Today's Albany Times Union has a segment in their weekly Getting There? column that explains some of the history behind how I-90 is designated in the Albany, NY area as well as the Berkshire Spur. The long and short of the article was that I-90 was originally designated on the unsigned portion of the Berkshire Spur, but as free I-90 was built, the designation was moved onto the free portion of road. Additionally, there were talks in 1999 between state and federal officials about the possibility of moving I-90 back onto the unsigned portion of the Berkshire Spur, while extending I-88 onto what we know as free I-90. There would have also had been an I-88/I-90 multiplex between Rotterdam and Albany as a result.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=916307 (http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=916307)
Interesting read. There would also have been an I-87/I-90 multiplex between Exits 24 and 21B, all else equal, and a lot of route confusion at Exit 24. Could that have been why it was not done?
Why was a free I-90 built anyway with the already existing Berkshire Spur built and ready to accept an interstate number? To me, it would've seemed better and easier just to use the existing road.
Interesting. I had never heard about this proposal before. The Thruway Authority must have been looking to have the federal monies repair the extremely underutilized section of the Berkshire Spur and the two Castleton-on-Hudson bridges.
My idea was always to have I-90 stay along with I-87 between 24 and 21A to the berkshire spur, then have current free 90 renumbered as a spur of I-87, something like I-487 or whatever.
Quote from: Snappyjack on March 29, 2010, 04:41:02 PM
My idea was always to have I-90 stay along with I-87 between 24 and 21A to the berkshire spur, then have current free 90 renumbered as a spur of I-87, something like I-487 or whatever.
+1 for I-487 or even I-687 ;)
Quote from: akotchi on March 29, 2010, 12:52:35 PM
There would also have been an I-87/I-90 multiplex between Exits 24 and 21B
Strictly speaking, there
already is an 87/90 multiplex... for the quarter mile between where the ramps for Thruway exit 24 converge and the interchange with the Northway.
Incidentally, if anyone ever asks you "what is the furthest east multiplex between two 2 digit interstates?", that's the answer. Tricky!
Quote from: Snappyjack on March 29, 2010, 04:41:02 PM
My idea was always to have I-90 stay along with I-87 between 24 and 21A to the berkshire spur, then have current free 90 renumbered as a spur of I-87, something like I-487 or whatever.
I'd rather have an I-x90 because both ends are really at I-90 and would be an alternate of I-90.
There are no even x90's left in New York State. Would have to be an x87 anyway.
Ah yes, I forgot about that. Well, we could eliminate one of the x90s. How about 390, which could become a continuation of I-99.
Quote from: akotchi on March 29, 2010, 06:58:53 PM
There are no even x90's left in New York State. Would have to be an x87 anyway.
There are no odd x90's left in New York State either.
Of course, if I-99 gets extended to Rochester, then I-390 could be reused, say for the unnumbered Berkshire mileage.
How about 790? I don't think anyone would care if the current 790 designation magically disappeared, owing the fact it shouldn't have that designation anyways. :D
Quote from: akotchi on March 29, 2010, 06:58:53 PM
There are no even x90's left in New York State. Would have to be an x87 anyway.
How about an eastward extension of I-890 (or might the needed multiplex with I-90 on the Thruway mainline be unnecessarily confusing)? Perhaps a 'local/express' pairing could be developed between Albany (interchange 24) and Schenectady (interchange 25) with the I-90 Thruway ticket-tollway mainline being the inner lanes and 'I-890' be 'free' local lanes added on the outside (like with I-790 at Utica). :poke: As an added benefit, it would cut down on tollgate congestion at interchange 24. When I was out there visiting friends a couple of times about ten years ago, I was stuck in a fairly lengthy delay EVERY TIME I went through that tollgate.
:pan:
Mike
Here's what I think should be done.
Make the free section of I-90 as I-87. The current I-87 as I-90. And then have both routes multiplex on the Berkshire Spur. Then make the short "current" I-90/I-87 multiplex as hidden I-187.
That way, everything will keep an Interstate number and you even gain mileage. :nod:
Plus, an added benefit, you connect I-787 with I-87 properly. ;)
QuoteHow about 790? I don't think anyone would care if the current 790 designation magically disappeared, owing the fact it shouldn't have that designation anyways.
Except when you factor in proposals being discussed to route I-790 along NY 49 towards Rome...
QuoteHow about an eastward extension of I-890
One of the 1960s-era plans for freeway construction in the Capital Region (which I found, but I don't remember where I found it) had a freeway looping from the eastern I-90/I-890 interchange (Exit 25), south and southeastward, west of Westmere, Slingerlands, and Selkirk, ending at the Thruway/Berkshire Spur junction. Such a freeway would have neatly solved the problem of what to call the Berkshire Spur.
As for what to do with it, given the confusion factor of relocating I-87 or I-90 (sorry, James, but your idea would never fly, and BTW I-787 does connect with I-87 properly), and given that all the x90 numbers are taken, you could either give it an x87 number, or simply leave it as "To I-87" or "To I-90", which also works since there are NO intermediate interchanges between I-87 and I-90.
How about make the free I-90 become a state route? There are many NY state routes that are freeways. We couldn't make it an NY x90 because pretty much all of the NY x90s are also taken either as interstate extensions or routes across the state. We could eliminate the very short NY 890 at the west end of I-890 and make free I-90 NY 890.
Probably because "free I-90" was built with Interstate money, and partly because of that it's very much a part of the Interstate system.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on March 30, 2010, 08:54:18 AM
How about make the free I-90 become a state route? There are many NY state routes that are freeways. We couldn't make it an NY x90 because pretty much all of the NY x90s are also taken either as interstate extensions or routes across the state. We could eliminate the very short NY 890 at the west end of I-890 and make free I-90 NY 890.
Actually, that's not a bad idea, but I have a different execution. New York uses a lot of suffixed state routes. Why not a NY-90x such as NY-90N?
Quote from: froggie on March 30, 2010, 07:28:18 AM
As for what to do with it, given the confusion factor of relocating I-87 or I-90 (sorry, James, but your idea would never fly, and BTW I-787 does connect with I-87 properly), and given that all the x90 numbers are taken, you could either give it an x87 number, or simply leave it as "To I-87" or "To I-90", which also works since there are NO intermediate interchanges between I-87 and I-90.
I guess you could say that segment is just a very long ramp from I-90 West at B1 to I-87, or from I-87 to I-90 East... I'd be happy to see it designated as I-187 (or whatever 3di number seems most appropriate), leaving the other designations alone. Having the mainline of an Interstate go through a city, as I-90 does in Albany, and a 3di bypass it is just as valid as the mainline bypassing and a 3di serving the city.
Of course, I'd like to see the whole New York Interstate system renumbered with consistent, mileage-based exit numbers, but that's not happening any time soon. Then, you'd "exit" I-90 if you want to stay on the Thruway at what are currently interchanges 24 and B1.
NY is going to go to mileage-based numbers eventually (due to the MUTCD), but how they would interact with the Thruway remains to be seen.
Quote from: Brandon on March 30, 2010, 11:08:18 AM
Actually, that's not a bad idea, but I have a different execution. New York uses a lot of suffixed state routes. Why not a NY-90x such as NY-90N?
are any suffixed routes freeways of significant length, like the Free I-90? (Not counting 94x, 97x and 99x routes that are named parkways of freeway standard)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 30, 2010, 03:45:35 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 30, 2010, 11:08:18 AM
Actually, that's not a bad idea, but I have a different execution. New York uses a lot of suffixed state routes. Why not a NY-90x such as NY-90N?
are any suffixed routes freeways of significant length, like the Free I-90? (Not counting 94x, 97x and 99x routes that are named parkways of freeway standard)
NY 9A is sort of a freeway in New York City when it runs along the Henry Hudson Parkway.
Also, this is sort of turning into a topic which should be moved to the fictional highways.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 30, 2010, 03:45:35 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 30, 2010, 11:08:18 AM
Actually, that's not a bad idea, but I have a different execution. New York uses a lot of suffixed state routes. Why not a NY-90x such as NY-90N?
are any suffixed routes freeways of significant length, like the Free I-90? (Not counting 94x, 97x and 99x routes that are named parkways of freeway standard)
Suffixed routes are being ended slowly. Also, I-90N once applied to the alignment of current day 190 and will not happen again
Quote from: deanej on March 30, 2010, 01:30:37 PM
NY is going to go to mileage-based numbers eventually (due to the MUTCD), but how they would interact with the Thruway remains to be seen.
This may have been asked before. Does the NYSTA have to renumber the Thruway with mileage based exits as they are not a federally funded highway?
Yes they would. New York State adopted the Federal MUTCD, and as a state agency, the Thruway Authority would also have to comply.
Quote from: froggie on March 30, 2010, 09:03:34 PM
Yes they would. New York State adopted the Federal MUTCD, and as a state agency, the Thruway Authority would also have to comply.
The Thruway Authority is technically considered to be a public benefit authority, but since they do employ state workers, they do need to comply to the Federal MUTCD.
Try that argument with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority . . .
Any agency that doesn't receive Federal funds doesn't have to comply with the MUTCD unless the state government forces them to. The NJTA has enough political clout within NJ to avoid that situation. Port Authority, being a bistate agency, is also exempt.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 30, 2010, 11:26:52 PM
Any agency that doesn't receive Federal funds doesn't have to comply with the MUTCD unless the state government forces them to.
Of course, the Feds could say to the state in question, "Unless you make the <insert highway here>, we'll pull your highway funds." - That's what they did for the National Speed Limit and the National Drinking age of 21.
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on March 30, 2010, 05:03:41 PM
Suffixed routes are being ended slowly. Also, I-90N once applied to the alignment of current day 190 and will not happen again
really? do you have a photo by any chance of a New York I-90N shield?
Quote from: dougtone on March 30, 2010, 10:10:25 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 30, 2010, 09:03:34 PM
Yes they would. New York State adopted the Federal MUTCD, and as a state agency, the Thruway Authority would also have to comply.
The Thruway Authority is technically considered to be a public benefit authority, but since they do employ state workers, they do need to comply to the Federal MUTCD.
What I am wondering is, will the NYSTA be sneaky enough to do the exits by the mile of the actual Thruway mainline, not 87 and 90 separately. Hopefully they will do it the right way.
Quote from: Snappyjack on March 30, 2010, 11:48:03 PM
What I am wondering is, will the NYSTA be sneaky enough to do the exits by the mile of the actual Thruway mainline, not 87 and 90 separately. Hopefully they will do it the right way.
Well, both the mainline Pennsylvania Turnpike (I-70, I-76, I-276 and future I-95) and the Ohio Turnpike (I-76, I-80 and I-90) and, I think, the Kansas Turnpike all number their exits by turnpike mileage not that of the multiple interstates that go on the respective highways.
One reason that I think that they do that is because these turnpike use a ticket system and figuring out toll rates could be very confusing if the exit numbers changed when the highway number changed.
Fixed upcoming tag - SMAQuote
This may have been asked before. Does the NYSTA have to renumber the Thruway with mileage based exits as they are not a federally funded highway?
Actually, they are federally funded in the following areas:
Buffalo main line exits 50-55
Third lane widening from exits 24-25, in return the Thruway provides free tolls from 25A to 24 and from 25A to 26. This was as a replacement for constructing I-88 thru Rotterdam to I-87.
Rockland Co exits 10-15A, formerly it was 10-14A, but with the construction of exits 15-15A (I-287) it was extended with toll free access for non-commercial vehicles.
Exits 1-6A in Westchester Co
The New England Thwy (I-95) in The Bronx from Pelham pkwy to the Westchester Co line
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 30, 2010, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on March 30, 2010, 05:03:41 PM
Suffixed routes are being ended slowly. Also, I-90N once applied to the alignment of current day 190 and will not happen again
really?
Yes, really.
Quote from: mightyace on March 30, 2010, 11:34:13 PM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 30, 2010, 11:26:52 PM
Any agency that doesn't receive Federal funds doesn't have to comply with the MUTCD unless the state government forces them to.
Of course, the Feds could say to the state in question, "Unless you make the <insert highway here>, we'll pull your highway funds." - That's what they did for the National Speed Limit and the National Drinking age of 21.
I'd be curious to see if the FHWA decides to enforce this.
Quote from: Jim on March 30, 2010, 12:01:12 PM
I'd be happy to see it designated as I-187 (or whatever 3di number seems most appropriate), leaving the other designations alone.
Agreed.
Thread resurrected!
I think they should just multiplex I-90 with I-87 down to the Berkshire Spur. The free I-90 can be I-87 and I-687. Or they can leave the designs alone, just use the Spur between I-87 and I-90 and call it I-487 or something like this: I-487 EAST TO I-90 EAST, BOSTON.
Quote from: Strider on July 31, 2014, 07:10:52 PM
Thread resurrected!
I think they should just multiplex I-90 with I-87 down to the Berkshire Spur. The free I-90 can be I-87 and I-687. Or they can leave the designs alone, just use the Spur between I-87 and I-90 and call it I-487 or something like this: I-487 EAST TO I-90 EAST, BOSTON.
The unnumbered section should stay unnumbered. It's just a really long ramp.
Quote from: 1 on July 31, 2014, 07:13:37 PM
The unnumbered section should stay unnumbered. It's just a really long ramp.
You mean like I-865 in Indiana?
Putting I-90 over that section has never been anything more than NYSTA wanting the extra toll revenue. It might save 5 minutes as opposed to going through Albany (can be less if Free 90 is moving at its usual speed), there are no services, and it costs an extra $1.65.
FWIW, one of my old Rand McNally New York state maps from the mid-70s under its toll-road/bridge/tunnel listings had the Berkshire Section of the Thruway between I-87 & I-90 listed as
I-190.
That said, I would just make the unnumbered portion of the Berkshire Section of the Thruway as either I-x87 (which ever number's available) or even designate it as NY 1090 and leave everything else in the area alone.
Quote from: mightyace on March 31, 2010, 12:00:56 AMWell, both the mainline Pennsylvania Turnpike (I-70, I-76, I-276 and future I-95) and the Ohio Turnpike (I-76, I-80 and I-90) and, I think, the Kansas Turnpike all number their exits by turnpike mileage not that of the multiple interstates that go on the respective highways.
With regards to the PA Turnpike, I did see some preliminary signing plans a few years ago for the I-95 connection. The exit numbers & mile markers for the future I-95 section of the Turnpike
will be changed to be a continuation of the I-95 mile markers (Exit 42+). Should the conversion to AET not take place right away, the toll-ticket section of the PA Turnpike will also likely be truncated just west of the I-95 interchange.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 01, 2014, 10:24:20 AM
I would just make the unnumbered portion of the Berkshire Section of the Thruway as either I-x87 (which ever number's available) or even designate it as NY 1090 and leave everything else in the area alone.
The country's first
mainland 4di!!!
Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on August 01, 2014, 12:23:59 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 01, 2014, 10:24:20 AM
I would just make the unnumbered portion of the Berkshire Section of the Thruway as either I-x87 (which ever number's available) or even designate it as NY 1090 and leave everything else in the area alone.
The country's first mainland 4di!!!
Kentucky has 4-digit routes.
Not a 4di though!
That said, we've had I-180N and there's some suffixed spur routes of 3dis...
Quote from: english si on August 01, 2014, 12:43:13 PM
I-180N
I thought that was just signed as I-180, or am I misremembering?
Quote from: Alps on March 31, 2010, 07:26:37 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 30, 2010, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on March 30, 2010, 05:03:41 PM
Suffixed routes are being ended slowly. Also, I-90N once applied to the alignment of current day 190 and will not happen again
really?
Yes, really.
Now, looking back, it seems funny. The various I-69s now say "Hi!".
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2014, 12:52:41 PM
Quote from: english si on August 01, 2014, 12:43:13 PM
I-180N
I thought that was just signed as I-180, or am I misremembering?
IIRC, I-180 PA was just I-180; I-180 ID was I-180N. It is unknown if I-184 was signed as I-180N.
Quote from: Brandon on August 01, 2014, 01:24:00 PMI-180 ID was I-180N. It is unknown if I-184 was signed as I-180N.
I can't parse this. I would imagine the Idaho route was signed 180N before the renumbering, and 184 after. what else are you intending?
The thing is that there is no reason to give the short unnumbered section of the Berkshire Spur an interstate designation except for a money grab. Being a toll road, it would get no federal funding and it isn't significant enough to get a designation. There are no exits or rest areas along that 6.58-mile stretch. Currently, it is signed as "To I-87/90", a designation that works for the purpose, and it already carries the unsigned NY 912M, which is referenced nowhere but NYSDOT documents because NYSTA doesn't post reference markers.
If they wanted to, it could be posted as NY 487. NY 1090 would not work because New York does not have 4-digit state routes except for unsigned reference routes and a couple of short suffixed routes. However, BGSes at Exit 1 would still be for I-90 East and Exit B1 would be for I-87. Nothing would change, but they'd have to replace all of the signage at great cost.
The section of the Berkshire Spur of the New York State Thruway between Exits 21A and B1 has been a lonely, quiet, underused stretch of highway for a long, long time. The two service areas were closed years ago. After they were closed, the service areas were used as a huge parking area for new state police cars and highway maintenance equipment.
There is very little traffic and surrounding local roads in that part of southwestern Rensselaer County are sparsely populated with little development. Because there is no exit between US 9/Interstate 90 (Exit B1) to the mainline Interstate 87 (Exit 21A), crossing the Hudson River with such limited access is not attractive to traffic. NY 9J would be the only possible state highway for a potential exit, but the uphill climb from NY 9J to the Berkshire Spur would be impossible without a long, long elevated ramp system. A railroad bridge would also block access.
One of the other interesting facets of the 8-mile stretch of the Thruway is not just the Castleton Bridge, but one of the widest medians in the system, immediately east of the Bridge. It is also one of the last sections of the Thruway to be repaved after becoming rutted and degraded asphalt.
