New York State Thruway

[vdeane]

I-90 and I-87 already overlap where they split off the Thruway at exit 24.  And without rerouting I-90, the Berkshire Spur becomes even more complicated, since it has its own set of mileposts.  It's similar to the New Jersey Turnpike/I-95 as it is now.

Incidentally, it already is signed "To I-90/To I-87", although there's nothing identifying it by name on signage - just on the Thruway website.

[RobbieL2415]

The easiest thing to do with the Northway would be to re-align I-87 onto it.  I'm torn on the exit numbering ideas. Part of me says start them from Yonkers while the other says sign them along their respective interstates.  The Thruway should be treated as a system and not a continuous line.  If you number I-90 straight away from Austerlitz to Ripley it makes more sense for Buffalo/Chicago bound traffic. No more B1, B2 crap.
I-87, same thing only for Montreal.

[SignBridge]

I'm starting to understand why California resisted any exit numbering for as many years as they did.

[vdeane]

Except I'm pretty sure California has nothing like a Thruway to throw a monkey wrench into exit numbering.

[machias]

Then I-90 can follow the Berkshire Connector over the Castleton Bridge and multiplex with I-87, as it should.

Why would we want to create more multiplexes? There are already too many Interstate multiplexes as it is. Every effort should be made to facilitate each Interstate being an independent and unique route. There are plenty of situations where this isn't feasible however Albany NY is not one of them.

If anything I'd like to see the Berkshire Connector (just the part in between I-90 and I-87) as "Berkshire Connector to I-90"  or "Berkshire Connector to I-87"  especially westbound at Exit B1 where it is highly confusing to have I-90 signed as a regular old exit. At the very least they should use overheads or something to make it clear that you have to TOTSO.

As far as the exit numbers go, I would love to see it renumbered to fit each route, with I-90s numbers continuing from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts and I-87's from the Deegan to Canada. I see both mileage based numbers and eventual AET as a huge opportunity to fix something that previously couldn't be amended. But I recognize it's much more likely that the Thuway keeps its own set of exit numbers, especially considering the fact that it has its own oversight agency.

Interstate 87 and Interstate 90 should have separate mileposts numbered per MUTCD standards, especially with AET coming into play. And please remember, I-87 should not start with Exit 1 in Yonkers, but rather at the south end of the Major Deegan.

[SignBridge]

You're right about that vdeane, but Calif. does have lots of other situations that make exit numbering problematic like TOTSO's, concurrent routes, etc. 

[empirestate]

As soon as I-83 (or I-99) is extended to Rochester, I-390 will be available for free I-90 in Albany.

It most certainly will not–390 belongs between 290 and 490. Albany is not between 290 and 490.

[WNYroadgeek]

As soon as I-83 (or I-99) is extended to Rochester, I-390 will be available for free I-90 in Albany.

It most certainly will not–390 belongs between 290 and 490. Albany is not between 290 and 490.

I-390 -> I-99
I-990 -> I-390
Free I-90 -> I-990

*mic drop*

[Alps]

As soon as I-83 (or I-99) is extended to Rochester, I-390 will be available for free I-90 in Albany.

It most certainly will not–390 belongs between 290 and 490. Albany is not between 290 and 490.

I-390 -> I-99
I-990 -> I-390
Free I-90 -> I-990

*mic drop*

*picks up mic and hands it back*

[empirestate]

As soon as I-83 (or I-99) is extended to Rochester, I-390 will be available for free I-90 in Albany.

It most certainly will not–390 belongs between 290 and 490. Albany is not between 290 and 490.

I-390 -> I-99
I-990 -> I-390
Free I-90 -> I-990

*mic drop*

*picks up mic and hands it back*

Free I-90 needs an even 3di; it's a loop. I-1090.

[ipeters61]

As soon as I-83 (or I-99) is extended to Rochester, I-390 will be available for free I-90 in Albany.

It most certainly will not–390 belongs between 290 and 490. Albany is not between 290 and 490.

