New York

[SignBridge]

I drove that stretch of Carman Mill Rd. recently. It does look like an old New York State road. Three narrow concrete lanes the way NYS used to build them. NY-102 (Front St.) in East Meadow looked like that too back in the 1950's and 60's.

[D-Dey65]

Carmans Mill Road. This is known, but for Wikipedia purposes, we're still working out the details.

Yeah, I expected that. But the map made it look like County Line and Carmans Mill share the same intersection (and we all know that's not true).

I drove that stretch of Carman Mill Rd. recently. It does look like an old New York State road. Three narrow concrete lanes the way NYS used to build them. NY-102 (Front St.) in East Meadow looked like that too back in the 1950's and 60's.

The last time I was there, Montauk Highway still had that from East Patchogue to Brookhaven.

[jasonsk287]

Carmans Mill Road. This is known, but for Wikipedia purposes, we're still working out the details.

Yeah, I expected that. But the map made it look like County Line and Carmans Mill share the same intersection (and we all know that's not true).

I drove that stretch of Carman Mill Rd. recently. It does look like an old New York State road. Three narrow concrete lanes the way NYS used to build them. NY-102 (Front St.) in East Meadow looked like that too back in the 1950's and 60's.

The last time I was there, Montauk Highway still had that from East Patchogue to Brookhaven.

I live nearby and yes, though Montauk Highway is a county road, it is still concrete from East Patchogue to Brookhaven.

I remember NY-112 in the Medford area being original concrete for many years- it was only recently paved over!

[webny99]

Here's something interesting I noticed yesterday and have confirmed through GMSV. Every bridge on the thruway between Buffalo and Syracuse is wide enough for six lanes. Starting in Buffalo and heading east:
S Cayuga Rd/Aero Dr/Ellicott Creek/NY 78/Harris Hill Rd/NY 5/Exit 48A/Tonawanda Creek/Black Creek/NY 383/Genesee River/Unnamed Railroad, Henrietta/Mendon Center Rd/NY 96/(current six lane segment includes four bridges)/Flint Creek/Rocky Run/NY 88/Flint Creek/Ontario County 6/Flint Creek/Exit 42/NY 14/Seneca River/Cayuga Creek/Unnamed Railroad, Port Byron

The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from all this is that it is in the long-term plans to widen the thruway. Since bridge widening would be a significant portion of the cost, this should simplify and hopefully expedite a potential large-scale widening (which I personally am an advocate of)!

[Beltway]

Here's something interesting I noticed yesterday and have confirmed through GMSV. Every bridge on the thruway between Buffalo and Syracuse is wide enough for six lanes. Starting in Buffalo and heading east:
S Cayuga Rd/Aero Dr/Ellicott Creek/NY 78/Harris Hill Rd/NY 5/Exit 48A/Tonawanda Creek/Black Creek/NY 383/Genesee River/Unnamed Railroad, Henrietta/Mendon Center Rd/NY 96/(current six lane segment includes four bridges)/Flint Creek/Rocky Run/NY 88/Flint Creek/Ontario County 6/Flint Creek/Exit 42/NY 14/Seneca River/Cayuga Creek/Unnamed Railroad, Port Byron
The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from all this is that it is in the long-term plans to widen the thruway. Since bridge widening would be a significant portion of the cost, this should simplify and hopefully expedite a potential large-scale widening (which I personally am an advocate of)!

Has it been widened yet all the way between NYC and Albany?  That would take priority given higher traffic volumes.

I have looked at the bridges between Buffalo and Rochester, and some looked old enough to be original construction, so that must have been foresight to build them with 3 lanes.

[vdeane]

The traffic counts for I-87 south of Albany drop to 34k at the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge and increase to about 38k in the Catskills.  South of there, about 41k to at least I-84.  Rochester-Depew is 38-41k throughout.  Rochester-Geneva is 38-46k and Geneva-Syracuse is 33-35k.  This jumps during tourist season.

That said, I believe the Thruway was originally designed to accommodate the possibility of widening it.

[signalman]

Most of the problems that I've encountered south of Albany have been caused by left lane bandits.  I can't honestly say I've ever experienced delays due to volume on that section.  There is plenty of predatory speed enforcement by NY troopers though.  IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.

[webny99]

Rochester-Geneva is 38-46k

Except for 490 to NY 332, which is 57k (and already six-laned).

Interestingly, the lowest AADT between Buffalo and Syracuse is between LeRoy and Henrietta. I would have though Henrietta to Victor would have much lower volumes (because westbound traffic originating from east of Rochester tends to get on at Henrietta, whereas eastbound traffic from the entire area gets on at Victor).

This jumps during tourist season.

I'd be interested to know by how much. Summer weekends, especially holidays, must be around a minimum of 50k from Syracuse to Buffalo.

IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.

While I agree, it's often hard to decide whether to blame high volumes overall or high volumes of left lane campers. The higher the volume, the easier it is to excuse left lane camping.

