Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[vdeane]

^ FHWA would want the mileage and exit numbers to follow I-87 and I-90, not the Thruway, which is probably the reason the Thruway Authority is so resistant in the first place.  I doubt they'd care so much if they could number the exits 1A-495.  Unlike NYSDOT, the Thruway doesn't do reference markers, so everything they have is likely inventoried according to milepoint from the NYC line.  If they were to switch, suddenly all their records would be wrong.  I would think it would be easy enough to set up a conversion table, especially with everything computerized these days, but institutional inertia is real.

Certainly true, but I would think the bigger issue as they see it isn't the re-numbering itself, but the fact that mileposts would be duplicated along almost the entire length of the Thruway. Even if there's no duplicate exits, having two of every milepost is still a problem.

It would be neither a new nor an unsolved problem, though.  The Thruway is more than just the mainline.  Most famously, there's the Berkshire Spur (B), but there's also the Niagara Thruway (N), Garden State Parkway connector (GS), Cross Westchester Expressway (CW), and New England Thruway (NE).  Historically, there was also I-84 (I-84), which is the closest equivalent.  Were the Thruway to make the switch, treating every road like they treated I-84 would IMO be the way to go.

[Ted$8roadFan]

^ FHWA would want the mileage and exit numbers to follow I-87 and I-90, not the Thruway, which is probably the reason the Thruway Authority is so resistant in the first place.  I doubt they'd care so much if they could number the exits 1A-495.  Unlike NYSDOT, the Thruway doesn't do reference markers, so everything they have is likely inventoried according to milepoint from the NYC line.  If they were to switch, suddenly all their records would be wrong.  I would think it would be easy enough to set up a conversion table, especially with everything computerized these days, but institutional inertia is real.

Certainly true, but I would think the bigger issue as they see it isn't the re-numbering itself, but the fact that mileposts would be duplicated along almost the entire length of the Thruway. Even if there's no duplicate exits, having two of every milepost is still a problem.

It would be neither a new nor an unsolved problem, though.  The Thruway is more than just the mainline.  Most famously, there's the Berkshire Spur (B), but there's also the Niagara Thruway (N), Garden State Parkway connector (GS), Cross Westchester Expressway (CW), and New England Thruway (NE).  Historically, there was also I-84 (I-84), which is the closest equivalent.  Were the Thruway to make the switch, treating every road like they treated I-84 would IMO be the way to go.

Could the NYSTA use letter suffixes for the spurs, like they currently do for the Berkshire Spur (B1, B2, B3, etc.)?

[D-Dey65]

After a quick check of the NYSDOT Westchester County Bridge Inventory, this would appear to be correct: MTA owns the railroad bridge (BIN 2262260), which is listed in poor condition, while the Thruway bridge (BIN 5514540) is not in poor condition.

Fun fact: The railroad bridge (BIN 2262260) was originally constructed in 1886, so the fact that is operation at all (albeit the 3 ton posted limit) impresses me.

Okay, so we all know Centre Avenue over the thruway is in decent condition. The height issue concerns me though.
http://bridgereports.com/1393234
Now compare it to the bridge over the railroad.
http://bridgereports.com/1385799

The Thruway Authority wants to raise the North Avenue Bridge to a height that's only two inches higher than the Centre Avenue Bridge over the railroad tracks. Now, I could suggest replacing both Centre Avenue Bridges with something of equal clearances, but that would require steeper climbs for drivers on Centre Avenue and Grove Street. You could also try lowering the road, but that would require a steep descent from the bridge over Webster Avenue and the Metro-North New Haven Line.


BTW, I wasn't able to get that link to the NYSDOT Bridge Inventory. I tried putting in the correct link, but it keeps changing to "John Madden" for some stupid reason.

