News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

New York

Started by Alex, August 18, 2009, 12:34:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

webny99

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 29, 2018, 05:27:05 PM
I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.

That and I-90, because Thruway.

I don't care how long it takes as long as it actually happens and gets done properly (meaning one set of numbers for I-90, and one set for I-87).


Mccojm

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 29, 2018, 05:27:05 PM
I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.

I think I-495 on Long Island or any of the initeratates in nyc will be last. There is no funding to change exit signs on Long Island with too many other areas that are priority like trying to get our 10K+ curb ramps to be federal ADA PROWAG compliant (I'm stuck on the curb ramp specialist team, I still can't belive the amount of time and money being wasted on some of these esp those that failed by 0.2% slopes.) also, I believe down here will be last as the link I provided state that many of our exits are closer than a mile together which starts messing up the mileage based exits scheme.
My expressed thoughts do not reflect those of NYSDOT, other associated agencies or firms.  Do not take anything I say as official unless it is released by said agencies.

NYSDOT R10 Long Island construction Group since 2013.

RobbieL2415

Quote from: Mccojm on November 29, 2018, 05:59:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 29, 2018, 05:27:05 PM
I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.

I think I-495 on Long Island or any of the initeratates in nyc will be last. There is no funding to change exit signs on Long Island with too many other areas that are priority like trying to get our 10K+ curb ramps to be federal ADA PROWAG compliant (I'm stuck on the curb ramp specialist team, I still can't belive the amount of time and money being wasted on some of these esp those that failed by 0.2% slopes.) also, I believe down here will be last as the link I provided state that many of our exits are closer than a mile together which starts messing up the mileage based exits scheme.
I bet NYCDOT will ask the FHWA for some kind of exemption to stick to sequential exit numbers.  That would mean that I-87, I-95, I-495 and I-78 would have their Exit 0's outside the Five Boroughs, then count down the closer you got to Manhattan.  Forget the SRs and Parkways, those will probably stay sequential forever.

I also think you're gonna end up with a situation where all Thruway ROW stays sequential and then the continuing Interstates will have their exits be milage based.  The Berkshire Extension portion of I-90 and Free I-90 would both be milage-based as well.

froggie

^ Some states up here have already asked FHWA for exemptions and waivers.  I know Vermont did a few years ago.  They were politely told "no".

As for the Thruway...given the typical distance between exits, there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't make the Thruway exit numbers mileage-based.

seicer

I think once the Thruway goes all electronic for its tolling, the notion of having separate exit numbers for I-90 and I-87 will be a lot easier.

PHLBOS

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 29, 2018, 10:48:55 PMI also think you're gonna end up with a situation where all Thruway ROW stays sequential and then the continuing Interstates will have their exits be milage based.  The Berkshire Extension portion of I-90 and Free I-90 would both be milage-based as well.
Such would likely mean that the CWE portion of I-287's current MM CW 0 at I-87/NYS Thruway would become MM 20.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

cl94

Quote from: seicer on November 30, 2018, 09:16:56 AM
I think once the Thruway goes all electronic for its tolling, the notion of having separate exit numbers for I-90 and I-87 will be a lot easier.

Somewhat easier. You still have institutional inertia, which is a real thing in New York.

Quote from: froggie on November 30, 2018, 08:21:43 AM
^ Some states up here have already asked FHWA for exemptions and waivers.  I know Vermont did a few years ago.  They were politely told "no".

Precisely. It's going to happen whether people like it or not. There is no reason to not change other than people being reluctant to change. If a slow change is what's necessary to make people warm up to it, so be it. Better than MA, which planned a change and then had to back down due to public outcry.

Quote
As for the Thruway...given the typical distance between exits, there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't make the Thruway exit numbers mileage-based.

The mainline has no exits closer than a mile north of Westchester County. Even then, you could fudge some numbers to make only a couple of A/B pairs necessary.
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)

machias

Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2018, 12:25:12 PM
Quote from: seicer on November 30, 2018, 09:16:56 AM
I think once the Thruway goes all electronic for its tolling, the notion of having separate exit numbers for I-90 and I-87 will be a lot easier.

