NYSDOT mile markers

[Alps]

I just read through the NYSDOT Reference Marker Manual today. The markers have to maintain all of the information because so many things are coded to them (accidents, physical features, etc.) So that's why route and region numbers, MP numbers, etc. have to remain. In fact, when there's a new alignment, it's supposed to increment the tens digit by 1 compared to the old mile markers so that you have a unique reference code.

[empirestate]

I just read through the NYSDOT Reference Marker Manual today. The markers have to maintain all of the information because so many things are coded to them (accidents, physical features, etc.) So that's why route and region numbers, MP numbers, etc. have to remain. In fact, when there's a new alignment, it's supposed to increment the tens digit by 1 compared to the old mile markers so that you have a unique reference code.

Lots of things are supposed to happen according to the manual, but what actually gets done varies quite a bit. I think it's most important that there be a unique code than can be searched against in a database; how that code is determined seems more of a procedural thing and less of a concern to the powers that be.

[vdeane]

That explains why NY 441 and several other routes start at mile 10.

[machias]

NY 291 (which used to be part of NY 12C) has 12C reference markers for the most part. When NY 49 was relocated to the new alignment in '03, they installed 291 reference markers on the the new bridge.  They have since been replaced with 12C markers.

[empirestate]

At the risk of thread drift, I'm pretty sure the part of NY 590 that used to be NY 18 got brand-new reference markers during a "recent" rehabilitation project...and they still had "18" on the top line. It makes sense, because the new markers are replacing database entries that start with "18", regardless of what the current route number is. But that begs the question: why bother listing the route number at all, if it doesn't have to bear any resemblance to the actual number?

[jemacedo9]

When NY changes route numbers, it seems like markers sometimes are updated, and other times are not.  There is a stretch of I-390, I think south of Dansville, where the reference markers listed 245 instead of 390I.  A  lot of NY 415 in the Southern Tier has reference markers of 15, since that used to be US and then NY 15. 

NY 590 recently had reference markers referring to 47, since NY 590 was NY 47 at one point years ago.

Sometimes, this is a good way to trace former routings. 

[vdeane]

Sometimes.  Region 4 seems to like to change the number when the markers are replaced, whenever that is.  For example, those 245 markers could be found on I-390 between exits 3 and 5 at one time; when the Dansville section had some work done, region 4 replaced them all with 390I reference markers, but the region 6 ones remain.  The 47 markers are gone too, or at least greatly reduced in number.  The 18 ones are definitely gone, as that section of NY 590 is now maintained by the town of Irondequiot and signage ends at Titus Ave (though it still officially goes to Culver according to the traffic data report).

[mgk920]

When NY changes route numbers, it seems like markers sometimes are updated, and other times are not.  There is a stretch of I-390, I think south of Dansville, where the reference markers listed 245 instead of 390I.  A  lot of NY 415 in the Southern Tier has reference markers of 15, since that used to be US and then NY 15. 

NY 590 recently had reference markers referring to 47, since NY 590 was NY 47 at one point years ago.

Sometimes, this is a good way to trace former routings.

Don't lengthy sections of I-88 also bear the number '7' instead of '88I' on their LGSs?

Mike

[empirestate]

Sometimes.  Region 4 seems to like to change the number when the markers are replaced, whenever that is.  For example, those 245 markers could be found on I-390 between exits 3 and 5 at one time; when the Dansville section had some work done, region 4 replaced them all with 390I reference markers, but the region 6 ones remain.  The 47 markers are gone too, or at least greatly reduced in number.  The 18 ones are definitely gone, as that section of NY 590 is now maintained by the town of Irondequiot and signage ends at Titus Ave (though it still officially goes to Culver according to the traffic data report).

It may have been the "47" ones that I'm thinking of as having been replaced, but yes, it would be a treasure now to find an "18" marker after the turnback.

Don't lengthy sections of I-88 also bear the number '7' instead of '88I' on their LGSs?