[vdeane]

^ FHWA would want the mileage and exit numbers to follow I-87 and I-90, not the Thruway, which is probably the reason the Thruway Authority is so resistant in the first place.  I doubt they'd care so much if they could number the exits 1A-495.  Unlike NYSDOT, the Thruway doesn't do reference markers, so everything they have is likely inventoried according to milepoint from the NYC line.  If they were to switch, suddenly all their records would be wrong.  I would think it would be easy enough to set up a conversion table, especially with everything computerized these days, but institutional inertia is real.

Certainly true, but I would think the bigger issue as they see it isn't the re-numbering itself, but the fact that mileposts would be duplicated along almost the entire length of the Thruway. Even if there's no duplicate exits, having two of every milepost is still a problem.

It would be neither a new nor an unsolved problem, though.  The Thruway is more than just the mainline.  Most famously, there's the Berkshire Spur (B), but there's also the Niagara Thruway (N), Garden State Parkway connector (GS), Cross Westchester Expressway (CW), and New England Thruway (NE).  Historically, there was also I-84 (I-84), which is the closest equivalent.  Were the Thruway to make the switch, treating every road like they treated I-84 would IMO be the way to go.

Could the NYSTA use letter suffixes for the spurs, like they currently do for the Berkshire Spur (B1, B2, B3, etc.)?

Not sure what the point would be.  Only the Berkshire Spur is on a virtual ticket system, and it's not like any exit numbers on it would duplicate I-87's numbers.  Suffixes could work for differentiating I-90 and I-87 on toll statements, though.  They still use interchange numbers even for fixed-price gantries (except for New Rochelle, Yonkers, the GMCB, Spring Valley, Harriman, and the Grand Island bridges).

The potential for duplicates exists in numbers 157 and lower.  Of that, numbers below 53 are off the ticket system on I-87, and 66-76 are off the ticket systems for I-90, so any number in the ranges of 53-66 and 76-157 could potentially duplicate.  In those ranges, the biggest probability of duplication are 133 (current exits 46 and 21B) and maybe 144 (current exits 45 and 22).  It's probably easy enough to fudge numbers just like the Pennsylvania Turnpike does.

[PurdueBill]

^ FHWA would want the mileage and exit numbers to follow I-87 and I-90, not the Thruway, which is probably the reason the Thruway Authority is so resistant in the first place.  I doubt they'd care so much if they could number the exits 1A-495.  Unlike NYSDOT, the Thruway doesn't do reference markers, so everything they have is likely inventoried according to milepoint from the NYC line.  If they were to switch, suddenly all their records would be wrong.  I would think it would be easy enough to set up a conversion table, especially with everything computerized these days, but institutional inertia is real.

Certainly true, but I would think the bigger issue as they see it isn't the re-numbering itself, but the fact that mileposts would be duplicated along almost the entire length of the Thruway. Even if there's no duplicate exits, having two of every milepost is still a problem.

It would be neither a new nor an unsolved problem, though.  The Thruway is more than just the mainline.  Most famously, there's the Berkshire Spur (B), but there's also the Niagara Thruway (N), Garden State Parkway connector (GS), Cross Westchester Expressway (CW), and New England Thruway (NE).  Historically, there was also I-84 (I-84), which is the closest equivalent.  Were the Thruway to make the switch, treating every road like they treated I-84 would IMO be the way to go.

Could the NYSTA use letter suffixes for the spurs, like they currently do for the Berkshire Spur (B1, B2, B3, etc.)?

Not sure what the point would be.  Only the Berkshire Spur is on a virtual ticket system, and it's not like any exit numbers on it would duplicate I-87's numbers.  Suffixes could work for differentiating I-90 and I-87 on toll statements, though.  They still use interchange numbers even for fixed-price gantries (except for New Rochelle, Yonkers, the GMCB, Spring Valley, Harriman, and the Grand Island bridges).

The potential for duplicates exists in numbers 157 and lower.  Of that, numbers below 53 are off the ticket system on I-87, and 66-76 are off the ticket systems for I-90, so any number in the ranges of 53-66 and 76-157 could potentially duplicate.  In those ranges, the biggest probability of duplication are 133 (current exits 46 and 21B) and maybe 144 (current exits 45 and 22).  It's probably easy enough to fudge numbers just like the Pennsylvania Turnpike does.

