News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

New York State Thruway

Started by Zeffy, September 22, 2014, 12:00:32 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

cl94

Quote from: Jim on September 29, 2014, 07:14:09 AM
If the best point against renumbering to have exit numbers and mile markers that follow the the route numbers (as it done nearly everywhere else) is that it is more confusing to motorists than having the current 3 separate numbering schemes for each of I-87 and I-90, then I see this as a very one-sided argument.  Anyone who's been at the I-87/I-90 interchange in Albany during holidays and other times when the traffic isn't just the regulars who know the roads well has probably seen the confusion that results from the current scheme.

I'd go a step further and argue that an exit renumbering is the right opportunity to do some renumberings in NYC, like having I-87 replace the I-278 designation from the Triboro/JFK to its junction with I-95 or even US 1/9 in NJ.  But that's probably a topic for another thread.

Thank you. From growing up near Albany, I know how much of a mess the Exit 24 area is because it can be confusing if you aren't in the area often. As the exit numbering for both I-87 and I-90 starts at the toll booths, you get cases such as Exit 1 and both Exit 2s being a mile apart. You don't know how many people bound for Colonie Center get off at Washington Avenue instead of NY 5. Additionally, I always found it odd that both my grandmother and I lived near an Exit 19 on I-87, except I lived 2 hours away.

I-90 has 3 numbering schemes, with Exits 1-3 of two in close proximity and one running backwards of the standard, which is increasing from west to east. Not the best scheme. If I-87 and I-90 mileages are used for exit numbering, there will be 2 duplicates: 11 (current 4 (A), 5 (B) and 60) and 68 (current 17 and 54). One of each number would be on a toll-free segment and the western 11 would be on the small ticket system. Didn't calculate the Berkshire Spur, but those would be in the high 300s.

As for the I-87 extension, I always wondered that myself. Probably couldn't change it now because of how substandard it is.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)


PHLBOS

Quote from: Roadrunner75 on September 28, 2014, 11:50:03 AMWhen the PA Turnpike switched over to mileage based exits, they had to incorporate both the mainline (76/276) as well as the Northeast Extension (476) into that system.  The NE extension exit numbering (which continues the I-476 mileage) now overlaps the mileage of the western end of the mainline numbering (since the NE extension exits don't have a qualifier like NE56 instead of 56).  Before the renumbering, the mainline had exits 1-29 and the extension had 31-38, to avoid the overlap.  Of course there aren't any duplicate numbered exits, but there would in theory be potential for this to happen with a new interchange and they would have to shift the new number accordingly to avoid this.

Drivers seem to have figured this out, so I assume the Thruway could get away with something similar, based on the mileage of the individual interstates.  I think an exit qualifier might be better for each leg but that's probably not gonna happen...
No offense, but I believe that PA's exit umber conversion along its Turnpike vs. the situation that exists along NY Thruway is an apples vs. oranges comparison.

While the East-West Turnpike changes route numbers (from I-76 to I-276) at Valley Forge, the orientation of the Turnpike is unchanged and the numbers are still increasing while heading eastbound.  Note: when the I-95 interchange is completed, the Turnpike east of that interchange will receive I-95-based exit numbers; but, again, the numbers will still increase while heading towards NJ.

In comparision, the orientation of the mainline Thruway does indeed change from a north-south to an east-west road roughly where I-87 & 90 change corridors.  Under the current numbering, the exit numbers & mile markers along the I-90 section of the Thruway have been backwards oriented (in the eyes of FHWA) from the get-go.

One option, could be that one of the segments (be it the north-south I-87 or the east-west I-90) of the Thruway contain a lettered prefix in front of the exit number (example: A1).  Such would address the likelihood of a numerical overlap between the two sections and give hint of a change in the highway's orientation.  Whether such an approach will survive the FHWA muster or not is unknown; but such might be the best way to overcome the lengthy backwards mile-marker/exit numbering that exists along the I-90 section today. 

