New York State Thruway

[RobbieL2415]

Can't they find something else to name for him?

FWIW, the I-490 bridge in Downtown Rochester is already named for him.

Interesting.  I always just called it the Genesee River Bridge.

[empirestate]

Can't they find something else to name for him?

FWIW, the I-490 bridge in Downtown Rochester is already named for him.

Interesting.  I always just called it the Genesee River Bridge.

And I the Troup-Howell Bridge. :-)

With everything else going on, its somehow a priority to rename the Thruway?

I wouldn't think so, no; do you? I have not observed there to be much correlation between introducing a bill about something, and it being a priority.

[shadyjay]

A handful of turnpikes have been "named" before.  Florida's Turnpike is the Ronald Reagan Tpke.  The Ohio Turnpike is named for James Shocknessy (sp?).  But noone calls those roads that... they're just the Turnpike.  You may get a sign at each end saying the official name but that's it.  In my opinion, it seems like a waste of time and money.  Thomas E. Dewey would roll over in his grave, if fellow 'gov Malcolm Wilson hasn't rolled over onto him already! :-)

[webny99]

I always just called it the Genesee River Bridge.

The problem with that is that there are many Genesee River bridges. There's 14 north of the Thruway alone.

I have not observed there to be much correlation between introducing a bill about something, and it being a priority.

LOL! 

[zachb]

A handful of turnpikes have been "named" before.  Florida's Turnpike is the Ronald Reagan Tpke.  The Ohio Turnpike is named for James Shocknessy (sp?).  But noone calls those roads that... they're just the Turnpike.  You may get a sign at each end saying the official name but that's it.  In my opinion, it seems like a waste of time and money.  Thomas E. Dewey would roll over in his grave, if fellow 'gov Malcolm Wilson hasn't rolled over onto him already! :-)

I-80 in PA is officially the "Z.H. Confair Memorial Highway", and a course a bunch of random highway bridges and interchanges are named after someone

[hbelkins]

Funny how the naming thing works. Prior to I-26 being extended north into Tennessee, many of the bridges on US 23 south of Johnson City were named for someone. I remember TDOT saying that they would have to remove the signage naming those spans to comply with interstate standards. That was a head-scratcher, as all sorts of bridges and interchanges along non-toll interstates are named. Drive up I-79 in West Virginia if you don't believe me.

[webny99]

Yeah, I've never known the posting of bridge names to be below interstate standards. It's certainly done in New York, there are plenty of other examples in addition to the one that can be seen in the link I posted above.

[deathtopumpkins]

MUTCD doesn't prohibit them, but does frown on them: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2m.htm#section2M10

[Alps]

If you're going to post bridge names, they should be small white on blue, green, or brown signs. There's no clear guidance on it, but it should be inconspicuous. The argument is that it could help with wayfinding, similar to mile markers.

[hbelkins]

A lot of "should" and not a whole lot of "shall" there, but states routinely violate the "should" and "shall" guidelines.

[Alps]

A lot of "should" and not a whole lot of "shall" there, but states routinely violate the "should" and "shall" guidelines.

And remember, "should" means that it requires an engineering reason not to do it, whereas "shall" cannot be violated without a compelling reason.

[hbelkins]

A lot of "should" and not a whole lot of "shall" there, but states routinely violate the "should" and "shall" guidelines.

And remember, "should" means that it requires an engineering reason not to do it, whereas "shall" cannot be violated without a compelling reason.

It would be interesting to see what "engineering reasons" some states have used for their exceptions -- such as Kentucky putting the route number (US 23) on its brown Country Music Highway signs, or the Kentucky State Police logo on the blue signs used anytime a segment of highway is named after a state police officer.

[Alps]

A lot of "should" and not a whole lot of "shall" there, but states routinely violate the "should" and "shall" guidelines.

And remember, "should" means that it requires an engineering reason not to do it, whereas "shall" cannot be violated without a compelling reason.

It would be interesting to see what "engineering reasons" some states have used for their exceptions -- such as Kentucky putting the route number (US 23) on its brown Country Music Highway signs, or the Kentucky State Police logo on the blue signs used anytime a segment of highway is named after a state police officer.

Scenic route signs don't run afoul of the MUTCD. These don't sound egregious the way you describe them.

[Glockspeed Gaming]

I would renumber the exits and mileposts according to I-90 and I-87, much like the Pennsylvania Turnpike does with the mainline and NE extension, or what Connecticut does with I-95 and I-395. It makes more sense that way I think, and it's less confusing to not just people who live there, but newcomers and travelers too.

