NY - Sequential vs. Mile Based Exits

[Rothman]

To be perfectly fair, NYSDOT has recently listed the conversion as an eventual goal.  So, it isn't like it is ignoring it completely.  Like I said, as long as there are other priorities, it isn't going to be done.  FHWA's enforcement on the Cuomo Signs while none on exit numbering shows thay they care about scoring political points over actual enforcement of the MUTCD.

The whole I Love NY signage trouble is somewhat baffling, but have to say Cuomo has a gift for damage control in that regard.  Really hasn't lessened his position that much.  FHWA's dissimilar responses to 1) the signs and 2) the welcome centers indicates to me the signage flare up was more about a federal Republican administration poking at a Democratic governor than actual concern about compliance with regulations.  The I Love NY signage was low-hanging fruit in that regard.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[TML]

I would prefer that the NY Thruway maintain its current exit numbering directional scheme while switching to distance-based exit numbers. Here are my calculated new exit numbers for the 87-90 Mainline:

Old Exit	New Exit
1	1A
2	1B
3	2A
4	2B
5	3
6	4
6A	5
7	8
7A	10
8	11
8A	12
9	13
10	17
11	18
12	19
13N-S	21A-B
14	23
14A	24
14B	28
15	30
15A	31
16	45
17	60
18	76
19	91
20	101
21	114
21B	125
21A	134
22	135
23	142
24	148
25	154
25A	159
26	162
27	174
28	182
29	194
29A	211
30	220
31	233
32	243
33	253
34	262
34A	277
35	279
36	283
37	284
38	286
39	290
40	304
41	320
42	327
43	340
44	347
45	351
46	362
47	379
48	390
48A	402
49	417
50	420
50A	421
51E-W	422A-B
52E-W	423A-B
52A	425
53	426
54	428
55	429
56	432
57	436
57A	445
58	456
59	468
60	485
61	495

[kalvado]

To be perfectly fair, NYSDOT has recently listed the conversion as an eventual goal.  So, it isn't like it is ignoring it completely.  Like I said, as long as there are other priorities, it isn't going to be done.  FHWA's enforcement on the Cuomo Signs while none on exit numbering shows thay they care about scoring political points over actual enforcement of the MUTCD.

The whole I Love NY signage trouble is somewhat baffling, but have to say Cuomo has a gift for damage control in that regard.  Really hasn't lessened his position that much.  FHWA's dissimilar responses to 1) the signs and 2) the welcome centers indicates to me the signage flare up was more about a federal Republican administration poking at a Democratic governor than actual concern about compliance with regulations.  The I Love NY signage was low-hanging fruit in that regard.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Well, as far as I remember, there is some review of rest area regulations at federal level. Looks like restriction on service areas outlived itself - big service complexes at exits can be connected to highway with very little effect on things. Besides, state operated "taste NY" facilities don't create significant conflict of interests or preferential treatment issues. Those rest areas never were a safety issue, they were commercial thing to begin with. And since no local businesses complain about that (not that I heard of)...
Signs loaded with fine print - and with many of them in a row - are a significant distraction, so I can understand calling those a safety issue.

[kalvado]

Is Governor Cuomo aware of this problem?

Governor Cuomo is very aware of all the issues associated with aging infrastructure. Promoting investment into infrastructure projects are among top priorities of his administration - as evidenced by new  Gov. Mario Cuomo bridge, replacing and old structure; On-going renovation of LaGuardia airport, construction of Second Avenue subway line - and many other smaller projects. Another example of Governor Cuomo dedication to promoting economic growth is a very successful tourism development campaign, covering entire state. Anyone traveling in NY can learn about local attractions using "I love NY" app, freely available for most personal electronic devices, and can sample local produce at "Taste NY" centers located all over the state.
Under the leadership of Gov. Cuomo, NY is dedicated to development of infrastructure, investment in our future. His administration appreciates constructive cooperation of federal authorities in areas of funding, regulation and promoting safety in all modes of travel.
And after that you dare to question some stupid numbering scheme?

