New York State Thruway

[webny99]

Exits 36-39 were definitely a talking point during the Thruway's conversion to AET. Elsewhere, the choice of mainline gantries vs. exit ramp gantries made sense, but I never understood why they kept the exit ramp gantries at 37 and 38. A single mainline gantry could have replaced the exit gantries at both 37 and 38, and the exit ramp gantries restrict NYSTA's ability to change anything at those interchanges in the future.

36-37 is an extraordinarily short segment, most likely correct that it is the lowest possible toll in the country (only with EZPass though, as Tolls by Mail have a $2 surcharge). If not for the surcharge, it's probably more in administrative costs to charge tolls on that segment than they're making on the tolls.

[vdeane]

The Thruway looked at three options when they switched: all mainline, all ramp, and a mix of the two.  They went with the latter to minimize the number of mainline gantries while still avoiding causing traffic disruptions at the busier exits.  It's a pity they didn't think to rethink some aspects of toll collection when they went AET.  It would have been nice if Syracuse and Albany could get free zones where the virtual ticket systems break up.  Especially around exit 25A, the way it's implemented now causes no end of problems.

[roadman65]

Why was the Thruway given free zones especially in Rockland County?

In NJ the Parkway had free zones only caused they represented the original sections built with state taxes and up until 1986 were even maintained by NJDOT. However in New York I doubt that was the case like the GSP.

[kalvado]

The Thruway looked at three options when they switched: all mainline, all ramp, and a mix of the two.  They went with the latter to minimize the number of mainline gantries while still avoiding causing traffic disruptions at the busier exits.  It's a pity they didn't think to rethink some aspects of toll collection when they went AET.  It would have been nice if Syracuse and Albany could get free zones where the virtual ticket systems break up.  Especially around exit 25A, the way it's implemented now causes no end of problems.

I wonder if later adjustments are possible, or Daddy's Bridge debt eats up all free money at NYSTA?

[vdeane]

The Thruway looked at three options when they switched: all mainline, all ramp, and a mix of the two.  They went with the latter to minimize the number of mainline gantries while still avoiding causing traffic disruptions at the busier exits.  It's a pity they didn't think to rethink some aspects of toll collection when they went AET.  It would have been nice if Syracuse and Albany could get free zones where the virtual ticket systems break up.  Especially around exit 25A, the way it's implemented now causes no end of problems.

I wonder if later adjustments are possible, or Daddy's Bridge debt eats up all free money at NYSTA?

I doubt they would want to rip out gantries that they had just put in a couple years ago.  I do wish they would reprogram their toll processing to aggregate trips together like MassDOT does.  Probably not much they can do to speed up the processing of tolls involving exit 25A without moving gantries, however, even though that's the worst part.  Even going from one line to eight for each direction of my Rochester/Albany trips would be a lot less annoying if all the charges would post at the same time, not varying times ranging from a day to a month.  As it is now, it's basically a jigsaw puzzle where I have to keep track of what posted for each trip.

[kalvado]

The Thruway looked at three options when they switched: all mainline, all ramp, and a mix of the two.  They went with the latter to minimize the number of mainline gantries while still avoiding causing traffic disruptions at the busier exits.  It's a pity they didn't think to rethink some aspects of toll collection when they went AET.  It would have been nice if Syracuse and Albany could get free zones where the virtual ticket systems break up.  Especially around exit 25A, the way it's implemented now causes no end of problems.

I wonder if later adjustments are possible, or Daddy's Bridge debt eats up all free money at NYSTA?

I doubt they would want to rip out gantries that they had just put in a couple years ago.  I do wish they would reprogram their toll processing to aggregate trips together like MassDOT does.  Probably not much they can do to speed up the processing of tolls involving exit 25A without moving gantries, however, even though that's the worst part.  Even going from one line to eight for each direction of my Rochester/Albany trips would be a lot less annoying if all the charges would post at the same time, not varying times ranging from a day to a month.  As it is now, it's basically a jigsaw puzzle where I have to keep track of what posted for each trip.

