News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

New York State Thruway

Started by Zeffy, September 22, 2014, 12:00:32 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

cl94

Quote from: route17fan on September 27, 2014, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: cl94 on September 25, 2014, 07:27:12 PM
  • Monotube cantilever gantry for the Exit 50 overhead. Didn't know New York was adopting these things. I certainly haven't seen one here.

I'm pretty sure this will be a first.

I am a traditionalist and have always liked the triangular gantries (I am 44 and began my roadgeek experience on NY 17 watching the Southern Tier Expressway get built). Admittedly, the "beefy" new box gantries have been taking some getting used to - but a monotube - in NY?? Wow.

Yeah. The plans have connection details and everything. I was pretty shocked to scroll down and see it and the several pages dedicated to its design.

I remember being pretty upset when I saw my first new-style truss gantry. It was on the SB approach to Exit 17 on I-87 in Saratoga County. Replaced a triangular one. Those are slowly disappearing from everywhere. The Buffalo area only has a few left, mostly on the Thruway and NY 198. A couple just got new signs, but I expect at least one to come down during another bridge replacement in West Seneca. NY 198's will likely disappear when it gets reconstructed in a few years.
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)


route17fan

I know of the gantry of which you speak.  :)
John Krakoff - Cleveland, Ohio

roadman65

Good news if you miss the triangular trusses.  Come down to Florida where those are now the norm here along with single post supports as the old truss style gantry supports are a thing of the past.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Pete from Boston

#28
Quote from: vdeane on September 25, 2014, 01:58:56 PM
I had a scary thought today about the lack of a plan to pay for the Tappan Zee Bridge (especially since Cuomo ruled out using the drug bust money for it).  A couple years ago, he proposed merging NYSDOT and NYSTA.  This was rejected due to the various legal hurdles that a merger would face.  But Cuomo's a patient man, and he always gets what he wants in the end.  What if he's trying to bankrupt NYSTA so that the political support for a merger would materialize?  At that point NYSTA and NYSDOT will already share the same building anyways... all that would need to be done is to re-structure the bureaucracy and eliminate redundant jobs.

Eliminating redundant jobs is the opposite of scary.

Edit:  Later post clarifies your POV.  However, you're a taxpayer too, and the state has fiduciary responsibility to maximize what it does with its taxpayers'–shareholders'–money.  Knowingly maintaining redundant jobs is not responsible government.

xcellntbuy

Quote from: route17fan on September 27, 2014, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: cl94 on September 25, 2014, 07:27:12 PM
  • Monotube cantilever gantry for the Exit 50 overhead. Didn't know New York was adopting these things. I certainly haven't seen one here.

I'm pretty sure this will be a first.

I am a traditionalist and have always liked the triangular gantries (I am 44 and began my roadgeek experience on NY 17 watching the Southern Tier Expressway get built). Admittedly, the "beefy" new box gantries have been taking some getting used to - but a monotube - in NY?? Wow.
As a former New Yorker as well, triangular gantries were the universal standard for a very long time.  The new substantially larger "beefy" gantries (I like that phrase) saw some of their first use in Albany when the Interstate 87/90 interchanges with the Thruway, Northway, Western Avenue, Crossgates Mall, Fuller Road, Interstate 90/Northside Arterial were dramatically reconstructed in 1989.  The electric BGS southbound on the Northway for Exit 1W were so heavy (and so expensive at $1 million each) the first "beefy" gantries were designed for the installation.

If you want to see "super beefy," the new gantries on the Florida's Turnpike and Interstate 595 beat out the ones in New York.

I have now moved to middle Georgia and see all these thin-looking traffic light mast arms (replacing wire spans) and minimal overhead gantries and have to readjust my thinking.  Georgia's butterfly gantries are much more substantial.

cl94

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 27, 2014, 01:01:30 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 25, 2014, 01:58:56 PM
I had a scary thought today about the lack of a plan to pay for the Tappan Zee Bridge (especially since Cuomo ruled out using the drug bust money for it).  A couple years ago, he proposed merging NYSDOT and NYSTA.  This was rejected due to the various legal hurdles that a merger would face.  But Cuomo's a patient man, and he always gets what he wants in the end.  What if he's trying to bankrupt NYSTA so that the political support for a merger would materialize?  At that point NYSTA and NYSDOT will already share the same building anyways... all that would need to be done is to re-structure the bureaucracy and eliminate redundant jobs.

Eliminating redundant jobs is the opposite of scary.

