New York

[Rothman]

The problem with NY Thruway exit numbering is that the road is part of three separate Interstate routes, 87, 287, and 90. And some of it runs north/south and some runs east/west. Also, not all of some of those routes is part of the Thruway. So it gets unusually complicated.

That and the 287 part is an overlap with I-87.

MUTCD has guidance on it.

[D-Dey65]

D-dey65, the New England Thruway was built circa 1958. Before that it didn't exist. And I think it was always part of the New York Thruway Authority system.

They still had their own distinct signs, and no direct connection to the rest of the thruway system.

[SignBridge]

The original exit signs on the New England T'way. were the same dark blue as the Mainline, though they may have been formatted slightly different. However the entrance signs were distinctive to the New England Section, being yellow with black lettering if I remember right.

True that there was originally no direct connection to the Mainline of the Thruway, though since around 1991 they are connected by the Cross Westchester Expwy. which became part of the Thruway System after having been a NYSDOT highway since it was built circa 1960.

[J N Winkler]

I basically agree with Rothman about mileage-based exit numbering on the Thruway, but given the looooooong discussion we had about that in this very thread, I just say, "Next year in Jerusalem."

[machias]

There is nothing special about the Thruway to warrant non-standard interchange numbering. I-90 gets numbered west to east across the entire state. I-87 gets numbered south to north the length of the state. Any similar numbers along the Thruway portion would be so far apart mileage wise that it wouldn't make much difference to the average motorist. (Maybe Batavia and Coxsackie would be close in numbering?).  I-287's exit numbers would pick up west to east from I-87, with however far it is in mileage from where I-287 entered New York. The Berkshire section would simply get I-90's numbers; I would just remove the number from Exit 21A.

Other states handle this type of numbering just fine (Ohio, Illinois come to mind), New York should just do the same.

[Mergingtraffic]

Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84.  New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.

[shadyjay]

There is nothing special about the Thruway to warrant non-standard interchange numbering. I-90 gets numbered west to east across the entire state. I-87 gets numbered south to north the length of the state. Any similar numbers along the Thruway portion would be so far apart mileage wise that it wouldn't make much difference to the average motorist. (Maybe Batavia and Coxsackie would be close in numbering?).  I-287's exit numbers would pick up west to east from I-87, with however far it is in mileage from where I-287 entered New York. The Berkshire section would simply get I-90's numbers; I would just remove the number from Exit 21A.

Other states handle this type of numbering just fine (Ohio, Illinois come to mind), New York should just do the same.

What would've been special, and potentially confusing for some, is if the Thruway exits were numbered by mileage and the ticket system was still in play.  If the ticket system was sticking around, I would've split the mainline into two ticket systems and construct two new barriers... one south of present Exit 21A and one somewhere out past Schenectady.  This would've made travel in the Albany area free, would have permitted some work to the Exit 24 mess, and would have permitted two separate ticket systems that didn't matter on the exit numbers of two separate interstates.  This would also permit the Canaan plaza on the Berkshire Spur to be converted to an open-road fixed-rate toll and allowed removal of toll barriers at Exit B1 and B2. 

But its all moot.  Exits can be numbered according to mileage of the two separate interstates.  Of course you're gonna have to change out 350+ miles of mile markers for I-90 and some 300+ miles for I-87. 

For I-287, I'd prefer to see one of the I-287's renumbered, then you could maintain Exit 1 at its present location.  Or, renumber I-287 e/w to I-86. 

[RobbieL2415]

I know it would be confusing but I would prefer the Thruway mainline exits to be numbered based on mileage from Yonkers to Ripley.  The extant Interstates could be numbered based on mileage on their non-Thruway portions.  So,

Exit 1 on the Northway would be come Exit 148 (or 149).  This would require a re-numbering of I-87's mileposts since they reset at the split.

Exit 13 on the Deegan becomes exit 8

Exit B3 on the Berkshire Extension becomes Exit 23.

From Albany west MPs for the Thruway Mainline and I-90, respectively, could be installed.

[Ben114]

I know it would be confusing but I would prefer the Thruway mainline exits to be numbered based on mileage from Yonkers to Ripley.  The extant Interstates could be numbered based on mileage on their non-Thruway portions.  So,

Exit 1 on the Northway would be come Exit 148 (or 149).  This would require a re-numbering of I-87's mileposts since they reset at the split.

Exit 13 on the Deegan becomes exit 8

Exit B3 on the Berkshire Extension becomes Exit 23.

From Albany west MPs for the Thruway Mainline and I-90, respectively, could be installed.

Not a bad idea. I'd say ignore the Thruway mileposts and go off the I-87 / I-90 mileposts.

Mile 0 on I-87 would be at I-278, and on I-90 it would be the PA line.