The rest area built on Interstate 90 between Exits 12 and 11 was heavily used for years, then as New York periodically ran out money, the rest area was reduced, used a mobile weigh station from time-to-time, then occasionally closed and now, gated off completely. They don't even mow the lawn anymore.
Quote from: xcellntbuy on August 01, 2014, 04:09:10 PM
The section of the Berkshire Spur of the New York State Thruway between Exits 21A and B1 has been a lonely, quiet, underused stretch of highway for a long, long time. The two service areas were closed years ago. After they were closed, the service areas were used as a huge parking area for new state police cars and highway maintenance equipment.
There is very little traffic and surrounding local roads in that part of southwestern Rensselaer County are sparsely populated with little development. Because there is no exit between US 9/Interstate 90 (Exit B1) to the mainline Interstate 87 (Exit 21A), crossing the Hudson River with such limited access is not attractive to traffic. NY 9J would be the only possible state highway for a potential exit, but the uphill climb from NY 9J to the Berkshire Spur would be impossible without a long, long elevated ramp system. A railroad bridge would also block access.
One of the other interesting facets of the 8-mile stretch of the Thruway is not just the Castleton Bridge, but one of the widest medians in the system, immediately east of the Bridge. It is also one of the last sections of the Thruway to be repaved after becoming rutted and degraded asphalt.
The rest area built on Interstate 90 between Exits 12 and 11 was heavily used for years, then as New York periodically ran out money, the rest area was reduced, used a mobile weigh station from time-to-time, then occasionally closed and now, gated off completely. They don't even mow the lawn anymore.
To give people an idea, that stretch of highway had an AADT of 12,700 in 2011. The stretches of I-87 immediately north and south of Exit 21A are around 40,000 (+/- 3,000) and Free 90 just west of B1 is around 15,000. Heck, the section of I-90 on the Berkshire Spur is only 23,900, dropping under 22,000 at the Taconic. The only section of the mainline (that I know of) with numbers that low is in Chautauqua and southern Erie Counties. Most of the Thruway system is between 30,000 and 50,000. There is
nothing there. It runs through the middle of nowhere and there aren't enough people going to Boston from Upstate New York and Southern Ontario. It's one of the most remote parts of the state that isn't in Adirondack or Catskill Parks. I can't say it's overbuilt because it's the only east-west limited access highway north of I-84 in that part of the country, but part of me says to make the Berkshire Spur west of B1 a super two to save money as there isn't enough traffic to warrant much more.
^ Funny, I get 14,650 for the Berkshire Spur via New York's traffic data viewer.
And in regards to any talk to downgrading the Berkshire Spur to a Super 2:
1) It seems that the last time being behind a slow moving vehicle and being unable to pass on a two lane road has been forgotten.
2) It would make the route less usable in case of a major incident on the free section of I-90 or on I-87 between the Spur and I-90.
3) Someone can provide data to prove otherwise, but I recall two lane rural roads start having safety issues at much lower ADT values than their urban counterparts.
It's worth noting that the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge isn't "free". There's a 62 cent surcharge automatically built-in to the toll rates on top of the regular per-mile rate. But it's definitely the route for thru traffic.
Quote from: cl94 on August 01, 2014, 05:08:03 PM
To give people an idea, that stretch of highway had an AADT of 12,700 in 2011. The stretches of I-87 immediately north and south of Exit 21A are around 40,000 (+/- 3,000) and Free 90 just west of B1 is around 15,000. Heck, the section of I-90 on the Berkshire Spur is only 23,900, dropping under 22,000 at the Taconic. The only section of the mainline (that I know of) with numbers that low is in Chautauqua and southern Erie Counties. Most of the Thruway system is between 30,000 and 50,000. There is nothing there. It runs through the middle of nowhere and there aren't enough people going to Boston from Upstate New York and Southern Ontario. It's one of the most remote parts of the state that isn't in Adirondack or Catskill Parks. I can't say it's overbuilt because it's the only east-west limited access highway north of I-84 in that part of the country, but part of me says to make the Berkshire Spur west of B1 a super two to save money as there isn't enough traffic to warrant much more.
It still has much more traffic than I-87 in Essex County. Personally I'd make it an unsigned x87. I always found it odd that I-90 veered off the Thruway and then got on a little while later since traffic following I-90 has to stop two extra times at toll barriers.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 01, 2014, 05:55:09 PM
^ Funny, I get 14,650 for the Berkshire Spur via New York's traffic data viewer.
And in regards to any talk to downgrading the Berkshire Spur to a Super 2:
1) It seems that the last time being behind a slow moving vehicle and being unable to pass on a two lane road has been forgotten.
2) It would make the route less usable in case of a major incident on the free section of I-90 or on I-87 between the Spur and I-90.
3) Someone can provide data to prove otherwise, but I recall two lane rural roads start having safety issues at much lower ADT values than their urban counterparts.
There are two stations on that stretch of Thruway; one in Albany County, one in Rensselaer. Since they likely weren't taken at the same time (or even in the same month/year), they have slightly different AADT values. I don't know when either was last counted, but the Albany County one is scheduled to be counted this year. The displayed numbers on the map are actually numbers forecast to 2012 (the most recent year of reports available in the viewer); you have to view the hourly report to get the "real" numbers. Most stations are counted on a three year cycle; local bridges and railroad crossings every five, and ramps every six.
What would even be the point of making it an unsigned I-87x if the section wouldn't get any federal funding due to it being run by a toll authority? Last I checked, NYSTA gets no federal funding, even for the stretches carrying a designation. Three stretches of road have no Interstate designation, totalling less than 15 miles out of the nearly 600-mile system. I-478 exists because it was supposed to be more than a tunnel under the East River. If it's just going to be signed as "To 87/90", why change the designation? Is the Berkshire Spur great to have as an alternate? Certainly. But in no way is it the road most travelled. The majority of traffic bound for Albany and points west takes the free route. I've timed the difference. There is none, mainly because Free 90 never sticks to the speed limit.
"I always found it odd that I-90 veered off the Thruway and then got on a little while later since traffic following I-90 has to stop two extra times at toll barriers."
When I was little (1960s), I remember when the Thruway was signed with both Interstates 87 and 90 from Exits 21A to 24. The Interstate 90 signs were just added on top of the old big blue signs on black-painted poles. There was a small part built of what would become the free section of Interstate 90 from Thruway Exit 24 to what is now Interstate 90's Exit 5 at Everett Road, but the highway ended at Everett Road for years. The huge hills from what is now Exit 5 to Exit 6A (Interstate 787) took a long time to grade, build and have all those tall overpasses constructed. The surface of all those roads was concrete, too.
Quote from: xcellntbuy on August 01, 2014, 07:37:41 PM
"I always found it odd that I-90 veered off the Thruway and then got on a little while later since traffic following I-90 has to stop two extra times at toll barriers."
When I was little (1960s), I remember when the Thruway was signed with both Interstates 87 and 90 from Exits 21A to 24. The Interstate 90 signs were just added on top of the old big blue signs on black-painted poles. There was a small part built of what would become the free section of Interstate 90 from Thruway Exit 24 to what is now Interstate 90's Exit 5 at Everett Road, but the highway ended at Everett Road for years. The huge hills from what is now Exit 5 to Exit 6A (Interstate 787) took a long time to grade, build and have all those tall overpasses constructed. The surface of all those roads was concrete, too.
Back in the early 1970's, I recall riding the Berkshire Section of the Thruway, and all of it was posted as I-90. Obviously this was long before "free" I-90 was completed.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2014, 09:13:14 PM
Quote from: xcellntbuy on August 01, 2014, 07:37:41 PM
"I always found it odd that I-90 veered off the Thruway and then got on a little while later since traffic following I-90 has to stop two extra times at toll barriers."
When I was little (1960s), I remember when the Thruway was signed with both Interstates 87 and 90 from Exits 21A to 24. The Interstate 90 signs were just added on top of the old big blue signs on black-painted poles. There was a small part built of what would become the free section of Interstate 90 from Thruway Exit 24 to what is now Interstate 90's Exit 5 at Everett Road, but the highway ended at Everett Road for years. The huge hills from what is now Exit 5 to Exit 6A (Interstate 787) took a long time to grade, build and have all those tall overpasses constructed. The surface of all those roads was concrete, too.
Back in the early 1970's, I recall riding the Berkshire Section of the Thruway, and all of it was posted as I-90. Obviously this was long before "free" I-90 was completed.
The 20-mile free section was built in many pieces. The 4-mile section between Exit 9 (US 4) west to a half diamond Exit 7 (Washington Avenue in Rensselaer) opened in 1972 or 1973. I remember this well, since nearly brand new Speed Limit 65 signs were decreased to the original national speed limit of 50. Crossing the Patroon Island Bridge westbound ended at a temporary ramp onto NY 32 and North Pearl Street. There was no Interstate 787 yet.
Another 4-mile section east was then opened in a few years to Exit 10 (Miller Road). It took a long time to build, since the grading of the one mile hill took so long. Another mile was opened further east to Exit 11 and the pavement changed from concrete to asphalt. The final four miles to Exit 12 finally connected to Thruway Exit B1 which used to be an interchange for just US 9. Not entirely sure of all the dates, but by 1978, the whole 20 miles was open.