Edit:  Later post clarifies your POV.  However, you're a taxpayer too, and the state has fiduciary responsibility to maximize what it does with its taxpayers'–shareholders'–money.  Knowingly maintaining redundant jobs is not responsible government.

Agree. As a taxpayer, I think that the redundant agencies in this state need to be merged. Actually, I think every highway transportation "authority" in the state needs to be merged into NYSDOT: NYSTA, NYSBA, TBTA (MTA Bridges and Tunnels), and the transportation portions of NYSDEC and various park authorities. You can should even throw the Port Authority in there by splitting it between NJDOT and NYSDOT to get rid of all the crap it does. Know how much money that would save? Just have to time stuff to coincide with retirements. Not that I think it'll ever happen, but it would certainly help put the state in the black. Will jobs be affected? Somewhat, but not as many low-levels as you would think, because the same level of maintenance has to be provided. What would be affected are the redundant chair positions, which would be eliminated as people retire.

Quote from: xcellntbuy on September 27, 2014, 01:29:46 PM
As a former New Yorker as well, triangular gantries were the universal standard for a very long time.  The new substantially larger "beefy" gantries (I like that phrase) saw some of their first use in Albany when the Interstate 87/90 interchanges with the Thruway, Northway, Western Avenue, Crossgates Mall, Fuller Road, Interstate 90/Northside Arterial were dramatically reconstructed in 1989.  The electric BGS southbound on the Northway for Exit 1W were so heavy (and so expensive at $1 million each) the first "beefy" gantries were designed for the installation.
[/quote]

I always loved that assembly. But $1 MILLION? Why didn't they just install lights like they did on the assembly at the north/east end of the concurrency? That was the first "beefy" assembly I saw that wasn't for a VMS. Certainly is a strange case, because everything else in the area is/was triangular (and button copy) and I figured that one was only because of the weight of the backlit signs. That's why I was surprised when I saw one for two standard BGSes.
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)

xcellntbuy

Yes, $1 million, and that was in 1989.  Can you imagine what a similar sign would cost now, 25 years later?

Exit 1W on the Northway, southbound is known for its rollovers of big trucks.  The "usual suspects" were pinned on Quebec truck drivers.

The signs were put in place to keep drivers alert to the sharp turns leading to the Thruway's massive Exit 24 toll barrier.  The exit ramp has always been a tight one.  Before the massive reconstruction of all the exit ramps and highways, converting the ramps to flyovers and flyunders, the cloverleaf style Exit 1W had two tight 90-degree curves, hence the rollover issue.

cl94

Quote from: xcellntbuy on September 27, 2014, 07:43:49 PM
Yes, $1 million, and that was in 1989.  Can you imagine what a similar sign would cost now, 25 years later?

Exit 1W on the Northway, southbound is known for its rollovers of big trucks.  The "usual suspects" were pinned on Quebec truck drivers.

The signs were put in place to keep drivers alert to the sharp turns leading to the Thruway's massive Exit 24 toll barrier.  The exit ramp has always been a tight one.  Before the massive reconstruction of all the exit ramps and highways, converting the ramps to flyovers and flyunders, the cloverleaf style Exit 1W had two tight 90-degree curves, hence the rollover issue.

During the 8 years I lived near Albany, there were never fewer than 2 rollovers per month on that ramp. They have LED-highlighted signs and people still take that curve too fast. Because of the toll booth location, it can't even be fixed without putting the ramp through a wildlife preserve or realigning the rest of the interchange to get rid of the loop ramp. Also prone to backups, because the through movement (I-87 south / I-90 west) must squeeze into one lane and exit itself. That right there is justification to restripe for an option lane (which they should have had all along) or build the E-ZPass ramp they've been talking about since electronic tolling was first introduced.
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)

vdeane

Quote from: cl94 on September 27, 2014, 01:40:07 PM
Agree. As a taxpayer, I think that the redundant agencies in this state need to be merged. Actually, I think every highway transportation "authority" in the state needs to be merged into NYSDOT: NYSTA, NYSBA, TBTA (MTA Bridges and Tunnels), and the transportation portions of NYSDEC and various park authorities. You can should even throw the Port Authority in there by splitting it between NJDOT and NYSDOT to get rid of all the crap it does. Know how much money that would save? Just have to time stuff to coincide with retirements. Not that I think it'll ever happen, but it would certainly help put the state in the black. Will jobs be affected? Somewhat, but not as many low-levels as you would think, because the same level of maintenance has to be provided. What would be affected are the redundant chair positions, which would be eliminated as people retire.
Past consolidation efforts have resulted in most of the staff reductions coming from line staff, not management.  The example that comes to mind is Region 1's move in with Main Office that happened a few years ago.  Region 1 now has a smaller staff than any other (for example, planning shrunk for 7 to 3, and the HR and IT staff were essentially eliminated).  HR/IT is getting consolidated across the state, and with each increment towards that end, the service gets worse and worse.

