New York State Thruway

[kevinb1994]

Huge news here. Cuomo has announced that the entire Thruway system will go cashless by the end of next year: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-selection-design-build-team-install-cashless-tolling-nys-thruway-end

Not really new news, this was announced and perhaps rumored not long ago.

[MNHighwayMan]

Huge news here. Cuomo has announced that the entire Thruway system will go cashless by the end of next year: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-selection-design-build-team-install-cashless-tolling-nys-thruway-end

Not really new news, this was announced and perhaps rumored not long ago.

And now it's being announced for realsies. It is "new news" to go from rumor to concrete announcement.

[froggie]

It wasn't rumor beforehand.  Cuomo announced it in his 2018 State of the State.

That said, this still *IS* "new" news in that a construction team has been announced and a contract approved for the conversion.

[kevinb1994]

It wasn't rumor beforehand.  Cuomo announced it in his 2018 State of the State.

That said, this still *IS* "new" news in that a construction team has been announced and a contract approved for the conversion.

Thought it was familiar. Doesn't matter, I've heard it all before!

[astralentity]

I hope they can match the mileposts and the exit numbers to the corresponding interstate highway with this project.

[Rothman]

I hope they can match the mileposts and the exit numbers to the corresponding interstate highway with this project.

I don't see that as part of this project.  Does anyone?

[astralentity]

I hope they can match the mileposts and the exit numbers to the corresponding interstate highway with this project.

I don't see that as part of this project.  Does anyone?

I kinda mean after the fact.  Wasn't the toll system part of the holdup for fixing this situation?

[webny99]

It wasn't rumor beforehand.  Cuomo announced it in his 2018 State of the State.

Which, to the average citizen, is basically regarded as a rumor until tangible things start happening.

I hope they can match the mileposts and the exit numbers to the corresponding interstate highway with this project.

I don't see that as part of this project.  Does anyone?

I kinda mean after the fact.  Wasn't the toll system part of the holdup for fixing this situation?

Right, I don't believe the conversion to mileage-based is necessarily part of the cashless project. But once the toll plazas are gone, switching to mileage based becomes a lot simpler and creates fewer logistical headaches.

[astralentity]

Right, I don't believe the conversion to mileage-based is necessarily part of the cashless project. But once the toll plazas are gone, switching to mileage based becomes a lot simpler and creates fewer logistical headaches.

And also makes it easier for them to add interchanges where needed!

[Rothman]

Right, I don't believe the conversion to mileage-based is necessarily part of the cashless project. But once the toll plazas are gone, switching to mileage based becomes a lot simpler and creates fewer logistical headaches.

And also makes it easier for them to add interchanges where needed!

...which NYSTA is very much against, since additional interchanges mean shorter trips and smaller revenues. 

There was a proposal for a new interchange somewhere in the Hudson Valley about 10 years ago.  NYSTA dismissed the idea practically out of hand.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[webny99]

And also makes it easier for them to add interchanges where needed!

...which NYSTA is very much against, since additional interchanges mean shorter trips and smaller revenues. 

Haven't we have had this discussion before?

More exits potentially means traffic getting on later, or off sooner, than they would otherwise. But it also means more traffic overall, due to the Thruway becoming practical for a larger number of trips. The question is not whether traffic on any given segment would increase (it would), but whether the overall vehicle miles traveled would increase (open question).

In towns like Clarence and Henrietta, more exits almost certainly means a widening, so there is a cost-saving argument to be made for fewer exits, as well.

[Rothman]

And also makes it easier for them to add interchanges where needed!

...which NYSTA is very much against, since additional interchanges mean shorter trips and smaller revenues. 

Haven't we have had this discussion before?

More exits potentially means traffic getting on later, or off sooner, than they would otherwise. But it also means more traffic overall, due to the Thruway becoming practical for a larger number of trips. The question is not whether traffic on any given segment would increase (it would), but whether the overall vehicle miles traveled would increase (open question).

In towns like Clarence and Henrietta, more exits almost certainly means a widening, so there is a cost-saving argument to be made for fewer exits, as well.

Go ahead and make that argument to them.  Let me know how it goes.

[webny99]

I'm just fine making it here and not in an official setting.

In any case, my preference would be for a widening over more exits.
At least between the PA line and Albany, the only place I feel exits are particularly lacking is between 49 and 48A.

[Jim]

I probably just missed this earlier, but this is the first I heard definitively that the system will work like the Mass Pike: with gantries between interchanges to record travels rather than reading at entrance and exit toll plazas.

It will be interesting to me at least to see the configuration at Exit 24 after the toll booths are removed.  The weaving around there is bad enough now with traffic slowing down to go through the tolls.  Seems it could increase risk of more and more serious accidents once traffic will be moving at higher rates of speed.  Currently, 87 to 87 and 90 to 90 traffic does not need to weave, but there's an awful lot of 90 E to 87 N and 87 S to 90 W traffic that does.

