New York

[vdeane]

It's worth noting that NYSDOT uses the MUTCD standard "round down" method of assigning numbers.  Also that this might not be the only affected location - the PDF with the Region 3 changes (since taken down) had I-690 exit 6 becoming exit 4 EB and 5A WB.

The southbound exit is actually at roughly 39.9.

The numbers @SGwithADD mentioned line up with my site, so I'm guessing that's where they came from.  Ever since I did the re-launch, I decided to split up interchanges like former exit 9 to be more accurate to the mileage.  In those cases, ramps that hit a side road are measured from the "theoretical cross street" where they touch down.

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.

They are, but better not miss that first sign.

[SGwithADD]

The numbers @SGwithADD mentioned line up with my site, so I'm guessing that's where they came from.  Ever since I did the re-launch, I decided to split up interchanges like former exit 9 to be more accurate to the mileage.  In those cases, ramps that hit a side road are measured from the "theoretical cross street" where they touch down.

Indeed I did.

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.

Maybe I'm too old these days, and it's less relevant with the proliferation of GPS, but businesses used to advertise as being off of a certain exit, and people could just give one exit number when giving directions to their place. How does that work in a case like this? As an engineer with OCD, I know that it can seem logical to follow rules to the letter, but this is missing a bunch of human-facing issues IMO.

[vdeane]

Major construction is beginning on I-490 soon.  Around Bushnell's Basin, I-490 will be reduced to one lane, which is expected to lead to significant congestion (I would go so far as to say that it's Rochester's Carmageddon).  There's advice to "avoid the area", but given that this is the road that one would take to get to the mall or Finger Lakes, that's easier said than done.  This year is going to suck, to the point where I'm considering skipping two family gatherings because I just don't want to deal with it.

Also, if they're doing eastbound this year and westbound next year, what's being done in 2027?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2025/2025-03-171

[webny99]

Major construction is beginning on I-490 soon.  Around Bushnell's Basin, I-490 will be reduced to one lane, which is expected to lead to significant congestion (I would go so far as to say that it's Rochester's Carmageddon).  There's advice to "avoid the area", but given that this is the road that one would take to get to the mall or Finger Lakes, that's easier said than done.  This year is going to suck, to the point where I'm considering skipping two family gatherings because I just don't want to deal with it.

Also, if they're doing eastbound this year and westbound next year, what's being done in 2027?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2025/2025-03-171

Yikes. Thanks for the heads up. Great to see NY is actively implementing the zipper merge concept, but not with a long-term lane closure here, of all places. When they did Marsh Rd, even the weekend lane closures caused issues, so this is going to create major issues in the afternoon rush hour, to say the least. And Exit 26 barely handles traffic as it is, so any additional traffic there is only going to exacerbate issues on I-490. Also interesting that they'll be able to maintain two lanes westbound, but not eastbound.

One small positive: at least there won't be backups getting on the Thruway at Exit 45 this season 

[RobbieL2415]

Major construction is beginning on I-490 soon.  Around Bushnell's Basin, I-490 will be reduced to one lane, which is expected to lead to significant congestion (I would go so far as to say that it's Rochester's Carmageddon).  There's advice to "avoid the area", but given that this is the road that one would take to get to the mall or Finger Lakes, that's easier said than done.  This year is going to suck, to the point where I'm considering skipping two family gatherings because I just don't want to deal with it.

Also, if they're doing eastbound this year and westbound next year, what's being done in 2027?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2025/2025-03-171

Are they going to close the canal, too?

[vdeane]

Also interesting that they'll be able to maintain two lanes westbound, but not eastbound.

The press release says "one lane each direction", so they won't.  As for why two lanes next year, note how much wider the Marsh road is than the canal bridge or Kreag.  I'm guessing they can't fit four lanes on one side with the existing bridges, and whatever staging they did for Marsh must be something they're either unable or unwilling to do (it's worth noting that Marsh was done under Cuomo's "Driver's First" policy that eased work zone congestion at the literal cost of making projects much more expensive, a policy that no longer exists as he's no longer governor; also fun fact: traffic impacts on the Twin Bridges similar to what we might have with this project are the reason Cuomo made Driver's First in the first place).

(personal opinion)

[webny99]

Also interesting that they'll be able to maintain two lanes westbound, but not eastbound.

