Maine Announces New Interstate Exit Numbers
Mark H. Bickford
Interstate Renumbering Plan. In sum,
- The new routings have been decided. The current route of I-95 from
Falmouth to West Gardiner will become an extention of I-295, as MDOT
originally proposed (and which makes the most sense). I-95, as
previously announced, will follow the entire length of the Maine
Turnpike from Kittery to Augusta, and thence north via its existing
route. The Falmouth Spur (current Turnpike Exit 9) will be a secret
I-495.
- Maine will not become an Exit 0 state, even though we could have used
that number in Kittery.
- According to the list of new exit numbers, MDOT apparently decided to
avoid numbering multiple exits per mile by leaving the current I-295
exits through metro Portland unchanged. This will result in a slight
deviation from pure mileage numbering in that area (although it's
reasonably close).
- The article in the Telegram did not mention any renumbering of I-195
(Saco / Old Orchard Beach) or I-395 (metro Bangor). 195 is probably too
short to bother with, but I'd be interested in knowing what the plans
are for I-395 given that that road may be extended.
The article, with the full list of new exit numbers for I-95 and I-295,
is online at http://www.pressherald.com/news/state/030223turnpike.shtml.
--
Those who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary security
may deserve neither, but they tend to be the majority of voters.
Bill Mead
> I-495.
Would rather this be a SIGNED I-595 or something- would help an
out-of-towner calling the cops or other authorities with a problem or
breakdown. If you don't number it, how about an
EAST
----
Falmouth
Spur
-----
couldn't hurt...
Bill
AKirsc5653
holdouts with the sequential numbering. AFAIK, the New England states are now
the only company we have (FL is now in the process of switching to
mileage-based.)
:-) Andrew
Chris J.
conversion.
Then NYSDOT would convert exit numbers to kilometers.
Don't ask me when this will happen.
As far as the rest of New England:
Vermont Route 289 uses mileage numbering.
Exits 7-12, of course, it's only a few miles long,
and the mileage of the highway starts from where I-289 would have begun.
"AKirsc5653" <akirs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030226222541...@mb-ck.news.cs.com...
Michael Moroney
>As far as the rest of New England:
>Vermont Route 289 uses mileage numbering.
>Exits 7-12, of course, it's only a few miles long,
>and the mileage of the highway starts from where I-289 would have begun.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
will eventually begin (unless it's killed again)
Even VT-289 (such as it exists now) is almost sequential, renumber it as
sequential starting at 7 and it changes only slightly.
-Mike
Kevin Lagasse
Nothng needs to be done with I-195 EAST in Saco. It's only got two
exits between I-95 and where it ends with ME Route 5 at the O.O.B.
town line (at Goosefare Brook). The first exit is for Industrial Park
Road and the second exit is for US Route 1 (both in Saco). I don't
think the spur even has any mile markers on it.
Marc Fannin
Also Delaware, Nova Scotia, and various toll highways. (This is from
the FAQ at
http://www.roadfan.com/mtrfaq.html#59 , Q 10.3 - someone corect me if
it's inaccurate.)
________________________________________________________________________
Marc Fannin|musx...@kent.edu or @hotmail.com| http://www.roadfan.com/
Steve
DE is limited to the 95 family - DE 1 is mileage based (it's not km,
right?).
Froggie
> right?).
Yes it is km-based.
Froggie | Occasional user of DE 1 | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
AKirsc5653
>> right?).
>
>Yes it is km-based.
Well, a tiny state like Delaware (the smallest after Rhode Island) is bound to
use smaller incriments. Anyway, I-95 doesn't quite count--it's the Delaware
Tpke.
:-) Andrew
Steve
Well, I-495 is also sequential I think - tough to tell since it's really
not that long. I-295 doesn't even have exit numbers over its stretch.
John Cereghin
line) but they have mile markers and everything else is in miles. Go
figure.
When DE-1 opened, DelDOT posted signs bragging about DE-1 being a
"metric highway". Back then, it's exit numbers were kilometer based,
then they switched to milage-based, then back to kilometers.
"Froggie" <fro...@mississippi.net> wrote in message news:<b3m23q$1o7vvs$1...@ID-76300.news.dfncis.de>...
Mark H. Bickford
There was one letter in the Press Herald some months ago that suggested
that the Spur should be an odd 3di, rather than even, because you can
make the case that it actually ends at US-1 (eastbound at the east end,
the right-hand ramp immediately splits, with a tight loop to current
I-95 NB on the right and a straight ramp to US-1 SB directly ahead,
while the thru-lane on the spur proper loops to US-1 NB). Actual
"Falmouth Spur" signage would be an interesting idea, but the
emergency-call issue would be further hampered by the fact that the Spur
no longer has mile markers.
- Mark
Chris Lawrence
> The long standing rumor is that New York will hold out till the big metric
> conversion.
> Then NYSDOT would convert exit numbers to kilometers.
> Don't ask me when this will happen.
Of course, this is simply an excuse by NYSDOT. They have legal
authority to convert to metric today, or even to co-sign in
traditional and metric; they just don't have the cojones to do it
without a federal mandate to blame for it if it turns out to be deeply
unpopular. Never mind that Delaware and Arizona both have
metric-distanceposted highways already without any evidence of public
uproar, except possibly from the black helicopter crowd.
What I'd do: use the Interstate 69 corridor as a pilot for km/mile
distance signing with km-based exit numbers. The "NAFTA corridor"
moniker would make it a good test case, and since every exit on it
(except those on the Purchase Pkwy in Kentucky) needs to be renumbered
anyway, it's not like there wouldn't be disruption without it. But
without a federal mandate, I don't see that happening either. But it
might be worth considering.
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <ch...@lordsutch.com> - http://blog.lordsutch.com/
arga...@my-deja.com
[N.Y. waiting till metrication to change to distance-based numbering]
> Of course, this is simply an excuse by NYSDOT. They have legal
> authority to convert to metric today, or even to co-sign in
> traditional and metric; they just don't have the cojones to do it
> without a federal mandate to blame for it if it turns out to be deeply
> unpopular. Never mind that Delaware and Arizona both have
> metric-distanceposted highways already without any evidence of public
> uproar, except possibly from the black helicopter crowd.
Believers in American exceptionalism have reason to object to
metrication.
That said, there are other, more pragmatic reasons not to go metric:
* People still think in inches, feet, and miles, and use expressions
which are based on traditional units (e.g., "She hit me with a
two-by-four")--even in Canada.
* Our open-road speed limits are all fairly close to 60 M.P.H., which
means that drivers can see a destination with its distance expressed
in miles and estimate their arrival time at the same number of
minutes. In metric units this regularity is lost.
* In spite of F.H.W.A.'s attempts to make the 'M.U.T.C.D.'
metric-compatible, we still don't have a competent metric signing
system. Many commonly used English-unit signs have no metric
equivalent in 'Standard Highway Signs'. For others, the metric
equivalent has some kind of problem with it--e.g. using "KM" or "M"
instead of "km" or "m." The federal government has never issued
design advice for large guide signs using metric units.
* Proposed 'M.U.T.C.D.' Revision 2 wrestles unsuccessfully with the
problem of metricating signs where the unit is suppressed, e.g.
Moskowitz curve signs. The very few experimental metric-unit signs
installed in the field (including some dual-unit speed limit signs in
South Dakota) struggle with the choice between hard- or
soft-converting distances. None of the new metric designs shown in
the millennium 'M.U.T.C.D.' has, A.F.A.I.K., ever been used on a
public road, much less gone through F.H.W.A.'s Authority to Experiment
process. Hard versus soft conversion was also an unresolved issue in
the millennium 'M.U.T.C.D.'.
* Canada's and Australia's usefulness as design examples for
metrication is limited because the level of uniformity between one
Canadian province and the next, or one Australian state and the next,
is much less than that prevailing across the U.S.
* In the U.S., more and more states are returning to English units
for contracting. Kansas D.O.T., for instance, just announced that all
contracts now entering design will be in English units--this was to
head off a bill in the Legislature designed to force K.D.O.T. to use
English units only. A similar thing happened in Michigan a couple of
years ago. This means that if metrication goes ahead as a result of
political pressure, the absurdity of issuing English-units plans for
metric signing is likely to become more widespread. It happened with
Arizona's two I-19 sign rehabilitation contracts in 1999.
Personally, I think the exceptionalists have a strong point, because
it makes absolutely no sense to propagandize metric using the traffic
signing system if we are not able to use it more efficiently than
English units in contexts other than laboratory research. Our own
experience just trying to use metric behind the scenes--to specify
sign letter height, culvert diameters, etc.--has been far from happy;
in some Deep South states (as noted in previous M.T.R. threads)
contractors have punished the state D.O.T. by imposing a "metric
premium" of 10% for each item in a contract. The state perhaps best
known for firm commitment to metric units in
contracting--California--has not been achieving high dollar throughput
in construction except for the Bay Bridge. Given that the
metric-using remainder of the G7 does not build much on a 'per capita'
basis (although I.M.O. this is due more to their commitment to
selective tendering and their focus on asset management rather than
improvement), one could even argue that the use of metric units is
correlated with a fundamental malaise in the heavy construction
industry forced to build plans dimensioned in metric.
In principle, metric should promote better competition among
construction firms worldwide. In reality, heavy construction tends to
be localized because the necessary materials are uneconomic to
transport long distances. The workforces have to be largely locally
assembled for similar reasons; one doesn't have to tell a semi-skilled
or unskilled laborer how long a foot or a yard is, but many can't
handle metric conversions.
Metric-using countries also tend to use some form of selective
tendering, which often erases the efficiency benefits of using metric
by setting up a noncompetitive contracting environment with large
bureaucratic overheads (arising in many cases from economically
perverse actions such as paying companies for shoddy work). Often
this drives unit prices up far more than any conceivable saving from
using metric units. For instance, partly because of regulatory costs,
aggregate for new road surfaces costs twice as much per kg here in
Britain as it does per 2.2 lbs. in the U.S.
Low-cost, high-quality construction was not supposed to come from use
of English units. But in the U.S. it has. Why mess with success?
Keep metric in the lab (except for geographically specific areas where
other extensions to the signing system, such as bilingual signs, are
also used).
> What I'd do: use the Interstate 69 corridor as a pilot for km/mile
> distance signing with km-based exit numbers. The "NAFTA corridor"
> moniker would make it a good test case, and since every exit on it
> (except those on the Purchase Pkwy in Kentucky) needs to be renumbered
> anyway, it's not like there wouldn't be disruption without it. But
> without a federal mandate, I don't see that happening either. But it
> might be worth considering.
Given that Michigan and Kentucky are both recent English-units
recusants, such a mandate would likely be opposed.
Andrew Muck
> "Mark H. Bickford" <mar...@maine.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3E5AE617...@maine.rr.com>...
> > Sunday (Feb. 23), the Maine Sunday Telegram ran an update on the
> > Interstate Renumbering Plan. In sum,
> >
> > - The new routings have been decided. The current route of I-95 from
> > Falmouth to West Gardiner will become an extention of I-295, as MDOT
> > originally proposed (and which makes the most sense). I-95, as
> > previously announced, will follow the entire length of the Maine
> > Turnpike from Kittery to Augusta, and thence north via its existing
> > route. The Falmouth Spur (current Turnpike Exit 9) will be a secret
> > I-495.
I agree, I think not signing the Falmouth Spur could be confusing, as
there seem to be a couple of unsigned expressways on the south side of
Portland,(please correct me if I'm wrong, I've only been through there
twice), does the one coming off Exit 6 of the ME TPK, have a name,
number? What about the one that connects US 1 to I-295? Or is that
signed as a "bannered" route?
>> > - The article in the Telegram did not mention any renumbering of
I-195
> > (Saco / Old Orchard Beach) or I-395 (metro Bangor). 195 is probably too
> > short to bother with, but I'd be interested in knowing what the plans
> > are for I-395 given that that road may be extended.
Where is 395 being extended to? ME 9, perhaps? Sorry, its been some
time I've kept myself updated on the "road scene" in Maine. I assume,
they're going to mileage based exit numbers. Thanks
Andrew Muck
Michael G. Koerner
>
> [Mr. Lawrence:]
>
> [N.Y. waiting till metrication to change to distance-based numbering]
>
> > Of course, this is simply an excuse by NYSDOT. They have legal
> > authority to convert to metric today, or even to co-sign in
> > traditional and metric; they just don't have the cojones to do it
> > without a federal mandate to blame for it if it turns out to be deeply
> > unpopular. Never mind that Delaware and Arizona both have
> > metric-distanceposted highways already without any evidence of public
> > uproar, except possibly from the black helicopter crowd.
>
> Believers in American exceptionalism have reason to object to
> metrication.
>
> That said, there are other, more pragmatic reasons not to go metric:
>
> * People still think in inches, feet, and miles, and use expressions
> which are based on traditional units (e.g., "She hit me with a
> two-by-four")--even in Canada.
It is my *FIRM* belief that the biggest reason why we didn't see a full
conversion several generations ago is that the 'Olde Englishe' units'
names are so poetic to say out loud. They just sound good. Never mind
that they often bear no true relationship to each other and/or that the
different scales are frequently completely unrelated.
> * Our open-road speed limits are all fairly close to 60 M.P.H., which
> means that drivers can see a destination with its distance expressed
> in miles and estimate their arrival time at the same number of
> minutes. In metric units this regularity is lost.
You would just transfer that to suburban street diving. 60 km/h is a
fairly common street speed. OTOH, 100 km/h is a farly common
non-freeway(motorway) highway speed.
Which is easier to answer (assuming normal 60 mph/100 km/h approximate
highway speeds):
How many hours do I need to travel 420 miles?
How many hours do I need to travel 700 km?
> * In spite of F.H.W.A.'s attempts to make the 'M.U.T.C.D.'