Major Exits:
Thruway Exit 1 (Yonkers) - exit 9
Thruway Exit 24 (I-87 / I-90 switch) - exit 156 (I-87) / exit 345 (I-90)
Northway Exit 1 - exit 156
Northway Exit 43 (last in US) - exit 332
Berkshire Exit B1 - exit 367
Berkshire Exit B3 (last in NY) - exit 373

[D-Dey65]

The original exit signs on the New England T'way. were the same dark blue as the Mainline, though they may have been formatted slightly different. However the entrance signs were distinctive to the New England Section, being yellow with black lettering if I remember right.

True that there was originally no direct connection to the Mainline of the Thruway, though since around 1991 they are connected by the Cross Westchester Expwy. which became part of the Thruway System after having been a NYSDOT highway since it was built circa 1960.

Okay, but even after the Thruway Commission got a hold of it, it was a free road. The same goes for I-84 when they grabbed that. But the Berkshire Spur, the Garden State Parkway connector, and the former Niagara Thruway are connected to the main line. The New England Thruway isn't.


Hey, did they tear down that toll plaza yet in New Rochelle? Maybe they should replace it with a service area.

[SignBridge]

D-dey65, I'm not sure which road you're saying was a free road. The Cross Westchester Expwy was yes; but the New England Twy. always had the New Rochelle toll barrier from the time it was built circa 1959. Toll was 25 cents back then, both directions. LOL

[amroad17]

Nah.  Do it by route as the MUTCD dictates.

Ohio Turnpike is a couple of different routes and they figured it out.  So can NY.

The issue is the Thruway goes north-south then west-east.  The Ohio Turnpike is just east-west.  I'm not saying it cannot be done; the debate is with how to number the exits on the north-south section and on the east-west section.  Should it be done as one entity starting from the Bronx/Westchester line to the PA line or have it done as the two separate Interstate highways they are?  IMHO, I prefer the exit numbers to line up with the current mile markers that are on the Thruway (slightly less cost in replacing the mile markers and the tenth mile markers), however, the prevailing opinion is to "do it by the route as the MUTCD dictates" (Rothman).  If any exit numbers on the north-south section potentially have the same as one on the west-east section, one of them could be off by 1--just like Exit 56 (Lehigh Valley Interchange) on the Northeast Extension of the PA Tpk.  That interchange is actually at milepost 57, however, on the mainline there is an Exit 57 (Pittsburgh Interchange) so the PA Turnpike Commission decided not to show two Exit 57's on the toll ticket and made the Lehigh Valley Interchange, Exit 56.  Yes, I know Exit 56 is on I-476 and not on the mainline but the toll tickets show what you would pay on the entire system.

[amroad17]

There is nothing special about the Thruway to warrant non-standard interchange numbering. I-90 gets numbered west to east across the entire state. I-87 gets numbered south to north the length of the state. Any similar numbers along the Thruway portion would be so far apart mileage wise that it wouldn't make much difference to the average motorist. (Maybe Batavia and Coxsackie would be close in numbering?).  I-287's exit numbers would pick up west to east from I-87, with however far it is in mileage from where I-287 entered New York. The Berkshire section would simply get I-90's numbers; I would just remove the number from Exit 21A.

Other states handle this type of numbering just fine (Ohio, Illinois come to mind), New York should just do the same.

I see you have changed your user name, as you wished.  How are things in Chicago?

[roadman]

Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84.  New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.

Are the foundations in the photo for a replacement Park & Ride sign?  If so, it seems like overkill to have three posts.

[Mergingtraffic]

Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84.  New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.

Are the foundations in the photo for a replacement Park & Ride sign?  If so, it seems like overkill to have three posts.

I believe they are rearranging the sign locations.  I think the new "1 Mile" advance sign is going in that spot and the Park & Ride sign is being moved further west of here.  There will also be a 2 mile and "right lane" advance signs for this exit.  Current exit 15 future exit 50.

[roadman]

Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84.  New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.

Are the foundations in the photo for a replacement Park & Ride sign?  If so, it seems like overkill to have three posts.

I believe they are rearranging the sign locations.  I think the new "1 Mile" advance sign is going in that spot and the Park & Ride sign is being moved further west of here.  There will also be a 2 mile and "right lane" advance signs for this exit.  Current exit 15 future exit 50.

I figured that was the case.  However, this is NYSDOT, so anything's possible.  Curious if the new signs are going to have any destinations.  If they are going to just read 'Brick Kiln Rd' like the current signs do, it doesn't appear to me that the sign width justifies the expense and potential hazard of adding the center post.

[Mergingtraffic]

Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84.  New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.

Are the foundations in the photo for a replacement Park & Ride sign?  If so, it seems like overkill to have three posts.

I believe they are rearranging the sign locations.  I think the new "1 Mile" advance sign is going in that spot and the Park & Ride sign is being moved further west of here.  There will also be a 2 mile and "right lane" advance signs for this exit.  Current exit 15 future exit 50.