I tend to travel 10-15 mph over the posted limit, but I think on toll roads like the Thruway, you should be able to drive however fast you want, unrestricted by volume. This is one of my main arguments for six laning the Thruway (passing trucks are a large factor in this).

[Rothman]

The wide bridges may also just be there to allow for better MPT when maintenance is needed.

[froggie]

I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.

I've also had a different experience than signalman south of Albany....I have run into congestion several times, though these predominantly related to holidays or long weekends, and typically began around the Kingston exit when heading south.  Also in my experience, while state troopers are a regular presence along the Thruway, I haven't noticed them in any inordinate frequency compared to other states.  It's largely the volume that prevents heavy speeding.

[kalvado]

I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.

I've also had a different experience than signalman south of Albany....I have run into congestion several times, though these predominantly related to holidays or long weekends, and typically began around the Kingston exit when heading south.  Also in my experience, while state troopers are a regular presence along the Thruway, I haven't noticed them in any inordinate frequency compared to other states.  It's largely the volume that prevents heavy speeding.

Whatever it worth.. Different jurisdiction, but maybe same school of thinking?  Northway overpass near exit 4 was fully rebuilt few years ago. New bridges look to be designed for 4 lanes each, old ones were 3-lane  - I don't think old were wide enough for 2+2..
SPUI at exit 6 a bit down the road was also build just a few years ago, but looks like 4th lane is not really planned for. It may be shoehorned in, though... Maybe that is the actual plan?
Both locations get about same amount of traffic.

[Beltway]

The traffic counts for I-87 south of Albany drop to 34k at the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge and increase to about 38k in the Catskills.  South of there, about 41k to at least I-84.  Rochester-Depew is 38-41k throughout.  Rochester-Geneva is 38-46k and Geneva-Syracuse is 33-35k.  This jumps during tourist season.

So fairly consistently in the 30s and some low 40s x1000 AADT on the rural sections.

That said, I believe the Thruway was originally designed to accommodate the possibility of widening it.

That is what it appeared, even in the 1950s some or maybe many bridges were built 3 lanes wide.  Surprising for back in those days as they probably wouldn't have forecast much more than 10,000 AADT for 20 years into the future.

They also were one of the pioneers for the rural freeway design with wide median and wide clear roadsides, at least in WNY I saw long sections with 100+ foot wide median and clear roadsides of 30+ feet.  Futuristic for the 1950s.

[vdeane]

Whatever it worth.. Different jurisdiction, but maybe same school of thinking?  Northway overpass near exit 4 was fully rebuilt few years ago. New bridges look to be designed for 4 lanes each, old ones were 3-lane  - I don't think old were wide enough for 2+2..
SPUI at exit 6 a bit down the road was also build just a few years ago, but looks like 4th lane is not really planned for. It may be shoehorned in, though... Maybe that is the actual plan?
Both locations get about same amount of traffic.

It's worth noting that there is an another motivation behind the width of the exit 4 bridges: the need to maintain three continuous lanes each way on all work days throughout the entire construction period.

Interestingly, the lowest AADT between Buffalo and Syracuse is between LeRoy and Henrietta. I would have though Henrietta to Victor would have much lower volumes (because westbound traffic originating from east of Rochester tends to get on at Henrietta, whereas eastbound traffic from the entire area gets on at Victor).

Suburb-suburb commutes between Victor and Henrietta?

[webny99]

I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.

I hadn't considered that, but I'm sure that's a factor as well. Most of the bridges have been their current width for decades, so my finding, of course, isn't indicative of an impending widening by any means.

It does, however, mean that a widening would be much more convenient and less expensive than it would be otherwise, so I'm still hoping it gives a foothold of sorts to the prospect.

Interestingly, the lowest AADT between Buffalo and Syracuse is between LeRoy and Henrietta. I would have though Henrietta to Victor would have much lower volumes (because westbound traffic originating from east of Rochester tends to get on at Henrietta, whereas eastbound traffic from the entire area gets on at Victor).

Suburb-suburb commutes between Victor and Henrietta?

Another possibility I hadn't considered, probably because I personally had never even used that stretch in my life until about two years ago. It doesn't "feel" like a commuter corridor, but I'm sure there are some commuters. Even Farmington/Canandaigua to Henrietta would be practical as a commute - and probably even preferred to commuting downtown.

Also, now that I think of it, northbound I-390 would contibute net volume to the eastbound thruway (since anyone heading west would use NY63 or US20A to cut the corner). All in all, I guess it was a bit foolish to think that volumes should increase heading towards LeRoy 

[Sam]

Interestingly, the lowest AADT between Buffalo and Syracuse is between LeRoy and Henrietta. I would have though Henrietta to Victor would have much lower volumes (because westbound traffic originating from east of Rochester tends to get on at Henrietta, whereas eastbound traffic from the entire area gets on at Victor).

