New York State Thruway

[empirestate]

Also the lack of services. With the gas stations closed, there's no services close to the road north of NY 115. If you're going to Albany, that's a 55 mile gap without anything that can be easily found. No rest areas, either. The lower speed limit does deter some, yet travel speeds on the Taconic are often higher than those on the Thruway.

You do also have the Taconic across the river for non-commercial traffic. For selfish reasons, I do wish it went a little farther, up to Bennington perhaps. Anything to get from NYC to VT/NH without going through CT would be pretty nice. :-)

Take the Taconic to I-90.  Just go east for one exit and then up NY 22.   It is really nice that way.  True NY 22 is not freeway, but it is a good road despite being two lanes.  You can use that up to NY 7 and then east into VT (and NH).  Or use NY 43 to MA 43 to MA 2 East.  MA 2 is a nice ride through the Berkshires.  Once you get to Greenfield you have I-91 to take you into VT or NH.

Well yeah, I know how to get there on the current roads. I go over to NY 22 via NY 295 and then cut across Vermont. But I mean, I'd like a way that isn't an hour longer than CT 15 to I-91 (and variants thereof).

Also the lack of services. With the gas stations closed, there's no services close to the road north of NY 115.

Sure there is: https://goo.gl/maps/IwkQT 

[cl94]

Also the lack of services. With the gas stations closed, there's no services close to the road north of NY 115. If you're going to Albany, that's a 55 mile gap without anything that can be easily found. No rest areas, either. The lower speed limit does deter some, yet travel speeds on the Taconic are often higher than those on the Thruway.

You do also have the Taconic across the river for non-commercial traffic. For selfish reasons, I do wish it went a little farther, up to Bennington perhaps. Anything to get from NYC to VT/NH without going through CT would be pretty nice. :-)

Take the Taconic to I-90.  Just go east for one exit and then up NY 22.   It is really nice that way.  True NY 22 is not freeway, but it is a good road despite being two lanes.  You can use that up to NY 7 and then east into VT (and NH).  Or use NY 43 to MA 43 to MA 2 East.  MA 2 is a nice ride through the Berkshires.  Once you get to Greenfield you have I-91 to take you into VT or NH.

Well yeah, I know how to get there on the current roads. I go over to NY 22 via NY 295 and then cut across Vermont. But I mean, I'd like a way that isn't an hour longer than CT 15 to I-91 (and variants thereof).

Also the lack of services. With the gas stations closed, there's no services close to the road north of NY 115.

Sure there is: https://goo.gl/maps/IwkQT 

Okay, I missed ONE gas station

[vdeane]

I have only once (recently) driven the I-90 part of the Thruway, and only between Albany and Syracuse, and that seemed a lot less busy

It certainly is.  The section between exits 27 and 32 is the third least traveled section of Thruway, after the Berkshire spur and Erie sections.

[The Nature Boy]

I remember once being in route from Albany to New Hampshire late at night and almost running out of gas in Vermont. I had forgotten to get gas in Albany before I left and I figured that there would be at least ONE open gas station in the whole state of Vermont.

I was almost wrong.

My gas light came on almost halfway across the state. I ended up finding one right off of I-91. I'd never been so happy to see a gas station on my life. If you ever end up driving through Vermont at night, make sure you have plenty of gas.

The Taconic Parkway could never beat that in terms of "O CRAP I AM RUNNING OUT OF GAS" fear.

[froggie]

and I figured that there would be at least ONE open gas station in the whole state of Vermont.

There are plenty.  But they're all along 89, 91, or in Rutland.

[The Nature Boy]

and I figured that there would be at least ONE open gas station in the whole state of Vermont.

There are plenty.  But they're all along 89, 91, or in Rutland.

I took the NY 7 to US 7 to VT 11 to I-91 route so I passed south of Rutland. If I had been thinking, I would have adjusted my route to hit Rutland once I noticed my tank was low. It was a rookie mistake that I shouldn't have made, especially considering I had been living in the area for four years at that point.

I acknowledge my hyperbole by saying the whole state though. The Green Mountain National Forest area is a terrible place to pass through while low on fuel.

[empirestate]

Sure there is: https://goo.gl/maps/IwkQT 

Okay, I missed ONE gas station

And a very nice diner! What more could you want? :-)

[Buffaboy]

You have to keep in mind how long ago the road was built.  2 lanes each way was likely sufficient for the time.  The fact that it hasn't been expanded by now is another story.  It does seem long overdue.

