New York

[Rothman]

Not sure what you're talking about here.  Every new access point to the NYSTA requires board approval and their assumption of cost.  There was all that excitement a few years ago about the possibility of a couple of new interchanges -- they haven't come to fruition, to say the least.  The longer you stay on the Thruway, the better for them, is how they see it.

I don't see how being just beyond the end of the divided highway makes a difference, given the need for connections that close to Krumkill Road.

Question is who pays for the interchange? Looks like you implied answer is "Thruway" - then I certainly understand the point. I wonder if a different answer is possible as part of 787 downgrade package.
And while extra exit can mean shorter trips, it can also mean longer trips and  extra trips. My rough guess would be more traffic after all.
85 is a mix of divided limited access highway north of that point, an undivided limited access with roundabouts south of that point, eventually going to a arterial street. You want to give it an interstate -like treatment, I am saying it may not approach interstate standards even within it glorious mile. That includes access points spacing.

Yes, the Thruway would have to pay for it.

As someone who used that route to commute, I'm still baffled by the rest of your argument.  Adding another access point at that location with lights or more roundabouts or whatnot (which probably wouldn't be possible anyway, due to the transition between limited and unlimited access) would rile up a lot of people in Bethlehem/Guilderland/Selkirk and even Albany itself.  So, you look at an interchange and the wetlands issue...which are all moot, anyway, since NYSTA is never going for this.

Never is a big word. But just focusing on that specific issue, maybe to better understand relationships between DOT and Thruway.
Do you think governor would have a way to change the situation? Administrative, or fiscal? A grant for that specific project maybe?
Because I can see 787 removal becoming a big political thing, and some traffic mitigation could help finding common ground, so I can see people working on that specific interchange happening.

Nah.  787 is viewed within a silo and my feeling is that tearing it down is gaining public approval.

We'll see what happens.  I-86 was on the books as candidate projects and I thought we'd never see any more progression on that in my lifetime.  NY 85 and the Thruway isn't on anyone's radar seriously, so even less of a chance of it happening.

[The Ghostbuster]

For those of you who oppose Manhattan's congestion pricing system, you might not be happy with this story from The Hill: New York support for congestion pricing rises as Trump moves against policy: Poll (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5186539-new-york-congestion-pricing-trump-duffy/).

[kalvado]

For those of you who oppose Manhattan's congestion pricing system, you might not be happy with this story from The Hill: New York support for congestion pricing rises as Trump moves against policy: Poll (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5186539-new-york-congestion-pricing-trump-duffy/).

Frankly speaking, if Trump signs an executive order mandating that people breath, there would be an epidemic of suffocations in NYC. That would certainly reflect on those results.

[vdeane]

I-81's exits in Region 9 (Broome County) started changing to mile-based today.  Unfortunately, the press release doesn't have a table with the new numbers as of when I'm posting this.  Let's hope they add one later like what happened with the Region 3 switch.  Still no word on when Region 7 (Jefferson County) will switch over.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2025/2025-03-11

[The Ghostbuster]

After these and the Cross County Parkway are converted, what roadways might get a sequential-to-mileage-based exit numbering conversion next?

[roadman65]

For those of you who oppose Manhattan's congestion pricing system, you might not be happy with this story from The Hill: New York support for congestion pricing rises as Trump moves against policy: Poll (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5186539-new-york-congestion-pricing-trump-duffy/).

Maybe it's a tactic. Trump is opposing the Pricing so that the New York residents will want the deal.  Sort of like using reverse psychology knowing that people will react out of spite he is doing it.

Nothing surprises me😂🤣😂.

[hotdogPi]

For those of you who oppose Manhattan's congestion pricing system, you might not be happy with this story from The Hill: New York support for congestion pricing rises as Trump moves against policy: Poll (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5186539-new-york-congestion-pricing-trump-duffy/).

Maybe it's a tactic. Trump is opposing the Pricing so that the New York residents will want the deal.  Sort of like using reverse psychology knowing that people will react out of spite he is doing it.

Nothing surprises me😂🤣😂.

I can't see Trump actually wanting congestion pricing.

[roadman65]

Exit 1 on I-81 is now Exit 4.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Ka4ka7Kba/

[Flyer78]

I wonder if they will add a "Last Exit in NY" plaque southbound.

[machias]

I wonder if they will add a "Last Exit in NY" plaque southbound.

One would hope our drivers seeing exit numbers decrease to zero would be able to figure that out

[roadman65]

I wonder if they will add a "Last Exit in NY" plaque southbound.

One would hope our drivers seeing exit numbers decrease to zero would be able to figure that out

Why do they do that anyway on some freeways post the last exit in the state.  NJ does it a lot except on I-295 SB at NJ 49 like sing it as last exit before the toll instead.