> metric-compatible, we still don't have a competent metric signing
> system. Many commonly used English-unit signs have no metric
> equivalent in 'Standard Highway Signs'. For others, the metric
> equivalent has some kind of problem with it--e.g. using "KM" or "M"
> instead of "km" or "m." The federal government has never issued
> design advice for large guide signs using metric units.
I made several comments to the FHWA on this during their public comment
period a year or so ago.
> * Proposed 'M.U.T.C.D.' Revision 2 wrestles unsuccessfully with the
> problem of metricating signs where the unit is suppressed, e.g.
> Moskowitz curve signs. The very few experimental metric-unit signs
> installed in the field (including some dual-unit speed limit signs in
> South Dakota) struggle with the choice between hard- or
> soft-converting distances. None of the new metric designs shown in
> the millennium 'M.U.T.C.D.' has, A.F.A.I.K., ever been used on a
> public road, much less gone through F.H.W.A.'s Authority to Experiment
> process. Hard versus soft conversion was also an unresolved issue in
> the millennium 'M.U.T.C.D.'.
>
> * Canada's and Australia's usefulness as design examples for
> metrication is limited because the level of uniformity between one
> Canadian province and the next, or one Australian state and the next,
> is much less than that prevailing across the U.S.
I prefer the European and Asian examples of how to do it right.
> * In the U.S., more and more states are returning to English units
> for contracting. Kansas D.O.T., for instance, just announced that all
> contracts now entering design will be in English units--this was to
> head off a bill in the Legislature designed to force K.D.O.T. to use
> English units only. A similar thing happened in Michigan a couple of
> years ago. This means that if metrication goes ahead as a result of
> political pressure, the absurdity of issuing English-units plans for
> metric signing is likely to become more widespread. It happened with
> Arizona's two I-19 sign rehabilitation contracts in 1999.
Basically, this is from the luddites in the construction industry. "We
want to keep doing it this way because we have always done it this way"
is their only reason.
With the recent decimalization of USA stock market prices, 'Olde
Englishe' measures are the only reason we have left to subject
grade-school children to the dreadfull, distastefull tedium of having to
learn fractions. Yes, it does turn many otherwise eagar people OFF from
the idea of learning mathematics at a very early age.
> Personally, I think the exceptionalists have a strong point, because
> it makes absolutely no sense to propagandize metric using the traffic
> signing system if we are not able to use it more efficiently than
> English units in contexts other than laboratory research. Our own
> experience just trying to use metric behind the scenes--to specify
> sign letter height, culvert diameters, etc.--has been far from happy;
> in some Deep South states (as noted in previous M.T.R. threads)
> contractors have punished the state D.O.T. by imposing a "metric
> premium" of 10% for each item in a contract.
*ILLEGAL* under Federal law. See: 15 USC 204.
> The state perhaps best
> known for firm commitment to metric units in
> contracting--California--has not been achieving high dollar throughput
> in construction except for the Bay Bridge. Given that the
> metric-using remainder of the G7 does not build much on a 'per capita'
> basis (although I.M.O. this is due more to their commitment to
> selective tendering and their focus on asset management rather than
> improvement), one could even argue that the use of metric units is
> correlated with a fundamental malaise in the heavy construction
> industry forced to build plans dimensioned in metric.
>
> In principle, metric should promote better competition among
> construction firms worldwide. In reality, heavy construction tends to
> be localized because the necessary materials are uneconomic to
> transport long distances. The workforces have to be largely locally
> assembled for similar reasons; one doesn't have to tell a semi-skilled
> or unskilled laborer how long a foot or a yard is, but many can't
> handle metric conversions.
The problem is in the CONVERTING. If the plans are metric and the
crews' measuring devices are metric, there should be NO converting
needed. And going from one scale to another is simply a matter of
moving a decimal point.
How well can the crews handle fractions? Also, when some plans are
written up in decimal divisions of feet or inches, how well do they
handle the conversions from decimal divisions of feet to inches and from
decimal divisons of inches to binary fractions of inches?
> Metric-using countries also tend to use some form of selective
> tendering, which often erases the efficiency benefits of using metric
> by setting up a noncompetitive contracting environment with large
> bureaucratic overheads (arising in many cases from economically
> perverse actions such as paying companies for shoddy work). Often
> this drives unit prices up far more than any conceivable saving from
> using metric units. For instance, partly because of regulatory costs,
> aggregate for new road surfaces costs twice as much per kg here in
> Britain as it does per 2.2 lbs. in the U.S.
>
> Low-cost, high-quality construction was not supposed to come from use
> of English units. But in the U.S. it has. Why mess with success?
> Keep metric in the lab (except for geographically specific areas where
> other extensions to the signing system, such as bilingual signs, are
> also used).
>
> > What I'd do: use the Interstate 69 corridor as a pilot for km/mile
> > distance signing with km-based exit numbers. The "NAFTA corridor"
> > moniker would make it a good test case, and since every exit on it
> > (except those on the Purchase Pkwy in Kentucky) needs to be renumbered
> > anyway, it's not like there wouldn't be disruption without it. But
> > without a federal mandate, I don't see that happening either. But it
> > might be worth considering.
>
> Given that Michigan and Kentucky are both recent English-units
> recusants, such a mandate would likely be opposed.
Pyrric victories, the long-term trend is the other way.
How far along is the metrication in the UK and Ireland? ISTR that the
only non-metric things left in day-to-day life in either are roadsigns.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Barry L. Camp
Freeway Formerly Known As US-27 (now 127) by showing distance signs
with both English and Metric, e.g. "Lansing 55 mi (88 km)" .
Eventually this experiment was declared a failure and all the signs
were replaced.
I would like to see us go metric, but I don't see the groundswell of
support out there for it.
Also, and quite sadly, as long as there are only half-hearted efforts
to change in other areas (for example, 2 liter bottles of Coke but
gallons of milk) and political demagoguery to scare the ignorant into
believing this is a bad thing ("it's part of the New World Order!"), I
just don't see us going metric any time soon.
Barry L. Camp
1.73m tall, weighs 82kg
Chris Lawrence <ch...@lordsutch.com> wrote in message news:<slrnb60pho...@relativity.phy.olemiss.edu>...
RJ
<mgk...@dataex.com> wrote:
>> * Our open-road speed limits are all fairly close to 60 M.P.H., which
>> means that drivers can see a destination with its distance expressed
>> in miles and estimate their arrival time at the same number of
>> minutes. In metric units this regularity is lost.
>
>You would just transfer that to suburban street diving. 60 km/h is a
>fairly common street speed. OTOH, 100 km/h is a farly common
>non-freeway(motorway) highway speed.
>
>Which is easier to answer (assuming normal 60 mph/100 km/h approximate
>highway speeds):
>
>How many hours do I need to travel 420 miles?
>How many hours do I need to travel 700 km?
You don't usually do distances that large on the fly. Usually you're
measuring in minutes, e.g. "I just passed exit 42 and I have to get
off at exit 20, so I'm a little more than 20 minutes away."
The one mile per minute ratio is the important one.
---
Bob Johnson
arga...@my-deja.com
> > * People still think in inches, feet, and miles, and use expressions
> > which are based on traditional units (e.g., "She hit me with a
> > two-by-four")--even in Canada.
>
> It is my *FIRM* belief that the biggest reason why we didn't see a full
> conversion several generations ago is that the 'Olde Englishe' units'
> names are so poetic to say out loud. They just sound good. Never mind
> that they often bear no true relationship to each other and/or that the
> different scales are frequently completely unrelated.
Point taken. Also, our "English" units are often not English at
all--cf. fluid measures (the American Bureau of Standards and the
British Board of Trade fluid ounces are different).
> > * Our open-road speed limits are all fairly close to 60 M.P.H., which
> > means that drivers can see a destination with its distance expressed
> > in miles and estimate their arrival time at the same number of
> > minutes. In metric units this regularity is lost.
>
> You would just transfer that to suburban street diving. 60 km/h is a
> fairly common street speed. OTOH, 100 km/h is a farly common
> non-freeway(motorway) highway speed.
In Britain, a society of "shopping parades", 40 M.P.H. (60 km/h) urban
roads are fairly rare. 30 M.P.H. (50 km/h) is standard even for urban
arterials (the speed advantage over more minor roads generally comes
from not having to deal with parked cars). There have also been
safety campaigns aimed at the "ten percenters" (people who speed at
10% over the speed limit because it is widely thought that the police
set their tolerances for speed cameras, etc. at that figure) which
point out that car-pedestrian accidents are twice as likely to be
fatal at 35 M.P.H. as at 30 M.P.H. Given that hard-converting the 30
M.P.H. urban speed limit to 50 km/h would in effect raise the limit by
about 1 M.P.H., you can bet someone is going to set about calculating
the additional lives lost by metrication. The results are likely to
be emotive since pedestrian fatalities tend to be children.
> Which is easier to answer (assuming normal 60 mph/100 km/h approximate
> highway speeds):
>
> How many hours do I need to travel 420 miles?
> How many hours do I need to travel 700 km?
I see your point, but it is not figures like these that cause the
difficulty. Let's say I would like to know how much longer I have to
go when I am ten miles further on. It is late and I'm tired. I don't
remember what time I calculated ten minutes ago because I've been lost
in a reverie in the interim.
If it's 410 miles, I just remember my times tables and say, "7 hours
less 10 minutes--ah, 6 hours 50 minutes." If it's 684 km, my mind
freezes up. What is 0.84 of an hour?
700 km isn't really a random example--it is, for example, the distance
between Chihuahua and Hermosillo via Mex. 16. Mexico can get away
with using metric measures which don't allow easy distance estimation,
however, because there is no conceivable way a person could maintain
60 M.P.H. (100 km/h) between those two cities. (In fact, 40 km/h is a
more reasonable average between km 160 on the Sonoran side and km 180
on the Chihuahua side. Going west from Chihuahua, the km-posts count
up to 350 at the state line and then count down toward Hermosillo.)
But on a good American mountain freeway, 60 M.P.H. would be reasonable
and so a straightforward distance-time conversion would be useful.
> > * In spite of F.H.W.A.'s attempts to make the 'M.U.T.C.D.'
> > metric-compatible, we still don't have a competent metric signing
> > system. Many commonly used English-unit signs have no metric
> > equivalent in 'Standard Highway Signs'. For others, the metric
> > equivalent has some kind of problem with it--e.g. using "KM" or "M"
> > instead of "km" or "m." The federal government has never issued
> > design advice for large guide signs using metric units.
>
> I made several comments to the FHWA on this during their public comment
> period a year or so ago.
I made similar comments during some of the same comment periods, on
the principle that if the 'M.U.T.C.D.' were going to be made
metric-compatible, the metric parts shouldn't be stunted and twisted
like a bonsai tree. Most of the problem signs in 'Standard Highway
Signs' were not in fact fixed. The one comment I made which I felt
had been taken into account was the absence of a section on design of
large freeway guide signs; there they provided typical diagrams for
advance guide, next exit, and supplemental guide signs, but did not
include the section on design rules which had appeared in the 1979
edition. And none of the design examples used metric distance
expressions like "EXIT 1 km."
> > * Canada's and Australia's usefulness as design examples for
> > metrication is limited because the level of uniformity between one
> > Canadian province and the next, or one Australian state and the next,
> > is much less than that prevailing across the U.S.
>
> I prefer the European and Asian examples of how to do it right.
But their "fork" signs are not spatially efficient. European practice
W.R.T. diagrammatics was examined by the major Mast and Kolsrud guide
signing study in the 1970's with a view toward determining which
signing strategies gave the most bang for the buck--that is,
recognition distance for least sign surface area. Boring American
advance guide and exit direction signs won every time, except for
unusual exit layouts (e.g., splits and left exits) where an overhead
diagrammatic was found to be helpful. The enhanced target value of
the "fork" sign is not especially helpful for well-behaved road
layouts where, for instance, you can be sure that all of the exits
will be on the right. Layouts where the added target value would be
useful tend to have other problems (e.g., congested urban location)
which require overhead signing anyway.
> > * In the U.S., more and more states are returning to English units
> > for contracting. Kansas D.O.T., for instance, just announced that all
> > contracts now entering design will be in English units--this was to
> > head off a bill in the Legislature designed to force K.D.O.T. to use
> > English units only. A similar thing happened in Michigan a couple of
> > years ago. This means that if metrication goes ahead as a result of
> > political pressure, the absurdity of issuing English-units plans for
> > metric signing is likely to become more widespread. It happened with
> > Arizona's two I-19 sign rehabilitation contracts in 1999.
>
> Basically, this is from the luddites in the construction industry. "We
> want to keep doing it this way because we have always done it this way"
> is their only reason.
It is a valid reason unless we can present a good, positive reason why
the switching costs should be incurred. If we change our way of doing
business so that we manufacture--in metric units--culverts, outfall
pipes, demountable sign copy, and all the other hundreds and thousands
of items involved in road construction contracts, will that allow U.S.
contractors to move up and do business in Canada? Or to move down and
do business in Mexico? It's really only the design consultants that
have any mobility and since their workforces are educated, there is
little added cost in working with different unit systems.
> With the recent decimalization of USA stock market prices, 'Olde
> Englishe' measures are the only reason we have left to subject
> grade-school children to the dreadfull, distastefull tedium of having to
> learn fractions. Yes, it does turn many otherwise eagar people OFF from
> the idea of learning mathematics at a very early age.
But you can't get rid of fractions. All rational numbers are based on
them. Not all rational numbers are intelligently expressible in
decimals. Surely the problem is pedagogical technique rather than the
fact that fractions exist as mathematical constructs?
> > Our own
> > experience just trying to use metric behind the scenes--to specify
> > sign letter height, culvert diameters, etc.--has been far from happy;
> > in some Deep South states (as noted in previous M.T.R. threads)
> > contractors have punished the state D.O.T. by imposing a "metric
> > premium" of 10% for each item in a contract.