Somewhat easier. You still have institutional inertia, which is a real thing in New York.

Quote from: froggie on November 30, 2018, 08:21:43 AM
^ Some states up here have already asked FHWA for exemptions and waivers.  I know Vermont did a few years ago.  They were politely told "no".

Precisely. It's going to happen whether people like it or not. There is no reason to not change other than people being reluctant to change. If a slow change is what's necessary to make people warm up to it, so be it. Better than MA, which planned a change and then had to back down due to public outcry.


I still think they should number the interchanges by distance on the longer non-Interstates (US 219, NY 400, NY 33, NY 104 in Rochester area, NY 49 in Utica-Rome) to get motorists used to the idea.  R5 missed the boat when they recently replaced every guide panel on NY 400.

SignBridge

I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.

Alps

Quote from: SignBridge on December 01, 2018, 07:24:48 PM
I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.
Negative. Not required.

Mccojm

Quote from: SignBridge on December 01, 2018, 07:24:48 PM
I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.

It's not required which is why NY has taken a lackadaisical approach to switching. Until it's mandated and/or federal govt provides the funding to do so NY will continue to allocate limited funds to other priorities. In the states eyes, the sequential exits work fine and it's a case of "if it ain't broke then don't fix it"
My expressed thoughts do not reflect those of NYSDOT, other associated agencies or firms.  Do not take anything I say as official unless it is released by said agencies.

NYSDOT R10 Long Island construction Group since 2013.

vdeane

I wouldn't be surprised if upstate regions are a little more interested in switching than Regions 10/11.

(personal opinion)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

SignBridge

I believe you folks are mistaken. In the 2009 Manual's Section 2E - Freeways and Expressways, Sec. 2E.31.04 states: Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used. The Manual does not show any distinction on this requirement between Interstate vs. U.S. or State freeways and expressways.

cl94

Quote from: SignBridge on December 02, 2018, 09:06:47 PM
I believe you folks are mistaken. In the 2009 Manual's Section 2E - Freeways and Expressways, Sec. 2E.31.04 states: Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used. The Manual does not show any distinction on this requirement between Interstate vs. U.S. or State freeways and expressways.

But the feds only care about Interstates (at least as far as conversions go). See Georgia and Pennsylvania, which changed Interstates but not non-Interstate freeways. Those states have no real plan to change over the non-Interstates. I could swear there's another state or two that uses sequential for non-Interstates and distance-based for Interstates, but I may be mistaken.
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)

Revive 755

^ The MUTCD applies to almost all roads.  If FHWA wanted to, they could withhold federal funding for any projects on a roadway using non-MUTCD compliant exit numbering, or even withhold all federal funds for Georgia and Pennsylvania until a conversion plan was established.

hotdogPi

Quote from: cl94 on December 02, 2018, 10:03:09 PM
I could swear there's another state or two that uses sequential for non-Interstates and distance-based for Interstates, but I may be mistaken.

You're probably thinking of Virginia, which is more of a mixed bag. I-264, I-664, and VA 267 are sequential (although I-264 is close to mile-based due to luck), while many of its other non-Interstate freeways are unnumbered.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

cl94

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 02, 2018, 10:14:41 PM
^ The MUTCD applies to almost all roads.  If FHWA wanted to, they could withhold federal funding for any projects on a roadway using non-MUTCD compliant exit numbering, or even withhold all federal funds for Georgia and Pennsylvania until a conversion plan was established.

Could they? Certainly. Will they? Doubtful, as they have shown that they don't care as much about non-Interstates.
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)

SignBridge

Well I have no real knowledge of what the FHWA's priorities are and it may well be true that they concentrate their enforcement efforts on Interstate highways. I'm just saying what the official Manual rule is. That exit numbering is required to be mileage based on all freeways and expressways. Period. That's the standard.

