New York

[cl94]

D262775 is for the Taconic State Parkway in Westchester County - a sign replacement. In the sign plans, a APL is in the works at exit 2 - on plans page 34.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262775

Forget about the APL- the Taconic is getting mile-based exit numbers. That's the big thing here.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Shrub Oak is a control city on 132 and 6, but Kitchawan is not on 134? Alright...

Tad disappointed it's only for Westchester. I want to see the rest.

[route17fan]

D262775 is for the Taconic State Parkway in Westchester County - a sign replacement. In the sign plans, a APL is in the works at exit 2 - on plans page 34.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262775

Forget about the APL- the Taconic is getting mile-based exit numbers. That's the big thing here.

Good catch!

[Duke87]

Forget about the APL- the Taconic is getting mile-based exit numbers.

OH SHIT THAT'S AWESOME

...of course they're using Kensico Circle as the zero point rather than numbering continuously with the Bronx River Parkway as would be logical. Which is unsurprising but disappointing.

From a strictly functional perspective I'd argue the exit numbers would be more useful if measuring the distance all the way back to The Bronx rather than to an arbitrary point where the road changes name which is before the end of most journeys.

In my previous speculations on the matter of mile-based exit numbers I noted that the distance from Story Avenue onto the Taconic is almost the same via the Bronx River Parkway alignment as it is via the Sprain (which is constructed as the through route at both ends). I therefore had the wacky idea that at the BRP/Sprain split, both should keep counting from the mileage to that point (~9), and have exits numbered accordingly, which then at the Sprain/Taconic split would allow the two to seamlessly transition back together (~22).

Of course, I am probably committing the roadgeek's fallacy of thinking about this in far more detail than any normal member of the motoring public or any DOT employees who are not members of this board would.

[vdeane]

I'm pretty sure the Bronx River Parkway officially continues from the circle to NY 22.

In response to an earlier question: yes, the road through Round Lake was downloaded; the reference route was moved to the bypass.

Looks like Region 8 is keeping their tenth mile markers rather than adopting the MUTCD standards.  And the plans appear to have inconsistent exit tab styles.

[Duke87]

I'm pretty sure the Bronx River Parkway officially continues from the circle to NY 22.

Officially, yes. That was the original northern end of the road. The Taconic came a little later. But since there are no exits along that little stretch and it is not signed as part of the mainline, this technical detail does not impact the ability of the BRP and the Taconic to be signed with one continuous set of mileage if R8 wanted to.


Of course, the designation setup in general is unusual. The BRP and Taconic are really old roads not built to anything close to modern standards. The BRP in the Bronx and the southern end of Westchester has since been rebuilt into something that looks more like a modern highway, as has most of the Taconic in northern Westchester. The part in between, however, was left as is and bypassed by building the Sprain.

The result is that today, the most logical through route as built and as followed by traffic is BRP - Sprain - Taconic. Following the Taconic or BRP designation at either end of the Sprain is a TOTSO, and takes one onto a much lower grade road.

If this were a numbered highway, it would probably follow the logical through route described above. But in the strange world of NY Parkways, moving a designation isn't done and so instead we have the current screwy setup which clings to some sanity by virtue of neither the Sprain nor the Taconic having any numbered exits.

But now NYSDOT is going to sign the Sprain from the Taconic as an exit rather than treating it like the through route. And, the next sign replacement project on the Sprain has a good shot at giving it its own set of self-contained exit numbers.


In other words, NYSDOT is creating another I-87, where what is effectively the same highway will have three sets of exit numbers because they reset every time the road changes names.

[NJRoadfan]

Wonder if the change in signing will result in more people NOT taking the Sprain Brook south instead of the Taconic. The current signing is quite effective in that regard.

Also, where did those ugly Clearview exit signs on the Westchester County section of the BRP come from? They scream Region 8 with those boxed street names. I guess the county DPW outsourced their signing.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Wonder if the change in signing will result in more people NOT taking the Sprain Brook south instead of the Taconic. The current signing is quite effective in that regard.

Also, where did those ugly Clearview exit signs on the Westchester County section of the BRP come from? They scream Region 8 with those boxed street names. I guess the county DPW outsourced their signing.

County maintained. Probably their decision.

[cl94]

Wonder if the change in signing will result in more people NOT taking the Sprain Brook south instead of the Taconic. The current signing is quite effective in that regard.

Also, where did those ugly Clearview exit signs on the Westchester County section of the BRP come from? They scream Region 8 with those boxed street names. I guess the county DPW outsourced their signing.

Doubtful. It's still the implied through route, online/GPS mapping systems tell everyone to take the Sprain, and locals know to take the Sprain. I understand what R8 is doing, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. I disagree with the "same road" argument, because it's clearly signed as three separate designations.