>
> *ILLEGAL* under Federal law. See: 15 USC 204.
If it can be proved in a court of law, yes. This "metric premium" was
found by comparing unit prices as submitted by bidders for metric- and
English-unit contracts in several adjacent lettings in Southern states
(Mr. Lansford has the details--it was he who originally posted this in
M.T.R. a few years ago). I would think it would be very tough to
prove a violation of 15 U.S.C. 204 especially if it did not result
from active collusion within the contracting community.
> > In principle, metric should promote better competition among
> > construction firms worldwide. In reality, heavy construction tends to
> > be localized because the necessary materials are uneconomic to
> > transport long distances. The workforces have to be largely locally
> > assembled for similar reasons; one doesn't have to tell a semi-skilled
> > or unskilled laborer how long a foot or a yard is, but many can't
> > handle metric conversions.
>
> The problem is in the CONVERTING. If the plans are metric and the
> crews' measuring devices are metric, there should be NO converting
> needed. And going from one scale to another is simply a matter of
> moving a decimal point.
Keeping the decimal point in the right place then becomes a major
project in itself. Cf. converting between C.G.S. and M.K.S. systems
for physical quantities. The units of measure used by a biophysicist
are not likely to be the same as those used by someone carrying out
laser optics research, even though they are both working within the
metric system. Cosmologists have their own units of measure and scorn
the whole metric versus English debate; it's all based on Hubble's
constant.
Metric quantities can also introduce dangerously artificial precision.
It's common to speak of pavement thicknesses using mm--e.g., one
often speaks of a 40-mm overlay, or of a pavement structure 200 mm
deep. But it is better to say 1 1/2" and 8" respectively because
pavements often can be laid down only to inch precision.
> How well can the crews handle fractions? Also, when some plans are
> written up in decimal divisions of feet or inches, how well do they
> handle the conversions from decimal divisions of feet to inches and from
> decimal divisons of inches to binary fractions of inches?
Unskilled laborers aren't often put in the position where they need to
measure anything involving a fraction of more than three or four in
the denominator. This is well within finger-counting range. For that
matter, even tenths are still within finger-counting range.
I have personally seen inches and tenths used only for signing plans.
These tend to be used mostly in diagrams of the sign faces.
Assembling them is a skilled labor job requiring some training
(especially in safely handling the completed sign with its sharp
corners and in behaving correctly around the machines which cut the
sign copy) and some ability to read standards documents such as the
'M.U.T.C.D.' and 'Standard Highway Signs'. In the field,
ground-mounted signs are rarely installed with more than an inch
precision as to height, and assembling overhead sign bridges is
another skilled labor job in itself (involves a lot of welding).
> > Given that Michigan and Kentucky are both recent English-units
> > recusants, such a mandate would likely be opposed.
>
> Pyrric victories, the long-term trend is the other way.
I beg to differ. The anti-metric brigade has been going from success
to success ever since I started looking at metric and bilingual
signing issues--far better than Pyrrhus was doing at Epirus all those
years ago.
> How far along is the metrication in the UK and Ireland? ISTR that the
> only non-metric things left in day-to-day life in either are roadsigns.
I keep hearing that Ireland is to metricate its speed limit signs, but
have not heard definitively that the new signs are up. The rest of
Ireland's signing system has been metric since the 1970's (it's
difficult to trace the changes because I haven't been able to trace
any traffic standards documents of importance between the Road Traffic
[Signs] Regulations 1962 and the 'Traffic Signs Manual' published in
1997).
New Regulations (T.S.R.G.D. 2002) recently issued in the U.K. include
a dual-units yardstick for fords subject to flooding (with the
infelicity of "M" for "metres"), but the metric martyrs have the
government running scared. Recently the D.F.T. issued a memo to local
authorities reminding them that T.S.R.G.D. REQUIRES horizontal
distance and speed units to be English only. The anti-metric movement
has sprouted a guerrilla arm that defaces signs showing metric units
illegally, and most local authority owners of such signs have elected
not to prosecute because their lawyers have told them they don't have
a case. One construction company did prosecute over a defaced
roadworks sign and the culprit was given community service--the judge
agreed that T.S.R.G.D. did not permit metric signs but nailed the
defendant for criminal damage. In his sentencing speech he called him
a vandal and a vigilante. I have not heard yet whether that case has
been appealed. There are MANY websites dedicated to eradicating the
evil metric signs--just do a 'Google' search for "Traffic Signs
Regulations" and "metric signs."
You might want to check out the S.A.B.R.E. Archives at
http://www.sabre-archive.org.uk
for coverage of the metrication issue in Britain.
Pat Norton
Ireland has metric distance signs, but has not yet removed all of the
non-metric distance signs. Metric speed signs are coming within this
decade but they are taking the opportunity to review speed limit
policy and implementation. This was discussed by the Minister
recently:
www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0558/D.0558.200211260010.html
The UK continues to defer metrication of distance and speed signs.
Government statements are of the style: 'not yet'. Road width and
height signs are dual metric/imperial:
www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs04.shtml
Dan Mengel
58/Churchmans Road] in the north) and are numbered north-to-south from the
DE/MD state line (even though Milford to Ocean City is not limited access).
The DE 36 and Business 1 partial interchanges south of Milford have no exit
numbers. However, all the small mileage signs are mile-based (from the same
terminus) and all the advance BGSes use 1 Mile, 1/2 Mile, etc. Makes
absolutely no sense to me. I-95 and I-495 exits are still sequentially
numbered (and STILL missing Exit 2 [US 301], which will never happen), but
DE 1 is km-based. Go figure. :)
If I-95 and I-495 in DE were exit-based, this is about what they would be,
assuming south-to-north like they are now. I assume the I-295 and I-495
splits would remain unnumbered.
I-95:
Exit 1 (DE 896 TO US 301/Newark/Middletown/Shore Points) = Exit 2
Exit 3 (DE 273/Newark/Dover) = Exit 6
Exit 4 (DE 1/7/Christiana/Churchmans Crossing) = Exit 7
Exit 5 (DE 141/Newport/New Castle) = Exit 10
Exit 6 (DE 4/MLK Blvd/Maryland Ave) = Exit 14
Exit 7 (DE 52/Delaware Ave) = Exit 15
Exit 8 (US 202/DE 202/Concord Pike/West Chester/Wilmington) = Exit 16
Exit 9 (DE 3/Marsh Rd) = Exit 18
Exit 10 (Harvey Rd) (NB only) = Exit 20
Exit 11 (DE 92/Naamans Rd/Claymont) = Exit 22
I-495:
Exit 1 (US 13 TO US 40/Wilmington/Dover) = Exit 2
Exit 2 (DE 9A/Port of Wilmington) = Exit 4
Exit 3 (12th St) = Exit 5
Exit 4 (US 13/DE 3/Edgemoor Rd) = Exit 6
Exit 5 (US 13/Phila Pike/Claymont) = Exit 11
Dan
"John Cereghin" <pilgr...@dol.net> wrote in message
news:559d667d.03022...@posting.google.com...
Christopher Blaney
news:Gl2dnSAOK7a...@comcast.com...
> Currently DE 1 exit numbers are km-based (starting with Exit 166 [DE
> 58/Churchmans Road] in the north) and are numbered north-to-south from the
> DE/MD state line (even though Milford to Ocean City is not limited
access).
> The DE 36 and Business 1 partial interchanges south of Milford have no
exit
> numbers. However, all the small mileage signs are mile-based (from the
same
> terminus) and all the advance BGSes use 1 Mile, 1/2 Mile, etc. Makes
> absolutely no sense to me. I-95 and I-495 exits are still sequentially
> numbered (and STILL missing Exit 2 [US 301], which will never happen), but
> DE 1 is km-based. Go figure. :)
I have noticed that the metric distance markers (a far inferior term than
good old "mileposts") that used to be on DE 1 have been removed and replaced
with milemarkers, at least in the Smyrna-to-Dover section. The Biddles
Corner-Odessa section, which opened in 1998, got no distance markers at all,
and there are now no distance markers between Biddles Corner and the DE 1/US
13 split. (In the latter case, metric markers were placed on the section
when it opened in 1995.)
I anticipate that when the final section of DE 1 is completed in about two
months, the mileposts will be extended from the current northern limit of
75, all the way up to c. 101 for the DE 1/DE 7/I-95 interchange.
I wonder if the exit numbers will then be converted back to milepost-based.
Right now here are the exit numbers, and what they would be if brought back
to where they ought to be.
OLD EXIT -- Destination -- NEW EXIT
166 -- Churchman's Crossing -- 102
165B/A -- I-95 (4A-B) -- 101A/B
164 -- Christiana Mall Road -- 100
162 -- DE 273 Newark -- 99
160 -- US 40 -- 98
156 -- US 13/DE 71 -- 96
152 -- US 13 St Georges -- 93
148 -- US 13 S St Georges -- 90
142 -- North Odessa -- 87
136 -- South Odessa -- 84
133 -- temporary exit -- 82
119B/A -- US 13 N Smyrna -- 74B/A
114 -- US 13 S Smyrna -- 69
104 -- Scarborough Road, North Dover -- 63
100 -- future DE 8 exit -- 60
97 -- Puncheon Run connector -- 58
95 -- US 113 -- 57
93 -- DAFB -- 56
> If I-95 and I-495 in DE were exit-based, this is about what they would be,
> assuming south-to-north like they are now. I assume the I-295 and I-495
> splits would remain unnumbered.
>
> I-95:
> Exit 1 (DE 896 TO US 301/Newark/Middletown/Shore Points) = Exit 2
> Exit 3 (DE 273/Newark/Dover) = Exit 6
> Exit 4 (DE 1/7/Christiana/Churchmans Crossing) = Exit 7
> Exit 5 (DE 141/Newport/New Castle) = Exit 10
> Exit 6 (DE 4/MLK Blvd/Maryland Ave) = Exit 14
> Exit 7 (DE 52/Delaware Ave) = Exit 15
> Exit 8 (US 202/DE 202/Concord Pike/West Chester/Wilmington) = Exit 16
> Exit 9 (DE 3/Marsh Rd) = Exit 18
> Exit 10 (Harvey Rd) (NB only) = Exit 20
> Exit 11 (DE 92/Naamans Rd/Claymont) = Exit 22
Add 109 to all of these numbers and I think you'll have a better system.
Since the set of exit numbers 1-22 on I-95 in Delaware and Pennsylvania will
duplicate in the space of about 40 miles, I think it makes more sense to
continue Maryland's numbering scheme for both mileposts and exit numbers in
Delaware. This used to occur when the JFK Highway originally opened in 1963.
(Back then the numbers were sequential with 1 = the I-95/I-695 northern
interchange north of Baltimore.)
> I-495:
> Exit 1 (US 13 TO US 40/Wilmington/Dover) = Exit 2
> Exit 2 (DE 9A/Port of Wilmington) = Exit 4
> Exit 3 (12th St) = Exit 5
> Exit 4 (US 13/DE 3/Edgemoor Rd) = Exit 6
> Exit 5 (US 13/Phila Pike/Claymont) = Exit 11
This looks correct to me. If you change the I-95 scheme in DE to continue
Maryland's you'll have even less chance of confusion.
Chris Blaney
Something Stinks In Here
>That said, there are other, more pragmatic reasons not to go metric:
Another good reason is that forced metrification violates America's
sovereignty. America's identity would be wiped out - all to appease Big
Business, which doesn't mind in the least bit if we are all forced to
march in lockstep to one-world tyranny.
America ceases to be America once its citizens lose the right to decide
for themselves whether or not to switch to the metric system.
I think we should hold a national referendum to decide the matter.
--
I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative!
------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------
John Taber
> A half-hearted experiment was tried in Michigan in the 80's on The
> Freeway Formerly Known As US-27 (now 127) by showing distance signs
> with both English and Metric, e.g. "Lansing 55 mi (88 km)" .
> Eventually this experiment was declared a failure and all the signs
> were replaced.
>
> I would like to see us go metric, but I don't see the groundswell of
> support out there for it.
>
> Also, and quite sadly, as long as there are only half-hearted efforts
> to change in other areas (for example, 2 liter bottles of Coke but
> gallons of milk) and political demagoguery to scare the ignorant into
> believing this is a bad thing ("it's part of the New World Order!"), I
> just don't see us going metric any time soon.
>
> Barry L. Camp
> 1.73m tall, weighs 82kg
No, you weigh (on Earth) 804 newtons (give or take). Your mass is 82
kg.
I think building the Eisenhower Interstate System with mile-based
exits by state (eventually), followed up by all those "Speed Limit 55"
signs, may have done more to put off going metric in this country than
anything else.
Metric (or more properly, SI) is going to gradually creep in if we let
it. If we try to plunge in again like we did in the 1970s it will set
things back even farther (if that's possible).
Brandon Gorte
"Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote in message
<snip>
But, why, in this world, should we convert? Is it even necessary?
No, it isn't. Who travels US roads most often?
A. US Americans
B. Europeans
C. East Asians
A is the obvious answer. Thus, why convert OUR roads to THEIR units. There
is no point to doing so. Now, maybe near Canada and Mexico there should be
dual signing, but otherwise, why? What's the point other than becoming one
with the French-led EU?
As for using the so-called "international" signage system (with its
upside-down yield signs), about 1/2 the world uses the yellow diamond
including Japan, South America, Central America, and Australia as well as
North America. The "international" signage system is better called the
"European" signage system. Anyway, the yellow diamond is a better shape and
color due to the fact that yellow means danger, and the shape has more
square inches for the symbol/text than a triangle (S X S vs. 1/2 B X H).
-Brandon, who really likes the system of signage we already have.
Michael G. Koerner
Note the recent decimalization of the USA stock markets and the gradual
shift from binary fractions to decimal divisions of inches in 'everyday' measurements.