The press release says "one lane each direction", so they won't.  As for why two lanes next year, note how much wider the Marsh road is than the canal bridge or Kreag.  I'm guessing they can't fit four lanes on one side with the existing bridges, and whatever staging they did for Marsh must be something they're either unable or unwilling to do (it's worth noting that Marsh was done under Cuomo's "Driver's First" policy that eased work zone congestion at the literal cost of making projects much more expensive, a policy that no longer exists as he's no longer governor; also fun fact: traffic impacts on the Twin Bridges similar to what we might have with this project are the reason Cuomo made Driver's First in the first place).

(personal opinion)

Makes sense; I was referring to having two lanes open next year, not the westbound lanes during this year's project.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Ok, canceling family events because 490 is down to 1 lane in a direction is a bit unnecessary.

Let's look in this approach having driven that stretch of 96 that parallels tons of times:

96 will not be overloaded. 96 at the mall doesn't get that backed up. I delivered there all the time at peak hours. It's not gonna be Carmageddon and it's just gonna be an inconvenience. Exit 27 sucks, yes. But it's still bypassable in multiple areas. Take exit 29 and just take 96. I dunno where in the Rochester area your family lives, but it's not like this is the bridges downtown.

[vdeane]

Ok, canceling family events because 490 is down to 1 lane in a direction is a bit unnecessary.

Let's look in this approach having driven that stretch of 96 that parallels tons of times:

96 will not be overloaded. 96 at the mall doesn't get that backed up. I delivered there all the time at peak hours. It's not gonna be Carmageddon and it's just gonna be an inconvenience. Exit 27 sucks, yes. But it's still bypassable in multiple areas. Take exit 29 and just take 96. I dunno where in the Rochester area your family lives, but it's not like this is the bridges downtown.

People on r/Rochester were expecting a significant amount of traffic, which, given the trifecta of lights at exit 27, Kreag Road, and Marsh Road, all of which are high traffic already and will be involved with detouring traffic, is not unwarranted.  That lane closure is going to be nasty - they had a similar one eastbound during non-peak times last year while staging some stuff for this, and it was causing stop and go traffic a mile or two down the road with 5+ minute delays.  Exit 46 is probably going to be the least bad option, but using that exit just feels wrong for some reason.

On a more personal note, I'm rigid enough that I hate diverting off a regular route for anything.  And my brain seems to base all geography off the interstate system, so going between two points on the system via a non-interstate route feels weird to me in a way that's hard to describe (I pretty much only do so to clinch things).  Yeah, I'm a mess.  Compounding the issue is the fact that my parents live in Brighton and haven't moved in my lifetime, so we're dealing with a route that has been set in my brain practically since birth.  In my head, Thruway-490-590 is what you do, and going straight from the Thruway to a local road isn't (especially since Rochester is bypassed by the Thruway, so until Farmington became an exurb, commuting on it was unheard of; it was strictly the road for long-distance traffic that you used the local freeways to get to, and I can't shake that mentality).

There's a reason I specifically said two.  There's a method to the madness here.  Of the 8 trips to Rochester I have planned for this year (one already completed - and I never want to drive back to Albany on the day of the time change again, because I fell like I'm still recovering from that two weeks later), most are affected by this (all except the one I took for the bridal shower, Christmas, and maybe Thanksgiving).  The two I'm contemplating skipping have other complications, so really it's the straw that broke the camel's back (specifically, one is the most minor gathering of the year and right on top of a family wedding that I'll also be traveling for, making this year particularly exhausting and making me use the peak travel days to not have a one-day work week, and the other is one my parents can't attend anyways, so I'd be going on my own).  Not to mention that the summer gatherings are at Canandaigua Lake, even the local trip is affected by this, and my parents have grown extremely intolerant of traffic that isn't free-flow as they've gotten older.

[vdeane]

I don't suppose anyone here has been around long enough to remember what the speed limits were like on the Robert Moses State Parkway around Niagara Falls before the section in the park was removed?  Or even the part north of there before it was reduced to two lanes?  I was talking to someone on Facebook about it, and he seemed to remember something about it being 45 near the Rainbow Bridge.  In the photolog images I FOILed from NYSDOT, there's a 30 sign "northbound" (looking west) just past the exit for Goat Island, but no other speed limit signs show up, and I didn't think to ask about them until after I sent the FOIL request.  I'm guessing from all this that it was 30 through the core park between Goat Island and the exit just north of the bridge, and 45 from there to I-190 (and maybe 45 between Goat Island and the exit on the east end of the park), but if anyone has their own thoughts to add and/or can confirm, it would be appreciated.  I'm hoping to make a historical exit list for my site, but right now anything on speed limits is purely speculative.