With AET and losing the need for interchanges to be "ticket tollway double trumpets" everywhere comes the potential for more interchanges to be added more easily which could be done as traditional diamonds or variants.  That only increases the chances of duplicate exit numbers on the mainline Thruway were it to be numbered with 87's mileage and 90's mileage.

[vdeane]

I'm not sure what the actual possibility of new interchanges being built is in the foreseeable future.  I know some people around Buffalo were calling for something at Youngs Road (no potential to duplicate) a while back, but I'm not sure the Thruway is actually interested.

Again, I definitely don't see the need for signage to have prefixes/suffixes with this.  There is NO continuous ticket system down the mainline and Berkshire Spur the way there used to be.  There are no less than six: NYC-Albany/MA, Albany-Syracuse, West Syracuse, Syracuse-Rochester, Rochester-Buffalo, and Buffalo-PA.  MassDOT may aggregate toll gantries into a single charge, but NYSTA does not.  In any case, I could see using suffixes like E or N to differentiate on bills to make them more clear, but I don't see why that would need to extend to signage.

[kirbykart]

I'm not sure what the actual possibility of new interchanges being built is in the foreseeable future.  I know some people around Buffalo were calling for something at Youngs Road (no potential to duplicate) a while back, but I'm not sure the Thruway is actually interested.

 Just looked at the area on Google Maps. That'd be pretty tight to fit a new interchange in. Also, what would the utility of this be? Do the NY 78 exit going WB and NY 33 exit going EB not serve the airport well enough? Really any benefit of this is already covered by NY 78, which is very close to where this would be.

 

[MASTERNC]

I'm not sure what the actual possibility of new interchanges being built is in the foreseeable future.  I know some people around Buffalo were calling for something at Youngs Road (no potential to duplicate) a while back, but I'm not sure the Thruway is actually interested.

 Just looked at the area on Google Maps. That'd be pretty tight to fit a new interchange in. Also, what would the utility of this be? Do the NY 78 exit going WB and NY 33 exit going EB not serve the airport well enough? Really any benefit of this is already covered by NY 78, which is very close to where this would be.

 

Having family in that area, Youngs Rd also isn’t well equipped for the traffic that would result from having an interchange. It is only a two lane road except around select intersections

[webny99]

I'm not sure what the actual possibility of new interchanges being built is in the foreseeable future.  I know some people around Buffalo were calling for something at Youngs Road (no potential to duplicate) a while back, but I'm not sure the Thruway is actually interested.

 Just looked at the area on Google Maps. That'd be pretty tight to fit a new interchange in. Also, what would the utility of this be? Do the NY 78 exit going WB and NY 33 exit going EB not serve the airport well enough? Really any benefit of this is already covered by NY 78, which is very close to where this would be.

 

Having family in that area, Youngs Rd also isn’t well equipped for the traffic that would result from having an interchange. It is only a two lane road except around select intersections

Until I looked it up just now, I was thinking Youngs Rd was between NY 78 and Pembroke. I could see another interchange further east to serve Clarence/Akron and Alden, but I can't see why another interchange would be needed between NY 78 and I-290, which are already among the most closely-spaced exits on the tolled portion of I-90.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Driving on Youngs Road almost every day on my way home, there's more than enough room if you're willing to relocate the toll booth east of a proposed 49A. I also know it would get used for airport traffic and I certainly would use it rather than drive to exit 49 or have to get off at 51 to take 33 to Aero Drive to Youngs Road (which is mostly what I do).

Youngs Road to Aero Drive has the economy lot to the airport and it would get used for that purpose. There's also a bunch of business parks right at Youngs Road.

[James]

Will the Thruway ever be expanded to six lanes in certain areas?

The entirety of I-87 from Albany to NYC should definitely be six lanes minimum as well as I-90 from Exit 49 (NY-78) to Exit 57 (NY-75) in the Buffalo area.