At least near Binghamton, where NY 7 in fact overlaps it. A quick check doesn't show any standalone sections that are marked that way.

(What I'm checking is the reference marker inventory in GIS shapefile format: http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=1112 . It seems to show theoretical marker locations rather than actual posted signs, but it does reflect what's really marked on the panel.)

[machias]

When NY changes route numbers, it seems like markers sometimes are updated, and other times are not.  There is a stretch of I-390, I think south of Dansville, where the reference markers listed 245 instead of 390I.  A  lot of NY 415 in the Southern Tier has reference markers of 15, since that used to be US and then NY 15. 

NY 590 recently had reference markers referring to 47, since NY 590 was NY 47 at one point years ago.

Sometimes, this is a good way to trace former routings.

Don't lengthy sections of I-88 also bear the number '7' instead of '88I' on their LGSs?

Mike

From what I can tell, I-88's western end is officially somewhere around the Sanitaria Springs interchange (Exit 4). As I recall, west of there the reference markers all reference SR 7 until the bridge over the Chenango River.

[Alps]

When NY changes route numbers, it seems like markers sometimes are updated, and other times are not.  There is a stretch of I-390, I think south of Dansville, where the reference markers listed 245 instead of 390I.  A  lot of NY 415 in the Southern Tier has reference markers of 15, since that used to be US and then NY 15. 

NY 590 recently had reference markers referring to 47, since NY 590 was NY 47 at one point years ago.

Sometimes, this is a good way to trace former routings.

Don't lengthy sections of I-88 also bear the number '7' instead of '88I' on their LGSs?

Mike

From what I can tell, I-88's western end is officially somewhere around the Sanitaria Springs interchange (Exit 4). As I recall, west of there the reference markers all reference SR 7 until the bridge over the Chenango River.

Don't confuse official end with reference markers - as I said, the markers are maintained even when the route number changes. It's all officially I-88, but the part west of Exit 4 was built originally as NY 7. (The part from 4-2 was upgraded on the spot, actually.)

[machias]

When NY changes route numbers, it seems like markers sometimes are updated, and other times are not.  There is a stretch of I-390, I think south of Dansville, where the reference markers listed 245 instead of 390I.  A  lot of NY 415 in the Southern Tier has reference markers of 15, since that used to be US and then NY 15. 

NY 590 recently had reference markers referring to 47, since NY 590 was NY 47 at one point years ago.

Sometimes, this is a good way to trace former routings.

Don't lengthy sections of I-88 also bear the number '7' instead of '88I' on their LGSs?

Mike

From what I can tell, I-88's western end is officially somewhere around the Sanitaria Springs interchange (Exit 4). As I recall, west of there the reference markers all reference SR 7 until the bridge over the Chenango River.

Don't confuse official end with reference markers - as I said, the markers are maintained even when the route number changes. It's all officially I-88, but the part west of Exit 4 was built originally as NY 7. (The part from 4-2 was upgraded on the spot, actually.)

Then it's odd that the I-88 markers start at 1000 near the Sanitaria Springs interchange, because it shows that as the western most point of the Interstate.  They should have picked up at 1080 (or whatever it actually is), taking into account the portion of NY 7 west of that point.

[empirestate]

Then it's odd that the I-88 markers start at 1000 near the Sanitaria Springs interchange, because it shows that as the western most point of the Interstate.  They should have picked up at 1080 (or whatever it actually is), taking into account the portion of NY 7 west of that point.

Probably was the west end of the route as the time, insofar as the freeway west of there was NY 7, all the way west and south into Binghamton. The I-88 connector across the Chenango to I-81 didn't come around until later.

[Michael]

I guess this answers my question of why NY 5 reference markers along the Arterial in Auburn imply a control segment that's an extra 10 miles long (ex. 2112 instead of 2012).  I was actually going to e-mail NYSDOT about it, but never got around to it.

I do see a problem with this method though.  If there's a realignment at a point 10 miles earlier in a control segment, the new reference markers would conflict with the ones 10 miles earlier.  For example, if there's a realignment at mile 1.2, the new reference markers would conflict with markers at mile 11.2.

