http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20120613/NEWS01/206130333/Bill-would-match-
N-Y-highway-exits-mile-numbers
Bill would match N.Y. highway exits with mile numbers
11:10 AM, Jun. 13, 2012
The state Senate passed legislation Tuesday that would change the exit numbers on interstates in New York from a chronological system to a mileage-based system.
The measure, sponsored by Sen. Thomas Libous, R-Binghamton, passed the Senate last year but failed in the Democratic-led Assembly.
The bill memo said the Federal Highway Administration supports a mileage-based system, and 43 states use it.
"Advantages of a mileage-based system are also seen in the efficiency it provides emergency teams," the bill said. It said the mileage-based exit numbers system helps first-responders reach victims of traffic accidents quickly.
The bill said the cost would be minimized by reusing existing signs, and it said the total cost is "to be determined."
The bill would require the replacement of signs be completed by January 1, 2016.
– Gannett
Quote from: mapman1071 on June 14, 2012, 12:27:07 AM
from a chronological system to a mileage-based system.
Chronological?! Not enough roadgeeks working at newspapers anymore.
I wonder if the Thruway would be included in that, and whether they'd redo the mileage on it so I-90 doesn't go backwards anymore.
Quote from: MrDisco99 on June 14, 2012, 07:49:08 AM
I wonder if the Thruway would be included in that, and whether they'd redo the mileage on it so I-90 doesn't go backwards anymore.
If the answer to the first question is "yes" but the second question "no," i.e. if the Thruway got mileage-based numbers but the direction were kept the same, I wonder if the Northway's exit numbers would be posted as an extension of the Thruway numbers to that point–i.e., making I-87's numbers a single mileage-based sequence from the origin of I-87 down in New York City. It seems sensible to me to do that instead of treating it as two separate roads.
I suppose I-90 would be a screwier situation due to its joining the Thruway mid-course and due to the Berkshire Extension exit numbering presumably trumping I-90 mileage-based numbering.
It gets more complicated because the Thruway has no plans to go all-electronic at this time, so they actually do need a coherent numbering system for their tickets. Personally, I'd resolve this by making the Thruway's numbers an extension of the Deegan's (I-87 in the Bronx), making the Northway an extension of the Thruway's at that point, and make free 90 and the Berkshire's be a backwards extension of the Thruway's, with numbers fudged so there's no conflicts if necessary. Then the only issue would be I-90 being backwards.
The Thruway is definitely included though; the only non-interstate portions of the Thruway don't have exit numbers.
I don't see why they would need to replace signs, especially since some regions are in major sign rehabs. Region 3 used green-out to fix a boxed street name on I-81, so why not green-out the exit numbers? I'm sure it costs less then all-new signs. Note: I would have an exception for some signs on I-84 due to Thruway clearview. I'd also sign I-781 with distance based numbers from the start (why pay twice for signs?).
Distance based numbers is something both NYSDOT and NYSTA have wanted for a while now; the problem has been funding (and in the case of NYSTA, waiting for NYSDOT to switch). Now that the state budget is finally fixed, it could happen.
Quote from: deanej on June 14, 2012, 11:15:27 AM
The Thruway is definitely included though; the only non-interstate portions of the Thruway don't have exit numbers.
Well, the one exit on the GSP spur isn't numbered (along, I suppose, with the ramp to Nanuet), but on all other non-Interstate portions they are; can't help but be, in fact. One non-Interstate section is between Exits 21A and B1, and another is inside of Exit 24. That pretty well covers it!
You would think this would be an opportunity to fix the screwy numbering surrounding the Thruway, but I doubt it.
Consider that the Northway and freebie 90 both currently have mile markers starting from 0 in Albany. Are they going to bother to change all of those? Doubt it. After all is said and done, I-87 will still have three exit 1's, and I-90 will still be mostly backwards and then start from 1.
NYSTA/NYSDOT should take advantage of the opportunity and reroute I-90 to follow the Thruway between Exits 24 & 21A (multiplexed with I-87), and assign the entire Berkshire Spur as I-90. Then, I-90 would only have two sets of exit numbers.
This is what MaineDOT did a few years back when they went to mile-based exits. Instead of having I-95 exit the turnpike and then reenter it further north, they made the whole turnpike I-95, and simplified the exit numbers.
For I-87, if mileposts are not adjusted on the Northway, then you're still gonna have 3 sets of exit numbers: Deegan, Thruway, and Northway. It wouldn't make sense to change out every mile marker on the 400-mile route if the Thruway MP 0 at the NYC/Westchester line was eliminated and mileposts were made an extension of the Deegan.
If this passes, it'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
What's wrong with numbering the thruway continuing the Deegan numbers?
The Northeast Extension of the PA Turnpike (I-476) exit numbers and mileage include the free section south of the east-west mainline (I-276). I don't see this as any different.
Quote from: mightyace on June 14, 2012, 07:42:53 PM
What's wrong with numbering the thruway continuing the Deegan numbers?
The Deegan and Thruway have a different set of mile markers. Mile markers traveling north reset to "0" at the start of the Thruway at the NYC/Westchester county line. If the exit numbers were continuous between the Deegan and the Thruway, then all mile markers north of the county line would have to be adjusted. That's about 500 miles worth of mile markers to be changed. They'd all have to be increased by about 8 miles since the Deegan is just over 8 miles long.
If you're going to adjust 500 miles worth of mile markers, then you might as well adjust the 177 miles of the Northway to continue the Thruway's mileposts. In that case, you'd have I-87 on a single set of exit numbers, with Exit 1 being in the Bronx and Exit 333 (approx) at US 9 in Champlain - Canadian border.
Then why not have a duo-numbered exit numbers on the Thruway segments? They did that on the PA Turnpike for awhile when PA switched to mileage based exit numbers. (examples here (http://www.m-plex.com/roads/pamplex/mp_i70_i76.html))
Just number the old Thruway Exit #'s as #56X, #56AX, ect. and add the mileage based ones beside them based on either I-90 or I-87? It worked here. Then after awhile, they could kill off the old numbers completely.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on June 15, 2012, 12:37:52 AM
Then why not have a duo-numbered exit numbers on the Thruway segments?
It could get a little confusing doing that, especially if a mile-based exit number happens to match a current exit number. Just number it with the mile-based number, and add a tab or banner that denotes the old exit number. Kind of like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVhwSY.png&hash=a7752d1a555678c42ae64716a87c1040afdd37cb)
Will the NY Parkways be included? If so, would NY and NJ have two separate exit numbers on the Palisades Interstate Parkway, or would NJ have to go along here?
Which other states still haven't adopted mileage-based exits?
Quote from: MrDisco99 on June 15, 2012, 07:53:45 AM
Which other states still haven't adopted mileage-based exits?
Most of the New England ones: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. I think that's it.
(plus some select roads in other states, like the New Jersey Turnpike, and the x64's in Virginia)
DC isn't a state, but it doesn't use mileage-based numbers either. In their case I think sequential makes more sense simply because of how short the routes are.
Virginia kept the old sequential numbers on a couple of routes having larger numbers of exits in a comparatively small distance–the x64 3dis have been mentioned, and I-395 is another. VA-267 (the Dulles Greenway and Toll Road) uses sequential as well. I've never really paid much attention to how far apart the exits are on there, but there are at least a couple of instances of gaps of over a mile between interchanges. I rather suspect the vast majority of that road's users are local traffic, rather than out-of-area drivers, so the numbering is probably significantly less important than on a major thru route.
Wow, NY uses chronological numbers? So the exits are numbered after the year they're built? :spin:
VT uses mileage-based numbers on VT 289; if I had to guess, I'd say they switched for new construction and elected to keep existing numbers.
I-295 in Portland, ME uses sequential numbers until I-495.
PA still uses sequential for non-interstates (which is what it looks like here for NY).
As far as I know, there are no exit numbers in Alaska.
Quote from: deanej on June 15, 2012, 11:31:55 AM
As far as I know, there are no exit numbers in Alaska.
City-maintained (?) Johansen Expressway in Fairbanks has them; looks sequential (but could be coincidentally mile-based).
Delaware uses sequential on I-95, I-495 and DE 141. I-295 has no exit numbers. DE 1 has exits by kilometer (from the south end/Maryland border).
Here's the deal, which hasn't been stated yet: Thruway Authority considers itself independent from the rest of the state. Without reading the bill, there's no way to know whether the state is also going to force the Thruway's hand or not. Let's say they do - well the NYSTA has a concept already of what they'll do, and I can state this much - I-90 WILL be numbered in the correct direction. The Berkshire Extension will be numbered as an exit from I-90 instead of vice versa, so the B1-B3 numbering disappears. Also, I-87 WILL have one set of exit numbers, not three.
Now, what does this mean for emergency response? The MUTCD doesn't really address toll roads well, considering roads like the NJ Turnpike, Kansas Turnpike, and NY Thruway follow multiple route designations. The best solution I can think of is to use mile markers with the route shields on them - NYSTA has already done this on I-84 so it's not a stretch to extend that to the rest of the Thruway. The other solution would be to add the direction - so you'd have E1 to E250 (etc.) and W250 to W1 on I-90, and N10 to N130 (Etc.) and S130 to S10 on I-87.
As for exit numbers, I expect the same situation as the PA Turnpike. Renumber according to mileage, and if there's a conflict between 87 and 90, bump one of the numbers by one.
Quote from: Steve on June 15, 2012, 06:49:05 PMThe other solution would be to add the direction - so you'd have E1 to E250 (etc.) and W250 to W1 on I-90, and N10 to N130 (Etc.) and S130 to S10 on I-87.