There are quite a few retirements coming up, given the state's age distribution, and it's been rumored that the move in with the Thruway is deliberately designed to get some people to retire (the location is much worse than where we are now; there are no services within walking distance, which is already annoying people who like to go shopping, go to the bank, or get takeout on their lunch break; also, the location means that most people will have a significantly longer commute and suddenly find themselves paying Thruway tolls just to get to work).

I highly doubt the MTA bridges would be rolled into NYSDOT.  Then they wouldn't be able to use the tolls to subsidize transit any more.

The state currently is in the black and has been since 2011/2012.  And, honestly, state taxes aren't that bad compared to federal taxes.  Of course, I'm the oddball because I honestly don't care about money beyond the amount that society forces me to, and I don't view tax money as "my" money after it's been paid.

Quote from: cl94 on September 27, 2014, 07:55:01 PM
During the 8 years I lived near Albany, there were never fewer than 2 rollovers per month on that ramp. They have LED-highlighted signs and people still take that curve too fast. Because of the toll booth location, it can't even be fixed without putting the ramp through a wildlife preserve or realigning the rest of the interchange to get rid of the loop ramp. Also prone to backups, because the through movement (I-87 south / I-90 west) must squeeze into one lane and exit itself. That right there is justification to restripe for an option lane (which they should have had all along) or build the E-ZPass ramp they've been talking about since electronic tolling was first introduced.
It would help if the cars would realize that the advisory speeds are for the trucks and that they don't have to slam on their brakes if they're not behind one.  It would also help if people would pay attention to the "Thruway traffic keep right" sign instead of acting surprised and cutting over at the last second.

I don't understand the aversion to option lanes at that junction.  They would help out a lot.

I'm not expecting those E-ZPass ramps to arrive any time soon either.  The best time to do it would have been during the recent widening.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cl94

Quote from: vdeane on September 27, 2014, 09:03:08 PM
I don't understand the aversion to option lanes at that junction.  They would help out a lot.

I don't know why most of NYSDOT is opposed to them in general. Region 4 probably takes the cake Upstate, R1 has one at I-87 Exit 2 and one more at I-787's southern end, 5 has 5 that I can think of, two of which are at the edge of NYSTA maintenance and two more on the Robert Moses State Parkway, Utica, Syracuse, and Binghamton each have a couple, and a couple more on I-86 in Region 6. Much more common downstate, with the City, the Island, and Westchester each having several.

I remember moving to Ohio and seeing that every semi-major interchange has an option lane in addition to an exit-only lane. This is also the standard in suburban Ontario, notably on the QEW near Toronto. Typical New York practice is to add a second dedicated lane or add the lane after the ramp departs.

Speaking of I-87, Exits 6, 7, and 9 could benefit from option lanes. Both could do it with minor restriping.
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)

ARMOURERERIC

How is the upstate Thruway handling 4 lanes in general.  Besides the TZ bridge, are there even any thoughts on the table about a major overhaul of the mainline ALA the PA Pike?

cl94

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on September 27, 2014, 09:52:33 PM
How is the upstate Thruway handling 4 lanes in general.  Besides the TZ bridge, are there even any thoughts on the table about a major overhaul of the mainline ALA the PA Pike?

Oh, yes there are. The entire thing was built with an eventual expansion to 6 lanes in mind, so all bridges are wide enough for an extra lane. South of Albany and between Utica and Buffalo could certainly use 6 lanes. The current 4 lanes is a bit tight in those areas. I don't have access to data, but probably LOS D most of the day. Not needed in the Mohawk Valley or west of Exit 57- not enough traffic and the parallel routes are of relatively high quality.

There's a growing push for a widening south of Albany and between I-490 and Buffalo because of the high traffic in those areas.
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)

froggie

#37
QuoteThe entire thing was built with an eventual expansion to 6 lanes in mind, so all bridges are wide enough for an extra lane.

