New York

[PHLBOS]

I do not see now why they just don't convert the old trumpet T or trumpet to trumpets as diamonds or even SPUI set ups as now without the tickets the present interchanges serve no purpose.

Guess on my part, but the reasoning as towards why all the interchanges aren't converted is money.  Only the ones where there's either high traffic volumes and/or the removal of the booths create more dangerous weaving problems (due to vehicles no longer stopping) will undergo a conversion.

Personally, plus seeing how the AET conversion worked out along the Mass Pike (I-90) thus far; I would prefer placing the AET gantries along the NYS Thruway mainline between interchanges rather than the interchanges themselves.  This option eliminates the expense of relocating ramp AETs or erecting additional ones should an interchange be reconfigured.

[Michael]

I came across this video while looking for Syracuse road videos on YouTube, and I thought it was a good overview of reference markers:

[Buffaboy]

Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.

[Rothman]

Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.

Heh.  I think I have done all of those except I-87 in a day.

[Buffaboy]

Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.

Heh.  I think I have done all of those except I-87 in a day.

It's because the person I was driving with was insistent on shunpiking the Thruway from Saratoga to Buffalo, so we did just that. But going into Saratoga we took the Thruway.

[Rothman]

Thruway doesn't go to Saratoga.

[froggie]

^ Kinda need the Thruway to avoid slogging through Schenectady...😌

[vdeane]

Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.

No I-81?

[roadman65]

I do not see now why they just don't convert the old trumpet T or trumpet to trumpets as diamonds or even SPUI set ups as now without the tickets the present interchanges serve no purpose.

Guess on my part, but the reasoning as towards why all the interchanges aren't converted is money.  Only the ones where there's either high traffic volumes and/or the removal of the booths create more dangerous weaving problems (due to vehicles no longer stopping) will undergo a conversion.

Personally, plus seeing how the AET conversion worked out along the Mass Pike (I-90) thus far; I would prefer placing the AET gantries along the NYS Thruway mainline between interchanges rather than the interchanges themselves.  This option eliminates the expense of relocating ramp AETs or erecting additional ones should an interchange be reconfigured.

It would make sense to put mainline gantries between each interchange charging the distance between them.

The NE Extension in PA does that with the cash tolls near Scranton as they have two barriers south of Clarks Summit and Keyser Avenue where no ramp tolls are needed (though one may argue that Clarks Summit is a ramp as it once was the former Exit 39 Ramp plaza), but travel south from the northern terminus, exit at Keyser, and reenter again and the toll is the same charged in the same places.

[kalvado]

It would make sense to put mainline gantries between each interchange charging the distance between them.

I know that is done in other cases, and things would be complicated for Thruway. A stupid historical-political reason.
There is a lot of commuter traffic on Thruway in urban areas - Albany, Syracuse etc. Thruway deals with that by selling commuter plans with first XX (40?) miles included in a fee, which makes commuting on toll road more manageable cost-wise.
Switching from end-to-end tolling to mainline gantry tolling will require a system of "logic tickets", which may be error prone. Changing to  commuter plan program are dangerous since may lead to Buffalo scenario where residents got portion of road through the city toll free. Masspike effectively did make portions near cities toll free with switch to gantry tolling, but I am not sure Thruway is willing to give up on any revenue.

[Buffaboy]

Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.

No I-81?

Actually yes, technically I was on I-81 too. That makes 6.

[cl94]

Personally, plus seeing how the AET conversion worked out along the Mass Pike (I-90) thus far; I would prefer placing the AET gantries along the NYS Thruway mainline between interchanges rather than the interchanges themselves.  This option eliminates the expense of relocating ramp AETs or erecting additional ones should an interchange be reconfigured.

That very well may be a future endeavor. Right now, NYSTA just wants to get AET up and running, and that's easiest if they just put equipment in the existing booths. I want to say that 23-25A, inclusive, will be untolled with mainline gantries on either side of the segment. For exits east of Herkimer, the only ones with booths being removed as part of the initial conversion are 17, 23, 24, 25, and 25A. All of these are major freeway-freeway interchanges.

Regarding the issue of reconfiguration, several interchanges lack the ROW for a good reconfiguration. At I-84, for example, the NE and SW quadrants are developed. Many of the trumpets are constrained. I do expect discussion of a reconfiguration at Exit 24 to happen almost immediately, though.

[roadman65]

How will they work the free ride in if they add them between interchanges in the Schnectady area?

Remember the NYSTA does not charge to travel from I-88 to I-87, at least with the ramp toll gantries it can be calculated as through motorists do pay tolls between 25A and 24.  Lets say  you go from I-81 at Syracuse to I-87 in Albany you do have to pay for the 25A to 24 segment that those driving between those two exits are waived.

So the in between gantries won't work for that application.

[Jim]

When I've driven the Mass Pike since the conversion, my NYSTA E-ZPass statement has one entry per trip, not per gantry.  Consolidating trips is not a hard problem, you just see the series of entries in sequence at appropriate times and merge them. So there's no reason NYSTA couldn't do the same and have free vs. not free trips between 24 and 25A just as now.  If you only traveled that segment, no charge.  If you traveled beyond, you pay.

Bottom line, they know where you got on and off by which gantries you passed through.