As for exit numbers, I expect the same situation as the PA Turnpike. Renumber according to mileage, and if there's a conflict between 87 and 90, bump one of the numbers by one.
My idea was along those lines - the I-87 part of the Thruway would have an "A" in front of miles and exits, and the I-90 parts would have a "B". Since the part of the Berkshire extension that isn't I-90 doesn't have any exits, there wouldn't be any conflict there.
I hope it happens, but only if it happens "all the way". If they renumber exits based on current MMs, but do not redo the MMs properly for I-87 and I-90 and use those for exit numbering, I don't think the latter would ever happen. Make all the changes at once. There seem to be several viable options for exit numbers on the mainline Thruway that would fit with the overall mileage-based scheme and still keep driver confusion to a minimum. As someone who travels 27-24 and back on the Thruway regularly, I can say that there already seems to be plenty of driver confusion now in the Exit 24 area, especially on Friday afternoons when it's not just us regulars.
As for the "chronological" numbering, maybe the writer thinks the Thruway was built from NYC north then west to PA and the exits were opened and numbered chronologically. OK, maybe not.
Hoping my commute a few years from now is instead between I-90 exits 323 and 348.
I don't think mileage based exiting would ever work in Connecticut. What SHOULD be done is renumber the exits along the entire stretch of Route 15 from Greenwich to Meriden (Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways). After that's finished, they need to remove the numbers on the remaining section of Route 15 from Wethersfield to its end in East Hartford. As it is with the sequential exits now, they start as "27" at the New York border and go up to exit "68 NE" in Meriden. After you're done with the Berlin Turnpike portion of CT Route 15, the numbers come back with "85" in Wethersfield and end with (I think) "90" in East Hartford, near its end with I-84/US Route 6.
I think mileage based exits in Vermont could work. Using the southern end of I-91 in the Brattleboro area as an example:
1- US Route 5 - Brattleboro [new 7]
2- VT Route 9 WEST - Bennington [new 9]
3- US Route 5/VT Route 9 EAST - Keene, NH [new 11]
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 15, 2012, 08:30:13 PM
I don't think mileage based exiting would ever work in Connecticut. What SHOULD be done is renumber the exits along the entire stretch of Route 15 from Greenwich to Meriden (Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways). After that's finished, they need to remove the numbers on the remaining section of Route 15 from Wethersfield to its end in East Hartford. As it is with the sequential exits now, they start as "27" at the New York border and go up to exit "68 NE" in Meriden. After you're done with the Berlin Turnpike portion of CT Route 15, the numbers come back with "85" in Wethersfield and end with (I think) "90" in East Hartford, near its end with I-84/US Route 6.
CT 15 should be the posterchild for mileage-based exits in CT, numbering them from 1 at the NY line to Exit 83 at Silver Lane in E. Hartford. The few Berlin Turnpike interchanges would get numbers. CT 15 stands to gain the most from a mile-based exit system. As far as other roads go, I wouldn't change I-95 until Branford... exits pretty much are mile-based there, but by coincidence only.
Mileage-based would work very easily in VT and NH.
Now the question is if the NJ Turnpike ever converted, what would they do with I-95 coming in 50 miles from the start of the turnpike? My guess would be that they would just ignore that fact and continue the mileage system from the Del Mem Br right up to the GWB.
Now we're off topic... d'oh!
Okay humor me here...............The MUTCD already requires exit numbering to be mileage based and specifically forbids consecutive exit numbering. (Sec. 2E-31-04) So why do we need to pass a law authorizing or requiring what's already mandated by the national standard?
Because the MUTCD isn't legislation. It's a standard developed by an executive agency.
And even notwithstanding that, compliance with the MUTCD is not mandatory (it would be unconstitutional if it were). States must choose to comply with it. They also have the option of not complying with it and potentially giving up federal highway funding.
Quote from: mightyace on June 14, 2012, 07:42:53 PM
What's wrong with numbering the thruway continuing the Deegan numbers?
The Northeast Extension of the PA Turnpike (I-476) exit numbers and mileage include the free section south of the east-west mainline (I-276). I don't see this as any different.
Not to mention I-276 continuing the numbers from I-76 after it leaves the Turnpike at Valley Forge
It's easy to see why California resisited exit numbering for so many years. In some cases they are a bigger headache than they're worth and actually create more confusion than anything else. This discussion proves that. Also the MUTCD mandated exit numbering system does not take into account roads like the New York Thruway which (as discussed above) involves multiple compass directions and multiple interstate route numbers.
QuoteIn some cases they are a bigger headache than they're worth and actually create more confusion than anything else. This discussion proves that.
I'm not following your reasoning. HOW does this discussion prove that?
Well if you read all the above posts, there are so many questions and opinions on how NY Twy would have to have their exits numbered to comply with the MUTCD makes the point. No matter how they do the numbering, it's going to confuse people and/or not comply with the Manual. Consequently exit numbering is big headache. And situations like this are probably one reason California did not want to have to implement it.
Part of it depends on how you view things.
Is the Thruway an independent route that just happens to have two interstates overlaid on different parts of it?
Are Interstates 87 and 90 independent routes that just happen to have the Thruway overlaid on different parts of them?
Personally, I don't see what the big fuss would be if you numbered I-90 and I-87 separately as mileage-based routes, and if there happen to be duplicate exit numbers on the Thruway, so be it. After all, they are two separately-numbered routes. Pretend the Thruway doesn't exist. There's no confusion if you drive I-64 and I-75 in Kentucky and encounter the same exit number on the two routes.
I know that if I happened to be contemplating a trip from, say, Syracuse to NYC, I wouldn't say, "I'm taking the NY Thruway." I'd say "I'm taking I-90 east to I-87 south."
The Thruway came first, built in 1954 with it own exit numbering system, similar to the New Jersey and Penna. Turnpikes which also preceded the Interstate System. After the Interstate System began in 1956, different sections of the Thruway were given Interstate numbers as the Twy. was integrated into the larger Interstate network. So yes, the Thruway is an independent road with Interstates overlaid on it.
The Thruway is something of an institution to New Yorkers as are the N.J. and Penna. Tpke's in those states. If it had the same exit numbers in 2 different locations, it would be confusing to New Yorkers. And it would probably screw up the toll collection system, which is mileage based. Did you enter at Exit-10 on I-87 or at Exit-10 on I-90? They would be hundreds of miles apart.
So you see how complicated any renumbering would be on this type of highway. And how potentially confusing it could get. And how exit numbers can sometimes cause more problems than they solve.
The New York State Legislature is notorious for one house legislative bills that go absolutely nowhere. It is the most dysfunctional state legislature in the country. I have no doubt New York will remain the largest State without a mileage-based exit system.
Changing all the Interstate signage, toll and non-toll, would cost a great deal of money. New York cannot afford it. New York cannot afford anything. New York's citizens are taxed to death. New York is broke.
The toll revenue of the Thruway is necessary to maintain the system well. The Thruway needs to be expanded to six lanes in almost the entire Hudson Valley. The Tappan Zee Bridge needs to be replaced. The Grand Island bridges are in need of widening or replacement.
As a former New Yorker who fled 14-1/2 years ago along with 4.6 million others since 1990, and still a property holder, my taxes are used to prop up welfare, idleness and waste, not the maintenance, care and expansion of critical infrastructure. The dominant political and economic powerhouse of the Union 50 years ago, New York is just a shadow of it former greatness.
End of rant.
As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." While mileage-based numbering may be preferable to various people, for various reasons, all of which deserve consideration, I've yet to see any reason why it overrides the expense and confusion of doing so. If we wake up one morning and find the shoemakers' elves have made it so, fine, but otherwise it's nowhere near the top of my priority list.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 16, 2012, 10:13:38 PM
I know that if I happened to be contemplating a trip from, say, Syracuse to NYC, I wouldn't say, "I'm taking the NY Thruway." I'd say "I'm taking I-90 east to I-87 south."
True for most out-of-towners, I expect. Locals, however, would say "I'm taking the Thruway", so we have to decide who the exit numbers are for: locals or visitors. (Actually, locals would say "I'm taking 81 to 380 to 80 to the GW bridge," but that's another matter.)
The most oft-quoted reason for certain exit numbering systems is emergency response. I can't help but believe that today, in 2012, there is a simple enough way to use GPS and GIS together such that any exit, whether numbered 21 or 367 or Delta7#11, can be correlated to a specific geodetic point at no greater public expense than exit renumbering. Hell, when I switch on my phone, it has me more precisely located by cellular triangulation alone than any description I could aurally give!
QuoteAnd situations like this are probably one reason California did not want to have to implement it.
I highly doubt that. CalTrans' concerns stemmed more from how they design their guide signs (without separate exit number panels) and from cost than anything else. Almost all of their highways lacked exit numbers previously, so they didn't have the "confusion factor" to contend with like you're claiming.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 16, 2012, 10:13:38 PM
I know that if I happened to be contemplating a trip from, say, Syracuse to NYC, I wouldn't say, "I'm taking the NY Thruway." I'd say "I'm taking I-90 east to I-87 south."
Most people upstate don't even know I-90 and I-87 exist on the Thruway. Of those who know those roads exist at all, I-90 is just the free portion in Albany and I-87 is just the Adirondack Northway (and includes the portion of the Northway that is just a reference route!).
Quote from: xcellntbuy on June 17, 2012, 12:10:46 AM
New York is broke.
