New York State Thruway

[lstone19]

Drove the mainline over the weekend from Albany to Rochester. I noticed that the progress being made with AET is highly fragmented. Most gantries in Albany are completed and ready for activation, but gradually decline in completion the further west you go.
It would appear as though they are going with a hybrid barrier/closed ticket approach, with gantries on some ramps and at times on the Thruway proper.

Correct about the hybrid. From the data I've seen, it divides the mainline (15 - 50) that is currently one ticket section into five virtual ticket sections (15-23 plus B1-B3, 25A-34A, 36-39, 39-44, 47-50) plus eight fixed rate gantries between 23-24, 24-25, 25-25A, 34A-35, 35-36, 44-45, 45-46, and 46-47. Note that this means some of the mainline gantries are virtual ticket start, some are virtual ticket end, and some are fixed rate. It will be very interesting in the Syracuse area with 6 gantries of various types (going westbound, 34 - ticket end gantry - 34A - fixed rate - 35 - fixed rate - 36 - ticket start - 37 - 38 - ticket end - 39 - ticket start - 40).


iPad

[vdeane]

The Buffalo area has a fair amount of work done too.  It seems like they're saving the Rochester-Syracuse portion for last.  There's a map showing the installation status on their website, though I think there's a lag; I saw some construction on the support for the gantries between 44-45, but the map says it's not yet started.
https://www.thruway.ny.gov/cashless/locations.html

While physically it will be a hybrid system, I wonder if billing-wise it will be the same as it is now.  On the map, the gantries at the current ends of the ticket system have the same names, but the new mainline ones don't, just saying things like "between exits 44 and 45".

[lstone19]

The Buffalo area has a fair amount of work done too.  It seems like they're saving the Rochester-Syracuse portion for last.  There's a map showing the installation status on their website, though I think there's a lag; I saw some construction on the support for the gantries between 44-45, but the map says it's not yet started.
https://www.thruway.ny.gov/cashless/locations.html

While physically it will be a hybrid system, I wonder if billing-wise it will be the same as it is now.  On the map, the gantries at the current ends of the ticket system have the same names, but the new mainline ones don't, just saying things like "between exits 44 and 45".

I've think it was said somewhere above (can't look easily on this device) that the Thruway planned to do some sort of trip aggregating so that tolls (at least for now) are unchanged. I think they have to assuming 25A will still work as it does now. A trip from 24 to 25A will pass two fixed-rate gantries. Today that toll is $0.00 but 24 to 25 is tolled. The only way I can think of them to do this without a gantry at 25A (which is not planned AFAIK) is time - if you pass the gantries between 24 and 25 and then between 25 and 25A but then don't pass the gantry between 25A and 26 within some period of time, assume an exit at 25A and zero the other two.


iPad

[RobbieL2415]

I wonder if the gap is due to a lack of a fibre line. Maybe they have to bury one.

[vdeane]

I wonder if the gap is due to a lack of a fibre line. Maybe they have to bury one.

It might have more to with the fact that Rochester doesn't have its own maintenance division like Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, and downstate do.  West of 45 is the easternmost part of the Buffalo section while east of 45 is the westernmost part of the Syracuse section.

[mrsman]

One thing to keep in mind is that NY never emphasized the Thruway to the same degree as neighboring states emphasized their toll roads, at least not in my lifetime.  Reassurance markers are just I-87 or just I-90.  Even some guide signs don't include the Thruway.  Meanwhile, the MassPike and NJ Turnpike post their shields religiously, and the PTC has gigantic oversized shields at Turnpike junctions.

This ultimately comes down to the question of who are roads numbered for.  Locals will adapt, but someone from out of the area who hasn't even heard of the Thruway could get confused, especially as it isn't emphasized on signs.

Valerie, you are quite a but younger than me so your take is interesting (but I'm glad you included "at least not in my lifetime"). You may well be correct that they're de-emphasizing the name (I remember three or four years ago that it seemed every single press release at http://www.thruway.ny.gov/news/pressrel/index.html started "Thruway Authority Announces ..." (now only about half do) as if getting the Thruway Authority name out front and center was the most important thing.

But the Thruway name is not going away anytime soon. My opinion is if they want to number the I-87 and I-90 segments separately, they first need to make name modifications so that the main line isn't all "New York Thruway". You'd want to keep Thruway in the name but just like there is the New England Thruway and Niagara Thruway, maybe Hudson River Thruway for the I-87 segment and for I-90, Lake Erie Thruway for Pennsylvania to Buffalo, Erie Canal Thruway for Buffalo to Albany, and Berkshire Thruway for the current Berkshire Spur. Start emphasizing those names for a few years so people start using them instead of the generic "Thruway", then renumber. Otherwise, you will lead to confusion when people aren't sure what part of "the Thruway" they're on.