While it helps with eventual expansion, I thought NYSTA did this primarily so they could maintain 4 traffic lanes on one side when/if they had to do major bridge maintenance/rehab/replacement could be done on the other side.  This was certainly the case with several bridge projects west of Syracuse about 10 years ago.

QuoteI don't have access to data, but probably LOS D most of the day.

Still acceptable to FHWA.  What little recurring congestion I've run into on the Thruway has all been at or south of Kingston, with most of that north of I-287 due to higher weekend traffic volumes on summer or holiday weekends.

Don't get me wrong, another lane would be a nice-to-have, but I don't really see it needed north of Rockland County.

Zeffy

QuoteI don't have access to data, but probably LOS D most of the day.

Excuse my stupidity here, but what exactly is LOS [D]? The only abbreviation for LOS is Line of Sight which I don't think makes sense in this context...

Also, has the Thruway ever considered switching to mile-based exits?
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

froggie

LOS = Level of Service.  Quantified, calculated, and methodology via the Highway Capacity Manual.

The calculations give a letter grade (A thru F, just like in school except that "E" is included) for LOS, which for freeway-grade facilities is based on the vehicle density per lane mile.  "F", of course, is "failing" and is equated with oversaturated, below-speed limit flow.  "D" equates to near-saturated, but still flowing at or near the speed limit.  "E" is right on the cusp, where flow is at saturation and any small incident or event (crash, police activity, adding a few more cars to the mix) would trigger a slowdown.

machias

Quote from: Zeffy on September 27, 2014, 10:50:00 PM


Also, has the Thruway ever considered switching to mile-based exits?

While New York State is eventually going to switch to mile-based exits, I believe that the Thruway Authority will be the very last holdout on the sequential numbering. Not only would the interchanges need to be renumbered, but all of the mileposts would have to be changed as well. They believe there will be too much driver confusion with instances where Batavia is Exit 106 (based on I-90 mileposts) and Saugerties is Exit 110 (based on I-87 mileposts).

About 10 years ago or so they were tossing around the idea of renumbering the interchanges from west to east and then down I-87 so that I-87 would be "backwards" instead of I-90 but I don't know if that would still be the plan.

Roadrunner75

Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 28, 2014, 10:14:07 AM
While New York State is eventually going to switch to mile-based exits, I believe that the Thruway Authority will be the very last holdout on the sequential numbering. Not only would the interchanges need to be renumbered, but all of the mileposts would have to be changed as well. They believe there will be too much driver confusion with instances where Batavia is Exit 106 (based on I-90 mileposts) and Saugerties is Exit 110 (based on I-87 mileposts).
When the PA Turnpike switched over to mileage based exits, they had to incorporate both the mainline (76/276) as well as the Northeast Extension (476) into that system.  The NE extension exit numbering (which continues the I-476 mileage) now overlaps the mileage of the western end of the mainline numbering (since the NE extension exits don't have a qualifier like NE56 instead of 56).  Before the renumbering, the mainline had exits 1-29 and the extension had 31-38, to avoid the overlap.  Of course there aren't any duplicate numbered exits, but there would in theory be potential for this to happen with a new interchange and they would have to shift the new number accordingly to avoid this.

Drivers seem to have figured this out, so I assume the Thruway could get away with something similar, based on the mileage of the individual interstates.  I think an exit qualifier might be better for each leg but that's probably not gonna happen...



route17fan

Yeah, mileage based for the Thruway I agree is inevitable. For what it's worth, I've enjoyed having I-87 having three Exit 1's.  :D
John Krakoff - Cleveland, Ohio

roadman65

Quote from: Roadrunner75 on September 28, 2014, 11:50:03 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 28, 2014, 10:14:07 AM
While New York State is eventually going to switch to mile-based exits, I believe that the Thruway Authority will be the very last holdout on the sequential numbering. Not only would the interchanges need to be renumbered, but all of the mileposts would have to be changed as well. They believe there will be too much driver confusion with instances where Batavia is Exit 106 (based on I-90 mileposts) and Saugerties is Exit 110 (based on I-87 mileposts).
When the PA Turnpike switched over to mileage based exits, they had to incorporate both the mainline (76/276) as well as the Northeast Extension (476) into that system.  The NE extension exit numbering (which continues the I-476 mileage) now overlaps the mileage of the western end of the mainline numbering (since the NE extension exits don't have a qualifier like NE56 instead of 56).  Before the renumbering, the mainline had exits 1-29 and the extension had 31-38, to avoid the overlap.  Of course there aren't any duplicate numbered exits, but there would in theory be potential for this to happen with a new interchange and they would have to shift the new number accordingly to avoid this.