Quote from: cl94 on August 01, 2014, 07:14:36 PM
What would even be the point of making it an unsigned I-87x if the section wouldn't get any federal funding due to it being run by a toll authority? Last I checked, NYSTA gets no federal funding, even for the stretches carrying a designation. Three stretches of road have no Interstate designation, totalling less than 15 miles out of the nearly 600-mile system. I-478 exists because it was supposed to be more than a tunnel under the East River. If it's just going to be signed as "To 87/90", why change the designation? Is the Berkshire Spur great to have as an alternate? Certainly. But in no way is it the road most travelled. The majority of traffic bound for Albany and points west takes the free route. I've timed the difference. There is none, mainly because Free 90 never sticks to the speed limit.
Well, if I had my way, our highway systems would be a hierarchy, with each system combined with higher systems being wholly complete and self-sufficient with no gaps. The interstates, of course, would be on top, followed by US routes, then state, county, and ending with local, and it would be fully possible to do the majority of trips uniformly going to higher systems in the beginning and uniformly going to lower systems in the end like a bell curve.
Plus some of us do follow the speed limit (mostly; I usually do 62 in 55 zones and 72 in 65) because we fear speeding tickets.
Per the 2008 study, 14,500 vehicles cross Castleton on an average day, while 82,000 cross Patroon Island. Heck, they'd probably reduce the amount of traffic on the most congested section of Free I-90 by upgrading US 4 and building an exit at 3rd Avenue Extension to get people to travel on the east side of the Hudson and over to the Bridge to Nowhere. Could you redesignate it as I-487? Probably. But you'd be hard-pressed to get more of the longer-distance traffic to shift to the Thruway without a couple of changes.
Where I grew up in Warren County, I could have theoretically gotten to the Mass Pike using either the Thruway or Free 90. Given how my parents drive like everyone else from Long Island, the time to do either was identical. My parents opted for the free route unless there was something blocking I-90 for that reason. The study mentions that travel time at the speed limit is 2 minutes longer on the free route. For the Thruway to be a good alternative, it would have to be significantly faster than the free highway. If the Thruway raised the speed limit to 70 or 75, you could probably shave off a couple of minutes and entice people to stay on.
There's also the lack of services along the Thruway between Exits 24 and B1. For one heading west, 67 miles separate the westernmost service area on the Mass Pike and the first service area encountered on the Thruway, located halfway between Exits 26 and 27. The only services easily accessible from the Thruway system are a small gas station at Exit B3. There are services along Free I-90, I-787/US 9W, I-890, and I-88, all of which require a bit of backtracking or a large detour to get back to the Thruway. What they could (and probably should) do is build a service area/welcome center between Exits B1 and B2 for both directions. It's the highest-traveled section of the Berkshire Spur and breaks the drought. Such a location would be 25 miles from the Lee Service Area and give travelers the opportunity to get gas or eat without leaving the system.
And then comes the issue of tolls. For a passenger car without E-ZPass, it's $1.65 each way, going up to $11.95 for a full-length tractor trailer. To encourage people to use the Thruway system for travel between Albany and Schodack Landing, NYSTA should set up an arrangement similar to that with I-88. Tolls between Exits 24 and B1 should be free or significantly discounted, so that one going between west of Exit 24 and east of Exit B1 pays little or no toll for the distance between those two exits.
Encouraging people to stay on the Thruway is a good idea to get a few thousand cars out of Albany. Only issue is that the Thruway has to provide comparable services at a similar road usage fee.
Quote from: Alps on March 30, 2010, 11:26:52 PM
Any agency that doesn't receive Federal funds doesn't have to comply with the MUTCD unless the state government forces them to.
In addition to the abolition of breezewoods, Congress could force every U.S. toll road agency to comply with the MUTCD by making compliance a condition of issuing bonds with interest that is exempt from federal taxation.
Quote3) Someone can provide data to prove otherwise, but I recall two lane rural roads start having safety issues at much lower ADT values than their urban counterparts.
They do, but consider that a controlled-access facility still has a much higher capacity level than your typical two-lane road.
Quote from: froggie on August 03, 2014, 03:34:27 PM
Quote3) Someone can provide data to prove otherwise, but I recall two lane rural roads start having safety issues at much lower ADT values than their urban counterparts.
They do, but consider that a controlled-access facility still has a much higher capacity level than your typical two-lane road.
I was thinking more of a "2+1 road" like those in Europe if they decide to keep the tolls as they are and usage grows as projected. They could also up the usage if they built an interchange with NY 9J, but that's never going to happen.
Quote from: cl94 on August 02, 2014, 11:13:29 PM
Per the 2008 study, 14,500 vehicles cross Castleton on an average day, while 82,000 cross Patroon Island. Heck, they'd probably reduce the amount of traffic on the most congested section of Free I-90 by upgrading US 4 and building an exit at 3rd Avenue Extension to get people to travel on the east side of the Hudson and over to the Bridge to Nowhere. Could you redesignate it as I-487? Probably. But you'd be hard-pressed to get more of the longer-distance traffic to shift to the Thruway without a couple of changes.
Where I grew up in Warren County, I could have theoretically gotten to the Mass Pike using either the Thruway or Free 90. Given how my parents drive like everyone else from Long Island, the time to do either was identical. My parents opted for the free route unless there was something blocking I-90 for that reason. The study mentions that travel time at the speed limit is 2 minutes longer on the free route. For the Thruway to be a good alternative, it would have to be significantly faster than the free highway. If the Thruway raised the speed limit to 70 or 75, you could probably shave off a couple of minutes and entice people to stay on.
There's also the lack of services along the Thruway between Exits 24 and B1. For one heading west, 67 miles separate the westernmost service area on the Mass Pike and the first service area encountered on the Thruway, located halfway between Exits 26 and 27. The only services easily accessible from the Thruway system are a small gas station at Exit B3. There are services along Free I-90, I-787/US 9W, I-890, and I-88, all of which require a bit of backtracking or a large detour to get back to the Thruway. What they could (and probably should) do is build a service area/welcome center between Exits B1 and B2 for both directions. It's the highest-traveled section of the Berkshire Spur and breaks the drought. Such a location would be 25 miles from the Lee Service Area and give travelers the opportunity to get gas or eat without leaving the system.
And then comes the issue of tolls. For a passenger car without E-ZPass, it's $1.65 each way, going up to $11.95 for a full-length tractor trailer. To encourage people to use the Thruway system for travel between Albany and Schodack Landing, NYSTA should set up an arrangement similar to that with I-88. Tolls between Exits 24 and B1 should be free or significantly discounted, so that one going between west of Exit 24 and east of Exit B1 pays little or no toll for the distance between those two exits.
Encouraging people to stay on the Thruway is a good idea to get a few thousand cars out of Albany. Only issue is that the Thruway has to provide comparable services at a similar road usage fee.
Urban freeways tend to have more traffic than rural. I'd guess that the majority of those 85,000 vehicles are local, especially since 60,000 of them exit before the Thruway.
Obviously growing up in Warren County would give you a much different relationship with the Berkshire Spur than mine. I grew up in Rochester. Instead of choosing what point to get on the Thruway, we would already have been driving on the Thruway for 3-4 hours before getting to the decision point. Plus my parents still don't have E-ZPass, so they're waiting in line at the cash lanes.
Lack of services was never a problem with us. I've been on two trips involving that road. One was a family vacation to Boston. We used only one tank of gas there, and we ate a brown bag lunch at a Thruway parking area. The other was a high school field trip to Cape Cod. We stopped for dinner at a Thruway service area and had another break at the Mass Pike. I presume the bus refuelled at at least one of these stops.
The traffic counts on the rest of the Berkshire spur are not out of line with the rest of the Thruway; they're about the same as I-90 through the Mohawk Valley, in fact. Looks like about half the vehicles stay on the Berkshire Spur instead of shunpiking, though there's no real way to know how many of the people getting on/off at exit B1 originate/are going to in Albany or points north.
Quote from: vdeane on August 03, 2014, 05:50:08 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 02, 2014, 11:13:29 PM
Per the 2008 study, 14,500 vehicles cross Castleton on an average day, while 82,000 cross Patroon Island. Heck, they'd probably reduce the amount of traffic on the most congested section of Free I-90 by upgrading US 4 and building an exit at 3rd Avenue Extension to get people to travel on the east side of the Hudson and over to the Bridge to Nowhere. Could you redesignate it as I-487? Probably. But you'd be hard-pressed to get more of the longer-distance traffic to shift to the Thruway without a couple of changes.
Where I grew up in Warren County, I could have theoretically gotten to the Mass Pike using either the Thruway or Free 90. Given how my parents drive like everyone else from Long Island, the time to do either was identical. My parents opted for the free route unless there was something blocking I-90 for that reason. The study mentions that travel time at the speed limit is 2 minutes longer on the free route. For the Thruway to be a good alternative, it would have to be significantly faster than the free highway. If the Thruway raised the speed limit to 70 or 75, you could probably shave off a couple of minutes and entice people to stay on.