BTW & IIRC, an early version of the mile-marker exit numbering plan along the NE Extension called for assigning the Lansdale Interchange (PA 63) Exit 30 but it was decided that since the existing exit number was only off by 1; it was left alone (at Exit 31).
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Roadrunner75

Quote from: PHLBOS on September 29, 2014, 09:36:58 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on September 28, 2014, 11:50:03 AMWhen the PA Turnpike switched over to mileage based exits, they had to incorporate both the mainline (76/276) as well as the Northeast Extension (476) into that system.  The NE extension exit numbering (which continues the I-476 mileage) now overlaps the mileage of the western end of the mainline numbering (since the NE extension exits don't have a qualifier like NE56 instead of 56).  Before the renumbering, the mainline had exits 1-29 and the extension had 31-38, to avoid the overlap.  Of course there aren't any duplicate numbered exits, but there would in theory be potential for this to happen with a new interchange and they would have to shift the new number accordingly to avoid this.

Drivers seem to have figured this out, so I assume the Thruway could get away with something similar, based on the mileage of the individual interstates.  I think an exit qualifier might be better for each leg but that's probably not gonna happen...
No offense, but I believe that PA's exit umber conversion along its Turnpike vs. the situation that exists along NY Thruway is an apples vs. oranges comparison.

While the East-West Turnpike changes route numbers (from I-76 to I-276) at Valley Forge, the orientation of the Turnpike is unchanged and the numbers are still increasing while heading eastbound.  Note: when the I-95 interchange is completed, the Turnpike east of that interchange will receive I-95-based exit numbers; but, again, the numbers will still increase while heading towards NJ.

In comparision, the orientation of the mainline Thruway does indeed change from a north-south to an east-west road roughly where I-87 & 90 change corridors.  Under the current numbering, the exit numbers & mile markers along the I-90 section of the Thruway have been backwards oriented (in the eyes of FHWA) from the get-go.

One option, could be that one of the segments (be it the north-south I-87 or the east-west I-90) of the Thruway contain a lettered prefix in front of the exit number (example: A1).  Such would address the likelihood of a numerical overlap between the two sections and give hint of a change in the highway's orientation.  Whether such an approach will survive the FHWA muster or not is unknown; but such might be the best way to overcome the lengthy backwards mile-marker/exit numbering that exists along the I-90 section today. 

BTW & IIRC, an early version of the mile-marker exit numbering plan along the NE Extension called for assigning the Lansdale Interchange (PA 63) Exit 30 but it was decided that since the existing exit number was only off by 1; it was left alone (at Exit 31).
I'm more referring to the NE Extension vs. the mainline, since they both act within the same ticket system.  Yes, it's not exactly the same since with the Thruway you are staying on the mainline, but you have the overlapping exits/mileage within the same system, and you are 'turning' onto a different interstate as with 276/476.

hbelkins

Last year when I was traveling east on the Thruway approaching Albany, my intent was to stay on I-90 eastbound (to complete I-90 in New York) and I knew full well where I wanted to go.

Yet, after I passed through the toll booth where I-90 departs the Thruway, what did I do? I got on I-87 going north!!!

If I got turned around there and took the wrong exit, I can very easily see it happening to someone less road-minded.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Zeffy

Quote from: hbelkins on September 29, 2014, 10:39:57 AM
Yet, after I passed through the toll booth where I-90 departs the Thruway, what did I do? I got on I-87 going north!!!

If I got turned around there and took the wrong exit, I can very easily see it happening to someone less road-minded.

I looked at the GMSV of the split, and it's clearly signed that the 2 left lanes lead to I-90 East, while the right two lanes are signed as I-87 North. Was it a momentary lapse of concentration? The only thing I could think of was that you were in the right-most lanes of the tollbooths and you couldn't get over to the left lanes in time.