Drivers seem to have figured this out, so I assume the Thruway could get away with something similar, based on the mileage of the individual interstates.  I think an exit qualifier might be better for each leg but that's probably not gonna happen...



Look at the KTA in Kansas.  For I-70 it creates an overlap as the numbers where I-70 join the Turnpike has the same set of numbers further west in Kansas on I-70.  No problems that I know of there.

Do not forget about I-87 having two of its three exit numbers with the number "1" real close to each other for centuries and no one ever got confused. 

Having duplicate and overlapping numbers on the I-87 would not be an issue I would think.  I just think that I-87 north of I-90 should continue with the number it left off on the Thruway and that maybe the exit numbers of the Major Deegan should be continued on the Thruway if they choose to keep the current Thruway mile markers.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

machias

Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2014, 01:17:53 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on September 28, 2014, 11:50:03 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 28, 2014, 10:14:07 AM
While New York State is eventually going to switch to mile-based exits, I believe that the Thruway Authority will be the very last holdout on the sequential numbering. Not only would the interchanges need to be renumbered, but all of the mileposts would have to be changed as well. They believe there will be too much driver confusion with instances where Batavia is Exit 106 (based on I-90 mileposts) and Saugerties is Exit 110 (based on I-87 mileposts).
When the PA Turnpike switched over to mileage based exits, they had to incorporate both the mainline (76/276) as well as the Northeast Extension (476) into that system.  The NE extension exit numbering (which continues the I-476 mileage) now overlaps the mileage of the western end of the mainline numbering (since the NE extension exits don't have a qualifier like NE56 instead of 56).  Before the renumbering, the mainline had exits 1-29 and the extension had 31-38, to avoid the overlap.  Of course there aren't any duplicate numbered exits, but there would in theory be potential for this to happen with a new interchange and they would have to shift the new number accordingly to avoid this.

Drivers seem to have figured this out, so I assume the Thruway could get away with something similar, based on the mileage of the individual interstates.  I think an exit qualifier might be better for each leg but that's probably not gonna happen...



Look at the KTA in Kansas.  For I-70 it creates an overlap as the numbers where I-70 join the Turnpike has the same set of numbers further west in Kansas on I-70.  No problems that I know of there.

Do not forget about I-87 having two of its three exit numbers with the number "1" real close to each other for centuries and no one ever got confused. 

Having duplicate and overlapping numbers on the I-87 would not be an issue I would think.  I just think that I-87 north of I-90 should continue with the number it left off on the Thruway and that maybe the exit numbers of the Major Deegan should be continued on the Thruway if they choose to keep the current Thruway mile markers.

I had a conversation with NYSDOT about a year ago about the conversion and their plan is to continue the mileposts and distance based exit numbers from I-87 on the Northway. The issue is that their plan shows the numbers based on mile zero being the beginning of the Thruway and not inclusive of the Major Deegan. When I pointed this out, I think they made the determination to recalculate the mileposts and exit numbers, though there is no formal plan in place to change the numbers at this time. I think it's going to be fairly soon (within the next decade) though.

roadman65

However if they do decide to count the whole entire Northway as an individual route with its own mile based numbers, it cannot be worse than Illinois having I-70 east of its split with I-55 using I-270's numbers from where it ends.

Then you have I-19 which has the kilometers based system which is only useful to the Mexican's who come across the border, but nonetheless different system even though using the same principal.

Oh, yeah the I-17 thing not starting with zero cause of a technicality of the way Arizona posts mileage is not traditional we cannot forget.

Hopefully the LIE will become more better now that the Mid Manhattan Expressway is totally dead, they can have all of its numbers starting with zero at the Queens- Midtown Tunnel as one good thing out of this.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

cl94

Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 28, 2014, 03:27:43 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2014, 01:17:53 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on September 28, 2014, 11:50:03 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 28, 2014, 10:14:07 AM
While New York State is eventually going to switch to mile-based exits, I believe that the Thruway Authority will be the very last holdout on the sequential numbering. Not only would the interchanges need to be renumbered, but all of the mileposts would have to be changed as well. They believe there will be too much driver confusion with instances where Batavia is Exit 106 (based on I-90 mileposts) and Saugerties is Exit 110 (based on I-87 mileposts).
When the PA Turnpike switched over to mileage based exits, they had to incorporate both the mainline (76/276) as well as the Northeast Extension (476) into that system.  The NE extension exit numbering (which continues the I-476 mileage) now overlaps the mileage of the western end of the mainline numbering (since the NE extension exits don't have a qualifier like NE56 instead of 56).  Before the renumbering, the mainline had exits 1-29 and the extension had 31-38, to avoid the overlap.  Of course there aren't any duplicate numbered exits, but there would in theory be potential for this to happen with a new interchange and they would have to shift the new number accordingly to avoid this.