Some of you were insisting in earlier posts that this was not the rule when in fact it is. So let's keep our facts straight and accurate as much as possible.

Alps

The FHWA requires mile-based exit numbers on Interstates. They do not require ANY exit numbers on non-Interstates. Yes, if you use them, they must be mile-based as well.

seicer

Could be worse. Ohio's non-interstates are the luck of the draw with mileage-based exits. Will it be unsigned? Or signed in accordance with the statewide mileage total? Or countywide mileage total? Find out on Route 2!

cl94

Quote from: seicer on December 03, 2018, 09:04:50 AM
Could be worse. Ohio's non-interstates are the luck of the draw with mileage-based exits. Will it be unsigned? Or signed in accordance with the statewide mileage total? Or countywide mileage total? Find out on Route 2!

Or US 33. Exits in District 6 are signed by statewide mileage, but those in Athens County are county mileage.
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)

J N Winkler

Quote from: Alps on December 02, 2018, 01:55:09 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 01, 2018, 07:24:48 PMI believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.

Negative. Not required.

Really?

Quote from: FHWA, in MUTCD 2009 § 2E.31.02Standard:  Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit.  Interchange exit numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide Sign, Exit Direction Sign, and Exit Gore sign.

I am pretty sure the NPRM and NFR for the 2009 MUTCD make it clear that it is FHWA's intention to extend the requirement to provide exit numbering to non-Interstate freeways as well as Interstates.  In the MUTCD itself, the preceding paragraph in § 2E.31 makes it clear that the only scenario in which FHWA envisions exit numbering not being provided on freeways or expressways is AASHTO expressways with a mixture of flat intersections and grade separations.  And even there provision of exit numbering is urged if there is "appreciable continuity of interchange facilities."
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

seicer

Quote from: cl94 on December 03, 2018, 09:46:43 AM
Quote from: seicer on December 03, 2018, 09:04:50 AM
Could be worse. Ohio's non-interstates are the luck of the draw with mileage-based exits. Will it be unsigned? Or signed in accordance with the statewide mileage total? Or countywide mileage total? Find out on Route 2!

Or US 33. Exits in District 6 are signed by statewide mileage, but those in Athens County are county mileage.

At least there are interchange numbers, considering the complexity of the exits there.

SignBridge

JNW hit the nail on the head with his quote from Sec. 2E-31. The MUTCD does not seem to distinguish between Interstate freeways and Non-Interstate freeways. The standards are the same for all freeways. And a freeway is defined as any highway with full control of access vs. an Expressway which is partial control of access.

And again, I'm not saying the FHWA enforces the standards equally among all freeways. I'm not sure what their priorities and policies are. I'm only saying how the Manual actually reads.

Our friend Mr. Alps would do well to read the Manual before making repeated mis-statements of fact concerning what the Manual does and doesn't say.

Alps

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 03, 2018, 11:05:26 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 02, 2018, 01:55:09 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 01, 2018, 07:24:48 PMI believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.

Negative. Not required.

Really?

Quote from: FHWA, in MUTCD 2009 § 2E.31.02Standard:  Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit.  Interchange exit numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide Sign, Exit Direction Sign, and Exit Gore sign.

I am pretty sure the NPRM and NFR for the 2009 MUTCD make it clear that it is FHWA's intention to extend the requirement to provide exit numbering to non-Interstate freeways as well as Interstates.  In the MUTCD itself, the preceding paragraph in § 2E.31 makes it clear that the only scenario in which FHWA envisions exit numbering not being provided on freeways or expressways is AASHTO expressways with a mixture of flat intersections and grade separations.  And even there provision of exit numbering is urged if there is "appreciable continuity of interchange facilities."
The MUTCD says that, but the FHWA has since stated that they are not enforcing it to many state agencies. Which makes it odd that MA hinged its exit renumbering on the sentiments of Cape Cod re: US 6.



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.