I also hope that this will open up the gates to a single, mileage-based milepost and exit renumbering of all of I-87 and I-90.  But I won't count on it happening any time soon.

[cl94]

Huge news here. Cuomo has announced that the entire Thruway system will go cashless by the end of next year: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-selection-design-build-team-install-cashless-tolling-nys-thruway-end

Not really new news, this was announced and perhaps rumored not long ago.

And now it's being announced for realsies. It is "new news" to go from rumor to concrete announcement.

It wasn't even a rumor. NYSTA released the first conversion contract a few months ago.

We even knew how the system would work! At least temporarily, they're installing equipment at most existing interchange toll booths. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the medium-term solution, as there is no reason to throw a gantry at every little interchange. Exit 22 has already been retrofitted. It will sort of be like how the Maine Turnpike works for Maine E-ZPass tagholders in that it's a virtual ticket system with gantries at every entrance/exit.

What IS officially a rumor is what will happen to the 23-25A (inclusive) section. Plans have NOT been released for conversions of those exits and it is thought that mainline gantries will be placed south of 23 and west of 25A, making this section free. This would certainly reduce congestion on Albany surface roads, as NY 5 and NY 7 in particular are routinely clogged with shunpikers.

[kalvado]

I probably just missed this earlier, but this is the first I heard definitively that the system will work like the Mass Pike: with gantries between interchanges to record travels rather than reading at entrance and exit toll plazas.

It will be interesting to me at least to see the configuration at Exit 24 after the toll booths are removed.  The weaving around there is bad enough now with traffic slowing down to go through the tolls.  Seems it could increase risk of more and more serious accidents once traffic will be moving at higher rates of speed.  Currently, 87 to 87 and 90 to 90 traffic does not need to weave, but there's an awful lot of 90 E to 87 N and 87 S to 90 W traffic that does.

I also hope that this will open up the gates to a single, mileage-based milepost and exit renumbering of all of I-87 and I-90.  But I won't count on it happening any time soon.

87 to Thruway is probably the worst ramp there. It is deliberately bottlenecked to slow down traffic,

[Alps]

It will be interesting to me at least to see the configuration at Exit 24 after the toll booths are removed.  The weaving around there is bad enough now with traffic slowing down to go through the tolls.  Seems it could increase risk of more and more serious accidents once traffic will be moving at higher rates of speed.  Currently, 87 to 87 and 90 to 90 traffic does not need to weave, but there's an awful lot of 90 E to 87 N and 87 S to 90 W traffic that does.

I would hope that it includes direct Northway ramps as has been suggested recently. That'll unclog the weave.

[webny99]

Regarding exit 24, the safest option would be to remove the loops that carry I-87, and instead tie the Northway stubs directly into the Thruway south of US 20.
EDIT: yeah, what Steve said.


Both ends of I-490 are also going to have potential for weaving issues, given the proximity of Exits 1 and 29, respectively. On the Victor end of it, I-490 EB to Thruway EB is going to have colossal backups. The toll booth is the only thing preventing it right now. Volumes have always been way, way too high to be sustained by a single lane ramp, and that will be accentuated with three lanes cramming into one at freeway speeds.

[RobbieL2415]

Regarding exit 24, the safest option would be to remove the loops that carry I-87, and instead tie the Northway stubs directly into the Thruway south of US 20.
EDIT: yeah, what Steve said.
Maybe use ramp meters? The Cross-Westchester has them now.

Both ends of I-490 are also going to have potential for weaving issues, given the proximity of Exits 1 and 29, respectively. On the Victor end of it, I-490 EB to Thruway EB is going to have colossal backups. The toll booth is the only thing preventing it right now. Volumes have always been way, way too high to be sustained by a single lane ramp, and that will be accentuated with three lanes cramming into one at freeway speeds.

[webny99]

Regarding exit 24, the safest option would be to remove the loops that carry I-87, and instead tie the Northway stubs directly into the Thruway south of US 20.
EDIT: yeah, what Steve said.

Maybe use ramp meters? The Cross-Westchester has them now.

Both ends of I-490 are also going to have potential for weaving issues, given the proximity of Exits 1 and 29, respectively. On the Victor end of it, I-490 EB to Thruway EB is going to have colossal backups. The toll booth is the only thing preventing it right now. Volumes have always been way, way too high to be sustained by a single lane ramp, and that will be accentuated with three lanes cramming into one at freeway speeds.

FTFY, although I'm not sure which part of my post you were responding to.

[vdeane]

It wasn't rumor beforehand.  Cuomo announced it in his 2018 State of the State.

That said, this still *IS* "new" news in that a construction team has been announced and a contract approved for the conversion.

The local news in Rochester actually missed that part, and reported as if nobody knew the Thruway was going cashless before now.