Not quite true any more. They actually managed to balance the budget for once at the state level; now it's the lower governments who are broke, as NY accomplished the balanced budget essentially by robbing the lower levels of government for cash. Speed enforcement has dropped accordingly too. In fact, I almost never even see state troopers these days outside of the Thruway and the North County (where they're probably augmenting border patrol).
I'm OK with NY changing over to Mile-Based. If New York is broke on replacing signs, maybe just cheap out by putting greenout over the old sequential numbers. :clap: :nod:
Maine did a lot of greenouts when they switched to mileage-based exiting for I-95 and I-295 in 2004. Haven't hear a peep from anybody.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 16, 2012, 10:13:38 PMI don't see what the big fuss would be if you numbered I-90 and I-87 separately as mileage-based routes, and if there happen to be duplicate exit numbers on the Thruway, so be it. After all, they are two separately-numbered routes. Pretend the Thruway doesn't exist.
One idea that might make sense...
http://www.upstatenyroads.com/signshop58.shtml
Kind of in the same vein as the PA Turnpike trick when they went to distance numbering. Interesting.
I really have to go with SignBridge and EmpireState on opposing this bill, but Froggie you're right about California.
I support the bill to be honest, but besides the Thruway, I'd love to see what they want do with the Sunken Meadow, Sagtikos, Robert Moses, Bethpage, Meadowbrook and Wantagh Parkways, if they get affected at all.
Honestly, I am in support of Thruway Exit 1 being McLean Avenue (ex-NY 164) in Westchester and Exit 494 (495 if you want to round up) being Shortman Road in Ripley. I consider the Thruway a separate entity, and as a result feel its just the easiest way to handle it. If it ends up having I-87 having three Exit 1s, motorists have dealt with that for years already.
The current situation with the Thruway seems to be motivated by toll tickets and intertia. There hasn't been a standalone Thruway shield on the road for as long as I've been alive. All the shields say I-90 or I-87, even on the part of the Berkshire spur that doesn't have an interstate designation (the just add TO). If the exit numbers and mileposts were changed to reflect this, there would be no indication other than the tolls that the Thruway is separate (aside from DOT regions that insist on using the Thruway trailblazer rather than the new convention of spelling out Thruway).
Here's a question with regards to I-287/the Cross Westchester Expressway: At present the exit numbers start at 1 on the western end (I-87/Thruway merge/split) and the mile markers start at "0' at the same location. With the change simply mean that I-287's exit numbers will simply follow those of the CWE or will the numbering (both exits and mile markers) finally acknowledge the fact that I-287 extends further west along the Thruway/Tappan Zee Bridge and breaks off near Suffren (current Exit 15, roughly 17 miles from Exit 8)?
Guys, this is the internet age. Everything is available online.
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2466B-2011
In particular:
Quote
Section 388 is added to the public authorities law to authorize the Thruway Authority, in consultation with the Department of Transportation, to develop and implement a plan to convert the exit numbers along interstate highways in New York to a mileage-based system.
(b) Follow the convention that the numbering shall start at the southernmost or westernmost terminus of the interstate.
PHLBOS brings up a good point. If I-287 is numbered as per the Manual, then it logically would start with Exit-1 (current Thruway Exit-15) in Suffern and end with whatever mileage based number it should be where I-287 meets I-95 in Rye (Westchester County).
But this might not be necessary because I believe I-87 and I-287 are signed concurrently on the Thruway from Suffern to Tarrytown where the C.W. Expwy. begins. The MUTCD (Sec. 2E-31-16) does allow for exit number "continuity" for only one of the overlapping routes. In fact it shows a similar situation in figure 2E-21.
BTW Deanej, the Thruway had Interstate markers posted as far back as 1963, when I first rode it as a kid with my parents. I remember my dad commenting on its being signed together as both 287-west and 87-north from the T.Z. Bridge to Suffern.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 18, 2012, 09:03:55 PM
PHLBOS brings up a good point. If I-287 is numbered as per the Manual, then it logically would start with Exit-1 (current Thruway Exit-15) in Suffern and end with whatever mileage based number it should be where I-287 meets I-95 in Rye (Westchester County).
But this might not be necessary because I believe I-87 and I-287 are signed concurrently on the Thruway from Suffern to Tarrytown where the C.W. Expwy. begins. The MUTCD (Sec. 2E-31-16) does allow for exit number "continuity" for only one of the overlapping routes. In fact it shows a similar situation in figure 2E-21.
It would absolutely be necessary, but I-287's exit numbers would be skipped while on the Thruway and then resume at the divergence,
accounting for the overlap mileage.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 18, 2012, 09:03:55 PM
BTW Deanej, the Thruway had Interstate markers posted as far back as 1963, when I first rode it as a kid with my parents. I remember my dad commenting on its being signed together as both 287-west and 87-north from the T.Z. Bridge to Suffern.
But were Thruway reassurance shields discontinued at that time? I do know that NYSTA and some regions of NYSDOT seem to be de-emphasizing the Thruway as a separate entity in signage. I know Thruway shields were common on Rochester area signage until the mid-90s when they gradually got replaced with I-90 shields.
Yes Steve (chuckle!) That's what I was trying to say that the MUTCD allows, but you said it better.
Deanej, sorry I'm not sure about the answer to your question. The best I can say is that thru the years, with each successive sign project, they've done different things at different times re: sign legends, markers, etc. Being from Long Island, I don't drive the T'way often enough to have really noticed what you're asking about.
Quote from: MASTERNC on June 16, 2012, 12:08:51 PM
Quote from: mightyace on June 14, 2012, 07:42:53 PM
What's wrong with numbering the thruway continuing the Deegan numbers?
The Northeast Extension of the PA Turnpike (I-476) exit numbers and mileage include the free section south of the east-west mainline (I-276). I don't see this as any different.
Not to mention I-276 continuing the numbers from I-76 after it leaves the Turnpike at Valley Forge
It's worth noting that the section of I-276 that will utlimately become I-95 following the interchange completion will have its exit numbers east of that point changed to follow those of I-95; which only impacts 2 interchanges.
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on June 15, 2012, 01:36:06 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on June 15, 2012, 12:37:52 AM
Then why not have a duo-numbered exit numbers on the Thruway segments?
It could get a little confusing doing that, especially if a mile-based exit number happens to match a current exit number. Just number it with the mile-based number, and add a tab or banner that denotes the old exit number. Kind of like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVhwSY.png&hash=a7752d1a555678c42ae64716a87c1040afdd37cb)
I would put the "Formerly Exit XX" information with one of the advance guide signs (preferably the 1/2 mile sign), and not the exit direction sign.
This is one of my peeves with the 2009 MUTCD. While mandating that states eventually change to reference-based exit numbers, they give absolutely no guidance regarding the design or placement of signing indicating the former exit number. I pointed this out in my comments on the 2007 NPA for the new MUTCD, but they obviously ignored me.
I wonder if this means that all the expwy's and parkways on Long Island will be renumbered and how soon it might happen. I've had most exit numbers in Nassau County memorized for many years. I'll have to start over again from scratch.............
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2012, 08:48:02 PM
I wonder if this means that all the expwy's and parkways on Long Island will be renumbered and how soon it might happen. I've had most exit numbers in Nassau County memorized for many years. I'll have to start over again from scratch.............
I wonder if you read the text of the bill?
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2466B-2011
So what's your point? That it only applies to Interstate highways? Well that would include the L.I. Expwy, I-495.
Most of the parkways it wouldn't make much sense to mess with, anyway, given the exit spacing and relative shortness. Taconic is the exception. Though, it currently has exit numbers signed at all (they definitely existed on paper at one point, but I don't know if they've ever been signed).
Once I-86 is complete there aren't going to be too many freeways of significant length left in New York left that aren't interstates, anyway. NY 27 and US 219 will be the only two longer than 20 miles (parkways notwithstanding).
The question then is, what of the state route extensions of interstates such as 390 and 481? One would presumably want to keep the numbers continuous.
Quote from: Kniwt on June 14, 2012, 12:38:25 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on June 14, 2012, 12:27:07 AM
from a chronological system to a mileage-based system.
Chronological?! Not enough roadgeeks working at newspapers anymore.
Not enough copy editors working at newspapers anymore.
Quote from: shadyjay on June 14, 2012, 07:26:41 PM
NYSTA/NYSDOT should take advantage of the opportunity and reroute I-90 to follow the Thruway between Exits 24 & 21A (multiplexed with I-87), and assign the entire Berkshire Spur as I-90. Then, I-90 would only have two sets of exit numbers.
This is what MaineDOT did a few years back when they went to mile-based exits. Instead of having I-95 exit the turnpike and then reenter it further north, they made the whole turnpike I-95, and simplified the exit numbers.
For I-87, if mileposts are not adjusted on the Northway, then you're still gonna have 3 sets of exit numbers: Deegan, Thruway, and Northway. It wouldn't make sense to change out every mile marker on the 400-mile route if the Thruway MP 0 at the NYC/Westchester line was eliminated and mileposts were made an extension of the Deegan.
If this passes, it'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
Considering how awful the ramp from "free" I-90 onto the Berkshire Extension eastbound is, I'd go for that.
Wasn't there a plan a while back to number the Thruway and Berkshire extension as I-90 and make the current "free" I-90 an extension of I-88? I thought this was why there's no toll between Thruway exits 24 and 25A.
This makes the most sense to me, anyway, considering how awkward it is to follow I-90 through NY today. I guess ideally they'd make the current free I-90 a TDI, but they seem to have run out of those.