There's also the lack of services along the Thruway between Exits 24 and B1. For one heading west, 67 miles separate the westernmost service area on the Mass Pike and the first service area encountered on the Thruway, located halfway between Exits 26 and 27. The only services easily accessible from the Thruway system are a small gas station at Exit B3. There are services along Free I-90, I-787/US 9W, I-890, and I-88, all of which require a bit of backtracking or a large detour to get back to the Thruway. What they could (and probably should) do is build a service area/welcome center between Exits B1 and B2 for both directions. It's the highest-traveled section of the Berkshire Spur and breaks the drought. Such a location would be 25 miles from the Lee Service Area and give travelers the opportunity to get gas or eat without leaving the system.
And then comes the issue of tolls. For a passenger car without E-ZPass, it's $1.65 each way, going up to $11.95 for a full-length tractor trailer. To encourage people to use the Thruway system for travel between Albany and Schodack Landing, NYSTA should set up an arrangement similar to that with I-88. Tolls between Exits 24 and B1 should be free or significantly discounted, so that one going between west of Exit 24 and east of Exit B1 pays little or no toll for the distance between those two exits.
Encouraging people to stay on the Thruway is a good idea to get a few thousand cars out of Albany. Only issue is that the Thruway has to provide comparable services at a similar road usage fee.
Urban freeways tend to have more traffic than rural. I'd guess that the majority of those 85,000 vehicles are local, especially since 60,000 of them exit before the Thruway.
Obviously growing up in Warren County would give you a much different relationship with the Berkshire Spur than mine. I grew up in Rochester. Instead of choosing what point to get on the Thruway, we would already have been driving on the Thruway for 3-4 hours before getting to the decision point. Plus my parents still don't have E-ZPass, so they're waiting in line at the cash lanes.
Lack of services was never a problem with us. I've been on two trips involving that road. One was a family vacation to Boston. We used only one tank of gas there, and we ate a brown bag lunch at a Thruway parking area. The other was a high school field trip to Cape Cod. We stopped for dinner at a Thruway service area and had another break at the Mass Pike. I presume the bus refuelled at at least one of these stops.
The traffic counts on the rest of the Berkshire spur are not out of line with the rest of the Thruway; they're about the same as I-90 through the Mohawk Valley, in fact. Looks like about half the vehicles stay on the Berkshire Spur instead of shunpiking, though there's no real way to know how many of the people getting on/off at exit B1 originate/are going to in Albany or points north.
Most of the traffic on Free I-90 is local, but we could blame that on the terrain and lack of alternate routes. It's a pain to get anywhere on the east side of the river, so everyone crosses over to I-787 and crosses back when they near their destination. NY 5, US 9, and US 20 don't have the capacity for medium-distance trips, so everyone takes the highway.
While the traffic counts on I-87 and NY 912M were not done at the same time, one can assume that the AADT did not vary greatly. Using the inventory values, the Berkshire Spur traffic favors the north by approximately 2 to 1. That puts the amount of non-shunpikers closer to 10,000. We have no clue how many of those exit at 22 or 23. Some of the larger trucking companies cover tolls no matter what, so these trucks stay on the Thruway to avoid Albany. As you stated, there is no statistically accurate way of determining the amount of traffic that travels the length of Free I-90. I will mention, however, that I have been in lines of cars on I-90 where several cars exited in Guilderland and reentered in Schodack Landing.
Many of the long-distance drivers are not vacationers, but business travelers and long-distance truckers. For people who travel often, tolls add up quickly. The issue of cost also rises when services are concerned. Gas is almost always at least a few cents per gallon more on the Thruway and food prices can be 25% higher. The average leisure traveler doesn't care about this, but commercial and business travelers do. An additional 2-3 miles doesn't justify spending significantly more on gas (unless of course, your company provides unlimited amounts of fuel, a rarity in this day and age).
That being said, re-designating the Berkshire Spur will do
very little to modify traffic patterns. It's practically the middle leg of the world's largest double trumpet and will continue to be as such. The amount of through traffic on I-90 is under 25,000 at the upper end, and that's assuming every car on I-90 just east of Exit B1 will/has be(en) west of Exit 24 on that same trip.
I'm not opposed to doing a study. I just don't think that anything would change at this point. I bet that several of the people currently using the full length of the Berkshire Spur are using it because Mapquest, Google, or their GPS directs them to. Shunpikers shunpike no matter what unless the toll is removed. You're not going to move several of them onto the toll road even if the Free 90 speed limit is decreased to 40.
If you're a through traveler on I-90 between, say, Boston and Syracuse, how much money are you going to save by exiting the Thruway for the free I-90 portion through Albany? Can't be that much, can it?
Let's see -- get off the Thruway, have to endure traffic at the toll booth (even with E-ZPass, you have to slow to 5 mph and if there's a jam-up, you're delayed even more), deal with downtown Albany traffic, get hung up at the toll booth to re-enter the Thruway -- unless I'm saving a significant chunk of money, I'm staying on the Thruway. Only time I didn't was when I was going for a clinch of I-90 in New York.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2014, 09:48:54 PM
If you're a through traveler on I-90 between, say, Boston and Syracuse, how much money are you going to save by exiting the Thruway for the free I-90 portion through Albany? Can't be that much, can it?
Let's see -- get off the Thruway, have to endure traffic at the toll booth (even with E-ZPass, you have to slow to 5 mph and if there's a jam-up, you're delayed even more), deal with downtown Albany traffic, get hung up at the toll booth to re-enter the Thruway -- unless I'm saving a significant chunk of money, I'm staying on the Thruway. Only time I didn't was when I was going for a clinch of I-90 in New York.
$1.65. The route really depends on the person. Where I currently live, I need to get gas somewhere between Exits 26 and B3 when going to Massachusetts. I mainly take the free route to get cheaper gas and eat lunch somewhere that doesn't charge the Thruway "tax" of sorts. If there was a service area between those exits that wasn't overcrowded Guilderland, I'd probably stop there if the price was comparable. Issue is that gas at Guilderland, for example, is 12 cents more expensive than that at Exit 5 (Everett Rd).
The Thruway certainly has its merits. My personal opinion is that saving a few dollars on gas, tolls, and food is worth an extra couple minutes of travel time. Other people are free to have different ones. Some people swear by shunpiking, others take the Thruway everywhere.
If there is a time penalty to taking free 90 it isn't anything significant. I will gladly take a route that's basically the same length to save $1.65.
Of course, when I am faced with this decision, usually I am heading north on I-87 afterward, not reentering the Thruway to continue west on I-90. In such cases it's one toll plaza for me either way and getting off at B1 is certainly less hassle than getting off at 24. Meanwhile if I am heading to Syracuse or anywhere west of there it doesn't really make sense for me to be going via Albany so I won't be unless I'm taking a non-interstate route anyway.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 04, 2014, 12:10:27 AM
If there is a time penalty to taking free 90 it isn't anything significant. I will gladly take a route that's basically the same length to save $1.65.
The one time I did it, Albany traffic on I-90 was a cluster foxtrot.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2014, 12:34:35 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 04, 2014, 12:10:27 AM
If there is a time penalty to taking free 90 it isn't anything significant. I will gladly take a route that's basically the same length to save $1.65.
The one time I did it, Albany traffic on I-90 was a cluster foxtrot.
There's a one hour window in the peak direction each rush hour where it is a mess. Other than that, it's not bad at all. Traffic tends to move fast.
For me, the idea of making the Berkshire Spur an interstate is about the completeness of the interstate system, not about modifying traffic patterns.
During the AM rush, Albany traffic isn't bad... it's getting off the Thruway that's the problem then. During the PM rush, traffic can be so bad that I wish there was a travel ban on non-commuters. I can always tell when someone is a tourist based on how they behave around the merges (also on whether they use their turn signal at the SPUI). In general, nobody in their right mind would be caught dead anywhere near I-90 west of the State Campus (Everett Rd on summer Thursdays/Fridays), the Northway anywhere south of the Twin Bridges, or I-787 north of I-90 during the PM rush if they can avoid traveling during that time (unfortunately, even at their worst, these roads still move faster than parallel local roads , encouraging traffic to use them even when horribly congested).
Quote from: cl94 on August 02, 2014, 11:13:29 PM
There's also the lack of services along the Thruway between Exits 24 and B1. For one heading west, 67 miles separate the westernmost service area on the Mass Pike and the first service area encountered on the Thruway, located halfway between Exits 26 and 27. The only services easily accessible from the Thruway system are a small gas station at Exit B3. There are services along Free I-90, I-787/US 9W, I-890, and I-88, all of which require a bit of backtracking or a large detour to get back to the Thruway. What they could (and probably should) do is build a service area/welcome center between Exits B1 and B2 for both directions. It's the highest-traveled section of the Berkshire Spur and breaks the drought. Such a location would be 25 miles from the Lee Service Area and give travelers the opportunity to get gas or eat without leaving the system.