[Rothman]

Besides, state operated "taste NY" facilities don't create significant conflict of interests or preferential treatment issues. Those rest areas never were a safety issue, they were commercial thing to begin with. And since no local businesses complain about that (not that I heard of)...

Certain commercial activities have been prohibited by FHWA regulation in new rest area facilities.  I will just say that I stand by my statement that FHWA's inconsistent enforcement speaks volumes.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[kalvado]

Besides, state operated "taste NY" facilities don't create significant conflict of interests or preferential treatment issues. Those rest areas never were a safety issue, they were commercial thing to begin with. And since no local businesses complain about that (not that I heard of)...

Certain commercial activities have been prohibited by FHWA regulation in new rest area facilities.  I will just say that I stand by my statement that FHWA's inconsistent enforcement speaks volumes.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Few things:
1. FHWA is willing to take another look at those regulations:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/27/2016-23269/commercial-activities-on-interstate-rest-areas - that can explain lax enforcement.
2. "Taste.." is not a safety issue, and as such can have lower priority
3. There was some action by FHWA. Not much, but still.

[seicer]

Is Governor Cuomo aware of this problem?

Governor Cuomo is very aware of all the issues associated with aging infrastructure. Promoting investment into infrastructure projects are among top priorities of his administration - as evidenced by new  Gov. Mario Cuomo bridge, replacing and old structure; On-going renovation of LaGuardia airport, construction of Second Avenue subway line - and many other smaller projects. Another example of Governor Cuomo dedication to promoting economic growth is a very successful tourism development campaign, covering entire state. Anyone traveling in NY can learn about local attractions using "I love NY" app, freely available for most personal electronic devices, and can sample local produce at "Taste NY" centers located all over the state.
Under the leadership of Gov. Cuomo, NY is dedicated to development of infrastructure, investment in our future. His administration appreciates constructive cooperation of federal authorities in areas of funding, regulation and promoting safety in all modes of travel.
And after that you dare to question some stupid numbering scheme?

That just reads like a handout.

But about Cuomo - infrastructure projects are big wins to any party affiliate if they are built within budget and have no drastic issues. Many of these pet projects that have been built - partly done for maximum political impact, were long ago proposed with plans long ago in place. He just made it happen. Nothing wrong with that.

While I didn't like the rapid succession of I Love New York signs, the branding effort has worked, partly because it was part of a larger tourism scheme. If those issues are resolved, with regional entrance signs (that I personally favor), it'll be another win for Cuomo.

[Rothman]

Besides, state operated "taste NY" facilities don't create significant conflict of interests or preferential treatment issues. Those rest areas never were a safety issue, they were commercial thing to begin with. And since no local businesses complain about that (not that I heard of)...

Certain commercial activities have been prohibited by FHWA regulation in new rest area facilities.  I will just say that I stand by my statement that FHWA's inconsistent enforcement speaks volumes.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Few things:
1. FHWA is willing to take another look at those regulations:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/27/2016-23269/commercial-activities-on-interstate-rest-areas - that can explain lax enforcement.
2. "Taste.." is not a safety issue, and as such can have lower priority
3. There was some action by FHWA. Not much, but still.

Let's just say I had a front row seat to what went on (well, second row, anyway).  That's why I am not going into a heck of a lot more detail.

[J N Winkler]

As a tourist in New York, with some awareness of MUTCD issues but no access to the theatre (let alone the front row) for the Cuomo signs controversy between FHWA and NYSDOT, I have a hard time believing that the Cuomo signs moved the needle in terms of tourism promotion.  I am aware that their installation coincides with an increase in tourism revenue, but I suspect this is the result of a recovering economy nationally and would have happened without the signs.

As regards New York being forced by FHWA to convert exit numbers, another sign of FHWA's enforcement priorities is that, AFAIK, no state that currently does not number exits on non-Interstate freeways (as the 2009 MUTCD now requires) has been forced to do so.

[webny99]

I would prefer that the NY Thruway maintain its current exit numbering directional scheme while switching to distance-based exit numbers. Here are my calculated new exit numbers for the 87-90 Mainline:

I'd prefer the miles be based on the I-87 and I-90 mileage. Not only is this consistent with what is done in other states, it would ensure the miles count up from the appropriate points - the southern and western termini of said routes.

As regards New York being forced by FHWA to convert exit numbers, another sign of FHWA's enforcement priorities is that, AFAIK, no state that currently does not number exits on non-Interstate freeways (as the 2009 MUTCD now requires) has been forced to do so.

I wonder which of the two - mileage based numbers, or numbers on non-interstate freeways, is more likely to be enforced.

[hotdogPi]

I wonder which of the two - mileage based numbers, or numbers on non-freeways, is more likely to be enforced.

I don't think numbers on non-freeways will ever be enforced, because standard intersections shouldn't have exit numbers anyway.

[webny99]

I wonder which of the two - mileage based numbers, or numbers on non-freeways, is more likely to be enforced.

I don't think numbers on non-freeways will ever be enforced, because standard intersections shouldn't have exit numbers anyway.

Oh my  Thanks for that - I meant non-interstate freeways. Fixed.

[kalvado]

As a tourist in New York, with some awareness of MUTCD issues but no access to the theatre (let alone the front row) for the Cuomo signs controversy between FHWA and NYSDOT, I have a hard time believing that the Cuomo signs moved the needle in terms of tourism promotion.  I am aware that their installation coincides with an increase in tourism revenue, but I suspect this is the result of a recovering economy nationally and would have happened without the signs.

Second that. The app advertised by those signs is also less than very useful for a stranger.

[crispy93]

Don't know if this was mentioned, but NYSDOT began a signage replacement project in 2016 on the Taconic State Parkway, which included mile-based exit numbers. The interchanges had been unnumbered previously. The last I saw, they got up to mile/exit 45 in Lagrange. The second phase of the project (880911) should be done in 2019. Hopefully this will also install mile markers on the northern-most reaches since they disappear and only reference markers are posted.

Excited by this, I asked NYSDOT if they were going to replace the aging signs on the Palisades Parkway and add mile-based exits. They said they have no plans to replace the signs, but when they do, the exit numbers will be in accordance with federal guidelines (read: yes).

Project 880914 shows sign replacements for Interstate 84, so hopefully the exit numbers will move to mile-based as well.

[cl94]

Don't know if this was mentioned, but NYSDOT began a signage replacement project in 2016 on the Taconic State Parkway, which included mile-based exit numbers. The interchanges had been unnumbered previously. The last I saw, they got up to mile/exit 45 in Lagrange. The second phase of the project (880911) should be done in 2019. Hopefully this will also install mile markers on the northern-most reaches since they disappear and only reference markers are posted.

Excited by this, I asked NYSDOT if they were going to replace the aging signs on the Palisades Parkway and add mile-based exits. They said they have no plans to replace the signs, but when they do, the exit numbers will be in accordance with federal guidelines (read: yes).

Project 880914 shows sign replacements for Interstate 84, so hopefully the exit numbers will move to mile-based as well.

I-84 isn't getting mile-based exits. Not gonna happen unless the Feds force it. The Palisades is a strange case, because mileage resets but exit numbers do not. I won't hold my breath there, either.

[vdeane]

Did they change the Palisades mileage?  The little brown milemarkers in the 2016 street view show mileage continuing from NJ.

That does bring up an interesting theoretical: if the NY exits did change to mile-based, would the NJ exits also (at least eventually) change?

[cl94]

Did they change the Palisades mileage?  The little brown milemarkers in the 2016 street view show mileage continuing from NJ.

That does bring up an interesting theoretical: if the NY exits did change to mile-based, would the NJ exits also (at least eventually) change?

I thought it was continuous mileage, too. Wikipedia says it resets. Continuous mileage would be another issue with renumbering. Can someone who has used it recently confirm?

[empirestate]

Did they change the Palisades mileage?  The little brown milemarkers in the 2016 street view show mileage continuing from NJ.

That does bring up an interesting theoretical: if the NY exits did change to mile-based, would the NJ exits also (at least eventually) change?

I thought it was continuous mileage, too. Wikipedia says it resets. Continuous mileage would be another issue with renumbering. Can someone who has used it recently confirm?

Speaking as someone who has recently used it...no, I cannot.

(Only thing I can be sure of is that reference markers reset at the state line, as they always would at any county line. But I honestly haven't noticed whether the mileposts do.)

[froggie]

I recall MP 19 being just north of the Thruway.  That would suggest the mileposts do not reset.

[jp the roadgeek]

The PIP is maintained by a separate commission not affiliated with NYSDOT or NJDOT, so if numbers are going to be changed to mileage based numbers, it would have to go through a single commission.  The question is whether or not the numbers and MP's would reset at the NY line or whether the highway is a separate single entity that is exempt from the state line rule.

[Alps]

The PIP is maintained by a separate commission not affiliated with NYSDOT or NJDOT, so if numbers are going to be changed to mileage based numbers, it would have to go through a single commission.  The question is whether or not the numbers and MP's would reset at the NY line or whether the highway is a separate single entity that is exempt from the state line rule.

The state line is not a "rule". The MUTCD recommends, but does not require, mileposts to reset.

[machias]

Don't know if this was mentioned, but NYSDOT began a signage replacement project in 2016 on the Taconic State Parkway, which included mile-based exit numbers. The interchanges had been unnumbered previously. The last I saw, they got up to mile/exit 45 in Lagrange. The second phase of the project (880911) should be done in 2019. Hopefully this will also install mile markers on the northern-most reaches since they disappear and only reference markers are posted.

Excited by this, I asked NYSDOT if they were going to replace the aging signs on the Palisades Parkway and add mile-based exits. They said they have no plans to replace the signs, but when they do, the exit numbers will be in accordance with federal guidelines (read: yes).

Project 880914 shows sign replacements for Interstate 84, so hopefully the exit numbers will move to mile-based as well.

I think "the exit numbers will be in accordance with federal guidelines" doesn't really indicate the move to distance based numbering in this instance. I'd be very surprised to see numbers be switched during a sign replacement project without a large scale renumbering project in progress across the entire state.

[cpzilliacus]

The state line is not a "rule". The MUTCD recommends, but does not require, mileposts to reset.

The mile markers on I-495 (Capital Beltway) at the American Legion Bridge do not reset.  They continue to increase to the Springfield Interchange (I-95/I-395/I-495), where they reset to follow the I-95 miles (zero milepost at the North Carolina border south of Skippers) to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

[cpzilliacus]

Besides, state operated "taste NY" facilities don't create significant conflict of interests or preferential treatment issues. Those rest areas never were a safety issue, they were commercial thing to begin with. And since no local businesses complain about that (not that I heard of)...

Certain commercial activities have been prohibited by FHWA regulation in new rest area facilities.  I will just say that I stand by my statement that FHWA's inconsistent enforcement speaks volumes.

(personal opinion emphasized)

My suggestion (also personal opinion) is to help the FHWA by ending all federal regulation of what may (and what may not) be done at rest areas on (mostly federally  funded) Interstates and other freeways with  federal funds in them.  The states should be able to decide if they want the rest areas to remain as they are, or add activities like Taste of New York or add services similar to what are provided by concession holders on older toll-funded freeways. 

Whatever the states decide can be subject to a pro-forma sign-off by the state FHWA Division Office.

[SignBridge]

I'll second that!