AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: Zeffy on September 22, 2014, 12:00:32 AM

Title: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on September 22, 2014, 12:00:32 AM
Apparently, in my search for a general New York Thruway topic, I came up empty handed. The Thruway is major enough to warrant it's own general topic. So here it is. And if I somehow missed it, well you can merge my post with the other one.

While streetviewing the Thruway, I saw these gaps in the median where I presume law enforcement is permitted to use for U-turns. Am I correct in assuming that the yellow sign is a reference mile marker for emergency services?

(http://i.imgur.com/3JUqH06.jpg)

Second, are these one-off installs of Clearview, or is the Thruway switching to it?

(http://i.imgur.com/3rQDyke.png)

Third, it seems a lot of signage on the Thruway (at least west of Albany) is ground mounted. Any particular reason for NYSTA's choice on using ground mounts versus overheads?

And finally...I can't say I have seen too many of these on highways (let alone Interstates):

(http://i.imgur.com/pwpiell.png)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Flyer78 on September 22, 2014, 12:42:07 AM
Law enforcement can use them for speed enforcement as well. Yes, the numbers under it are the reference location, also common on other NY Interstates. (I-690 around Syracuse has them. I forget which county on NY17/I-86 - but it actually uses the NY Reference Marker instead of the lapsed/elapsed distance).

Clearview has been popping up all along the Thruway.

As for the deer warning sign, are you commenting more on the 16 mile advisory, or in general? Quite common in NY, as well as PA.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on September 22, 2014, 02:03:03 AM
Second, are these one-off installs of Clearview, or is the Thruway switching to it?

Pretty much all new signs installed by NYSTA have been Clearview for at least five years. This isn't anything new.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on September 22, 2014, 12:53:37 PM
Law enforcement can use them for speed enforcement as well. Yes, the numbers under it are the reference location, also common on other NY Interstates. (I-690 around Syracuse has them. I forget which county on NY17/I-86 - but it actually uses the NY Reference Marker instead of the lapsed/elapsed distance).
I-81 is Oswego and Jefferson Counties has its turnouts numbered sequentially.  They start at 1 near Oneida Lake and increase into the 60s near the border.  I-781 does as well (numbered 1 and 2).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Flyer78 on September 22, 2014, 02:15:38 PM
Now that you mention it, Cortland county on I-81 is the same way, sequentially. I think there are even some with suffixes.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Ian on September 22, 2014, 05:46:07 PM
Law enforcement can use them for speed enforcement as well. Yes, the numbers under it are the reference location, also common on other NY Interstates. (I-690 around Syracuse has them. I forget which county on NY17/I-86 - but it actually uses the NY Reference Marker instead of the lapsed/elapsed distance).
I-81 is Oswego and Jefferson Counties has its turnouts numbered sequentially.  They start at 1 near Oneida Lake and increase into the 60s near the border.  I-781 does as well (numbered 1 and 2).

The Northway (I-87) in Warren (http://goo.gl/maps/1eKv1) and Essex (http://goo.gl/maps/mSrB7) Counties do as well.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on September 22, 2014, 05:54:55 PM
Now that you mention it, Cortland county on I-81 is the same way, sequentially. I think there are even some with suffixes.
Cortland uses letters.  Broome and Onondaga use the same hundredth mile indicators as the Thruway.

It's odd that every area uses something completely different - not even a change at regions, but at counties.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on September 22, 2014, 06:58:27 PM
Law enforcement can use them for speed enforcement as well. Yes, the numbers under it are the reference location, also common on other NY Interstates. (I-690 around Syracuse has them. I forget which county on NY17/I-86 - but it actually uses the NY Reference Marker instead of the lapsed/elapsed distance).
I-81 is Oswego and Jefferson Counties has its turnouts numbered sequentially.  They start at 1 near Oneida Lake and increase into the 60s near the border.  I-781 does as well (numbered 1 and 2).

Oswego County had them first on I-81 and then I think Jefferson County just continued the sequence.

The Thruway started out with vertical signs mounted on one post in the Syracuse area and then they switched to horizontal.  Some of the sign posts still have a shorter than normal reflective strip to accommodate this.

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on September 22, 2014, 08:27:01 PM
As far as ground-mounted signs vs. overhead, it's because they're cheaper. You're supposed to have overhead signs with 3 or more lanes of traffic, but you don't need them with 2 lanes. (I believe that's MUTCD, but it might be AASHTO Green Book.)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: hbelkins on September 22, 2014, 09:14:37 PM
It's odd that every area uses something completely different - not even a change at regions, but at counties.

Probably what the local law enforcement and emergency services dispatchers prefer in each locality, since they're the personnel who will be using the median crossings.

As far as ground-mounted signs vs. overhead, it's because they're cheaper. You're supposed to have overhead signs with 3 or more lanes of traffic, but you don't need them with 2 lanes. (I believe that's MUTCD, but it might be AASHTO Green Book.)

Kentucky installed ground-mounted signs for Exit 96 on I-64 after it was widened to three lanes. Also for Exit 87. However, the exit between the two (Exit 94) has an overhead.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Flyer78 on September 23, 2014, 12:59:01 AM
Now that you mention it, Cortland county on I-81 is the same way, sequentially. I think there are even some with suffixes.
Cortland uses letters. 

You are right. I was thinking they were numbered then suffixed with letters, but they are lettered, suffixed with numbers:

I1: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6336378,-76.1738213,3a,75y,130.84h,68.31t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seEsQYdEniCtiNi5RyVLkeQ!2e0
I: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6089034,-76.1712981,3a,75y,99.86h,71.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZYFpC1tUPfR8VySCM7bgGw!2e0
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: shadyjay on September 23, 2014, 05:34:03 PM
As far as ground-mounted signs vs. overhead, it's because they're cheaper. You're supposed to have overhead signs with 3 or more lanes of traffic, but you don't need them with 2 lanes. (I believe that's MUTCD, but it might be AASHTO Green Book.)

New England varies wildly.  MA is converting all of its limited-access highways to "all overhead", be they 2 lanes, 3 lanes, urban, rural, etc.  The reasoning is visibility and not having to trim around ground signs.  NH has several of its signs along I-95 (which is 4 lanes each way) on the ground.  CT, on the other hand, is going the opposite direction as MA, with moving several signs that were overhead down to the ground, and I'm not just talking about bridge-mounted ones either.  Some entire supports are being removed and signs placed at ground level. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on September 24, 2014, 02:02:54 AM
Law enforcement can use them for speed enforcement as well. Yes, the numbers under it are the reference location, also common on other NY Interstates. (I-690 around Syracuse has them. I forget which county on NY17/I-86 - but it actually uses the NY Reference Marker instead of the lapsed/elapsed distance).

That's Tioga. They use the bottom line of the reference marker plus a sequential letter.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 24, 2014, 08:19:48 PM
Law enforcement can use them for speed enforcement as well. Yes, the numbers under it are the reference location, also common on other NY Interstates. (I-690 around Syracuse has them. I forget which county on NY17/I-86 - but it actually uses the NY Reference Marker instead of the lapsed/elapsed distance).

That's Tioga. They use the bottom line of the reference marker plus a sequential letter.

So does Cattaraugus (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0976081,-78.5296324,3a,75y,21.74h,81.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sQNJBJB8EwTcgBowyslNrCg!2e0). Think Chautauqua is the same way. Pretty standard along that stretch of NY 17. Never seen it elsewhere in the state.

I-390 in Region 6 uses sequential numbers, while Region 4 uses mile markers to the nearest tenth plus a sequential letter. Region 5 does NOT have them outside of NY 17, but I could swear I saw sequential numbers on I-190. I don't go up that way often, so my memory of it very well might be incorrect.

On the topic of overhead signs, most highways outside of inner-ring suburbs have ground-mounted signs unless there is a lane drop at/near the interchange. I-87 really sticks out, as the only interchanges with overhead signs north of I-90 have semi-directional/loop ramps or lane drops, even though the southernmost ~50 miles is 6 lanes. Not even northbound Exit 9, a 2-lane exit, gets a gantry.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: storm2k on September 25, 2014, 02:39:59 AM
As far as ground-mounted signs vs. overhead, it's because they're cheaper. You're supposed to have overhead signs with 3 or more lanes of traffic, but you don't need them with 2 lanes. (I believe that's MUTCD, but it might be AASHTO Green Book.)

New England varies wildly.  MA is converting all of its limited-access highways to "all overhead", be they 2 lanes, 3 lanes, urban, rural, etc.  The reasoning is visibility and not having to trim around ground signs.  NH has several of its signs along I-95 (which is 4 lanes each way) on the ground.  CT, on the other hand, is going the opposite direction as MA, with moving several signs that were overhead down to the ground, and I'm not just talking about bridge-mounted ones either.  Some entire supports are being removed and signs placed at ground level. 

Jersey's done that. They took down several overheads on 295 and replaced them with ground mounted signs even though 295 is 3 lanes wide north of 76/42. you can see here (at 52A going NB) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0814732,-74.7636965,3a,75y,41.9h,72.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUovHHP1ztxo3yJWTED6JAQ!2e0) that they took down the overhead but left the support masts up!
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PHLBOS on September 25, 2014, 08:37:58 AM
Jersey's done that. They took down several overheads on 295 and replaced them with ground mounted signs even though 295 is 3 lanes wide north of 76/42. you can see here (at 52A going NB) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0814732,-74.7636965,3a,75y,41.9h,72.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUovHHP1ztxo3yJWTED6JAQ!2e0) that they took down the overhead but left the support masts up!
That particular case was the result of an I-295 reconstruction project (which involved lane closures & shifted through lanes) that took place several years ago.  IIRC, the current replacement ground-mounted BGS' were (at least initially) planned to be a temporary situation.

It's possible that the overhead portion of the gantry that was removed was originally intened to be reinstalled after the project ended but was damaged in the process.  Note: such is only a guess on my part.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: akotchi on September 25, 2014, 10:57:16 AM
Jersey's done that. They took down several overheads on 295 and replaced them with ground mounted signs even though 295 is 3 lanes wide north of 76/42. you can see here (at 52A going NB) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0814732,-74.7636965,3a,75y,41.9h,72.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUovHHP1ztxo3yJWTED6JAQ!2e0) that they took down the overhead but left the support masts up!
That particular case was the result of an I-295 reconstruction project (which involved lane closures & shifted through lanes) that took place several years ago.  IIRC, the current replacement ground-mounted BGS' were (at least initially) planned to be a temporary situation.

It's possible that the overhead portion of the gantry that was removed was originally intened to be reinstalled after the project ended but was damaged in the process.  Note: such is only a guess on my part.
Most times this is not because of a construction project in the area.  It is more likely the result of periodic inspection of the structures finding issues with the existing components -- safety precaution to take the span down.  I have seen at various times other locations in the state (I-295 at Exit 65 and I-195 at Exit 3, for two) where smaller "temporary" guide signs were in place while the overhead gantry was down.  Eventually whatever necessary repairs are made and the span gets put back up.  The time varies by location, but could be more related to the extent of repairs.  Sometimes, the small signs do not seem that temporary.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PHLBOS on September 25, 2014, 12:58:30 PM
Most times this is not because of a construction project in the area.  It is more likely the result of periodic inspection of the structures finding issues with the existing components -- safety precaution to take the span down.  I have seen at various times other locations in the state (I-295 at Exit 65 and I-195 at Exit 3, for two) where smaller "temporary" guide signs were in place while the overhead gantry was down.  Eventually whatever necessary repairs are made and the span gets put back up.  The time varies by location, but could be more related to the extent of repairs.  Sometimes, the small signs do not seem that temporary.
As one who has used that stretch of I-295 for many years when traveling to/from New England; I know that particular overhead gantry (bridge portion) only was taken down when NJDOT was reconstructing a roughly 10-mile stretch of that highway several years ago.  During some of the phases of that project, one side of the road was closed off while the remaining side was reconfigured & restriped (including a temporary Jersey barrier) for 4 total lanes of travel (2 per direction).

While the reasoning you described may be true for those other locations; the timing of such with respect to a concurrent reconstruction project is just too coincidental.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on September 25, 2014, 01:58:56 PM
I had a scary thought today about the lack of a plan to pay for the Tappan Zee Bridge (especially since Cuomo ruled out using the drug bust money for it).  A couple years ago, he proposed merging NYSDOT and NYSTA.  This was rejected due to the various legal hurdles that a merger would face.  But Cuomo's a patient man, and he always gets what he wants in the end.  What if he's trying to bankrupt NYSTA so that the political support for a merger would materialize?  At that point NYSTA and NYSDOT will already share the same building anyways... all that would need to be done is to re-structure the bureaucracy and eliminate redundant jobs.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 25, 2014, 03:44:36 PM
I had a scary thought today about the lack of a plan to pay for the Tappan Zee Bridge (especially since Cuomo ruled out using the drug bust money for it).  A couple years ago, he proposed merging NYSDOT and NYSTA.  This was rejected due to the various legal hurdles that a merger would face.  But Cuomo's a patient man, and he always gets what he wants in the end.  What if he's trying to bankrupt NYSTA so that the political support for a merger would materialize?  At that point NYSTA and NYSDOT will already share the same building anyways... all that would need to be done is to re-structure the bureaucracy and eliminate redundant jobs.

Don't picture him planning it that way, but I'd be for anything that might bring a merger. Would certainly get rid of a lot of redundancy. Merge the 4 Thruway regions into Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, get rid of the leadership and redundant positions, and voilà- there's money available to replace bridges and possibly get rid of/ move some tolls that were supposed to disappear eons ago (cough Grand Island cough I-95 cough Ardsley cough).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on September 25, 2014, 05:54:52 PM
The upper leadership would just get reappointed elsewhere or the organization would be restructured to retain them; most of the jobs lost would be lower-level titles like mine.  As someone who works for the state, I don't like anything that reduces the workforce and therefore threatens my job (especially since I just started and would therefore be the first on the chopping block).

I highly doubt a merger would reduce or eliminate tolls.  Plus I like the Thruway ;)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 25, 2014, 07:27:12 PM
Guess what I just found: Plans for the Exit 50A bridge replacement (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214320_tab14-23b_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf). A few important points:

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on September 26, 2014, 01:27:05 PM
Monotube cantilever gantry for the Exit 50 overhead. Didn't know New York was adopting these things. I certainly haven't seen one here.
You mean like this?
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i590/100_4919-s.JPG)
Region 4 has a few.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 26, 2014, 01:41:37 PM
No. I mean the curved arm type that Pennsylvania loves
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on September 27, 2014, 11:03:15 AM
  • Monotube cantilever gantry for the Exit 50 overhead. Didn't know New York was adopting these things. I certainly haven't seen one here.

I'm pretty sure this will be a first.

I am a traditionalist and have always liked the triangular gantries (I am 44 and began my roadgeek experience on NY 17 watching the Southern Tier Expressway get built). Admittedly, the "beefy" new box gantries have been taking some getting used to - but a monotube - in NY?? Wow.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 27, 2014, 12:06:23 PM
  • Monotube cantilever gantry for the Exit 50 overhead. Didn't know New York was adopting these things. I certainly haven't seen one here.

I'm pretty sure this will be a first.

I am a traditionalist and have always liked the triangular gantries (I am 44 and began my roadgeek experience on NY 17 watching the Southern Tier Expressway get built). Admittedly, the "beefy" new box gantries have been taking some getting used to - but a monotube - in NY?? Wow.

Yeah. The plans have connection details and everything. I was pretty shocked to scroll down and see it and the several pages dedicated to its design.

I remember being pretty upset when I saw my first new-style truss gantry. It was on the SB approach to Exit 17 on I-87 in Saratoga County. Replaced a triangular one. Those are slowly disappearing from everywhere. The Buffalo area only has a few left, mostly on the Thruway and NY 198. A couple just got new signs, but I expect at least one to come down during another bridge replacement in West Seneca. NY 198's will likely disappear when it gets reconstructed in a few years.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on September 27, 2014, 12:16:24 PM
I know of the gantry of which you speak.  :)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on September 27, 2014, 12:22:44 PM
Good news if you miss the triangular trusses.  Come down to Florida where those are now the norm here along with single post supports as the old truss style gantry supports are a thing of the past.
Title: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 27, 2014, 01:01:30 PM
I had a scary thought today about the lack of a plan to pay for the Tappan Zee Bridge (especially since Cuomo ruled out using the drug bust money for it).  A couple years ago, he proposed merging NYSDOT and NYSTA.  This was rejected due to the various legal hurdles that a merger would face.  But Cuomo's a patient man, and he always gets what he wants in the end.  What if he's trying to bankrupt NYSTA so that the political support for a merger would materialize?  At that point NYSTA and NYSDOT will already share the same building anyways... all that would need to be done is to re-structure the bureaucracy and eliminate redundant jobs.

Eliminating redundant jobs is the opposite of scary.

