Why every 100 m? That's an order of magnitude more frequent than the current
markers. I expect
that increasing the number of markers by a factor of 20 would have a huge cost
for a country the
size of the US. Why can't they just be every kilometer? Or even every 2 km?
--- Mike Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspected that would be the case. I still like the idea of having
> signposts every 100m and then just having an exit every 1600m rather than
> every mile.
>
> That way you still have a logical progression of signage.
>
> Mike
>
> On Feb 9, 2008 9:43 PM, Phil Chernack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I believe only three states still use sequential numbering for exits.
> > States like Florida, Georga, Verigina and Pennsylvania switched to
> > distance-based exit numbers in the past 5 or so years. I brought this very
> > issue up a while ago in this list as one of the things that needs to be
> > considered when switching to metric. The bigger problem is that exits are
> > somewhat like area codes in the sense that many businesses use the exit
> > number in their marketing. Just as when an area code changes, businesses
> > need to make changes to their marketing materials as well. My guess is that
> > if the switch is made to metric for highways, exit numbers will be the last
> > thing to change and that change may take upwards of 20 years or so. The
> > only way I would see it happening sooner without state highway departments
> > screaming bloody murder is if money is provided by the FHWA to do so. I
> > would also think that after a switch on speed limits and odometers, people
> > will eventually want exits to be metric-based.
> >
> > BTW, the MUTCD specifies that exits may be based on either distance or
> > sequential. It is recommened to use distance based on either km or miles.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > On Feb 9, 2008 11:12 PM, Mike Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm doing a short paper for history class on the effects of the
> > > Interstate Highway System on the United States. One thing I noticed when
> > > researching was that many states now number exits by the mile. My question
> > > is, when the inevitable metric switch happens, will they renumber the
> > > exits? I know a lot of nations that have been metric for a while have
> > > distance markers every 100m and exits every 1km if possible.
> > >
> > > Renumbering the exits seems like quite an extensive task. It makes me
> > > wonder if the US should just signpost every 100m and then replace the sign
> > > saying "exit 310 next 1 mile" with one saying "exit next 1.6km or 1600m"
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > --
> > > "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
> > >
> > > (\__/)
> > > (='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
> > > (")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
>
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
> (")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