[1995hoo]

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?

In some locations, a reason for posting the last exit in the state is that there may be a restriction on returning even though you can leave without any issues. For example, the explanation I always heard for posting "Last Exit in NY" on Staten Island is that if you cross into Jersey, you have to pay a toll to come back (unless you go hundreds of miles out of your way). "Last Exit Before Toll" wouldn't be right because, for example, if you go over the Goethals Bridge you don't pay a toll westbound and you don't have to get onto the Turnpike, but if you want to come back to New York you have to pay.

Similarly, posting "Last US Exit" as you approach the Canadian border has an obvious purpose, perhaps even more important since passports became required.

[webny99]

Let's look in this approach having driven that stretch of 96 that parallels tons of times:

96 will not be overloaded. 96 at the mall doesn't get that backed up. I delivered there all the time at peak hours. It's not gonna be Carmageddon and it's just gonna be an inconvenience. Exit 27 sucks, yes. But it's still bypassable in multiple areas. Take exit 29 and just take 96.

Couple things here...

I agree 96 should hold up fine in the mall area (awful signal timing aside). I doubt traffic will back up much past Exit 28 anyways, which is probably the required bar for traffic to start using Exit 29.

96 in the Basin though, is a totally different story. It's a bottleneck at the best of times, and three days into the westbound lane closure, backups entering the Basin (especially NB) have been a persistent issue. Because the Exit 27 ramp to I-490 WB is also closed, everyone is forced to line up single file to get to Kreag or Marsh to get up to Exit 26. Not exactly a nightmare scenario, but by Rochester standards, it's close.

Back when they closed Exit 27 to replace the ramp bridge, NYSDOT actually added a temporary left turn from NY 96 SB to the Exit 28 on-ramp to allow that whole area access to I-490 instead of detouring to Exit 26. Sadly, I doubt they'll do that this time because it'll only feed more traffic into the lane closure bottleneck, but it would help the traffic in the Basin. Unless people just start U-turning at the Woodcliff instead, which is the smart thing to do if the Basin is backed up, but I doubt many people will be intuitive enough to think of it.

my parents have grown extremely intolerant of traffic that isn't free-flow as they've gotten older.

Yeah, I think living in Rochester tends to do that.

[vdeane]

The exit numbers have begun changing on I-690.  Interestingly, the numbers that were posted on that table with last year's press release are out, and numbers based on the overall mileage including NY 690 are in (or back in, since the exit numbers in the plans for the Crouse/Irving project were based on this).

The articles mention that NY 31 west/NY 370 will be exit 1, and the video shows exit 5 becoming exit 9.  We know the following from the Crouse/Irving plans:

Crouse/Irving: 16
14: 17
15: 18
16N-S: 19A-B
17: 20

I could have sworn there was some project document that showed signs around the viaduct area showing 10 becoming 14 and 11 15 (eastbound - 15A westbound with 15B being BL 81 north), but I don't remember which and it's not any of the obvious suspects; plus it would be so old that I'm not sure of the reliability of it.

No press release yet, but hopefully they'll have one with a new table.  Otherwise I might end up bothering Region 3 about this again.

I do find it interesting that exits 9 and 10 (the sequential ones) have to wait on the viaduct projects.  Aren't they outside the area of work?  I get exit 11 since it's being redone, but everything I've seen indicates exits 9 and 10 are (mostly; the exit 9 on ramp is being widened, and those contract plans don't include new signs on I-690) being left alone.

https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/nysdot-changing-exits-along-sr-690-and-i-690-to-mile-based-numbers/

As for my site, I'm leaning towards doing a historic I-690 exit list even though the information on how it's changing could theoretically be handled with notes.

[The Ghostbuster]

Well, at least they included NY 690's mileage in Interstate 690's new exit numbers, and numbered NY 690's exits. It made no sense to me to do otherwise.

[cu2010]

Well, at least they included NY 690's mileage in Interstate 690's new exit numbers, and numbered NY 690's exits. It made no sense to me to do otherwise.

Waiting to change all of the exit numbers on I-81 to when the routing actually changes and then doing at all at once instead of the current piecemealed approach makes sense to me too, but making sense and NY are two things that don't seem to go together.