The Clearview comes from the Westchester County sign shop. Westchester uses Clearview and only Clearview.

[vdeane]

I'm pretty sure the Bronx River Parkway officially continues from the circle to NY 22.

Officially, yes. That was the original northern end of the road. The Taconic came a little later. But since there are no exits along that little stretch and it is not signed as part of the mainline, this technical detail does not impact the ability of the BRP and the Taconic to be signed with one continuous set of mileage if R8 wanted to.


Of course, the designation setup in general is unusual. The BRP and Taconic are really old roads not built to anything close to modern standards. The BRP in the Bronx and the southern end of Westchester has since been rebuilt into something that looks more like a modern highway, as has most of the Taconic in northern Westchester. The part in between, however, was left as is and bypassed by building the Sprain.

The result is that today, the most logical through route as built and as followed by traffic is BRP - Sprain - Taconic. Following the Taconic or BRP designation at either end of the Sprain is a TOTSO, and takes one onto a much lower grade road.

If this were a numbered highway, it would probably follow the logical through route described above. But in the strange world of NY Parkways, moving a designation isn't done and so instead we have the current screwy setup which clings to some sanity by virtue of neither the Sprain nor the Taconic having any numbered exits.

But now NYSDOT is going to sign the Sprain from the Taconic as an exit rather than treating it like the through route. And, the next sign replacement project on the Sprain has a good shot at giving it its own set of self-contained exit numbers.


In other words, NYSDOT is creating another I-87, where what is effectively the same highway will have three sets of exit numbers because they reset every time the road changes names.

The BRP numbers also reset where it splits off from the Sprain (the mileage doesn't, though).  Makes me wonder if there were plans to continue the sequential numbering from the first part of the BRP onto the Sprain and Taconic that didn't happen for some reason (perhaps a question of what to do with the remaining piece of the Taconic?).

[Roadgeek Adam]

In fairness, NYSDOT considers them all separate, even in referenece route numbers. They don't share names and while ROWs continue onto each other, they are all separate in NYSDOT's eyes (NY 907H-BRP/NY 987F-SBP/NY 987G-TSP).

What I am disappointed in, and maybe Rothman or cl94 can help, when will the rest of Putnam/Dutchess/Columbia ones will be released? It will be nice to see the exit numbers, especially as only P7 remains southbound signed of the old system. It will also hopefully make the Columbia County part feel a little more like the rest by using the same numbering.

[cl94]

In fairness, NYSDOT considers them all separate, even in referenece route numbers. They don't share names and while ROWs continue onto each other, they are all separate in NYSDOT's eyes (NY 907H-BRP/NY 987F-SBP/NY 987G-TSP).

What I am disappointed in, and maybe Rothman or cl94 can help, when will the rest of Putnam/Dutchess/Columbia ones will be released? It will be nice to see the exit numbers, especially as only P7 remains southbound signed of the old system. It will also hopefully make the Columbia County part feel a little more like the rest by using the same numbering.

No clue. I'm not with NYSDOT and I don't have MPO connections in that part of the state. The section being numbered is basically Interstate-grade freeway outside of a few low bridges. Just inside Putnam, RIROs and full-blown at-grade intersections begin.

[noelbotevera]

Why are people shocked at the Taconic getting mile-based exit numbers?

OT, the real upgraded parts needed are in Dutchess and Putnam County. The space is there but for some reason NYSDOT is doing nothing.

[cl94]

Why are people shocked at the Taconic getting mile-based exit numbers?

OT, the real upgraded parts needed are in Dutchess and Putnam County. The space is there but for some reason NYSDOT is doing nothing.

We're shocked because non-Interstate expressways rarely have exit numbers and those that do had them assigned a looooooooong time ago. The Taconic lost its numbers a while back. Many parkways have numbers, but again, those were assigned quite long ago and Regions 10 and 11 number everything.

NYSDOT isn't upgrading it because there's no demand and the terrain makes construction expensive. It's all mountains. There's nobody living on the east side of the Hudson. Ever been on the Taconic in Dutchess? It's empty.

[Roadgeek Adam]

In fairness, NYSDOT considers them all separate, even in referenece route numbers. They don't share names and while ROWs continue onto each other, they are all separate in NYSDOT's eyes (NY 907H-BRP/NY 987F-SBP/NY 987G-TSP).

What I am disappointed in, and maybe Rothman or cl94 can help, when will the rest of Putnam/Dutchess/Columbia ones will be released? It will be nice to see the exit numbers, especially as only P7 remains southbound signed of the old system. It will also hopefully make the Columbia County part feel a little more like the rest by using the same numbering.

