NY has reference markers every 10/th of a mile or 528 feet or 160 m. If
we convert signs those markers wont change as the are not mile markers
but reference markers for accident identification. Not sure what we
would do about our actual mile marker reference system which is not
extensive and mostly located on interstates.
NY has not converted to mile exit numbers yet.
Howard
Howard Ressel
Project Design Engineer, Region 4
(585) 272-3372
>>> "Ziser, Jesse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2/10/2008 1:11 AM >>>
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