Edit:  Later post clarifies your POV.  However, you're a taxpayer too, and the state has fiduciary responsibility to maximize what it does with its taxpayers'—shareholders'—money.  Knowingly maintaining redundant jobs is not responsible government.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: xcellntbuy on September 27, 2014, 01:29:46 PM
  • Monotube cantilever gantry for the Exit 50 overhead. Didn't know New York was adopting these things. I certainly haven't seen one here.

I'm pretty sure this will be a first.

I am a traditionalist and have always liked the triangular gantries (I am 44 and began my roadgeek experience on NY 17 watching the Southern Tier Expressway get built). Admittedly, the "beefy" new box gantries have been taking some getting used to - but a monotube - in NY?? Wow.
As a former New Yorker as well, triangular gantries were the universal standard for a very long time.  The new substantially larger "beefy" gantries (I like that phrase) saw some of their first use in Albany when the Interstate 87/90 interchanges with the Thruway, Northway, Western Avenue, Crossgates Mall, Fuller Road, Interstate 90/Northside Arterial were dramatically reconstructed in 1989.  The electric BGS southbound on the Northway for Exit 1W were so heavy (and so expensive at $1 million each) the first "beefy" gantries were designed for the installation.

If you want to see "super beefy," the new gantries on the Florida's Turnpike and Interstate 595 beat out the ones in New York.

I have now moved to middle Georgia and see all these thin-looking traffic light mast arms (replacing wire spans) and minimal overhead gantries and have to readjust my thinking.  Georgia's butterfly gantries are much more substantial.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 27, 2014, 01:40:07 PM
I had a scary thought today about the lack of a plan to pay for the Tappan Zee Bridge (especially since Cuomo ruled out using the drug bust money for it).  A couple years ago, he proposed merging NYSDOT and NYSTA.  This was rejected due to the various legal hurdles that a merger would face.  But Cuomo's a patient man, and he always gets what he wants in the end.  What if he's trying to bankrupt NYSTA so that the political support for a merger would materialize?  At that point NYSTA and NYSDOT will already share the same building anyways... all that would need to be done is to re-structure the bureaucracy and eliminate redundant jobs.

Eliminating redundant jobs is the opposite of scary.

Edit:  Later post clarifies your POV.  However, you're a taxpayer too, and the state has fiduciary responsibility to maximize what it does with its taxpayers'—shareholders'—money.  Knowingly maintaining redundant jobs is not responsible government.

Agree. As a taxpayer, I think that the redundant agencies in this state need to be merged. Actually, I think every highway transportation "authority" in the state needs to be merged into NYSDOT: NYSTA, NYSBA, TBTA (MTA Bridges and Tunnels), and the transportation portions of NYSDEC and various park authorities. You can should even throw the Port Authority in there by splitting it between NJDOT and NYSDOT to get rid of all the crap it does. Know how much money that would save? Just have to time stuff to coincide with retirements. Not that I think it'll ever happen, but it would certainly help put the state in the black. Will jobs be affected? Somewhat, but not as many low-levels as you would think, because the same level of maintenance has to be provided. What would be affected are the redundant chair positions, which would be eliminated as people retire.

As a former New Yorker as well, triangular gantries were the universal standard for a very long time.  The new substantially larger "beefy" gantries (I like that phrase) saw some of their first use in Albany when the Interstate 87/90 interchanges with the Thruway, Northway, Western Avenue, Crossgates Mall, Fuller Road, Interstate 90/Northside Arterial were dramatically reconstructed in 1989.  The electric BGS southbound on the Northway for Exit 1W were so heavy (and so expensive at $1 million each) the first "beefy" gantries were designed for the installation.
[/quote]

I always loved that assembly. But $1 MILLION? Why didn't they just install lights like they did on the assembly at the north/east end of the concurrency? That was the first "beefy" assembly I saw that wasn't for a VMS. Certainly is a strange case, because everything else in the area is/was triangular (and button copy) and I figured that one was only because of the weight of the backlit signs. That's why I was surprised when I saw one for two standard BGSes.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: xcellntbuy on September 27, 2014, 07:43:49 PM
Yes, $1 million, and that was in 1989.  Can you imagine what a similar sign would cost now, 25 years later?

Exit 1W on the Northway, southbound is known for its rollovers of big trucks.  The "usual suspects" were pinned on Quebec truck drivers.

The signs were put in place to keep drivers alert to the sharp turns leading to the Thruway's massive Exit 24 toll barrier.  The exit ramp has always been a tight one.  Before the massive reconstruction of all the exit ramps and highways, converting the ramps to flyovers and flyunders, the cloverleaf style Exit 1W had two tight 90-degree curves, hence the rollover issue.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 27, 2014, 07:55:01 PM
Yes, $1 million, and that was in 1989.  Can you imagine what a similar sign would cost now, 25 years later?

Exit 1W on the Northway, southbound is known for its rollovers of big trucks.  The "usual suspects" were pinned on Quebec truck drivers.

The signs were put in place to keep drivers alert to the sharp turns leading to the Thruway's massive Exit 24 toll barrier.  The exit ramp has always been a tight one.  Before the massive reconstruction of all the exit ramps and highways, converting the ramps to flyovers and flyunders, the cloverleaf style Exit 1W had two tight 90-degree curves, hence the rollover issue.

During the 8 years I lived near Albany, there were never fewer than 2 rollovers per month on that ramp. They have LED-highlighted signs and people still take that curve too fast. Because of the toll booth location, it can't even be fixed without putting the ramp through a wildlife preserve or realigning the rest of the interchange to get rid of the loop ramp. Also prone to backups, because the through movement (I-87 south / I-90 west) must squeeze into one lane and exit itself. That right there is justification to restripe for an option lane (which they should have had all along) or build the E-ZPass ramp they've been talking about since electronic tolling was first introduced.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on September 27, 2014, 09:03:08 PM
Agree. As a taxpayer, I think that the redundant agencies in this state need to be merged. Actually, I think every highway transportation "authority" in the state needs to be merged into NYSDOT: NYSTA, NYSBA, TBTA (MTA Bridges and Tunnels), and the transportation portions of NYSDEC and various park authorities. You can should even throw the Port Authority in there by splitting it between NJDOT and NYSDOT to get rid of all the crap it does. Know how much money that would save? Just have to time stuff to coincide with retirements. Not that I think it'll ever happen, but it would certainly help put the state in the black. Will jobs be affected? Somewhat, but not as many low-levels as you would think, because the same level of maintenance has to be provided. What would be affected are the redundant chair positions, which would be eliminated as people retire.
Past consolidation efforts have resulted in most of the staff reductions coming from line staff, not management.  The example that comes to mind is Region 1's move in with Main Office that happened a few years ago.  Region 1 now has a smaller staff than any other (for example, planning shrunk for 7 to 3, and the HR and IT staff were essentially eliminated).  HR/IT is getting consolidated across the state, and with each increment towards that end, the service gets worse and worse.

There are quite a few retirements coming up, given the state's age distribution, and it's been rumored that the move in with the Thruway is deliberately designed to get some people to retire (the location is much worse than where we are now; there are no services within walking distance, which is already annoying people who like to go shopping, go to the bank, or get takeout on their lunch break; also, the location means that most people will have a significantly longer commute and suddenly find themselves paying Thruway tolls just to get to work).

I highly doubt the MTA bridges would be rolled into NYSDOT.  Then they wouldn't be able to use the tolls to subsidize transit any more.

The state currently is in the black and has been since 2011/2012.  And, honestly, state taxes aren't that bad compared to federal taxes.  Of course, I'm the oddball because I honestly don't care about money beyond the amount that society forces me to, and I don't view tax money as "my" money after it's been paid.

During the 8 years I lived near Albany, there were never fewer than 2 rollovers per month on that ramp. They have LED-highlighted signs and people still take that curve too fast. Because of the toll booth location, it can't even be fixed without putting the ramp through a wildlife preserve or realigning the rest of the interchange to get rid of the loop ramp. Also prone to backups, because the through movement (I-87 south / I-90 west) must squeeze into one lane and exit itself. That right there is justification to restripe for an option lane (which they should have had all along) or build the E-ZPass ramp they've been talking about since electronic tolling was first introduced.
It would help if the cars would realize that the advisory speeds are for the trucks and that they don't have to slam on their brakes if they're not behind one.  It would also help if people would pay attention to the "Thruway traffic keep right" sign instead of acting surprised and cutting over at the last second.

I don't understand the aversion to option lanes at that junction.  They would help out a lot.

I'm not expecting those E-ZPass ramps to arrive any time soon either.  The best time to do it would have been during the recent widening.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 27, 2014, 09:29:31 PM
I don't understand the aversion to option lanes at that junction.  They would help out a lot.

I don't know why most of NYSDOT is opposed to them in general. Region 4 probably takes the cake Upstate, R1 has one at I-87 Exit 2 and one more at I-787's southern end, 5 has 5 that I can think of, two of which are at the edge of NYSTA maintenance and two more on the Robert Moses State Parkway, Utica, Syracuse, and Binghamton each have a couple, and a couple more on I-86 in Region 6. Much more common downstate, with the City, the Island, and Westchester each having several.

I remember moving to Ohio and seeing that every semi-major interchange has an option lane in addition to an exit-only lane. This is also the standard in suburban Ontario, notably on the QEW near Toronto. Typical New York practice is to add a second dedicated lane or add the lane after the ramp departs.

Speaking of I-87, Exits 6, 7, and 9 could benefit from option lanes. Both could do it with minor restriping.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 27, 2014, 09:52:33 PM
How is the upstate Thruway handling 4 lanes in general.  Besides the TZ bridge, are there even any thoughts on the table about a major overhaul of the mainline ALA the PA Pike?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 27, 2014, 10:00:28 PM
How is the upstate Thruway handling 4 lanes in general.  Besides the TZ bridge, are there even any thoughts on the table about a major overhaul of the mainline ALA the PA Pike?

Oh, yes there are. The entire thing was built with an eventual expansion to 6 lanes in mind, so all bridges are wide enough for an extra lane. South of Albany and between Utica and Buffalo could certainly use 6 lanes. The current 4 lanes is a bit tight in those areas. I don't have access to data, but probably LOS D most of the day. Not needed in the Mohawk Valley or west of Exit 57- not enough traffic and the parallel routes are of relatively high quality.

There's a growing push for a widening south of Albany and between I-490 and Buffalo because of the high traffic in those areas.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on September 27, 2014, 10:44:19 PM
Quote
The entire thing was built with an eventual expansion to 6 lanes in mind, so all bridges are wide enough for an extra lane.

While it helps with eventual expansion, I thought NYSTA did this primarily so they could maintain 4 traffic lanes on one side when/if they had to do major bridge maintenance/rehab/replacement could be done on the other side.  This was certainly the case with several bridge projects west of Syracuse about 10 years ago.

Quote
I don't have access to data, but probably LOS D most of the day.

Still acceptable to FHWA.  What little recurring congestion I've run into on the Thruway has all been at or south of Kingston, with most of that north of I-287 due to higher weekend traffic volumes on summer or holiday weekends.

Don't get me wrong, another lane would be a nice-to-have, but I don't really see it needed north of Rockland County.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on September 27, 2014, 10:50:00 PM
Quote
I don't have access to data, but probably LOS D most of the day.

Excuse my stupidity here, but what exactly is LOS [D]? The only abbreviation for LOS is Line of Sight which I don't think makes sense in this context...

Also, has the Thruway ever considered switching to mile-based exits?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on September 27, 2014, 10:54:12 PM
LOS = Level of Service.  Quantified, calculated, and methodology via the Highway Capacity Manual.

The calculations give a letter grade (A thru F, just like in school except that "E" is included) for LOS, which for freeway-grade facilities is based on the vehicle density per lane mile.  "F", of course, is "failing" and is equated with oversaturated, below-speed limit flow.  "D" equates to near-saturated, but still flowing at or near the speed limit.  "E" is right on the cusp, where flow is at saturation and any small incident or event (crash, police activity, adding a few more cars to the mix) would trigger a slowdown.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on September 28, 2014, 10:14:07 AM


Also, has the Thruway ever considered switching to mile-based exits?

While New York State is eventually going to switch to mile-based exits, I believe that the Thruway Authority will be the very last holdout on the sequential numbering. Not only would the interchanges need to be renumbered, but all of the mileposts would have to be changed as well. They believe there will be too much driver confusion with instances where Batavia is Exit 106 (based on I-90 mileposts) and Saugerties is Exit 110 (based on I-87 mileposts).

About 10 years ago or so they were tossing around the idea of renumbering the interchanges from west to east and then down I-87 so that I-87 would be "backwards" instead of I-90 but I don't know if that would still be the plan.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 28, 2014, 11:50:03 AM
While New York State is eventually going to switch to mile-based exits, I believe that the Thruway Authority will be the very last holdout on the sequential numbering. Not only would the interchanges need to be renumbered, but all of the mileposts would have to be changed as well. They believe there will be too much driver confusion with instances where Batavia is Exit 106 (based on I-90 mileposts) and Saugerties is Exit 110 (based on I-87 mileposts).
When the PA Turnpike switched over to mileage based exits, they had to incorporate both the mainline (76/276) as well as the Northeast Extension (476) into that system.  The NE extension exit numbering (which continues the I-476 mileage) now overlaps the mileage of the western end of the mainline numbering (since the NE extension exits don't have a qualifier like NE56 instead of 56).  Before the renumbering, the mainline had exits 1-29 and the extension had 31-38, to avoid the overlap.  Of course there aren't any duplicate numbered exits, but there would in theory be potential for this to happen with a new interchange and they would have to shift the new number accordingly to avoid this.

Drivers seem to have figured this out, so I assume the Thruway could get away with something similar, based on the mileage of the individual interstates.  I think an exit qualifier might be better for each leg but that's probably not gonna happen...


Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on September 28, 2014, 01:06:34 PM
Yeah, mileage based for the Thruway I agree is inevitable. For what it's worth, I've enjoyed having I-87 having three Exit 1's.  :D
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on September 28, 2014, 01:17:53 PM
While New York State is eventually going to switch to mile-based exits, I believe that the Thruway Authority will be the very last holdout on the sequential numbering. Not only would the interchanges need to be renumbered, but all of the mileposts would have to be changed as well. They believe there will be too much driver confusion with instances where Batavia is Exit 106 (based on I-90 mileposts) and Saugerties is Exit 110 (based on I-87 mileposts).
When the PA Turnpike switched over to mileage based exits, they had to incorporate both the mainline (76/276) as well as the Northeast Extension (476) into that system.  The NE extension exit numbering (which continues the I-476 mileage) now overlaps the mileage of the western end of the mainline numbering (since the NE extension exits don't have a qualifier like NE56 instead of 56).  Before the renumbering, the mainline had exits 1-29 and the extension had 31-38, to avoid the overlap.  Of course there aren't any duplicate numbered exits, but there would in theory be potential for this to happen with a new interchange and they would have to shift the new number accordingly to avoid this.

Drivers seem to have figured this out, so I assume the Thruway could get away with something similar, based on the mileage of the individual interstates.  I think an exit qualifier might be better for each leg but that's probably not gonna happen...



Look at the KTA in Kansas.  For I-70 it creates an overlap as the numbers where I-70 join the Turnpike has the same set of numbers further west in Kansas on I-70.  No problems that I know of there.

Do not forget about I-87 having two of its three exit numbers with the number "1" real close to each other for centuries and no one ever got confused. 

Having duplicate and overlapping numbers on the I-87 would not be an issue I would think.  I just think that I-87 north of I-90 should continue with the number it left off on the Thruway and that maybe the exit numbers of the Major Deegan should be continued on the Thruway if they choose to keep the current Thruway mile markers.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on September 28, 2014, 03:27:43 PM
While New York State is eventually going to switch to mile-based exits, I believe that the Thruway Authority will be the very last holdout on the sequential numbering. Not only would the interchanges need to be renumbered, but all of the mileposts would have to be changed as well. They believe there will be too much driver confusion with instances where Batavia is Exit 106 (based on I-90 mileposts) and Saugerties is Exit 110 (based on I-87 mileposts).
When the PA Turnpike switched over to mileage based exits, they had to incorporate both the mainline (76/276) as well as the Northeast Extension (476) into that system.  The NE extension exit numbering (which continues the I-476 mileage) now overlaps the mileage of the western end of the mainline numbering (since the NE extension exits don't have a qualifier like NE56 instead of 56).  Before the renumbering, the mainline had exits 1-29 and the extension had 31-38, to avoid the overlap.  Of course there aren't any duplicate numbered exits, but there would in theory be potential for this to happen with a new interchange and they would have to shift the new number accordingly to avoid this.

Drivers seem to have figured this out, so I assume the Thruway could get away with something similar, based on the mileage of the individual interstates.  I think an exit qualifier might be better for each leg but that's probably not gonna happen...



Look at the KTA in Kansas.  For I-70 it creates an overlap as the numbers where I-70 join the Turnpike has the same set of numbers further west in Kansas on I-70.  No problems that I know of there.