It is a slow, steady, almost 'below the radar' progress that is ongoing.
Michael G. Koerner
I may not like EVERY aspect of signage in Europe and Asia, but I *DO*
like the STANDARDIZATION of their signage.
BTW, they have adopted several USA innovations, these include the R/Y/G
traffic signals, the 'YIELD' sign (but without the word), the red
octagon STOP sign (with the word 'STOP') and others, whereas we here in
the USA have adopted many European standards, such as pictograph images
on warning signs.
Froggie
> good old "mileposts") that used to be on DE 1 have been removed and replaced
> with milemarkers, at least in the Smyrna-to-Dover section.
North of Smyrna as well...up to the DE 1/US 13 split north of the
canal, if not all the way to I-95.
Froggie | Who was on that stretch Friday night |
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
Dan Garnell
> John Taber wrote:
> >
> > blc...@yahoo.com (Barry L. Camp) wrote in message
news:<29af2a9e.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > A half-hearted experiment was tried in Michigan in the 80's on The
> > > Freeway Formerly Known As US-27 (now 127) by showing distance signs
> > > with both English and Metric, e.g. "Lansing 55 mi (88 km)" .
> > > Eventually this experiment was declared a failure and all the signs
> > > were replaced.
> > >
Ohio still has some dual English / Metric distance signs, such as on I-75.
> > > I would like to see us go metric, but I don't see the groundswell of
> > > support out there for it.
> > >
Agreed. Hopefully, this can change over a period of time, especially with
some education. Plus, then you could legally drive 100 on many freeways.
;-) (100 km/h, that is)
Dan
Christopher Blaney
the Odessa bypass, Biddle's Corner section, the new St George's Bridge, or
on the northernmose section to I-95.
"Froggie" <fro...@mississippi.net> wrote in message
news:2547747b.03030...@posting.google.com...
Christopher Blaney
news:3E61A789...@dataex.com...
> Note the recent decimalization of the USA stock markets and the gradual
> shift from binary fractions to decimal divisions of inches in 'everyday'
measurements.
Every home-improvement show I've seen and all professional and amateur
carpenters and cabinetmakers I know still use feet, inches, and binary
fractions. All cooking and baking in this country is done by teaspoons,
tablespoons, gallons, quarts, pints, cups, fluid ounces and fractions
thereof, avoirdupois pounds and ounces and fractions thereof, and all of
these yummy measurements baked in Farenheit ovens.
And as for financial quotes, the values of both private and
government-sector bonds are still quoted in unreduced 32nds, with "par"
being 100. When interest rates at par are set, also, tend to move in 1/8
point or 12.5 basis point increments, even if they're expressed with
decimals. So a 10-year treasury bond may have a coupon of 4.25 percent and
trade at 102 9/32 relative to par. Only when these two numbers are brought
together is the yield calculated in percent and basis points: the yield is
then 4.16 percent. These things seem to have been left out in the push for
decimalization.
Also, case in point: in what year did the market convert over to decimal?
2000. And has the market gone up in any year that we've had decimal prices?
No. The prosecution rests.
Precious metals are also quoted in troy ounces, and petroleum trades
worldwide by a 42-gallon barrel instead of a 55-gallon drum, by a single
gallon, or even a litre.
Ships at sea and planes in the sky use knots and nautical miles and
everybody talks English even when neither party uses it as a first language.
Chris Blaney
John Taber
> I anticipate that when the final section of DE 1 is completed in about two
> months, the mileposts will be extended from the current northern limit of
> 75, all the way up to c. 101 for the DE 1/DE 7/I-95 interchange.
>
> I wonder if the exit numbers will then be converted back to milepost-based.
I doubt it.
> Right now here are the exit numbers, and what they would be if brought back
> to where they ought to be.
> > If I-95 and I-495 in DE were exit-based, this is about what they would be,
> > assuming south-to-north like they are now. I assume the I-295 and I-495
> > splits would remain unnumbered.
> >
> > I-95:
> > Exit 1 (DE 896 TO US 301/Newark/Middletown/Shore Points) = Exit 2
> > Exit 3 (DE 273/Newark/Dover) = Exit 6
> > Exit 4 (DE 1/7/Christiana/Churchmans Crossing) = Exit 7
> > Exit 5 (DE 141/Newport/New Castle) = Exit 10
> > Exit 6 (DE 4/MLK Blvd/Maryland Ave) = Exit 14
> > Exit 7 (DE 52/Delaware Ave) = Exit 15
> > Exit 8 (US 202/DE 202/Concord Pike/West Chester/Wilmington) = Exit 16
> > Exit 9 (DE 3/Marsh Rd) = Exit 18
> > Exit 10 (Harvey Rd) (NB only) = Exit 20
> > Exit 11 (DE 92/Naamans Rd/Claymont) = Exit 22
>
> Add 109 to all of these numbers and I think you'll have a better system.
> Since the set of exit numbers 1-22 on I-95 in Delaware and Pennsylvania will
> duplicate in the space of about 40 miles, I think it makes more sense to
> continue Maryland's numbering scheme for both mileposts and exit numbers in
> Delaware. This used to occur when the JFK Highway originally opened in 1963.
> (Back then the numbers were sequential with 1 = the I-95/I-695 northern
> interchange north of Baltimore.)
Excuse me, but Delaware is a SEPERATE state. I suppose the next thing
you're going to advocate is that Rhode Island should switch its exits
to miles from the CT/NY line.
arga...@my-deja.com
> Ohio still has some dual English/Metric distance signs, such as on I-75.
Those are probably relics from a scheme Ohio D.O.T. evolved in 1972
for eventual conversion to metric. The first phase was designed to
educate the driving public as to metric conversions and consisted of a
few signs scattered along the state's Interstate system, giving
dual-unit distances to the next control city in the following format:
Columbus
100 MILES
161 KILOMETERS
The system was written up in an early-1970's issue of A.A.S.H.T.O.'s
general-interest periodical ('Better Roads'?), but I have not found
any documentary evidence that metric conversion went beyond this in
Ohio.
California had a similar scheme for phased metric conversion in the
1970's. It resulted in the standard G5 distance-to-destination sign
being reformatted to show both English and metric distances with
explicit units. Reformatted G5 made an appearance in the 1979 edition
of the Caltrans Uniform Sign Chart before the metrication initiative
was abandoned in the early 1980's. A number of these signs are still
in use on various parts of the California state highway system, such
as Calif. 46 just west of its interchange with U.S. 101 near Paso
Robles, or Calif. 1 about 20 miles south of Big Sur. I have
photographed both signs and they look much like this:
[Big Sur example]
Pacific Valley 5 mi 8 km
Monterey Peninsula 67 mi 108 km
San Francisco 185 mi 298 km
[Paso Robles example]
Shandon 18 mi 29 km
Fresno 109 mi 174 km
Bakersfield 109 mi 174 km
The dual-unit G5 sign specification called for a vertical white line
separating the columns of English and metric units. This was present
on both the Big Sur and Paso Robles signs.
Personally, I think both the California and Ohio examples demonstrate
the aesthetic difficulties of a dual-unit compromise. In California's
case, the use of "mi" rather than "MI" or "MILES" was probably the
first time 'mile' had been systematically used in lowercase on guide
signs since the original freeway signing system was abandoned--a move
which I think was sensible partly because having the distance
expression in all-uppercase letters sets it off from the remainder of
the sign legend.
Michael G. Koerner
>
> "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote in message
> news:3E61A789...@dataex.com...
>
> > Note the recent decimalization of the USA stock markets and the gradual
> > shift from binary fractions to decimal divisions of inches in 'everyday'
> measurements.
> Also, case in point: in what year did the market convert over to decimal?
> 2000. And has the market gone up in any year that we've had decimal prices?
> No. The prosecution rests.
The market was waaaaaay overpriced during the mid-late 1990s dot-com blowup.
Chuckdogg1979
> Sunday (Feb. 23), the Maine Sunday Telegram ran an update on the
> Interstate Renumbering Plan. In sum,
>
> - The new routings have been decided. The current route of I-95 from
> Falmouth to West Gardiner will become an extention of I-295, as MDOT
> originally proposed (and which makes the most sense). I-95, as
> previously announced, will follow the entire length of the Maine
> Turnpike from Kittery to Augusta, and thence north via its existing
> route. The Falmouth Spur (current Turnpike Exit 9) will be a secret
> I-495.
> that number in Kittery.
> - According to the list of new exit numbers, MDOT apparently decided to
> avoid numbering multiple exits per mile by leaving the current I-295
> exits through metro Portland unchanged. This will result in a slight
> deviation from pure mileage numbering in that area (although it's
> reasonably close).
> - The article in the Telegram did not mention any renumbering of I-195
> (Saco / Old Orchard Beach) or I-395 (metro Bangor). 195 is probably too
> short to bother with, but I'd be interested in knowing what the plans
> are for I-395 given that that road may be extended.
>
> is online at http://www.pressherald.com/news/state/030223turnpike.shtml.
So how many states are still on the "sequential" numbering system? I
think it's 6, CT, DE, MA, NH, NY, VT that have no plans to change to a
mileage based system anytime soon.
Steve
DE (interstates only), CT (all freeways), MA (all freeways), NY (all
freeways), NH (all freeways), VT (all freeways), RI (all freeways).
I-295 RI is interesting - it gives sequential exits but adds miles a la
OH Tpk (EXIT 5 | MILE 11, for example).
Steve Anderson
>
> DE (interstates only), CT (all freeways), MA (all freeways), NY (all
> freeways), NH (all freeways), VT (all freeways), RI (all freeways).
> I-295 RI is interesting - it gives sequential exits but adds miles a la
> OH Tpk (EXIT 5 | MILE 11, for example).
Massachusetts (MassDPW) did this for a while during the 1970's
(apparently the same vintage as the RIDOT signs).
-- Steve Anderson
http://www.nycroads.com
http://www.phillyroads.com
http://www.bostonroads.com
Steve Anderson
You are correct, but until the early 1970's, the JFK Memorial Highway
(Delaware Turnpike) continued the sequential-based exit numbering system
used on Maryland's section of the JFK Memorial Highway (Northeast
Expressway), at least as far north as the I-95/I-295 split.
Dan Mengel
I see what you're both saying, but I think it's unlikely in today's
political climate for exit numbering to be continued from one state to
another. (Of course, if anyone has any examples from other states...?) The
JFK Memorial Highway concept is more of a name now than anything else.
Dan
Something Stinks In Here
<cbl...@my-deja.com> said:
>Every home-improvement show I've seen and all professional and amateur
>carpenters and cabinetmakers I know still use feet, inches, and binary
>fractions. All cooking and baking in this country is done by teaspoons,
>tablespoons, gallons, quarts, pints, cups, fluid ounces and fractions
>thereof, avoirdupois pounds and ounces and fractions thereof, and all of
>these yummy measurements baked in Farenheit ovens.
If I ever used the metric system at work, I'd be laughed right out of
the boss's office.
Kevin Lagasse
Add Rhode Island to that list. I-95 and I-195 still have sequential exiting.
Mike Roberson
> I see what you're both saying, but I think it's unlikely in today's
> political climate for exit numbering to be continued from one state to
> another. (Of course, if anyone has any examples from other states...?) The
> JFK Memorial Highway concept is more of a name now than anything else.
>
> Dan
2 examples I can think of:
I-24 in Georgia keeps up the Tennessee mileage/exit scheme
I-495 in Virginia keeps continuous the Maryland mileage/exit scheme at
the American Legion Bridge nw of Washington DC.
Mike
Virginia Highways Page
www.angelfire.com/va3/mapmikey/index
Christopher Blaney
>
> I see what you're both saying, but I think it's unlikely in today's
> political climate for exit numbering to be continued from one state to
> another. (Of course, if anyone has any examples from other states...?)
The
> JFK Memorial Highway concept is more of a name now than anything else.
I believe in limited cases, exit numbers should not reset from state line to
state line. The case of I-95 going through Delaware and into PA -- where
there are two sets of Exits 1-11 within the space of 40 miles -- may warrant
such a look. If you used exit numbers in the range of 111 to 132 for I-95 in
Delaware, you have a set of unique numbers that are not found on any other
highway in the region for at least a 75 mile radius. (With the exception of
the km-based numbers on DE 1 which may or may not change back to standard
numbers.) When you have a set of such unique numbers, you reduce the chances
of confusion.
I even think the DE 1 numbering may contribute to some confusion. US 1 is
relatively close to the northern stretch of Delaware 1 and since the
northeastern states tend to use "Route nnn" as a generic term for highways,
saying "Route 1" without the appropriate context may also lead to confusion.
If you could have gotten the I-99 number ..... but even then, perhaps DE 99
or DE 101 could have been considered, or even TOLL US 13.
Chris Blaney
Andrew Tompkins
> >
> > I see what you're both saying, but I think it's unlikely in today's
> > political climate for exit numbering to be continued from one state to
> > another. (Of course, if anyone has any examples from other states...?) The
> > JFK Memorial Highway concept is more of a name now than anything else.
> >
> > Dan
>
> 2 examples I can think of:
>
> I-24 in Georgia keeps up the Tennessee mileage/exit scheme
> I-495 in Virginia keeps continuous the Maryland mileage/exit scheme at
> the American Legion Bridge nw of Washington DC.
>
> Mike
>
With a few exceptions (I-24 in Georgia), exit numbering reverts to 0 (or 1) on
crossing state lines for mainline interstates. For 3di's, on the other hand, it is
almost entirely the opposite (numbering continues across state lines). The only
exception I've found in this case is I-270 in St Louis which reverts on crossing the
MO-IL state line (I-255 on the south side does not revert; go figure).