Quote from: MrDisco99 on June 21, 2012, 04:37:01 PM
Wasn't there a plan a while back to number the Thruway and Berkshire extension as I-90 and make the current "free" I-90 an extension of I-88? I thought this was why there's no toll between Thruway exits 24 and 25A.
There's no toll because federal funds were used to build all of the east end of I-88.
When they're finished, they can start numbering them all over, this time in kilometers.
With discussions I've had with NYSDOT and NYSTA over the years regarding this, I think this is the plan:
1. The Thruway will be one set of exit numbers starting in Ripley and going down to New York. They originally wanted to include I-190 in the mileage but that was a while ago and they're not going to do that now (I-190 would continue where I-90's exits left off). I had proposed I-87 and I-90 get their own exit numbers because I-90's Exit 100 would be nowhere near I-87's Exit 100 (hypothetical exit numbers, I know there wouldn't be two exit 100s) but they said it would be confusing for motorists (because three Exit 12s along I-87 isn't confusing). Last I knew, Exit 1 would be Ripley, Exit 496 would be Hall Place. This was discussed during the days I had renumbernewyork.com
2. I-87 (Northway) Exit numbers would start at Exit 150 for NY 5 Albany / Schenectady. The last official listing I saw had the missing Exit 3 as Exit 152. This accounts for the Thruway's current milepost 0 and does not include the Major Deegan. I pointed out that proposed Exit 152 should actually be Exit 161 but I don't know if they took me seriously or not.
3. I-90 (Free 90 in Albany) would continue I-90's exit numbers from the Thruway. Washington Ave. would become Exit 349. Exit B3 would be Exit 385.
4. The state route extensions of the 3-dis would continue the 3-di interchange numbers. The new mile markers on I-690/NY 690 and NY 481 (there's no mile markers on I-481 yet) indicate this. I think the Rochester counterparts do the same.
5. US 219 will get exit numbers. Not sure about NY 49 because they're still trying to determine if it's going to become I-790.
I had proposed that they gradually do this with sign rehabs (say over 10 years - hey if California can do it, so can we) and they were actually thinking about doing an EXIT 4 / NEW EXIT 352 configuration but I don't know if that's fallen to the wayside or not. It's been a few years since the conversation.
Is I-86 sequential now? Does it continue from the numbering that starts in PA? (This would assume when I-86 is 100% finished, of course.)
Also, if the Thruway does get renumbered, would I-84 get done at the same time? I know Exit 1 near the PA and NJ state lines would remain exit 1 (PA already does mileage-based exiting on their portion of I-84.) Perhaps the current Exit 20 for I-684 South could become Exit 68? Exit 21 in Southeast could become Exit 69 (westbound off/eastbound on).
Long Island
Southern State Parkway Exit 1 (Formally Exit 13) Central Avenue - Linden Blvd
LIE I-495 Exit 2 (Formally Exit 13) Borden Avenue
Sunrise Highway?
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 18, 2012, 09:49:13 AM
I support the bill to be honest, but besides the Thruway, I'd love to see what they want do with the Sunken Meadow, Sagtikos, Robert Moses, Bethpage, Meadowbrook and Wantagh Parkways, if they get affected at all.
I wouldn't be surprised if the exit numbering on the New York parkways stays the same. The example of this that I'm thinking of is from when Pennsylvania switched to mile-based exit numbering, but some non-Interstate freeways were able to maintain sequential-based exit numbering, such as PA 28 near Pittsburgh.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on June 21, 2012, 10:02:21 PM
4. The state route extensions of the 3-dis would continue the 3-di interchange numbers. The new mile markers on I-690/NY 690 and NY 481 (there's no mile markers on I-481 yet) indicate this. I think the Rochester counterparts do the same.
As I-690/NY 690 goes, the new mile markers install actually count south/east from where NY 690 begins at NY 48 and NY 631 and does not reset at the Thruway. I'm assuming that mile-based exit numbers for I-690/NY 690 will be doing the same. Any other Interstate/New York state touring route couplets should have seamless transitions as well.
Quote from: Dougtone on June 22, 2012, 07:13:53 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on June 21, 2012, 10:02:21 PM
4. The state route extensions of the 3-dis would continue the 3-di interchange numbers. The new mile markers on I-690/NY 690 and NY 481 (there's no mile markers on I-481 yet) indicate this. I think the Rochester counterparts do the same.
As I-690/NY 690 goes, the new mile markers install actually count south/east from where NY 690 begins at NY 48 and NY 631 and does not reset at the Thruway. I'm assuming that mile-based exit numbers for I-690/NY 690 will be doing the same. Any other Interstate/New York state touring route couplets should have seamless transitions as well.
Yeah, off the top of my head I think that's the only instance of that in the state. The others fit the southern or western starting point scenario just fine.
I have to admit that I've always found it strange that if you come down NY Route 690, you encounter Exit 1 after you have already passed three interchanges. I was surprised that they didn't include the NY Route 690 interchanges in the numbering scheme when they renumbered everything in the mid 1980s.
Quote from: NE2 on June 21, 2012, 06:14:47 PM
Quote from: MrDisco99 on June 21, 2012, 04:37:01 PM
Wasn't there a plan a while back to number the Thruway and Berkshire extension as I-90 and make the current "free" I-90 an extension of I-88? I thought this was why there's no toll between Thruway exits 24 and 25A.
There's no toll because federal funds were used to build all of the east end of I-88.
Actually, the reason there are no tolls is because I-88 was to be built straddling the thruway (as NY 49 does now in Utica); this plan was cancelled in favor of widening the Thruway and removing tolls for I-88 traffic.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 22, 2012, 01:48:41 AM
Is I-86 sequential now? Does it continue from the numbering that starts in PA? (This would assume when I-86 is 100% finished, of course.)
Also, if the Thruway does get renumbered, would I-84 get done at the same time? I know Exit 1 near the PA and NJ state lines would remain exit 1 (PA already does mileage-based exiting on their portion of I-84.) Perhaps the current Exit 20 for I-684 South could become Exit 68? Exit 21 in Southeast could become Exit 69 (westbound off/eastbound on).
I-86 is sequential and does continue from PA (ironically it does this better than when PA had sequential numbers), but the mile posts reset at the border so the new numbers likely would as well.
I-84 is no longer part of the Thruway, so it would be up to NYSDOT.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on June 21, 2012, 10:02:21 PM
With discussions I've had with NYSDOT and NYSTA over the years regarding this, I think this is the plan:
1. The Thruway will be one set of exit numbers starting in Ripley and going down to New York. They originally wanted to include I-190 in the mileage but that was a while ago and they're not going to do that now (I-190 would continue where I-90's exits left off). I had proposed I-87 and I-90 get their own exit numbers because I-90's Exit 100 would be nowhere near I-87's Exit 100 (hypothetical exit numbers, I know there wouldn't be two exit 100s) but they said it would be confusing for motorists (because three Exit 12s along I-87 isn't confusing). Last I knew, Exit 1 would be Ripley, Exit 496 would be Hall Place. This was discussed during the days I had renumbernewyork.com
I can see their point, given that the majority of Thruway traffic still pays cash and the Thruway has no present plans to change the cash/E-ZPass situation beyond adding open-road-tolling lanes at Williamsville sometime in the distant future (other barriers have no plans to ever be changed from their present configuration).
Quote from: deanej on June 22, 2012, 12:22:13 PMI can see their point, given that the majority of Thruway traffic still pays cash and the Thruway has no present plans to change the cash/E-ZPass situation beyond adding open-road-tolling lanes at Williamsville sometime in the distant future (other barriers have no plans to ever be changed from their present configuration).
This surprises me. If someone put me on the spot for a guess, I would have said 70-75% of Thruway transactions take place through E-ZPass at this point. I guess my view is skewed by the fact that I'm on the road most frequently at rush hour with other commuters who are much more likely to have a tag. Are the actual numbers out there somewhere?
I know there have been local news stories about long-term plans to upgrade Exit 24 with direct E-ZPass only ramps connecting the Northway and I-90 to the Thruway, but that was a while back and I don't have any specifics handy. I'm definitely not holding my breath.
Quote from: Dougtone on June 22, 2012, 06:53:49 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the exit numbering on the New York parkways stays the same. The example of this that I'm thinking of is from when Pennsylvania switched to mile-based exit numbering, but some non-Interstate freeways were able to maintain sequential-based exit numbering, such as PA 28 near Pittsburgh.
I still consider that to be one of the more dumb things that PennDOT has done in recent years; leaving non-interstate highways with a different exit #-ing scheme.
Either exit numbers in PA (regardless of the shape/color(s) of the shields along the highway) should be either all one, or all the other.
And I suppose my feelings of consistency on the subject would extend into NY (and other states) as well.
Deanej, since when is I-84 no longer part of the Thruway system?
The Thruway could maintain its current exit numbers for the exits while using proper mile-based exit numbers. The current exit number could be used as a toll plaza number instead of the exit number for reference. ISTHA gives each and every toll plaza a separate plaza number, even on the section of I-88 that currently has mile-based exit numbers (for example, I went through Plazas 73 and 89 tonight - Army Trail Road (MP29) and Boughton Road Mainline (MP14)). "Exit 24" on the Thruway could become "Plaza 24" (as an example) to maintain the current reference points for the ticket system and to eliminate confusion across the road.
It's just an idea, but it might work given the two different interstates on the route.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 22, 2012, 09:18:58 PM
Deanej, since when is I-84 no longer part of the Thruway system?