[vdeane]

I'm wondering if they rolled some sign structure replacements in with the western I-690 viaduct contract like they did with the eastern one.  That would explain why exits 9 and 10 aren't changing yet.  That or they wanted to do 9 when the change the 81 shield from blue to green and didn't want to do 10 until 9 is done.

[vdeane]

A new conversion table got released, which has the current numbers being put in for I-81 and I-690.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/repository/Projected%20Mile%20Based%20Exit%20Conversion%204-1-25.pdf

[Rothman]

A new conversion table got released, which has the current numbers being put in for I-81 and I-690.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/repository/Projected%20Mile%20Based%20Exit%20Conversion%204-1-25.pdf

Hopefully that Exit 81 for I-81 sign gets replaced, then...

[vdeane]

A new conversion table got released, which has the current numbers being put in for I-81 and I-690.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/repository/Projected%20Mile%20Based%20Exit%20Conversion%204-1-25.pdf

Hopefully that Exit 81 for I-81 sign gets replaced, then...

Replaced with what?  It's still going to be exit 81, so if it's the new sign and not this, wouldn't it be correct, just needing the I-81 shield swapped out for a BL 81 shield?  Although they really should have covered the exit number until they're ready to make the switch.  This does appear to be left exit.

I do appreciate how exit 81 is for 81 and 90 is for 90.  Almost makes me wonder if someone really wanted that, given that exits 89-91 are all off by 1.

[Flyer78]

It looked to me that the I-81 shield is an overlay on that sign... Which means everything was a deliberate choice.

[Rothman]

A new conversion table got released, which has the current numbers being put in for I-81 and I-690.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/repository/Projected%20Mile%20Based%20Exit%20Conversion%204-1-25.pdf

Hopefully that Exit 81 for I-81 sign gets replaced, then...

Replaced with what?  It's still going to be exit 81, so if it's the new sign and not this, wouldn't it be correct, just needing the I-81 shield swapped out for a BL 81 shield?  Although they really should have covered the exit number until they're ready to make the switch.  This does appear to be left exit.

I do appreciate how exit 81 is for 81 and 90 is for 90.  Almost makes me wonder if someone really wanted that, given that exits 89-91 are all off by 1.

Ah, misread the table.  Right now, the advanced guide sign says I-81 will be Exit 81, not BL-81.  Hopefully that changes to be correct.

[roadman65]

I was noticing that at the north end of I-990 that the Southbound lanes of the freeway start from at grade from NY 263, but the north round freeway lanes end at a stub.

From what I found in research that I-990 was to originally travel to Lockport but was truncated to its current end.

That explains the stub on the NB side but don't explain the start of the SB side without a ramp built.

[The Ghostbuster]

When Interstate 990 gets a conversion to mileage-based exits, it appears only the northern terminus would get a new number: changing from 5 to 6 as the other numbers are already mileage-based.

[vdeane]

I was noticing that at the north end of I-990 that the Southbound lanes of the freeway start from at grade from NY 263, but the north round freeway lanes end at a stub.

From what I found in research that I-990 was to originally travel to Lockport but was truncated to its current end.

That explains the stub on the NB side but don't explain the start of the SB side without a ramp built.

It's an interesting mystery.  It's worth noting that the original north end was at exit 4 (French Road) and that it was extended to its current endpoint in the late 80s/early 90s to relieve traffic on French Road connecting to NY 263. Blurry imagery from 1985 on Google Earth seems to indicate that exit 4 was a true stub with both ramps built, and what I've seen from the planning maps that have circulated around roadgeek circles is that the original routing didn't go near current exit 5 at all.  It appears that the course was changed when it became clear that I-990 was unlikely to be finished, but as for why they made a northbound stub while having southbound tie in directly, I have no idea.

When Interstate 990 gets a conversion to mileage-based exits, it appears only the northern terminus would get a new number: changing from 5 to 6 as the other numbers are already mileage-based.

Exit 5 is at MP 5.8 and NY uses the "round down" method of assigning numbers, so there would be no change there.  Exits 2 and 3 are technically off by 1, but as far as I'm personally concerned, just pull a MassDOT and leave the numbers alone here.

[roadman65]

Is a bigger mystery to why they didn't use air rights above the former removed Inner Loop in Rochester considering the filled in below grade freeway is now developed with buildings including a hotel

All these new structures could have been built above the former Inner Loop and the same results would be achieved.

Unless the traffic counts were way too low and deemed cost prohibitive to maintain a tunnel, it would be maybe merited to do so.