Huzzah and hey-nonny-nonny. California has decided to start numbering freeway exits, that last state in the union to do so.
Growing up in California, I never realized this lack. Exits were by street name, period. Oh, yeah, there was the old San Bernadino Freeway (Californians call their freeways and interstates by name, not number — and when they call interstates by number, they just use the number, e.g., “We drove to LA on the 10”), which had exit numbers, and that was kinda cool, but hardly necessary.
(It is, though, the genesis of 47 being identified as the Universal Number by members of the Claremont Colleges, as Exit 47 is Indian Hill Blvd., the exit for the Claremont Colleges. But I digress.)
It was only when I moved to Colorado that I realized this amazing technique. Imagine … you’re driving somewhere, and you know you have to take Exit 121 (because that’s what you were told, or what’s in the AAA book) … and you’re just passing Exit 110, so you know you have 11 miles to go. Such magic! Directions can be given by exit number, too, saving space and ambiguity. No longer dependent on mileage signs (“Santa Carla 23 mi.), you can use your maps to know how far to the next town … or state.
It’s remarkably simple and elegant … and California, home of the automobile suburbs and the commuting culture, has just never gotten around to implementing it, like every other state did in 1950.
Until now. Wow.
Numbering will start with 0 at Mexico (for north-south freeways) and at 0 at the Pacific Ocean (for east-west ones).
“Thank you, thank you, thank you,” says my Michigan-born wife, who notes the state has enough Santas (Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara) to befuddle a tour bus full of cartographers and GTS (Global Tracking System) executives.
“Now I can tell my friends, you get off at exit number thus-and-so and there’s no chance of a screw up,” she says.
Such a system also helps when more than one freeway exits into the same community: the “El Camino Real” exit from Interstate 5 in San Clemente, for instance, as distinguished from “El Camino Real” exit from nearby route 91.
Or the bewilderment of travelers reading notices such as, “San Diego, next 12 exits.”
Of course, some Californians are oddly terrified that all their exit names will be replaced by numbers, not supplemented by them, and thus residents of Claremont will feel like they’ve blurred into Montclair, with only a number distinguishing them. Well, they’re right, in that if you’re driving long the 10 there’s pretty much no other sign that you’ve crossed from one to the other — but city and street names will continue to be posted — it’s just that there will be exit numbers as well.
Believe me. It works. You’ll like it.
Mark here says there are states where the numbers have nothing to do with how many miles have passed or are yet to be traveled… He says Ohio an New york among them – how cruel is that?
That’s true; in some states they are sequential (Exit 47 is the 47th exit from the start of the freeway), which makes for trouble when you add new exits, etc. Still, it’s more convenient than no numbers at all.
Of course, mileage markers can be misleading, too. We were traveling off to a friend’s parent’s farm in Indiana and, unbeknownst to him, Indiana had determined that their earlier surveys had been wrong, so they renumbered all the exits … which we didn’t find out until we had gone past the rural exit we were supposed to take off (and had to travel 10 miles further and get caught in traffic on the way back).
And what about people who mix up numbers? It I have to get off at Elm Street, I’m going to have little problem remembering that. I’m not going to mix it up with Mel Street. But how easy is it to mix up 125, 152, etc. More people have trouble remembering numbers (just what year did Washington cross the Delaware?) than names, I would guess? Also, from what I have read, I don’t think Cal is using mileage to create the numbers since my exit off the 54 is going to be 4 and I’m about miles from the beginning of the freeway.
Since any transposition of numbers is going to be about 9 miles apart, that shouldn’t be a problem. 🙂
Looking at the Caltrans press release on the subject, mileage is supposed to be used. I dunno. They’re dumb if they don’t.
Ugh. Indiana. Don’t get me started about Indiana. I did field work down there one summer… measure a building and its parking lot, drive to next building, repeat daily. Their road markers give me migraines… they are tiny (God help you if it is raining) and the roads meander like crazy (what? your surveyers couldn’t find a compass?) So you can make one wrong turn and not know it for miles and miles. (and miles…) (they have screwy turn lanes, too – I almost caused an accident because I hadn’t twigged that the lane function had changed… )
The Amish are cool, but I was aghast at how many of them treat their horses… I’ve seen less lather on a beast finishing the Grand National…
But the Brick House is a great place to eat…
Most New England states (if not all) have plain old exit numbers, not mileage numbers. I think most of the northeast is that way…actually, much of the east in general. I’ve traveled down to North Carolina regularly and I can’t recall any state specifically that numbers the exits by mileage instead of just consecutive numbers.
I’d prefer the mileage myself. But I’m used to it. I never knew CA *didn’t* number the exits. Of course, I’m just back from the farthest west I’ve been, Las Vegas. 🙂
As of March 2003, the only states that use SEQUENTIAL or CONSECUTIVE exit numbering are New York and the New England states. Alaska is the only state that does not number its exits. The Federal Highway Administration should require every state to change from the CONSECUTIVE to the MILEAGE BASED EXIT NUMBERING SYSTEM on all of its highways, period. It is great to know that California adopted the mileage based exit numbering system program in 2002. Mileage based exit numbering makes the most sense, regardless of what interstate and non-interstate highways people use in America. The other 8 states need to jump onto the bandwagon as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, and California have since 2000. Way to go, CALIFORNIA!!!!
The MILEPOST-REFERENCE BASED INTERCHANGE NUMBERING SYSTEM will begin in Maine starting in 2004!!! The general public of MAINE will finally say goodbye to the old fashioned CONSECUTIVE-SEQUENTIAL INTERCHANGE NUMBERING SYSTEM faster than you think. There is a great chance that VERMONT will do the same for its highways. Upon completion of VT289, people’s hopes for REFERENCE INTERCHANGE NUMBERS will grow!!! Alaska, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware….WAKE UP!!!!!! Also, the NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE & PALLISADES PARKWAY should hop on the MILEPOST-REFERENCE INTERCHANGE NUMBERING bandwagon!!! The minority elite who literally complain about making such a positive change as this need to get over their “sour grapes” attitude and just accept it. The general public has nothing to lose from MILEPOST INTERCHANGE NUMBERING!!! The FHWA should just mandate this.
Well, to be fair, as good and clever an idea as it is, it does cost money — replacement signs, sign patches, signs that say “Old Exit 24, New Exit 319,” stuff like that.
Those companies that have indicated exit numbers in their directions, ads, etc., will have to change them, too.
I agree, it’s a good idea, and I would hope that every state would have plans for changing, but most states are budget-strapped today, and probably don’t want to spend the money.