New York

[Rothman]

The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the "exit"  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.

People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

[Alps]

Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.

[webny99]

The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the "exit"  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.

People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.

[Rothman]

The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the "exit"  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.

People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.

So...clog the right lanes.

No, what needs to happen is the left exit needs to be a right exit.

[amroad17]

Hey I noticed something when virtually touring I-81. I see the Cartland Next 2 Exits sign now is revised to include both exits for Ithaca as well.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZpDmXbUBtyX189kv8

Then also the Exit 12 guides now include Ithaca as well as Homer and Cortland.

https://goo.gl/maps/Pnid81TVgVA2itrYA

I always thought NYSDOT should include Ithaca along with Cortland on the Next 2 exits signs.  Now I see someone is finally thinking clearly.

NYSDOT has been on a few sign replacement projects in Region 3 over the last 3-4 years.  As one sees from the EXIT 12 guide sign, NYSDOT has added 2 MILE advance signage whereas there was none before on sections of I-81 south of Syracuse and on NY 481 between North Syracuse and Fulton.  NYSDOT has also changed signage at the entrance areas on interchanges such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/PCrGHwSQiyzNTcnM9.  This is what this spot looked like in late 2016: https://goo.gl/maps/XkbRVNMjnP5aJwAt7.  NYSDOT also got rid of the mileage signs at these interchanges such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/QnR53r7BRRSgdEtQ6.  This seems to be more in line with what states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana do at interchanges.

It is good to see that NYSDOT, especially in Region 3, is replacing, upgrading, and updating signage throughout.  Even some state highways have received updated signage.  Many mileage signs and destination signs now employ mixed case lettering instead of all CAPS.

Also, no Series F on the shields on the updated signs. 

[webny99]

The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the "exit"  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.

People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.

So...clog the right lanes.

No, what needs to happen is the left exit needs to be a right exit.

It's a high-speed split, so switching sides wouldn't change anything except which side traffic collects on.

The issue is that I-90 traffic needs more than one lane, and the easiest way to address that without adding new lanes is with an option lane. Then the traffic that currently clogs the left lane could stay in the center lane.

[Rothman]

The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the "exit"  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.

People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.

So...clog the right lanes.

No, what needs to happen is the left exit needs to be a right exit.

It's a high-speed split, so switching sides wouldn't change anything except which side traffic collects on.

The issue is that I-90 traffic needs more than one lane, and the easiest way to address that without adding new lanes is with an option lane. Then the traffic that currently clogs the left lane could stay in the center lane.

Nah.  Make it a right exit and follow the rules of the road with KRETP.  All better, just like how they fixed the I-95/I-695 interchange in Maryland.  No more people lining up on the left...and no crazy middle left turning nuttiness.  Just take people off to the right like Interstates should.

[cockroachking]

If you ignore the names and designations, and analyze it from a traffic perspective, almost 2 cars remain on I-90 (Exit 24) for every 1 car that remains on the Thruway mainline towards I-87 south, so IMO having I-90 "exit" on the left is appropriate.

[Rothman]

If you ignore the names and designations, and analyze it from a traffic perspective, almost 2 cars remain on I-90 (Exit 24) for every 1 car that remains on the Thruway mainline towards I-87 south, so IMO having I-90 "exit" on the left is appropriate.

Left exits aren't appropriate.

[kernals12]

If you ignore the names and designations, and analyze it from a traffic perspective, almost 2 cars remain on I-90 (Exit 24) for every 1 car that remains on the Thruway mainline towards I-87 south, so IMO having I-90 "exit" on the left is appropriate.

Left exits aren't appropriate.

As a proud Nutmegger, I'm sick of you New Yorkers insulting my state's traditions, first steamed hams and now left exits. For shame

[Jim]

Traffic transitioning from I-90 EB to I-87 SB should be treated as a right exit and traffic remaining on I-90 EB should be treated as the mainline.  The right lane becomes an exit only and that expands to 2 exit only lanes where now the I-90 exit traffic expands to 2 lanes.

Is the only significant reason this won't happen the silly insistence that the Thruway designation is more important than the I-87 and I-90 designations?  Would it take more than paint and signs?

[webny99]

It's a high-speed split, so switching sides wouldn't change anything except which side traffic collects on.

The issue is that I-90 traffic needs more than one lane, and the easiest way to address that without adding new lanes is with an option lane. Then the traffic that currently clogs the left lane could stay in the center lane.

