New York

[Alps]

I have a 1967 Hagstrom that shows I-878 on the Bruckner east of the Sheridan.

This is correct.

[SignBridge]

Thanks guys; I stand corrected. But do those old maps show the Bruckner Expwy. as I-278 west of the Sheridan Expwy. to the Triboro Br?

And wasn't the Nassau Expwy. in Queens also signed as I-878 originally? Today it's signed as NY-878.

[02 Park Ave]

What was the Sheridan Expressway shown as?

[Duke87]

The map I have has 278 on the Bruckner west of the Sheridan. It has no shield on the Sheridan itself, leaving it somewhat ambiguous.

Can't comment on what the current 878 was since it's only a map of The Bronx.

[Mergingtraffic]

I think at the time of Duke's 1967 map and at the time (mid-1970s) of the contract plans I posted earlier, the Nassau was signed as I-78.  Actually I think it was signed that way up until the mid-1980s.  The I-878 designation didn't come into play until the late 80s.  I'm not sure when NY-878 shields went up.

This photo shows a ghost I-78 shield....look closely.

[D-Dey65]

New New York topic; Was the Suffolk County Department of Public Works ever planning to extend Nicolls Road (SCR 97) southeast of Montauk Highway into Blue Point itself? That widened median looks like an incomplete diamond interchange, and moreso when it was originally built.

[storm2k]

Drove the Cross Bronx from the GWB to the Whitestone Expy the other day. It looks like NYSDOT replaced all of the signage past from the PA's jurisdiction through to the Bruckner interchange. I think there were some pictures scattered in this thread earlier this year. I'm most impressed that they acutally acknowledge US1 on the BGS's at the Jerome Ave exit now. Also, it looks like they've fixed all the exit numbering back to mileage based and not sequential (if I'm not mistaken, the exits on the PA part under the apartments is still wrong, though).

[vdeane]

Some PA signs have been fixed back to mile-based due to the Alexander Hamilton Bridge project.  Most are still wrong.

[Alps]

The map I have has 278 on the Bruckner west of the Sheridan. It has no shield on the Sheridan itself, leaving it somewhat ambiguous.

Can't comment on what the current 878 was since it's only a map of The Bronx.

278 used the Sheridan, Nassau was 78, as was the Clearview.

[J Route Z]

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but how come there is a "Dept. of Transportation" decal on every single traffic sign in NYC? (strangely except street signs attached to poles) Actually there are a few "one way" signs that don't have it. But a lot do. 

[cl94]

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but how come there is a "Dept. of Transportation" decal on every single traffic sign in NYC? (strangely except street signs attached to poles) Actually there are a few "one way" signs that don't have it. But a lot do.

Indicates ownership. If a sign is stolen, it will be recognized as a stolen sign if someone tries to sell it. Far from the only jurisdiction with an identifying mark. In New York, the Town of Hempstead puts "TOH" in the same location, NYSTA puts it's acronym at the bottom of (at least newer) signs, and Erie County puts "EC" on new signs.

TL;DR: It's a branding mark so it can't be stolen and resold as a generic sign

[D-Dey65]

Another question;

Before the Throgs Neck Bridge was built, there used to be this bi-directional southbound off-ramp leading to Bell Boulevard. Should that ramp be revived, but only for traffic coming off the Throgs Neck Bridge?

[MikeSantNY78]

I think at the time of Duke's 1967 map and at the time (mid-1970s) of the contract plans I posted earlier, the Nassau was signed as I-78.  Actually I think it was signed that way up until the mid-1980s.  The I-878 designation didn't come into play until the late 80s.  I'm not sure when NY-878 shields went up.

This photo shows a ghost I-78 shield....look closely.

Can BARELY see it - won't spoil it for other searchers...

[cl94]

Another question;

Before the Throgs Neck Bridge was built, there used to be this bi-directional southbound off-ramp leading to Bell Boulevard. Should that ramp be revived, but only for traffic coming off the Throgs Neck Bridge?

No. It's a RIRO and it would be really hard to add a deceleration lane. I see it causing more problems than if one just got off the Clearview at the next exit and took local streets or immediately got back on, exiting at Willets Point Boulevard. I picture a bunch of rear-end accidents if the ramp is reopened.

[AMLNet49]

I don't know if anyone else is like me, but in New York/New Jersey, I see the state route versions of 3DIs as just part of the 3DI because most of the 3DIs don't even meet Interstate standards anyway so it really doesn't make a difference in my eyes if it says NY 878 or I-878, NJ-495 or I-495, because it's the interstate number in practice and in the eyes of everyone who drives it

[Pete from Boston]

It's likely that only a tiny minority thinks of New Jersey's I-495 anymore at all, and about as many think of NJ 495 in the same context as New York's present I-495. 