--Andy
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Tompkins
Beaverton, OR
Software Engineer
http://home.teleport.com/~andytom
-----------------------------------------------
John Taber
> >
> > I see what you're both saying, but I think it's unlikely in today's
> > political climate for exit numbering to be continued from one state to
> > another. (Of course, if anyone has any examples from other states...?) The
> > JFK Memorial Highway concept is more of a name now than anything else.
> >
> > Dan
>
> 2 examples I can think of:
>
> I-24 in Georgia keeps up the Tennessee mileage/exit scheme
For the exits, because it returns to Tennessee. Not for the mileposts
within GA.
> I-495 in Virginia keeps continuous the Maryland mileage/exit scheme at
> the American Legion Bridge nw of Washington DC.
As do a handful of (relatively) short loop 3dis that cross a state
line.
Yes, exits 1, 3, 4 and 5 were once exits 10, 11, 12 and 13. But that
wasn't all of I-95 in DE in any event. Delaware is a seperate state
because it didn't want to be part of PA, but it was only part of PA
because it didn't want to be part of MD. To impose Maryland mileage
just because it's one less time for the numbers to start over would be
like not starting over in Rhode Island. And I don't think DE or RI
would go for that.
Steve
>
> "Mike Roberson" <mrobe...@hotmail.com>...
> > >
> > > I see what you're both saying, but I think it's unlikely in today's
> > > political climate for exit numbering to be continued from one state to
> > > another. (Of course, if anyone has any examples from other states...?) The
> > > JFK Memorial Highway concept is more of a name now than anything else.
> > >
> > > Dan
> >
> > 2 examples I can think of:
> >
> > I-24 in Georgia keeps up the Tennessee mileage/exit scheme
> > I-495 in Virginia keeps continuous the Maryland mileage/exit scheme at
> > the American Legion Bridge nw of Washington DC.
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
> With a few exceptions (I-24 in Georgia), exit numbering reverts to 0 (or 1) on
> crossing state lines for mainline interstates. For 3di's, on the other hand, it is
> almost entirely the opposite (numbering continues across state lines). The only
> exception I've found in this case is I-270 in St Louis which reverts on crossing the
> MO-IL state line (I-255 on the south side does not revert; go figure).
>
> --Andy
(after its mux with 87 and direction change, that is... should be two
separate Interstates). The Hutch/Merritt didn't reset at one point, now
it's weird because exits go from 30 in NY to 27 in CT (not a 3di, but
freeway nonetheless). I'm also pretty sure I-295 resets at RI/MA, and I
know I-195 resets at the same border. I-395 resets at CT/MA... so I
would say that numbering continues across state lines mostly for loops,
and resets for bypasses and spurs.
SPUI
> I *think* I-278 resets across the NJ/NY line, and I *know* I-287 does
> (after its mux with 87 and direction change, that is... should be two
> separate Interstates). The Hutch/Merritt didn't reset at one point, now
> it's weird because exits go from 30 in NY to 27 in CT (not a 3di, but
> freeway nonetheless). I'm also pretty sure I-295 resets at RI/MA, and I
> know I-195 resets at the same border. I-395 resets at CT/MA... so I
> would say that numbering continues across state lines mostly for loops,
> and resets for bypasses and spurs.
On the other hand, Massachusetts originally numbered I-195's exits to
continue from what they thought Rhode Island would use.
http://web.mit.edu/spui/www/boston/exitnumbers.html#i195
--
Dan Moraseski - 15th grade at MIT
http://web.mit.edu/spui/www/ - FL NJ MA route logs and exit lists
Steve Anderson
NY-CT (well, sort of): Hutchinson River Parkway / Merritt Parkway
OH-KY-IN: I-275 beltway around Cincinnati
John Taber
> "Dan Mengel" <djme...@comcast.DEHighways.net> wrote in message
> news:Cq2dnRkSC4m...@comcast.com...
> >
> > I see what you're both saying, but I think it's unlikely in today's
> > political climate for exit numbering to be continued from one state to
> > another. (Of course, if anyone has any examples from other states...?)
> The
> > JFK Memorial Highway concept is more of a name now than anything else.
>
> I believe in limited cases, exit numbers should not reset from state line to
> state line. The case of I-95 going through Delaware and into PA -- where
> there are two sets of Exits 1-11 within the space of 40 miles -- may warrant
> such a look.
And there are low exit numbers on I-295 in NJ, the New Jersey
Turnpike, and I-476 "the Blue Route", all within a relatively short
distance. (Not to mention I-495). Your point?
If you used exit numbers in the range of 111 to 132 for I-95 in
> Delaware, you have a set of unique numbers that are not found on any other
> highway in the region for at least a 75 mile radius. (With the exception of
> the km-based numbers on DE 1 which may or may not change back to standard
> numbers.) When you have a set of such unique numbers, you reduce the chances
> of confusion.
First, the DE 1 exits won't change back, in part because a majority of
them have only been km-based. Second, if you think it's so important
for exit numbers to not repeat, why have them start over at state
lines period (besides the potential four-digit exits)? For Maryland
mileage to be IMPOSED on Delaware just because it's "less repetitive"
would make it even harder for people to realize they've crossed a
state line. (Trust me, the tollbooth isn't enough now.)
> I even think the DE 1 numbering may contribute to some confusion. US 1 is
> relatively close to the northern stretch of Delaware 1 and since the
> northeastern states tend to use "Route nnn" as a generic term for highways,
> saying "Route 1" without the appropriate context may also lead to confusion.
> If you could have gotten the I-99 number ..... but even then, perhaps DE 99
> or DE 101 could have been considered, or even TOLL US 13.
US 1 doesn't enter Delaware at all. The idea was that since DE 1 was
built to keep the beach traffic out of the towns, to give it the same
number as the only way to the beach. I suppose the next thing you're
going to say is that Delaware has to extend all of Maryland's state
routes in to Delaware, with the same number. I've got news for you,
WE ARE A SEPERATE STATE. We are NORTH of the Mason-Dixon line. Once
the Odessa construction is complete, DE 1 and US 13 won't even
multiplex, and so there's no point in calling it "TOLL 13" or any
other foolishness.
> Chris Blaney
Have you ever been here? Have you ever really gotten THAT confused
here?
Andrew Tompkins
> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
> >
> > With a few exceptions (I-24 in Georgia), exit numbering reverts to 0 (or 1) on
> > crossing state lines for mainline interstates. For 3di's, on the other hand, it
is
> > almost entirely the opposite (numbering continues across state lines). The only
> > exception I've found in this case is I-270 in St Louis which reverts on crossing
the
> > MO-IL state line (I-255 on the south side does not revert; go figure).
> >
> > --Andy
> I *think* I-278 resets across the NJ/NY line, and I *know* I-287 does
> (after its mux with 87 and direction change, that is... should be two
> separate Interstates). The Hutch/Merritt didn't reset at one point, now
> it's weird because exits go from 30 in NY to 27 in CT (not a 3di, but
> freeway nonetheless). I'm also pretty sure I-295 resets at RI/MA, and I
> know I-195 resets at the same border. I-395 resets at CT/MA... so I
> would say that numbering continues across state lines mostly for loops,
> and resets for bypasses and spurs.
>
Yeah, put it up to those darned states that insist on counting their freeway exits.
I was looking at:
I-280, Davenport IA
I-275, Cincinnati OH
I-255, St Louis MO
I-435, Kansas City MO
I-635, Kansas City MO
I-205, Portland OR
I-495, Washington DC
Christopher Blaney
news:5ff262ea.03030...@posting.google.com...
> "Christopher Blaney" <cbl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:<TlQ8a.701$_L3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> Turnpike, and I-476 "the Blue Route", all within a relatively short
> distance. (Not to mention I-495). Your point?
Your bringing up such a confluence of highways with relatively low exit
numbers in the Maryland-Pennsylvania-New Jersey area makes my point for me.
Out in Kansas City, they have what's called the "Exit 2 loop", because they
have three Interstate highways (I-35, I-70, and I-670) all running through
Kansas City, and all which happen to be at around MP 2 in their routing
through the state. They have to assign letters throughout the entire
alphabet as suffixes to Exit 2. Now that's confusing.
In Delaware you have I-295 (which has no exit numbers on it at all in its
two-mile section), I-95 (with Exits 1-11 in 23 miles) , I-495 (with Exits
1-5 in 12 miles), and DE 141 (with Exits 1-6 in about 7 miles). You also
have the northern section of Delaware 1 with Exits 156-166 in about a 6 mile
stretch. Delaware 1 is the only section with unique exit numbers. In
Pennsylvania, south of Philadelphia, you have I-95 with Exits 1-9 in a
9-mile stretch. In New Jersey you have the New Jersey Turnpike with Exit 1
and Exit 2 being in the first 13 miles. You also have I-295 with Exits
1A-1B-1C-1D, then 2A-2B-2C, then Exit 4, 7, 10, and 11, all within the first
12 miles.
If you told someone that they needed to take Exit 5 to get somewhere in the
lower Delaware valley, you also need to include which highway and in which
state they are going to be in. If you gave I-95 in Delaware exit numbers in
the 111-132 range, there would simply be less chance of confusion -- you
could tell them to take Exit 117A instead of Exit 4A and there would be no
saying, "Which Exit 4A?"
> First, the DE 1 exits won't change back, in part because a majority of
> them have only been km-based. Second, if you think it's so important
> for exit numbers to not repeat, why have them start over at state
> lines period (besides the potential four-digit exits)? For Maryland
> mileage to be IMPOSED on Delaware just because it's "less repetitive"
> would make it even harder for people to realize they've crossed a
> state line. (Trust me, the tollbooth isn't enough now.)
Whoa, turn down the offended meter a couple of notches. I'm not IMPOSING
anything, I'm suggesting that Delaware do this as a favor to the other
states to reduce confusion. It's no skin off my back if they don't.
> US 1 doesn't enter Delaware at all. The idea was that since DE 1 was
> built to keep the beach traffic out of the towns, to give it the same
> number as the only way to the beach. I suppose the next thing you're
> going to say is that Delaware has to extend all of Maryland's state
> routes in to Delaware, with the same number. I've got news for you,
> WE ARE A SEPERATE STATE. We are NORTH of the Mason-Dixon line. Once
> the Odessa construction is complete, DE 1 and US 13 won't even
> multiplex, and so there's no point in calling it "TOLL 13" or any
> other foolishness.
Actually, you're EAST of the Mason-Dixon line, but no matter. Again, you
Delawareans are so touchy. :-)
DE does extend a lot of PA and MD routes and route numbers. 41, 100, 261,
896, 299, 300, and a few others.
> Have you ever been here? Have you ever really gotten THAT confused
> here?
I have family in Delaware, yes, and my parents just moved down there. I can
tell you that when the first stretches of DE 1 opened I had to be careful
and not call it Route 1 otherwise we kept thinking about US 1. Now while it
is true that US 1 does not enter Delaware, it comes quite close to the state
line. I think they should just have picked a different number. Now don't
twist your knickers all about it.
Chris Blaney
John Taber
> news:<TlQ8a.701$_L3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>
> lower Delaware valley, you also need to include which highway and in which
> state they are going to be in. If you gave I-95 in Delaware exit numbers in
> the 111-132 range, there would simply be less chance of confusion -- you
> could tell them to take Exit 117A instead of Exit 4A and there would be no
> saying, "Which Exit 4A?"
"Exit 4A off I-95 in Delaware."
We KNOW the exit numbers repeat here. They are so recent anyway (and
sometimes have changed a couple of times) that we don't use them that
much. By your logic, Rhode Island should continue Connecticut mileage
if it goes to mileage-based exits, that Maryland and West Virginia
should use Virginia mileage on I-81 (along with West Virginia
continuing Ohio's mileage on I-70 and I-470.)
> DE does extend a lot of PA and MD routes and route numbers. 41, 100, 261,
> 896, 299, 300, and a few others.
But only if we choose to. In MD, anything passes as a state route -
if we extended every last one of their routes things would be very
cluttered on our side.
> I have family in Delaware, yes, and my parents just moved down there. I can
> tell you that when the first stretches of DE 1 opened I had to be careful
> and not call it Route 1 otherwise we kept thinking about US 1. Now while it
> is true that US 1 does not enter Delaware, it comes quite close to the state
> line. I think they should just have picked a different number. Now don't
> twist your knickers all about it.
No, don't YOU tell us how to number our highways. I suppose next you
want us to change DE 48 because the Wilmington-Penns Grove ferry
doesn't connect it to NJ 48 anymore and it might confuse someone.
Andrew Tompkins
>
> If you told someone that they needed to take Exit 5 to get somewhere in the
> lower Delaware valley, you also need to include which highway and in which
> state they are going to be in. If you gave I-95 in Delaware exit numbers in
> the 111-132 range, there would simply be less chance of confusion -- you
> could tell them to take Exit 117A instead of Exit 4A and there would be no
> saying, "Which Exit 4A?"
>
If you haven't already given the overlying contextual information (state, highway)
before this, you need to work on your direction-providing technique. It's amazing
how many people don't know how to give good directions.
John Cereghin
numbers. The locals don't seem to have any problems with it.
But the Delaware interstate exits should be renumbered. Exit 2 (the
long-lost connection with US301) is missing from I-95. I think
Delaware should go to a milage (or kilometer-based to keep continuity
with DE-1) system.
Here's a good gripe- the control cities on the I-95 exits in Delaware
stink. If anything, *that* needs to be changed. Why is "Dover" a
control city at Exit 3 (DE-273) but not Exit 4 (DE-1/7)? DE-273 goes
nowhere near Dover. It should read "Newark-New Castle" at Exit 3.
Exit 4 should read "Staunton (or Pike Creek)-Dover". At least the
control cities along DE-1 are more logical.
And come on- give the Puncheon Run Connector a number!
Christopher Blaney
news:LXs9a.4051$gF3.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> If you haven't already given the overlying contextual information (state,
highway)
> before this, you need to work on your direction-providing technique. It's
amazing
> how many people don't know how to give good directions.