Which really makes me wonder if they are using carrier pigeon in data transfers.... I can understand I-88 uncertainty giving the realization ( although low-volume exit 25A setup may be not that expensive to add)
But taking more than 10 seconds to post everything else for their own ezpass?? 

[Rothman]

I do wish they would reprogram their toll processing to aggregate trips together like MassDOT does.

Sing it, sister.  I had a statement recently where I swore I was overcharged.  Called them up and they put the tetris together for me to show how I wasn't.

The struggle is real.

[Jim]

From my most recent trip, tolls from NJ, DE, MD, and FL, all posted to my NYSTA E-Z Pass account well before the NY ones. 

Looks like the Florida's Turnpike tolls are also not aggregated.  I see 9 separate entries on that ride which was really just 2 entries and 2 exits.

[astralentity]

I'm still waiting for the tolls on the Will Rogers Turnpike to post to the PlusPass app I used for my trip to Oklahoma last month.  They should really look into using EZPass.

[jmacswimmer]

Exits 36-39 were definitely a talking point during the Thruway's conversion to AET. Elsewhere, the choice of mainline gantries vs. exit ramp gantries made sense, but I never understood why they kept the exit ramp gantries at 37 and 38. A single mainline gantry could have replaced the exit gantries at both 37 and 38, and the exit ramp gantries restrict NYSTA's ability to change anything at those interchanges in the future.

36-37 is an extraordinarily short segment, most likely correct that it is the lowest possible toll in the country (only with EZPass though, as Tolls by Mail have a $2 surcharge). If not for the surcharge, it's probably more in administrative costs to charge tolls on that segment than they're making on the tolls.

The other thing that seems odd here to me is that 36-39 is a separate entry-exit segment from the one that begins right on the other side of 39 - if I'm not mistaken, it's the only spot on the entire Thruway where 2 entry-exit segments exist without either a free segment or flat-rate gantries in between?

One thought: It looks like the Thruway is currently under construction from east of 39 (immediately past the gantry) to 37 per recent GSV, so could it be possible that NYSTA knew this project was in the works and didn't want to install gantries that would soon have to be reinstalled anyway?

Re NYSTA's toll processing: It does seem like the turnaround time is all over the place. From a trip in May where I drove 15 to 24 and then B1 to B3 2 days later, the 23-24 flat-rate gantry took 2 days, the 15-23 segment took 3 days, and the B1-B3 segment took 1 day.

[lstone19]

The Thruway looked at three options when they switched: all mainline, all ramp, and a mix of the two.  They went with the latter to minimize the number of mainline gantries while still avoiding causing traffic disruptions at the busier exits.  It's a pity they didn't think to rethink some aspects of toll collection when they went AET.  Especially around exit 25A, the way it's implemented now causes no end of problems.

The "avoid causing traffic disruptions" at the busier exits doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why? Because the gantry would be located in what can be a weaving section? Then why not put the gantries on the individual ramps in the trumpet part of interchange which are almost all single lane. Instead, they push the same issues out on to the mainline. Back in June, I was exiting westbound at 34A for the first time in years. Even knowing there was mainline gantry before the exit, I wasn't thinking about it and then got caught by surprise to find it 1/10 mile before the exit as I'm trying to get over to the right lane (last second pass due to a slow vehicle). They have 15 miles between 34 and 34A and they stick it hard to the end with the busier interchange.

The slow posting is very frustrating. I was shocked when I used my NY EZ-Pass in Illinois and saw ISTHA tolls post faster (seemed to be six to 12 hours) than NYSTA tolls. And the whole 25A mess: my guess is all those tolls are held in suspense until they time out (three plus weeks) meaning traffic must have entered/exited at 25A or until another scan makes it clear that they didn't. So for my recent 25A to 24 trip, I was scanned at the 25/25A gantry and the 24/25 gantry. Those two then sat for three plus weeks waiting to see if a scan at the 25A VTS exit gantry occurred (which would have also required an entry somewhere between 34A and 26) before concluding no I didn't so process them as 25A to 24 free trip.