2010. One article: http://hudsonvalley.ynn.com/content/all_news/508855/state-dot-takes-over-i-84/
Well, well; this is the first I'd heard about this. Funny thing is 20 years ago it was big news when T'way Auth. took over I-84, which I always thought was a dumb move. I'm surprised this latest development didn't make the NYC area news. What was the reason for changing it back?
I have a 2009 Thruway brochure still showing I-84 in their system. Did this change take effect fairly recently? I sometimes listen to the Thruway Auth. radio freq. on my scanner, and it seemed like not long ago I was still hearing them dispatch activity on I-84.
I'm surprised at everyone's surprise. :-o I feel as though there was a fair amount of chatter among roadgeeks about this when it happened. Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_84_in_New_York .
Quote from: Jim on June 22, 2012, 03:52:57 PM
This surprises me. If someone put me on the spot for a guess, I would have said 70-75% of Thruway transactions take place through E-ZPass at this point. I guess my view is skewed by the fact that I'm on the road most frequently at rush hour with other commuters who are much more likely to have a tag. Are the actual numbers out there somewhere?
I'm the opposite; I'm on the Thruway mainly on the weekends when most of the traffic is tourists.
QuoteI know there have been local news stories about long-term plans to upgrade Exit 24 with direct E-ZPass only ramps connecting the Northway and I-90 to the Thruway, but that was a while back and I don't have any specifics handy. I'm definitely not holding my breath.
Seems to be dead, given that there's nothing on it on the Thruway site. The logical time would have been during the current widening project anyways.
Well I'm happy to hear (belatedly) that I-84 is back to DOT and not the T'way. I always thought it was a dopey move when the T'way Auth. took over that road, since it's not a toll road.
On the other hand, I completely approved of the Cross Westchester Expwy.(I-287) being part of the Thruway, since it directly connects the New England Section to the Mainline, so it makes sense for one agency to handle all of it. I never understood the original arrangement of having one section of the Thruway not connected to the other. And a different State Police Troop (K) patrolling the C.W. Expwy. So that "merger" connected everything more efficiently.
While we're discussing the N.Y. Thruway..............
I've been looking at their website and their printed brochure and I see there is a toll-free section in the Buffalo vicinity. I've never been to that area so I'm not familiar with the history. Why is that section toll-free? And I further notice that after the ticket-controlled system ends at Williamsville, it then begins again as you're going west from Lackawanna to Ripley. It seems to me years ago that western section from Buffalo to Pennsylvania only had barrier tolls like on the New England Section. If my memory is right, what made them convert that to ticket-controlled and when was it done? Seems like a lot of complication..........
Quote from: SignBridge on June 24, 2012, 04:08:37 PM
While we're discussing the N.Y. Thruway..............
I've been looking at their website and their printed brochure and I see there is a toll-free section in the Buffalo vicinity. I've never been to that area so I'm not familiar with the history. Why is that section toll-free? And I further notice that after the ticket-controlled system ends at Williamsville, it then begins again as you're going west from Lackawanna to Ripley. It seems to me years ago that western section from Buffalo to Pennsylvania only had barrier tolls like on the New England Section. If my memory is right, what made them convert that to ticket-controlled and when was it done? Seems like a lot of complication..........
I believe the Erie Section of the Thruway (Lackawanna to Ripley) has always been ticket controlled since it's completion in 1957. It was opened in two sections: Pa. Line to Silver Creek in August and then Silver Creek to Lackawanna in December 1957.
Hmmm.............I thought I remembered seeing in a very old Thruway brochure from the 1960's that even back then the ticket-toll system ended at the Williamsville Barrier. I could be mistaken, but I don't remember seeing anything about Ripley back then. Too bad (chuckle!) I threw out that old brochure years ago. Should have kept it forever........
If the Thruway keeps its own set of exit numbers, regardless of whether it's I-87 portion or I-90 stretch, there is precedent. See the Kansas Turnpike, especially the I-70 section. Or I-76 on the Ohio Turnpike.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 24, 2012, 09:33:18 PM
Hmmm.............I thought I remembered seeing in a very old Thruway brochure from the 1960's that even back then the ticket-toll system ended at the Williamsville Barrier. I could be mistaken, but I don't remember seeing anything about Ripley back then. Too bad (chuckle!) I threw out that old brochure years ago. Should have kept it forever........
Woodbury - Williamsville (formerly Spring Valley to Williamsville) and Lackawanna - Ripley have always been two separate ticket systems. Buffalo is free because the Thruway doesn't have ticket systems in metropolitan areas (note that NYC and Buffalo are the only metropolitan areas the Thruway enters, though it comes close to Albany and Syracuse). It has to do with traffic counts and exit density.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on June 24, 2012, 10:51:18 PM
If the Thruway keeps its own set of exit numbers, regardless of whether it's I-87 portion or I-90 stretch, there is precedent. See the Kansas Turnpike, especially the I-70 section. Or I-76 on the Ohio Turnpike.
Frankly, I don't like it that the Turnpike is one set of exit numbers, precisely because of what it does to the exit numbers on I-70. I would rather the Interstates had consistent exit numbers, not worrying about the Turnpike.
Deanej, thanks for that toll info. I'm surprised they don't have a barrier toll in the Buffalo area. They do have one on the New England Section in New Rochelle which is an urban/suburban area with dense traffic and frequent exits and entrances. Probably too much revenue would be lost if that section was free. Lots of interstate traffic going up and down the east coast corridor.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 25, 2012, 04:23:28 PM
Deanej, thanks for that toll info. I'm surprised they don't have a barrier toll in the Buffalo area. They do have one on the New England Section in New Rochelle which is an urban/suburban area with dense traffic and frequent exits and entrances. Probably too much revenue would be lost if that section was free. Lots of interstate traffic going up and down the east coast corridor.
Back in the mid 80s there was talk of making the Syracuse area free by putting barriers before the Collamer (I-481) and State Fair (I-690) interchanges, much like the arrangement in Buffalo.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 25, 2012, 04:23:28 PM
Deanej, thanks for that toll info. I'm surprised they don't have a barrier toll in the Buffalo area. They do have one on the New England Section in New Rochelle which is an urban/suburban area with dense traffic and frequent exits and entrances. Probably too much revenue would be lost if that section was free. Lots of interstate traffic going up and down the east coast corridor.
Well, I was referring to the criteria for a ticket system... most likely they didn't think the gap was large enough to warrant a barrier, since all the NYC gaps are much larger. I-190 had barriers in Buffalo until a few years ago though (and still does on the Grand Island Bridges).
Quote from: kphoger on June 25, 2012, 12:31:30 PM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on June 24, 2012, 10:51:18 PM
If the Thruway keeps its own set of exit numbers, regardless of whether it's I-87 portion or I-90 stretch, there is precedent. See the Kansas Turnpike, especially the I-70 section. Or I-76 on the Ohio Turnpike.
Frankly, I don't like it that the Turnpike is one set of exit numbers, precisely because of what it does to the exit numbers on I-70. I would rather the Interstates had consistent exit numbers, not worrying about the Turnpike.
Especially considering that one could simply bump the numbers on the I-70 portion up to I-70 mileage and not interfere with anything else. 335 still wouldn't start from zero, and 470 would still have a jump, but it'd be a huge improvement.
One thing I noticed when I was through there a few days ago: east of exit 224, there are a couple of mile markers for I-70 using turnpike mileage that
do not have the turnpike shield. That certainly has huge potential to create confusion in an emergency!
QuoteI'm the opposite; I'm on the Thruway mainly on the weekends when most of the traffic is tourists.
I could see that further west, but my weekend experience between Newburgh and Albany is that, while most traffic appears to be recreational, most of them have EZ-Passes...probably because they're largely NYC-area commuters.
Probably... I'm almost always on the section between I-490 and I-81, so travelers out there don't have any toll roads other than the Thruway (the Peace Bridge is the only toll bridge in NY to accept E-ZPass that isn't in the jurisdiction of NYSTA, MTA, or PANYNJ). Most Thruway commuters in this area would most likely be in the Buffalo or Syracuse suburbs or traveling between Rochester and Canandaigua.
Quote from: deanej on July 01, 2012, 09:29:39 PM
Probably... I'm almost always on the section between I-490 and I-81, so travelers out there don't have any toll roads other than the Thruway (the Peace Bridge is the only toll bridge in NY to accept E-ZPass that isn't in the jurisdiction of NYSTA, MTA, or PANYNJ). Most Thruway commuters in this area would most likely be in the Buffalo or Syracuse suburbs or traveling between Rochester and Canandaigua.
All the NYSBA bridges accept E-ZPass (Rip Van Winkle thru Hamilton Fish), but you're right that none of the other international bridges do.
Knew I was missing an agency in there... we have too many toll agencies!
As far as the Thruway goes, I would just use the current milemarkers as exit numbers. This also includes the Berkshire section (exit B3 would become exit B23, for example). I consider the Thruway its own entity. Drivers have been used to increasing exit numbers from Albany to Ripley for 55+ years. Why change now? As far as "free 90", just use the current milemarkers there also. NYC is its own world. For I-87, keep the same exit numbers on the Major Deegan. Restart at the Thruway (clarification helps) to where I-87 exits the Thruway (148) and continue the numbers onto the Northway to Canada. For some of the 3dis, sequential could be used where there are many exits closely spaced (I-690 in Syracuse) instead of having exits such as 14A-B-C-D in the downtown area (also known as the x64-Virginia way :nod:).