The toll I can understand, but why the state?

[vdeane]

After these and the Cross County Parkway are converted, what roadways might get a sequential-to-mileage-based exit numbering conversion next?

Unless you were counting I-690 under "these", it would be the next.  I'm actually surprised it hasn't already after all the articles said last year; maybe they decided to hold it back until the viaduct projects are closer to completion.

Other than I-690 and the remainder of I-81/NY 481/BL 81, I'd look to Region 8 (Hudson Valley).  Outside of the viaduct project, these seem to be happening mainly with full-route sign rehabs, and Region 8 is the main DOT region doing those right now.  Other than that, I was wondering if I-86 could end up switching at some point due to the upgrade (as happened with I-99), but the Tioga County section got upgraded without any numbers needing to change, so now I'm not as sure.  I-787 is still being studied for alteration or removal, but it's so close to mile-based already that I'm curious if it will just remain.  I suppose if the Thruway/Northway direct ramps ever get built that could force the issue on I-87, but who knows, and there aren't any plans for that to happen in the near term anyways.

[Flyer78]

I wonder if they will add a "Last Exit in NY" plaque southbound.

One would hope our drivers seeing exit numbers decrease to zero would be able to figure that out

In this case though, the last exit is 4. Two more miles before seeing the oddly signed Pennsylvania Welcome Center - Operated by PennDOT. Roughly six miles until PA Exit 230.

I wonder if they will add a "Last Exit in NY" plaque southbound.

One would hope our drivers seeing exit numbers decrease to zero would be able to figure that out

Why do they do that anyway on some freeways post the last exit in the state.  NJ does it a lot except on I-295 SB at NJ 49 like sing it as last exit before the toll instead.

The toll I can understand, but why the state?

I assumed it was because it is not otherwise noted that Exit 4 is the last chance to exit in NY. So makes sense to give a non-local driver that bit of info. At least, that was my thought.

[machias]

I still say NYSDOT should be looking to add exit numbers to some of the new interstate freeways, like NY 33, NY 400, US 219, NY 104, heck even R2 should get in on the action with NY 49; anything that has decent length or a good number of interchanges. The 33 has more interchanges than nearby I-290, but it doesn't have exit numbers.

[Rothman]

I still say NYSDOT should be looking to add exit numbers to some of the new interstate freeways, like NY 33, NY 400, US 219, NY 104, heck even R2 should get in on the action with NY 49; anything that has decent length or a good number of interchanges. The 33 has more interchanges than nearby I-290, but it doesn't have exit numbers.

You can always reach out to NYSDOT with your opinion.

[machias]

I still say NYSDOT should be looking to add exit numbers to some of the new interstate freeways, like NY 33, NY 400, US 219, NY 104, heck even R2 should get in on the action with NY 49; anything that has decent length or a good number of interchanges. The 33 has more interchanges than nearby I-290, but it doesn't have exit numbers.

You can always reach out to NYSDOT with your opinion.

I've been telling that for 25 years. They don't care. I guess the road geeks don't either.

[Rothman]

I still say NYSDOT should be looking to add exit numbers to some of the new interstate freeways, like NY 33, NY 400, US 219, NY 104, heck even R2 should get in on the action with NY 49; anything that has decent length or a good number of interchanges. The 33 has more interchanges than nearby I-290, but it doesn't have exit numbers.

You can always reach out to NYSDOT with your opinion.

I've been telling that for 25 years. They don't care. I guess the road geeks don't either.

Amazing that NYSDOT would have other priorities than fiddling around with exit numbers on roads that haven't had them for decades to no ill-effect.

Still, if you did contact NYSDOT, at least it gets recorded.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[vdeane]

I emailed the contact listed on the press release last night, and had a quick response this morning.  The new numbers are as follows:

1 -> 4
2E-W (NB) -> 8A-B
2 (SB) -> 8B
3 (SB) -> 9
3 (NB) -> 11
4A -> 12
4B -> 13A
5 -> 13B
6 -> 16
7 -> 21
8 (NB) -> 29
8 (SB) -> 30

The existing unnumbered interchanges won't be receiving numbers, which is interesting given that Kamikaze Curve got numbered in that project, and the numbering leaves room for the other I-86 split and I-88 to receive numbers.  Also interesting that they fudged exit 3 to exit 11 but didn't fudge exit 5 to 14.

I still say NYSDOT should be looking to add exit numbers to some of the new interstate freeways, like NY 33, NY 400, US 219, NY 104, heck even R2 should get in on the action with NY 49; anything that has decent length or a good number of interchanges. The 33 has more interchanges than nearby I-290, but it doesn't have exit numbers.