[vdeane]

The Thruway looked at three options when they switched: all mainline, all ramp, and a mix of the two.  They went with the latter to minimize the number of mainline gantries while still avoiding causing traffic disruptions at the busier exits.  It's a pity they didn't think to rethink some aspects of toll collection when they went AET.  Especially around exit 25A, the way it's implemented now causes no end of problems.

The "avoid causing traffic disruptions" at the busier exits doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why? Because the gantry would be located in what can be a weaving section? Then why not put the gantries on the individual ramps in the trumpet part of interchange which are almost all single lane. Instead, they push the same issues out on to the mainline. Back in June, I was exiting westbound at 34A for the first time in years. Even knowing there was mainline gantry before the exit, I wasn't thinking about it and then got caught by surprise to find it 1/10 mile before the exit as I'm trying to get over to the right lane (last second pass due to a slow vehicle). They have 15 miles between 34 and 34A and they stick it hard to the end with the busier interchange.

The slow posting is very frustrating. I was shocked when I used my NY EZ-Pass in Illinois and saw ISTHA tolls post faster (seemed to be six to 12 hours) than NYSTA tolls. And the whole 25A mess: my guess is all those tolls are held in suspense until they time out (three plus weeks) meaning traffic must have entered/exited at 25A or until another scan makes it clear that they didn't. So for my recent 25A to 24 trip, I was scanned at the 25/25A gantry and the 24/25 gantry. Those two then sat for three plus weeks waiting to see if a scan at the 25A VTS exit gantry occurred (which would have also required an entry somewhere between 34A and 26) before concluding no I didn't so process them as 25A to 24 free trip.

I don't think it's the weave (otherwise they would have broken up exit 17, where they re-used the existing barrier) so much as traffic would have had to construct down to four lanes (two each way) when they were put up.  Many of those high-volume exits have large toll barriers with many more lanes than that, so it would have cut into the queuing capacity.  Placing gantries on individual ramps doesn't seem to be something the Thruway considered aside from exit 20 (although it would have saved a ton of processing problems at exit 25A).

The time it takes to process tolls around exit 25A has definitely lengthened.  I remember when it was just a week or two.  It takes just as long if you do travel west of there and have to pay, too.

Exits 36-39 were definitely a talking point during the Thruway's conversion to AET. Elsewhere, the choice of mainline gantries vs. exit ramp gantries made sense, but I never understood why they kept the exit ramp gantries at 37 and 38. A single mainline gantry could have replaced the exit gantries at both 37 and 38, and the exit ramp gantries restrict NYSTA's ability to change anything at those interchanges in the future.

36-37 is an extraordinarily short segment, most likely correct that it is the lowest possible toll in the country (only with EZPass though, as Tolls by Mail have a $2 surcharge). If not for the surcharge, it's probably more in administrative costs to charge tolls on that segment than they're making on the tolls.

The other thing that seems odd here to me is that 36-39 is a separate entry-exit segment from the one that begins right on the other side of 39 - if I'm not mistaken, it's the only spot on the entire Thruway where 2 entry-exit segments exist without either a free segment or flat-rate gantries in between?

One thought: It looks like the Thruway is currently under construction from east of 39 (immediately past the gantry) to 37 per recent GSV, so could it be possible that NYSTA knew this project was in the works and didn't want to install gantries that would soon have to be reinstalled anyway?

Re NYSTA's toll processing: It does seem like the turnaround time is all over the place. From a trip in May where I drove 15 to 24 and then B1 to B3 2 days later, the 23-24 flat-rate gantry took 2 days, the 15-23 segment took 3 days, and the B1-B3 segment took 1 day.