I figured that was the case.  However, this is NYSDOT, so anything's possible.  Curious if the new signs are going to have any destinations.  If they are going to just read 'Brick Kiln Rd' like the current signs do, it doesn't appear to me that the sign width justifies the expense and potential hazard of adding the center post.

A county route shield is added Duchess County 27 Lime Klin Rd Exit 50. 

Current exit 17 (future exit 58) Ludingtonville Rd will also get Putnam County route shield 43 on it's BGSs as well.

At the I-684 interchange US-6/US-202 are dropped from the signs going EB according to the plans I saw. 

[PHLBOS]

At the I-684 interchange US-6/US-202 are dropped from the signs going EB according to the plans I saw.

If you're referring to I-84 eastbound; the main current signs didn't have US 6/202 shields on them.  Such is likely why the upcoming replacement signs don't have them either.

[roadman]

A county route shield is added Duchess County 27 Lime Klin Rd Exit 50.   

Increases height, but a shield shouldn't affect the width of the sign panel.  2 vs 3 posts is normally based on panel width, not overall area.

[KEVIN_224]

If you're referring to I-84 eastbound, the main current signs didn't have US 6/202 shields on them. Such is likely why the upcoming replacement signs don't have them either.

Was that "TO" added next to "New York City" after the fact? 

[D-Dey65]

D-dey65, I'm not sure which road you're saying was a free road. The Cross Westchester Expwy was yes; but the New England Twy. always had the New Rochelle toll barrier from the time it was built circa 1959. Toll was 25 cents back then, both directions. LOL

Cross Westchester, of course.

At the I-684 interchange US-6/US-202 are dropped from the signs going EB according to the plans I saw.

If you're referring to I-84 eastbound; the main current signs didn't have US 6/202 shields on them.  Such is likely why the upcoming replacement signs don't have them either.

I don't see them either eastbound or westbound. The only US 6/202 shields I see are northbound on I-684 itself at the north-to-westbound ramp. Well, that and westbound I-84 at Exit 21.

Speaking of the Brewster area roads.

*Is it just me, or is it high time the southeast quadrant of that interchange gets rebuilt, with the east-to-north ramp given more of a curve, and the north-to-east ramp relocated around it?
*Why are their two matching signs along each lane for westbound I-84 between Exits 21 and 20?
*Shouldn't the Exit 21 signs read "NY 121 To US 6-US 202, North Salem, Brewster?"

[empirestate]

*Is it just me, or is it high time the southeast quadrant of that interchange gets rebuilt, with the east-to-north ramp given more of a curve, and the north-to-east ramp relocated around it?

It's high time something got done there–I'm not worried about the east-to-north ramp, but the north-to-east ramp is a constant bottleneck, due to its sharp curves (due largely, I think, to the Star Ridge Rd overpass) and the merge into two lanes of I-84. Then again, I-84 is one huge fustercluck from there pretty much all the way to Hartford, so fixing the Brewster interchange might be like felling a redwood with a fly swatter.

[abqtraveler]

*Is it just me, or is it high time the southeast quadrant of that interchange gets rebuilt, with the east-to-north ramp given more of a curve, and the north-to-east ramp relocated around it?

It's high time something got done there–I'm not worried about the east-to-north ramp, but the north-to-east ramp is a constant bottleneck, due to its sharp curves (due largely, I think, to the Star Ridge Rd overpass) and the merge into two lanes of I-84. Then again, I-84 is one huge fustercluck from there pretty much all the way to Hartford, so fixing the Brewster interchange might be like felling a redwood with a fly swatter.

I recall that NYSDOT was planning to straighten the I-684 NB to I-84 EB ramp, which would include replacing the Star Ridge Road overpass.  That was several years ago, so I'm not sure if that's still the case or if NYSDOT decided to put their money elsewhere.  In the longer term, NYSDOT wants to eventually add a third lane in each direction from I-684 to the Connecticut state line.  The recently-replaced bridges over Dingle Ridge Road are wide enough to accommodate a third lane if and when NYSDOT gets around to constructing the additional lane.

[Rothman]

Speed limit was reduced from 55 to 45 on the Cherry Ave Extension (NY 140) In Bethlehem (connects Slingerlands to Delmar).

I sort of grudgingly accept it.  Although I enjoyed wasting gas speeding up on that short section of highway, the short length sort of made 55 mph unreasonable, given that it is sandwiched between a 30 mph limit on one side and 45 mph on the other anyway.

Still, can't help but wonder what exactly was behind the change.  Perhaps those few left-lane blockers complained to the town or something.

[vdeane]

Still, can't help but wonder what exactly was behind the change.  Perhaps those few left-lane blockers complained to the town or something.

I seem to recall a message from a concerned citizen regarding that road making the rounds through Region 1 a while back.