Suburb-suburb commutes between Victor and Henrietta?

I-490 isn't always the shortest or fastest way to get where you're going. If you're coming from east of Victor, I-390 is a better route to Henrietta shopping, U of R/Strong Hospital, the airport, or really almost anywhere on the west side.

[Buffaboy]

I wonder if 8 lanes between Rochester and Buffalo would be a stretch in the future.

In any event, a 6 lane expansion shouldn't cost most that $100-200m, if that, right?

[GenExpwy]

I don't think it's just Buffalo to Syracuse. I haven't looked at every bridge, but from what I can see, it's the entire Mainline from Pennsylvania to at least Albany, and presumably down the Hudson. This includes the bridges over the Exit 29A ramps (Little Falls), which were originally built in the early 1970s. However, the Berkshire Section does not have extra-wide bridges. And I remember noticing the extra width when I rode on the Thruway in the late '60s and early '70s, so it's not something added in the last 45 or 50 years.

I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.

But also notice that the original overpasses have piers that are located to allow for a third lane (using 1950s design standards; piers right up against the shoulder). This suggests that the original design was future-proofed for a third lane.

Parts of the Southern Tier Expressway (I-86) have a lesser provision for a third lane on the bridges. The steel and the bridge deck aren't there, but the abutments have an extra "pocket"  ready to accept another girder. Example  This is found in Steuben County between I-390 and Campbell (the section east of Campbell is older); and I remember seeing it east of Elmira, but I don't remember exactly where.

[Beltway]

I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.

On a turnpike built back in the 1950s?  I don't think anyone planned on when bridge rehabs would be needed, if they thought about it they might have thought 30 years or more into the future, and would not have made bridges wider than what was needed for at least 20 years, and back then that would have been an AADT of maybe 10,000, not remotely near 6-lane warrants.

[Rothman]

I'd bet the bridges were widened since the 1950s.

I am with froggie on this one.  As I also said above, wide bridges aren't an indication of planning for extra lanes (indeed, volumes were much lower back then, so that kind of added expense would not have been warranted based on that argument).  Rather, it is about enabling maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT) during construction.

[webny99]

I wonder if 8 lanes between Rochester and Buffalo would be a stretch in the future.

We make do with four now, so I'm going to go with yes, it would be a bit of a stretch 
There really aren't very many long-distance interstates of more than six lanes total - the NJ turnpike being the most prominent example, and that is way busier than Rochester to Buffalo will ever be.

In any event, a 6 lane expansion shouldn't cost most that $100-200m, if that, right?

Well, that's the underlying point I was making; that a widening to six lanes really would not be that much of an expense. Given the obvious forethought of the original planners/designers, I'm a bit surprised a widening hasn't happened already (at least on the busier sections - certainly including Rochester to Buffalo).

[webny99]

I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.

But also notice that the original overpasses have piers that are located to allow for a third lane (using 1950s design standards; piers right up against the shoulder). This suggests that the original design was future-proofed for a third lane.

When I was checking all the bridges, I made another relevant find: there are six or seven bridges like this, where there's a single bridge despite an unpaved median. This supports the theory that future widening was considered when the thruway was being built.

Wide bridges aren't an indication of planning for extra lanes (indeed, volumes were much lower back then, so that kind of added expense would not have been warranted based on that argument).

How do you explain the above, then?

[Buffaboy]

I wonder if 8 lanes between Rochester and Buffalo would be a stretch in the future.

We make do with four now, so I'm going to go with yes, it would be a bit of a stretch 
There really aren't very many long-distance interstates of more than six lanes total - the NJ turnpike being the most prominent example, and that is way busier than Rochester to Buffalo will ever be.

In any event, a 6 lane expansion shouldn't cost most that $100-200m, if that, right?

Well, that's the underlying point I was making; that a widening to six lanes really would not be that much of an expense. Given the obvious forethought of the original planners/designers, I'm a bit surprised a widening hasn't happened already (at least on the busier sections - certainly including Rochester to Buffalo).

I-40 between Greensboro and Raleigh is 8 lanes. That runs through arguably the middle of nowhere.

[Flyer78]

I seem to recall from a handout from the state fair that part of the design, and its wide "central mall" was both a safety feature, and allowed for future expansion. I don't recall the bridges being mentioned.

This would have been a late-80s, early-90s handout, and I believe was trying to build support for the "final" toll increase before 1996. I was to find it online, but all that came back were people selling original handouts on Ebay; or handouts for the Thurway hotel in Albany.

What about the arch bridges like the Mendon Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/vji9mizSRkN2) overpass? Street view has this looking better than I recall it, so it is possible it is newer, but I don't think the real-estate is there for an easy three-lanes under each arch.

[vdeane]

A few of these Thruway "bridges" look like they're actually culverts.

[webny99]

A few of these Thruway "bridges" look like they're actually culverts.

I'd say the majority of small streams use culverts. I didn't link to any for that reason.