There was a service area in both directions on the Berkshire Connector between Exit B1 (Free I-90) and the Castleton Bridge over the Hudson. I remember it from my childhood but also remember it closing during my childhood, so I would guess that it's been closed at least 30 years. Its location is obvious if you look at an aerial. It looks like the EB area has been re-purposed as something else, while the WB area remains abandoned.
Quote from: spooky on August 05, 2014, 07:23:50 AM
Quote from: cl94 on August 02, 2014, 11:13:29 PM
There's also the lack of services along the Thruway between Exits 24 and B1. For one heading west, 67 miles separate the westernmost service area on the Mass Pike and the first service area encountered on the Thruway, located halfway between Exits 26 and 27. The only services easily accessible from the Thruway system are a small gas station at Exit B3. There are services along Free I-90, I-787/US 9W, I-890, and I-88, all of which require a bit of backtracking or a large detour to get back to the Thruway. What they could (and probably should) do is build a service area/welcome center between Exits B1 and B2 for both directions. It's the highest-traveled section of the Berkshire Spur and breaks the drought. Such a location would be 25 miles from the Lee Service Area and give travelers the opportunity to get gas or eat without leaving the system.
There was a service area in both directions on the Berkshire Connector between Exit B1 (Free I-90) and the Castleton Bridge over the Hudson. I remember it from my childhood but also remember it closing during my childhood, so I would guess that it's been closed at least 30 years. Its location is obvious if you look at an aerial. It looks like the EB area has been re-purposed as something else, while the WB area remains abandoned.
It closed after Free I-90 opened, as all traffic bound for Albany and points north left east of the service area. Stupid placement, especially because a highway connecting Albany with the Berkshire Spur was planned to connect at Exit B1 or B2 since the spur was constructed.
QuoteI-180 ID was I-180N. It is unknown if I-184 was signed as I-180N.
Going back to this part of the conversation...according to newly "discovered" AASHTO route numbering committee minutes (in another thread), I-180 ID was approved by then-AASHO in June, 1970 as I-180. So, apparently, there was no I-180N....at least according to AASHO committee minutes.
There's precedent for this elsewhere. In Maryland, back when I-270 was I-70S, what is now the I-270 Spur was I-270. It was not I-270S.
Quote from: cl94 on August 05, 2014, 09:31:37 AM
Quote from: spooky on August 05, 2014, 07:23:50 AM
Quote from: cl94 on August 02, 2014, 11:13:29 PM
There's also the lack of services along the Thruway between Exits 24 and B1. For one heading west, 67 miles separate the westernmost service area on the Mass Pike and the first service area encountered on the Thruway, located halfway between Exits 26 and 27. The only services easily accessible from the Thruway system are a small gas station at Exit B3. There are services along Free I-90, I-787/US 9W, I-890, and I-88, all of which require a bit of backtracking or a large detour to get back to the Thruway. What they could (and probably should) do is build a service area/welcome center between Exits B1 and B2 for both directions. It's the highest-traveled section of the Berkshire Spur and breaks the drought. Such a location would be 25 miles from the Lee Service Area and give travelers the opportunity to get gas or eat without leaving the system.
There was a service area in both directions on the Berkshire Connector between Exit B1 (Free I-90) and the Castleton Bridge over the Hudson. I remember it from my childhood but also remember it closing during my childhood, so I would guess that it's been closed at least 30 years. Its location is obvious if you look at an aerial. It looks like the EB area has been re-purposed as something else, while the WB area remains abandoned.
It closed after Free I-90 opened, as all traffic bound for Albany and points north left east of the service area. Stupid placement, especially because a highway connecting Albany with the Berkshire Spur was planned to connect at Exit B1 or B2 since the spur was constructed.
There was talk in the early 1990s of building a new Service Area closer to the the state line. It was to be a welcome center and would have been called the Berkshire Service Area. I believe McDonalds was the franchisee on the project. This was to be built in tandem with the proposed Chautauqua Service Area near Ripley, but neither projects came to fruition.
I'll always give the NY Thurway credit for using Boston as a control city for I-87 South as a way to trick Boston bound traffic into staying on the Thurway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F38%2FI-90_-_Thruway_split_w_of_Albany_NY.jpg%2F1024px-I-90_-_Thruway_split_w_of_Albany_NY.jpg&hash=d5c704f877f4b1c21344a06044dc0340fe2eadb4)
If you didn't know that I-90 itself terminated in Boston, you would probably just skip free I-90 and follow the signs.
Possibly...but in my experience, a large number of through trucks will deliberately stay on the Thruway and follow the Spur and vice versa, as the two toll plazas plus the descent/hill climb in the river valley will all slow them down.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 06, 2014, 08:45:14 PM
I'll always give the NY Thurway credit for using Boston as a control city for I-87 South as a way to trick Boston bound traffic into staying on the Thurway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F38%2FI-90_-_Thruway_split_w_of_Albany_NY.jpg%2F1024px-I-90_-_Thruway_split_w_of_Albany_NY.jpg&hash=d5c704f877f4b1c21344a06044dc0340fe2eadb4)
If you didn't know that I-90 itself terminated in Boston, you would probably just skip free I-90 and follow the signs.
Another "trick".... the Mass Pike shield on the SB Thruway.
I still think that I-90 should follow the Thruway and onto the Berkshire Spur.
Quote from: Strider on August 06, 2014, 10:34:19 PM
I still think that I-90 should follow the Thruway and onto the Berkshire Spur.
I-90 being where it is in the first place dates back to when Free 90 was supposed to run north of the toll roads until east of Mass Pike Exit 2. NYSTA cried foul and we got what exists now, along with an incomplete Taconic State Parkway that still has a stub ending.
Part of the original intent of the Interstate Highway System was to avoid toll roads whenever possible. I-87 wasn't supposed spend as much time on the Thruway as it currently does. Various plans had it going up I-684 or the cancelled I-487. When stuff isn't completed, designations usually stay as they are, hence why we have the I-95 mess in PA and NJ and a few other things.
Quote from: cl94 on August 06, 2014, 11:16:48 PM
Quote from: Strider on August 06, 2014, 10:34:19 PM
I still think that I-90 should follow the Thruway and onto the Berkshire Spur.
I-90 being where it is in the first place dates back to when Free 90 was supposed to run north of the toll roads until east of Mass Pike Exit 2. NYSTA cried foul and we got what exists now, along with an incomplete Taconic State Parkway that still has a stub ending.
Not like it used to be. (http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=1.88619910994304E-05&lat=42.4136025036557&lon=-73.5464351343804&year=1971)
Quote from: shadyjay on August 06, 2014, 10:32:11 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 06, 2014, 08:45:14 PM
I'll always give the NY Thurway credit for using Boston as a control city for I-87 South as a way to trick Boston bound traffic into staying on the Thurway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F38%2FI-90_-_Thruway_split_w_of_Albany_NY.jpg%2F1024px-I-90_-_Thruway_split_w_of_Albany_NY.jpg&hash=d5c704f877f4b1c21344a06044dc0340fe2eadb4)
If you didn't know that I-90 itself terminated in Boston, you would probably just skip free I-90 and follow the signs.
Another "trick".... the Mass Pike shield on the SB Thruway.
I like the fact that at the same interchange coming SB on I-87 motorists are directed to Boston via the free I-90 EB through Albany unlike here.
Quote from: froggie on August 06, 2014, 09:28:31 PM
Possibly...but in my experience, a large number of through trucks will deliberately stay on the Thruway and follow the Spur and vice versa, as the two toll plazas plus the descent/hill climb in the river valley will all slow them down.
As would I, if I was driving straight through and had no need to stop in Albany.
I use free I-90 out of familiarity, due to the number of times I used it to connect to I-787 en route to Troy. A recent trip to Niagara Falls involved free I-90 because we wanted to find a place to stop for dinner.
Quote from: froggie on August 06, 2014, 09:28:31 PM
Possibly...but in my experience, a large number of through trucks will deliberately stay on the Thruway and follow the Spur and vice versa, as the two toll plazas plus the descent/hill climb in the river valley will all slow them down.
Not to mention the 'hairpin turn" ramp from free 90 eastbound onto the Berkshire Extension eastbound. I normally take free 90 through Albany when I'm on that section of the Thruway, but even in a passenger car, that ramp still gives me pause when I use it.
No worse than any other loop ramp onto the Thruway, but I have to wonder why that interchange was oriented that way. I'd flip it.
I would usually take free I-90 if I'm driving to Boston. Most of the time I'm coming from the Midwest and had already driven the Thruway from Pennsylvania. Saves me a dollar and change and gives me the satisfaction of knowing that I didn't give the NY Thruway authority a cent more than I needed to.
Quote from: vdeane on August 07, 2014, 07:12:21 PM
No worse than any other loop ramp onto the Thruway, but I have to wonder why that interchange was oriented that way. I'd flip it.
Dates to construction of the Berkshire Spur, when it was just an exit for US 9. Unless there's a heavy movement or geographical feature to justify otherwise, the loop is always an entrance ramp, both in New York and the rest of the northeast. I can only think of a handful of places where the loop is an exit ramp and everything is how it is because of expected traffic patterns in the 1950s. It's not like other toll authorities don't do similar things (Valley Forge, anyone?).