That's my whole point. Road systems should, as much as is possible, lend
themselves to easier navigation and account for the poor direction-giving
skills of most motorists.
Chris Blaney
John Taber
> Really, I can't understand any talk of "confusion" in Delaware exit
> numbers. The locals don't seem to have any problems with it.
>
> But the Delaware interstate exits should be renumbered. Exit 2 (the
> long-lost connection with US301) is missing from I-95. I think
> Delaware should go to a milage (or kilometer-based to keep continuity
> with DE-1) system.
Agreed. They might just go with kms just to be different.
> Here's a good gripe- the control cities on the I-95 exits in Delaware
> stink. If anything, *that* needs to be changed. Why is "Dover" a
> control city at Exit 3 (DE-273) but not Exit 4 (DE-1/7)? DE-273 goes
> nowhere near Dover. It should read "Newark-New Castle" at Exit 3.
That goes back to the days when Exit 4 was partial. DE 273 east
(originally "south") is routed to Dover because when I-95 was built,
that was how you got to Dover from I-95 (and vice versa). Exit 4 was
just that originally, for DE 7 north only (and to Stanton.) It wasn't
until Christiana Mall was built that that interchange was upgraded at
all.
> Exit 4 should read "Staunton (or Pike Creek)-Dover". At least the
> control cities along DE-1 are more logical.
Or something like that. It could use some flyover ramps too.
> And come on- give the Puncheon Run Connector a number!
I agree with that too. DE 101 would make the most sense there.
Dave Sturm
> > political climate for exit numbering to be continued from one state to
> > another. (Of course, if anyone has any examples from other states...?) The
> > JFK Memorial Highway concept is more of a name now than anything else.
> >
> NJ-NY: Palisades Interstate Parkway
> NY-CT (well, sort of): Hutchinson River Parkway / Merritt Parkway
> OH-KY-IN: I-275 beltway around Cincinnati
Any number of Texas highways include mileage to the national end...
I'm thinking of US 82, 54 and a few others.
Mileage on I-684 NY/CT remains consistent, but to add to Steve's list,
almost every 3di carries a single set of mileage posts when crossing a
state line. Otherwise beltways such as I-435 KC/MO would be darned
confusing... sorta like I-495 MD/DC/VA is.
There's always the way I-94/694/494 MN keeps a consistent set of exits
on the bypass of MSP...
I'd love to see DE use a continuation of I-95's MD mileage, but it's
unlikely to happen. I'd rather see them just move all of I-95 to the
NJTP and renumber the rest of 95 something else. Then change your
exit #s.
Brian D
Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>
> "Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message news:3E63D83D...@mit.edu...
> > Andrew Tompkins wrote:
> > >
<snip>
> Yeah, put it up to those darned states that insist on counting their freeway exits.
> I was looking at:
>
> I-280, Davenport IA
> I-275, Cincinnati OH
> I-255, St Louis MO
> I-435, Kansas City MO
> I-635, Kansas City MO
> I-205, Portland OR
> I-495, Washington DC
>
They're supposed to! 3di reference and exit numbering is supposed be
continuous, even across state borders according to the MUTCD. I-270 in
IL/MO is reference marked incorrectly. I-270 preceeds/continues the
reference marking of I-70. I-70 is ~5 miles off in IL, because it goes
from mile 15 to mile 20 when it joins I-55, and they, along with I-64
and U.S. 40, all share a common 0 point at the Poplar Street Bridge.
Ingsoc75
It's not a question of sovereignty, it just makes sense. Didn't we
lose a space probe because of the metic-standard confusion?
Wiliam F. Welner
system, not even mentioning the lost space probe. I believe that the US
Military uses the metric system and this must be difficult for them to train
their troops to use. I'm any engineer, and believe me that the US loses out
on overseas construction contracts and the loss of exports because it does
not use the metric system.
Great Britain still uses miles, but does everything else in the metric
system.
Canada changed over to the metric system some years from the British system,
which the US still uses, but they had a disaster when they changed over when
thought that a plane was with fuel in imperial gallons, but was actually
loaded in gallons that it ran out of fuel while flying.
I could imagine the opposition from people from measuring quantities of
fruits and vegetables in the supermarket in kilograms instead of pounds.
The hardest thing for me to deal with is when I'm aboard is figuring out the
weather when they mention the temperature in Celsius, when I was brought up
with Fahrenheit.
In my opinion the US will never go fully on to the metric system, although
it is used in medicine and also for electricity since volts, amperes and
watts are metric quantities.
"Ingsoc75" <ings...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d298f6d6.03031...@posting.google.com...
james
> I think the US should join the rest of the world and go to metric.
> It's not a question of sovereignty, it just makes sense. Didn't we
> lose a space probe because of the metic-standard confusion?
On an entirely flippant note, I've been saying that we need to
consider this in a truly American way. The metric system is indeed
more logical and much easier to use, but it is afterall, French in
origin.
The American way to solve this problem is to create a completely new
measurement system that is base-10, but is entirely unrelated to
metric. There will be ten new inches in a new foot, and 1000 new feet
in a new mile.
We shall then call it "New Imperial" and force everyone in the world
to abandon their silly system for ours.
hehe. :-)
Something Stinks In Here
>Didn't we
>lose a space probe because of the metic-standard confusion?
Sounds like an urban legend - or something made up by supporters of
forced metrification.
mara...@prodigy.net
> [Mr. Lawrence:]
>
> [N.Y. waiting till metrication to change to distance-based numbering]
>
> > Of course, this is simply an excuse by NYSDOT. They have legal
> > authority to convert to metric today, or even to co-sign in
> > traditional and metric; they just don't have the cojones to do it
> > without a federal mandate to blame for it if it turns out to be deeply
> > unpopular. Never mind that Delaware and Arizona both have
> > metric-distanceposted highways already without any evidence of public
> > uproar, except possibly from the black helicopter crowd.
>
> Believers in American exceptionalism have reason to object to
> metrication.
>
> That said, there are other, more pragmatic reasons not to go metric:
>
> * People still think in inches, feet, and miles, and use expressions
> which are based on traditional units (e.g., "She hit me with a
> two-by-four")--even in Canada.
>
That is largely because they grew up with it. They most certainly
don't think in inches, feet, and miles in France or Spain. One problem
here is soft conversion. It would be just as natural to make the
standard lumber 100x50mm. People, even in the US, refer to
penney-farthing sizes even though these coins haven't been used, even
in the UK for over 30 years!
We even refer to silver dollar pancakes even though we haven't had
silver dollars in the US in almost 70 years.
I learned when I was very young that 100 mm was "the size of a pack of
cigarettes" and it is just as natural for me to think of a "hund" or
"hand" or "deck" for short distances and for me to think in meters for
longer distances. Even my fiance'e who isn't in a scientific
discipline can do hands and meters (and even "fields" -- hundreds of
meters). She only runs into trouble with kilometers. I can just talk
"hands", "meters", and "fields" with her, but I have to say "four
kilometers or about two-and-a-half miles" when she is driving.
> * Our open-road speed limits are all fairly close to 60 M.P.H., which
> means that drivers can see a destination with its distance expressed
> in miles and estimate their arrival time at the same number of
> minutes. In metric units this regularity is lost.
Not with 120 km/h speed limits where you go 2km/min nor with 100km/h
speed limits.....
> > What I'd do: use the Interstate 69 corridor as a pilot for km/mile
> > distance signing with km-based exit numbers. The "NAFTA corridor"
> > moniker would make it a good test case, and since every exit on it
> > (except those on the Purchase Pkwy in Kentucky) needs to be renumbered
> > anyway, it's not like there wouldn't be disruption without it. But
> > without a federal mandate, I don't see that happening either. But it
> > might be worth considering.
Much better to post signs in both units, BUT NOT NEAR EACH OTHER! What
I would do is to start replacing distance signs and speed limit signs
in traditional units with those in metric units.
States should make their true speed limits in metric and make the
posted traditional units be the approximate ones.
90 km/h should go soft to 55MPH
95 & 100 km/h should go soft to 60MPH
105 & 110 km/h should go soft to 65MPH
115 km/h should go soft to 70MPH
120 & 125 km/h should got soft to 75MPH
130 km/h should go soft to 80MPH
I have a feeling people would simply ignore the traditional units and
use the metric ones. That is what I have done driving in a metric
country.
>
> Given that Michigan and Kentucky are both recent English-units
> recusants, such a mandate would likely be opposed.
By the way, Graham Kerr, learned to cook metric and had to use
traditional measurements for American audiences. Everywhere else they
use 100 ml of rum, 200 g of cherries, and 100 g of sugar to make their
Cherries Jubilee.
stéphane dumas
"Something Stinks In Here" <ban...@todayslastword.org> a écrit dans le
message news: 3e6d314e.27361693@localhost...
> On 10 Mar 2003 06:09:17 -0800, ings...@yahoo.com (Ingsoc75) said:
>
> >Didn't we
> >lose a space probe because of the metic-standard confusion?
>
> Sounds like an urban legend - or something made up by supporters of
> forced metrification.
>
the tool of the devil" or something like that.
Stéphane Dumas
Michael G. Koerner
>
> On 10 Mar 2003 06:09:17 -0800, ings...@yahoo.com (Ingsoc75) said:
>
> >Didn't we
> >lose a space probe because of the metic-standard confusion?
>
> Sounds like an urban legend - or something made up by supporters of
> forced metrification.
It was one of the Martian probes from a couple of years ago. NASA
specified that a thrust value be entered into their system in Newtons
(the SI unit of force) and the techies at Lockheed-Martin put it in
using an olde Englishe unit (pounds/second?). The error sent to probe
straight into the planet's surface instead of safely into orbit.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Something Stinks In Here wrote:
> > ings...@yahoo.com (Ingsoc75) said:
> >
> > >Didn't we
> > >lose a space probe because of the metic-standard confusion?
> >
> > Sounds like an urban legend - or something made up by supporters of
> > forced metrification.
>
> It was one of the Martian probes from a couple of years ago. NASA
> specified that a thrust value be entered into their system in Newtons
> (the SI unit of force) and the techies at Lockheed-Martin put it in
> using an olde Englishe unit (pounds/second?). The error sent to probe
> straight into the planet's surface instead of safely into orbit.
NASA has had other mission failures that had nothing to do with the
metric system, though, including the two space shuttles that
disintegrated.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Barry L. Camp
"Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote in message
news:3E6D49B7...@dataex.com...
> Something Stinks In Here wrote:
> >
> > On 10 Mar 2003 06:09:17 -0800, ings...@yahoo.com (Ingsoc75) said:
> >
> > >Didn't we
> > >lose a space probe because of the metic-standard confusion?
> >
> > Sounds like an urban legend - or something made up by supporters of
> > forced metrification.
>
> It was one of the Martian probes from a couple of years ago. NASA
> specified that a thrust value be entered into their system in Newtons
> (the SI unit of force) and the techies at Lockheed-Martin put it in
> using an olde Englishe unit (pounds/second?). The error sent to probe
> straight into the planet's surface instead of safely into orbit.
>
The problem wasn't the fault of the metric system, but the aforementioned
"techie's" improper application thereof.
Michael G. Koerner
>
> "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote:
> >
> > Something Stinks In Here wrote:
> > > ings...@yahoo.com (Ingsoc75) said:
> > >
> > > >Didn't we
> > > >lose a space probe because of the metic-standard confusion?
> > >
> > > Sounds like an urban legend - or something made up by supporters of
> > > forced metrification.
> >
> > It was one of the Martian probes from a couple of years ago. NASA
> > specified that a thrust value be entered into their system in Newtons
> > (the SI unit of force) and the techies at Lockheed-Martin put it in
> > using an olde Englishe unit (pounds/second?). The error sent to probe
> > straight into the planet's surface instead of safely into orbit.
>
> NASA has had other mission failures that had nothing to do with the
> metric system, though, including the two space shuttles that
> disintegrated.
Granted, but this was a $150M+ loss that was absolutely inexcusable.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> > "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote:
> > > Something Stinks In Here wrote:
> > > > ings...@yahoo.com (Ingsoc75) said:
> > > >
> > > > >Didn't we
> > > > >lose a space probe because of the metic-standard confusion?
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like an urban legend - or something made up by supporters of
> > > > forced metrification.
> > >
> > > It was one of the Martian probes from a couple of years ago. NASA
> > > specified that a thrust value be entered into their system in Newtons
> > > (the SI unit of force) and the techies at Lockheed-Martin put it in
> > > using an olde Englishe unit (pounds/second?). The error sent to probe
> > > straight into the planet's surface instead of safely into orbit.
> >
> > NASA has had other mission failures that had nothing to do with the
> > metric system, though, including the two space shuttles that
> > disintegrated.
>
> Granted, but this was a $150M+ loss that was absolutely inexcusable.
It was a person who made the error, though. Can't blame the measurement
system, when billions of other individual decisions were made correctly.
Pat Norton
specified by the contract from NASA.
The official report says:
[begin quote]
The MCO MIB [Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation
Board] has determined that the root cause for the loss of the MCO
spacecraft was the failure to use metric units in the coding of a
ground software file, "Small Forces," used in trajectory models.
Specifically, thruster performance data in English units instead of
metric units was used in the software application code titled
SM_FORCES (smallforces). The output from the SM_FORCES application
code as required by a MSOP Project Software Interface Specification
(SIS) was to be in metric units of Newton-seconds (N-s). Instead, the
data was reported in English units of pound-seconds (lbf-s). The
Angular Momentum Desaturation (AMD) file contained the output data
from the SM_FORCES software. The SIS, which was not followed, defines
both the format and units of the AMD file generated by ground-based
computers.
