New York

[crispy93]

Are there any more sequential-to-mileage-based exit numbering conversions in the near future? I know the Thruway will be converted the-day-after-never, but what about all the other roads in New York State?

I haven't heard anything. I still have to drive down the Hutch and see how the signs are progressing. Looks like they mostly did 1:1 replacements, meaning there are still different styles of exit signs (eg, some have the street name, horizontal bar, control city, whereas others don't have the horizontal bar).

684 would be an easy conversion, but I don't know if the signs are reaching end-of-life. The signs at I-84 are definitely newish. Personally, I'd love to see the Palisades Parkway get new signs and the parkway is long enough that mile-based exits would work decently.

[crispy93]

Westchester DPW replaced the signs on the Bronx River Parkway at the Cross-County, so these abominations are gone:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9175149,-73.8477215,3a,75y,35.44h,84.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHslUJH7zOG5PLVxjt530w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9228893,-73.8451635,3a,75y,42.38h,88.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb2EU112NcLM1r0MaLdCgpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And these have been replaced, too:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9370963,-73.8369638,3a,39.4y,326.49h,90.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQNhtM68nVSi_0wA_jPTvgQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

^^ That one now has just Sprain Brook Pkwy (no reference to the Taconic/Albany) with down arrows over all three lanes (never understood why the right lane has a solid white line). I guess the Sprain sign could technically have a Left Exit # like it does when you're on the southbound Taconic, but it always looked weird to me.

[machias]

Westchester DPW replaced the signs on the Bronx River Parkway at the Cross-County, so these abominations are gone:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9175149,-73.8477215,3a,75y,35.44h,84.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHslUJH7zOG5PLVxjt530w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9228893,-73.8451635,3a,75y,42.38h,88.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb2EU112NcLM1r0MaLdCgpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I actually like the second sign with the exit numbers on the bottom row. That was the NYSDPW standard at one time.

[noelbotevera]

Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.

[Sam]

Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.

It was once part of NY 245 before it became I-390. New York often doesn't change the reference route number even if the touring route number changes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_245

[GenExpwy]

Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.

It was once part of NY 245 before it became I-390. New York often doesn't change the reference route number even if the touring route number changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_245

Region 4 changed all the reference markers on I-390 in Livingston County to 390I in the late 1970s as the sections north of Dansville were starting to open up. The 245  reference markers are in Steuben County (Region 6).

NY 245 overlapped NY 21 between Naples and Wayland, (originally) NY 63 to Dansville, then west along current NY 436 through Nunda and Portageville. When the first section of the Genesee Expressway opened between Wayland and Dansville, 245 was moved onto it, exiting at what is now Exit 4, and continued west. The expressway between Exit 4 and the Exit 5 area carried NY 36, with  36  reference markers.

[noelbotevera]

Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.

It was once part of NY 245 before it became I-390. New York often doesn't change the reference route number even if the touring route number changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_245

Region 4 changed all the reference markers on I-390 in Livingston County to 390I in the late 1970s as the sections north of Dansville were starting to open up. The 245 reference markers are in Steuben County (Region 6).

NY 245 overlapped NY 21 between Naples and Wayland, (originally) NY 63 to Dansville, then west along current NY 436 through Nunda and Portageville. When the first section of the Genesee Expressway opened between Wayland and Dansville, 245 was moved onto it, exiting at what is now Exit 4, and continued west. The expressway between Exit 4 and the Exit 5 area carried NY 36, with 36 reference markers.

The history adds up - it looks like NY 36 once bypassed Dansville but was returned to downtown when I-390 was designated (1970-72 I guess, according to Wikipedia). Was Region 6 simply too lazy to change the markers from 245 to 390I, considering Region 4 did?

Also, it seems confusing that NYSDOT would still inventory this as NY 245 when the rest of the road is I-390 (or 390I). There's no real reason to do so, and I don't think anyone at NYSDOT remembers when or why it was NY 245.

[crispy93]

I know NY 82 and US 44 were re-configured near Millbrook (Dutchess County) and 82 has 44's reference markers. I remember reading in some DOT manual that for crash stats and history/projects, it makes sense to keep the old ones.

Anyway, I went over the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge last weekend and it's AET now. The tollbooths are being dismantled.

[Mergingtraffic]

Westchester DPW replaced the signs on the Bronx River Parkway at the Cross-County, so these abominations are gone:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9175149,-73.8477215,3a,75y,35.44h,84.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHslUJH7zOG5PLVxjt530w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9228893,-73.8451635,3a,75y,42.38h,88.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb2EU112NcLM1r0MaLdCgpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And these have been replaced, too:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9370963,-73.8369638,3a,39.4y,326.49h,90.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQNhtM68nVSi_0wA_jPTvgQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

^^ That one now has just Sprain Brook Pkwy (no reference to the Taconic/Albany) with down arrows over all three lanes (never understood why the right lane has a solid white line). I guess the Sprain sign could technically have a Left Exit # like it does when you're on the southbound Taconic, but it always looked weird to me.