No clue. I'm not with NYSDOT and I don't have MPO connections in that part of the state. The section being numbered is basically Interstate-grade freeway outside of a few low bridges. Just inside Putnam, RIROs and full-blown at-grade intersections begin.

Yeah well, the original exit numbers died at the Dutchess/Columbia line, so it would be nice to have them up to the Berkshire. Also, I picture the intersections can just be unnumbered. I've driven them many times, it's not important.

[empirestate]

NYSDOT isn't upgrading it because there's no demand and the terrain makes construction expensive. It's all mountains. There's nobody living on the east side of the Hudson. Ever been on the Taconic in Dutchess? It's empty.

Hey, who you callin' nobody?

Anyway, aside from that, there actually is a good deal of traffic on that stretch of the Taconic. Poughkeepsie has become something of a sixth borough lately; in fact, it seems there are more NYC escapees living up there than there are, say, between there and Croton.

The result of this is that much of the Taconic traffic in Putnam and northern Westchester, as well as US 9, is in the form of through traffic between NYC and the Poughkeepsie area, rather than trips around the local area.


iPhone

[Duke87]

OT, the real upgraded parts needed are in Dutchess and Putnam County. The space is there but for some reason NYSDOT is doing nothing.

They've abandoned plans to widen the road through Putnam County because it would be expensive and logistically difficult. Besides the likely local controversy, much of the road in Putnam county passes through a state park (Clarence Fahnestock Memorial). Federal law makes it very difficult to take parkland for infrastructure construction.

But NYSDOT isn't quite doing nothing. Bryant Pond Road was converted from an at grade intersection to an interchange back in the 90s. They plan to do the same at Pudding Street in the next few years, money permitting.

Indeed, that's one of the biggest reasons why NYSDOT may be "doing nothing" in any particular location. DOT lacks the funding to properly maintain all the roads they already have, so any significant new construction is out of the question at least for the time being. Part of this is because the state's finances have been eh for a while, part of it is because congress has been unwilling to enact a new comprehensive transportation program as they have in the past, with the result that federal funding for projects is drying up.

[Rothman]

NYSDOT's having their first big meeting tomorrow on the current TIP/STIP update and then on Friday is the MPO Association meeting (or, at least, some big MPO meeting if it's not a formal meeting of the association).

You'd think they'd be exciting, but it's going to be basically more of the same stuff that you've heard before and what's been outlined by Duke:  Very little (if any) new construction (NYSDOT has literally a few million left in a very old Interstate construction fund source -- FHWA won't let NYSDOT use it up for maintenance  ), focus on maintenance...blah blah blah.

Lots of people know about the federal side of the equation Duke outlined, but the state side is more nuanced.  Yes, New York's finances aren't in the greatest shape, but they certainly aren't in the worst.  From what I've experienced in terms of how the Department of Budget treats NYSDOT, the greater funding concerns -- rather than an overall shortage -- are more along the lines of how big of a slice of the pie NYSDOT receives and the raiding of gas tax revenues for non-transportation-related purposes. 

Some things that have happened with DOB are just asinine, such as when DOB thinks it knows better than NYSDOT how much money NYSDOT needs specifically on engineering and construction and then assigns restricted pots of funds to NYSDOT for each.  Although things get resolved in the end (usually at 11:59 p.m. on March 31st), there does seem to be some really poor decisions made in the name of accountability that just unduly hamper NYSDOT's (and therefore AGC's) ability to deliver the capital program within a given year.

Any way, it's late and I'm rambling...

[Rothman]

Oh, and I won't know the specifics of the Taconic job.  Vdeane's more on that nitty-gritty level of things...although she's a little too far north for that one!

[Mergingtraffic]

I'd guess this sign is coming down then.
[/url]

[route17fan]

D262955 - NY 17/I-81 Interchange Phase 2 - preliminary plans - have been released.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262955

[Rothman]

D262955 - NY 17/I-81 Interchange Phase 2 - preliminary plans - have been released.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262955

It should be let by the end of the year.

[vdeane]

Updated my Taconic Parkway exit list with the new numbers: http://nysroads.com/tsplist.php

[Buffaboy]

Updated my Taconic Parkway exit list with the new numbers: http://nysroads.com/tsplist.php

I also see that most of the AET redesigns you did are done. They look awesome. Exit 57 might have heavy development coming there in a couple of years, so I don't know if that redesign would suffice changes.

[Bumppoman]

D262955 - NY 17/I-81 Interchange Phase 2 - preliminary plans - have been released.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262955

Interesting to see they're changing the direction of NY-7 to E-W even south of I-88.