New York

[Buffaboy]

 Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?

[Alps]

Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?

There was never anything there besides empty space and the intersection. I notice the clearing, maybe for directional ramps never built.

[cl94]

Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?

There was never anything there besides empty space and the intersection. I notice the clearing, maybe for directional ramps never built.

I'm pretty sure the original plan was to have the expressway merge into current US 9W further north. The clearing on the north side of NY 32 predates expressway construction by at least 30 years.

[froggie]

I checked the 2014 Traffic Data Report and NY 314 east of US 9, NY 22 north of US 11, NY 374 north of US 11, and the entirety of NY 456 are no longer listed.  Neither is NY 12E southeast of Paddy Hill Road, and reference route 971H (Paddy Hill Road) no longer appears either, suggesting that NY 12E now officially follows the signs in the area (Main Office Traffic and Safety had mentioned something about a jurisdictional transfer in that area when I asked about it, in the two out of infinity questions I was able to get through before the guy left; there's also something going on with NY 324 at the I-190 overlap, and a new revision of the touring route log is in the works).

Sounds like TravelMapping needs to update a few things then.

I submitted a GitHub issue when I saw Steve's post after I checked the Traffic Data Report.  I mentioned the others in comments.  So, I would expect that it will probably be reflected in TM soon.

It's good to see the two big cases where the route definition and route signage don't match (aside from the I-495 weirdness, but that's only in the touring route book and functional class viewer; other logs match signage) get resolved.

I checked the 2014 Inventory Listings for the relevant counties and found that all five route segments (12E, 22, 314, 374, 456) are still listed as touring routes.  The segments that don't appear on the traffic data report are shown as county maintained, but it wouldn't be the first time we had county maintained touring routes that were signed and included in TM (3A, 151, 155 amongst others).

[Duke87]

I checked the 2014 Inventory Listings for the relevant counties and found that all five route segments (12E, 22, 314, 374, 456) are still listed as touring routes.  The segments that don't appear on the traffic data report are shown as county maintained, but it wouldn't be the first time we had county maintained touring routes that were signed and included in TM (3A, 151, 155 amongst others).

The qualification "signed" is not met in these cases, though. 22 and 374 are both explicitly signed in the field as ending at US 11. 12E is likewise explicitly signed as ending at 12F, not continuing into Watertown. And while 456 was signed only a few years ago (per GMSV), Steve reports that now it is not, which certainly implies some deliberate effort to remove the route.

[froggie]

The qualification "signed" is not met in these cases, though.

Tim held hard and fast to this rule when it was CHM, but the reality is somewhat looser than that.  If you have some routes that are signed in some segments but not in others, they tended to be kept for continuity.  I was also successful in including a couple unsigned, but major, Minnesota routes in CHM.

The discrepancies between NYSDOT's traffic log reports and their inventory reports don't help any.

[Alps]

I checked the 2014 Inventory Listings for the relevant counties and found that all five route segments (12E, 22, 314, 374, 456) are still listed as touring routes.  The segments that don't appear on the traffic data report are shown as county maintained, but it wouldn't be the first time we had county maintained touring routes that were signed and included in TM (3A, 151, 155 amongst others).

The qualification "signed" is not met in these cases, though. 22 and 374 are both explicitly signed in the field as ending at US 11. 12E is likewise explicitly signed as ending at 12F, not continuing into Watertown. And while 456 was signed only a few years ago (per GMSV), Steve reports that now it is not, which certainly implies some deliberate effort to remove the route.

I'm debating whether I should drive the Clinton CR at the north end of 374 to truly consider the route clinched. I might make it an exit point coming back from Toronto (assuming I go), depending on my other route choices.

[cl94]

The qualification "signed" is not met in these cases, though.

Tim held hard and fast to this rule when it was CHM, but the reality is somewhat looser than that.  If you have some routes that are signed in some segments but not in others, they tended to be kept for continuity.  I was also successful in including a couple unsigned, but major, Minnesota routes in CHM.

The discrepancies between NYSDOT's traffic log reports and their inventory reports don't help any.

And sometimes, the signage tells a third thing. It's a mess and a nightmare for anyone using their GPS to navigate while expecting a number that may or may not be posted.

[cu2010]

To add insult to injury, there is no END signage on NY374 north at US11!

[amroad17]

According to Wikipedia, NY 374 still goes to the Canadian border along with County route 52.  However, seeing the above photo makes me wonder if the Wikipedia article is up-to-date.  Usually in NY State what the signage says is more than likely correct.

[Snappyjack]

Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?

There was never anything there besides empty space and the intersection. I notice the clearing, maybe for directional ramps never built.

I'm pretty sure the original plan was to have the expressway merge into current US 9W further north. The clearing on the north side of NY 32 predates expressway construction by at least 30 years.

We're actually talking about two different spots now. The US 9W/NY 299 intersection in Highland was always a T intersection. The 9W/NY 32 intersection in Kingston was originally supposed to be a diamond interchange, as that portion of 9W is the arterial coming from the Rondout waterfront. The original plan was to have it go up up to NY 199 and end there. However, there are some environmentally sensitive lakes along the path and I do not believe it ever got past the planning stages.

[cl94]

Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?