[end quote]
Ubermonkey
> I learned when I was very young that 100 mm was "the size of a pack of
> cigarettes" and it is just as natural for me to think of a "hund" or
> "hand" or "deck" for short distances and for me to think in meters for
> longer distances. Even my fiance'e who isn't in a scientific
> discipline can do hands and meters (and even "fields" -- hundreds of
> meters). She only runs into trouble with kilometers. I can just talk
> "hands", "meters", and "fields" with her, but I have to say "four
> kilometers or about two-and-a-half miles" when she is driving.
Where are you from? I haven't heard of hands, decks, and fields as
measurements before.
Thanks,
Joel
Barry L. Camp
"Ubermonkey" <or1l...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:d2a26385.03031...@posting.google.com...
From http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/appxc/appxc.htm
1 hand = 4 inches, normally used to measure height of horses.
The other measures I am not sure of.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Lockheed Martin Astronautics failed to provide metric units as
> specified by the contract from NASA.
It still was people who made the error, though. It wasn't the fault of
any one measurement system.
--
Laura Halliday
> Lot's more things get screwed up because the US does not use the metric
> system, not even mentioning the lost space probe. I believe that the US
> Military uses the metric system and this must be difficult for them to train
> their troops to use. I'm any engineer, and believe me that the US loses out
> on overseas construction contracts and the loss of exports because it does
> not use the metric system.
>
> Great Britain still uses miles, but does everything else in the metric
> system.
> Canada changed over to the metric system some years from the British system,
> which the US still uses, but they had a disaster when they changed over when
> thought that a plane was with fuel in imperial gallons, but was actually
> loaded in gallons that it ran out of fuel while flying.
>
> I could imagine the opposition from people from measuring quantities of
> fruits and vegetables in the supermarket in kilograms instead of pounds.
>
> The hardest thing for me to deal with is when I'm aboard is figuring out the
> weather when they mention the temperature in Celsius, when I was brought up
> with Fahrenheit.
It works both ways: I find U.S. weather reports
incomprehensible when I travel. Similarly, I know
what 100 km/h feels like on the highwy, but have
to watch the speedometer for 60 mph. And so on.
My vacation in Australia last year was no problem
at all in this respect. There, as here in Canada,
I tended to work out estimated travel times in
0.1 hour increments. 160 km, 100 km/h, 1.6 hours,
1 hour 36 minutes.
My car's instrumentation is entirely metric - no
miles at all on the speedometer. Makes for a very
clean layout.
Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89lg pied a terre..."
ICBM: 49 16.57 N 123 0.24 W - Hospital/Shafte
John David Galt
> posted traditional units be the approximate ones.
>
> 90 km/h should go soft to 55MPH
> 95 & 100 km/h should go soft to 60MPH
> 105 & 110 km/h should go soft to 65MPH
> 115 km/h should go soft to 70MPH
> 120 & 125 km/h should got soft to 75MPH
> 130 km/h should go soft to 80MPH
In Canada and Europe, all limits are multiples of 10 km/h; no odd multiples
of 5. Which makes sense (that's only a 6 mph increment), but it means that
some "halfway in between" imperial measures lose a lot in rounding. (45 mph
is probably the worst; it's about 74 km/h but gets rounded down to 70.)
> I have a feeling people would simply ignore the traditional units and
> use the metric ones. That is what I have done driving in a metric
> country.
Indeed, it's much easier to make this change all at once than to have to
deal with a mixture of both. That's a recipe for confusion (though the
idea in the new MUTCD, where a new symbol-sign is used for metric limits,
will help a lot).
The worst problems here will be technological. I used to drive a Dodge
with a digital speedometer. It was capable of reading in metric, but it
reset itself to miles each time you turned the car off. This would be a
major annoyance after metrication.
>> Given that Michigan and Kentucky are both recent English-units
>> recusants, such a mandate would likely be opposed.
I see no reason to mandate metrication as Canada did. Just have the
government (or even just a state or two) change the road signs. People
will quickly get used to it, and the market will start to demand that gas
be sold by the litre.
> By the way, Graham Kerr, learned to cook metric and had to use
> traditional measurements for American audiences. Everywhere else they
> use 100 ml of rum, 200 g of cherries, and 100 g of sugar to make their
> Cherries Jubilee.
Recipes are one of the more interesting areas of metrication because you
can't just translate the units directly. Sugar, flour, and the like are
no longer measured by volume; they have to be weighed.
Michael G. Koerner
>
> > States should make their true speed limits in metric and make the
> > posted traditional units be the approximate ones.
> >
> > 90 km/h should go soft to 55MPH
> > 95 & 100 km/h should go soft to 60MPH
> > 105 & 110 km/h should go soft to 65MPH
> > 115 km/h should go soft to 70MPH
> > 120 & 125 km/h should got soft to 75MPH
> > 130 km/h should go soft to 80MPH
>
> In Canada and Europe, all limits are multiples of 10 km/h; no odd multiples
> of 5. Which makes sense (that's only a 6 mph increment), but it means that
> some "halfway in between" imperial measures lose a lot in rounding. (45 mph
> is probably the worst; it's about 74 km/h but gets rounded down to 70.)
Don't procedures call for limits to be rounded UP to the next even 10 km/h?
Maybe we can use metrication as an excuse to start over from scratch in
setting *sensible* speed limits. Yea, I know that I am likely whistling
Dixie on this one. <sigh>
> > I have a feeling people would simply ignore the traditional units and
> > use the metric ones. That is what I have done driving in a metric
> > country.
>
> Indeed, it's much easier to make this change all at once than to have to
> deal with a mixture of both. That's a recipe for confusion (though the
> idea in the new MUTCD, where a new symbol-sign is used for metric limits,
> will help a lot).
Canada changed ALL of its highway signs over the Labour Day weekend in
1977. The chaos that some anti-metrication types warned about never
happened. Things were very orderly and non-eventfull in the days afterward.
I like the proposed metric symbol signs in the new MUTCD, too.
> The worst problems here will be technological. I used to drive a Dodge
> with a digital speedometer. It was capable of reading in metric, but it
> reset itself to miles each time you turned the car off. This would be a
> major annoyance after metrication.
>
> >> Given that Michigan and Kentucky are both recent English-units
> >> recusants, such a mandate would likely be opposed.
>
> I see no reason to mandate metrication as Canada did. Just have the
> government (or even just a state or two) change the road signs. People
> will quickly get used to it, and the market will start to demand that gas
> be sold by the litre.
Metrication is an 'under the radar' thing here in the USA. A little bit
here and a little bit there and before we know it, we'll wake up one
morning realizing that the only non-metric things left are highway signs
(as it is now in the UK and Ireland) and our football fields.
> > By the way, Graham Kerr, learned to cook metric and had to use
> > traditional measurements for American audiences. Everywhere else they
> > use 100 ml of rum, 200 g of cherries, and 100 g of sugar to make their
> > Cherries Jubilee.
>
> Recipes are one of the more interesting areas of metrication because you
> can't just translate the units directly. Sugar, flour, and the like are
> no longer measured by volume; they have to be weighed.
OT to MTR, but weighing the dry ingredients makes for far more
consistant measuring and 'piece 'o cake' recipe scalability. Flour can
change its volume by as much as 10 percent depending on how it is
handled. My mother often complained of her baking never being
consistant (sometimes being really good, other times flopping
completely), likely for this reason.
For scalability, for example, with a known weight ratio of flour to
water, one only need weigh the flour on hand in grams and multiply by
the ratio to determine how many milliliters of water to use (1 mL of
water has a mass of 1 gram). This makes using up an odd amount of
leftover ingredients very easy (try doing that with cups, teaspoons, etc).
arga...@my-deja.com
> > * People still think in inches, feet, and miles, and use expressions
> > which are based on traditional units (e.g., "She hit me with a
> > two-by-four")--even in Canada.
>
> That is largely because they grew up with it. They most certainly
> don't think in inches, feet, and miles in France or Spain.
Do they in fact use 100 mm x 50 mm lumber? I have never heard the
phrase "she hit me with a hundred by fifty" (or a suitable French or
Spanish translation) in either country. D.I.Y. also seems to be less
popular there than in Britain, as well.
> We even refer to silver dollar pancakes even though we haven't had
> silver dollars in the US in almost 70 years.
This is not quite true. The last silver dollar minted for general
circulation with actual silver content was the Peace dollar in ca.
1933. However, in the 1970's we had the Eisenhower dollar--which was
cupronickel-clad but had the same dimensions as the earlier silver
dollars--and went over to smaller-sized dollars (the Anthony dollar
and the present squaw-and-papoose design) in 1979. So it is safe to
say that the old silver dollar size has hardly left living memory.
> > * Our open-road speed limits are all fairly close to 60 M.P.H., which
> > means that drivers can see a destination with its distance expressed
> > in miles and estimate their arrival time at the same number of
> > minutes. In metric units this regularity is lost.
>
> Not with 120 km/h speed limits where you go 2km/min nor with 100km/h
> speed limits.....
Roads with speed limits close to 120 km/h are much rarer than roads
with speed limits close to 100 km/h, in the U.S. In addition, 110
km/h (Alberta and Sonora) appear to be the absolute top speed limits
in Canada and Mexico.
> By the way, Graham Kerr, learned to cook metric and had to use
> traditional measurements for American audiences. Everywhere else they
> use 100 ml of rum, 200 g of cherries, and 100 g of sugar to make their
> Cherries Jubilee.
They also futz around with scales a good deal more than we do. In the
U.S., sugar and cherries are generally volume measurements, which
require only filling a suitable measuring cup to level. Scales
require special arrangements (such as paper coverings for the scale
pan or a special scale basket for which the scale has to be re-zeroed)
to keep food from spilling into the spring mechanism. And even in
countries which have nominally switched over to metric and the
associated hassles of scale measurement for cooking, strange units are
still in use--e.g. "dessertspoon" in Britain.
Michael G. Koerner
> > By the way, Graham Kerr, learned to cook metric and had to use
> > traditional measurements for American audiences. Everywhere else they
> > use 100 ml of rum, 200 g of cherries, and 100 g of sugar to make their
> > Cherries Jubilee.
>
> They also futz around with scales a good deal more than we do. In the
> U.S., sugar and cherries are generally volume measurements, which
> require only filling a suitable measuring cup to level. Scales
> require special arrangements (such as paper coverings for the scale
> pan or a special scale basket for which the scale has to be re-zeroed)
> to keep food from spilling into the spring mechanism. And even in
> countries which have nominally switched over to metric and the
> associated hassles of scale measurement for cooking, strange units are
> still in use--e.g. "dessertspoon" in Britain.
Here, we have to clean all of those utensils _and_ measuring dry
ingredients by volume ignores the fact that these substances can have
widely different volumes depending on how they are prepared and handled.
One such item is brown sugar. It is FAR easier to weigh that stuff
rather than guess how 'firmly packed' into the measuring cup it should
be. Flour will vary in volume by as much as 10 percent.
Other items that USA recipes dole out in volume units often cannot
really be measured by volume and MUST be weighed (ie, herbs and garnishes).
Bobby
> it is used in medicine and also for electricity since volts, amperes and
> watts are metric quantities.
>
Plus radio and other frequencies (kilohertz, megahertz), gigabytes,
etc., etc. Most or all technologies that have been invented since the
metric system was created have used it exclusively. This is one of
the reasons the US is more metric than not (60/40) already. It be
effectively impossible to go completely non-metric unless everyone
wants to make up new non-metric measurements for all these things.
Bobby
> system, when billions of other individual decisions were made correctly.
Well, yeah, you can blame the measurement system when a country tries
to awkwardly juggle two different measurement systems instead of
standardizing on one. If we only used metric (or, only used the
traditional system) these errors will not happen.
Footnote - electricity, frequencies, computer technologies only have
metric versions. No 'traditional' euqivalent of megawatts, kilohertz,
gigabytes. By 'only use traditional' I mean for weight, speed, etc.
I think it would be more logical to go metric than the other way, but
we need to fish or cut bait.
mara...@prodigy.net
I am from California.
You mean that you have never used the length of a football or soccer
field as a measurement? I only use the "fields" when giving driving
directions to fiance'e.
She can easily handle "Let's move that picture two hands to the right"
and "step back 10 meters so that I can put some real arm into this
throw", but gets confused when I say "after about 600 meters turn
right on Lincoln" as opposed to "after (a distance equal to the length
of) about 6 (football) fields, go right on Lincoln". It's a lot easier
when I am reading my metric directions from MapsOnUs to translate "0.6
km" to "6 fields".
Hands are routinely used in measuring horses.
For "within reach" distances, hands speak to me more than feet do
For "just out of reach" distances, meters are quite handy.
For "neighborhood driving directions" distances, fields are quite
handy
For "Long Driving" Distances, kilometers work just fine. 100 km is an
hour. 1000 km is a whole day by car or an hour by jet.
If you can't relate, get with the program. It's not that tough.
For weather:
single digits or colder: Need a jacket
teens: Bring a Sweater
20s: T-Shirt
30s: get naked
40s: Carry water.
In aviation, we switched to all Celsius all of the time and it
actually made things easier! We used to use Farenheit on the ground
and Celsius in the air.
Pat Norton
>In Canada and Europe, all limits are multiples of 10 km/h; no odd
multiples
>of 5.
Similarly, in UK and Ireland, the smallest multiple is 10MPH.
Note that European speedometers are not required to indicate multiples
smaller than 10 MPH or 10km/h.
Pat Norton
>Maybe we can use metrication as an excuse to start over from scratch
in
>setting *sensible* speed limits.
That is exactly what Ireland is doing as part of their change to
metric speed limits:
www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0558/D.0558.200211260010.html
Matt
> > traditional measurements for American audiences. Everywhere else they
> > use 100 ml of rum, 200 g of cherries, and 100 g of sugar to make their
> > Cherries Jubilee.
>
> Recipes are one of the more interesting areas of metrication because you
> can't just translate the units directly. Sugar, flour, and the like are
> no longer measured by volume; they have to be weighed.