I wonder, if/when the time comes to replace the interchange, would a "flyover" ramp be built to carry 90EB->BS/90EB traffic, will the I-90 routing become the "preferred" alignment in a reconstruction, or will the status-quo be maintained? If the latter, I wonder if I-90 would be signed to the entire Berkshire Spur. I think the latter makes sense, especially if a widening of the mainline from the Berkshire Spur up to Exit 23 takes place. I'd then renumber I-90 through Albany as I-990 and renumber existing I-990 to something else.
The interchange was recently rebuilt to replace the old overpass carrying the ramps over the BS mainline. Other than a slight easing of the curve radii, nothing changed.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 07, 2014, 09:15:18 PM
I wonder, if/when the time comes to replace the interchange, would a "flyover" ramp be built to carry 90EB->BS/90EB traffic, will the I-90 routing become the "preferred" alignment in a reconstruction, or will the status-quo be maintained? If the latter, I wonder if I-90 would be signed to the entire Berkshire Spur. I think the latter makes sense, especially if a widening of the mainline from the Berkshire Spur up to Exit 23 takes place. I'd then renumber I-90 through Albany as I-990 and renumber existing I-990 to something else.
Nothing else to call it while maintaining Interstate funding and NYSDOT won't use an odd first digit in that situation. No way in heck.
The bridge was replaced relatively recently, so the current configuration will probably last a while. There isn't enough traffic to make the loop ramp have any trouble carrying traffic even though it is the preferred movement through that interchange. Actually, there really isn't enough traffic on any part of that road to warrant doing anything other than maintaining what currently exists. Should they think about adding a flyover? Probably, but there just isn't the need.
Quote from: vdeane on August 07, 2014, 07:12:21 PM
No worse than any other loop ramp onto the Thruway
Point taken. However, given that this ramp is effectively an Interstate to Interstate connection, I'm a bit surprised that nothing has ever been done to flatten it out or re-orient it.
Anybody happen to know what the truck rollover rate/frequency for the I-90 E to BS E loop ramp is? If it's fairly high, that might give NYSTA a legitimate rationale for rebuilding it.
Quote from: cl94 on August 07, 2014, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 07, 2014, 07:12:21 PM
No worse than any other loop ramp onto the Thruway, but I have to wonder why that interchange was oriented that way. I'd flip it.
Dates to construction of the Berkshire Spur, when it was just an exit for US 9. Unless there's a heavy movement or geographical feature to justify otherwise, the loop is always an entrance ramp, both in New York and the rest of the northeast. I can only think of a handful of places where the loop is an exit ramp and everything is how it is because of expected traffic patterns in the 1950s. It's not like other toll authorities don't do similar things (Valley Forge, anyone?).
Never really noticed. Of course, until last year or so almost all my Thruway travels were on the Rochester-Syracuse corridor from 36-45, and that area has a 50/50 split between the two types (and until I went to college, most Thruway trips for me were 44-45, which has both interchanges flipped!).
Quote from: vdeane on August 08, 2014, 07:37:40 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 07, 2014, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 07, 2014, 07:12:21 PM
No worse than any other loop ramp onto the Thruway, but I have to wonder why that interchange was oriented that way. I'd flip it.
Dates to construction of the Berkshire Spur, when it was just an exit for US 9. Unless there's a heavy movement or geographical feature to justify otherwise, the loop is always an entrance ramp, both in New York and the rest of the northeast. I can only think of a handful of places where the loop is an exit ramp and everything is how it is because of expected traffic patterns in the 1950s. It's not like other toll authorities don't do similar things (Valley Forge, anyone?).
Never really noticed. Of course, until last year or so almost all my Thruway travels were on the Rochester-Syracuse corridor from 36-45, and that area has a 50/50 split between the two types (and until I went to college, most Thruway trips for me were 44-45, which has both interchanges flipped!).
I may have double counted one or two, but I counted 35-13 in favor of loop entrance, including the two trumpets in free sections. Of those exceptions, three (25, 44, 45) have an extremely heavy entrance movement from a divided highway or greater that could not be adequately served by a loop ramp. B2 falls in the same category as B1, but I don't know why it got the loop exit variant (date of construction?). 49 and 56 are in the middle of the Buffalo suburbs (and were in the 'burbs when the Thruway was constructed), necessitating an orientation favoring traffic to Buffalo. 17 and 18 were reversed to handle tourist traffic from New York going to the Catskills, even though 17 should have a flyover given the heavy north to east movement. 39 confuses me, but 36 was reversed due to the presence of a cross street, even though movements are likely relatively equal.
That being said, the Rochester-Syracuse and Newburgh-Albany stretches contain just about every reversed trumpet.
Exit 36 used to be on the south side of the Thruway (opposite of where the trumpet is presently located) and also had movements to Seventh North Street (immediately south of the old trumpet). Exit 39 was moved one mile west around 20-25 years ago. The interchange used to be on the south side of the Thruway just west of where I-690 crosses. Looking at current aerial maps and Historic Aerials, you can see the differences. The old Exit 39 interchange can still be seen in current aerials. I believe the interchange was moved to where it is now to avoid having to stop at a traffic light, which you had to do in the old configuration. IMHO, this move was a wise decision.
I am really not certain about this, but is the reason that the Berkshire section of the Thruway between I-87 and I-90 not numbered an I-hwy because of how narrow the Castleton bridge is? What I mean is that the bridge does not meet the guidelines set for as far as having wide enough shoulders on it? The only reason I am asking is because I believe I read this somewhere.
Went back through my pictures. It looks as if the Thruway wants to be considered the through east-west route.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_3%2FImages%2F681.jpg&hash=d1273c18a70d62b6ae2926e3bd0bd379252bc646)
And the bridge also doesn't have much of a median. They were working on it when I crossed it and took this picture.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_3%2FImages%2F688.jpg&hash=f749a63d63499ddfba600283fdd54b44610037e2)
They'd have to do a bit of work before even grandfathering that stretch in (like installing a median barrier), because over a mile is substandard to the point where it's barely a divided highway. A flush median with a few plastic pylons does not make an instant divided highway. Even then, the feds would probably want a major bridge upgrade because they no longer grandfather stuff in the way they used to.
Quote from: cl94 on August 10, 2014, 01:13:19 AM
They'd have to do a bit of work before even grandfathering that stretch in (like installing a median barrier), because over a mile is substandard to the point where it's barely a divided highway. A flush median with a few plastic pylons does not make an instant divided highway. Even then, the feds would probably want a major bridge upgrade because they no longer grandfather stuff in the way they used to.
Pull an Oklahoma and sign it anyway. :pan:
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2014, 01:36:40 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 06, 2014, 10:32:11 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 06, 2014, 08:45:14 PM
I'll always give the NY Thurway credit for using Boston as a control city for I-87 South as a way to trick Boston bound traffic into staying on the Thurway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F38%2FI-90_-_Thruway_split_w_of_Albany_NY.jpg%2F1024px-I-90_-_Thruway_split_w_of_Albany_NY.jpg&hash=d5c704f877f4b1c21344a06044dc0340fe2eadb4)
If you didn't know that I-90 itself terminated in Boston, you would probably just skip free I-90 and follow the signs.
Another "trick".... the Mass Pike shield on the SB Thruway.
I like the fact that at the same interchange coming SB on I-87 motorists are directed to Boston via the free I-90 EB through Albany unlike here.
Ah, but SB I-87 is NYSDOT, and they route traffic via their roads (the logical reason is because Exit 24 is so congested that they probably don't want to route any more traffic through it than they have to). EB I-90 is NYSTA, and they want people to stay on the Thruway and pay more in tolls.
Also, the "tricks" used to keep people on the Thruway are really no different than used in other cities with a 3-di bypass and the 2-di going through town. For example, approaching Richmond on I-95 south, the signs say "95 south, Richmond" and "295 south, Rocky Mount NC" (the NC to distinguish from Rocky Mount, VA). If you didn't know that Rocky Mount was the next control point on I-95, you might just stay on I-95 through Richmond. In fact...that is actually 100% intentional. Those signs used to say "Rocky Mount NC - Miami FL". But local businesses complained that as a result of directing Florida bound traffic onto I-295, people weren't stopping for gas/food as much within Richmond. So they forced VDOT to cover "Miami" and it was eventually replaced with "Hopewell" and/or "RIC Int'l Airport". Because the control point is some place most people have never heard of, at least in the SB direction, a significant chunk of thru traffic stays on I-95.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 11, 2014, 07:30:54 PM
But local businesses complained that as a result of directing Florida bound traffic onto I-295, people weren't stopping for gas/food as much within Richmond. So they forced VDOT to cover "Miami" and it was eventually replaced with "Hopewell" and/or "RIC Int'l Airport". Because the control point is some place most people have never heard of, at least in the SB direction, a significant chunk of thru traffic stays on I-95.