What you don't want to do is turn it into the confused mess that is the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Looking at their website, I see they have renumbered the I-95 section. Which means that for the traveler heading westbound off the NJ Turnpike, the exit numbers, in order, are 42, , then take exit 40 to stay on the Turnpike, 351, 343, 340, 339, 20, 333 (and then finally decreasing to the Ohio line). Using the I-476 exit number (20) on the Turnpike mainline is just plain stupid (and I confirmed on Google Street View that that is what they did). They really should bury the Pennsylvania Turnpike name as it just creates the expectation of a consistency that is no longer there.

I do like the idea of naming the N-S and E-W sections to be something different.  Hudson Valley Thruway (87) and Upstate Thruway (90) could both be parts of the NY Thruway system.

[ixnay]

This question fits just as well on the NYS Roads thread but since I spotted the sign on the actual Thruway (via roadwaywiz's YT channel) I'll ask it here...

On the countdown signs for exit 18 northbound (between the shields for NY 299 and the Miid-Hudson Bridge) there appears to be the shadow of a NYS highway shield, suggesting that exit 18 once fed a second NYS route besides NY 299.  Is this correct?  GSV's archives in that stretch only go back to 2012.

ixnay

[crispy93]

This question fits just as well on the NYS Roads thread but since I spotted the sign on the actual Thruway (via roadwaywiz's YT channel) I'll ask it here...

On the countdown signs for exit 18 northbound (between the shields for NY 299 and the Miid-Hudson Bridge) there appears to be the shadow of a NYS highway shield, suggesting that exit 18 once fed a second NYS route besides NY 299.  Is this correct?  GSV's archives in that stretch only go back to 2012.

ixnay

If I recall correctly, the original sign just said NY 299, and a supplemental sign said "Mid-Hudson Br/Exit 18." At some point, they moved the 299 shield to the left so that they could add a Mid-Hudson Bridge shield.

[crispy93]

There is a toll gantry in Ardsley.

Is that one of the ones that's free for cars?

No. You're thinking of Spring Valley (located between exits 14A and 14B) which is no toll for regular automobiles and is northbound only. Ardsley is between exits 6A and 7 and is in both directions.

I haven't been through that area in a while, but it was always a "smh" moment watching out-of-state plates all exit into the toll area thinking they had to pay it

[astralentity]

When is the cut over date supposed to be?  I noticed they don't have the gantry for exit 26 marked in green, which has been installed for at least a month or more now.

[machias]

This question fits just as well on the NYS Roads thread but since I spotted the sign on the actual Thruway (via roadwaywiz's YT channel) I'll ask it here...

On the countdown signs for exit 18 northbound (between the shields for NY 299 and the Miid-Hudson Bridge) there appears to be the shadow of a NYS highway shield, suggesting that exit 18 once fed a second NYS route besides NY 299.  Is this correct?  GSV's archives in that stretch only go back to 2012.

ixnay

If I recall correctly, the original sign just said NY 299, and a supplemental sign said "Mid-Hudson Br/Exit 18." At some point, they moved the 299 shield to the left so that they could add a Mid-Hudson Bridge shield.

You are recalling correctly. This is absolutely how it was originally signed (with markers on the signs). Back in the all text days, it simply said "ROUTE 299".

[Jim]

Regarding AET progress: I noticed that the mainline gantries between 24 and 26 had their lights on for the first time I noticed on my way home yesterday and again on my way to work this morning.

[noelbotevera]

Three weeks ago, I clinched the I-87 portion of the NYST north of exit 8 (I-287 East). Some questions, particularly between exits 15-23:

-Why is the Sloatsburg/Ramapo pedestrian bridge closed to civilians? Ramapo is practically a McDonalds with a gas station and it could use variety, which Sloatsburg provides. I can understand why Ramapo was built this way (you're approaching NYC sprawl), but I don't see the point in closing the bridge.
-Why is exit 18 at NY 299 versus US 44/NY 55? US 44/NY 55 is closer to the Mid-Hudson Bridge.
-What's with the triple NY 17 exits? There's 15 (mostly for I-287), 15A (for NY 17..North?), then 16 (the Quickway). Why not do the obvious and reroute NY 17 onto the Thruway between exits 15 and 16? Tolled state routes are nothing new in New York (see: Hudson River bridges).
-A more historical question: why does the Thruway cross the Hudson? The US 9 corridor doesn't seem terribly mountainous versus having to build around the Catskills, which seem to get pretty close to the Hudson (ex. Bear Mountain State Park, where US 9W becomes pretty darn curvy). The Taconic corridor is too mountainous, so building along US 9 - the corridor between the Berkshires and the Catskills - would be the path of least resistance.