This sign is also owned by the County of Westchester.  It says it on the sign.  So will this be gone too soon? It wasn't replaced with the other signs in the area.  Btw, are the I-684 button copy signs nearby also Westchester owned?

[machias]

Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.

It was once part of NY 245 before it became I-390. New York often doesn't change the reference route number even if the touring route number changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_245

Region 4 changed all the reference markers on I-390 in Livingston County to 390I in the late 1970s as the sections north of Dansville were starting to open up. The 245 reference markers are in Steuben County (Region 6).

NY 245 overlapped NY 21 between Naples and Wayland, (originally) NY 63 to Dansville, then west along current NY 436 through Nunda and Portageville. When the first section of the Genesee Expressway opened between Wayland and Dansville, 245 was moved onto it, exiting at what is now Exit 4, and continued west. The expressway between Exit 4 and the Exit 5 area carried NY 36, with 36 reference markers.

The history adds up - it looks like NY 36 once bypassed Dansville but was returned to downtown when I-390 was designated (1970-72 I guess, according to Wikipedia). Was Region 6 simply too lazy to change the markers from 245 to 390I, considering Region 4 did?

Also, it seems confusing that NYSDOT would still inventory this as NY 245 when the rest of the road is I-390 (or 390I). There's no real reason to do so, and I don't think anyone at NYSDOT remembers when or why it was NY 245.

At one time, it was NYSDOT policy to leave reference markers as installed, and not update with new route numbers. This has varied between the regions over the years. I can think of plenty of places where the reference marker doesn't match the signed route anymore in Regions 2 and 5, not sure about 4. Region 3 seems to update their reference markers, not sure about Region 9.

[Roadgeek Adam]

R5 is replace as is. ex-NY 33B just got its signs redone, still 33B reference markers, despite the route not existing since 7/1/74.

[cl94]

R5 is replace as is.

Sometimes. 263 was re-mileposted in 2015.

[baugh17]

At one time, it was NYSDOT policy to leave reference markers as installed, and not update with new route numbers. This has varied between the regions over the years. I can think of plenty of places where the reference marker doesn't match the signed route anymore in Regions 2 and 5, not sure about 4. Region 3 seems to update their reference markers, not sure about Region 9.

R4 will generally update their markers though I can think of a couple of one offs where that isn't/wasn't the case.

[Rothman]

R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.

[machias]

R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.

Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.

[astralentity]

Similar to how R9 has the old 7 markers on I-88 between the 7 arterial and exit 4.

[Rothman]

R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.

Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.

Well, the keyword there is "former."  NYSDOT isn't going to keep RMs on a county route.

An example of what I am talking about are NY 90 RMs being still in place on current NY 392.

[RobbieL2415]

IDK, perhaps the Niagra SP/RMSP situation would be different if the LOSP were completed out to Porter.
It also makes no sense to me to have the NSP parallel to NY 104 from the Center St. exit to the split at Devil's Hole State Park. Just get rid of it and add a median to NY 104 and raise the speed limit to 65.
There's plenty of thru E-W streets connecting to I-190 to handle tourist traffic.
I would honestly demolish the whole thing south of I-190.

[machias]

R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.

Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.

Well, the keyword there is "former."  NYSDOT isn't going to keep RMs on a county route.

An example of what I am talking about are NY 90 RMs being still in place on current NY 392.

What I was trying to convey was...

On NY 291 in Region 2, the part which used to be NY 12C still (for the most part) say 12C, there's a couple stragglers that were changed.
On NY 430 in Region 5, the part which used to be NY 17J still say 17J.

On NY 370 in Region 3, the part which used to be NY 57, the RMs were all changed to 370.
On NY 481 in Region 3, the part which used to be NY 57, the were all changed to 481.

[Rothman]

R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.

Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.

Well, the keyword there is "former."  NYSDOT isn't going to keep RMs on a county route.

An example of what I am talking about are NY 90 RMs being still in place on current NY 392.

What I was trying to convey was...

On NY 291 in Region 2, the part which used to be NY 12C still (for the most part) say 12C, there's a couple stragglers that were changed.
On NY 430 in Region 5, the part which used to be NY 17J still say 17J.

On NY 370 in Region 3, the part which used to be NY 57, the RMs were all changed to 370.
On NY 481 in Region 3, the part which used to be NY 57, the were all changed to 481.

Well...yeah.  In R3, someone didn't like the gap left over.

[vdeane]

IDK, perhaps the Niagra SP/RMSP situation would be different if the LOSP were completed out to Porter.
It also makes no sense to me to have the NSP parallel to NY 104 from the Center St. exit to the split at Devil's Hole State Park. Just get rid of it and add a median to NY 104 and raise the speed limit to 65.
There's plenty of thru E-W streets connecting to I-190 to handle tourist traffic.
I would honestly demolish the whole thing south of I-190.