You do also have the Taconic across the river for non-commercial traffic. For selfish reasons, I do wish it went a little farther, up to Bennington perhaps. Anything to get from NYC to VT/NH without going through CT would be pretty nice. :-)

If anything, at least it should have gone the last few miles to US 20 so I could avoid the toll. Much harder to shunpike with the current road network.

On the topic of widening the Thruway, it would be nice, but look at the 4-lane sections near Buffalo with much higher amounts of weekday traffic (especially Exits 49-50 and 55-57). Those need to be 6 (and the free section needs to be 8+), but that's not happening anytime soon. It really isn't that expensive to widen to 6 lanes, as every bridge can already carry 3 lanes per direction and always has been able to carry that amount of lanes (because the thing was designed to be widened), but this is New York we're talking about.

I always thought 90 from Buffalo to ROC should be 6 lanes.

[froggie]

I took the NY 7 to US 7 to VT 11 to I-91 route so I passed south of Rutland. If I had been thinking, I would have adjusted my route to hit Rutland once I noticed my tank was low. It was a rookie mistake that I shouldn't have made, especially considering I had been living in the area for four years at that point.

My usual route before I retired.

That said, I believe there's at least one station in Manchester where the pumps are on 24/7 as long as you pay with a credit/debit card.  Would've required you to go into the village though.

[empirestate]

I always thought 90 from Buffalo to ROC should be 6 lanes.

Surprisingly, there isn't often a huge volume of traffic between the two cities; while there may be times that 6 lanes would be helpful, that doesn't seem to be the prevailing pattern.

Interestingly, however, they did see fit to build six lanes between Exit 44 (Canandaigua) and Exit 45 (Rochester east), and in fact there are eight lanes between Exit 45 and the Seneca service plaza. The extra fourth lane going WB arises as essentially an exit/entrance auxiliary lane, whereas the one going EB functions as a climbing lane, but both are long enough to be considered full-fledged through lanes in their own right.

[Buffaboy]

I always thought 90 from Buffalo to ROC should be 6 lanes.

Surprisingly, there isn't often a huge volume of traffic between the two cities; while there may be times that 6 lanes would be helpful, that doesn't seem to be the prevailing pattern.

Interestingly, however, they did see fit to build six lanes between Exit 44 (Canandaigua) and Exit 45 (Rochester east), and in fact there are eight lanes between Exit 45 and the Seneca service plaza. The extra fourth lane going WB arises as essentially an exit/entrance auxiliary lane, whereas the one going EB functions as a climbing lane, but both are long enough to be considered full-fledged through lanes in their own right.

I noticed that as well. One thing that won't change anytime soon is the need for 2+ lanes east of Rochester and south of Exit 57.

[cl94]

I always thought 90 from Buffalo to ROC should be 6 lanes.

Surprisingly, there isn't often a huge volume of traffic between the two cities; while there may be times that 6 lanes would be helpful, that doesn't seem to be the prevailing pattern.

Interestingly, however, they did see fit to build six lanes between Exit 44 (Canandaigua) and Exit 45 (Rochester east), and in fact there are eight lanes between Exit 45 and the Seneca service plaza. The extra fourth lane going WB arises as essentially an exit/entrance auxiliary lane, whereas the one going EB functions as a climbing lane, but both are long enough to be considered full-fledged through lanes in their own right.

I noticed that as well. One thing that won't change anytime soon is the need for 2+ lanes east of Rochester and south of Exit 57.

If you mean that it isn't needed. Traffic counts west of Silver Creek (and especially Dunkirk) are the lowest on the system if you exclude the non-Interstate portion of the Berkshire Spur.

6 between Buffalo and Rochester isn't needed. If they ever build an exit at/around Gunnville Rd or Ransom Rd on the eastern edge of Erie County as has been suggested for quite some time, you'd need 6 west of that exit, else the entire Rotterdam-NY 78 segment is fine at 4 lanes. Enough people shunpike for the medium-distance trips to make traffic manageable.

[cpzilliacus]

As for six laning the road from exits 16 to 23... well, that's nearly 100 miles (97, precisely). If we extrapolate out what the widening between exits 23 and 24 cost ($115 million for 6 miles), we're talking nearly $2 billion. Some states would be ambitious enough to undertake such a thing but New York is not one of them.