Why is there a need to retain old reference marker data, anyway?  I could understand preventing numbering conflicts if the route data was in multiple paper files and something got lost or overlooked, but everything is digital now.

As an aside, do NY routes outrank US routes for reference marker purposes?  Signage on the US 20/NY 5 duplex is ordered as "US 20/NY 5" (with one exception that I'm aware of), but reference markers use NY 5 as the route number.

[empirestate]

I guess this answers my question of why NY 5 reference markers along the Arterial in Auburn imply a control segment that's an extra 10 miles long (ex. 2112 instead of 2012).  I was actually going to e-mail NYSDOT about it, but never got around to it.

I do see a problem with this method though.  If there's a realignment at a point 10 miles earlier in a control segment, the new reference markers would conflict with the ones 10 miles earlier.  For example, if there's a realignment at mile 1.2, the new reference markers would conflict with markers at mile 11.2.

There's a plan for that: http://empirestateroads.com/rm/5.html

Why is there a need to retain old reference marker data, anyway?  I could understand preventing numbering conflicts if the route data was in multiple paper files and something got lost or overlooked, but everything is digital now.

It's an old system, and when it was first implemented it would have been easier to keep old marker legends than to continually update paper inventories. Had it been implemented in today's digital age, certainly that wouldn't be an issue.

(Of course, that doesn't stop PENNDOT from keeping its marker legends updated with current route numbers...)

As an aside, do NY routes outrank US routes for reference marker purposes?  Signage on the US 20/NY 5 duplex is ordered as "US 20/NY 5" (with one exception that I'm aware of), but reference markers use NY 5 as the route number.

I think it has more to do with the "through" route getting priority. I also would remind you that the system is very loosely applied...

[Bumppoman]

Just a quick note on I-88 near Binghamton.  There are "88I" markers from I-81, past exit 1 where Route 7 joins eastbound, to the end of the Exit 2 gore at Route 12A.  This is because the section of the Route 7 expressway was rebuilt between these two points, sandwiched between and below the original alignment, when it became Interstate 88.  From beyond Exit 2, through Exit 3 and to a point between Exit 3 and Exit 4 where an aerial shot makes it appear the Route 7 expressway turned back to its old alignment, there are "7" markers.  After this point, the "88I" markers are consistent through to the Thruway.

[Alps]

I guess this answers my question of why NY 5 reference markers along the Arterial in Auburn imply a control segment that's an extra 10 miles long (ex. 2112 instead of 2012).  I was actually going to e-mail NYSDOT about it, but never got around to it.

I do see a problem with this method though.  If there's a realignment at a point 10 miles earlier in a control segment, the new reference markers would conflict with the ones 10 miles earlier.  For example, if there's a realignment at mile 1.2, the new reference markers would conflict with markers at mile 11.2.

That would only actually be an issue if you were still in the same town after an additional ten miles. As long as the second line changes, you still have a unique identifier.

[empirestate]

I guess this answers my question of why NY 5 reference markers along the Arterial in Auburn imply a control segment that's an extra 10 miles long (ex. 2112 instead of 2012).  I was actually going to e-mail NYSDOT about it, but never got around to it.

I do see a problem with this method though.  If there's a realignment at a point 10 miles earlier in a control segment, the new reference markers would conflict with the ones 10 miles earlier.  For example, if there's a realignment at mile 1.2, the new reference markers would conflict with markers at mile 11.2.

That would only actually be an issue if you were still in the same town after an additional ten miles. As long as the second line changes, you still have a unique identifier.

Same county, you mean...the markers don't get as detailed as town boundaries. But when 10 miles isn't enough wiggle room, the procedure is to increment the control segment (first digit of bottom line), normally only done when crossing city lines. (For some reason, increasing the first sequencing digit by anything other than 1 isn't listed as an option.)

[vdeane]

Cities almost always get separate control segments though, even on interstates.