I guess I'll just add this: if re-numbering exits to mileage-based is in fact worth doing (an assertion whose veracity I doubt), then it's worth doing fully and correctly. That is, I-87 from south to north, I-90 from west to east, each in a single sequence. Mileage-based numbering is supposed to reduce confusion and impose greater order, so if there's enough doubt already because of the Thruway system's conventions, and if that doubt isn't completely eradicated with a new system, then it won't much matter in the end whether the exits are numbered sequentially or by miles. It will still be slightly wonky, and the initiative won't have achieved its goal of eliminating that, making it a less useful venture than I already consider it to be, even if done full out.
I'm starting to think that this has stalled out. Two months and nothing's moved.
Quote from: amroad17 on August 22, 2012, 01:21:23 PM
As far as the Thruway goes, I would just use the current milemarkers as exit numbers. This also includes the Berkshire section (exit B3 would become exit B23, for example). I consider the Thruway its own entity. Drivers have been used to increasing exit numbers from Albany to Ripley for 55+ years. Why change now? As far as "free 90", just use the current milemarkers there also. NYC is its own world. For I-87, keep the same exit numbers on the Major Deegan. Restart at the Thruway (clarification helps) to where I-87 exits the Thruway (148) and continue the numbers onto the Northway to Canada. For some of the 3dis, sequential could be used where there are many exits closely spaced (I-690 in Syracuse) instead of having exits such as 14A-B-C-D in the downtown area (also known as the x64-Virginia way :nod:).
I had an interesting e-mail conversation with NYSDOT last week regarding the new mileposts they put on the NY 5 freeway near Syracuse. They started the mileposts at mile "0" where the NY 5 freeway begins at NY 174. Technically, they should start around 215, since NY 5 begins at the NY-Pa. Line near Ripley. NYSDOT completely agreed and even quoted the supplement to the 2009 MUTCD, whereas NYS changed a "should" to "shall". They said they made the region aware.
When NYSDOT switches to distance-based interchange numbers, I get the impression that they're going to do it "all the way". I would not be surprised if "free 90" gets new mileposts based on the entire length of I-90 in the state and ditto for the Northway. What the Thruway does technically should fall under the 2009 MUTCD, but the Thruway does their own thing most of the time.
I would suspect that too. I've noticed a trend towards more consistency in NY over the last few years. I would hope they number I-781 with distance-based numbers from the start; why number them sequential just to renumber them later?
Considering that I-781 will only have one exit, I'd assume it just wouldn't be numbered. Rather silly otherwise.
The plans I saw at the Watertown meet said the I-81 terminus is exit 1, US 11 is exit 2, and the Fort Drum terminus is exit 3.
The only other example of a freeway terminus getting an exit number in NY is exit 27 on NY 390.
I had never really noticed the oddity on the NYST until after I had left and started driving trucks. I would love to see the exits re-numbered on a mileage system. My personal preference would be to have continuity across each major Interstate (90 and 87). That way there would only have to be one major expense in signage spending when (if ever) the NYSTA is dissolved and the whole system goes Free.
That being said I think it may be unwise to reverse the mileage to match the standard West-to-East progression. The reason being the major confusion potentially caused by switching exits -and- mileposts in an emergency situation. Continuity, however, may require conformity.
Since NYSDOT and NYSTA don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things it would be very interesting to see how events would pan out if something like this goes through.
WrkHrse, what kinds of things do NYSDOT and NYSTA not agree on, besides exit signing formats. NYSDOT mostly adheres to the Manual, but T'way Auth. has their own variations, some of them antiquated.
A few I can think of off the top of my head:
-NYSTA loves Clearview; NYSDOT is likely allergic to it
-NYSTA rarely replaces signs, even during major construction; NYSDOT periodically does sign rehabs even if the signs are good and always replaces after major construction
-NYSTA doesn't post county and town line signs
-NYSTA doesn't post reference markers
-NYSDOT doesn't consistently post tenth mile markers
-NYSTA switched to the more dotted lines for merge lanes but still leaves the unstriped part, essentially using both systems.
-NYSTA has a much lower threshold to repair roads/bridges than NYSDOT, resulting in an overall better maintained system; they also avoid lane closures during construction and most work zones are smaller than NYSDOT ones
Quote from: WrkHrse on August 27, 2012, 07:30:43 PM
That way there would only have to be one major expense in signage spending when (if ever) the NYSTA is dissolved and the whole system goes Free.
Don't hold your breath. This was supposed to happen in 1995.
Quote from: deanej on August 27, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
-NYSTA doesn't post county and town line signs
But by god they'll post every time you cross into the "Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor". There must be two dozen signs on the Thruway stating this. County and town line signs could be navigational aids, but it's more important to stroke someone's ego with the Erie Canal signs.
I think most of the county lines have some sign near the line anyways, usually the dial 911 ones.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on August 28, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 27, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
-NYSTA doesn't post county and town line signs
But by god they'll post every time you cross into the "Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor". There must be two dozen signs on the Thruway stating this. County and town line signs could be navigational aids, but it's more important to stroke someone's ego with the Erie Canal signs.
National heritage corridors, areas, etc. are normally established by Congressional mandate (we have a couple of these in Massachusetts that are heavily signed). So NYSTA probably had no choice but to put the signs up (and likely got a bunch of earmark money to do it as well).
Quote from: roadman on August 28, 2012, 04:12:12 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on August 28, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 27, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
-NYSTA doesn't post county and town line signs
But by god they'll post every time you cross into the "Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor". There must be two dozen signs on the Thruway stating this. County and town line signs could be navigational aids, but it's more important to stroke someone's ego with the Erie Canal signs.
National heritage corridors, areas, etc. are normally established by Congressional mandate (we have a couple of these in Massachusetts that are heavily signed). So NYSTA probably had no choice but to put the signs up (and likely got a bunch of earmark money to do it as well).
Plus, IIRC, the New York State Thruway Authority owns the Erie Canal.
Quote from: deanej on August 28, 2012, 03:58:27 PM
I think most of the county lines have some sign near the line anyways, usually the dial 911 ones.
The thing is, the Thruway authority doesn't post the name of the county. The National Weather Service issues weather watches and warning by county. If you're not familiar with upstate N.Y. and you hear a blizzard warning or a tornado warning or something, you could be driving right into the weather and not know it. And that's just one reason to post county line signs.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on August 26, 2012, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 22, 2012, 01:21:23 PM
As far as the Thruway goes, I would just use the current milemarkers as exit numbers. This also includes the Berkshire section (exit B3 would become exit B23, for example). I consider the Thruway its own entity. Drivers have been used to increasing exit numbers from Albany to Ripley for 55+ years. Why change now? As far as "free 90", just use the current milemarkers there also. NYC is its own world. For I-87, keep the same exit numbers on the Major Deegan. Restart at the Thruway (clarification helps) to where I-87 exits the Thruway (148) and continue the numbers onto the Northway to Canada. For some of the 3dis, sequential could be used where there are many exits closely spaced (I-690 in Syracuse) instead of having exits such as 14A-B-C-D in the downtown area (also known as the x64-Virginia way :nod:).
I had an interesting e-mail conversation with NYSDOT last week regarding the new mileposts they put on the NY 5 freeway near Syracuse. They started the mileposts at mile "0" where the NY 5 freeway begins at NY 174. Technically, they should start around 215, since NY 5 begins at the NY-Pa. Line near Ripley. NYSDOT completely agreed and even quoted the supplement to the 2009 MUTCD, whereas NYS changed a "should" to "shall". They said they made the region aware.
When NYSDOT switches to distance-based interchange numbers, I get the impression that they're going to do it "all the way". I would not be surprised if "free 90" gets new mileposts based on the entire length of I-90 in the state and ditto for the Northway. What the Thruway does technically should fall under the 2009 MUTCD, but the Thruway does their own thing most of the time.
That would be interesting to see. A sign like...
EXIT 216
Camillus
Warners
1 MILE
What's the typical time for the assembly to do anything with a bill they get from the senate? This one hasn't seen any action since it was first referred on June 12, so I think it's dead.
Quote from: deanej on October 22, 2012, 11:28:07 AM
What's the typical time for the assembly to do anything with a bill they get from the senate? This one hasn't seen any action since it was first referred on June 12, so I think it's dead.
At the moment, they're all far too busy calling me at dinner time, ringing my doorbell, and filling my mailbox with junk.
Quote from: Jim on October 22, 2012, 02:04:15 PM
ringing my doorbell
Maybe you should put up a sign above your doorbell saying that anybody coming onto your property for "political reasons" will be considered a trespasser on private property and the police will be called? Might stop that part at least.
This past weekend, I just drove up the US 15 freeway near Corning, and they have started re-numbering the exits there to mile-based, as well as adding mile markers. This happened sometime after mid-June, which was the last time I drove that stretch. So far, only the gore signs have been replaced...none of the exit tabs or any other auxiliary signs updated. I drove this late in the evening so I didn't get any good pics. There wasn't any "OLD EXIT ##" signage posted under the gore signs.
OLD EXIT 1: CR 5, Presho = NEW EXIT 6
OLD EXIT 2: NY 417, Erwin / Addison = NEW EXIT 8
OLD EXIT 3: NY 417, Gang Mills / Painted Post = NEW EXIT 11
OLD EXIT 4A-B: I-86 / NY 17 EAST / TO NY 352, Corning / Binghamton = NEW EXITS 13A-B
In addition, the SB exit for Robert Dann Drive, which is on the old US 15 alignment/bridge from Painted Post, under the flyover ramps, is newly numbered as EXIT 12.
Holy crap. Nice.