Do not forget about I-87 having two of its three exit numbers with the number "1" real close to each other for centuries and no one ever got confused. 

Having duplicate and overlapping numbers on the I-87 would not be an issue I would think.  I just think that I-87 north of I-90 should continue with the number it left off on the Thruway and that maybe the exit numbers of the Major Deegan should be continued on the Thruway if they choose to keep the current Thruway mile markers.

I had a conversation with NYSDOT about a year ago about the conversion and their plan is to continue the mileposts and distance based exit numbers from I-87 on the Northway. The issue is that their plan shows the numbers based on mile zero being the beginning of the Thruway and not inclusive of the Major Deegan. When I pointed this out, I think they made the determination to recalculate the mileposts and exit numbers, though there is no formal plan in place to change the numbers at this time. I think it's going to be fairly soon (within the next decade) though.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on September 28, 2014, 03:34:52 PM
However if they do decide to count the whole entire Northway as an individual route with its own mile based numbers, it cannot be worse than Illinois having I-70 east of its split with I-55 using I-270's numbers from where it ends.

Then you have I-19 which has the kilometers based system which is only useful to the Mexican's who come across the border, but nonetheless different system even though using the same principal.

Oh, yeah the I-17 thing not starting with zero cause of a technicality of the way Arizona posts mileage is not traditional we cannot forget.

Hopefully the LIE will become more better now that the Mid Manhattan Expressway is totally dead, they can have all of its numbers starting with zero at the Queens- Midtown Tunnel as one good thing out of this.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 28, 2014, 04:13:40 PM
While New York State is eventually going to switch to mile-based exits, I believe that the Thruway Authority will be the very last holdout on the sequential numbering. Not only would the interchanges need to be renumbered, but all of the mileposts would have to be changed as well. They believe there will be too much driver confusion with instances where Batavia is Exit 106 (based on I-90 mileposts) and Saugerties is Exit 110 (based on I-87 mileposts).
When the PA Turnpike switched over to mileage based exits, they had to incorporate both the mainline (76/276) as well as the Northeast Extension (476) into that system.  The NE extension exit numbering (which continues the I-476 mileage) now overlaps the mileage of the western end of the mainline numbering (since the NE extension exits don't have a qualifier like NE56 instead of 56).  Before the renumbering, the mainline had exits 1-29 and the extension had 31-38, to avoid the overlap.  Of course there aren't any duplicate numbered exits, but there would in theory be potential for this to happen with a new interchange and they would have to shift the new number accordingly to avoid this.

Drivers seem to have figured this out, so I assume the Thruway could get away with something similar, based on the mileage of the individual interstates.  I think an exit qualifier might be better for each leg but that's probably not gonna happen...



Look at the KTA in Kansas.  For I-70 it creates an overlap as the numbers where I-70 join the Turnpike has the same set of numbers further west in Kansas on I-70.  No problems that I know of there.

Do not forget about I-87 having two of its three exit numbers with the number "1" real close to each other for centuries and no one ever got confused. 

Having duplicate and overlapping numbers on the I-87 would not be an issue I would think.  I just think that I-87 north of I-90 should continue with the number it left off on the Thruway and that maybe the exit numbers of the Major Deegan should be continued on the Thruway if they choose to keep the current Thruway mile markers.

I had a conversation with NYSDOT about a year ago about the conversion and their plan is to continue the mileposts and distance based exit numbers from I-87 on the Northway. The issue is that their plan shows the numbers based on mile zero being the beginning of the Thruway and not inclusive of the Major Deegan. When I pointed this out, I think they made the determination to recalculate the mileposts and exit numbers, though there is no formal plan in place to change the numbers at this time. I think it's going to be fairly soon (within the next decade) though.

As it should be. A lot of the traffic on the Thruway continuing past NY 17 is bound for the Northway, especially on weekends and holidays. Many of these people aren't necessarily repeat travelers going to the Adirondacks or western Vermont. I know several people who got confused when looking for exits 16 or above. You pass your exit number, but your actual exit is well over a hundred miles away. The Exit 23s, for example, are less than 70 miles apart along I-87, separated by about 70 minutes of projected travel time. You shouldn't be passing the same number twice in that distance if you're two counties apart in the same state.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on September 29, 2014, 03:01:54 AM
How many New Yorkers actually call I-87 by its number while aligned on The Thruway?  To many when they here Exit 23 for I-87 will think of the Northway, which is mostly referred to as I-87 where the Thruway portion is not.  People who travel up to the Adirondacks and Montreal will not confuse the toll road's exits as I-87's own.

As far as many are concerned, I-87 begins in Albany and heads north.  The Thruway and the Deegan are simply just "The Thruway" and "The Major Deegan."
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: amroad17 on September 29, 2014, 05:09:29 AM
I have always believed that the Thruway is its own entity and should just use the current milemarkers for the future conversion to mile-based exits.  IMHO, there really is no need to add the extra expense of changing milemarkers when the only signs that would need to be changed would be the exit tabs, gore signs, and overlays on the blue info signs.  Of course, there would be the expense of new toll tickets with the new numbers--which would happen in my scenario or JP's (upstatenyroads) scenario.

The Berkshire section would have its own numbers (B6, B15, and B23, I believe) and the Niagara section (I-190) would just use its current milemarkers.

As far as the Northway I-87 section is concerned, I am non-committal with either a continuance of the Thruway numbers (148-333) or using the current milemarkers to use for the mile-based exits.  I would not be confused with dealing with three exit 1's along I-87 as I would realize that I-87 is a part of three separate freeways/tollway.

The PA Turnpike was mentioned a few posts back.  I believe the Lehigh Valley/Allentown interchange had to be numbered 56 (even though it is at mile 57) because the Monroeville interchange is Exit 57 and the PA Tpk probably did not want duplicate numbers listed on their toll tickets.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Jim on September 29, 2014, 07:14:09 AM
If the best point against renumbering to have exit numbers and mile markers that follow the the route numbers (as it done nearly everywhere else) is that it is more confusing to motorists than having the current 3 separate numbering schemes for each of I-87 and I-90, then I see this as a very one-sided argument.  Anyone who's been at the I-87/I-90 interchange in Albany during holidays and other times when the traffic isn't just the regulars who know the roads well has probably seen the confusion that results from the current scheme.

I'd go a step further and argue that an exit renumbering is the right opportunity to do some renumberings in NYC, like having I-87 replace the I-278 designation from the Triboro/JFK to its junction with I-95 or even US 1/9 in NJ.  But that's probably a topic for another thread.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 29, 2014, 09:04:33 AM
If the best point against renumbering to have exit numbers and mile markers that follow the the route numbers (as it done nearly everywhere else) is that it is more confusing to motorists than having the current 3 separate numbering schemes for each of I-87 and I-90, then I see this as a very one-sided argument.  Anyone who's been at the I-87/I-90 interchange in Albany during holidays and other times when the traffic isn't just the regulars who know the roads well has probably seen the confusion that results from the current scheme.

I'd go a step further and argue that an exit renumbering is the right opportunity to do some renumberings in NYC, like having I-87 replace the I-278 designation from the Triboro/JFK to its junction with I-95 or even US 1/9 in NJ.  But that's probably a topic for another thread.

Thank you. From growing up near Albany, I know how much of a mess the Exit 24 area is because it can be confusing if you aren't in the area often. As the exit numbering for both I-87 and I-90 starts at the toll booths, you get cases such as Exit 1 and both Exit 2s being a mile apart. You don't know how many people bound for Colonie Center get off at Washington Avenue instead of NY 5. Additionally, I always found it odd that both my grandmother and I lived near an Exit 19 on I-87, except I lived 2 hours away.

I-90 has 3 numbering schemes, with Exits 1-3 of two in close proximity and one running backwards of the standard, which is increasing from west to east. Not the best scheme. If I-87 and I-90 mileages are used for exit numbering, there will be 2 duplicates: 11 (current 4 (A), 5 (B) and 60) and 68 (current 17 and 54). One of each number would be on a toll-free segment and the western 11 would be on the small ticket system. Didn't calculate the Berkshire Spur, but those would be in the high 300s.

As for the I-87 extension, I always wondered that myself. Probably couldn't change it now because of how substandard it is.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PHLBOS on September 29, 2014, 09:36:58 AM
When the PA Turnpike switched over to mileage based exits, they had to incorporate both the mainline (76/276) as well as the Northeast Extension (476) into that system.  The NE extension exit numbering (which continues the I-476 mileage) now overlaps the mileage of the western end of the mainline numbering (since the NE extension exits don't have a qualifier like NE56 instead of 56).  Before the renumbering, the mainline had exits 1-29 and the extension had 31-38, to avoid the overlap.  Of course there aren't any duplicate numbered exits, but there would in theory be potential for this to happen with a new interchange and they would have to shift the new number accordingly to avoid this.

Drivers seem to have figured this out, so I assume the Thruway could get away with something similar, based on the mileage of the individual interstates.  I think an exit qualifier might be better for each leg but that's probably not gonna happen...
No offense, but I believe that PA's exit umber conversion along its Turnpike vs. the situation that exists along NY Thruway is an apples vs. oranges comparison.

While the East-West Turnpike changes route numbers (from I-76 to I-276) at Valley Forge, the orientation of the Turnpike is unchanged and the numbers are still increasing while heading eastbound.  Note: when the I-95 interchange is completed, the Turnpike east of that interchange will receive I-95-based exit numbers; but, again, the numbers will still increase while heading towards NJ.

In comparision, the orientation of the mainline Thruway does indeed change from a north-south to an east-west road roughly where I-87 & 90 change corridors.  Under the current numbering, the exit numbers & mile markers along the I-90 section of the Thruway have been backwards oriented (in the eyes of FHWA) from the get-go.

One option, could be that one of the segments (be it the north-south I-87 or the east-west I-90) of the Thruway contain a lettered prefix in front of the exit number (example: A1).  Such would address the likelihood of a numerical overlap between the two sections and give hint of a change in the highway's orientation.  Whether such an approach will survive the FHWA muster or not is unknown; but such might be the best way to overcome the lengthy backwards mile-marker/exit numbering that exists along the I-90 section today. 

BTW & IIRC, an early version of the mile-marker exit numbering plan along the NE Extension called for assigning the Lansdale Interchange (PA 63) Exit 30 but it was decided that since the existing exit number was only off by 1; it was left alone (at Exit 31).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 29, 2014, 09:59:37 AM
When the PA Turnpike switched over to mileage based exits, they had to incorporate both the mainline (76/276) as well as the Northeast Extension (476) into that system.  The NE extension exit numbering (which continues the I-476 mileage) now overlaps the mileage of the western end of the mainline numbering (since the NE extension exits don't have a qualifier like NE56 instead of 56).  Before the renumbering, the mainline had exits 1-29 and the extension had 31-38, to avoid the overlap.  Of course there aren't any duplicate numbered exits, but there would in theory be potential for this to happen with a new interchange and they would have to shift the new number accordingly to avoid this.

Drivers seem to have figured this out, so I assume the Thruway could get away with something similar, based on the mileage of the individual interstates.  I think an exit qualifier might be better for each leg but that's probably not gonna happen...
No offense, but I believe that PA's exit umber conversion along its Turnpike vs. the situation that exists along NY Thruway is an apples vs. oranges comparison.

While the East-West Turnpike changes route numbers (from I-76 to I-276) at Valley Forge, the orientation of the Turnpike is unchanged and the numbers are still increasing while heading eastbound.  Note: when the I-95 interchange is completed, the Turnpike east of that interchange will receive I-95-based exit numbers; but, again, the numbers will still increase while heading towards NJ.

In comparision, the orientation of the mainline Thruway does indeed change from a north-south to an east-west road roughly where I-87 & 90 change corridors.  Under the current numbering, the exit numbers & mile markers along the I-90 section of the Thruway have been backwards oriented (in the eyes of FHWA) from the get-go.

One option, could be that one of the segments (be it the north-south I-87 or the east-west I-90) of the Thruway contain a lettered prefix in front of the exit number (example: A1).  Such would address the likelihood of a numerical overlap between the two sections and give hint of a change in the highway's orientation.  Whether such an approach will survive the FHWA muster or not is unknown; but such might be the best way to overcome the lengthy backwards mile-marker/exit numbering that exists along the I-90 section today. 

BTW & IIRC, an early version of the mile-marker exit numbering plan along the NE Extension called for assigning the Lansdale Interchange (PA 63) Exit 30 but it was decided that since the existing exit number was only off by 1; it was left alone (at Exit 31).
I'm more referring to the NE Extension vs. the mainline, since they both act within the same ticket system.  Yes, it's not exactly the same since with the Thruway you are staying on the mainline, but you have the overlapping exits/mileage within the same system, and you are 'turning' onto a different interstate as with 276/476.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: hbelkins on September 29, 2014, 10:39:57 AM
Last year when I was traveling east on the Thruway approaching Albany, my intent was to stay on I-90 eastbound (to complete I-90 in New York) and I knew full well where I wanted to go.

Yet, after I passed through the toll booth where I-90 departs the Thruway, what did I do? I got on I-87 going north!!!

If I got turned around there and took the wrong exit, I can very easily see it happening to someone less road-minded.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on September 29, 2014, 10:56:42 AM
Yet, after I passed through the toll booth where I-90 departs the Thruway, what did I do? I got on I-87 going north!!!

If I got turned around there and took the wrong exit, I can very easily see it happening to someone less road-minded.

I looked at the GMSV of the split, and it's clearly signed that the 2 left lanes lead to I-90 East, while the right two lanes are signed as I-87 North. Was it a momentary lapse of concentration? The only thing I could think of was that you were in the right-most lanes of the tollbooths and you couldn't get over to the left lanes in time.

Sorry if I sound like an ass, but I'm just curious because I think there would be ample time to read those signs as you exit the tollbooths. Unless I am missing something here...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 29, 2014, 01:17:21 PM
Yet, after I passed through the toll booth where I-90 departs the Thruway, what did I do? I got on I-87 going north!!!

If I got turned around there and took the wrong exit, I can very easily see it happening to someone less road-minded.

I looked at the GMSV of the split, and it's clearly signed that the 2 left lanes lead to I-90 East, while the right two lanes are signed as I-87 North. Was it a momentary lapse of concentration? The only thing I could think of was that you were in the right-most lanes of the tollbooths and you couldn't get over to the left lanes in time.

Sorry if I sound like an ass, but I'm just curious because I think there would be ample time to read those signs as you exit the tollbooths. Unless I am missing something here...

There isn't ample time if the toll booths are backed up and you're on the right. It's also an immediate departure. The first advance sign is 1/10 mile before the split, just inside NYSDOT territory. Miss the sign and you're gone. That area can get pretty crazy and a driver really has to pay attention to surrounding traffic. It's one of the busiest toll plazas on the Thruway and possibly the busiest upstate. Traffic is rarely as light as street view shows and the lack of signs doesn't help things.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on September 29, 2014, 01:29:51 PM
There isn't ample time if the toll booths are backed up and you're on the right. It's also an immediate departure. The first advance sign is 1/10 mile before the split, just inside NYSDOT territory. Miss the sign and you're gone. That area can get pretty crazy and a driver really has to pay attention to surrounding traffic. It's one of the busiest toll plazas on the Thruway and possibly the busiest upstate. Traffic is rarely as light as street view shows and the lack of signs doesn't help things.

Sounds like the solution would be to add some more signage, preferably before the toll booth so people are at least semi-aligned to where they want to go. I think it's a pretty poor decision for such a fast split while cars are shuffling around trying to get where they want to go.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 02:01:52 PM
Regarding widening, it would be nice, but not really needed.  Traffic moves fine most of the time, though issues can develop between Buffalo and Syracuse and south of Albany on holiday weekends.

Most people in the area consider I-87 and the Northway to be one and the same... even the Northway stub to US 20 that's only a reference route gets called "I-87".  The Thruway is just "the Thruway", and nobody in the NYC area uses numbers other than roadgeeks.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: hbelkins on September 29, 2014, 03:38:52 PM
Yeah. Alignment coming out of the tollbooth played a huge role in it. I realized what I'd done immediately and knew I could take the NY 5 exit to loop back around, which I did.

That, and I think I was expecting the I-87 lanes to be on the left instead of the right.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 05:17:58 PM
Interesting question: if the Thruway were to go AET before NY converts to mile-based, would its mileposts and numbers be eliminated entirely in favor of I-90 and I-87?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 29, 2014, 05:32:13 PM
Interesting question: if the Thruway were to go AET before NY converts to mile-based, would its mileposts and numbers be eliminated entirely in favor of I-90 and I-87?