Cooking is best done by pinches & dashes anyways. It's not an exact
science, and people who spend time measuring exactly simply waste good
time!
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott Kozel wrote:
>
> > It was a person who made the error, though. Can't blame the measurement
> > system, when billions of other individual decisions were made correctly.
>
> Well, yeah, you can blame the measurement system when a country tries
> to awkwardly juggle two different measurement systems instead of
> standardizing on one. If we only used metric (or, only used the
> traditional system) these errors will not happen.
That's baloney. Billions of individual measurement decisions have been
made in the past without error.
Barry L. Camp
"Bobby" <bgri...@mbsc.com> wrote in message
news:d455b87d.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > It was a person who made the error, though. Can't blame the measurement
> > system, when billions of other individual decisions were made correctly.
>
> Well, yeah, you can blame the measurement system when a country tries
> to awkwardly juggle two different measurement systems instead of
> standardizing on one. If we only used metric (or, only used the
> traditional system) these errors will not happen.
While I am a strong proponent of the metric, or SI, system, your assertion
of "blaming the measurement system" is off base. Human errors are made by
humans, even if it is due to a misapplication of the system, a
misunderstanding of the system, whatever... it is ultimately still human
error. Not using the system correctly is not the fault of the system itself,
but the person using it incorrectly. Example: I just drank a 355ml can of
Coca-Cola. Is this a problem for anyone out there?
> Footnote - electricity, frequencies, computer technologies only have
> metric versions. No 'traditional' euqivalent of megawatts, kilohertz,
> gigabytes. By 'only use traditional' I mean for weight, speed, etc.
> I think it would be more logical to go metric than the other way, but
> we need to fish or cut bait.
Computer technologies do not have "metric versions"!
My Intel Pentium 4 processor runs at 1,803 megahertz, which could arguably
be called metric, but is not an official "metric" measurement, and probably
only an approximation. That processor does not "count" or compute in 10s,
but in 2s... as does every other modern-day microprocessor.
Also on my box, my hard disk has a capacity of 120,023,252,992 bytes, or 111
gigabytes. How "metric" is that? My video display resolution is 1024*768 and
can go to 1280*1024. Nothing SI about this either.
What in the hell are you smoking, and do you measure it in grams or ounces?
Bobby
>
> > Footnote - electricity, frequencies, computer technologies only have
> > metric versions. No 'traditional' euqivalent of megawatts, kilohertz,
> > gigabytes. By 'only use traditional' I mean for weight, speed, etc.
> > I think it would be more logical to go metric than the other way, but
> > we need to fish or cut bait.
>
> Computer technologies do not have "metric versions"!
>
> My Intel Pentium 4 processor runs at 1,803 megahertz, which could arguably
> be called metric, but is not an official "metric" measurement, and probably
> only an approximation. That processor does not "count" or compute in 10s,
> but in 2s... as does every other modern-day microprocessor.
>
> Also on my box, my hard disk has a capacity of 120,023,252,992 bytes, or 111
> gigabytes. How "metric" is that? My video display resolution is 1024*768 and
> can go to 1280*1024. Nothing SI about this either.
Excerpts from pages from the first page of Google results for 'metric'
and 'giga':
-------------------------------------------
giga- -->
prefix
1. <unit> The standard metric prefixes used in the SI (Syst`eme
International) conventions for scientific measurement. With units of
time or things that come in powers of 10, such as money, they retain
their usual meanings of multiplication by powers of 1000 = 10^3. When
used with bytes or other things that naturally come in powers of 2,
they usually denote multiplication by powers of 1024 = 2^(10).
-------------------------------------------
The three modern systems for large numbers:
Metric - uses a prefix (to the units) which corresponds to the
traditional name, or number of commas (Other 2 deleted for space here)
Examples: Traditional Metric Engineering Scientific
$278,000,000,000 278 Giga-dollars $ 278x1012 $ 2.78x1014
52,700 Meters 52.7 Km 52.7x103 m 5.27x104 m
4,500,000,000 Years 4.5 Gyr 4.5x109 yrs 4.5x109 yrs
-------------------------------------------
It must make your blood boil that these sites are talking about
'metric money' and 'metric years'. Get over it.
Referring to a hard drive as 60 gigabytes IS metric!
Notice I use a lowercase 'm'.
And by 'metric', I do not necessarily mean that a bunch of bureaucrats
have officially endorsed it with a 3000 page document and 92
signatures. Who but an extremely anal person cares about such trivia?
As for your comment 'That processor does not "count" or compute in
10s, but in 2s... as does every other modern-day microprocessor', I
have been a programmer since 1978. Thanks for that huge news flash.
As the first excerpt above shows, that is utterly irrelevant.
Regarding video displays, etc., I didn't mean EVERY POSSIBLE
MEASUREMENT. Geez! That was just shorthand for all the computer
measures that DO use metric prefixes. And, yes, that makes them
'metric' with a small 'm', if not super-duper-ultra-official 'SI' or
whatever.
But other than that, I enjoyed your post, Cliff Clavin.
Bobby
> bgri...@mbsc.com (Bobby) wrote:
> >
> > Scott Kozel wrote:
> >
> > > It was a person who made the error, though. Can't blame the measurement
> > > system, when billions of other individual decisions were made correctly.
> >
> > Well, yeah, you can blame the measurement system when a country tries
> > to awkwardly juggle two different measurement systems instead of
> > standardizing on one. If we only used metric (or, only used the
> > traditional system) these errors will not happen.
>
> That's baloney. Billions of individual measurement decisions have been
> made in the past without error.
What is your point? That the error rate using 2 measurement systems
is exactly the same as the error rate using a single system? I would
have to disagree.
Scott M. Kozel
That you can't blame the loss of the aforementioned Mars spacecraft on
the measurement system(s).
Bobby
> > What is your point? That the error rate using 2 measurement systems
> > is exactly the same as the error rate using a single system? I would
> > have to disagree.
>
> That you can't blame the loss of the aforementioned Mars spacecraft on
> the measurement system(s).
"Measurement systems don't make errors, people make errors"?
Well, okay, but this is very similar to the pro-gun lobby's claim that
"guns don't kill people, people kill people". True to a certain
point, but the gun lobby would have us believe that the murder rate
via guns would not differ one iota in one country with guns coming out
of everyone's ears, versus another country where guns are extremely
rare. The anti-gun lobby says this is incorrect, the murder rate via
guns is going to be a lot higher in the first country. (And PLEASE
everyone don't turn this into an off-topic gun argument, I do not have
strong opinions about the gun situation).
Or, as another example, if a fatal accident occurs on a poorly paved
undivided 2-lane road occurs, it is 100 percent the fault of the
driver(s), not the road - never mind that this type of road has a
fatality rate 7 times higher than controlled-access freeways.
Or, the error rate in computer programs is a constant (in fact some
languages are more difficult to program in and lead to higher error
rates).
I find it hard to believe that the error rate from juggling 2
measurement systems isn't higher that having just one. And people are
going to make mistakes, that is the way the world works. Designing
society to minimize errors is a legitimate concern.
Christopher Blaney
news:3E6F5BFB...@dataex.com...
> arga...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Other items that USA recipes dole out in volume units often cannot
> really be measured by volume and MUST be weighed (ie, herbs and
garnishes).
Herbs and garnishes should always be done to taste. I'm a "feel cook" myself
and don't measure anything. But then I learned how to cook from my mother
... she's an excellent cook but a lousy baker, and this is probably why. :-)
Whereas my mom's sister is a good cook and a great baker ... she measures
everything. My mom said it best: "Cookery is an art. Bakery is a science."
Chris Blaney
Barry L. Camp
> Well, okay, but this is very similar to the pro-gun lobby's claim that
> "guns don't kill people, people kill people". True to a certain
> point, but the gun lobby would have us believe that the murder rate
> via guns would not differ one iota in one country with guns coming out
> of everyone's ears, versus another country where guns are extremely
> rare. The anti-gun lobby says this is incorrect, the murder rate via
> guns is going to be a lot higher in the first country. (And PLEASE
> everyone don't turn this into an off-topic gun argument, I do not have
> strong opinions about the gun situation).
>
Number of physicians in the U. S.: 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171 (U. S. Dept of Health & Human
Services)
Number of gun owners in the U. S.: 80,000,000.
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500.
Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.
FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one doctor.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors
before this gets out of hand.
As a public health measure I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for
fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention, acquire
firearms, or both.
Barry L. Camp
> Excerpts from pages from the first page of Google results for 'metric'
> and 'giga':
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> giga- -->
>
> prefix
>
> 1. <unit> The standard metric prefixes used in the SI (Syst`eme
> International) conventions for scientific measurement. With units of
> time or things that come in powers of 10, such as money, they retain
> their usual meanings of multiplication by powers of 1000 = 10^3. When
> used with bytes or other things that naturally come in powers of 2,
> they usually denote multiplication by powers of 1024 = 2^(10).
So... using your logic, I can make an English measure such as a "foot" into
metric, simply by adding a "metric" prefix.
So for example, Pikes Peak in Colorado would be 14.11 "kilofeet" tall. That
kind of logic is just plain absurd.
Steve
>
> "Bobby" <bgri...@mbsc.com> wrote in message
> news:d455b87d.03031...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Well, okay, but this is very similar to the pro-gun lobby's claim that
> > "guns don't kill people, people kill people". True to a certain
> > point, but the gun lobby would have us believe that the murder rate
> > via guns would not differ one iota in one country with guns coming out
> > of everyone's ears, versus another country where guns are extremely
> > rare. The anti-gun lobby says this is incorrect, the murder rate via
> > guns is going to be a lot higher in the first country. (And PLEASE
> > everyone don't turn this into an off-topic gun argument, I do not have
> > strong opinions about the gun situation).
> >
>
> Number of physicians in the U. S.: 700,000.
> Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000.
I would like to know how many of these are due to actual physician error
on someone who otherwise would have survived. You can also subtract out
risky procedures voluntarily undergone by the patient, where there is a
significant chance of death.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is your point? That the error rate using 2 measurement systems
> > > is exactly the same as the error rate using a single system? I would
> > > have to disagree.
> >
> > That you can't blame the loss of the aforementioned Mars spacecraft on
> > the measurement system(s).
>
> "Measurement systems don't make errors, people make errors"?
>
> Well, okay, but this is very similar to the pro-gun lobby's claim that
You created enough strawmen to be a fire hazard... in addition to having
a few red herrings for lunch.
Lyle Goldman
I don't like the idea of kilometer-based exit numbers. Too many
numbers are skipped, and the numbers go too high. In a typical section of
highway in an semi-urban area, exits are spaced approximately one mile
apart on average, so with mile-based exit numbering, the exit numbers are
nearly sequential, which is how exits have traditionally been numbered.
Thus, I think exit numbering at least should remain mile-based, rather than
metric.
- Lyle Goldman
Brooklyn, N.Y., U.S.A.
Jason T. Nelson
Numbers are skipped? So? I don't think anyone's feelings are going to be
hurt if "45" or "288" are skipped at some point in exit numbering along
some highway. Plus, as for your statement that exits are spaced one mile
apart, this is just not true in a lot of urban situations. As for the
numbers going too high, you'll find that there are about 1.6 kilometers per
mile, so the largest number won't even be TWICE what exists now on mile-
based exit numbering. Are you suggesting that Americans can't count into
the upper hundreds? :)
--
Jason T. Nelson <j...@jtn.cx> http://www.jtn.cx/~jtn/
BOFH Extraordiaire & Sysadmin Ombudsman GPG key 0xFF676C9E
GPG key fingerprint = 6272 5482 EDDD D0A3 FED2 262A FABB 599D FF67 6C9E
disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Don't bother my employer about them.
John David Galt
Sequential numbering has only ever been "traditional" in a few places.
And for me, having high numbered exits would make them all the better.
I'd like to see mile and exit numbers continue for the entire length of
each highway, across state and even national boundaries. Think of it:
instead of the highest milepost being 897 in Texas, I-80 would have km-
posts (bornes?) in the neighborhood of 5000 by the time it ends in NJ.
(But whichever route is the Pan American Highway this week would top
them all at over 10,000!)
Oldus Fartus
Barry L. Camp <blc...@yahoo.com> wrote these words:
Why is it absurd? The measurement hertz is simply the old cycles per
second with a new name, and using metric multipliers. We consider it a
metric measurement of frequency, but in actual fact it is the old
measurement renamed. I guess there would be nothing to stop anyone
using metric multipliers for the "old" imperial measurements - it would
be confusing, and hard to understand, only because of the varying
multipliers currently used in the imperial system. (pints to quarts to
gallons etc, or inches to feet to yards, rods, chains, miles etc.)
The simplicity of the metric system is it's biggest advantage. Once
you understand the UNIT, and the multipliers or divisors, the rest is
simple. There is no need to learn all the equivalents as I mentioned
above.
So yes, as someone earlier (no doubt with tongue firmly in cheek)
suggested, the US could come up with it's own "metric" system based on
the existing system, but using metric divisors and multipliers it would
be just as valid a metric system. If you made your standard for
distance the YARD then Pikes Peak would be 4.7 kiloyards. If your
standard unit for weight was the POUND then something could weigh 100
kilopounds and so on.. The metric units are just as arbitary as the
imperial, it is only the multipliers and divisors that are metric.
Any absurdity would arise trying to metrify (is that a word?) units
which could not be. We could not re-define the day as it relates to
the rotation of the earth, nor could we redefine the year, as it relates
to the revolution of the earth around the sun. There would be nothing
to stop us redefining an hour though, as 1/10th of a day, and a minute
as 1/100th of an hour.
I would argue that as used in computer technology, the measurements are
NOT metric, but binary. It is only storage manufacturers who confuse
the issue by using 1,000 to indicate k when in the case of computers it
means 1,024. The names of the multipliers may be metric, but the units
are not.
--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus