New York State Thruway

[SignBridge]

Beats the heck out of me why NYSTA can't get signing done right. Why don't they just follow the same specs that NYSDOT does?

[vdeane]

They don't really deviate any more than any NYSDOT region these days.  They're done with Clearview, and the nonreflective letters aren't a spec - they ordered the wrong stuff for their sign shop and are too cheap to throw it out and get the correct stuff.

[cl94]

They don't really deviate any more than any NYSDOT region these days.  They're done with Clearview, and the nonreflective letters aren't a spec - they ordered the wrong stuff for their sign shop and are too cheap to throw it out and get the correct stuff.

No, it's that they don't have the money to get the correct stuff right now. There's a difference.

[SignBridge]

Thanks for explaining that vdeane. So did the person who ordered the wrong stuff (and caused all this havoc for thousands of drivers) get fired?

[vdeane]

No idea.  In any case, they've had the non-reflective lettering for about a decade by now.  Sure seems like they ordered an awful lot when they did that... makes me wonder why that type of sheeting is even made, considering that it can't be used on road signs (or at least shouldn't).

[RobbieL2415]

FHWA be like: "Change to mile-based exits or loose federal funding.

NYSTA:"Whatever, man. I'll just raise tolls."

[kalvado]

FHWA be like: "Change to mile-based exits or loose federal funding.

NYSTA:"Whatever, man. I'll just raise tolls."

FHWA: your fine is $100k!
Cuomo: and this is a new design of tourism promoting signs!
NYSTU: and while we are at this, we suggest increasing school aid by 5% next year

[MikeCL]

I have to ask this because I saw this driving.. on  the Deegan are the underpasses not marked for height? I saw a flatbed tow carrying a box truck maybe like 12' I was wondering why the lane was moving so slow.. he must of had inches to spare.

[Rothman]

FHWA be like: "Change to mile-based exits or loose federal funding.

NYSTA:"Whatever, man. I'll just raise tolls."

More like:

NYSTA:  Oh no.  How ever will we survive not being able to authorize those pennies?

[cl94]

They've been wanting to raise tolls for years. They haven't because Cuomo will fire anyone who does.

[Brandon]

FHWA be like: "Change to mile-based exits or loose federal funding.

NYSTA:"Whatever, man. I'll just raise tolls."

And yet, ISTHA, which also gets no federal funding, merely added them to their formerly exit-numberless system.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

I have to ask this because I saw this driving.. on  the Deegan are the underpasses not marked for height? I saw a flatbed tow carrying a box truck maybe like 12' I was wondering why the lane was moving so slow.. he must of had inches to spare.

NY generally doesn't sign legal clearances above 13'—0." Legal (signed) clearance is usually a foot, but sometimes several feet lower than the bridge's actual clearance (unless the sign says ACTUAL CLEARANCE). It's an arcane practice that NY agencies have held onto for no reason other than stubbornness and it's likely responsible for a decent portion of bridge strikes in the state (since people figure out the clearances are fake and figure they're OK through all the bridges).

[vdeane]

Ironically, the reason they're done that way is to reduce such collisions by giving truckers who may not have an exact idea of how tall their truck/load is a foot of leeway.

[froggie]

Signing clearances less than the actual clearance also gives leeway for maintenance/road crews who may add a pavement overlay to a given roadway.

[Buffaboy]

It appears as though the Thruway bridge repairs in West Seneca includes replacement of the old road bed with concrete.

[kalvado]

Thanks for explaining that vdeane. So did the person who ordered the wrong stuff (and caused all this havoc for thousands of drivers) get fired?

Thinking about it - that person was probably transferred to DMV and put in charge of license plates fabrication...

[amroad17]

I have always stated that the NY Thruway should just keep the milemarkers as is.  This will save a lot of money.  Just change the exit numbers to the corresponding milemarker (Exit 39 becomes Exit 290, Exit 40 becomes Exit 304, etc.)  Of course, this will upset those who believe in the "numbers are supposed to increase from west to east" crowd.
However, by doing this, how are "free 90" and I-87 on the Northway to be signed?  Simple, use the current milemarkers. These freeways have been treated as separate entities since they have opened--why change now?  Same for the Berkshire Connector of the Thruway.  Instead of Exits B1, B2, and B3, the exit numbers would be B6, B15, and B23.
What about I-87 on the Major Deegan?  Leave it as is with sequential markers or switch to milepost exit numbers--it does not matter to me, although I do not work for NYSDOT.
Just offering a case.

As far as bridge heights, I thought that bridges were listed as a foot off was because of snow that may accumulate on the road--or is that either an outdated belief or an urban myth?

[Alps]

I have always stated that the NY Thruway should just keep the milemarkers as is.  This will save a lot of money.  Just change the exit numbers to the corresponding milemarker (Exit 39 becomes Exit 290, Exit 40 becomes Exit 304, etc.)  Of course, this will upset those who believe in the "numbers are supposed to increase from west to east" crowd.
However, by doing this, how are "free 90" and I-87 on the Northway to be signed?  Simple, use the current milemarkers. These freeways have been treated as separate entities since they have opened--why change now?  Same for the Berkshire Connector of the Thruway.  Instead of Exits B1, B2, and B3, the exit numbers would be B6, B15, and B23.
What about I-87 on the Major Deegan?  Leave it as is with sequential markers or switch to milepost exit numbers--it does not matter to me, although I do not work for NYSDOT.
Just offering a case.

Your case goes against everything that the requirement embodies. If the PA Turnpike can figure out numbering exits on two different roads, so can NY Thruway.