Likely. In a few years, they'll be one of the very few ticket systems left. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are going AET soon. Heck, even the Thruway is starting a conversion soon: the new Tappan Zee Bridge will be AET, along with the Exit 16 and Yonkers barriers per a few articles I've seen. The temporary Tappan Zee all-electronic "barriers" started construction earlier this month, supposedly. I wouldn't be shocked if they expand it across the entire system after these locations get it: first the other 3 barrier tolls, then the western part of the state, and finally everywhere else. Grand Island AET might bring it up to LOS E from the F it currently sees much of the day.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on September 29, 2014, 05:52:27 PM
Here's a set of signs I devised to help guide motorists into the correct lanes (this would be placed before the tollbooths):

(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NYThruway-Tollbooth-Signage_zps3b413d2d.png)

The lane markers are designed like the numbers on top of the tollbooths themselves for continuity.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on September 29, 2014, 06:54:09 PM
Nice job Zeffy.  The only possible issue here is having "Albany" and "Albany Int'l Airport" on adjacent signs, which might potentially confuse people who only glance at signs (most drivers out there?).  Drop the "Albany" from the I-87 north sign (and consider adding an airport symbol as well), and you seem to have a winner here.

Looking at GSV, one other thing that might help would be pavement route shield markings in the approach apron to the toll plaza.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on September 29, 2014, 07:12:44 PM
Nice job Zeffy.  The only possible issue here is having "Albany" and "Albany Int'l Airport" on adjacent signs, which might potentially confuse people who only glance at signs (most drivers out there?).  Drop the "Albany" from the I-87 north sign (and consider adding an airport symbol as well), and you seem to have a winner here.

Thanks!  :)  One thing I wanted to change was the usage of Albany on the I-90 sign, because at this point you pretty much are in Albany. I didn't know how much traffic would utilize I-90 or take surface streets (via exit 1N or others along I-90) to get to points in Albany. My second choice for control cities were Springfield - Boston, intended for people traveling to Massachusetts. In the end I just ended up replicating the signs after the tollbooths and adding the USE LANE elements to the bottom.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Jim on September 29, 2014, 07:48:41 PM
Last year when I was traveling east on the Thruway approaching Albany, my intent was to stay on I-90 eastbound (to complete I-90 in New York) and I knew full well where I wanted to go.

Yet, after I passed through the toll booth where I-90 departs the Thruway, what did I do? I got on I-87 going north!!!

If I got turned around there and took the wrong exit, I can very easily see it happening to someone less road-minded.

Much better what you did than what I see way too often: someone either stopping in the triangle area at the split with no idea which way they meant to go (I'm pretty sure you're beyond the signs by then), or cutting across multiple lanes of traffic in a panic move, or backing down part of a ramp after realizing their mistake.   I know these things can happen almost anywhere, but it happens way too much coming out of the Exit 24 tolls.

I've only once seen someone wind up on the wrong side of the barrier and trying to enter the westbound lanes of I-90 going eastbound.  Fortunately that person realized their mistake quickly enough to avoid a high-speed head on collision and veered onto the shoulder.  Have to say, seeing it happen and knowing what could have happened got my heart racing almost as much as if I narrowly avoided being in my own collision.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 29, 2014, 07:50:32 PM
Nice job Zeffy.  The only possible issue here is having "Albany" and "Albany Int'l Airport" on adjacent signs, which might potentially confuse people who only glance at signs (most drivers out there?).  Drop the "Albany" from the I-87 north sign (and consider adding an airport symbol as well), and you seem to have a winner here.

Thanks!  :)  One thing I wanted to change was the usage of Albany on the I-90 sign, because at this point you pretty much are in Albany. I didn't know how much traffic would utilize I-90 or take surface streets (via exit 1N or others along I-90) to get to points in Albany. My second choice for control cities were Springfield - Boston, intended for people traveling to Massachusetts. In the end I just ended up replicating the signs after the tollbooths and adding the USE LANE elements to the bottom.

Nice work, but I'd emphasize the US 20 signs a little less. Very minor movement compared to the other two, almost to the point where any traffic bound for it is negligible.

General comments:

As Jim said, stuff like that is way too common at that interchange. As in it probably happens several times per day due to the lack of advance signage. By the time you see the sign, if you're in the wrong lane, it's too late.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on September 29, 2014, 10:50:27 PM
Interesting question: if the Thruway were to go AET before NY converts to mile-based, would its mileposts and numbers be eliminated entirely in favor of I-90 and I-87?

I highly doubt it, unless NYSTA is absorbed into NYSDOT. Last I heard the Thruway was of the strong opinion that their own mainline took precedence over the interstates that happen to use it. If they had any interest in fixing the exit numbers they could have already done so decades ago.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on September 30, 2014, 02:17:16 AM
So "Clearview" is what the signage is termed. I first noticed this clean signage going up around the Cheektowaga area back in June. It's very neat in my opinion.

And the ground mounted signs... For some reason crossing back into my home state and seeing pylon signs in states like Ohio make me feel as though the TA just doesn't have the money for the extra metal. It would look much better though if they did use pylon mounts. I wonder if they should widen the 90 to 3 lanes going to the 490.

Also, I'm going through the Cleveland Dr bridge document and I notice on page 22 there are 8 lanes all across the page. Is this really the case in that they are expanding the Thruway in that area? In addition, there are really crappy concrete Jersey barriers past the I-190, but before that they are in top notch condition. I wonder if there are plans to extend them.

Edit: Just realized there are already eight lanes there...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on September 30, 2014, 02:56:28 AM
Forgive my second post but I like the idea of the monotube cantilevers. It adds a more Ohioish feel to the Thruway even if it is just a small section.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on September 30, 2014, 01:31:12 PM
Likely. In a few years, they'll be one of the very few ticket systems left. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are going AET soon. Heck, even the Thruway is starting a conversion soon: the new Tappan Zee Bridge will be AET, along with the Exit 16 and Yonkers barriers per a few articles I've seen. The temporary Tappan Zee all-electronic "barriers" started construction earlier this month, supposedly. I wouldn't be shocked if they expand it across the entire system after these locations get it: first the other 3 barrier tolls, then the western part of the state, and finally everywhere else. Grand Island AET might bring it up to LOS E from the F it currently sees much of the day.
Last I heard, the 2016 conversion will be at Tappan Zee, Yonkers, Harriman, and New Rochelle.  I'm not sure why Spring Valley is not included.  I could see Spring Valley, Tonawanda, and Niagara being converted soon thereafter if there aren't a ton of issues.  If all that's successful, the ticket system would probably be soon after in a single conversion.

Here's a set of signs I devised to help guide motorists into the correct lanes (this would be placed before the tollbooths):

(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NYThruway-Tollbooth-Signage_zps3b413d2d.png)

The lane markers are designed like the numbers on top of the tollbooths themselves for continuity.
I'd use 1 and 2 for Crossgates/US 20, 2-5 for I-87, and 5-9 for I-90.

Interesting question: if the Thruway were to go AET before NY converts to mile-based, would its mileposts and numbers be eliminated entirely in favor of I-90 and I-87?

I highly doubt it, unless NYSTA is absorbed into NYSDOT. Last I heard the Thruway was of the strong opinion that their own mainline took precedence over the interstates that happen to use it. If they had any interest in fixing the exit numbers they could have already done so decades ago.
Well, if NYSTA went AET, there would be no more ticket system any more, and therefore a lot less reason for the separate numbering system.

Forgive my second post but I like the idea of the monotube cantilevers. It adds a more Ohioish feel to the Thruway even if it is just a small section.
But the Thruway should have a Thruwayish feel to it, not an Ohioish feel...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 30, 2014, 07:47:01 PM
Spring Valley likely isn't on the list because it has highway-speed E-ZPass. Why eliminate the congestion there (none) when you can get rid of the 4 busiest barrier tolls on the system at places prone to backups? Also more of a cost savings when jobs get eliminated. We're talking millions of dollars that don't have to go toward salaries.

When they do any changes to the ticket system, the precedent is to do it west of Buffalo first, then move it elsewhere because it's easier to implement on a shorter (67 miles vs. 380 miles) section of highway. Could they do it all at once? Certainly. But it would be a more immediate savings if they got rid of as much as possible as early as possible. Since each ticket section has to change at once, it makes more sense to do the short one first.

If/when it does all change to AET, there won't be a reason why NYSTA couldn't add intermediate exits to relieve congestion. I could picture them between 16 and 17 (Cornwall), 23 and 24 (NY 85, direct ramps to Northway/US 20), 31 and 32 (west of Utica, NY 49), 46 and 47 (NY 36), 48A and 49 (Akron/Newstead and central Clarence/Lancaster), and 56 and 57 (US 20/62).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on September 30, 2014, 07:52:07 PM
You might add an exit between 15A and 16 at former Route 210 for Tuxedo and Southfields.  The stretch from Sloatsburg to Harriman could use one being its not ticketed at that point, but managed for over 35 years to stay a typical closed system rural exit set up. 

How about a direct ramp to US 6 Eastbound for West Point, Bear Mountain, and Peekskill?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on September 30, 2014, 10:06:59 PM
There are actually mono tubes by the BNIA: (http://gyazo.com/a5b1ba49ff9b86f83f4064ee95bcdc8b.png)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on September 30, 2014, 11:03:08 PM
There are actually mono tubes by the BNIA:
*image*

Difference is that those are on airport property, not technically a public highway even though it is run by a state agency. The difference here is that we're seeing something on a regular road. Not entirely the first in the state, but the first known one (unless someone can say otherwise) on a road maintained by NYSDOT/NYSTA/X County/Y City/etc. That's part of the reason why it's such a big deal. Airport signage is notoriously in violation of the MUTCD (heck, those look like original Thruway signage) and not representative of an area's signage practices. Seeing it on the Thruway is a completely different story that may be an indicator of what is to come.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: amroad17 on October 01, 2014, 05:17:15 AM
If the best point against renumbering to have exit numbers and mile markers that follow the the route numbers (as it done nearly everywhere else) is that it is more confusing to motorists than having the current 3 separate numbering schemes for each of I-87 and I-90, then I see this as a very one-sided argument.  Anyone who's been at the I-87/I-90 interchange in Albany during holidays and other times when the traffic isn't just the regulars who know the roads well has probably seen the confusion that results from the current scheme.

I'd go a step further and argue that an exit renumbering is the right opportunity to do some renumberings in NYC, like having I-87 replace the I-278 designation from the Triboro/JFK to its junction with I-95 or even US 1/9 in NJ.  But that's probably a topic for another thread.
I agree with you about I-87.  It should replace I-278 from its current terminus.  Until I-278 reaches Staten Island, the freeway follows more of a north/south orientation than east/west.  Perfect for a number such as 87.

During my earlier post, I forgot to mention how "free" I-90's exits could be renumbered.  Like with I-87, I really have no preference as to having the exits begin with "1" or "349" as long as they are mile-based.  However, with the first few exits in close proximity, I would number them in sequence (1N-S, 2, 3 or 349N-S, 350, 351) until the mileposts synch up again.  I do not mind lettered suffixes until they start getting to F, G, H, or even I (Chicago? Kansas City? Even Cincinnati with an Exit 1G on I-75?).   IIRC, the first six or seven exits on "free" I-90 are within the first four miles from the Thruway to Albany.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on October 01, 2014, 12:21:31 PM


During my earlier post, I forgot to mention how "free" I-90's exits could be renumbered.  Like with I-87, I really have no preference as to having the exits begin with "1" or "349" as long as they are mile-based.  However, with the first few exits in close proximity, I would number them in sequence (1N-S, 2, 3 or 349N-S, 350, 351) until the mileposts synch up again.  I do not mind lettered suffixes until they start getting to F, G, H, or even I (Chicago? Kansas City? Even Cincinnati with an Exit 1G on I-75?).   IIRC, the first six or seven exits on "free" I-90 are within the first four miles from the Thruway to Albany.

One of the things that has made NYSDOT hesitant about renumbering to distance based interchange numbers is the creation of lots of lettered suffixes in the five boroughs and on Long Island. I have always been a proponent of what you just described, for example on I-87 coming out of New York: number the interchanges sequentially until the sequential numbers overtake the mileposts, then convert to distance based. This would work perfectly on the I-87 portion of the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on October 01, 2014, 01:21:41 PM
Spring Valley likely isn't on the list because it has highway-speed E-ZPass. Why eliminate the congestion there (none) when you can get rid of the 4 busiest barrier tolls on the system at places prone to backups? Also more of a cost savings when jobs get eliminated. We're talking millions of dollars that don't have to go toward salaries.

When they do any changes to the ticket system, the precedent is to do it west of Buffalo first, then move it elsewhere because it's easier to implement on a shorter (67 miles vs. 380 miles) section of highway. Could they do it all at once? Certainly. But it would be a more immediate savings if they got rid of as much as possible as early as possible. Since each ticket section has to change at once, it makes more sense to do the short one first.

If/when it does all change to AET, there won't be a reason why NYSTA couldn't add intermediate exits to relieve congestion. I could picture them between 16 and 17 (Cornwall), 23 and 24 (NY 85, direct ramps to Northway/US 20), 31 and 32 (west of Utica, NY 49), 46 and 47 (NY 36), 48A and 49 (Akron/Newstead and central Clarence/Lancaster), and 56 and 57 (US 20/62).
Spring Valley still has manned cash booths though.  Since passenger cars are exempt from that toll, and trucks probably have E-ZPass, that means it's just tourists with boats and RVs.  Why not close the cash booths when the surrounding booths go AET?  Nothing says they can only convert four barriers to AET.  I still want to see how the Harriman to I-87 NB movement is handled with AET.

There have been plans to add interchanges even without AET.  The Thruway has long had proposals for interchanges at NY 88 and Union St (between exits 46 and 47).  I don't know what happened to the NY 88 idea, but the Union St one was defeated by Chili residents (never mind that they would be the primary benefactors and they currently don't have good access to the Thruway; my aunt an uncle have more direct access to the Thruway now, even though they live two and a half hours away, than they ever did in Chili despite being close to it; they were sad to see that proposal die).

There is a proposed interchange near Tuxedo that would have connected to NY 17A and Orange CR 106 (part of the proposed casino), but it was vetoed by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission, which controls CR 106.

If the best point against renumbering to have exit numbers and mile markers that follow the the route numbers (as it done nearly everywhere else) is that it is more confusing to motorists than having the current 3 separate numbering schemes for each of I-87 and I-90, then I see this as a very one-sided argument.  Anyone who's been at the I-87/I-90 interchange in Albany during holidays and other times when the traffic isn't just the regulars who know the roads well has probably seen the confusion that results from the current scheme.

I'd go a step further and argue that an exit renumbering is the right opportunity to do some renumberings in NYC, like having I-87 replace the I-278 designation from the Triboro/JFK to its junction with I-95 or even US 1/9 in NJ.  But that's probably a topic for another thread.
I agree with you about I-87.  It should replace I-278 from its current terminus.  Until I-278 reaches Staten Island, the freeway follows more of a north/south orientation than east/west.  Perfect for a number such as 87.

During my earlier post, I forgot to mention how "free" I-90's exits could be renumbered.  Like with I-87, I really have no preference as to having the exits begin with "1" or "349" as long as they are mile-based.  However, with the first few exits in close proximity, I would number them in sequence (1N-S, 2, 3 or 349N-S, 350, 351) until the mileposts synch up again.  I do not mind lettered suffixes until they start getting to F, G, H, or even I (Chicago? Kansas City? Even Cincinnati with an Exit 1G on I-75?).   IIRC, the first six or seven exits on "free" I-90 are within the first four miles from the Thruway to Albany.
If free 90 were converted to distance based using the existing mileage, the numbers would probably be 1A/B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10... (from 1N/S, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5A, 6, 6A, 7, 8, 9...).  I don't see what the anxiety about a few letters.  We have them now and nobody complains when they're the result of adding an interchange, even though that defeats the purpose of having any system at all beyond "random".
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on October 01, 2014, 02:50:37 PM
That's how I feel about stuff in New York City. There are a zillion letters already and adjacent exits in opposite directions have different numbers. If you combined stuff and renumbered many of those roads, there would be few more suffixes than currently exist. The "A" exits take away the "befefit" of a sequential system, especially when there are a lot of them.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 01, 2014, 04:51:06 PM

Regarding widening, it would be nice, but not really needed.  Traffic moves fine most of the time, though issues can develop between Buffalo and Syracuse and south of Albany on holiday weekends.

Most people in the area consider I-87 and the Northway to be one and the same... even the Northway stub to US 20 that's only a reference route gets called "I-87".  The Thruway is just "the Thruway", and nobody in the NYC area uses numbers other than roadgeeks.

Usually true, though "287" seems to be spoken much more than the ungainly "Cross Westchester Expressway," and in the parts of the NYC area not in New York, it becomes increasingly less the rule.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on October 01, 2014, 09:43:52 PM

Regarding widening, it would be nice, but not really needed.  Traffic moves fine most of the time, though issues can develop between Buffalo and Syracuse and south of Albany on holiday weekends.

Most people in the area consider I-87 and the Northway to be one and the same... even the Northway stub to US 20 that's only a reference route gets called "I-87".  The Thruway is just "the Thruway", and nobody in the NYC area uses numbers other than roadgeeks.

Usually true, though "287" seems to be spoken much more than the ungainly "Cross Westchester Expressway," and in the parts of the NYC area not in New York, it becomes increasingly less the rule.

I'll add I-684, NJ 495, NJ 3, everything else in Jersey save the Turnpike and Garden State, and several of the the NY 1xxs on Long Island. Many know that I-495 is the LIE, NY 27 is Sunrise (Montauk) Highway/Linden Boulevard, etc. even if they aren't referred to as such. NY 24 (the western one) and 25 are a little less known, probably because they tend to be in built-up areas with pretty familiar names and not much signage. Once you get into Westchester, Rockland, and Orange, it's all numbers unless it's a parkway.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on October 01, 2014, 11:34:23 PM
There is a proposed interchange near Tuxedo that would have connected to NY 17A and Orange CR 106 (part of the proposed casino), but it was vetoed by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission, which controls CR 106.

Not to mention that the people in southern Orange county like the fact that their area is somewhat inaccessible from the city and do not want the extra suburban development that a new exit off the Thruway would bring.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2014, 01:36:55 PM
What development?  The area is protected by Harriman State Park.  Having an exit at CR 106 would take some traffic off of NY 17 through Southfields and Tuxedo and lower counts later on in Sloatsburg and Woodbury on the other end.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 02, 2014, 02:36:14 PM

What development?  The area is protected by Harriman State Park.  Having an exit at CR 106 would take some traffic off of NY 17 through Southfields and Tuxedo and lower counts later on in Sloatsburg and Woodbury on the other end.

My theory is that the obvious target of this exit wouldn't be Tuxedo, 106 traffic, or even necessarily 17 traffic (which has two good nearby access points to the Thruway), but rather that to/from 17A, which is the most direct route from Greenwood Lake, Florida, Warwick, the whole Black Dirts area, and even places like Vernon, NJ (Action Park!).  The closest area to 17 along 17A (Sterling Forest) is now part of the PIP and thus protected, but I think you'd find pretty immediate pressure to develop whatever isn't. 

I know a lot of people from closer in who moved up that way because it's an affordable area to get a little space and quiet at a reasonable proximity to the city, and I could see why there might be pushback to something that might threaten that.  All just a guess, of course.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on October 02, 2014, 03:45:03 PM
Spring Valley likely isn't on the list because it has highway-speed E-ZPass. Why eliminate the congestion there (none) when you can get rid of the 4 busiest barrier tolls on the system at places prone to backups? Also more of a cost savings when jobs get eliminated. We're talking millions of dollars that don't have to go toward salaries.

When they do any changes to the ticket system, the precedent is to do it west of Buffalo first, then move it elsewhere because it's easier to implement on a shorter (67 miles vs. 380 miles) section of highway. Could they do it all at once? Certainly. But it would be a more immediate savings if they got rid of as much as possible as early as possible. Since each ticket section has to change at once, it makes more sense to do the short one first.

If/when it does all change to AET, there won't be a reason why NYSTA couldn't add intermediate exits to relieve congestion. I could picture them between 16 and 17 (Cornwall), 23 and 24 (NY 85, direct ramps to Northway/US 20), 31 and 32 (west of Utica, NY 49), 46 and 47 (NY 36), 48A and 49 (Akron/Newstead and central Clarence/Lancaster), and 56 and 57 (US 20/62).

The exit ideas are good. Having driven down US 20 between 56 and 57 my whole life, I know there isn't ample room for toll booths but there certainly is for AET.

In Utica, it is possible that the NY 840 expressway could be extended to the 90 and create an exit there.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on October 02, 2014, 04:05:31 PM

In Utica, it is possible that the NY 840 expressway could be extended to the 90 and create an exit there.

I spoke with the Thruway Authority a few years ago about an interchange at CR 840 between Westmoreland and Utica and they were very much against that idea, citing that it would be better to upgrade the roads between 840 and the Westmoreland interchange instead.

An E-ZPass only exit for NY 49 in the Town of Marcy is on the HOCTS (Herkimer Oneida Counties Transportation Study) long range plan, but is currently in the "unfunded" category. Local politicians have been pushing for it a little bit (along with the upgrade of NY 49 to NY 790 and eventually I-790, so it may happen someday.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2014, 04:25:02 PM

What development?  The area is protected by Harriman State Park.  Having an exit at CR 106 would take some traffic off of NY 17 through Southfields and Tuxedo and lower counts later on in Sloatsburg and Woodbury on the other end.

My theory is that the obvious target of this exit wouldn't be Tuxedo, 106 traffic, or even necessarily 17 traffic (which has two good nearby access points to the Thruway), but rather that to/from 17A, which is the most direct route from Greenwood Lake, Florida, Warwick, the whole Black Dirts area, and even places like Vernon, NJ (Action Park!).  The closest area to 17 along 17A (Sterling Forest) is now part of the PIP and thus protected, but I think you'd find pretty immediate pressure to develop whatever isn't. 

I know a lot of people from closer in who moved up that way because it's an affordable area to get a little space and quiet at a reasonable proximity to the city, and I could see why there might be pushback to something that might threaten that.  All just a guess, of course.
Interesting theory you have.  Just like in Delaware you have limited interchanges on DE 1.  No direct connection to DE 6 and DE 300, also that chose to put two interchanges on both sides of town rather than in the middle.  That is to prevent outskirt sprawl and keep the City of Smyrna the way it always was and also to keep the intown businesses alive as an interchange with DE 6 would indeed take that away.

Too bad DelDOT built a partial interchange with DE 8 further south as that may open up a new door for outskirt sprawl for Dover.

Also I-78 in NJ did well by not putting interchanges with CR 519 and Carpentersville Road near Phillipsburg and letting Exit 3 in Greenwhich be Phillipsburg's only interchange.
Title: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on October 02, 2014, 05:15:56 PM

In Utica, it is possible that the NY 840 expressway could be extended to the 90 and create an exit there.

I spoke with the Thruway Authority a few years ago about an interchange at CR 840 between Westmoreland and Utica and they were very much against that idea, citing that it would be better to upgrade the roads between 840 and the Westmoreland interchange instead.

An E-ZPass only exit for NY 49 in the Town of Marcy is on the HOCTS (Herkimer Oneida Counties Transportation Study) long range plan, but is currently in the "unfunded" category. Local politicians have been pushing for it a little bit (along with the upgrade of NY 49 to NY 790 and eventually I-790, so it may happen someday.

Man that's too bad. In my opinion it would improve the continuity of the highway, but there are always reasons to everything.

The Utica area and NYSTA do not have large pots of money either.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on October 02, 2014, 08:30:43 PM

What development?  The area is protected by Harriman State Park.  Having an exit at CR 106 would take some traffic off of NY 17 through Southfields and Tuxedo and lower counts later on in Sloatsburg and Woodbury on the other end.

My theory is that the obvious target of this exit wouldn't be Tuxedo, 106 traffic, or even necessarily 17 traffic (which has two good nearby access points to the Thruway), but rather that to/from 17A, which is the most direct route from Greenwood Lake, Florida, Warwick, the whole Black Dirts area, and even places like Vernon, NJ (Action Park!).  The closest area to 17 along 17A (Sterling Forest) is now part of the PIP and thus protected, but I think you'd find pretty immediate pressure to develop whatever isn't. 

I know a lot of people from closer in who moved up that way because it's an affordable area to get a little space and quiet at a reasonable proximity to the city, and I could see why there might be pushback to something that might threaten that.  All just a guess, of course.

The only warrant I can see for an interchange in that location is reducing traffic on the short stretch south of Sloatsburg. I don't think the Renaissance "Faire" that lasts a month and a half is enough to warrant an exit if NY 17 has the capacity to handle the extra traffic. I bet Sloatsburg and Harriman don't want to lose the traffic, either. Due to the terrain, an interchange there certainly wouldn't be cheap - there's a river on one side and a mountain on the other.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on October 02, 2014, 08:59:36 PM

What development?  The area is protected by Harriman State Park.  Having an exit at CR 106 would take some traffic off of NY 17 through Southfields and Tuxedo and lower counts later on in Sloatsburg and Woodbury on the other end.

My theory is that the obvious target of this exit wouldn't be Tuxedo, 106 traffic, or even necessarily 17 traffic (which has two good nearby access points to the Thruway), but rather that to/from 17A, which is the most direct route from Greenwood Lake, Florida, Warwick, the whole Black Dirts area, and even places like Vernon, NJ (Action Park!).  The closest area to 17 along 17A (Sterling Forest) is now part of the PIP and thus protected, but I think you'd find pretty immediate pressure to develop whatever isn't. 

I know a lot of people from closer in who moved up that way because it's an affordable area to get a little space and quiet at a reasonable proximity to the city, and I could see why there might be pushback to something that might threaten that.  All just a guess, of course.

Bingo. I know a couple people in Warwick, and the comment has been made by quite a few guests of theirs that there isn't a good direct route to where they live. Their response is that they like it that way and would strongly oppose any attempt to change it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 02, 2014, 10:20:34 PM
Warwick, NY and West Milford, NJ are effectively cut off by the Ramapo Mountains. There is no "easy" way to get there outside of Skyline Drive (curvy and slow), cutting through Wanaque on CR-511 (slower), or taking Eagle Valley Rd. and Sloatsburg road from NY-17 (out of the way). NJ-23 is too far south for many of those points as well.

Any interchange in the area would support this not so popular casino project right in the middle of preserved land.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/ny_casino_proposal_just_over_nj_border_an_environmental_gamble_opponents_say.html
http://www.northjersey.com/news/n-j-senate-asks-new-york-to-reject-sterling-forest-casino-bid-1.1093931
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on October 06, 2014, 04:32:12 PM
Improvements at Williamsville Toll Plaza in Amherst: http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214355_tab14-43_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf

Adding a new WB toll lane (to be numbered 12X) to reduce backups, creating a 20 mph E-ZPass lane for EB traffic, realigning the EB side to accommodate an extended EB auxillary lane from Exit 50 to the plaza, widening the WB approaches, and installing a constant slope median barrier within the project limits. Until AET comes in and changes everything, this will be a good (and relatively inexpensive) low-cost partial solution to the delays experienced at this barrier. Not the move that area politicians want, but it should have a positive impact.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on October 06, 2014, 05:21:49 PM
I remember when they were going to demolish the barrier and build a new ORT barrier in Pembroke.  Doubt we'll see it with the AET conversions downstate though.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on October 06, 2014, 05:37:49 PM
I remember when they were going to demolish the barrier and build a new ORT barrier in Pembroke.  Doubt we'll see it with the AET conversions downstate though.

Yeah, that died a couple years back. Not only would it have been very expensive, but the stretch between Clarence and Batavia is all wetlands that would have to be replaced. Wouldn't shock me if the bigwigs looked at the AET projects that have been successfully implemented across North America and figured that the Thruway would change over in the relatively near future (as they're already starting to do).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on October 07, 2014, 02:34:24 AM
I remember when they were going to demolish the barrier and build a new ORT barrier in Pembroke.  Doubt we'll see it with the AET conversions downstate though.

Yeah, that died a couple years back. Not only would it have been very expensive, but the stretch between Clarence and Batavia is all wetlands that would have to be replaced. Wouldn't shock me if the bigwigs looked at the AET projects that have been successfully implemented across North America and figured that the Thruway would change over in the relatively near future (as they're already starting to do).

I think the Thruway Authority feels they get a bigger cut if they keep the toll booths where they are, so they leech off of commuters from Exit 49/48.

I feel similar about Exit 57. Many motorists use that exit and pay higher tolls every day than they need too.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on October 07, 2014, 01:38:23 PM
I remember when they were going to demolish the barrier and build a new ORT barrier in Pembroke.  Doubt we'll see it with the AET conversions downstate though.

Yeah, that died a couple years back. Not only would it have been very expensive, but the stretch between Clarence and Batavia is all wetlands that would have to be replaced. Wouldn't shock me if the bigwigs looked at the AET projects that have been successfully implemented across North America and figured that the Thruway would change over in the relatively near future (as they're already starting to do).
Someone needs to tell the person who maintains their website (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/projectsandstudies/projects/williamsville/index.html).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on October 23, 2014, 06:48:43 PM
Have you seen the windmills going up on the Thruway? I saw them when I was driving down to Eden Angola. Here's a the article if you want to read it: http://wivb.com/2014/10/23/thruway-authority-taps-blustery-winds/
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on November 18, 2014, 10:23:32 AM
I'm sure glad I don't live in New York...

Quote
A state of emergency was declared in the Buffalo suburbs of Orchard Park and West Seneca, and a travel ban was issued in the town of Elma, just east of the city of Buffalo Tuesday morning. A 13-mile section of the New York State Thruway (Interstate 90) was closed from the east side of Buffalo southward. To avoid traffic backups, a 37-mile stretch of the Niagara Thruway (Interstate 190) southbound from Niagara Falls to the Interstate-90 interchange was also shutdown Tuesday morning.

From http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/lake-effect-snow-significant-lake-erie-lake-ontario-20141115
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2014, 11:40:39 AM
Thruway closed from Exit 46 to PA line per WGRZ. I-190 closed south of I-290. 4 feet has fallen in places, expect over 6.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on November 18, 2014, 11:47:48 AM
Thruway closed from Exit 46 to PA line per WGRZ. I-190 closed south of I-290. 4 feet has fallen in places, expect over 6.

You live in the Buffalo area, right? I'm sure your commute is absolutely hell right now. Also, it looks like the Aurora Expressway / NY 400 is closed between NY 16 and NY 277. It's pretty crazy looking at the Buffalo area on Google Maps with the traffic reports enabled.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2014, 12:46:26 PM
Thruway closed from Exit 46 to PA line per WGRZ. I-190 closed south of I-290. 4 feet has fallen in places, expect over 6.

You live in the Buffalo area, right? I'm sure your commute is absolutely hell right now. Also, it looks like the Aurora Expressway / NY 400 is closed between NY 16 and NY 277. It's pretty crazy looking at the Buffalo area on Google Maps with the traffic reports enabled.

I'm at UB. We got an inch yesterday and nothing since then. My parents live 15 miles southeast of here, if that. They have close to 5 feet already and it's still falling. They might have 8 feet by the weekend. Where I am right now, I can see the storm a couple of miles in the distance. White wall blocking everything. But that's the nature of lake effect snow.

I posted the list of major closures on the New York page. ALL of NY 400 closed, US 219 closed north of NY 242 in Ellicottville (most of its length north of I-86), NY 5 closed south of downtown, I-290 closed east of Exit 6.

To give you an idea of how close I am, I'm at I-990 Exit 1. Travel is banned entirely south of NY 33. It's sunny here. Cold, but the only clouds in the sky are to the south.

Here's a link showing all road closures in the area: http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/traffic/2014/11/18/travel-bans-and-advisories/19211015/
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 18, 2014, 01:01:07 PM
I was looking at the traffic cameras on the 511 site this morning.  It's freaky how some areas are completely clear/dry and others are covered with snow.  The Thruway closure between Rochester and Buffalo looks more like an excuse to not plow than anything else; Rochester-Buffalo looks like it would be fine with some salt/plowing, but 59-61 was really bad even when it was still open early this morning.

Watertown seems to be getting hammered as well, but no cameras there.  In general, the snow decreases the further east you go.  Albany doesn't even have snow on the ground in places that aren't shaded.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on November 18, 2014, 01:04:18 PM
I was looking at the traffic cameras on the 511 site this morning.  It's freaky how some areas are completely clear/dry and others are covered with snow.  The Thruway closure between Rochester and Buffalo looks more like an excuse to not plow than anything else; Rochester-Buffalo looks like it would be fine with some salt/plowing, but 59-61 was really bad even when it was still open early this morning.

Well, that and probably an effort to see that detoured traffic is shunted onto viable alternate routes. No point having all the trucks get off just short of Buffalo and sit around getting snowed on.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2014, 01:34:29 PM
I was looking at the traffic cameras on the 511 site this morning.  It's freaky how some areas are completely clear/dry and others are covered with snow.  The Thruway closure between Rochester and Buffalo looks more like an excuse to not plow than anything else; Rochester-Buffalo looks like it would be fine with some salt/plowing, but 59-61 was really bad even when it was still open early this morning.

Well, that and probably an effort to see that detoured traffic is shunted onto viable alternate routes. No point having all the trucks get off just short of Buffalo and sit around getting snowed on.

Snow band has been getting the entire thing west of Rochester intermittently. That and there's a travel ban in every town the Thruway passes through between PA and 47. If the wind shifts slightly, the entire thing could be buried. They're doing everything possible to avoid a repeat of 2010 and the bad PR that came with it.

While it may seem a bit overboard, my parents live in the area getting hit and they're getting 4-5" an hour. Plows can't keep up with that. Heck, they live on US 20 and NYSDOT can't keep up because it's falling too fast and drifting. Might not look like much, but this is a lot, even for Buffalo, especially since some of the places hardest hit are typically clear of lake effect.

As of now, you can't get between Rochester and Erie via I-90 and even if it was open, I wouldn't try. US 20 and NY 5 are effectively closed as well. Hell, I-390 is even getting hit. You have to use I-86 to avoid it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 18, 2014, 01:46:22 PM
They're doing everything possible to avoid a repeat of 2010 and the bad PR that came with it.
Yeah, the state has been VERY trigger happy with closures.  I remember some times last winter where the entirety of I-84 was closed simply if there was even a chance of snow within the next 24 hours.  It was as if NYSDOT was protesting the fact that the Thruway handed the road back.

Granted, growing up in Rochester and going to college at Clarkson (which never closes, even if they were getting as much snow as Buffalo gets now, or if an ice storm has put every millimeter of pavement under two inches of very slick ice), thereby driving up I-81 every winter, I probably have much more of a tolerance for winter conditions than most.  I remember one trip up to Clarkson where I passed over a dozen multi-car pileups on I-81; no surprise that the road was closed shortly after I drove it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on November 18, 2014, 02:39:05 PM
The weather radars at the moment are showing very classic lake effect snow patterns, streaming off the eastern extremities of Lakes Erie and Ontario. This is why Rochester routinely loses the snowfall derby to either Buffalo or Syracuse, as the latter two cities are located in prime snowfall areas, whereas Rochester is relatively sheltered at the midpoint of Ontario's southern shore. The highest accumulations tend to be pretty much where they're happening now, in Buffalo's Southtowns and the Tug Hill region, just east and slightly south of the ends of the lakes.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2014, 02:57:05 PM
They're doing everything possible to avoid a repeat of 2010 and the bad PR that came with it.
Yeah, the state has been VERY trigger happy with closures.  I remember some times last winter where the entirety of I-84 was closed simply if there was even a chance of snow within the next 24 hours.  It was as if NYSDOT was protesting the fact that the Thruway handed the road back.

Granted, growing up in Rochester and going to college at Clarkson (which never closes, even if they were getting as much snow as Buffalo gets now, or if an ice storm has put every millimeter of pavement under two inches of very slick ice), thereby driving up I-81 every winter, I probably have much more of a tolerance for winter conditions than most.  I remember one trip up to Clarkson where I passed over a dozen multi-car pileups on I-81; no surprise that the road was closed shortly after I drove it.

That's how we feel about UB. Might not be snowing here, but half of the staff and commuters can't make it in because the line is a couple miles southeast. We closed last year for half a day, which was huge. Most of the area schools ran out of snow days because it was one of the worst winters on record and UB was determined to keep things running.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 18, 2014, 03:34:47 PM
Hmmm...the Buffalo Bills are home Sunday at 1 PM with the New York Jets. Having never been west of Cooperstown, I must ask this question: Does the Thruway get relatively close to Orchard Park or the stadium?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2014, 04:32:02 PM
Hmmm...the Buffalo Bills are home Sunday at 1 PM with the New York Jets. Having never been west of Cooperstown, I must ask this question: Does the Thruway get relatively close to Orchard Park or the stadium?

Stadium is between US 219 and the Thruway a couple miles south of their intersection. They probably have at least 4-5 feet right now. They're getting pounded, but they'll have everything clear by Saturday. That's pretty certain. Don't know about the side streets, so the stands might be empty, but I bet it'll be on (at least I hope it is, as I have tickets).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 18, 2014, 04:50:14 PM
Thank you for the update! I hope your parents are coping with the conditions as best as they can!  :-(

Despite the loss, I'll bet the Miami Dolphins (my favorite team) are glad that their visit to Orchard Park came in week 2, back in September!  :-o

Getting back to roads...was I-86 in the Southern Tier closed, too?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2014, 05:08:58 PM
I-86 pretty much missed it and it remains open. Two hours ago, the bad area had close to 5'. NWS issued a statement around 2 that said "you will become trapped" if you drive into the snow band.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 18, 2014, 05:14:46 PM
To my knowledge, I-86 was never closed. Ditto I-390. Traffic bound for Rochester and points east from Erie were diverted onto I-86.

And on a related note, Google Maps' traffic overlay indicates that the Thruway is still closed between I-390 and the PA line.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 18, 2014, 05:17:19 PM
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/archives/2014/11/18/buffalo-and-the-worlds-weirdest-weather.php

Former weather man Geoff Fox posted this entry on his blog today. He lived in Buffalo for about 4 years early on in his radio career, before working at ABC and then FOX television here in Hartford/New Haven.

Sometimes I forget how huge a state New York state is compared to Connecticut. In this state, we "only" have the first 58 miles of I-91 from New Haven to Enfield at the Massachusetts border and almost 98 miles of I-84 from Danbury at the NY border to Union at the MA border. I think I-95 from Greenwich at the NY border to North Stonington at the Rhode Island border is 110 miles, but not sure.

Another fun question now. Maybe it's related. Maybe it's not...do any tolls get waived on the open sections of the Thruway during times like these? (We don't have tolls in Connecticut, with our last one abolished in 1989.)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 18, 2014, 08:59:55 PM
The New York State Police posted this picture to their Facebook page a while ago. WOW!  :-o

It only said it was the Thruway, south of Buffalo.  :wow:

(http://i.imgur.com/gJi2A61.jpg)

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2014, 09:03:50 PM
Lackawanna toll barrier. They're still getting slammed. It'll likely move a little further north overnight, getting the rest of the Buffalo area, then it'll reset over the area currently getting hit tomorrow night for another 2-3 feet.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 18, 2014, 10:38:44 PM
The New York State Police posted this picture to their Facebook page a while ago. WOW!  :-o

It only said it was the Thruway, south of Buffalo.  :wow:

(http://i.imgur.com/gJi2A61.jpg)

Reports have it getting up to 60 by Monday. Looks like Buffalo will get to experience winter and mud season in the same week.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on November 19, 2014, 12:48:20 PM
The New York State Police posted this picture to their Facebook page a while ago. WOW!  :-o

It only said it was the Thruway, south of Buffalo.  :wow:

(http://i.imgur.com/gJi2A61.jpg)

Yep - right by the Lackawanna toll plaza; that's US 219 passing over the 90 here. 
Never seen such a monumental storm in my life, other than Christmas week 2001 (80 inches in 7 days), and the infamous Blizzard of '77 (not so much the snow, but the wind making visibility scarce at best).  Spent a total of four hours over the last two days plowing this crap, and the snowthrower has to go in for repair (gear trigger stuck).  Hoping we can call and get it picked up...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on November 19, 2014, 01:11:25 PM
And this isn't even one of The Weather Channel's named storms…
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 19, 2014, 01:15:10 PM
And this isn't even one of The Weather Channel's named storms…
Looks like we'll have to make a name.  I propose Elsa.  The one over Watertown can be called Ingrid (go watch Once Upon a Time if you don't get why).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 19, 2014, 01:31:26 PM
And this isn't even one of The Weather Channel's named storms…
Looks like we'll have to make a name.  I propose Elsa.  The one over Watertown can be called Ingrid (go watch Once Upon a Time if you don't get why).

Already named. "Knife". Pretty dumb name, but I didn't expect much more from politicians.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 19, 2014, 02:06:55 PM
Now they're saying the Thruway won't re-open until at least Friday. Wow.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 19, 2014, 02:34:50 PM
How can it open if they're going to be getting another 2+ feet? They haven't even cleared what fell yesterday. It's crazy. Yet, UB is still open, even though every road leading here is closed.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on November 19, 2014, 04:00:55 PM
Just curious - does the University staff/faculty live on campus or no?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 19, 2014, 04:08:21 PM
Just curious - does the University staff/faculty live on campus or no?

Heck no. A little under 1/4 lives within a couple miles, but many live within the areas most affected. I have professors who live an hour away and commute in. It got to the point where bus service was stopped, half of the food places are closed because they don't have the workers while those that remain open are short-staffed, travel bans are causing eateries in academic buildings to run out of food, and everything involving people from outside the University except the football game was cancelled.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 19, 2014, 04:36:13 PM
Are there fears of flooding when all of this melts? This seems like it could get bad.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on November 19, 2014, 04:39:39 PM
The New York State Police posted this picture to their Facebook page a while ago. WOW!  :-o

It only said it was the Thruway, south of Buffalo.  :wow:

(http://i.imgur.com/gJi2A61.jpg)

It makes me glad I am not a bridge pier - can you imagine the weight of 6 feet of snow on a bridge??
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on November 19, 2014, 04:42:35 PM
I can safely say that in my 16 years of living in New Jersey, I have never seen that much snow. Boy, what a mess. I can't imagine what traffic will be like with the Thruway still closed (that is, if the snow doesn't make it so people can't even leave their houses).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: TheStranger on November 19, 2014, 04:47:14 PM
A Buffalo News piece on some of the folks who have been stuck on the closed Thruway for over a day:

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/stuck-35-hours-on-thruway-he-just-feels-abandoned-20141119
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 19, 2014, 04:48:26 PM
Are there fears of flooding when all of this melts? This seems like it could get bad.

Yes. A little before Christmas last year, there was a large meltdown and much of the area was flooded. Of course, Christmas was very cold, so it all froze over and made Clarence and West Seneca into giant ice rinks. Difference was that we had much less snow then. It's not supposed to be in the 60s anymore, so hopefully, it won't melt as fast as originally expected. I doubt that everything will have a chance to melt, even with 2 days of rain expected, just because it'll get cold overnight and there's too much, so ice will be a big issue.
NYSDOT has brought in a few blowers from the North Country to get stuff clear and there are an additional ~150 plows and ~350 crews.

I can safely say that in my 16 years of living in New Jersey, I have never seen that much snow. Boy, what a mess. I can't imagine what traffic will be like with the Thruway still closed (that is, if the snow doesn't make it so people can't even leave their houses).

People in the affected area couldn't leave their houses even if there wasn't a driving ban. It's crazy up here. NYSTA just got to everyone who was stranded and half of the abandoned cars are still on the Thruway. NY 5 and US 20 are closed (idiot truckers were using it during the storm and got stuck, blocking everything up). Only ways into Buffalo are through Ontario or NY 104/18.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 19, 2014, 05:05:35 PM

And this isn't even one of The Weather Channel's named storms…
Looks like we'll have to make a name.  I propose Elsa.  The one over Watertown can be called Ingrid (go watch Once Upon a Time if you don't get why).

Already named. "Knife". Pretty dumb name, but I didn't expect much more from politicians.

Politicians don't name winter storms, The Weather Channel does.

Naming winter storms is asinine. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on November 19, 2014, 05:10:04 PM


Politicians don't name winter storms, The Weather Channel does.

Naming winter storms is asinine.
[/quote]

Amen!  :clap: I can't stand them for doing that!
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 19, 2014, 05:47:25 PM

And this isn't even one of The Weather Channel's named storms…
Looks like we'll have to make a name.  I propose Elsa.  The one over Watertown can be called Ingrid (go watch Once Upon a Time if you don't get why).

Already named. "Knife". Pretty dumb name, but I didn't expect much more from politicians.

Politicians don't name winter storms, The Weather Channel does.

Naming winter storms is asinine.

Except the politicians did name it. FEMA won't provide assistance unless it's named.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 19, 2014, 06:02:36 PM


And this isn't even one of The Weather Channel's named storms…
Looks like we'll have to make a name.  I propose Elsa.  The one over Watertown can be called Ingrid (go watch Once Upon a Time if you don't get why).

Already named. "Knife". Pretty dumb name, but I didn't expect much more from politicians.

Politicians don't name winter storms, The Weather Channel does.

Naming winter storms is asinine.

Except the politicians did name it. FEMA won't provide assistance unless it's named.

I thought FEMA was embarrassed into competence after Katrina. 

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on November 19, 2014, 06:10:28 PM
Except the politicians did name it. FEMA won't provide assistance unless it's named.

Do you have an actual citation for that?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 19, 2014, 06:11:07 PM


And this isn't even one of The Weather Channel's named storms…
Looks like we'll have to make a name.  I propose Elsa.  The one over Watertown can be called Ingrid (go watch Once Upon a Time if you don't get why).

Already named. "Knife". Pretty dumb name, but I didn't expect much more from politicians.

Politicians don't name winter storms, The Weather Channel does.

Naming winter storms is asinine.

Except the politicians did name it. FEMA won't provide assistance unless it's named.

I thought FEMA was embarrassed into competence after Katrina.

Lolololol. They hate giving New York money for anything. For all we know, that requirement only exists for us.
Title: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 19, 2014, 06:30:27 PM
Naming winter storms is asinine.

True.

Quote
Except the politicians did name it.

True.

Quote
FEMA won't provide assistance unless it's named.

False. (http://buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=BN&date=20141119&category=CITYANDREGION&lopenr=141118867&Ref=AR&template=mobileArticleXML&profile=1055)

Quote
Meanwhile, Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz said county leaders are looking at the possibility of applying for federal disaster aid to help dig out. They have named the storm that’s killed at least six people “knife” because it cut “in the heart of Erie County.”

Although Poloncarz said the storm needed to be named to qualify for funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, officials with that agency say that’s not the case.

“FEMA does not require names for winter storms,” said Susan Buchanan, a spokesperson for the National Weather Service. “They follow the protocol of the National Weather Service, and we do not name winter storms.”

The Weather Channel independently often names winter storms, Buchanan said.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Dougtone on November 19, 2014, 06:31:26 PM
Hmmm...the Buffalo Bills are home Sunday at 1 PM with the New York Jets. Having never been west of Cooperstown, I must ask this question: Does the Thruway get relatively close to Orchard Park or the stadium?

Stadium is between US 219 and the Thruway a couple miles south of their intersection. They probably have at least 4-5 feet right now. They're getting pounded, but they'll have everything clear by Saturday. That's pretty certain. Don't know about the side streets, so the stands might be empty, but I bet it'll be on (at least I hope it is, as I have tickets).

Of course, now the Bills are trying to find interested people to shovel snow in time for the game, 500 people to be exact.
http://tinyurl.com/mu27lbt (http://tinyurl.com/mu27lbt)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 19, 2014, 06:46:34 PM

Quote
FEMA won't provide assistance unless it's named.

False. (http://buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=BN&date=20141119&category=CITYANDREGION&lopenr=141118867&Ref=AR&template=mobileArticleXML&profile=1055)

Quote
Meanwhile, Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz said county leaders are looking at the possibility of applying for federal disaster aid to help dig out. They have named the storm that’s killed at least six people “knife” because it cut “in the heart of Erie County.”

Although Poloncarz said the storm needed to be named to qualify for funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, officials with that agency say that’s not the case.

“FEMA does not require names for winter storms,” said Susan Buchanan, a spokesperson for the National Weather Service. “They follow the protocol of the National Weather Service, and we do not name winter storms.”

I was just going by the news conference. Doesn't shock me that he got something wrong.

Hmmm...the Buffalo Bills are home Sunday at 1 PM with the New York Jets. Having never been west of Cooperstown, I must ask this question: Does the Thruway get relatively close to Orchard Park or the stadium?

Stadium is between US 219 and the Thruway a couple miles south of their intersection. They probably have at least 4-5 feet right now. They're getting pounded, but they'll have everything clear by Saturday. That's pretty certain. Don't know about the side streets, so the stands might be empty, but I bet it'll be on (at least I hope it is, as I have tickets).

Of course, now the Bills are trying to find interested people to shovel snow in time for the game, 500 people to be exact.
http://tinyurl.com/mu27lbt (http://tinyurl.com/mu27lbt)

500 is a recommended minimum. They won't turn people away. $10 an hour and free tickets to the game. I'd head down, even though I already have tickets, if there weren't widespread driving bans.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 20, 2014, 09:55:48 AM
Could the game be postponed or would that create other scheduling difficulties?

I feel like the team should have a plan B for if they can't get this cleaned up.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 20, 2014, 11:11:13 AM
One place that's out for Sunday is MetLife Stadium, since the Giants host Dallas at 8:30 PM Eastern. AHL and college hockey are already being played this weekend at the Carrier Dome in Syracuse.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on November 20, 2014, 11:13:54 AM
Could the game be postponed or would that create other scheduling difficulties?

I feel like the team should have a plan B for if they can't get this cleaned up.

NY Gov. Cuomo thinks it's impractical to play the game based on the conditions present in the Buffalo area. I mean, can't say he's totally wrong, since more snow is going to fall and many major highways remain closed, but...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 20, 2014, 11:40:34 AM
Could the game be postponed or would that create other scheduling difficulties?

I feel like the team should have a plan B for if they can't get this cleaned up.

NY Gov. Cuomo thinks it's impractical to play the game based on the conditions present in the Buffalo area. I mean, can't say he's totally wrong, since more snow is going to fall and many major highways remain closed, but...

What's going on in Toronto on Sunday? That wouldn't be a terrible alternative.

On a more selfish note, I am currently hanging out in Chicago. I was thinking of driving to the Northeast this weekend before heading south. I assume that the NY Thruway is a no-go for travel for at least the next week, right?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2014, 12:53:57 PM
Could the game be postponed or would that create other scheduling difficulties?

I feel like the team should have a plan B for if they can't get this cleaned up.

NY Gov. Cuomo thinks it's impractical to play the game based on the conditions present in the Buffalo area. I mean, can't say he's totally wrong, since more snow is going to fall and many major highways remain closed, but...

What's going on in Toronto on Sunday? That wouldn't be a terrible alternative.

On a more selfish note, I am currently hanging out in Chicago. I was thinking of driving to the Northeast this weekend before heading south. I assume that the NY Thruway is a no-go for travel for at least the next week, right?

They'd lose home field advantage and even Canadians don't want games up there. The issue isn't that the stadium is full of snow. It's that nobody can leave their house because of 7-10 foot drifts, few streets have been plowed, and there's a driving ban. All of the players are stuck at home. Nobody could get to the game unless they used helicopters and even then they haven't had a chance to practice all week.

Thruway is closed indefinitely and several towns it passes through have indefinite driving bans. You can't go anywhere near Buffalo unless you plan to go through Canada. State of emergency, 8 people have died, and the snow is still falling. My parents have gotten close to 7 feet of actual snowfall as of this morning and they'll likely get another foot. To give you an idea, they might be able to get out on Saturday and even that's a big "if".

At this point, it's all in the NFL's hands. Only they can make a decision regarding whether or not the game will be played. If it can't be played Sunday, it'll be moved a couple days back.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on November 20, 2014, 12:57:14 PM
On a more selfish note, I am currently hanging out in Chicago. I was thinking of driving to the Northeast this weekend before heading south. I assume that the NY Thruway is a no-go for travel for at least the next week, right?

I would think the Thruway should at least partially re-open during the weekend depending on the weather today and tomorrow. That being said, you might want to take I-86 or even utilize I-80 if you are trying to head northeast. Any particular places you are going to visit?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 20, 2014, 01:10:35 PM
On a more selfish note, I am currently hanging out in Chicago. I was thinking of driving to the Northeast this weekend before heading south. I assume that the NY Thruway is a no-go for travel for at least the next week, right?

I would think the Thruway should at least partially re-open during the weekend depending on the weather today and tomorrow. That being said, you might want to take I-86 or even utilize I-80 if you are trying to head northeast. Any particular places you are going to visit?

Boston so I eventually need to connect to the Mass Pike. I'm considering a couple of routes:

I-90 to I-86 to I-88 to the Thruway in Albany.

Taking I-80 into Pennsylvania to I-81, then jumping onto I-84 and connecting with the Mass Pike in Central MA. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 20, 2014, 01:37:53 PM
Just curious - does the University staff/faculty live on campus or no?

Heck no. A little under 1/4 lives within a couple miles, but many live within the areas most affected. I have professors who live an hour away and commute in. It got to the point where bus service was stopped, half of the food places are closed because they don't have the workers while those that remain open are short-staffed, travel bans are causing eateries in academic buildings to run out of food, and everything involving people from outside the University except the football game was cancelled.
Come to think of it, are there any plans in place to make sure people don't starve?  I'm sure many homes are running out of food if UB is!

On a more selfish note, I am currently hanging out in Chicago. I was thinking of driving to the Northeast this weekend before heading south. I assume that the NY Thruway is a no-go for travel for at least the next week, right?

I would think the Thruway should at least partially re-open during the weekend depending on the weather today and tomorrow. That being said, you might want to take I-86 or even utilize I-80 if you are trying to head northeast. Any particular places you are going to visit?

Boston so I eventually need to connect to the Mass Pike. I'm considering a couple of routes:

I-90 to I-86 to I-88 to the Thruway in Albany.

Taking I-80 into Pennsylvania to I-81, then jumping onto I-84 and connecting with the Mass Pike in Central MA. 
The Thruway is just fine east of I-390.  The heavy snowfall is pretty concentrated.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 20, 2014, 02:00:22 PM
Just curious - does the University staff/faculty live on campus or no?

Heck no. A little under 1/4 lives within a couple miles, but many live within the areas most affected. I have professors who live an hour away and commute in. It got to the point where bus service was stopped, half of the food places are closed because they don't have the workers while those that remain open are short-staffed, travel bans are causing eateries in academic buildings to run out of food, and everything involving people from outside the University except the football game was cancelled.
Come to think of it, are there any plans in place to make sure people don't starve?  I'm sure many homes are running out of food if UB is!

On a more selfish note, I am currently hanging out in Chicago. I was thinking of driving to the Northeast this weekend before heading south. I assume that the NY Thruway is a no-go for travel for at least the next week, right?

I would think the Thruway should at least partially re-open during the weekend depending on the weather today and tomorrow. That being said, you might want to take I-86 or even utilize I-80 if you are trying to head northeast. Any particular places you are going to visit?

Boston so I eventually need to connect to the Mass Pike. I'm considering a couple of routes:

I-90 to I-86 to I-88 to the Thruway in Albany.

Taking I-80 into Pennsylvania to I-81, then jumping onto I-84 and connecting with the Mass Pike in Central MA. 
The Thruway is just fine east of I-390.  The heavy snowfall is pretty concentrated.

Would you recommend just taking the Southern Tier Expressway then?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 20, 2014, 02:09:10 PM
The way this is being handled is becoming a black-eye for the NFL.  Here we have a serious emergency situation and all the Bills can do is talk about trying to play a football game in the middle of it!

Regarding Toronto, the CFL Eastern final game is being played in Hamilton on Sunday.  So Toronto may be available but an NFL invasion that day would be bad form.

Cleveland is away but how can the Bills players even get there?

If the game is never played it wouldn't affect the top of the table standings anyway.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 20, 2014, 02:19:06 PM
The big logistical question here is:

If the NFL decides to move the game, who goes to the game? If the Bills play in Toronto, they still have to sell tickets to someone. And what of the people who already bought tickets?

It's a messy situation all around. The best solution is to postpone the game on Sunday but even that opens up logistical questions.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 20, 2014, 02:20:39 PM
Nittany Stadium?  I think it's bigger.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: thenetwork on November 20, 2014, 02:26:17 PM
I had just heard that there are now plans to postpone the game to Monday Night and to move it to a neutral stadium (Detroit, Pittsburgh and FedEx Field in DC were mentioned).

I wonder if Browns fans would now want to go to Buffalo to shovel snow in the stadium for free tix to next week's Browns/Buffalo game and get some extra $$ for beer, since there probably won't be any home game this week?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2014, 02:26:57 PM
Just curious - does the University staff/faculty live on campus or no?

Heck no. A little under 1/4 lives within a couple miles, but many live within the areas most affected. I have professors who live an hour away and commute in. It got to the point where bus service was stopped, half of the food places are closed because they don't have the workers while those that remain open are short-staffed, travel bans are causing eateries in academic buildings to run out of food, and everything involving people from outside the University except the football game was cancelled.
Come to think of it, are there any plans in place to make sure people don't starve?  I'm sure many homes are running out of food if UB is!

None that I know of. UB actually closed today. Rumor is that Cuomo put pressure on them to do so. My apartment has enough to last me another week, but there's no way to get shipments in. SUNY requires local suppliers and all of them are in areas affected. I've heard that stores in the area are running low even though there's little snow up here (Tops distribution facility is buried under 6+ feet and in a travel ban, while Wegmans can't get stuff here because major roads are closed). Milk, eggs, bread, chips, dip, and beer are in short supply. Main milk facility in the region is in West Seneca under 7 feet. Even though many of us aren't dealing with the snow, we're all dealing with the effects, as most of Buffalo's industry is buried.

I would think the Thruway should at least partially re-open during the weekend depending on the weather today and tomorrow.

Might open east of Buffalo, but southwest of here will be shit on until the warmup on Saturday. They still haven't gotten half of the vehicles free, it's still falling hard, and NY 5 and US 20 are blocked by stuck trucks trying to avoid the Thruway. To give you an idea, they haven't even set an end date for the driving bans because most highways aren't clear. My parents are on US 20 east of Buffalo. That barely has 2 lanes cleared. Thruway in Cheektowaga and West Seneca had ~1.5 in each direction this morning, but the snow moved back north.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 20, 2014, 02:36:42 PM
Isn't there going to be a flooding threat when all of this clears out?

Lake effect snow melts are a mystery to me but that HAS to be a threat.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2014, 02:55:05 PM
Isn't there going to be a flooding threat when all of this clears out?

Lake effect snow melts are a mystery to me but that HAS to be a threat.

Yeah. 10 inches of snow is an inch of water. 7 feet of snow is 8.4 inches of water. Multiply that by the several hundred acres covered. That all has to drain. I expect water levels to rise by several feet. Much of West Seneca, Clarence, and south Buffalo will be underwater next week.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 20, 2014, 03:23:33 PM
http://nesn.com/2014/11/report-jets-bills-likely-to-be-played-in-either-detroit-or-pittsburgh/ (http://nesn.com/2014/11/report-jets-bills-likely-to-be-played-in-either-detroit-or-pittsburgh/)

Looks like either Detroit or Pittsburgh are getting the game.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2014, 03:42:37 PM
http://nesn.com/2014/11/report-jets-bills-likely-to-be-played-in-either-detroit-or-pittsburgh/ (http://nesn.com/2014/11/report-jets-bills-likely-to-be-played-in-either-detroit-or-pittsburgh/)

Looks like either Detroit or Pittsburgh are getting the game.

As I already have tickets, I'm going either way. I'd prefer Detroit as it's easier to get there if the Thruway isn't yet open, but I'd get to either city.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on November 20, 2014, 03:56:35 PM
As I already have tickets, I'm going either way. I'd prefer Detroit as it's easier to get there if the Thruway isn't yet open, but I'd get to either city.

You might be in luck, because according to various tweets, Pittsburgh is out as well.

Yeah. 10 inches of snow is an inch of water. 7 feet of snow is 8.4 inches of water. Multiply that by the several hundred acres covered. That all has to drain. I expect water levels to rise by several feet. Much of West Seneca, Clarence, and south Buffalo will be underwater next week.

Um, wow. Buffalo is getting it rough this week. I bet several highways will close again (assuming they reopen) once the snow melts and floods the roadways.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2014, 04:23:55 PM
As I already have tickets, I'm going either way. I'd prefer Detroit as it's easier to get there if the Thruway isn't yet open, but I'd get to either city.

You might be in luck, because according to various tweets, Pittsburgh is out as well.

Yeah. 10 inches of snow is an inch of water. 7 feet of snow is 8.4 inches of water. Multiply that by the several hundred acres covered. That all has to drain. I expect water levels to rise by several feet. Much of West Seneca, Clarence, and south Buffalo will be underwater next week.

Um, wow. Buffalo is getting it rough this week. I bet several highways will close again (assuming they reopen) once the snow melts and floods the roadways.

Most of the major roads are on high ground. What'll be submerged are some of the residential areas. NY 240 and 277 might will see some problems in West Seneca, US 62 might be closed near the Buffalo River, and NY 78 will almost certainly be closed in Depew (those underpasses flood several times a year from rain).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 20, 2014, 05:15:23 PM
Would you recommend just taking the Southern Tier Expressway then?
If you're coming from the west.  Your location says North Carolina, which suggests the Catskills rather than Buffalo.  I-87 is totally fine.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on November 20, 2014, 06:41:42 PM
Wow, I'd say we're long overdue for a topic split, but then we always seem to circle around back to the Thruway at the last second.  ;-)

And yes, flooding is now a serious concern, as temps are predicted to rise through the weekend and into next week, with some rain thrown in to boot.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2014, 06:47:05 PM
Wow, I'd say we're long overdue for a topic split, but then we always seem to circle around back to the Thruway at the last second.  ;-)

I tried to throw everything non-Thruway in the New York thread, but others didn't feel the same
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 20, 2014, 06:49:14 PM
Would you recommend just taking the Southern Tier Expressway then?
If you're coming from the west.  Your location says North Carolina, which suggests the Catskills rather than Buffalo.  I-87 is totally fine.

I'll be coming from the west so I'll need to figure out a way around the road closures/hazardous conditions. I'm in school, I just haven't updated my location.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on November 20, 2014, 06:56:36 PM
Would you recommend just taking the Southern Tier Expressway then?
If you're coming from the west.  Your location says North Carolina, which suggests the Catskills rather than Buffalo.  I-87 is totally fine.

I'll be coming from the west so I'll need to figure out a way around the road closures/hazardous conditions. I'm in school, I just haven't updated my location.

You should be fine on the Southern Tier; it is a nicer drive overall than I-80/I-84. You'll pass through snow, but it branches off well southwest of the crippled area.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 20, 2014, 07:03:51 PM
Would you recommend just taking the Southern Tier Expressway then?
If you're coming from the west.  Your location says North Carolina, which suggests the Catskills rather than Buffalo.  I-87 is totally fine.

I'll be coming from the west so I'll need to figure out a way around the road closures/hazardous conditions. I'm in school, I just haven't updated my location.

You should be fine on the Southern Tier; it is a nicer drive overall than I-80/I-84. You'll pass through snow, but it branches off well southwest of the crippled area.

Thanks. I've taken that drive before. It's absolutely beautiful (and much more scenic) than the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 20, 2014, 08:35:07 PM
Are there any plans forthcoming for a more direct connexion between the Thruway and the Mid-Hudson Bridge?

There are already almost direct connexions between the Thruway and both the Kingston-Rhinecliff and Rip Van Winkle Bridges.  I would think that there would be more traffic going over to Poughkeepsie.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2014, 08:56:51 PM
Are there any plans forthcoming for a more direct connexion between the Thruway and the Mid-Hudson Bridge?

There are already almost direct connexions between the Thruway and both the Kingston-Rhinecliff and Rip Van Winkle Bridges.  I would think that there would be more traffic going over to Poughkeepsie.

No, but the connection is pretty direct as it is. Most vehicles to Poughkeepsie use the Taconic or US 9. Mid-Hudson Bridge has an AADT just under 40,000 as it is and, due to it being 3 narrow lanes, it can't handle much more traffic. Unless another bridge is built (not anytime soon), there's no reason to entice more people to use the bridge.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 20, 2014, 10:07:25 PM
Isn't there going to be a flooding threat when all of this clears out?

Lake effect snow melts are a mystery to me but that HAS to be a threat.

Yeah. 10 inches of snow is an inch of water. 7 feet of snow is 8.4 inches of water. Multiply that by the several hundred acres covered. That all has to drain. I expect water levels to rise by several feet. Much of West Seneca, Clarence, and south Buffalo will be underwater next week.

Eh, Clarence shouldn't have any problems. Didn't get nearly as much snow as West Seneca and the rest of the southern suburbs did.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2014, 11:17:47 PM
Isn't there going to be a flooding threat when all of this clears out?

Lake effect snow melts are a mystery to me but that HAS to be a threat.

Yeah. 10 inches of snow is an inch of water. 7 feet of snow is 8.4 inches of water. Multiply that by the several hundred acres covered. That all has to drain. I expect water levels to rise by several feet. Much of West Seneca, Clarence, and south Buffalo will be underwater next week.

Eh, Clarence shouldn't have any problems. Didn't get nearly as much snow as West Seneca and the rest of the southern suburbs did.

Problem isn't the stuff in Clarence, but Tonawanda Creek. Upstream got hit and it all has to go somewhere. We all know how often that thing floods.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 21, 2014, 12:38:11 AM
N.Y. Times: Agency Cites Improper Loan Approval for New Tappan Zee Bridge (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/nyregion/agency-cites-improper-loan-approval-for-new-tappan-zee-bridge.html)

Quote
New York State officials proceeded in almost furtive fashion — without sufficiently informing the public or holding enough open meetings — in approving a $511 million loan from federal clean-water funds for the construction of a new Tappan Zee Bridge, an investigation by an independent state budget office reported on Thursday.

Quote
The federal Environmental Protection Agency ultimately rejected most of the loan request because it was going to be used for basic construction rather than cleaning water or helping the environment. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s administration regarded the loan as a crucial source of money for a project shepherded by the New York State Thruway Authority that is expected to cost $3.9 billion.

Quote
But the report by the State Authorities Budget Office, a watchdog over public authorities and public benefit corporations created in 2009, found that the board of the Environmental Facilities Corporation did not exercise sufficient scrutiny of the loan.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on November 21, 2014, 12:54:28 AM
I've been in Utica and have missed this amazing weather even. Not an inch of snow here. I hope when I go back soon I can witness what I missed. The highest I've seen is 4 ft really, and I've lived in the southtowns forever.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 21, 2014, 12:55:49 PM
Thruway reopening at 3 PM, along with I-190, I-290, and US 219. NY 400 remains closed.