There was never anything there besides empty space and the intersection. I notice the clearing, maybe for directional ramps never built.

I'm pretty sure the original plan was to have the expressway merge into current US 9W further north. The clearing on the north side of NY 32 predates expressway construction by at least 30 years.

We're actually talking about two different spots now. The US 9W/NY 299 intersection in Highland was always a T intersection. The 9W/NY 32 intersection in Kingston was originally supposed to be a diamond interchange, as that portion of 9W is the arterial coming from the Rondout waterfront. The original plan was to have it go up up to NY 199 and end there. However, there are some environmentally sensitive lakes along the path and I do not believe it ever got past the planning stages.

Duh. I completely misread that. Yeah, it's graded for a trumpet, but one was never built.

[Snappyjack]

Duh. I completely misread that. Yeah, it's graded for a trumpet, but one was never built.

Interesting, I've lived around here all my life and I've never noticed that until now. Just checked the aerial imagery.

[cl94]

Duh. I completely misread that. Yeah, it's graded for a trumpet, but one was never built.

Interesting, I've lived around here all my life and I've never noticed that until now. Just checked the aerial imagery.

My grandmother lived not too far from there and I've been through there several times, including last weekend. Never noticed it as well, but the grading is apparent on GSV.

[NJRoadfan]

US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.

[Catfan]

This concrete structure was part of some viaduct that was connected to the Rochester Subway, which ran from 1927 to 1956.  The subway structure crossing the Genesee River is still there.  I was there in December 2014.

[vdeane]

This concrete structure was part of some viaduct that was connected to the Rochester Subway, which ran from 1927 to 1956.  The subway structure crossing the Genesee River is still there.  I was there in December 2014.

Are we playing Jeopardy or something?

[jemacedo9]

This concrete structure was part of some viaduct that was connected to the Rochester Subway, which ran from 1927 to 1956.  The subway structure crossing the Genesee River is still there.  I was there in December 2014.

I think you're talking about the Broad St Bridge over the Genesee River...

[dgolub]

US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.

It did?  Why did they get rid of it?

[cl94]

I was up at the northern end of the Northway earlier this evening as part of a day-long road trip and there are a couple things that might be of interest to people:

-Regions 1 and 7 are replacing several bridges in northern Essex and southern Clinton Counties. SB side has already been rebuilt, NB side is currently under construction. Down to 1 lane in each direction with contraflow. R1 has the limit posted at 50 through the work zone, while R7 is posted at 45 in the contraflow sections and 55 between the two contraflow sections.
-We've mentioned NY 314 and NY 456 recently on this thread. Signs on the Northway have not been replaced yet, but there are no shields for NY 456 posted on the ramp.
-On another thread, we mentioned how New York's distinctive climbing lane markings are going away. The SB side south of Exit 31 still has the double stripe. Its days are probably numbered.
-Exit 42 construction is done and it is a dumbbell interchange similar to Exit 12.
-US 9 bridge over Trout Brook adjacent to the Northway in Pottersville is being rebuilt. Single lane. That'll be a nightmare starting in about a month.

[D-Dey65]

US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.

It did?  Why did they get rid of it?

A foolish desire to downgrade the highway system. If anything, they should've just built a two-way north to south connecting ramp between US 9W and NY 303, and added some ramps to NY 304.

[froggie]

US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.

It did?  Why did they get rid of it?

Despite what D-Day claimed, it was likely due to old age.  The old interchange dated at least back to the 1930s so it's quite likely the overpass (which carried the US 9 mainline) was in bad enough condition to where NYSDOT figured it was more cost-effective to remove the bridge and convert the junction into an intersection.  A side benefit of such is that it allowed movements between US 9 South and NY 303 South.  Looking at 2012 traffic volumes, nothing stands out traffic-wise suggesting an interchange is needed (again, despite D-Day's claims).

[Alps]

US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.

It did?  Why did they get rid of it?

Despite what D-Day claimed, it was likely due to old age.  The old interchange dated at least back to the 1930s so it's quite likely the overpass (which carried the US 9 mainline) was in bad enough condition to where NYSDOT figured it was more cost-effective to remove the bridge and convert the junction into an intersection.  A side benefit of such is that it allowed movements between US 9 South and NY 303 South.  Looking at 2012 traffic volumes, nothing stands out traffic-wise suggesting an interchange is needed (again, despite D-Day's claims).

The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.

[D-Dey65]

The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.

Keep in mind though, that the Palisades is for Passenger Cars Only, whereas US 9W isn't. I can't imagine the Parkway serving as anything else but temporary relief, especially after the cancellation of the Pearl River-Haverstraw Freeway.

On another topic in the same part of Rockland County, has anyone ever considered the Hook Mountain Tunnel as a train watching site?

[cl94]

The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.

Keep in mind though, that the Palisades is for Passenger Cars Only, whereas US 9W isn't. I can't imagine the Parkway serving as anything else but temporary relief, especially after the cancellation of the Pearl River-Haverstraw Freeway.

On another topic in the same part of Rockland County, has anyone ever considered the Hook Mountain Tunnel as a train watching site?

Problem is that there isn't a good safe place to watch from. When fanning that line, I often hang out on the Poughkeepsie bridge. The tracks winding between the cliffs and the river make for some great photo opportunities.