Drivers seem to have figured this out, so I assume the Thruway could get away with something similar, based on the mileage of the individual interstates.  I think an exit qualifier might be better for each leg but that's probably not gonna happen...



Look at the KTA in Kansas.  For I-70 it creates an overlap as the numbers where I-70 join the Turnpike has the same set of numbers further west in Kansas on I-70.  No problems that I know of there.

Do not forget about I-87 having two of its three exit numbers with the number "1" real close to each other for centuries and no one ever got confused. 

Having duplicate and overlapping numbers on the I-87 would not be an issue I would think.  I just think that I-87 north of I-90 should continue with the number it left off on the Thruway and that maybe the exit numbers of the Major Deegan should be continued on the Thruway if they choose to keep the current Thruway mile markers.

I had a conversation with NYSDOT about a year ago about the conversion and their plan is to continue the mileposts and distance based exit numbers from I-87 on the Northway. The issue is that their plan shows the numbers based on mile zero being the beginning of the Thruway and not inclusive of the Major Deegan. When I pointed this out, I think they made the determination to recalculate the mileposts and exit numbers, though there is no formal plan in place to change the numbers at this time. I think it's going to be fairly soon (within the next decade) though.

As it should be. A lot of the traffic on the Thruway continuing past NY 17 is bound for the Northway, especially on weekends and holidays. Many of these people aren't necessarily repeat travelers going to the Adirondacks or western Vermont. I know several people who got confused when looking for exits 16 or above. You pass your exit number, but your actual exit is well over a hundred miles away. The Exit 23s, for example, are less than 70 miles apart along I-87, separated by about 70 minutes of projected travel time. You shouldn't be passing the same number twice in that distance if you're two counties apart in the same state.
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)

roadman65

How many New Yorkers actually call I-87 by its number while aligned on The Thruway?  To many when they here Exit 23 for I-87 will think of the Northway, which is mostly referred to as I-87 where the Thruway portion is not.  People who travel up to the Adirondacks and Montreal will not confuse the toll road's exits as I-87's own.

As far as many are concerned, I-87 begins in Albany and heads north.  The Thruway and the Deegan are simply just "The Thruway" and "The Major Deegan."
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

amroad17

I have always believed that the Thruway is its own entity and should just use the current milemarkers for the future conversion to mile-based exits.  IMHO, there really is no need to add the extra expense of changing milemarkers when the only signs that would need to be changed would be the exit tabs, gore signs, and overlays on the blue info signs.  Of course, there would be the expense of new toll tickets with the new numbers--which would happen in my scenario or JP's (upstatenyroads) scenario.

The Berkshire section would have its own numbers (B6, B15, and B23, I believe) and the Niagara section (I-190) would just use its current milemarkers.

As far as the Northway I-87 section is concerned, I am non-committal with either a continuance of the Thruway numbers (148-333) or using the current milemarkers to use for the mile-based exits.  I would not be confused with dealing with three exit 1's along I-87 as I would realize that I-87 is a part of three separate freeways/tollway.

The PA Turnpike was mentioned a few posts back.  I believe the Lehigh Valley/Allentown interchange had to be numbered 56 (even though it is at mile 57) because the Monroeville interchange is Exit 57 and the PA Tpk probably did not want duplicate numbers listed on their toll tickets.
I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

Jim

If the best point against renumbering to have exit numbers and mile markers that follow the the route numbers (as it done nearly everywhere else) is that it is more confusing to motorists than having the current 3 separate numbering schemes for each of I-87 and I-90, then I see this as a very one-sided argument.  Anyone who's been at the I-87/I-90 interchange in Albany during holidays and other times when the traffic isn't just the regulars who know the roads well has probably seen the confusion that results from the current scheme.

I'd go a step further and argue that an exit renumbering is the right opportunity to do some renumberings in NYC, like having I-87 replace the I-278 designation from the Triboro/JFK to its junction with I-95 or even US 1/9 in NJ.  But that's probably a topic for another thread.
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, skiing, weather, sports)



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.