Right, I don't believe the conversion to mileage-based is necessarily part of the cashless project. But once the toll plazas are gone, switching to mileage based becomes a lot simpler and creates fewer logistical headaches.

And also makes it easier for them to add interchanges where needed!

...which NYSTA is very much against, since additional interchanges mean shorter trips and smaller revenues. 

There was a proposal for a new interchange somewhere in the Hudson Valley about 10 years ago.  NYSTA dismissed the idea practically out of hand.

(personal opinion emphasized)

At least in the Rochester area, a decade or so ago NYSTA wanted to add an interchange at Union Street, but local NIMBYs stopped it.

Huge news here. Cuomo has announced that the entire Thruway system will go cashless by the end of next year: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-selection-design-build-team-install-cashless-tolling-nys-thruway-end

Not really new news, this was announced and perhaps rumored not long ago.

And now it's being announced for realsies. It is "new news" to go from rumor to concrete announcement.

It wasn't even a rumor. NYSTA released the first conversion contract a few months ago.

We even knew how the system would work! At least temporarily, they're installing equipment at most existing interchange toll booths. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the medium-term solution, as there is no reason to throw a gantry at every little interchange. Exit 22 has already been retrofitted. It will sort of be like how the Maine Turnpike works for Maine E-ZPass tagholders in that it's a virtual ticket system with gantries at every entrance/exit.

What IS officially a rumor is what will happen to the 23-25A (inclusive) section. Plans have NOT been released for conversions of those exits and it is thought that mainline gantries will be placed south of 23 and west of 25A, making this section free. This would certainly reduce congestion on Albany surface roads, as NY 5 and NY 7 in particular are routinely clogged with shunpikers.

What's odd is that the press release mentions removing the booths (not sure where Jim got the idea that the gantries would be between interchanges, as I don't see that mentioned - it could easily be done like the Harriman barrier was).

Regarding diverting traffic, isn't the Thruway also clogged in the morning rush?  I'd also rather not have more traffic on the Northway trying to bypass I-787.

[cl94]

What's odd is that the press release mentions removing the booths (not sure where Jim got the idea that the gantries would be between interchanges, as I don't see that mentioned - it could easily be done like the Harriman barrier was).

Being as the contract to retrofit roughly 1/3 of the ticket interchanges is out, I'll believe it when I see it. The fact that they've already converted 22 would make me think that a sane agency would go the retrofit route at least temporarily. But knowing who is in charge, a full removal isn't out of the question, even if it would significantly increase short-term costs.

What I had heard prior to this was that booths were being removed at 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 25A, 34A, 35, 39, 45, 46, 47, and the mainline barriers. These interchanges account for the vast majority of freeway-freeway traffic on the ticket system.

[webny99]

What I had heard prior to this was that booths were being removed at 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 25A, 34A, 35, 39, 45, 46, 47, and the mainline barriers. These interchanges account for the vast majority of freeway-freeway traffic on the ticket system.

Can I assume you meant 36 (I-81) instead of 35?

In many ways, the booths at freeway interchanges are the diciest ones to remove, as drivers are going to expect a high speed connection. I already mentioned some of the problems with I-490, and I-690 and I-390 don't have tons of space to work with either.

[Jim]

What's odd is that the press release mentions removing the booths (not sure where Jim got the idea that the gantries would be between interchanges, as I don't see that mentioned - it could easily be done like the Harriman barrier was).

I think I got the idea from the image at the top of the press release page, and erroneously thought I read it somewhere in the text also.  So the plan is to put a gantry on each on/off ramp at or near where the current toll booths are?

[cl94]

Can I assume you meant 36 (I-81) instead of 35?

In many ways, the booths at freeway interchanges are the diciest ones to remove, as drivers are going to expect a high speed connection. I already mentioned some of the problems with I-490, and I-690 and I-390 don't have tons of space to work with either.

Yes, I meant 36.

The 88, 490, and 890 interchanges are easy because it's the end of the freeway and conflicting traffic is limited. The others will be interesting, 24 in particular due to the volumes (it's the busiest interchange barrier by a large margin). As a medium-term measure, I fully expect them to pylon off a through lane on 90 in both directions and 87 SB to reduce weaving conflicts. 34A has close to half a mile of weaving room, so that's not a big concern. 36, they could probably partially untangle (at least leaving the Thruway) with minimal property impacts.

I think I got the idea from the image at the top of the press release page, and erroneously thought I read it somewhere in the text also.  So the plan is to put a gantry on each on/off ramp at or near where the current toll booths are?

For the time being, yes. Smaller impact to mainline traffic and it may allow them to (at least temporarily) reuse existing booths and infrastructure at interchanges to speed the process. When they replaced the ramp toll at 16 with AET, provisions were added to mount equipment over the SB-WB ramp for a future AET conversion of the ticket system.