I-390 -> I-99
I-990 -> I-390
Free I-90 -> I-990

*mic drop*

*picks up mic and hands it back*

Free I-90 needs an even 3di; it's a loop. I-1090.

How about I-438? 

[vdeane]

You're right about that vdeane, but Calif. does have lots of other situations that make exit numbering problematic like TOTSO's, concurrent routes, etc. 

Most states have those.  For concurrences, just pick one route's numbers to be dominant.  TOTSOs have multiple solutions.  Nothing really unique to California there.  CalTrans just tends to have a bad case of "not invented here" syndrome.

[webny99]

As soon as I-83 (or I-99) is extended to Rochester, I-390 will be available for free I-90 in Albany.

It most certainly will not–390 belongs between 290 and 490. Albany is not between 290 and 490.

Ironically, I thought you were the one who didn't care about oddities within a system, including that I-99 is out of the interstate grid.

[Roadwarriors79]

Could Free I-90 ever be renumbered to I-x87? Assuming that I-88 or an I-x90 doesn't happen.

[vdeane]

As soon as I-83 (or I-99) is extended to Rochester, I-390 will be available for free I-90 in Albany.

It most certainly will not–390 belongs between 290 and 490. Albany is not between 290 and 490.

Ironically, I thought you were the one who didn't care about oddities within a system, including that I-99 is out of the interstate grid.

I think it's more about the idea that I-390 would no longer be a Rochester x90.

[Alps]

Could Free I-90 ever be renumbered to I-x87? Assuming that I-88 or an I-x90 doesn't happen.

The question is whether the Berkshire Spur will ever be an x87. I don't see I-90 ever moving. I feel like people in Albany would throw a cow even though the change is essentially meaningless (and of course now you're spending money to change all the signs). I-99 over I-390 is a plausible oneday scenario, but unlikely anytime soon (again - the highway isn't changing, so why change the number).
So maybe the real question is whether NY 17 will ever be I-86.

[empirestate]

As soon as I-83 (or I-99) is extended to Rochester, I-390 will be available for free I-90 in Albany.

It most certainly will not–390 belongs between 290 and 490. Albany is not between 290 and 490.

Ironically, I thought you were the one who didn't care about oddities within a system, including that I-99 is out of the interstate grid.

It's all about context and perspective. While I recognize the anomaly of I-99, my objection to it extends no further than its place in the numbering system, but not to the road itself nor especially to the politics behind its inception, and is furthermore balanced by the fact that it's downright useful.

More to the point, what makes roads and travel interesting to me is, first, the system, and second, the anomalies of the system (without which you may as well stay home and just browse Google Maps to your mathematical satisfaction). One of the anomalies in that system is that New York's x90s, besides being the only complete set in the U.S., are moreover geographically arranged in sequence–save for yet another anomaly, which is I-990. To upset that anomaly-within-an-anomaly would be a greater aesthetic crime, in my view, than the already-existing anomaly that is I-99, or I-238.

Most of all to the point, my indignation at ruining this sequence should be taken with the proper perspective, which is that of us all sitting at home typing into a web forum about it, speculating about a re-designation that has little chance of ever taking place in the real world. Taken in that fictitious context, I feel it's only fair to be as indignant about that as others are obsessive at fictitiously solving the problem.

[froggie]

CalTrans just tends to have a bad case of "not invented here" syndrome.

That's humorous to say, since NYSTA and NYSDOT are much the same way...

[vdeane]

CalTrans is a class in and of themselves.  They refuse to use exit tabs, for example, and claim that some special spec would need to be invented and then go on and on about wind loads... despite other states with the exact same sign structures having used exit tabs since forever.  They also have this weird insistence on every sign in the state being the same height.

[roadman]

CalTrans is a class in and of themselves.  They refuse to use exit tabs, for example, and claim that some special spec would need to be invented and then go on and on about wind loads... despite other states with the exact same sign structures having used exit tabs since forever.  They also have this weird insistence on every sign in the state being the same height.

Love how Caltrans goes on about wind loading as their "excuse" not to use separate exit tabs, then mount their brand new signs on existing 40 and 50 year old support structures.  As they say - penny wise and pound foolish.