The west end of the 36-39 segment is in the construction zone, so somehow they're able to make it work.  It's more like they didn't want to have to put mainline gantries anywhere where traffic counts on the exits didn't force them to.  Exits 23, 24, 25, 25A, 34A, 36, 39, 44, 45, 46, and 47 were deemed to have enough traffic to warrant not having exit gantries.  Just so happens that nothing else near exit 39 was deemed to warrant mainline gantries.

That said, this project was in the works for a decade (at one time, it was scheduled to begin after the 39-40 project finished), so they definitely knew it was coming.

[lstone19]

The "avoid causing traffic disruptions" at the busier exits doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why? Because the gantry would be located in what can be a weaving section? Then why not put the gantries on the individual ramps in the trumpet part of interchange which are almost all single lane. Instead, they push the same issues out on to the mainline. Back in June, I was exiting westbound at 34A for the first time in years. Even knowing there was mainline gantry before the exit, I wasn't thinking about it and then got caught by surprise to find it 1/10 mile before the exit as I'm trying to get over to the right lane (last second pass due to a slow vehicle). They have 15 miles between 34 and 34A and they stick it hard to the end with the busier interchange.

I don't think it's the weave (otherwise they would have broken up exit 17, where they re-used the existing barrier) so much as traffic would have had to construct down to four lanes (two each way) when they were put up.  Many of those high-volume exits have large toll barriers with many more lanes than that, so it would have cut into the queuing capacity.  Placing gantries on individual ramps doesn't seem to be something the Thruway considered aside from exit 20 (although it would have saved a ton of processing problems at exit 25A).

Why should there be any queuing? Certainly not for the toll gantries since they're highway speed. Backups from beyond the gantry? Other agencies seem to have no problem processing tolls even when a backup extends through a toll plaza/gantry.

Regarding individual ramp gantries, they did it at 16 moving the 16 south entry gantry to the ramp to get rid of the old pay cash, then get a ticket at the next plaza that traffic entering northbound at 16 used to do.

Part of this strikes me as they got so fixated on fixing what they perceived as a problem that they came up with a solution but then didn't go to the next step of thinking about what new problems the solution introduced that could be an even bigger problem.

[webny99]

In current news, the Thruway westbound is backed up for over 10 miles between Exits 40 and 39 (for those unfamiliar with the area, a 15-mile stretch between exits) due to an apparent accident, no doubt compounded by State Fair traffic. Google is currently showing it as a 1h 58min delay (!!). Per the live VMS feature on the Thruway Traveler Map, the VMS west of Exit 35 is recommending that traffic use the Emergency Detour Route. Not sure I've ever seen this before outside of a full closure:

LONG DELAYS
BEYOND
EXIT 39

USE EXIT 39
TO FOLLOW
DETOUR ROUTE "E"

It appears that EDR "E" follows NY 690 NB to NY 31 WB. Local traffic and those using Google Maps/GPS will likely identify that Brickyard Rd to NY 173 cuts considerable mileage off of EDR "E", but isn't as high-quality of a route, including an all-way stop that's bound to be gnarly. (Then again, the ramp from NY 690 NB to NY 31 isn't signalized, so that's bound to cause problems too.)

[vdeane]

The "avoid causing traffic disruptions" at the busier exits doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why? Because the gantry would be located in what can be a weaving section? Then why not put the gantries on the individual ramps in the trumpet part of interchange which are almost all single lane. Instead, they push the same issues out on to the mainline. Back in June, I was exiting westbound at 34A for the first time in years. Even knowing there was mainline gantry before the exit, I wasn't thinking about it and then got caught by surprise to find it 1/10 mile before the exit as I'm trying to get over to the right lane (last second pass due to a slow vehicle). They have 15 miles between 34 and 34A and they stick it hard to the end with the busier interchange.