[lstone19]

Three weeks ago, I clinched the I-87 portion of the NYST north of exit 8 (I-287 East). Some questions, particularly between exits 15-23:

-What's with the triple NY 17 exits? There's 15 (mostly for I-287), 15A (for NY 17..North?), then 16 (the Quickway). Why not do the obvious and reroute NY 17 onto the Thruway between exits 15 and 16? Tolled state routes are nothing new in New York (see: Hudson River bridges).

Big difference between tolled highways and tolled bridges.

What's now 15 and 15A used to be one interchange where 15 is with NY17 going over the hill via Hillburn. When 15 was reconstructed into a high-speed interchange in connection with the completion of I-287 in NJ, NY 17 North was severed so you could not get from NJ 17 to Hillburn. NY 17 was rerouted via the Thruway (free) between 15 and 15A.

But why should NY 17 stay on the Thruway to 16. Rerouting it is not obvious to me. What's gained? You'd need another route number for what is now 17 in the stretch. And with NY 17 west of Harriman being deemphasized in favor of I-86, there's little to be gained from a through route number (a through number only if you consider NJ 17 to be part of the same route as NY 17).

-A more historical question: why does the Thruway cross the Hudson? The US 9 corridor doesn't seem terribly mountainous versus having to build around the Catskills, which seem to get pretty close to the Hudson (ex. Bear Mountain State Park, where US 9W becomes pretty darn curvy). The Taconic corridor is too mountainous, so building along US 9 - the corridor between the Berkshires and the Catskills - would be the path of least resistance.

The Thruway has to cross the Hudson somewhere to get to Buffalo. I think you're really asking why go up the west side rather than the east side and then cross near Albany. The east side has the Taconic while the west side had nothing of a high-speed nature. And the Catskills, perhaps more than today, were a big destination. It could and does serve the Catskills from the west side far better than it could from the east side. And for traffic from NJ and points south heading north to Albany on the west side is far better than the double-crossing that traffic would encounter if it went up the east side.

[noelbotevera]

Three weeks ago, I clinched the I-87 portion of the NYST north of exit 8 (I-287 East). Some questions, particularly between exits 15-23:

-What's with the triple NY 17 exits? There's 15 (mostly for I-287), 15A (for NY 17..North?), then 16 (the Quickway). Why not do the obvious and reroute NY 17 onto the Thruway between exits 15 and 16? Tolled state routes are nothing new in New York (see: Hudson River bridges).

Big difference between tolled highways and tolled bridges.

What's now 15 and 15A used to be one interchange where 15 is with NY17 going over the hill via Hillburn. When 15 was reconstructed into a high-speed interchange in connection with the completion of I-287 in NJ, NY 17 North was severed so you could not get from NJ 17 to Hillburn. NY 17 was rerouted via the Thruway (free) between 15 and 15A.

But why should NY 17 stay on the Thruway to 16. Rerouting it is not obvious to me. What's gained? You'd need another route number for what is now 17 in the stretch. And with NY 17 west of Harriman being deemphasized in favor of I-86, there's little to be gained from a through route number (a through number only if you consider NJ 17 to be part of the same route as NY 17).

-A more historical question: why does the Thruway cross the Hudson? The US 9 corridor doesn't seem terribly mountainous versus having to build around the Catskills, which seem to get pretty close to the Hudson (ex. Bear Mountain State Park, where US 9W becomes pretty darn curvy). The Taconic corridor is too mountainous, so building along US 9 - the corridor between the Berkshires and the Catskills - would be the path of least resistance.

The Thruway has to cross the Hudson somewhere to get to Buffalo. I think you're really asking why go up the west side rather than the east side and then cross near Albany. The east side has the Taconic while the west side had nothing of a high-speed nature. And the Catskills, perhaps more than today, were a big destination. It could and does serve the Catskills from the west side far better than it could from the east side. And for traffic from NJ and points south heading north to Albany on the west side is far better than the double-crossing that traffic would encounter if it went up the east side.

People are likely aware of NY 17 as the Quickway, and in fact New York encourages using the Thruway to continue on 17 (a sign past exit 16 tells you that NJ 17 is reached via exit 15). Nothing's stopping NYSDOT from decommissioning NY 17's surface stretch; IMO it'd simplify things slightly (use the Thruway to connect with NY 17). However, I did not know about I-287 ruining NJ/NY 17's Thruway connection.