[roadman65]

Is not NJ 495 still called Route 3?

Also is the section of I-495 that is technically NY 495 regarded as it because of the RIRO under the Pulaski Bridge near the Tunnel Plaza?  Even though it is signed as I-495, the maps still show it as NY 495 and that quick turn after the toll really would not qualify as interstate standards I would imagine.

[cl94]

Is not NJ 495 still called Route 3?

Never heard it referred to as such. NJ 3 ends at US 1-9. I've always heard "495" or "Lincoln Tunnel approach".

[Pete from Boston]

I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 

[Pete from Boston]

(With "the Helix" referred to separately, of course.)

[Alps]

I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 

I always say "take Route 3 to the tunnel." Picked it up from my parents, who predate 1980, but I still catch myself using it.

[vdeane]

I don't know if anyone else is like me, but in New York/New Jersey, I see the state route versions of 3DIs as just part of the 3DI because most of the 3DIs don't even meet Interstate standards anyway so it really doesn't make a difference in my eyes if it says NY 878 or I-878, NJ-495 or I-495, because it's the interstate number in practice and in the eyes of everyone who drives it

That's how it works in NY, especially since everything is "route X".  Most people from Rochester don't consider I-590 and NY 590 to be separate roads but rather one continuous road (and the mileposts reflect that).  Ditto for 390, 690, 890, and 787.

[machias]

I don't know if anyone else is like me, but in New York/New Jersey, I see the state route versions of 3DIs as just part of the 3DI because most of the 3DIs don't even meet Interstate standards anyway so it really doesn't make a difference in my eyes if it says NY 878 or I-878, NJ-495 or I-495, because it's the interstate number in practice and in the eyes of everyone who drives it

That's how it works in NY, especially since everything is "route X".  Most people from Rochester don't consider I-590 and NY 590 to be separate roads but rather one continuous road (and the mileposts reflect that).  Ditto for 390, 690, 890, and 787.

Add I-481/NY 481 to that list, though it's only NY 481 that has mileposts and not I-481 at the moment.    I-690 and NY 690 both recently received new mileposts combining both routes into one milepost scheme.

I-790 and (future) NY 790 could probably be added to that list someday if the plan to extend NY 790 over NY 49 and NY 365 ever comes to fruition.

[Duke87]

I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 

I always say "take Route 3 to the tunnel." Picked it up from my parents, who predate 1980, but I still catch myself using it.

I don't see this phrasing as meaning to imply that 495 is part of 3 so much as it is just shorthand. "Take route 3 to route 495 to the tunnel" is more technically correct but also more wordy. "Take route 3 to the tunnel" ignores the 495 designation but sufficiently conveys the necessary information, because drivers will clearly see signs saying "Lincoln Tunnel" when they get to the 3/495 junction.

Hell, when I write down or describe my routes, I often omit and leave implied little steps. I've stated "I-80 to the George Washington Bridge" plenty of times. This neglects to explicitly state that one technically must get on I-95 first, but it isn't necessary to say that since there isn't another logical route to get from 80 to the GWB.

Indeed, this is something I find annoying about the "step by step" directions generated by computers. They relay the most obvious steps with equal prominence to the most counterintuitive ones. It's as if they are written for mindless idiots who have no clue how to navigate and are just blindly following instructions or something.

[Alps]

I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 

I always say "take Route 3 to the tunnel." Picked it up from my parents, who predate 1980, but I still catch myself using it.

I don't see this phrasing as meaning to imply that 495 is part of 3 so much as it is just shorthand. "Take route 3 to route 495 to the tunnel" is more technically correct but also more wordy. "Take route 3 to the tunnel" ignores the 495 designation but sufficiently conveys the necessary information, because drivers will clearly see signs saying "Lincoln Tunnel" when they get to the 3/495 junction.

Hell, when I write down or describe my routes, I often omit and leave implied little steps. I've stated "I-80 to the George Washington Bridge" plenty of times. This neglects to explicitly state that one technically must get on I-95 first, but it isn't necessary to say that since there isn't another logical route to get from 80 to the GWB.

Indeed, this is something I find annoying about the "step by step" directions generated by computers. They relay the most obvious steps with equal prominence to the most counterintuitive ones. It's as if they are written for mindless idiots who have no clue how to navigate and are just blindly following instructions or something.

No dude, I say "take Route 3 to Hoboken" too. Trust me, 495 never enters my consciousness. I've heard it as "I-495" more often than "Route 3", but nonzero times.