[kalvado]

When I've driven the Mass Pike since the conversion, my NYSTA E-ZPass statement has one entry per trip, not per gantry.  Consolidating trips is not a hard problem, you just see the series of entries in sequence at appropriate times and merge them. So there's no reason NYSTA couldn't do the same and have free vs. not free trips between 24 and 25A just as now.  If you only traveled that segment, no charge.  If you traveled beyond, you pay.

Bottom line, they know where you got on and off by which gantries you passed through.

That is if everything goes perfectly. Once one gantry goes offline for whatever reason, consolidation may start getting funny. Also stop on travel plasa vs exit and re-entry may mean something, e.g. for I-87/88 transfer as mentioned above.

This are certainly very resolvable issues in general , but this is NYS...

[Jim]

When I've driven the Mass Pike since the conversion, my NYSTA E-ZPass statement has one entry per trip, not per gantry.  Consolidating trips is not a hard problem, you just see the series of entries in sequence at appropriate times and merge them. So there's no reason NYSTA couldn't do the same and have free vs. not free trips between 24 and 25A just as now.  If you only traveled that segment, no charge.  If you traveled beyond, you pay.

Bottom line, they know where you got on and off by which gantries you passed through.

That is if everything goes perfectly. Once one gantry goes offline for whatever reason, consolidation may start getting funny. Also stop on travel plasa vs exit and re-entry may mean something, e.g. for I-87/88 transfer as mentioned above.

This are certainly very resolvable issues in general , but this is NYS...

Right - the information you lose is whether someone exited and re-entered.  In the context of the current commuter plan, this matters.  If I exit and get back on, the 30-mile trip resets and I am traveling "free" for a while again.  And yes, NYS does have a way of not getting things right..

On pretty much every Mass Pike ride, I stop at Exit 5 for local minimum gas prices and for Chick-fil-A.  Even with the typical 15-45 minutes in Chicopee, my charge is consolidated as if it was all a single trip with no exit.

[DrSmith]

The Mass Pike simply doesn't have gantries where there is no toll charged between exits 4-7 and 10-10A-11 where the goal is to encourage local trips on the Pike in the Springfield and Worcester areas.  In Newton, a gantry was added between Route 16 and Newton Corner to split the previous barrier system into a "ticket" system to reduce previous free rides between the two exits. Furthermore, on my ez-pass, the tolls are split between those inside/outside of Route 128 to reflect the set-up of the Mass Pike intricacies.

All the logic is worked out fine. For local commuter plans, there can be logic that captures time between gantries that accounts for reasonable stops and also local speed/travel conditions. If there is some distance based accounting into how far the discount plans are done, then no charge gantries may be required, albeit it at additional cost. Alteration to the commuter plans may be a better way to achieve the same goals.

[RobbieL2415]

You could use distance-based tolling on the Mainline and then exit-based tolling on the Berkshire extension. The New England Thruway really just needs one gantry where the current plaza is.

[Buffaboy]

What is this so-called "special event?"

[D-Dey65]

https://www.truckersnews.com/i-84-exit-numbers-changing-in-new-york/
It looks like I-84 is beating I-81 out as they are getting the new numbers as we speak.  Someone said Rand McNally got them in the next edition already.

Yeah, we've known about this for a while. Plans were posted about a year ago and it was known internally well before that. I-84 was the first large-scale conversion because it's entirely within a single region.

If the New York Thruway ever gets mileage-based exits, no matter which direction the exits increase, the exit sequence along the NYT and the Major Deegan Expressway should be continuous. If the exit sequence starts at the Pennsylvania border, the MDE's exits should continue the numbering of the NYT, and/or vice versa.

Any new exit numbers will likely be distinct for I-87 and I-90. FHWA does NOT like the idea of one route's numbers decreasing as one heads north/east. They have also made it clear that they want I-87 and I-90 to each have one set of numbers in the state instead of three.

This is part of the reason I'm not the biggest fan of mileage based exit numbers in New York. It erodes the distinction of the Thruway. I'm okay with doing it on I-95, I-84, I-81, I-86, I-88, and even (Ugh!) I-99 if it gets extended along I-390. But other than that, for most limited access roads in the state, I'll pass. You can remind me that I-95 is part of the New York Thruway system in Westchester County, but I can point out that until 1958 it was the New England Thruway, thus making it a separate entity.

Add to that interchanges that should be built, and extensions that should be built, and you're just creating exit numbers that are in the wrong places all over the state.

Speaking of proposed interchanges, who's got info on the planned Taconic State Parkway interchange with Dutchess CR 29?

[SignBridge]

D-dey65, the New England Thruway was built circa 1958. Before that it didn't exist. And I think it was always part of the New York Thruway Authority system.

[Rothman]

I just want mileage-based exit numbers in NY.  If OH was able to do it with its Turnpike, there should be no problem in NY doing the same.

[SignBridge]

The problem with NY Thruway exit numbering is that the road is part of three separate Interstate routes, 87, 287, and 90. And some of it runs north/south and some runs east/west. Also, not all of some of those routes is part of the Thruway. So it gets unusually complicated.

[Rothman]

Nah.  Do it by route as the MUTCD dictates.

Ohio Turnpike is a couple of different routes and they figured it out.  So can NY.

[D-Dey65]

The problem with NY Thruway exit numbering is that the road is part of three separate Interstate routes, 87, 287, and 90. And some of it runs north/south and some runs east/west. Also, not all of some of those routes is part of the Thruway. So it gets unusually complicated.

That and the 287 part is an overlap with I-87.