Like, it's pretty weird that the ~150 mile Interstate route directly connecting the state capital to one of the largest cities in the world is still only four lanes for much of its length.

[Roadgeek Adam]

So how many people's homes and businesses would you like to level for that occur? Traffic post-pandemic up here hasn't been terrible between 50 and 55. 50 is the only major bottleneck and that's mostly 90 EB exit 50.

[cockroachking]

So how many people's homes and businesses would you like to level for that occur?

Where exactly would this be an issue? To my knowledge, the entirety of the Thruway that is not already 6+ lanes was built with the intention of adding lanes in the median in the future (albeit with slightly narrower than 10ft standard inner shoulders on the narrowest 44ft median sections).

[froggie]

So how many people's homes and businesses would you like to level for that occur?

Where exactly would this be an issue? To my knowledge, the entirety of the Thruway that is not already 6+ lanes was built with the intention of adding lanes in the median in the future (albeit with slightly narrower than 10ft standard inner shoulders on the narrowest 44ft median sections).

James mentioned through Buffalo.  And while Exit 50-55 is already 6 lanes, getting that to 8 lanes is likely where additional ROW would be needed and I'd bet that's what Adam was alluding to.

[James]

So how many people's homes and businesses would you like to level for that occur?

Where exactly would this be an issue? To my knowledge, the entirety of the Thruway that is not already 6+ lanes was built with the intention of adding lanes in the median in the future (albeit with slightly narrower than 10ft standard inner shoulders on the narrowest 44ft median sections).

James mentioned through Buffalo.  And while Exit 50-55 is already 6 lanes, getting that to 8 lanes is likely where additional ROW would be needed and I'd bet that's what Adam was alluding to.

Yes, to clarify, I meant that I-90 from Exit 49 to Exit 50 should be six lanes (why it's not, I really don't understand) as well as from Exit 55 to Exit 57 because of how busy those particular exits can be when the Bills play.

[webny99]

I agree that Exit 49 to 50 is a high priority for 6-lanes. I would rather see that than any further widening on the untolled section through Buffalo.

The untolled section (especially Exit 50 to 52) is very busy, but usually moves at least at speed. If anything, the fact that we think it needs widening is proof that Upstate NY is spoiled with light traffic. I would like to see an extra lane WB (SB) between Exit 50 and 51, and a flyover or some sort of modification for the NY 33 EB loop to I-90 EB. But other than that, in the unlikely event that funding ever becomes available, I would rather see widening projects on the exurban/rural segments of the Thruway, which would include Harriman to Albany high on the list.

[burgess87]

I agree that Exit 49 to 50 is a high priority for 6-lanes. I would rather see that than any further widening on the untolled section through Buffalo.

The untolled section (especially Exit 50 to 52) is very busy, but usually moves at least at speed. If anything, the fact that we think it needs widening is proof that Upstate NY is spoiled with light traffic. I would like to see an extra lane WB (SB) between Exit 50 and 51, and a flyover or some sort of modification for the NY 33 EB loop to I-90 EB. But other than that, in the unlikely event that funding ever becomes available, I would rather see widening projects on the exurban/rural segments of the Thruway, which would include Harriman to Albany high on the list.

I don't see how IH 90 between Buffalo & Rochester isn't already six lanes.

[kalvado]

I agree that Exit 49 to 50 is a high priority for 6-lanes. I would rather see that than any further widening on the untolled section through Buffalo.

The untolled section (especially Exit 50 to 52) is very busy, but usually moves at least at speed. If anything, the fact that we think it needs widening is proof that Upstate NY is spoiled with light traffic. I would like to see an extra lane WB (SB) between Exit 50 and 51, and a flyover or some sort of modification for the NY 33 EB loop to I-90 EB. But other than that, in the unlikely event that funding ever becomes available, I would rather see widening projects on the exurban/rural segments of the Thruway, which would include Harriman to Albany high on the list.

