New York

[froggie]

when I drove through the area back in 1982 and in 2003.  This is why I mentioned that I do not rely on the years given by Historic Aerials based on what I see when I bring up a particular year.  Some of the years are not correct.

I think your memory may be a bit off, though, as it was DEFINITELY in its current configuration by 2003.  I imagine one of our NY contingent (especially baugh17) would have a better idea when things were completed.

[TonyTrafficLight]

I think that I-790 was given it's current configuration in the late 1980's when the entire area was reconstructed
during a $100 Million project dubbed the "MUD Project

MUD = Marcy, Utica, Deerfield

[vdeane]

Empire State Roads has some "interchange of the week" features that touch on this, including maps of the old configurations.  Interestingly, none of I-790 is in its original configuration.

http://empirestateroads.com/week/week17.html
http://empirestateroads.com/week/week72.html
http://empirestateroads.com/week/week40.html

Regarding interstate standards, I don't believe the original standards specified four lanes divided; there were many two-lane stretches, including I-95 in northern Maine, that eventually got upgraded as a result.  Meanwhile, I-790 now only connects to its parent in one direction.  I wonder how hard it would be to build a flyover from the ramp to Genesee Street south from the Thruway to I-790 west?

[kalvado]

Empire State Roads has some "interchange of the week" features that touch on this, including maps of the old configurations.  Interestingly, none of I-790 is in its original configuration.

http://empirestateroads.com/week/week17.html
http://empirestateroads.com/week/week72.html
http://empirestateroads.com/week/week40.html

Regarding interstate standards, I don't believe the original standards specified four lanes divided; there were many two-lane stretches, including I-95 in northern Maine, that eventually got upgraded as a result.  Meanwhile, I-790 now only connects to its parent in one direction.  I wonder how hard it would be to build a flyover from the ramp to Genesee Street south from the Thruway to I-790 west?

With open road tolling currently in use, there is a good reason to give that frontage road another look. And a short stretch of untolled road within Utica will not kill NYSTA bottom line...

[webny99]

I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.

[Jim]

I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.

This would be great, but it seems like the Thruway limited their easy options here by keeping the Utica area on a ramp-only tag reader rather than going with mainline readers between exits like they did in Albany and Syracuse.  I have no concept of how expensive/complicated it would be to modify the system with appropriate readers to allow these ramps that I'd really like to see.  I-90 West to I-790 should not involve 3 right turns including what tends to be a bit of a busy traffic light at the second of the turns.

[kalvado]

I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.

This would be great, but it seems like the Thruway limited their easy options here by keeping the Utica area on a ramp-only tag reader rather than going with mainline readers between exits like they did in Albany and Syracuse.  I have no concept of how expensive/complicated it would be to modify the system with appropriate readers to allow these ramps that I'd really like to see.  I-90 West to I-790 should not involve 3 right turns including what tends to be a bit of a busy traffic light at the second of the turns.

Call those ramps Exit 31A ...

[webny99]

I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.

This would be great, but it seems like the Thruway limited their easy options here by keeping the Utica area on a ramp-only tag reader rather than going with mainline readers between exits like they did in Albany and Syracuse.  I have no concept of how expensive/complicated it would be to modify the system with appropriate readers to allow these ramps that I'd really like to see.  I-90 West to I-790 should not involve 3 right turns including what tends to be a bit of a busy traffic light at the second of the turns.

Call those ramps Exit 31A ...

The issue isn't the numbering (there would still be only one exit per direction), but the fact that the current Exit 31 gantries are located on ramps that would be removed with this proposal. They'd have to be replaced with four individual gantries or two mainline gantries.

[baugh17]

when I drove through the area back in 1982 and in 2003.  This is why I mentioned that I do not rely on the years given by Historic Aerials based on what I see when I bring up a particular year.  Some of the years are not correct.

I think your memory may be a bit off, though, as it was DEFINITELY in its current configuration by 2003.  I imagine one of our NY contingent (especially baugh17) would have a better idea when things were completed.

I couldn't tell you exactly since I did not move to the area until 2007.   However, judging by information in some of the links previously mentioned as well as the presence of button copy signage (most of which was replaced in the past few years), I would say the current configuration was built sometime in the 1980s.

EDIT: A little further reading would suggest late 1980s to around 1990.

[empirestate]

Is there a map?

Here 'tis. Both the NYSDOT and USGS versions of the quad show the original configuration.

[kalvado]

I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.