Given that the MUTCD says that all interchanges should have exit numbers, not just on interstates, I'm surprised NY 85 didn't get them when it was under construction a decade ago.

[SignBridge]

If I remember right, an engineer from New Jersey DOT told me on another board a few years ago that FHWA only enforces the exit number requirement on Interstate Highways, even though the MUTCD requires them on all controlled access highways.

[Great Lakes Roads]

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-outlines-accelerated-timeline-state-route-347-reconstruction-project-suffolk

Construction of a Bridge at the Nicolls Road Interchange Now Set To Begin in 2028; Moved Up by Six Years

Project Acceleration Will Enhance Safety, Reduce Congestion and Support Economic Growth

[vdeane]

The existing unnumbered interchanges won't be receiving numbers, which is interesting given that Kamikaze Curve got numbered in that project, and the numbering leaves room for the other I-86 split and I-88 to receive numbers.

Speculation on this now that I've thought about it a bit more: the signs for these splits are mostly if not entirely overhead; I wonder if they didn't want to add exit tabs to sign structures that currently lack them?

[SGwithADD]

I emailed the contact listed on the press release last night, and had a quick response this morning.  The new numbers are as follows:

1 -> 4
2E-W (NB) -> 8A-B
2 (SB) -> 8B
3 (SB) -> 9
3 (NB) -> 11
4A -> 12
4B -> 13A
5 -> 13B
6 -> 16
7 -> 21
8 (NB) -> 29
8 (SB) -> 30

The existing unnumbered interchanges won't be receiving numbers, which is interesting given that Kamikaze Curve got numbered in that project, and the numbering leaves room for the other I-86 split and I-88 to receive numbers.  Also interesting that they fudged exit 3 to exit 11 but didn't fudge exit 5 to 14.

I still say NYSDOT should be looking to add exit numbers to some of the new interstate freeways, like NY 33, NY 400, US 219, NY 104, heck even R2 should get in on the action with NY 49; anything that has decent length or a good number of interchanges. The 33 has more interchanges than nearby I-290, but it doesn't have exit numbers.

Given that the MUTCD says that all interchanges should have exit numbers, not just on interstates, I'm surprised NY 85 didn't get them when it was under construction a decade ago.

I feel like NYSDOT hasn't done a great job with their exit number adjustments. I don't understand at all why the NY 221 exit is 38 northbound and 39 southbound. Sure, I get that the offramp is a bit more to the north, but it's all the same functional interchange, and the two offramps are both within "proper" rounding distance to 39 (38.6 and 39.4). Just seems to add unnecessary confusion, if you ask me.

[The Ghostbuster]

Renumbering old Exit 9 southbound as Exit 39 on Interstate 81 was the right move for NYSDOT. After all, the exit is just to the south of Milepost 40. Does anyone else find it odd they are not signing the old exit numbers with the new exit numbers? Usually, they co-sign the old and new exit numbers to give the public time to adjust to the new numbers.

[webny99]

I feel like NYSDOT hasn't done a great job with their exit number adjustments. I don't understand at all why the NY 221 exit is 38 northbound and 39 southbound. Sure, I get that the offramp is a bit more to the north, but it's all the same functional interchange, and the two offramps are both within "proper" rounding distance to 39 (38.6 and 39.4). Just seems to add unnecessary confusion, if you ask me.

The southbound exit is actually at roughly 39.9. I agree it would be preferred to have the same number in both directions since it is functionally one and there's no real chance of it ever being two independent interchanges (unlike the Whitney Point interchanges just south of here). Ideally it could have been 39 in both directions, but the exit ramps are 1.5 miles apart so I can accept the exit numbers reflecting that.

[SignBridge]

I feel like NYSDOT hasn't done a great job with their exit number adjustments. I don't understand at all why the NY 221 exit is 38 northbound and 39 southbound. Sure, I get that the offramp is a bit more to the north, but it's all the same functional interchange, and the two offramps are both within "proper" rounding distance to 39 (38.6 and 39.4). Just seems to add unnecessary confusion, if you ask me.

The southbound exit is actually at roughly 39.9. I agree it would be preferred to have the same number in both directions since it is functionally one and there's no real chance of it ever being two independent interchanges (unlike the Whitney Point interchanges just south of here). Ideally it could have been 39 in both directions, but the exit ramps are 1.5 miles apart so I can accept the exit numbers reflecting that.

I can think of two reasons why this might have happened. One is that maybe engineers sometimes get too caught up in technicalities instead of using common sense. The other is that this might be NYSDOT's way of getting even with the Feds for making them do mileage based numbers in the first place, which they would have preferred not to do at all.

"You want mileage based exits? You got 'em!!" And if the public complains that the numbers are not logical, NYSDOT can point the finger at FHWA.