[Jim]

In case anyone's interested in an update on the AET conversion on the Thruway in the general vicinity of Albany, I drove some parts today for the first time in a while and saw the structures across the main roadways are now up west of 24 and east of the Canaan barrier.  The structures at exits 27, 26, and B1 were already up on previous trips, but there is still work in progress near each.  Also lots of new signs covered in black tarps near each current and yet-to-be erected AET structure.

[theroadwayone]

I would renumber the exits and mileposts according to I-90 and I-87, much like the Pennsylvania Turnpike does with the mainline and NE extension, or what Connecticut does with I-95 and I-395. It makes more sense that way I think, and it's less confusing to not just people who live there, but newcomers and travelers too.

When the PA Turnpike switched to distance-based numbering, it was just purely coincidental that Exit 31 on the NE Extension (Lansdale) happened to be at Milepost 31 on I-476 already.

[SignBridge]

If NYSTA is converting from their traditional toll-ticket type system to a main-line barrier system like Massachusetts did on I-90, that would leave them free to renumber the exits by Interstate route. It would eliminate the problem of two exits with the same number, which would have been an issue in the traditional toll system.

But it might cause a problem with 911 callers to the Twy. Authority communications center reporting an incident say at Exit 24 and then the question would be well which Exit-24? And trust me half the callers would get it wrong when asked which Interstate route they were on. Food for thought.

[webny99]

When the PA Turnpike switched to distance-based numbering, it was just purely coincidental that Exit 31 on the NE Extension (Lansdale) happened to be at Milepost 31 on I-476 already.

This will also be the case for much of I-190 if/when New York ever converts to mileage-based.

[Rothman]

Just fudge one of the exit numbers then. 

[Alps]

If NYSTA is converting from their traditional toll-ticket type system to a main-line barrier system like Massachusetts did on I-90, that would leave them free to renumber the exits by Interstate route. It would eliminate the problem of two exits with the same number, which would have been an issue in the traditional toll system.

But it might cause a problem with 911 callers to the Twy. Authority communications center reporting an incident say at Exit 24 and then the question would be well which Exit-24? And trust me half the callers would get it wrong when asked which Interstate route they were on. Food for thought.

They would probably do something like PA and fudge the numbers by one where this occurs. The big issue is going to be mileposting, as I-87 and I-90 would definitely have overlapping posts. You'd have to do them as "N/S" and "E/W" probably.

[lstone19]

If NYSTA is converting from their traditional toll-ticket type system to a main-line barrier system like Massachusetts did on I-90, that would leave them free to renumber the exits by Interstate route.

Maybe younger drivers think about it differently but I'm of an age (and grew up in the Northeast with summers in the Adirondacks) where I make the name of the toll road primary and the route(s) secondary. So one numbering system for the named road rather than the routes has always made more sense to me even though it's not per standards.

Standards are great but when they get in the way of usability, what's the point. I know the Thruway is very non-standard with the east to west numbering of the Albany - Ripley section but I wonder how many John Q. Motorists even know west to east is standard. I think many of them see exit numbers but they probably never thought through what direction they run.*

It's been years since I've been on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I find their new system confusing because I don't know the road well enough to know many of the exit names so when I hear an exit number in the range on both the mainline and the northeast spur, I generally don't know where it is (and if they really wanted to be correct, the numbers on the mainline should reset where I-276 starts and then again at I-95 (and then there's the I-70/I-76 multiplex where if it wasn't a named toll road, I'd prefer it follow I-70s mileage since a x0 route should be more important than a non-x0 route). And then there's the Ohio Turnpike where the numbers should change at the I-80/I-76 bump. And the NJ Turnpike. In short, numbering of named toll roads is problematic and involves compromises).

So if the NYSTA moves to mileage exit numbers, unless their goal is to de-emphasize the Thruway name (I doubt it) in favor of the route numbers, I'd still prefer it be from 0 at the NYC line to 496 at Ripley and not try to distinguish between I-87 and I-90.

And while not Thruway, the Northway (I-87 north of Albany) is also an exception in my mind. For the most part, I associate named freeways with urban freeways. The Northway is the only rural freeway I can think of that has historically been known by its name more than its number. Perhaps that was because when it was built, NYS wanted to distinguish it from the Thruway but in its early days, I rarely recall it being referred to as I-87 (and my earliest memory of it as a young kid was when it was only open to Exit 12 at Malta).