This would be great, but it seems like the Thruway limited their easy options here by keeping the Utica area on a ramp-only tag reader rather than going with mainline readers between exits like they did in Albany and Syracuse.  I have no concept of how expensive/complicated it would be to modify the system with appropriate readers to allow these ramps that I'd really like to see.  I-90 West to I-790 should not involve 3 right turns including what tends to be a bit of a busy traffic light at the second of the turns.

Call those ramps Exit 31A ...

The issue isn't the numbering (there would still be only one exit per direction), but the fact that the current Exit 31 gantries are located on ramps that would be removed with this proposal. They'd have to be replaced with four individual gantries or two mainline gantries.

Adding a few more gantries should be cheaper than moving dirt and pouring concrete from my perspective.  Programming an extra access point may be a problem, depending on how configurable their system is. Would really suck if things cannot be changed because software rewrite is too expensive.

[vdeane]

^ They'd probably have to break the Albany-Syracuse VTS into an Albany-Utica VTS and a Syracuse-Utica VTS.  Incidentally, access from I-90 west to Genesee Street is going to be a challenge if the existing interchange were removed in favor of making existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes, because of all the commercial plazas that have been built in the area.  They would also need to deal with the tandem lot and the welcome center.  Attempting to keep existing exit 31 AND also make existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes also introduces weaving no matter where you put the eastern slip ramps, so we have to choose between one or the other.  For what it's worth, I don't think the Thruway would have built a ramp gantry at exit 31 if they thought they were going to rip it out any time soon.

[kalvado]

^ They'd probably have to break the Albany-Syracuse VTS into an Albany-Utica VTS and a Syracuse-Utica VTS.  Incidentally, access from I-90 west to Genesee Street is going to be a challenge if the existing interchange were removed in favor of making existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes, because of all the commercial plazas that have been built in the area.  They would also need to deal with the tandem lot and the welcome center.  Attempting to keep existing exit 31 AND also make existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes also introduces weaving no matter where you put the eastern slip ramps, so we have to choose between one or the other.  For what it's worth, I don't think the Thruway would have built a ramp gantry at exit 31 if they thought they were going to rip it out any time soon.

From my perspective, Thruway should hold on any major project until Daddy's bridge finance is more or less cleared.  Debt service is 27% their 2022 budget...  That can easily be a decade or more... So whatever we can dream of - NY85/Thruway interchange, ramp reconfiguration, major widening - is 15 years away as a best case scenario. And by then... Who knows if EZpass v.2 will be coming, or something else would change

[webny99]

^ They'd probably have to break the Albany-Syracuse VTS into an Albany-Utica VTS and a Syracuse-Utica VTS.  Incidentally, access from I-90 west to Genesee Street is going to be a challenge if the existing interchange were removed in favor of making existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes, because of all the commercial plazas that have been built in the area.  They would also need to deal with the tandem lot and the welcome center.  Attempting to keep existing exit 31 AND also make existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes also introduces weaving no matter where you put the eastern slip ramps, so we have to choose between one or the other.  For what it's worth, I don't think the Thruway would have built a ramp gantry at exit 31 if they thought they were going to rip it out any time soon.

I was picturing that the tie-in ramps to/from the west would be located just east of Leland Ave, but hadn't considered that that wouldn't provide access from the Thruway to Genesee St. You could maybe have a ramp connecting to River Rd just beyond Genesee St, possibly tying directly into the River Rd/Riverside Dr. intersection (as if that intersection isn't confusing enough as it is).

[vdeane]

I think I just came up with the cheap solution that provides the most access (all routes using existing designations):
-New gantries on the Thruway, one east of exit 31, one west of where NY 49 splits off to split the Albany-Syracuse VTS
-Remove the existing WB on ramp and EB off ramp from existing exit 31 along with the existing ramp from I-790 to the Thruway (too much weaving otherwise) along with the interchange toll gantry (the tandem lot should still function in this configuration, though it may need to go break-up only)
-Slip ramps from I-90 west to I-790 and from I-790 to I-90 east between the Genesee Street ramps and Leland Avenue; instead of two lanes going to/from Leland Avenue, one lane would go to/from these ramps
-Slip ramps from I-90 east to NY 49 and NY 49 to I-90 west near the split
-A flyover from NY 49 east to NY 49 west to allow for the missing movements in both directions (approximately here to allow weaving room while minimizing demolition)

That said, I'm not sure what the answer is to allowing access from SUNY-IT to I-90 and NY 49 WB.