I don't think it's the weave (otherwise they would have broken up exit 17, where they re-used the existing barrier) so much as traffic would have had to construct down to four lanes (two each way) when they were put up.  Many of those high-volume exits have large toll barriers with many more lanes than that, so it would have cut into the queuing capacity.  Placing gantries on individual ramps doesn't seem to be something the Thruway considered aside from exit 20 (although it would have saved a ton of processing problems at exit 25A).

Why should there be any queuing? Certainly not for the toll gantries since they're highway speed. Backups from beyond the gantry? Other agencies seem to have no problem processing tolls even when a backup extends through a toll plaza/gantry.

Regarding individual ramp gantries, they did it at 16 moving the 16 south entry gantry to the ramp to get rid of the old pay cash, then get a ticket at the next plaza that traffic entering northbound at 16 used to do.

Part of this strikes me as they got so fixated on fixing what they perceived as a problem that they came up with a solution but then didn't go to the next step of thinking about what new problems the solution introduced that could be an even bigger problem.

The Thruway was not AET prior to the gantries being activated.  Aside from a couple months during COVID, cash toll collection was maintained all the way to the switch.  Thus, the toll barriers themselves needed queuing space.  With the larger barriers, this takes up practically the entire distance between the barrier and the ramps.

I can't speak for why they had different methodologies when they converted Harriman/New Rochelle/Yonkers/Spring Valley than when they converted the ticket system.  Different contractor, maybe?  IIRC the AET project was design-build.

As for getting fixated, while I can't know for certain, I suspect that it was rather the reverse.  As far as I can tell, the Thruway Authority itself had little/no interest in going AET, and had the conversion thrust upon it by Governor Cuomo (who set a 2020 deadline for that and many other things announced in one year's State of the State address).  It's not surprising that they made odd choices when doing it, if they never wanted to do it in the first place.

(personal opinion)

[webny99]

Exits 36-39 were definitely a talking point during the Thruway's conversion to AET. ...

The other thing that seems odd here to me is that 36-39 is a separate entry-exit segment from the one that begins right on the other side of 39 - if I'm not mistaken, it's the only spot on the entire Thruway where 2 entry-exit segments exist without either a free segment or flat-rate gantries in between?

Whoops, missed this earlier. Yes, that is correct that 36-39 is the only such segment. In other words, a single flat-rate gantry between 37 and 38 would eliminate the entry-exit segment (and the need for any ramp gantries in the entire Syracuse area).

One thought: It looks like the Thruway is currently under construction from east of 39 (immediately past the gantry) to 37 per recent GSV, so could it be possible that NYSTA knew this project was in the works and didn't want to install gantries that would soon have to be reinstalled anyway?

Come to think of it, this seems very possible, maybe even likely. Especially considering how the gantry between 38-39 was placed so close to Exit 39 that it almost seems strategically placed to be past the construction zone.

[webny99]

Part of this strikes me as they got so fixated on fixing what they perceived as a problem that they came up with a solution but then didn't go to the next step of thinking about what new problems the solution introduced that could be an even bigger problem.

This is certainly true of Exit 45, probably the only location on the entire Thruway system where traffic conditions got worse due to the implementation of AET*. The toll booths at the end of I-490 used to split the traffic up, slow everyone down, and allow for 90% of the traffic to shift into a single lane relatively smoothly. Now that it's free-flowing, the true problem is exposed: It's way too much volume for a single lane ramp to handle, and often backs up for a mile plus on Thursday/Friday evenings. I've sent multiple emails to NYSTA inquiring if/when they plan to address the bottleneck (i.e. replace the bridge over the Thruway and widen the ramp), to no avail so far.

*I'm referring primarily to traffic entering the Thruway at Exit 45, but exiting and navigating this weave at high speeds is rather disorienting too (first-time users beware!). Fortunately the weave movement (I-90 EB to NY 96) isn't busy enough to create any major traffic problems aside from the occasional confused driver making last-second decisions.