Maybe they'll sign it as I-99 once the freeway is done.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 19, 2013, 08:00:11 PM
This past weekend, I just drove up the US 15 freeway near Corning, and they have started re-numbering the exits there to mile-based, as well as adding mile markers. This happened sometime after mid-June, which was the last time I drove that stretch. So far, only the gore signs have been replaced...none of the exit tabs or any other auxiliary signs updated. I drove this late in the evening so I didn't get any good pics. There wasn't any "OLD EXIT ##" signage posted under the gore signs.
OLD EXIT 1: CR 5, Presho = NEW EXIT 6
OLD EXIT 2: NY 417, Erwin / Addison = NEW EXIT 8
OLD EXIT 3: NY 417, Gang Mills / Painted Post = NEW EXIT 11
OLD EXIT 4A-B: I-86 / NY 17 EAST / TO NY 352, Corning / Binghamton = NEW EXITS 13A-B
In addition, the SB exit for Robert Dann Drive, which is on the old US 15 alignment/bridge from Painted Post, under the flyover ramps, is newly numbered as EXIT 12.
I've updated upstatenyroads.com. Inside sources tell me the auxiliary signs will say FORMERLY EXIT xx, like the signs around Exit 56 on Interstate 86.
nysroads.com was updated last week (thanks to the Binghamton meet). The plans have "formerly exit x" signs on the main signs identical to the ones for NY 17's (current) exit 57.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 15, 2012, 08:03:18 AM
Quote from: MrDisco99 on June 15, 2012, 07:53:45 AM
Which other states still haven't adopted mileage-based exits?
Most of the New England ones: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. I think that's it.
(plus some select roads in other states, like the New Jersey Turnpike, and the x64's in Virginia)
According to the Massachusetts MUTCD supplement, they will be converting once sign-replacement projects in the current cycle are complete.
I've inquired with VTrans...they're going to attempt to hold off as long as possible but they have slowly started to formulate a plan to convert. It'll likely be a "last-minute" conversion, however.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 19, 2013, 08:00:11 PMSo far, only the gore signs have been replaced...none of the exit tabs or any other auxiliary signs updated.
Does not sound like the best plan. "Okay, I want exit 2. Whoops, Exit 8. 2 should be coming up soon."
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 19, 2013, 08:00:11 PM
This past weekend, I just drove up the US 15 freeway near Corning, and they have started re-numbering the exits there to mile-based, as well as adding mile markers. This happened sometime after mid-June, which was the last time I drove that stretch. So far, only the gore signs have been replaced...none of the exit tabs or any other auxiliary signs updated. I drove this late in the evening so I didn't get any good pics. There wasn't any "OLD EXIT ##" signage posted under the gore signs.
OLD EXIT 1: CR 5, Presho = NEW EXIT 6
OLD EXIT 2: NY 417, Erwin / Addison = NEW EXIT 8
OLD EXIT 3: NY 417, Gang Mills / Painted Post = NEW EXIT 11
OLD EXIT 4A-B: I-86 / NY 17 EAST / TO NY 352, Corning / Binghamton = NEW EXITS 13A-B
In addition, the SB exit for Robert Dann Drive, which is on the old US 15 alignment/bridge from Painted Post, under the flyover ramps, is newly numbered as EXIT 12.
If NYSDOT was going to implement this, US 15 (future I-99) would be a good place to do it.
Delaware hasn't converted either but that's easy to miss because all three interstates are short and have a decent interchange frequency. I-95 also fools you because there is no exit 2, and the gap between 1 and 3 is about twice that between 3 and 4, and that between 1 and the state line. Of course, by mileage those exits should actually be 2, 6, and 8. Meanwhile, DE 1's exit numbers are kilometer based! Goes up to 166 but the road is only 103 miles long.
As for remaining states converting, Connecticut is going to change I-395 over as part of an upcoming sign replacement project.
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 19, 2013, 10:47:08 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 15, 2012, 08:03:18 AM
Quote from: MrDisco99 on June 15, 2012, 07:53:45 AM
Which other states still haven't adopted mileage-based exits?
Most of the New England ones: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. I think that's it.
(plus some select roads in other states, like the New Jersey Turnpike, and the x64's in Virginia)
According to the Massachusetts MUTCD supplement, they will be converting once sign-replacement projects in the current cycle are complete.
According to my information, MassDOT plans to start converting exit numbers on a route by route basis once sign replacement projects in specific corridors are completed (or where new signs on a specific route are twelve years old or less). At present, expect new exit numbers on most shorter routes (i.e. I-84, I-291, I-391) starting in early 2016, with the full state to be converted by late 2021 or mid 2022.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 19, 2013, 08:00:11 PM
This past weekend, I just drove up the US 15 freeway near Corning, and they have started re-numbering the exits there to mile-based, as well as adding mile markers. This happened sometime after mid-June, which was the last time I drove that stretch. So far, only the gore signs have been replaced...none of the exit tabs or any other auxiliary signs updated. I drove this late in the evening so I didn't get any good pics. There wasn't any "OLD EXIT ##" signage posted under the gore signs.
OLD EXIT 1: CR 5, Presho = NEW EXIT 6
OLD EXIT 2: NY 417, Erwin / Addison = NEW EXIT 8
OLD EXIT 3: NY 417, Gang Mills / Painted Post = NEW EXIT 11
OLD EXIT 4A-B: I-86 / NY 17 EAST / TO NY 352, Corning / Binghamton = NEW EXITS 13A-B
In addition, the SB exit for Robert Dann Drive, which is on the old US 15 alignment/bridge from Painted Post, under the flyover ramps, is newly numbered as EXIT 12.
Just updated OSM (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17448695). ;)
Quote from: froggie on August 20, 2013, 03:02:23 AM
I've inquired with VTrans...they're going to attempt to hold off as long as possible but they have slowly started to formulate a plan to convert. It'll likely be a "last-minute" conversion, however.
I would think the VT conversion would be pretty simple. Not many exits... and in fact, not a single exit has been added since the completion of 89, 91, and 93.
True, no new exits, although they've looked into a new interchange on I-89 at VT 116. I think, as with New York, it's just resistance to change with VTrans and exit numbers...
NH should be quite easy to convert.
On the Everett Turnpike up to Exit 11, they exit numbers are all +/- 1 of the mileposts. Exit 12 will become Exit 15. Exit 13 will become Exit 17.
On I-293, if I recall, the only exit number that does not line up is Exit 7 (NH 3A North).
I-393 needs almost no adjustment, since its exits are +/- 1 of the mileposts.
I-93, I-95 and the Spaulding need to be completely renumbered, but that should not be that difficult to do.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 20, 2013, 08:49:17 PM
Delaware hasn't converted either but that's easy to miss because all three interstates are short and have a decent interchange frequency. I-95 also fools you because there is no exit 2,
If memory serves, there was plans for an Exit 2 interchange with a proposed but unbuilt highway but it never materialized.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 20, 2013, 08:49:17 PMMeanwhile, DE 1's exit numbers are kilometer based! Goes up to 166 but the road is only 103 miles long.
When portions of that road originally opened, it was indeed mile-marker based but it changed over to the metric (kilometer) based numbers about a year later. One has to wonder if the DE 1 exit numbers will change
back to mile-marker based ones when I-95/295/495 change over?
Quote from: Janko Dialnice on August 22, 2013, 09:49:40 AM
NH should be quite easy to convert.
I-93, I-95 and the Spaulding need to be completely renumbered, but that should not be that difficult to do.
I-95: Exit 1 in Seabrook could remain the same. Exit 2 in Hampton would probably become Exit 5. I think Exit 7 in Portsmouth would become Exit 16. I don't remember the mile posts for Exits 3 to 6.
Exits 3 to 7 are all very close.
One of the things that NYSDOT always brings up with distance based numbering is the closely spaced exits in the New York Metro area. I came up with a hybrid numbering scheme, where basically the five boroughs and Long Island would keep their exit numbering, I-87 would keep its exit numbers and the Thruway would continue sequential numbering to the point where the exit number is lower than new I-87 mileposts continuing the Deegan's distance along the Thruway (probably at the western end of the Tappan Zee Bridge), where the exit numbers would then jump to distance based numbering. Everything outside of the five boroughs and Long Island would get renumbered to distance based, where it makes much more sense upstate than it does downstate.
Closely-spaced exits are not a problem in any other city. Cincinnati and Kansas City come quickly to mind. And Cumberland, Md., too.
Garden State Parkway is a hybrid, particularly through Union and Essex Counties...NYSDOT (or NYCDOT as the case may be) could do something similar to accommodate the closely spaced exits downstate.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 22, 2013, 10:06:00 PM
Closely-spaced exits are not a problem in any other city. Cincinnati and Kansas City come quickly to mind. And Cumberland, Md., too.
Ditto with Chicago, especially the rapid-fire exit/entrance section along the Kennedy (I-90/94) from Exit 51 A through the Circle Exits 51 H-I.
Quote from: Brandon on August 23, 2013, 11:44:50 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 22, 2013, 10:06:00 PM
Closely-spaced exits are not a problem in any other city. Cincinnati and Kansas City come quickly to mind. And Cumberland, Md., too.
Ditto with Chicago, especially the rapid-fire exit/entrance section along the Kennedy (I-90/94) from Exit 51 A through the Circle Exits 51 H-I.
If we were only concerning ourselves with things that are a problem, we wouldn't be changing exit numbers at all.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 22, 2013, 12:04:52 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 20, 2013, 08:49:17 PM
Delaware hasn't converted either but that's easy to miss because all three interstates are short and have a decent interchange frequency. I-95 also fools you because there is no exit 2,
If memory serves, there was plans for an Exit 2 interchange with a proposed but unbuilt highway but it never materialized.