[kalvado]

CalTrans is a class in and of themselves.  They refuse to use exit tabs, for example, and claim that some special spec would need to be invented and then go on and on about wind loads... despite other states with the exact same sign structures having used exit tabs since forever.  They also have this weird insistence on every sign in the state being the same height.

Love how Caltrans goes on about wind loading as their "excuse" not to use separate exit tabs, then mount their brand new signs on existing 40 and 50 year old support structures.  As they say - penny wise and pound foolish.

50 year old structure could be very well put together when steel price was lower and and extra 1/4" of thickness was not an issue... So it will outlast modern structure designed for 75 MPH wind (aka designed to fail at 76 MPH)

[Brandon]

Except I'm pretty sure California has nothing like a Thruway to throw a monkey wrench into exit numbering.

Yet, Illinois has the Tri-State Tollway and handled it just fine.  Originally, it was one set of mileposts (no exit numbers) starting at I-80/94/IL-394 all the way to US-41 near Wisconsin.  ISTHA reversed the mileposts from US-41 south to the I-94/294 split, and I-94 has its exit numbers following the proper mileposts from Wisconsin.  NYSTA can do the same thing on a larger scale.

[roadman65]

Except I'm pretty sure California has nothing like a Thruway to throw a monkey wrench into exit numbering.

Yet, Illinois has the Tri-State Tollway and handled it just fine.  Originally, it was one set of mileposts (no exit numbers) starting at I-80/94/IL-394 all the way to US-41 near Wisconsin.  ISTHA reversed the mileposts from US-41 south to the I-94/294 split, and I-94 has its exit numbers following the proper mileposts from Wisconsin.  NYSTA can do the same thing on a larger scale.

Pennsylvania has the NE Extension and the E-W Turnpike duplicating mile posts as well.  Though the exit numbers were carefully not to duplicate, though the two schemes never caused confusion for PTC either.

[ipeters61]

Except I'm pretty sure California has nothing like a Thruway to throw a monkey wrench into exit numbering.

Yet, Illinois has the Tri-State Tollway and handled it just fine.  Originally, it was one set of mileposts (no exit numbers) starting at I-80/94/IL-394 all the way to US-41 near Wisconsin.  ISTHA reversed the mileposts from US-41 south to the I-94/294 split, and I-94 has its exit numbers following the proper mileposts from Wisconsin.  NYSTA can do the same thing on a larger scale.

Pennsylvania has the NE Extension and the E-W Turnpike duplicating mile posts as well.  Though the exit numbers were carefully not to duplicate, though the two schemes never caused confusion for PTC either.

For some reason I thought I read somewhere once that internally the Northeast Extension's mile markers are preceded with an "A."  It is possible that I'm thinking of another road though.

[vdeane]

Except I'm pretty sure California has nothing like a Thruway to throw a monkey wrench into exit numbering.

Yet, Illinois has the Tri-State Tollway and handled it just fine.  Originally, it was one set of mileposts (no exit numbers) starting at I-80/94/IL-394 all the way to US-41 near Wisconsin.  ISTHA reversed the mileposts from US-41 south to the I-94/294 split, and I-94 has its exit numbers following the proper mileposts from Wisconsin.  NYSTA can do the same thing on a larger scale.

Pennsylvania has the NE Extension and the E-W Turnpike duplicating mile posts as well.  Though the exit numbers were carefully not to duplicate, though the two schemes never caused confusion for PTC either.

Plus the NE Extension is physically a different road than the mainline Turnpike, even though they both share a ticket system.

Regarding an Illinois system, that sounds like the 2003 plan.  That would have flipped the mileposts of the Thruway, with all of I-90 using its own numbers, and the Deegan and Northway sharing a numbering system.  The I-87 part of the Thruway would have been numbered backwards continuing from I-90 at existing exit 24.

Personally, I'm not really a fan of that plan.  I'd rather have the routes do strange things on their existing mileages rather than have them do strange things on new mileages.