[lstone19]

The Thruway was not AET prior to the gantries being activated.  Aside from a couple months during COVID, cash toll collection was maintained all the way to the switch.  Thus, the toll barriers themselves needed queuing space.  With the larger barriers, this takes up practically the entire distance between the barrier and the ramps.

I can't speak for why they had different methodologies when they converted Harriman/New Rochelle/Yonkers/Spring Valley than when they converted the ticket system.  Different contractor, maybe?  IIRC the AET project was design-build.

As for getting fixated, while I can't know for certain, I suspect that it was rather the reverse.  As far as I can tell, the Thruway Authority itself had little/no interest in going AET, and had the conversion thrust upon it by Governor Cuomo (who set a 2020 deadline for that and many other things announced in one year's State of the State address).  It's not surprising that they made odd choices when doing it, if they never wanted to do it in the first place.

(personal opinion)

Interesting. I think you're saying your opinion is that having some interchanges with no gantries was needed not for today but for during the construction period - that they could not build gantries (at least in the place and size they wanted) while maintaining ticket distribution and cash collection. Or at least do so in the time allowed.

If so, then nothing to stop them today (other than money) to going back and doing all those interchanges right since the former wide plaza areas are no longer needed.

[vdeane]

Come to think of it, this seems very possible, maybe even likely. Especially considering how the gantry between 38-39 was placed so close to Exit 39 that it almost seems strategically placed to be past the construction zone.

Last time I drove through there, there was a lane shift through the gantry with construction on either side.

The Thruway was not AET prior to the gantries being activated.  Aside from a couple months during COVID, cash toll collection was maintained all the way to the switch.  Thus, the toll barriers themselves needed queuing space.  With the larger barriers, this takes up practically the entire distance between the barrier and the ramps.

I can't speak for why they had different methodologies when they converted Harriman/New Rochelle/Yonkers/Spring Valley than when they converted the ticket system.  Different contractor, maybe?  IIRC the AET project was design-build.

As for getting fixated, while I can't know for certain, I suspect that it was rather the reverse.  As far as I can tell, the Thruway Authority itself had little/no interest in going AET, and had the conversion thrust upon it by Governor Cuomo (who set a 2020 deadline for that and many other things announced in one year's State of the State address).  It's not surprising that they made odd choices when doing it, if they never wanted to do it in the first place.

(personal opinion)

Interesting. I think you're saying your opinion is that having some interchanges with no gantries was needed not for today but for during the construction period - that they could not build gantries (at least in the place and size they wanted) while maintaining ticket distribution and cash collection. Or at least do so in the time allowed.

If so, then nothing to stop them today (other than money) to going back and doing all those interchanges right since the former wide plaza areas are no longer needed.

Correct.  The project took a while given the size of the ticket system, so some of those gantries were up for months before it was activated.

I don't see them rearranging things in the near term.  Maybe the next time things need to be replaced.  The gantries installed during the Tappan Zee replacement project were meant to be temporary, but it was decided that it wasn't worth it to build a new gantry near exit 9 when the ones at exit 10 worked just fine.

[lstone19]

Interesting. I think you're saying your opinion is that having some interchanges with no gantries was needed not for today but for during the construction period - that they could not build gantries (at least in the place and size they wanted) while maintaining ticket distribution and cash collection. Or at least do so in the time allowed.

If so, then nothing to stop them today (other than money) to going back and doing all those interchanges right since the former wide plaza areas are no longer needed.

Correct.  The project took a while given the size of the ticket system, so some of those gantries were up for months before it was activated.

I don't see them rearranging things in the near term.  Maybe the next time things need to be replaced.  The gantries installed during the Tappan Zee replacement project were meant to be temporary, but it was decided that it wasn't worth it to build a new gantry near exit 9 when the ones at exit 10 worked just fine.

Except that what they have today is a pain, as you have posted, when your single trip ends up being multiple lines on your EZ-Pass statement (although some behind the scenes programming could fix that).