[jp the roadgeek]

Think we've discussed this whole NY Thruway and component highways discussion before.  And the Berkshire exits should have I-90 mileposts, even though it creates an I-93/I-95 Canton, MA type scenario where B1 (new 368) would be to continue on the spur, since the current B1 ramp is part of the I-90 mainline.  EB on the spur, current B1 would either be Exit 6, or just remain unnumbered.  This is a similar dilemma if the NJTP converted: would north of Exit 6 use I-95 mileage, or mainline mileage, and how to deal with the western spur (do the E-W suffixes continue?).  As it is, the exits on the GWB approach need renumbering now that the interchange in Bucks County is almost complete and I-95 gains a few miles over the assumed Somerset mileage currently used.

[webny99]

As soon as I-83 (or I-99) is extended to Rochester, I-390 will be available for free I-90 in Albany. Then I-90 can follow the Berkshire Connector over the Castleton Bridge and multiplex with I-87, as it should.
This would prevent I-90 from exiting itself, and it would also prevent free I-90 having to get its mileage redone (just new I-390 shields and new exit numbers, with existing mileposts).

[/theoretical]

In the absence of I-390 being available, either an I-X87 will have to be used for free I-90, or it will have to be re-mileposted.
Renumbering will be way less of a problem after AET comes to the Thruway in (supposedly) 2020. Then there will be no reason for mileage to follow the Thruway. The standard, after all, is for mileage to correspond to the route number, starting at the southern or western terminus/state line.

[PHLBOS]

I have always stated that the NY Thruway should just keep the milemarkers as is.  This will save a lot of money.  Just change the exit numbers to the corresponding milemarker (Exit 39 becomes Exit 290, Exit 40 becomes Exit 304, etc.)  Of course, this will upset those who believe in the "numbers are supposed to increase from west to east" crowd.
However, by doing this, how are "free 90" and I-87 on the Northway to be signed?  Simple, use the current milemarkers. These freeways have been treated as separate entities since they have opened--why change now?  Same for the Berkshire Connector of the Thruway.  Instead of Exits B1, B2, and B3, the exit numbers would be B6, B15, and B23.
What about I-87 on the Major Deegan?  Leave it as is with sequential markers or switch to milepost exit numbers--it does not matter to me, although I do not work for NYSDOT.
Just offering a case.

Your case goes against everything that the requirement embodies. If the PA Turnpike can figure out numbering exits on two different roads, so can NY Thruway.

While true, the numbered interchanges along the east-west Turnpike (regardless of interchange numbering scheme & route number) always increased in the eastbound direction whereas the Thruway does the opposite once it goes west of Albany.  The latter is more of a drastic change per FHWA criteria.

Then I-90 can follow the Berkshire Connector over the Castleton Bridge and multiplex with I-87, as it should.

This is the likely reason why the Berkshire Section of the NY Thruway west of where I-90 meets it was not assigned an Interstate number (be it 2di or 3di).

[KEVIN_224]

It looked like there was construction on that bridge last week. I'm not sure if it was to install a real barrier in the median or not.

[cl94]

It looked like there was construction on that bridge last week. I'm not sure if it was to install a real barrier in the median or not.

It was. They're putting a median barrier on that thing.

That being said, there are NO plans, long range or otherwise, to give the unnumbered portion of the Berkshire Spur an Interstate designation. It's unnecessary, especially in the age when most people just follow directions given by their phones. And I can guarantee that the traveler-oriented businesses along I-90 in Rensselaer County that have sprung up in the past 20-30 years will raise hell if I-90 is moved to the Thruway.

[vdeane]

I remember Main Office talking about moving I-90 to the Berkshire Spur and extending I-88 to include free 90 at the Highway Data Services Conference a couple years ago.  No idea of what, if anything, happened since.  In any case, I can't think of a great way to number everything related to I-90/I-87/the Thruway.  As far as I'm concerned, renumber based on the existing mileposts, or dump any semblance of numbering the Thruway as its own thing (which will be possible with AET) and just use I-90 or I-87.  I don't really like the 2003 plan to flip the mileposts on the Thruway, with I-87 using Thruway numbers counting backwards to NYC.

I personally favor the idea of renumbering based on the existing mileposts.  Unless NYSDOT takes over the Thruway, I really don't want it to lose its identity; with AET, its exit numbers and mileposts are all it will have left.  Flipping the mileposts just strikes me as a waste of money.

Plus, right now, the existing mileposts can be correlated roughly with the following:
-0-99: Greater NYC/Hudson Valley
-100-199: Greater Capital District
-200-299: Mohawk Valley/Utica/Syracuse
-300-399: Finger Lakes/Greater Rochester
-400-496: Greater Buffalo/Lake Erie

It would just feel WAY too weird if that were to change.

Regardless, if NY were ever to build direct ramps from the Northway to the Thruway to carry I-87, that will cause issues no matter what, since it will make I-87 1.5 miles shorter.

[AMLNet49]

Then I-90 can follow the Berkshire Connector over the Castleton Bridge and multiplex with I-87, as it should.

Why would we want to create more multiplexes? There are already too many Interstate multiplexes as it is. Every effort should be made to facilitate each Interstate being an independent and unique route. There are plenty of situations where this isn't feasible however Albany NY is not one of them.

If anything I'd like to see the Berkshire Connector (just the part in between I-90 and I-87) as "Berkshire Connector to I-90"  or "Berkshire Connector to I-87"  especially westbound at Exit B1 where it is highly confusing to have I-90 signed as a regular old exit. At the very least they should use overheads or something to make it clear that you have to TOTSO.

As far as the exit numbers go, I would love to see it renumbered to fit each route, with I-90s numbers continuing from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts and I-87's from the Deegan to Canada. I see both mileage based numbers and eventual AET as a huge opportunity to fix something that previously couldn't be amended. But I recognize it's much more likely that the Thuway keeps its own set of exit numbers, especially considering the fact that it has its own oversight agency.