I could see keeping I-190 to NY 104 if it were modified to have the NSP southbound feed into the I-190 interchange.  That said, given the AADT, it might not be worth having north of I-190 either.  It would probably be cheaper to just have the state take over Church Street/Blairville Road and give that a number than to do significant rehabilitation/reconstruction work on the NSP.

I'm not sure why it still exists south of I-190 at all given the recent removal efforts.  There's no reason to have the I-190 to Devil's Hole section and the Devil's Hole to Findlay Drive section could just become an extension of Whirlpool Street.

[Michael]

I stumbled on a couple cool clips on YouTube of NY 17 in Corning before the Corning Bypass was built:

This one is part of a series along NY 17, and starts at I-390 and heads eastbound to the east side of Elmira, then jumps to the Newburgh-Beacon bridge.  A copy of Uglybridges from the Internet Archive says the bridge on the east side of Corning was reconstructed in 1990, so since construction is visible at 4:26, I'm guessing this clip is from that year.

This clip shows construction of the Corning Bypass in 1993.  It's slightly confusing since the High Street it references is the one in Riverside (NY 352), but the video starts on NY 414 near Corning's High Street.

[empirestate]

Also, it seems confusing that NYSDOT would still inventory this as NY 245 when the rest of the road is I-390 (or 390I). There's no real reason to do so, and I don't think anyone at NYSDOT remembers when or why it was NY 245.

They don't, it's inventoried as I-390. While touring route numbers are used as an element of the reference marker legend when it's devised, the markers themselves do not establish what the route number is. Rather, they serve to uniquely identify a point along the state highway system, so as long as there's no other identical marker somewhere, then there's no reason to change the legend. (If you did, then you'd have two different marker legends identifying the same unique location, which is contrary to the intent.)

[noelbotevera]

Also, it seems confusing that NYSDOT would still inventory this as NY 245 when the rest of the road is I-390 (or 390I). There's no real reason to do so, and I don't think anyone at NYSDOT remembers when or why it was NY 245.

They don't, it's inventoried as I-390. While touring route numbers are used as an element of the reference marker legend when it's devised, the markers themselves do not establish what the route number is. Rather, they serve to uniquely identify a point along the state highway system, so as long as there's no other identical marker somewhere, then there's no reason to change the legend. (If you did, then you'd have two different marker legends identifying the same unique location, which is contrary to the intent.)

I don't quite understand what you're saying. As stated earlier, the markers are used for crash statistics, projects, and identification...but are not meant to be used for inventory purposes. Then what's the point in having them? If the road (or rather a specific point) is identified as its old number - with this number also being used for stats and projects - but inventoried as another number, doesn't that lead to confusion?

For comparison, PennDOT's little white signs (the Location Reference System) are used as both identifying markers and an inventory (purpose stated here) but sometimes don't reflect the posted route number. One example is PA 61 near Centralia.

I'm guessing that the NYSDOT inventory and reference markers are two entirely separate ways of identifying roads - one (the inventory) probably stored in a digital database in Albany for the IT people (and probably referenced when compiling AADT data), the other (markers) for the construction crews (who need physical signs that detail the scope of a project).

There's also a case of two reference markers together - I usually don't see both routes reflected on a multiplex, and I'm not sure why this is a special case (NY 42/NY 52 have a very short multiplex, but that's about it).

[empirestate]

I don't quite understand what you're saying. As stated earlier, the markers are used for crash statistics, projects, and identification...but are not meant to be used for inventory purposes. Then what's the point in having them?

It's just what you said: the point is to identify locations on the state highway system for compiling statistics and data, and for referencing physical inventories–not of the highways themselves, but of things like traffic signals and railroad crossings.

If the road (or rather a specific point) is identified as its old number - with this number also being used for stats and projects - but inventoried as another number, doesn't that lead to confusion?

Perhaps so, though perhaps less so among the intended users (the DOT) than the general public. It may help to realize that the "number" in this case is the touring route number–a fungible concept that is itself an aspect of the state highway system, but is distinct from the SR numbers that serve to legally and physically identify the roads themselves. To put it another way, the (touring) route number is just one way to describe that highway system as it exists at a point in time; the reference marker system is another.

I'm guessing that the NYSDOT inventory and reference markers are two entirely separate ways of identifying roads - one (the inventory) probably stored in a digital database in Albany for the IT people (and probably referenced when compiling AADT data), the other (markers) for the construction crews (who need physical signs that detail the scope of a project).

So yes, that's basically the case. Certainly the touring route inventory is the most recognizable system for human users, both internally and at large, while the reference marker system makes more sense to a computer database.

There's also a case of two reference markers together - I usually don't see both routes reflected on a multiplex, and I'm not sure why this is a special case (NY 42/NY 52 have a very short multiplex, but that's about it).

Probably no more special a case than that the reference marker guidelines are applied pretty willy-nilly by the different regions and various contractors. To add to the confusion, there seems to be a discrepancy between theoretical marker locations (which can be seen e.g. in NYSDOT's GIS datasets) and actual sign legends.