I'm always fascinated when I see a road or other feature that is a vestige of a construction requirement to keep the old in service as the new is built - things that would never be there if building from scratch (as an example, the s-curve between the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge toll plaza and the bridge due to needing to build the new bridge on a different alignment than the old). And with this line of thinking, how the NYSTA did it falls into this category.

[jmacswimmer]

The service area project "important message" box on NYSTA's homepage was recently updated to note that Pattersonville, Malden, Sloatsburg and Ontario will close after Labor Day. Couple thoughts here:

-I thought Sloatsburg had already closed when Ardsley reopened (in conjunction with Plattekill reopening about a month prior) - rereading the press release from Ardsley's official reopening seems to confirm this, but the service area page shows Sloatsburg as currently open?
-Seneca is still closed, so it's either about to reopen (the current projected opening is Q3 2023) or NYSTA would break their own rule about not closing 2 consecutive stops with Ontario
-The closure of these 4 will leave DeWitt, Mohawk and Modena as the last 3 awaiting reconstruction, and it looks like all 3 currently just have the Applegreen C-Store due to previously being McDonald's locations

I checked out Plattekill back in mid-May a week or 2 after it reopened - I thought it seemed fine, but I can definitely see where the complaints come from with some of the smaller stops. The CFA line was 20ish minutes IIRC (and didn't allow mobile ordering, we checked as we were getting close), so in peak efficiency my wife & I took turns hitting the bathroom while we waited.

[vdeane]

^ Seneca looked quite close to reopening when I was last through there (about a month ago), so I would not at all be surprised if it reopens soon.  Assuming it hasn't already; sometimes they take a while to update the map.

Sloatsburg was reopened for some reason after it closed, without fanfare.  Not really sure why.  I suspect it's one of the four that will be renovated rather than replaced, as the reopening target listed is the same as Ramapo, which has been closed all year.

Given the reopening targets, I expect that DeWitt and Mohawk will close late this year and/or early next year.  After that, Modena will be the last older service area standing for a while.

Fun fact: after Labor Day, there will no longer be any older service areas open heading north/westbound.

[webny99]

Notwithstanding the Thruway being a public benefit corporation, I will be shocked if they are exempt from FOIL.  Now, whether one actually wants to pay to have a request fulfilled . . .

Thanks for the tip about FOIL: It ending up paying off, and without me having to pay anything.   I'll explain more below.

Another Thruway question that vdeane or Rothman may be able to answer: does NYSTA perform regular AADT counts? I'm curious because the Statewide Traffic Data Viewer is lacking data for much of the Thruway, and segments it does have are often outdated, estimates only, and/or lacking the full datasets that you can get from NYSDOT counts.

I'd be surprised if they don't.  Keep in mind the Statewide Traffic Data Viewer is NYSDOT, so of course it doesn't have NYSTA's data in it, other than what pieces have been shared over the years.

If you want NYSTA's data, go to NYSTA.

It may not be NYSDOT that performs traffic counts on the Thruway, but IINM the state is still required to submit that data to FHWA every year.  Finding those volumes, though, is the trick.

Yup, exactly. Going to NYSTA seems to be easier said than done - I'm not sure they have anything publicly available other than what's been shared to NYSDOT.

So, pursuant to this discussion, I did some Google searching and fairly extensive browsing on the Thruway's site to see if I could find anything for current AADT volumes. With no success, I decided FOIL was worth a shot, so I emailed them to request 2022 traffic count data for segments 39 (I-690) to 50 (I-290). I received a response back a week later, and what do you know? the table included in the reply cited "2022 Estimated AADT" and the source for each data point was NYSDOT TDS/TDV, just the same old data rebranded as an estimate.

Not satisfied, I decided to start another request, much more pointed this time:

  Does NYSTA operate any continuous traffic counts, and/or is continuous count or similar traffic volume information obtainable from the electronic toll barriers? If so, please provide the raw data from January 2022 through July 2023 (or the most current data available) for each toll barrier or continuous count location.