I don't see how IH 90 between Buffalo & Rochester isn't already six lanes.

Certain governor freezing tolls and spending all thruway money on a bridge named after another governor with the same last name has nothing to do with that, though. Neither does  handing over Canal to NYSTA jurisdiction.

[James]

I agree that Exit 49 to 50 is a high priority for 6-lanes. I would rather see that than any further widening on the untolled section through Buffalo.

The untolled section (especially Exit 50 to 52) is very busy, but usually moves at least at speed. If anything, the fact that we think it needs widening is proof that Upstate NY is spoiled with light traffic. I would like to see an extra lane WB (SB) between Exit 50 and 51, and a flyover or some sort of modification for the NY 33 EB loop to I-90 EB. But other than that, in the unlikely event that funding ever becomes available, I would rather see widening projects on the exurban/rural segments of the Thruway, which would include Harriman to Albany high on the list.

I don't see how IH 90 between Buffalo & Rochester isn't already six lanes.

I mean, I do take Exit 46 to Exit 47 every day as part of my commute to work and there definitely isn't really a need for more than four lanes from Exit 49 onwards going EB.

Also, what's with the lack of overhead signage at Interstate junctions?

Like here: plenty of space for an "I-90 WEST, Buffalo" pull-through sign.

Or here. Like, literally such an obvious place for an "I-390 SOUTH, Corning" pull-through sign.

(Btw, does anyone know how to hyperlink?)

[1]

(Btw, does anyone know how to hyperlink?)

Code: [Select]

[url=https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0584065,-77.642154,3a,75y,211.2h,92.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1cD_tMxEhMdo_VYvopNWMw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en]here[/url]

[James]

(Btw, does anyone know how to hyperlink?)

Code: [Select]

[url=https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0584065,-77.642154,3a,75y,211.2h,92.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1cD_tMxEhMdo_VYvopNWMw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en]here[/url]

Appreciate ya

[webny99]

I don't see how IH 90 between Buffalo & Rochester isn't already six lanes.

I mean, I do take Exit 46 to Exit 47 every day as part of my commute to work and there definitely isn't really a need for more than four lanes from Exit 49 onwards going EB.

I agree that 46 to 47 doesn't need widening, but that segment also isn't as busy as west of 47. If there was to be a widening east from Buffalo, 47 would be the logical place for a lane drop given how much EB traffic exits/WB traffic enters at I-490.

The most recent AADT volumes show only about 30k on 46-47 and 40k on 47-48, which is absolutely the difference in whether widening is needed (IMO).

Like here: plenty of space for an "I-90 WEST, Buffalo" pull-through sign.

This should really be an APL. Unfortunately the I-490 exit only has a single lane. It widens to two lanes when you get near the exit,  but I would much rather have the right thru lane be an option lane. As it is now, the exiting traffic is too much volume for one lane so you get a lot of unnecessary braking and jockeying for position in the exit lane.

[webny99]

Another Thruway question that vdeane or Rothman may be able to answer: does NYSTA perform regular AADT counts? I'm curious because the Statewide Traffic Data Viewer is lacking data for much of the Thruway, and segments it does have are often outdated, estimates only, and/or lacking the full datasets that you can get from NYSDOT counts.

[Rothman]

Another Thruway question that vdeane or Rothman may be able to answer: does NYSTA perform regular AADT counts? I'm curious because the Statewide Traffic Data Viewer is lacking data for much of the Thruway, and segments it does have are often outdated, estimates only, and/or lacking the full datasets that you can get from NYSDOT counts.

I'd be surprised if they don't.  Keep in mind the Statewide Traffic Data Viewer is NYSDOT, so of course it doesn't have NYSTA's data in it, other than what pieces have been shared over the years.

If you want NYSTA's data, go to NYSTA.

[froggie]

It may not be NYSDOT that performs traffic counts on the Thruway, but IINM the state is still required to submit that data to FHWA every year.  Finding those volumes, though, is the trick.