actually help, like adding some new lanes, reconfiguring underpowered interchanges, or better yet refund it to the tax payer.

[NE2]

Florida's Turnpike had an interesting solution: number exits sequentially, but in increments of 4 (5 after 60, which was coincidentally the SR 60 exit). New interchanges received numbers in between.