Sorry if I sound like an ass, but I'm just curious because I think there would be ample time to read those signs as you exit the tollbooths. Unless I am missing something here...
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

cl94

Quote from: Zeffy on September 29, 2014, 10:56:42 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 29, 2014, 10:39:57 AM
Yet, after I passed through the toll booth where I-90 departs the Thruway, what did I do? I got on I-87 going north!!!

If I got turned around there and took the wrong exit, I can very easily see it happening to someone less road-minded.

I looked at the GMSV of the split, and it's clearly signed that the 2 left lanes lead to I-90 East, while the right two lanes are signed as I-87 North. Was it a momentary lapse of concentration? The only thing I could think of was that you were in the right-most lanes of the tollbooths and you couldn't get over to the left lanes in time.

Sorry if I sound like an ass, but I'm just curious because I think there would be ample time to read those signs as you exit the tollbooths. Unless I am missing something here...

There isn't ample time if the toll booths are backed up and you're on the right. It's also an immediate departure. The first advance sign is 1/10 mile before the split, just inside NYSDOT territory. Miss the sign and you're gone. That area can get pretty crazy and a driver really has to pay attention to surrounding traffic. It's one of the busiest toll plazas on the Thruway and possibly the busiest upstate. Traffic is rarely as light as street view shows and the lack of signs doesn't help things.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Zeffy

Quote from: cl94 on September 29, 2014, 01:17:21 PM
There isn't ample time if the toll booths are backed up and you're on the right. It's also an immediate departure. The first advance sign is 1/10 mile before the split, just inside NYSDOT territory. Miss the sign and you're gone. That area can get pretty crazy and a driver really has to pay attention to surrounding traffic. It's one of the busiest toll plazas on the Thruway and possibly the busiest upstate. Traffic is rarely as light as street view shows and the lack of signs doesn't help things.

Sounds like the solution would be to add some more signage, preferably before the toll booth so people are at least semi-aligned to where they want to go. I think it's a pretty poor decision for such a fast split while cars are shuffling around trying to get where they want to go.
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

vdeane

Regarding widening, it would be nice, but not really needed.  Traffic moves fine most of the time, though issues can develop between Buffalo and Syracuse and south of Albany on holiday weekends.

Most people in the area consider I-87 and the Northway to be one and the same... even the Northway stub to US 20 that's only a reference route gets called "I-87".  The Thruway is just "the Thruway", and nobody in the NYC area uses numbers other than roadgeeks.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

hbelkins

#58
Yeah. Alignment coming out of the tollbooth played a huge role in it. I realized what I'd done immediately and knew I could take the NY 5 exit to loop back around, which I did.

That, and I think I was expecting the I-87 lanes to be on the left instead of the right.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

vdeane

Interesting question: if the Thruway were to go AET before NY converts to mile-based, would its mileposts and numbers be eliminated entirely in favor of I-90 and I-87?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cl94

Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 05:17:58 PM
Interesting question: if the Thruway were to go AET before NY converts to mile-based, would its mileposts and numbers be eliminated entirely in favor of I-90 and I-87?

Likely. In a few years, they'll be one of the very few ticket systems left. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are going AET soon. Heck, even the Thruway is starting a conversion soon: the new Tappan Zee Bridge will be AET, along with the Exit 16 and Yonkers barriers per a few articles I've seen. The temporary Tappan Zee all-electronic "barriers" started construction earlier this month, supposedly. I wouldn't be shocked if they expand it across the entire system after these locations get it: first the other 3 barrier tolls, then the western part of the state, and finally everywhere else. Grand Island AET might bring it up to LOS E from the F it currently sees much of the day.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Zeffy

Here's a set of signs I devised to help guide motorists into the correct lanes (this would be placed before the tollbooths):



The lane markers are designed like the numbers on top of the tollbooths themselves for continuity.
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

roadman

#62
Nice job Zeffy.  The only possible issue here is having "Albany" and "Albany Int'l Airport" on adjacent signs, which might potentially confuse people who only glance at signs (most drivers out there?).  Drop the "Albany" from the I-87 north sign (and consider adding an airport symbol as well), and you seem to have a winner here.