Nah.  Make it a right exit and follow the rules of the road with KRETP.  All better, just like how they fixed the I-95/I-695 interchange in Maryland.  No more people lining up on the left...and no crazy middle left turning nuttiness.  Just take people off to the right like Interstates should.

I maintain the issue is the single lane, not the fact that it's on the left. It's not at all a traditional "exit", as the volumes support that the majority of traffic is staying on I-90, which is technically the through movement. So traffic "exiting the interstate" is already on the right... as Jim suggests, they should be the ones with the single lane instead of the through I-90 movement. Whether that's done with an option lane or a restriping with the extra lane being added on the right shouldn't really matter. Either way, it would fix the issue of I-90 traffic collecting in a single lane.

[MATraveler128]

Traffic transitioning from I-90 EB to I-87 SB should be treated as a right exit and traffic remaining on I-90 EB should be treated as the mainline.  The right lane becomes an exit only and that expands to 2 exit only lanes where now the I-90 exit traffic expands to 2 lanes.

Is the only significant reason this won't happen the silly insistence that the Thruway designation is more important than the I-87 and I-90 designations?  Would it take more than paint and signs?

It's actually the shorter and faster route than staying on free I-90. Staying on the Thruway to the Berkshire Spur uses Boston as a control city. Personally, I-90 should have followed that way to begin with.

[kalvado]

The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the "exit"  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.

People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.

There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.

PS edited ramp description for clarity

[kalvado]

Traffic transitioning from I-90 EB to I-87 SB should be treated as a right exit and traffic remaining on I-90 EB should be treated as the mainline.  The right lane becomes an exit only and that expands to 2 exit only lanes where now the I-90 exit traffic expands to 2 lanes.

Is the only significant reason this won't happen the silly insistence that the Thruway designation is more important than the I-87 and I-90 designations?  Would it take more than paint and signs?

It's actually the shorter and faster route than staying on free I-90. Staying on the Thruway to the Berkshire Spur uses Boston as a control city. Personally, I-90 should have followed that way to begin with.

That would be the case if Castleton on Hudson bridge was in a better shape. As it stands right now, both routes are within a minute in drive time and a mile of driving distance of each other. Timing is valid outside of Albany rush hour, of course; and one is tolled and the other is free.  Toll barriers are no longer a time consuming thing. Rush hour traffic or road work may be a deal breaker, but without that there is no clear advantage of choosing either routing. 
Of course, sending through traffic to detour is a good idea from traffic management perspective.

[kalvado]

Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.

Can you elaborate a bit? I can see arguments against widening NYSTA would be putting on a table (money, money, and money), but I don't quite see full pro-widening picture.

[Plutonic Panda]

Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.

Can you elaborate a bit? I can see arguments against widening NYSTA would be putting on a table (money, money, and money), but I don't quite see full pro-widening picture.

New York isn't a poor state. Why can't they afford that? What would it cost? 3-5 billion for the entire thing? It's also a tolled facility so could they not issue bonds? Furthermore does the NYSTA only operate that one road or all tolled roads in the state?

PS, I hope my message didn't come across as being a smart ass. I'm genuinely curious about these things. I know in California I'm surprised at the lack of 6 lane rural stretches connecting major cities.

[seicer]

Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.

Could it be the hills clogging traffic? I was surprised to see traffic counts that don't suggest three-lanes the entire way but the grades between Albany and Route 17 slowed traffic down a lot.

[kalvado]

Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.

Can you elaborate a bit? I can see arguments against widening NYSTA would be putting on a table (money, money, and money), but I don't quite see full pro-widening picture.

New York isn't a poor state. Why can't they afford that? What would it cost? 3-5 billion for the entire thing? It's also a tolled facility so could they not issue bonds? Furthermore does the NYSTA only operate that one road or all tolled roads in the state?

PS, I hope my message didn't come across as being a smart ass. I'm genuinely curious about these things. I know in California I'm surprised at the lack of 6 lane rural stretches connecting major cities.