Though the Thruway does not need to depend on motor fuel tax revenue to fund such a widening, which (at least in theory) should make it easier to fund, perhaps in stages.

Meanwhile, while that part of the Thruway does get rather crowded and sloggish a lot of the time, in the greater scheme of things it's not that bad. There are no particular bottlenecks creating stop and go queues, it's just general volume. New York has plenty of roads with far worse problems that ought to be higher prioriries. The Hutch, for example is much more desperately in need of six laning than the Thruway is (albeit probably less politically feasible because NIMBYs).

I assume that any widening of any parkway or freeway-class road (usually called an expressway in New York) south of Rockland County/Westchester County will be instantly opposed by an assortment of activists.  Though the Thruway does have the Tappan Zee replacement project going.

Also, it still amazes me how on weekends everyone piles on the Thruway while the Taconic remains a total ghost town until you get down to the Poughkeepsie area. How is it that people seemingly don't know it exists?

As I understand it, I am not supposed to drive my pickup truck on the Taconic State Parkway, since it is not a passenger car.

I have been on the Taconic before, and it is a nice road.

[NJRoadfan]

Unless your pickup has commercial plates, you won't have a problem.

[cl94]

Unless your pickup has commercial plates, you won't have a problem.

Agree. Pickups are fine unless it has a company logo or commercial plates.

Tappan Zee is mainly being replaced because it's going to fall in the river if it isn't.

[cpzilliacus]

Unless your pickup has commercial plates, you won't have a problem.

It has "truck" plate series that Maryland no longer issues (at least for now, all vehicles under 26,000 pounds GVW get the same series of plates).

But no commercial markings or a USDOT number.

[ARMOURERERIC]

Funny, I can remember back int he mid 1980's that there was alot of commuter traffic between 290 and 490 LeRoy

[Duke87]

I assume that any widening of any parkway or freeway-class road (usually called an expressway in New York) south of Rockland County/Westchester County will be instantly opposed by an assortment of activists.  Though the Thruway does have the Tappan Zee replacement project going.

Not necessarily. The Westchester portion of the Taconic gradually six-laned, with the most recent section from NY 35 to the Putnam line having been finished only about 10 years ago. Reconstruction of the Thruway between the bridge and I-287 involved widening the road from six lanes to eight in the 1990s. Stretching back a bit further, some Long Island parkways were widened in the 1980s, and the Sprain Brook Parkway wasn't finished at all until 1982 (and still has its original pavement on the newest segment - wonders of concrete).

You are right, though, that there are political difficulties. With regards to the Hutch itself, note how the section from exit 26 to just south of exit 23 has a wider footprint will full shoulders and some bridges that are wide enough to accommodate six lanes. This is not an accident - this section of the road underwent a massive modernization project back in the 1980s and the original scope of the project involved a widening to six lanes, presumably with the intent of doing the same to other sections later. But then the communities adjacent to this section of the road flipped out at the idea of it being widened, and the state capitulated and finished the project without adding any lanes.

The problem wasn't any sort of activists, it was just plain old NIMBYs - the state was able to widen the Taconic because the communities along it more or less supported it, welcoming the wider, safer, less congested road. The Hutch meanwhile passes through some old money communities where you have a high concentration of influential people. People who will automatically oppose any significant alterations to anything nearby because it might negatively impact their property values. More noise, more pollution, more plebians darkening their perfect community with their filthy five figure salaries, etc. etc.

[Dougtone]

Has anyone ever heard of any plans by the New York State Thruway Authority to even study the idea of widening the I-87 part of the Thruway so it is six lanes total (three each way) all the way from Harriman (Thruway Exit 16) to Albany (Exit 23)?

IMO, seems to be needed to handle the weekend traffic.

Definitely. Long backups on Fridays going northbound and Sundays going southbound seem to be the norm on the Thruway, more so between Exit 16 (Harriman) and Exit 19 (Kingston), but delays can be found further north than Kingston as well at times.

[Pete from Boston]

Unless your pickup has commercial plates, you won't have a problem.

It has "truck" plate series that Maryland no longer issues (at least for now, all vehicles under 26,000 pounds GVW get the same series of plates).

But no commercial markings or a USDOT number.

This got talked about a bit on MTR in the early 2000s because, if I recall correctly, New York had a change of view on trucks on parkways, and began to allow light trucks with passenger registrations.  I didn't have a truck at the time so I didn't pay close attention, but nowadays I drive wherever since the sticker in my truck window says "passenger non-commercial."