Looking at GSV, one other thing that might help would be pavement route shield markings in the approach apron to the toll plaza.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

Zeffy

Quote from: roadman on September 29, 2014, 06:54:09 PM
Nice job Zeffy.  The only possible issue here is having "Albany" and "Albany Int'l Airport" on adjacent signs, which might potentially confuse people who only glance at signs (most drivers out there?).  Drop the "Albany" from the I-87 north sign (and consider adding an airport symbol as well), and you seem to have a winner here.

Thanks!  :)  One thing I wanted to change was the usage of Albany on the I-90 sign, because at this point you pretty much are in Albany. I didn't know how much traffic would utilize I-90 or take surface streets (via exit 1N or others along I-90) to get to points in Albany. My second choice for control cities were Springfield - Boston, intended for people traveling to Massachusetts. In the end I just ended up replicating the signs after the tollbooths and adding the USE LANE elements to the bottom.
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

Jim

Quote from: hbelkins on September 29, 2014, 10:39:57 AM
Last year when I was traveling east on the Thruway approaching Albany, my intent was to stay on I-90 eastbound (to complete I-90 in New York) and I knew full well where I wanted to go.

Yet, after I passed through the toll booth where I-90 departs the Thruway, what did I do? I got on I-87 going north!!!

If I got turned around there and took the wrong exit, I can very easily see it happening to someone less road-minded.

Much better what you did than what I see way too often: someone either stopping in the triangle area at the split with no idea which way they meant to go (I'm pretty sure you're beyond the signs by then), or cutting across multiple lanes of traffic in a panic move, or backing down part of a ramp after realizing their mistake.   I know these things can happen almost anywhere, but it happens way too much coming out of the Exit 24 tolls.

I've only once seen someone wind up on the wrong side of the barrier and trying to enter the westbound lanes of I-90 going eastbound.  Fortunately that person realized their mistake quickly enough to avoid a high-speed head on collision and veered onto the shoulder.  Have to say, seeing it happen and knowing what could have happened got my heart racing almost as much as if I narrowly avoided being in my own collision.
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, skiing, weather, sports)

cl94

Quote from: Zeffy on September 29, 2014, 07:12:44 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 29, 2014, 06:54:09 PM
Nice job Zeffy.  The only possible issue here is having "Albany" and "Albany Int'l Airport" on adjacent signs, which might potentially confuse people who only glance at signs (most drivers out there?).  Drop the "Albany" from the I-87 north sign (and consider adding an airport symbol as well), and you seem to have a winner here.

Thanks!  :)  One thing I wanted to change was the usage of Albany on the I-90 sign, because at this point you pretty much are in Albany. I didn't know how much traffic would utilize I-90 or take surface streets (via exit 1N or others along I-90) to get to points in Albany. My second choice for control cities were Springfield - Boston, intended for people traveling to Massachusetts. In the end I just ended up replicating the signs after the tollbooths and adding the USE LANE elements to the bottom.

Nice work, but I'd emphasize the US 20 signs a little less. Very minor movement compared to the other two, almost to the point where any traffic bound for it is negligible.

General comments:

  • Anything bound for "Albany" would take I-90 or US 20, likely I-90. I-87 leaves the city limits within the confines of the interchange and the surface streets (NY 5) are notoriously slow to the point where people detour a mile or two to I-90 even if the destination is on the same surface road. Thus, you could use Albany as the control city, better would be "Downtown" as the toll booths do lie inside the city limits.
  • Not sure that lane numbers are the best idea in this situation, as this would make those unfamiliar with the area cut across several lanes to get to the ones listed. I'd put a 1/4 mile advance (ideally more, but space constraints force otherwise) for US 20, followed by a "keep right" sign at the booths. Likewise, I-90 would get a "keep left" and I-87 would get "keep right". You don't necessarily need to get people in the right spot in the limited space before the toll booths (especially if they're backed up like usual). If you had an extra 1/4 mile, that would be one thing, but we have 500 feet, with at least half of that occupied by stalled vehicles during peak hours.