They still have that nifty diagram showing I-295 as a bypass of Richmond. Giving the lower speed limit of I-95 through Richmond, taking the bypass is worth it, even if you plan on taking I-85. Its easy enough to cut back over at VA-10.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 11, 2014, 07:30:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2014, 01:36:40 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 06, 2014, 10:32:11 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 06, 2014, 08:45:14 PM
I'll always give the NY Thurway credit for using Boston as a control city for I-87 South as a way to trick Boston bound traffic into staying on the Thurway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F38%2FI-90_-_Thruway_split_w_of_Albany_NY.jpg%2F1024px-I-90_-_Thruway_split_w_of_Albany_NY.jpg&hash=d5c704f877f4b1c21344a06044dc0340fe2eadb4)
If you didn't know that I-90 itself terminated in Boston, you would probably just skip free I-90 and follow the signs.
Another "trick".... the Mass Pike shield on the SB Thruway.
I like the fact that at the same interchange coming SB on I-87 motorists are directed to Boston via the free I-90 EB through Albany unlike here.
Ah, but SB I-87 is NYSDOT, and they route traffic via their roads (the logical reason is because Exit 24 is so congested that they probably don't want to route any more traffic through it than they have to). EB I-90 is NYSTA, and they want people to stay on the Thruway and pay more in tolls.
Actually, if you follow that sign toward Boston and stay on I-87 SOUTH, as you pass by the Exit 24 toll booths to the north of the freeway, you'll see overhead NYSDOT signs that say "I-90 EAST Albany / Boston". I have always wondered if drivers not familiar with the area have some sort of mini freakout when they see that.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 11, 2014, 08:27:10 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 11, 2014, 07:30:54 PM
But local businesses complained that as a result of directing Florida bound traffic onto I-295, people weren't stopping for gas/food as much within Richmond. So they forced VDOT to cover "Miami" and it was eventually replaced with "Hopewell" and/or "RIC Int'l Airport". Because the control point is some place most people have never heard of, at least in the SB direction, a significant chunk of thru traffic stays on I-95.
They still have that nifty diagram showing I-295 as a bypass of Richmond. Giving the lower speed limit of I-95 through Richmond, taking the bypass is worth it, even if you plan on taking I-85. Its easy enough to cut back over at VA-10.
Going north, you get the control city of Washington (for the same reason as Rocky Mount).
But yeah, Southern hospitality has to dictate that this exist:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.com%2Fvapics%2Fgallery%2F95star295-kerr.jpg&hash=ad909b40aee825d8fbd4a67bc07ad7c8debbc4b8)
Whenever I drive though, I just take 95 through Richmond. It has never resulted in a lot (or any) of lost time but I could just be hitting it at good times.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 11, 2014, 09:27:14 PM
Whenever I drive though, I just take 95 through Richmond. It has never resulted in a lot (or any) of lost time but I could just be hitting it at good times.
I always avoid the old Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike unless I have business in Richmond or am headed for I-85 south. I-295 is much easier (but watch out for the Hopewell speed trap).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2014, 10:09:11 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 11, 2014, 09:27:14 PM
Whenever I drive though, I just take 95 through Richmond. It has never resulted in a lot (or any) of lost time but I could just be hitting it at good times.
I always avoid the old Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike unless I have business in Richmond or am headed for I-85 south. I-295 is much easier (but watch out for the Hopewell speed trap).
That's precisely why I avoid I-295.
I've had one encounter with a Virginia cop and it was just north of Emporia. He stopped me to tell me that it was illegal in VA for my air freshener to be hanging from my mirror. He didn't cite me and sent me on my way.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 11, 2014, 07:30:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2014, 01:36:40 AM
I like the fact that at the same interchange coming SB on I-87 motorists are directed to Boston via the free I-90 EB through Albany unlike here.
Ah, but SB I-87 is NYSDOT, and they route traffic via their roads (the logical reason is because Exit 24 is so congested that they probably don't want to route any more traffic through it than they have to). EB I-90 is NYSTA, and they want people to stay on the Thruway and pay more in tolls.
To be fair, though, both make sense from the perspective of minimizing traffic entering/exiting at exit 24. Traffic from 87 to MA should take 90, traffic from the Thruway to MA should stay on the Thruway. Those are the most straightforward routes for those movements.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 11, 2014, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 11, 2014, 07:30:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2014, 01:36:40 AM
I like the fact that at the same interchange coming SB on I-87 motorists are directed to Boston via the free I-90 EB through Albany unlike here.
Ah, but SB I-87 is NYSDOT, and they route traffic via their roads (the logical reason is because Exit 24 is so congested that they probably don't want to route any more traffic through it than they have to). EB I-90 is NYSTA, and they want people to stay on the Thruway and pay more in tolls.
To be fair, though, both make sense from the perspective of minimizing traffic entering/exiting at exit 24. Traffic from 87 to MA should take 90, traffic from the Thruway to MA should stay on the Thruway. Those are the most straightforward routes for those movements.
They make perfect sense. Exit 24 is a mess and always will be (unless, of course, they build the E-ZPass Express lanes connecting NY 910F with the Thruway like they've been talking about for over a decade to cut out that significant segment of traffic). I can't imagine how bad it must have been with a trumpet and cloverleaf. It's more than likely the busiest single exit on the road and traffic can be horrendous at times. For those unfamiliar with the area, these are by far the best routes. Few going from west of Albany to Massachusetts know Albany well enough to get around accidents or find cheap gas stations.
As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, it really depends on timing whether it makes sense for those going between I-90 west of Albany and the Mass Pike to exit the Thruway and follow I-90 through Albany. I'd say 90% of the time, I-90 is fine and that's what I do. With E-ZPass and a commuter plan (first 30 miles free on any segment of the ticketed section), it's the difference between essentially a toll-free trip (B3-B1 and 24-27 both under 30 miles) and one that costs a couple dollars. But this afternoon when we were getting to B1 around 5 PM, it was well worth the extra toll to stick with the Thruway and avoid the potential rush hour congestion.
Quote from: cl94 on August 11, 2014, 11:43:52 PMExit 24 is a mess and always will be (unless, of course, they build the E-ZPass Express lanes connecting NY 910F with the Thruway like they've been talking about for over a decade to cut out that significant segment of traffic). I can't imagine how bad it must have been with a trumpet and cloverleaf. It's more than likely the busiest single exit on the road and traffic can be horrendous at times.
Exit 24 was rebuilt before I started driving, but recently enough that I remember the old configuration as a passenger. I definitely recall some significant backups from the 24 tolls well onto the eastbound mainline. It still happens at the busiest times now, but it's pretty rare if there are no accidents or other obstructions. Of course in the old configuration, not only was the ramp insufficient for traffic volume, but E-ZPass had not yet been implemented, so everyone was making a cash transaction.
Exit 24 on the Thruway is the busiest interchange in the State outside of the City of New York.
It was last rebuilt into the current series of flyovers and flyunders from 1986-1989. It was state of the art design given its time, now 25-years ago, before there was any thought of E-Z Pass.
The previous Thruway Exit 24 was a trumpet and the Interstate 87/90 interchange immediately to the east was a cloverleaf with 20 and 25 mph ramps, Exit 1N-S for the Adirondack Northway (Interstate 87) and Exit 1E-W for the Northside Arterial (Interstate 90). The backups were incredible.
The original 1960 configuration of Exit 24 on the Thruway was with Washington Avenue Extension, when the western edge of Albany was a desert--the Pine Bush--with zero development and the Rapp Road dump.
I think those E-ZPass-only ramps for I-87 are essentially dead. If they were going to be built, when the road was widened between 23 and 24 would have been the time to do it.
Speaking of that widening, I can't help but think that NYSTA has a phobia of exit only lanes. There are plenty of locations where they would ease congestion (especially around the capital area... just about every exit needs them both directions!), but there aren't any; it seems like NYSTA would rather put daily toll barrier lines onto the travel lanes.
Quote from: vdeane on August 12, 2014, 07:18:42 PM
I think those E-ZPass-only ramps for I-87 are essentially dead. If they were going to be built, when the road was widened between 23 and 24 would have been the time to do it.
Speaking of that widening, I can't help but think that NYSTA has a phobia of exit only lanes. There are plenty of locations where they would ease congestion (especially around the capital area... just about every exit needs them both directions!), but there aren't any; it seems like NYSTA would rather put daily toll barrier lines onto the travel lanes.
Certainly. Exits 24, 25, and 25A need them. If the recent reconstruction didn't put option lanes in at Exit 24, it certainly needs them in both directions. Same with 25 and 25A. Buffalo needs them as well, but those will likely be put in with the widening that will supposedly happen.
Quote from: cl94 on August 10, 2014, 01:13:19 AM
They'd have to do a bit of work before even grandfathering that stretch in (like installing a median barrier), because over a mile is substandard to the point where it's barely a divided highway. A flush median with a few plastic pylons does not make an instant divided highway. Even then, the feds would probably want a major bridge upgrade because they no longer grandfather stuff in the way they used to.
(Cough, cough . . .) Mackinac Bridge (cough . . . )
:poke:
Mike