NYS is certainly not a rich state; and Upstate NY in particular is even worse.
Widening of exit 23-24 stretch in Albany was about $14M/mile to $25M/mile, depending which numbers you look at; with much easier terrain. There would be a lot of heavy work on NYC-Albany stretch in mountain areas, including lots of rock blasting - so $3B may be on a low side of things.
Besides, NYSTA just paid $4B for the Daddy's bridge, and it will take a while to pay that off those debts. Oh, and to put things in perspective - NYSTA annual operating budget is about $0.8B without bridge debt service. To make things worse, a lot of rate hikes were held off for political reasons...

[webny99]

Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.

Could it be the hills clogging traffic? I was surprised to see traffic counts that don't suggest three-lanes the entire way but the grades between Albany and Route 17 slowed traffic down a lot.

What traffic counts would suggest a widening is warranted? I used 30k for a threshold in the rural six-lane freeway thread, and I would say that's on the low end and 40-45k on the high end of when a widening would be considered. Certainly anything over 50k would be warranted, which includes NY 17 to I-84 and Berkshire Spur to I-787.

[kalvado]

Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.

Could it be the hills clogging traffic? I was surprised to see traffic counts that don't suggest three-lanes the entire way but the grades between Albany and Route 17 slowed traffic down a lot.

What traffic counts would suggest a widening is warranted? I used 30k for a threshold in the rural six-lane freeway thread, and I would say that's on the low end and 40-45k on the high end of when a widening would be considered. Certainly anything over 50k would be warranted, which includes NY 17 to I-84 and Berkshire Spur to I-787.

For cars, 2 lane highway can handle more than 4k an hour. Then you talk truck fraction, rush hour intensity (mostly concentrated commute vs spread out long haul).
I suspect 30k of mostly long haul is on a very low side.  Not that I driven Thruway a lot, but looks like other than summer weekend traffic, things are flowing ok around Albany - if there is no major road work or crash.

[seicer]

Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.

Could it be the hills clogging traffic? I was surprised to see traffic counts that don't suggest three-lanes the entire way but the grades between Albany and Route 17 slowed traffic down a lot.

What traffic counts would suggest a widening is warranted? I used 30k for a threshold in the rural six-lane freeway thread, and I would say that's on the low end and 40-45k on the high end of when a widening would be considered. Certainly anything over 50k would be warranted, which includes NY 17 to I-84 and Berkshire Spur to I-787.

At least 40,000 VPD but other factors can come into play. Looking at I-75 in southern Kentucky as an example, four lanes were relatively sufficient but it suffered from slow-downs on its many hills - especially because +20% of traffic is comprised of trucks. Those sections were prioritized for widening before others.

[Rothman]

The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the "exit"  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.

People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.

There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.

PS edited ramp description for clarity

Nah, just an intersection that's up to modern standards.  Get rid of the left exit and things'll flow better all the way from Schenectady.  All those slow people on the left will now be on the right where they should be.

[kalvado]

The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the "exit"  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.

People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.

There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.

PS edited ramp description for clarity

Nah, just an intersection that's up to modern standards.  Get rid of the left exit and things'll flow better all the way from Schenectady.  All those slow people on the left will now be on the right where they should be.

Left exit has VERY little to do with the issues. What we really need int that area is  to deal with Northway -> Thruway ramp. However that requires some engineering with at least GED diplomas working for NYSDOT...
As for slow people... Where exactly are you heading?
I suspect you are exiting towards Albany, and what you're arguing about is your god-given right to cut through 4 lanes of traffic in the last moment, making other drivers brake to the floor. Am I missing something?

[Rothman]

The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the "exit"  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.

People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.

There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.

PS edited ramp description for clarity

Nah, just an intersection that's up to modern standards.  Get rid of the left exit and things'll flow better all the way from Schenectady.  All those slow people on the left will now be on the right where they should be.

Left exit has VERY little to do with the issues. What we really need int that area is  to deal with Northway -> Thruway ramp. However that requires some engineering with at least GED diplomas working for NYSDOT...
As for slow people... Where exactly are you heading?
I suspect you are exiting towards Albany, and what you're arguing about is your god-given right to cut through 4 lanes of traffic in the last moment, making other drivers brake to the floor. Am I missing something?

Yep, Exit 1 from I-87 SB is bad, but I wonder if better signage would help (split traffic into Thruway/Free 90 lanes earlier).  Of course, just adding a lane to the ramp to the Thruway would be better.

Left exit causes a lot of issues.  Take the converse, with the right exit on I-90 WB for I-890 to Schenectady.  Works a lot better.  So would getting rid of the left on I-90 EB for I-90.