As Jim said, stuff like that is way too common at that interchange. As in it probably happens several times per day due to the lack of advance signage. By the time you see the sign, if you're in the wrong lane, it's too late.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Duke87

Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 05:17:58 PM
Interesting question: if the Thruway were to go AET before NY converts to mile-based, would its mileposts and numbers be eliminated entirely in favor of I-90 and I-87?

I highly doubt it, unless NYSTA is absorbed into NYSDOT. Last I heard the Thruway was of the strong opinion that their own mainline took precedence over the interstates that happen to use it. If they had any interest in fixing the exit numbers they could have already done so decades ago.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Buffaboy

#67
So "Clearview" is what the signage is termed. I first noticed this clean signage going up around the Cheektowaga area back in June. It's very neat in my opinion.

And the ground mounted signs... For some reason crossing back into my home state and seeing pylon signs in states like Ohio make me feel as though the TA just doesn't have the money for the extra metal. It would look much better though if they did use pylon mounts. I wonder if they should widen the 90 to 3 lanes going to the 490.

Also, I'm going through the Cleveland Dr bridge document and I notice on page 22 there are 8 lanes all across the page. Is this really the case in that they are expanding the Thruway in that area? In addition, there are really crappy concrete Jersey barriers past the I-190, but before that they are in top notch condition. I wonder if there are plans to extend them.

Edit: Just realized there are already eight lanes there...
What's not to like about highways and bridges, intersections and interchanges, rails and planes?

My Wikipedia county SVG maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Buffaboy

Buffaboy

Forgive my second post but I like the idea of the monotube cantilevers. It adds a more Ohioish feel to the Thruway even if it is just a small section.
What's not to like about highways and bridges, intersections and interchanges, rails and planes?

My Wikipedia county SVG maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Buffaboy

vdeane

Quote from: cl94 on September 29, 2014, 05:32:13 PM
Likely. In a few years, they'll be one of the very few ticket systems left. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are going AET soon. Heck, even the Thruway is starting a conversion soon: the new Tappan Zee Bridge will be AET, along with the Exit 16 and Yonkers barriers per a few articles I've seen. The temporary Tappan Zee all-electronic "barriers" started construction earlier this month, supposedly. I wouldn't be shocked if they expand it across the entire system after these locations get it: first the other 3 barrier tolls, then the western part of the state, and finally everywhere else. Grand Island AET might bring it up to LOS E from the F it currently sees much of the day.
Last I heard, the 2016 conversion will be at Tappan Zee, Yonkers, Harriman, and New Rochelle.  I'm not sure why Spring Valley is not included.  I could see Spring Valley, Tonawanda, and Niagara being converted soon thereafter if there aren't a ton of issues.  If all that's successful, the ticket system would probably be soon after in a single conversion.

Quote from: Zeffy on September 29, 2014, 05:52:27 PM
Here's a set of signs I devised to help guide motorists into the correct lanes (this would be placed before the tollbooths):



The lane markers are designed like the numbers on top of the tollbooths themselves for continuity.
I'd use 1 and 2 for Crossgates/US 20, 2-5 for I-87, and 5-9 for I-90.

Quote from: Duke87 on September 29, 2014, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 05:17:58 PM
Interesting question: if the Thruway were to go AET before NY converts to mile-based, would its mileposts and numbers be eliminated entirely in favor of I-90 and I-87?

I highly doubt it, unless NYSTA is absorbed into NYSDOT. Last I heard the Thruway was of the strong opinion that their own mainline took precedence over the interstates that happen to use it. If they had any interest in fixing the exit numbers they could have already done so decades ago.
Well, if NYSTA went AET, there would be no more ticket system any more, and therefore a lot less reason for the separate numbering system.