In terms of designation, it would probably be a good idea to truncate I-790 and NY 49 so that the roads can be I-90 local lanes, especially since I-790 would only connect to half of I-90 keeping things the way they are.

[lstone19]

I'm just not getting why some think a change to Thruway exit 31 would require that the virtual ticket system be broken into two sections. Ramps to/from the west at the west end and ramps to/from the east at east end each with its own gantry. The backend processing doesn't change at all - the two off ramps for processing purposes are one (exit 31) and the two on ramps are one (entry 31). A 31 to 31 move won't be possible so that doesn't need to be considered.

[vdeane]

^ Have you seen the Thruway's ramp gantries?  They're pretty big.  Plus I was picturing that a slip ramp would be something small like this.  Plus the Thruway doesn't seem to be that interested in ramp gantries upstate... otherwise, they could have done something far simpler regarding the free travel between exits 24 and 25A, rather than having to guess whether to give that section for free (which isn't 100% accurate and significantly delays toll processing).

[lstone19]

^ Have you seen the Thruway's ramp gantries?  They're pretty big.  Plus I was picturing that a slip ramp would be something small like this.  Plus the Thruway doesn't seem to be that interested in ramp gantries upstate... otherwise, they could have done something far simpler regarding the free travel between exits 24 and 25A, rather than having to guess whether to give that section for free (which isn't 100% accurate and significantly delays toll processing).

Not sure what your point is. Are you talking about length as width shouldn't be an issue - you just build it wide enough for the number of lanes. As for length, I still don't see an issue. It's certainly shorter than any ramp should be and if it's a single-lane ramp, there's no lane changing to consider.

I concur that they unnecessarily complicated 25A but that's not a factor with 31.

[vdeane]

^ I was showing you how big the interchange gantries are.  Perhaps exit 20 would be a better example, since that's actually a single lane.  I have a hard time picturing that on a slip ramp.

Exits 24-25A was mentioned to show how uninterested the Thruway is in ramp gantries.  If they were interested, they would just have put ramp gantries on the tolled movements at exit 25, mainline gantries inside exit 25A, and had the Albany-Syracuse VTS end west of exit 26, with no other gantries between exits 24-26 except the ones I mentioned earlier in this sentence.  Instead, they included exit 26 in the VTS, and put mainline gantries between the other exits.  I think the fact that they did this the hardest way possible shows their attitude to ramp gantries quite clearly.

It's worth noting as well that they way I stacked the version I put a few posts ago was specifically to avoid having to replace the Leland Avenue and NY 49 EB bridges over the Thruway.

[kalvado]

^ I was showing you how big the interchange gantries are.  Perhaps exit 20 would be a better example, since that's actually a single lane.  I have a hard time picturing that on a slip ramp.

Exits 24-25A was mentioned to show how uninterested the Thruway is in ramp gantries.  If they were interested, they would just have put ramp gantries on the tolled movements at exit 25, mainline gantries inside exit 25A, and had the Albany-Syracuse VTS end west of exit 26, with no other gantries between exits 24-26 except the ones I mentioned earlier in this sentence.  Instead, they included exit 26 in the VTS, and put mainline gantries between the other exits.  I think the fact that they did this the hardest way possible shows their attitude to ramp gantries quite clearly.

It's worth noting as well that they way I stacked the version I put a few posts ago was specifically to avoid having to replace the Leland Avenue and NY 49 EB bridges over the Thruway.

I am trying to recall if I saw anything on MassPike. Those seem to be same gantries.
As for 25... My gut feeling someone ordered one less set of equipment than was required, and lead times during COVID didn't allow top up order.

[lstone19]

^ I was showing you how big the interchange gantries are.  Perhaps exit 20 would be a better example, since that's actually a single lane.  I have a hard time picturing that on a slip ramp.

Exits 24-25A was mentioned to show how uninterested the Thruway is in ramp gantries.  If they were interested, they would just have put ramp gantries on the tolled movements at exit 25, mainline gantries inside exit 25A, and had the Albany-Syracuse VTS end west of exit 26, with no other gantries between exits 24-26 except the ones I mentioned earlier in this sentence.  Instead, they included exit 26 in the VTS, and put mainline gantries between the other exits.  I think the fact that they did this the hardest way possible shows their attitude to ramp gantries quite clearly.

It's worth noting as well that they way I stacked the version I put a few posts ago was specifically to avoid having to replace the Leland Avenue and NY 49 EB bridges over the Thruway.