[PHLBOS]

Unless your pickup has commercial plates, you won't have a problem.

It has "truck" plate series that Maryland no longer issues (at least for now, all vehicles under 26,000 pounds GVW get the same series of plates).

But no commercial markings or a USDOT number.

This got talked about a bit on MTR in the early 2000s because, if I recall correctly, New York had a change of view on trucks on parkways, and began to allow light trucks with passenger registrations.  I didn't have a truck at the time so I didn't pay close attention, but nowadays I drive wherever since the sticker in my truck window says "passenger non-commercial."

If memory serves, Massachusetts used to require that all pickup trucks and cargo vans (Ford Econolines for example) receive commercial plates regardless of usage as well.  The RMV changed that rule/policy sometime during the 90s.  I know that because when my brother bought his then-new '97 Ford Ranger pick-up; it had a standard-issue MA plate vs. the commerical plates.

[empirestate]

Unless your pickup has commercial plates, you won't have a problem.

It has "truck" plate series that Maryland no longer issues (at least for now, all vehicles under 26,000 pounds GVW get the same series of plates).

But no commercial markings or a USDOT number.

This got talked about a bit on MTR in the early 2000s because, if I recall correctly, New York had a change of view on trucks on parkways, and began to allow light trucks with passenger registrations.  I didn't have a truck at the time so I didn't pay close attention, but nowadays I drive wherever since the sticker in my truck window says "passenger non-commercial."

That's right, certain pick-ups can be registered as passenger vehicles:
http://dmv.ny.gov/registration/register-pick-truck-passenger-class-vehicle

Also, you can take seats out of a car to make it a commercial vehicle, or add seats to a cargo van to make it a passenger vehicle. You can register a conversion van as passenger but it has to remain converted:
http://dmv.ny.gov/vehicle-registration/vehicle-modifications-and-registration-class

[cl94]

Funny, I can remember back int he mid 1980's that there was a lot of commuter traffic between 290 and 490 LeRoy

I-490 has remarkably low traffic counts west of the immediate Rochester suburbs. AADT is well under 20,000 for the stretch. Go on it today and it's pretty empty.

[NJRoadfan]

Also, you can take seats out of a car to make it a commercial vehicle, or add seats to a cargo van to make it a passenger vehicle. You can register a conversion van as passenger but it has to remain converted:
http://dmv.ny.gov/vehicle-registration/vehicle-modifications-and-registration-class

NJ allows any vehicle to be registered as commercial, including plain old sedans. Under NY law, those vehicles wouldn't be allowed on parkways. Using height and weight restrictions makes more sense then restricting by vehicle-use or registration class, much less grey areas. The restrictions north of Exit 105 on the Garden State Parkway are clearly defined as vehicles 10,000 lbs or more (6 tires or 3-or-more-axles). It excludes trucks without excluding passenger cars pulling trailers, or those handful of SUVs that tip the weight limit scale (think Ford Excursion).

[empirestate]

NJ allows any vehicle to be registered as commercial, including plain old sedans. Under NY law, those vehicles wouldn't be allowed on parkways. Using height and weight restrictions makes more sense then restricting by vehicle-use or registration class, much less grey areas. The restrictions north of Exit 105 on the Garden State Parkway are clearly defined as vehicles 10,000 lbs or more (6 tires or 3-or-more-axles). It excludes trucks without excluding passenger cars pulling trailers, or those handful of SUVs that tip the weight limit scale (think Ford Excursion).

Height and weight does seem to make more sense, except that the original theory behind the NY parkway restrictions has to do with the commercial purpose[/url] of the vehicle, not necessarily its physical characteristics. Not that that makes a whole lot of sense today; for example, taxis are allowed on the parkways, and not only are those used for a commercial purpose, the vehicles themselves are a commercial enterprise. And it's probably not appropriate to commute to and from work using the parkways, because that definitely hinders their recreational purpose.

School buses, on the other hand, aren't allowed on the parkways, which is ironic because they are passenger vehicles with an arguably non-commercial function. But you do see a lot of them on the parkways anyway, along with plenty of small commercial vehicles, because it's downstate New York, where people pretty much just do whatever. (It's also likely that certain school buses have been permitted by NYSDOT to use parts of the parkways, as some public buses have also.)