Quote from: Buffaboy on September 30, 2014, 02:56:28 AM
Forgive my second post but I like the idea of the monotube cantilevers. It adds a more Ohioish feel to the Thruway even if it is just a small section.
But the Thruway should have a Thruwayish feel to it, not an Ohioish feel...
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cl94

Spring Valley likely isn't on the list because it has highway-speed E-ZPass. Why eliminate the congestion there (none) when you can get rid of the 4 busiest barrier tolls on the system at places prone to backups? Also more of a cost savings when jobs get eliminated. We're talking millions of dollars that don't have to go toward salaries.

When they do any changes to the ticket system, the precedent is to do it west of Buffalo first, then move it elsewhere because it's easier to implement on a shorter (67 miles vs. 380 miles) section of highway. Could they do it all at once? Certainly. But it would be a more immediate savings if they got rid of as much as possible as early as possible. Since each ticket section has to change at once, it makes more sense to do the short one first.

If/when it does all change to AET, there won't be a reason why NYSTA couldn't add intermediate exits to relieve congestion. I could picture them between 16 and 17 (Cornwall), 23 and 24 (NY 85, direct ramps to Northway/US 20), 31 and 32 (west of Utica, NY 49), 46 and 47 (NY 36), 48A and 49 (Akron/Newstead and central Clarence/Lancaster), and 56 and 57 (US 20/62).
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

roadman65

You might add an exit between 15A and 16 at former Route 210 for Tuxedo and Southfields.  The stretch from Sloatsburg to Harriman could use one being its not ticketed at that point, but managed for over 35 years to stay a typical closed system rural exit set up. 

How about a direct ramp to US 6 Eastbound for West Point, Bear Mountain, and Peekskill?
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Buffaboy

There are actually mono tubes by the BNIA:
What's not to like about highways and bridges, intersections and interchanges, rails and planes?

My Wikipedia county SVG maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Buffaboy

cl94

Quote from: Buffaboy on September 30, 2014, 10:06:59 PM
There are actually mono tubes by the BNIA:
*image*

Difference is that those are on airport property, not technically a public highway even though it is run by a state agency. The difference here is that we're seeing something on a regular road. Not entirely the first in the state, but the first known one (unless someone can say otherwise) on a road maintained by NYSDOT/NYSTA/X County/Y City/etc. That's part of the reason why it's such a big deal. Airport signage is notoriously in violation of the MUTCD (heck, those look like original Thruway signage) and not representative of an area's signage practices. Seeing it on the Thruway is a completely different story that may be an indicator of what is to come.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

amroad17

Quote from: Jim on September 29, 2014, 07:14:09 AM
If the best point against renumbering to have exit numbers and mile markers that follow the the route numbers (as it done nearly everywhere else) is that it is more confusing to motorists than having the current 3 separate numbering schemes for each of I-87 and I-90, then I see this as a very one-sided argument.  Anyone who's been at the I-87/I-90 interchange in Albany during holidays and other times when the traffic isn't just the regulars who know the roads well has probably seen the confusion that results from the current scheme.

I'd go a step further and argue that an exit renumbering is the right opportunity to do some renumberings in NYC, like having I-87 replace the I-278 designation from the Triboro/JFK to its junction with I-95 or even US 1/9 in NJ.  But that's probably a topic for another thread.
I agree with you about I-87.  It should replace I-278 from its current terminus.  Until I-278 reaches Staten Island, the freeway follows more of a north/south orientation than east/west.  Perfect for a number such as 87.

During my earlier post, I forgot to mention how "free" I-90's exits could be renumbered.  Like with I-87, I really have no preference as to having the exits begin with "1" or "349" as long as they are mile-based.  However, with the first few exits in close proximity, I would number them in sequence (1N-S, 2, 3 or 349N-S, 350, 351) until the mileposts synch up again.  I do not mind lettered suffixes until they start getting to F, G, H, or even I (Chicago? Kansas City? Even Cincinnati with an Exit 1G on I-75?).   IIRC, the first six or seven exits on "free" I-90 are within the first four miles from the Thruway to Albany.
I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.