As for the latter response, obviously improving US 9W is out of the question. But, the Taconic is limited to passenger cars - so there's no good high speed route for trucks on the east side of the Hudson. I guess better than nothing on the west side. However, it is true that I hadn't considered the NJ traffic (from NYC suburbs) heading north to the Catskills/Albany, so I suppose crossing the Hudson near NYC instead of Albany would better serve those people. Which raises another question: aren't those the same people who opposed the completion of I-287 north of exit 47? Why would they support the Thruway (admittedly it is a different corridor) but not I-287?

[lstone19]

People are likely aware of NY 17 as the Quickway, and in fact New York encourages using the Thruway to continue on 17 (a sign past exit 16 tells you that NJ 17 is reached via exit 15). Nothing's stopping NYSDOT from decommissioning NY 17's surface stretch; IMO it'd simplify things slightly (use the Thruway to connect with NY 17). However, I did not know about I-287 ruining NJ/NY 17's Thruway connection.

Again, why? What is gained by multiplexing NY 17 on what is already I-87? But I'm one of the people who think people think of toll roads by their names before their numbers.

As for the latter response, obviously improving US 9W is out of the question. But, the Taconic is limited to passenger cars - so there's no good high speed route for trucks on the east side of the Hudson. I guess better than nothing on the west side. However, it is true that I hadn't considered the NJ traffic (from NYC suburbs) heading north to the Catskills/Albany, so I suppose crossing the Hudson near NYC instead of Albany would better serve those people. Which raises another question: aren't those the same people who opposed the completion of I-287 north of exit 47? Why would they support the Thruway (admittedly it is a different corridor) but not I-287?

Keep in mind that the Thruway was built over 60 years ago in the 50's while I-287 was not finished until the 80's. Opposition to highway construction tends to be very, very local. The people objecting to I-287 IN NEW JERSEY between Montville and Suffern were probably not even there 30 years earlier and were not going to be concerned with what was going on over that line IN NEW YORK. Even if they were there when the Thruway was built, I doubt they were actively supporting its construction, they just weren't objecting (or maybe they did object and New York ignored them).

But you're writing in the present tense as if there's an active decision going on as to where to route the Thruway. It was built over 60 years ago. That shipped sailed before most of us (including me) were born.

Now some wild speculation by me but the Thruway's purpose, when built, was primarily to connect New York state and particularly its major cities and less for local traffic. The west side of the Hudson has always seemed less developed than the east side. It was probably less disruptive to go where it is than up the east side. And like most limited access highways, it was built to supplement the existing local highways, not replace them.

[noelbotevera]

As for the latter response, obviously improving US 9W is out of the question. But, the Taconic is limited to passenger cars - so there's no good high speed route for trucks on the east side of the Hudson. I guess better than nothing on the west side. However, it is true that I hadn't considered the NJ traffic (from NYC suburbs) heading north to the Catskills/Albany, so I suppose crossing the Hudson near NYC instead of Albany would better serve those people. Which raises another question: aren't those the same people who opposed the completion of I-287 north of exit 47? Why would they support the Thruway (admittedly it is a different corridor) but not I-287?

Keep in mind that the Thruway was built over 60 years ago in the 50's while I-287 was not finished until the 80's. Opposition to highway construction tends to be very, very local. The people objecting to I-287 IN NEW JERSEY between Montville and Suffern were probably not even there 30 years ago and were not going to be concerned with what was going on over that line IN NEW YORK. Even if they were there when the Thruway was built, I doubt they were actively supporting its construction, they just weren't objecting (or maybe they did object and New York ignored them).

But you're writing in the present tense as if there's an active decision going on as to where to route the Thruway. It was built over 60 years ago. That shipped sailed before most of us (including me) were born.

Now some wild speculation by me but the Thruway's purpose, when built, was primarily to connect New York state and particularly its major cities and less for local traffic. The west side of the Hudson has always seemed less developed than the east side. It was probably less disruptive to go where it is than up the east side. And like most limited access highways, it was built to supplement the existing local highways, not replace them.

I suppose I'm wording this poorly, but I-287 reached exit 47 by 1965; the Thruway was built 10 years earlier in 1955. It wouldn't be wrong to assume that the groups who opposed I-287 northward in 1965 were around to oppose projects like the Thruway in '55. To be fair, we are talking different sides of the line here, so perhaps it's wrong to equate NJ road projects with NY road projects.