A week later (Aug 4th) I received a reply that they were working on my request and reviewing for FOIL exemptions, and that I would receive an update on September 1st. So, I waited it out and sure enough, there in my inbox on Friday afternoon was an Excel link to the raw traffic count data for every mainline gantry on the Thruway system from Jan 1, 2022 to July 31, 2023. The data for each gantry is organized in a single column by lane, so parsing through and converting it to a more usable format takes some doing, but is manageable now that I've got the hang of it.

So far, I've copied everything onto my own spreadsheets (since the FOIL link expires after 72 hours), and compiled the data for the mainline gantries east of Exits 44 and 45 to obtain the following raw 365-day averages:

MM 340.5   2022 AADT (actual): 43,031
MM 348.0   2022 AADT (actual): 59,875

In addition, the highest daily counts were 66,300 and 87,098, respectively, both occurring on July 1st.

I'll update this list as I compile the data for more segments, but in the meantime, feel free to ask if there's anything in particular you'd like me to find/share from this data and I'll do my best. Cheers!

[vdeane]

Seneca looks ready to open.  The barriers around the parking area are gone and the tenants are moved in.

Incidentally, I was reading that the four service areas to close soon are all renovations rather than reconstructions.  That's interesting, given that Guilderland is still standing, and it's due to reopen on a fairly short timetable.  I could have sworn that they were only going to renovate four, not five, unless maybe Sloatsburg was to be a reconstruction but then they found that it only needed renovations.  Could explain why that one temporarily reopened after a week to little fanfare.

So, pursuant to this discussion, I did some Google searching and fairly extensive browsing on the Thruway's site to see if I could find anything for current AADT volumes. With no success, I decided FOIL was worth a shot, so I emailed them to request 2022 traffic count data for segments 39 (I-690) to 50 (I-290). I received a response back a week later, and what do you know? the table included in the reply cited "2022 Estimated AADT" and the source for each data point was NYSDOT TDS/TDV, just the same old data rebranded as an estimate.

Given that TDV is still using 2019 estimates and is missing huge chunks of the Thruway, that's probably still better than what's publicly available (incidentally, most counts in TDV are estimates because NYSDOT doesn't count every site every year; the aim is once every three years*, but it can go longer since we live in an imperfect world).

*Some sections of roads are on even longer cycles.  Most notably, ramps are every six years.  Low volume local roads that are only getting counted due to bridges or RR crossings also had longer cycles last I heard.

[kalvado]

Seneca looks ready to open.  The barriers around the parking area are gone and the tenants are moved in.

Incidentally, I was reading that the four service areas to close soon are all renovations rather than reconstructions.  That's interesting, given that Guilderland is still standing, and it's due to reopen on a fairly short timetable.  I could have sworn that they were only going to renovate four, not five, unless maybe Sloatsburg was to be a reconstruction but then they found that it only needed renovations.  Could explain why that one temporarily reopened after a week to little fanfare.

So, pursuant to this discussion, I did some Google searching and fairly extensive browsing on the Thruway's site to see if I could find anything for current AADT volumes. With no success, I decided FOIL was worth a shot, so I emailed them to request 2022 traffic count data for segments 39 (I-690) to 50 (I-290). I received a response back a week later, and what do you know? the table included in the reply cited "2022 Estimated AADT" and the source for each data point was NYSDOT TDS/TDV, just the same old data rebranded as an estimate.

Given that TDV is still using 2019 estimates and is missing huge chunks of the Thruway, that's probably still better than what's publicly available (incidentally, most counts in TDV are estimates because NYSDOT doesn't count every site every year; the aim is once every three years*, but it can go longer since we live in an imperfect world).

*Some sections of roads are on even longer cycles.  Most notably, ramps are every six years.  Low volume local roads that are only getting counted due to bridges or RR crossings also had longer cycles last I heard.

Maybe they run out of free cash and now try to work on a budget? I wouldn't be surprised if at least some demolitions are regretted by now