* On the subject of the general public being oblivious to standards, I once read a novel and had it ruined for me because a major plot point turned on the author's assumption that a color-blind person couldn't read a horizontal traffic signal. It apparently never occurred to the author and however many editors and proofreaders who read it that there is a standard for them.

[astralentity]

So if the NYSTA moves to mileage exit numbers, unless their goal is to de-emphasize the Thruway name (I doubt it) in favor of the route numbers, I'd still prefer it be from 0 at the NYC line to 496 at Ripley and not try to distinguish between I-87 and I-90.

NO...  The mileage should default to either I-90 or I-87, starting at the southern/western terminus, as stated by the MUTCD.  They can keep the Thruway miles from the NYC line to Ripley as an internal reference or similar.  Having the first exit on I-90 be "Exit 496" is only going to confuse travelers even further than they already are on our convoluted system of highways.

[machias]

If NYSTA is converting from their traditional toll-ticket type system to a main-line barrier system like Massachusetts did on I-90, that would leave them free to renumber the exits by Interstate route. It would eliminate the problem of two exits with the same number, which would have been an issue in the traditional toll system.

But it might cause a problem with 911 callers to the Twy. Authority communications center reporting an incident say at Exit 24 and then the question would be well which Exit-24? And trust me half the callers would get it wrong when asked which Interstate route they were on. Food for thought.

Are we sure the same 911 center would be answering a call for an emergency at Exit 24, which would be about 450 miles from the other Exit 24?

[lstone19]

NO...  The mileage should default to either I-90 or I-87, starting at the southern/western terminus, as stated by the MUTCD.  They can keep the Thruway miles from the NYC line to Ripley as an internal reference or similar.  Having the first exit on I-90 be "Exit 496" is only going to confuse travelers even further than they already are on our convoluted system of highways.

We will just have to disagree. I doubt most travelers will be confused because as I stated, I doubt most have any awareness that roads are normally numbered west to east. The only people who will notice are those who know the standard and they won't be confused, at worst they'll wonder why it's backwards.

When I spent much of my time in NYS, I knew very few people who referred to parts of the Thruway by route number (maybe I-95 for the NE Thruway but not for the mainline). Thanks to the long ago goofy routing of I-87 via what's now I-684, thinking of the segment south of Albany as I-87 never reached significance because for many years it wasn't in its entirety. Go back 50 years and if you were giving someone directions from Albany to NYC, would you say " take I-87 south to Newburgh, then the unnumbered Thruway to Suffern, then I-287 to Elmsford, and then I-87 to NYC" or would you just say "take the Thruway south to NYC".

While the MUTCD may say otherwise, to me an established name like the "New York State Thruway" is just as valid a highway designator as is a route number and since numbering relative to one designation creates a conflict with numbering relative to the other, something has to give. To me, it's always been Thruway first and number second. Until and unless the Thruway name goes away, IMHO, it needs to be numbered as one road and not a mix of the underlying route numbers.

[vdeane]

If NYSTA is converting from their traditional toll-ticket type system to a main-line barrier system like Massachusetts did on I-90, that would leave them free to renumber the exits by Interstate route. It would eliminate the problem of two exits with the same number, which would have been an issue in the traditional toll system.

But it might cause a problem with 911 callers to the Twy. Authority communications center reporting an incident say at Exit 24 and then the question would be well which Exit-24? And trust me half the callers would get it wrong when asked which Interstate route they were on. Food for thought.

Physically, it's a hybrid system, with none of the "ticket" systems including the switch from I-90 to I-87 or the area around it.  As for how it will be billed, I'm not sure, but the fact that none of the new mainline gantries have names suggests that they may bill as a virtual ticket system, like MA does.

So if the NYSTA moves to mileage exit numbers, unless their goal is to de-emphasize the Thruway name (I doubt it) in favor of the route numbers, I'd still prefer it be from 0 at the NYC line to 496 at Ripley and not try to distinguish between I-87 and I-90.

One thing to keep in mind is that NY never emphasized the Thruway to the same degree as neighboring states emphasized their toll roads, at least not in my lifetime.  Reassurance markers are just I-87 or just I-90.  Even some guide signs don't include the Thruway.  Meanwhile, the MassPike and NJ Turnpike post their shields religiously, and the PTC has gigantic oversized shields at Turnpike junctions.

This ultimately comes down to the question of who are roads numbered for.  Locals will adapt, but someone from out of the area who hasn't even heard of the Thruway could get confused, especially as it isn't emphasized on signs.