Something something US 301?
EDIT: http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/de-turnpike/ <-- "However, EXIT 2, which was to have been used for the proposed Pike Creek Freeway (US 301), never was constructed."
QuoteIf we were only concerning ourselves with things that are a problem, we wouldn't be changing exit numbers at all.
Something which we know you disagree with...but it could be argued that the sequential numbering system itself is a problem.
Quote from: Steve on August 24, 2013, 12:43:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 22, 2013, 12:04:52 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 20, 2013, 08:49:17 PM
Delaware hasn't converted either but that's easy to miss because all three interstates are short and have a decent interchange frequency. I-95 also fools you because there is no exit 2,
If memory serves, there was plans for an Exit 2 interchange with a proposed but unbuilt highway but it never materialized.
Something something US 301?
EDIT: http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/de-turnpike/ <-- "However, EXIT 2, which was to have been used for the proposed Pike Creek Freeway (US 301), never was constructed."
The Pike Creek Freeway, which might have extended the US 301 (Ridge Route) freeway from Middletown:
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/2010_ncco_comp_plan_800.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/2010_ncco_comp_plan.jpg)
A scan from the New Castle County 2010 Comprehensive Plan (plan adopted 12/88, map prepared 11/89).
I agree that other states handle closely spaced exits just fine and I don't agree with NYSDOT's assessment that the entire state can't be changed because of the five boroughs and Long Island, but the fact of the matter is, that's their thinking and that's why I suggested the "hybrid" approach.
Looking at some of the 3dis upstate, I wouldn't bother renumbering Interstate 190 and 990, as they're pretty close to their mileposts already and I would rather see NYSDOT direct those funds to numbering the interchanges on US Route 219 and NY Route 33. In fact, I think NYSDOT should phase in distance based numbering by numbering interchanges that are currently unnumbered (33, 219, NY Route 49, NY Route 400, NY Route 104 in the Rochester area) and then renumber the sequentially numbered interchanges afterwards.
I-990 doesn't even need to change any numbers. I measured it out, and the only number that isn't exact with it's mile-based counterpart is the stub ending at exit 5 (which would be 6, but realistically probably should be unnumbered). I-590/NY 590 is within 1 on every single exit as well.
I-690 should not have its exits re-numbered as there are 17 exits within the 14 miles (not counting NY 690). However, since NYSDOT is now treating I-690/NY 690 as one entity, milepost exits would be needed. The downtown Syracuse exits (10, 11, 12) would have to be numbered 14 A-B-C, I-81, exit 15, and Townsend St., exit 16.
Quote from: amroad17 on August 25, 2013, 06:24:47 PM
I-690 should not have its exits re-numbered as there are 17 exits within the 14 miles (not counting NY 690). However, since NYSDOT is now treating I-690/NY 690 as one entity, milepost exits would be needed. The downtown Syracuse exits (10, 11, 12) would have to be numbered 14 A-B-C, I-81, exit 15, and Townsend St., exit 16.
Interstate 690 has already been renumbered once from it's original configuration when the Thruway interchange was moved west back in '89 or so (I remember Bridge St. being Exit 12 at one time). Like you said, since I-690 and NY Route 690 are mile posted as one roadway now, they should probably make the exits match the same idea.
Quote from: amroad17 on August 25, 2013, 06:24:47 PM
I-690 should not have its exits re-numbered as there are 17 exits within the 14 miles (not counting NY 690). However, since NYSDOT is now treating I-690/NY 690 as one entity, milepost exits would be needed. The downtown Syracuse exits (10, 11, 12) would have to be numbered 14 A-B-C, I-81, exit 15, and Townsend St., exit 16.
Honestly, I'd drop the separate numbering for current exits 11 and 12. I'd also number the I-81 interchange. Note that with the viaduct project (I predict NYSDOT will opt to tear down I-81, but there is no alternative that doesn't involve reconfiguring the I-81 interchange), the exits in the area will be changing anyways.
I was noticing that the exit on I-90 in Albany, has the same exit number as the nearest whole mile marker, too bad that I-90 is not going to have that milepost if and when this takes place LOL!
US 15 now has mileage based exit numbers NB: Exit 6 (formerly Exit 1), Exit 8 (formerly Exit 2), Exit 10 (formerly Exit 3), and Exit 13 (only on some of the signs...others still say Exit 4).
The new I-99 freeway is open in the SB direction through Lindley. NB still uses the old route, which is still striped as a two lane, two direction road, but is de-facto one way NB. Right now there is no way to get onto the old road south of Presho towards Lindley. Either you stay on the freeway and make a U-turn at PA 49, in which case you are forced off onto the old road, or you take the Presho exit, and take River Road south to Lindley where you can cut back to the old road via Morgan Creek Rd. At the south end, all traffic SB on the old road is forced to turn onto Watson Creek Road. Turning left will get you back to the old road via Lindley Road, where you an enter the freeway via PA 287 and PA 49.
The entire trip on the old two lane road, I did not pass a single vehicle in the opposite direction on the old road. Many drivers assumed it was now one way north (it is not, you can legally still drive it SB if you can figure out how to get onto it), and were passing illegally over double yellow lines.
Can't wait to try out the new freeway SB on Monday!
Quote from: mtantillo on August 31, 2013, 11:46:32 PM
US 15 now has mileage based exit numbers NB: Exit 6 (formerly Exit 1), Exit 8 (formerly Exit 2), Exit 10 (formerly Exit 3), and Exit 13 (only on some of the signs...others still say Exit 4).
The new I-99 freeway is open in the SB direction through Lindley. NB still uses the old route, which is still striped as a two lane, two direction road, but is de-facto one way NB. Right now there is no way to get onto the old road south of Presho towards Lindley. Either you stay on the freeway and make a U-turn at PA 49, in which case you are forced off onto the old road, or you take the Presho exit, and take River Road south to Lindley where you can cut back to the old road via Morgan Creek Rd. At the south end, all traffic SB on the old road is forced to turn onto Watson Creek Road. Turning left will get you back to the old road via Lindley Road, where you an enter the freeway via PA 287 and PA 49.
The entire trip on the old two lane road, I did not pass a single vehicle in the opposite direction on the old road. Many drivers assumed it was now one way north (it is not, you can legally still drive it SB if you can figure out how to get onto it), and were passing illegally over double yellow lines.
Can't wait to try out the new freeway SB on Monday!
How did that happen? Pretty sure when I last drove through there, in early June, there were still bridges not even started and much of the ROW only graded!
Maybe they did all the southbound bridges first? At least it's a good sign the road will be done in time for the Corning/Elmira meet I'm planning next year.
Quote from: vdeane on September 01, 2013, 10:41:55 AM
Maybe they did all the southbound bridges first? At least it's a good sign the road will be done in time for the Corning/Elmira meet I'm planning next year.
Don't think so; all the crossings I spotted either had both directions' bridges underway, or none. My assessment at the time, if I'm remembering correctly, was that the north part of the route could easily be ready by this time, but the south part would be until next year at least. But hey, remember the entire NJ Turnpike was built in two years!
From a maintenance of traffic perspective, they had to open SB before NB, because they can't have SB traffic crossing over the NB lanes when they are trying to finish them up. They said end of November for the NB lanes. My guess is that once they realized they would need to open one direction at a time, they dumped more resources into the SB side than the NB side. That would explain why the NB lanes are 3 months behind the SB lanes...they have catching up to do! But even with only one direction open, you still get a safety benefit of not having 2-way traffic on a 2 lane road....now US 15 is a divided highway throughout...just that the NB lanes are the old road and may occasionally see a random SB local car.
I'll try to get some pics tomorrow.
And have a different speed limit and access points.
Quote from: mtantillo on September 01, 2013, 10:09:29 PM
From a maintenance of traffic perspective, they had to open SB before NB, because they can't have SB traffic crossing over the NB lanes when they are trying to finish them up. They said end of November for the NB lanes. My guess is that once they realized they would need to open one direction at a time, they dumped more resources into the SB side than the NB side. That would explain why the NB lanes are 3 months behind the SB lanes...they have catching up to do! But even with only one direction open, you still get a safety benefit of not having 2-way traffic on a 2 lane road....now US 15 is a divided highway throughout...just that the NB lanes are the old road and may occasionally see a random SB local car.
I'll try to get some pics tomorrow.
I just put into OSM the new SB alignment (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17645096). Also, let me know the speed limit on the new SB lanes so I can update OSM with that info. ;)
Speed limit is 65 once you get past the work zone at the north end.
It is a very nice road, I must say. Also, I misspoke when I said there was no access from the Presho exit to the old road SB. There is, via SB Hovey Road. I assume they will tie Hovey Road into the old US 15 at the end of the project...right now there is a temporary gravel connection from Hovey Road to old US 15 to facilitate that traffic.
Quote from: mtantillo on September 03, 2013, 12:25:17 AM
Speed limit is 65 once you get past the work zone at the north end.
Added the speed limit to the SB lanes in Changeset 17664184 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17664184).
Quote from: mtantillo on September 03, 2013, 12:25:17 AMAlso, I misspoke when I said there was no access from the Presho exit to the old road SB. There is, via SB Hovey Road. I assume they will tie Hovey Road into the old US 15 at the end of the project...right now there is a temporary gravel connection from Hovey Road to old US 15 to facilitate that traffic.
Added guess at the location for the temporary location in Changeset 17664202 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17664202).
Thanks for the info man. :)