[lstone19]

I suppose I'm wording this poorly, but I-287 reached exit 47 by 1965; the Thruway was built 10 years earlier in 1955. It wouldn't be wrong to assume that the groups who opposed I-287 northward in 1965 were around to oppose projects like the Thruway in '55. To be fair, we are talking different sides of the line here, so perhaps it's wrong to equate NJ road projects with NY road projects.

As I said, this sort of opposition tends to be very local. I grew up in NJ in a community where there was some NIMBY opposition to I-78 (the section between I-287 and NJ 24). The opposition was barely a blip outside of our immediate area and it was not opposition to any other roads - just the section of I-78 that would pass through our community. I very much doubt that more than a few of the people who would oppose I-287 cared what was going on in New York as it was too far away to be on their radar.

[Alps]

As for the latter response, obviously improving US 9W is out of the question. But, the Taconic is limited to passenger cars - so there's no good high speed route for trucks on the east side of the Hudson. I guess better than nothing on the west side. However, it is true that I hadn't considered the NJ traffic (from NYC suburbs) heading north to the Catskills/Albany, so I suppose crossing the Hudson near NYC instead of Albany would better serve those people. Which raises another question: aren't those the same people who opposed the completion of I-287 north of exit 47? Why would they support the Thruway (admittedly it is a different corridor) but not I-287?

Keep in mind that the Thruway was built over 60 years ago in the 50's while I-287 was not finished until the 80's. Opposition to highway construction tends to be very, very local. The people objecting to I-287 IN NEW JERSEY between Montville and Suffern were probably not even there 30 years ago and were not going to be concerned with what was going on over that line IN NEW YORK. Even if they were there when the Thruway was built, I doubt they were actively supporting its construction, they just weren't objecting (or maybe they did object and New York ignored them).

But you're writing in the present tense as if there's an active decision going on as to where to route the Thruway. It was built over 60 years ago. That shipped sailed before most of us (including me) were born.

Now some wild speculation by me but the Thruway's purpose, when built, was primarily to connect New York state and particularly its major cities and less for local traffic. The west side of the Hudson has always seemed less developed than the east side. It was probably less disruptive to go where it is than up the east side. And like most limited access highways, it was built to supplement the existing local highways, not replace them.

I suppose I'm wording this poorly, but I-287 reached exit 47 by 1965; the Thruway was built 10 years earlier in 1955. It wouldn't be wrong to assume that the groups who opposed I-287 northward in 1965 were around to oppose projects like the Thruway in '55. To be fair, we are talking different sides of the line here, so perhaps it's wrong to equate NJ road projects with NY road projects.

There was not nearly the amount of opposition in the 1950s - in fact, most people loved new highways - compared to the late 1960s.

[SignBridge]

Alps is correct. In the 1950's the public mostly welcomed new highway (and bridge) construction as progress. Local roads were jammed to capacity by the ever increasing traffic of the post WWII suburban growth era. When a new freeway opened, now you could go somewhere in 45 minutes instead of 2 hours.

It wasn't until the late 1960's that notable opposition to new Interstate construction developed resulting in the current mess of legal red tape slowing down most new construction today.

[74/171FAN]

Going into fictional territory, the surface portion of NY 17 could easily be renumbered as an extended NY 32.  Then the debatable concurrencies could be eliminated.

[Rothman]

Going into fictional territory

DENIED.

[seicer]

Alps is correct. In the 1950's the public mostly welcomed new highway (and bridge) construction as progress. Local roads were jammed to capacity by the ever increasing traffic of the post WWII suburban growth era. When a new freeway opened, now you could go somewhere in 45 minutes instead of 2 hours.

It wasn't until the late 1960's that notable opposition to new Interstate construction developed resulting in the current mess of legal red tape slowing down most new construction today.

Depended where. The Quickway was welcomed as it was tourists coming from the city congesting the roadway, but much of that was built in stages from the 1950s into the 1970s. I would think that more of the opposition came during the Robert Moses era of the 1970s as the result of wholesale clearing of neighborhoods for highways (and associated redevelopment projects.) As far as I can research into other segments of NY 17, especially west of Corning, there was not as much opposition to any specific routing with the exception of the Allegany Reservation of the Seneca Nation.

[Alps]

Going into fictional territory, the surface portion of NY 17 could easily be renumbered as an extended NY 32.  Then the debatable concurrencies could be eliminated.

I mean, once I-86 is completed (ha) and NY 17 truncated, this makes sense.

[seicer]

Wouldn't it make more sense to renumber the original alignments back to NY 17, since so many of its children (e.g. 17K, 17M) still exist? Or if they are all discontinuous, wouldn't it make sense to renumber those alignments with suffixes (e.g. 17T) or three digits (e.g. 170, 171).