When you say "ramp gantries," do you mean gantries on individual ramps rather than a single gantry at a central point of an interchange? If so, well I don't know that they aren't interested as opposed to lacking the imagination to improve things. Perhaps they were stuck with the idea that the gantry at the interchange had to be at about the same location as the toll plaza. Which is actually odd considering how 50 or so years ago, the Thruway nicely solved both the Harriman and Spring Valley toll plaza backup problems (I'm old enough the remember them) with the between the ramps Woodbury plaza and deal with the northbound entry problem that created by collecting the Harriman entry toll up front from northbound traffic and then discounting the ticket toll by that pre-paid amount.

As far as the length of the gantries and slip ramps, a quick measure of one on Google Earth puts the gantries at 65 feet. Since no slip ramps exist yet at 31, you obviously make them long enough to include the gantry which really shouldn't be an issue since a quick measurement of a few around me in the Chicago area puts them at at least 200 feet.

[vdeane]

^ Keep in mind that the interchange gantry I linked to at exit 20 is about 50 feet wide.  There's only about 20-25 feet between the pavement with I-90 and I-790/NY 49.  And yeah, I'm not sure how they got stuck on that idea.  It probably has something to do with how the Thruway has been pushed into AET from outside forces, rather than pushing to implement it.  The Tappan Zee gantries resulted from the design-build process; the original Thruway-designed one was a traditional toll barrier with cash lanes and ORT E-ZPass lanes similar to Woodbury.  AET for the rest of the system was one of Cuomo's pet projects (and if that went the same way as the Empire State Trail did, the Thruway probably had less lead time between when it found out and when the general public did than one would think).

(personal opinion)

^ I was showing you how big the interchange gantries are.  Perhaps exit 20 would be a better example, since that's actually a single lane.  I have a hard time picturing that on a slip ramp.

Exits 24-25A was mentioned to show how uninterested the Thruway is in ramp gantries.  If they were interested, they would just have put ramp gantries on the tolled movements at exit 25, mainline gantries inside exit 25A, and had the Albany-Syracuse VTS end west of exit 26, with no other gantries between exits 24-26 except the ones I mentioned earlier in this sentence.  Instead, they included exit 26 in the VTS, and put mainline gantries between the other exits.  I think the fact that they did this the hardest way possible shows their attitude to ramp gantries quite clearly.

It's worth noting as well that they way I stacked the version I put a few posts ago was specifically to avoid having to replace the Leland Avenue and NY 49 EB bridges over the Thruway.

I am trying to recall if I saw anything on MassPike. Those seem to be same gantries.
As for 25... My gut feeling someone ordered one less set of equipment than was required, and lead times during COVID didn't allow top up order.

The way I outlined is actually less than what's there (six mainline gantries (one each direction at three locations) and one interchange gantry vs. four mainline gantries and two ramp gantries) and IIRC the map of gantry locations was on the Thruway website well before COVID.  It seems they got hung up on their way of doing it and didn't think things through.

[kalvado]

The way I outlined is actually less than what's there (six mainline gantries (one each direction at three locations) and one interchange gantry vs. four mainline gantries and two ramp gantries) and IIRC the map of gantry locations was on the Thruway website well before COVID.  It seems they got hung up on their way of doing it and didn't think things through.

There are per gantry costs - running cables to location, setting up those steel arches; per-lane costs; and possibly per-read costs.
For per-lane, looks like there are 2 sets per lane plus something per shoulder; this one looks like a total of 9 sets for 3 lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.715008,-73.8697665,3a,75y,295.45h,95.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOZT9_NekR9ZnvnjZ3-UhZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There are 4 sets on an exit (5 in the other direction):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.952635,-76.9795197,3a,75y,291.06h,92.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy-unX9bSgphwEJBPOJ7sLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Given that equipment sets are configures by the person with advanced stages of paranoia, they must be expensive, probably more expensive than gantry steel.
And while we are at it.... Some strange gantry decisions may be explained if per-read costs are high...

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/cctaux5bi6q9VDmS8

Found this on GSV.  Crews replacing a shield assembly.

[kalvado]

https://goo.gl/maps/cctaux5bi6q9VDmS8

Found this on GSV.  Crews replacing a shield assembly.

Slightly better view of the same scene:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6331356,-73.7752167,3a,75y,112.37h,89.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIa9kRPfBR4I42XEOe9zcbg!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Interesting that newly installed TOLL tabs are orange....