Exits 51-60 will be closed until further notice. I assume Exits 53 (I-190) and 55 (SB only, US 219) will be open, but cannot confirm.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 21, 2014, 01:00:55 PM
I looked at the traffic cameras on the Thruway earlier today.  Most of it looks pretty clear, so I wonder when they'll open it.  If they were willing to open in sections instead of all at once, it looks like I-390 to NY 33 could be opened now.  It would certainly help people to not starve.

Exits 51-60 will be closed until further notice. I assume Exits 53 (I-190) and 55 (SB only, US 219) will be open, but cannot confirm.
Seems pretty clear on that stretch.  When I was looking at the cameras, it appeared that more work was needed to clear snow around exit 52, Ripley, and a few random spots on the Erie ticket section.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 21, 2014, 01:09:43 PM
I looked at the traffic cameras on the Thruway earlier today.  Most of it looks pretty clear, so I wonder when they'll open it.  If they were willing to open in sections instead of all at once, it looks like I-390 to NY 33 could be opened now.  It would certainly help people to not starve.

Exits 51-60 will be closed until further notice. I assume Exits 53 (I-190) and 55 (SB only, US 219) will be open, but cannot confirm.
Seems pretty clear on that stretch.  When I was looking at the cameras, it appeared that more work was needed to clear snow around exit 52, Ripley, and a few random spots on the Erie ticket section.

It's still snowing near the state line, so that's expected. Driving bans being lifted might actually allow Tops and Wegmans to restock their stores. It's pretty tense over here. I know on campus, one of the dining halls has little more than cereal because they couldn't restock and all 810 people in that complex had to stay in the building for 3 meals/day.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Jim on November 21, 2014, 01:55:29 PM
The way I heard the governor's statement, the Thruway from 51 to 61 will be open for through traffic and the onramps will be open, but no one will be allowed to exit in that stretch.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on November 21, 2014, 02:11:21 PM
The way I heard the governor's statement, the Thruway from 51 to 61 will be open for through traffic and the onramps will be open, but no one will be allowed to exit in that stretch.
Correct.  From the Thruway web page:

Quote
NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY (I-90) TO REOPEN AT 3 PM FRIDAY - The New York State Thruway Authority has announced that the New York Thruway (I-90) in western New York from exits 46 - 61 including all service areas will reopen at 3 p.m. today.


The following restrictions will apply:
•Thruway (I-90) between exit 50A (Cleveland Drive) and exit 61 (Ripley – Pennsylvania state line) will be limited to essential travel only, including travel needed to exit the region, deliver necessary supplies, and remove snow. In this section, motorists will be allowed to enter the Thruway but will not be able to exit, with the exception of exit 53 (I-190), exit 54 (State Route 400) and exit 55 (US Route 219).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 21, 2014, 05:28:19 PM
Thruway is open. East of I-290 is as usual. West of there, only exits 51, 53, 54, and 55 are open. One can get on at every entrance, but all other exits are restricted to commercial and emergency vehicles. I-190 is open, but exits 1-5 remain closed, as they are in the snowed-on area. US 219 is open. Traffic is high, recommended that non-essential traffic remain away.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 21, 2014, 05:55:44 PM
NYSTA has now fully opened all exits EXCEPT 56 (NY 179/Blasdell/Orchard Park), 57 (NY 75/Hamburg), 57A (Eden/Angola), and 58 (NY 5/US 20/Silver Creek/Irving) offramps due to local travel bans:
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Dougtone on November 22, 2014, 06:04:07 AM
Tandem truck restrictions now lifted between Exits 46-61 as well.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Dougtone on November 22, 2014, 11:24:35 AM
Now showing that Thruway Exit 58 has been reopened.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on November 22, 2014, 11:33:29 AM
As I already have tickets, I'm going either way. I'd prefer Detroit as it's easier to get there if the Thruway isn't yet open, but I'd get to either city.

You might be in luck, because according to various tweets, Pittsburgh is out as well.

Yeah. 10 inches of snow is an inch of water. 7 feet of snow is 8.4 inches of water. Multiply that by the several hundred acres covered. That all has to drain. I expect water levels to rise by several feet. Much of West Seneca, Clarence, and south Buffalo will be underwater next week.

Um, wow. Buffalo is getting it rough this week. I bet several highways will close again (assuming they reopen) once the snow melts and floods the roadways.

Most of the major roads are on high ground. What'll be submerged are some of the residential areas. NY 240 and 277 might will see some problems in West Seneca, US 62 might be closed near the Buffalo River, and NY 78 will almost certainly be closed in Depew (those underpasses flood several times a year from rain).
Living near there, I can tell you that the 78 stretch between Walden and Gould/Terrace (w/all those railroad trestles) can play havoc with traffic. Maybe if the floods do enough damage, it'll be the impetus to widen that piece of road, put up new train structures, and fix it up right...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 22, 2014, 01:56:34 PM
As I already have tickets, I'm going either way. I'd prefer Detroit as it's easier to get there if the Thruway isn't yet open, but I'd get to either city.

You might be in luck, because according to various tweets, Pittsburgh is out as well.

Yeah. 10 inches of snow is an inch of water. 7 feet of snow is 8.4 inches of water. Multiply that by the several hundred acres covered. That all has to drain. I expect water levels to rise by several feet. Much of West Seneca, Clarence, and south Buffalo will be underwater next week.

Um, wow. Buffalo is getting it rough this week. I bet several highways will close again (assuming they reopen) once the snow melts and floods the roadways.

Most of the major roads are on high ground. What'll be submerged are some of the residential areas. NY 240 and 277 might will see some problems in West Seneca, US 62 might be closed near the Buffalo River, and NY 78 will almost certainly be closed in Depew (those underpasses flood several times a year from rain).
Living near there, I can tell you that the 78 stretch between Walden and Gould/Terrace (w/all those railroad trestles) can play havoc with traffic. Maybe if the floods do enough damage, it'll be the impetus to widen that piece of road, put up new train structures, and fix it up right...

I saw somewhere that there are plans to reconstruct the area, but I don't remember where. Issue is that people don't know how to drive without shoulders. Still 10 ft lanes.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 22, 2014, 04:05:17 PM
All exits on I-90 EXCEPT 57A are now fully reopened (the travel bans for areas around exits 56, 57, and 58 have been lifted). I-190 exits 1-5 also remain closed.

EDIT: Exit 57A is now fully reopened.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on November 30, 2014, 12:41:56 AM
I just noticed that the westbound sign for Exit 32 (Westmoreland) at the exit ramp is now externally lit with a bright ground mounted lamp that is solar powered. The solar panel is quite large. This is the first time I've ever seen the Thruway Authority do this; has anyone noticed any other signs lit in this manner?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 30, 2014, 01:26:24 AM
I just noticed that the westbound sign for Exit 32 (Westmoreland) at the exit ramp is now externally lit with a bright ground mounted lamp that is solar powered. The solar panel is quite large. This is the first time I've ever seen the Thruway Authority do this; has anyone noticed any other signs lit in this manner?

Nope, but Exits 48 and 48A got above-gore sign lighting recently. Don't think they're solar.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on November 30, 2014, 06:44:05 PM
On my trip home yesterday, I was surprised to find that construction is nearing completion on an access area for the Port Byron Erie Canal locks that have always been visible from the eastbound Thruway. Now, there will be a direct-access parking area from the eastbound side, and it's pretty well along. There are a few signs peeking out from behind their covers for this new "Port Byron Old Erie Canal Heritage Park".
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 30, 2014, 08:11:04 PM
On my trip home yesterday, I was surprised to find that construction is nearing completion on an access area for the Port Byron Erie Canal locks that have always been visible from the eastbound Thruway. Now, there will be a direct-access parking area from the eastbound side, and it's pretty well along. There are a few signs peeking out from behind their covers for this new "Port Byron Old Erie Canal Heritage Park".

Will this one be a rest area (with restrooms) like the one being built further east?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on November 30, 2014, 09:38:08 PM
On my trip home yesterday, I was surprised to find that construction is nearing completion on an access area for the Port Byron Erie Canal locks that have always been visible from the eastbound Thruway. Now, there will be a direct-access parking area from the eastbound side, and it's pretty well along. There are a few signs peeking out from behind their covers for this new "Port Byron Old Erie Canal Heritage Park".

Will this one be a rest area (with restrooms) like the one being built further east?

Not in the parking area, I don't think. But future phases call for the refurbishment of historic canal buildings at the site, which I assume would have facilities.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on December 01, 2014, 11:40:35 PM
On my trip home yesterday, I was surprised to find that construction is nearing completion on an access area for the Port Byron Erie Canal locks that have always been visible from the eastbound Thruway. Now, there will be a direct-access parking area from the eastbound side, and it's pretty well along. There are a few signs peeking out from behind their covers for this new "Port Byron Old Erie Canal Heritage Park".

Will this one be a rest area (with restrooms) like the one being built further east?

Not in the parking area, I don't think. But future phases call for the refurbishment of historic canal buildings at the site, which I assume would have facilities.

A firm I know is working on this project (the inside) and does has restrooms under a proposal.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on December 01, 2014, 11:49:13 PM
On my trip home yesterday, I was surprised to find that construction is nearing completion on an access area for the Port Byron Erie Canal locks that have always been visible from the eastbound Thruway. Now, there will be a direct-access parking area from the eastbound side, and it's pretty well along. There are a few signs peeking out from behind their covers for this new "Port Byron Old Erie Canal Heritage Park".

Will this one be a rest area (with restrooms) like the one being built further east?

Not in the parking area, I don't think. But future phases call for the refurbishment of historic canal buildings at the site, which I assume would have facilities.

My father's firm is working on this project and does has restrooms under a proposal.

Your father's firm does has restrooms? ;-)

Seriously though, I didn't notice any structures at the site, but I didn't get the closest look. Do you mean that there are restrooms at the site, or just that there's a proposal for them?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on December 02, 2014, 12:32:00 AM
Proposal.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on December 02, 2014, 11:01:49 AM
Proposal.

Got it; that must be part of the proposed future visitors' center:
http://www.thruway.ny.gov/news/pressrel/2014/05/2014-05-28-erie-canal-hertiage-park.html (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/news/pressrel/2014/05/2014-05-28-erie-canal-hertiage-park.html)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on December 05, 2014, 09:47:43 AM
Is E-85 available at any service area on the Thruway?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2014, 11:41:11 AM
Is E-85 available at any service area on the Thruway?

Sloatsburg, New Baltimore (NB only), and Clarence, per the gas price list (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/travelers/travelplazas/gasprices/index.html).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on December 19, 2014, 10:05:47 PM
What's going on with the Thruway budget? Buffalo media outlets keep bombarding the public with the story.

And this Canal business, why would that be funded through the NYSTA? Barges still travel down it? I'm pretty sure right now the TA could use that extra $100M...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 19, 2014, 10:36:13 PM
What's going on with the Thruway budget? Buffalo media outlets keep bombarding the public with the story.

And this Canal business, why would that be funded through the NYSTA? Barges still travel down it? I'm pretty sure right now the TA
could use that extra $100M...

From my own analysis and non-Buffalo media, the issue is that nothing was said about the growing deficit or how the bridge would be paid for. $36 million unaccounted for and nothing about how it will be funded. Of course, the trucking lobby is against higher truck tolls (which really should be raised, as trucks cause the vast majority of wear on highways), so the state is pressuring NYSTA to keep tolls down.

As for the Buffalo media's piss-poor coverage, the short answer is that people in Buffalo don't understand that Thruway tolls pay for the entire system, not just the stuff around Buffalo. They expected (and were ready to whine about) a toll increase to pay for Tappan Zee, not understanding that everyone else will foot the bill when I-90 and the Grand Island Bridges get rebuilt (both of which are on the long-term plans).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on December 19, 2014, 10:47:13 PM

What's going on with the Thruway budget? Buffalo media outlets keep bombarding the public with the story.

And this Canal business, why would that be funded through the NYSTA? Barges still travel down it? I'm pretty sure right now the TA
could use that extra $100M...

From my own analysis and non-Buffalo media, the issue is that nothing was said about the growing deficit or how the bridge would be paid for. $36 million unaccounted for and nothing about how it will be funded. Of course, the trucking lobby is against higher truck tolls (which really should be raised, as trucks cause the vast majority of wear on highways), so the state is pressuring NYSTA to keep tolls down.

As for the Buffalo media's piss-poor coverage, the short answer is that people in Buffalo don't understand that Thruway tolls pay for the entire system, not just the stuff around Buffalo. They expected (and were ready to whine about) a toll increase to pay for Tappan Zee, not understanding that everyone else will foot the bill when I-90 and the Grand Island Bridges get rebuilt (both of which are on the long-term plans).

Yes, it's a shame there can't be better accounting involved with this. I think something similar happened with the NFTA and even the Canalside business, yikes!

It's also a shame people don't realize we are a populous state that can pay for this type of stuff, and yes when the projects you mentioned are put on the table I can't think people downstate will complain about rolls and I don't know why. I'm inclined to say because of population, but I think things are just handled better down there.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on December 20, 2014, 09:18:19 AM
Probably because people downstate are used to high tolls.  The Thruway has been the cheapest northeast toll road for a long time now, so you could say we're spoiled compared to downstate and other states.  It's also worth noting that people downstate would think of the Thruway as the entire system, while update the name "Thruway" is synonymous with the ticket system.  Statements such as "the Thruway ends at exit 50 and then you pick up I-90" do occur.  Also, the impression of tolls was not that they would be used to maintain the road, but that they would only be used to pay off the bonds for its initial construction; early Thruway segments were actually constructed by NYSDOT and it was supposed to be a free road until Dewey decided that would take too long to build.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 20, 2014, 04:21:24 PM
People upstate think of 87 south of Harriman as not the Thruway?  How odd that anyone thinks about it at all. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 20, 2014, 04:45:08 PM
People upstate think of 87 south of Harriman as not the Thruway?  How odd that anyone thinks about it at all.

Depends on where you are upstate. A lot of people in Buffalo think that I-90 is the Thruway across the country. Not uncommon to hear "take the Thruway to Boston/Erie/Cleveland/Chicago/Seattle" or some variant (and yes, I've heard all of those). These people don't associate the Thruway with anything else, including any part of I-87. Others further east think of it as the ticket system Similarly, some downstate think that it ends in Buffalo (which, unlike the previous case, was true at one point in the 50s) and continues as I-90 alone, while others are so familiar with the several tolled roads of the Thruway system that every toll road in the state is the Thruway (correct, if you're not including bridges/tunnels).

I agree that upstate is spoiled by cheap tolls. Grand Island bridges are $1 (people complained like the world was ending when they got that high) and the Harriman-Ripley segment costs only $21.50 cash, a mere 4.63 cents per mile for 464.7 miles. Compare that to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, where the longest distance (Ohio-Clarks Summit) costs $51.95 (~20 miles shorter for approximately 11.7 cents/mile) and the mainline is $43.90 for 356.68 miles at 12.3 cents/mile. Yeah, there are alternates to the Thruway, but they could probably charge 50-75% more and still see increased revenue because the truckers and long-distance travelers would still use the road.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 20, 2014, 06:13:51 PM
$43.90 would cause my E-ZPass to melt. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 20, 2014, 07:14:08 PM
E-ZPass is only $31.38 for the mainline, but it's still a lot compared to New York
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: hbelkins on December 20, 2014, 09:26:51 PM
I agree that upstate is spoiled by cheap tolls. Grand Island bridges are $1 (people complained like the world was ending when they got that high) and the Harriman-Ripley segment costs only $21.50 cash, a mere 4.63 cents per mile for 464.7 miles. Compare that to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, where the longest distance (Ohio-Clarks Summit) costs $51.95 (~20 miles shorter for approximately 11.7 cents/mile) and the mainline is $43.90 for 356.68 miles at 12.3 cents/mile. Yeah, there are alternates to the Thruway, but they could probably charge 50-75% more and still see increased revenue because the truckers and long-distance travelers would still use the road.

Even with the full interstate not finished yet, I-86/NY 17 is a much better alternative. And who is going to use the PA Turnpike system from the Ohio state line to Clarks Summit, unless you're trying to clinch roads?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 20, 2014, 09:45:46 PM
I agree that upstate is spoiled by cheap tolls. Grand Island bridges are $1 (people complained like the world was ending when they got that high) and the Harriman-Ripley segment costs only $21.50 cash, a mere 4.63 cents per mile for 464.7 miles. Compare that to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, where the longest distance (Ohio-Clarks Summit) costs $51.95 (~20 miles shorter for approximately 11.7 cents/mile) and the mainline is $43.90 for 356.68 miles at 12.3 cents/mile. Yeah, there are alternates to the Thruway, but they could probably charge 50-75% more and still see increased revenue because the truckers and long-distance travelers would still use the road.

Even with the full interstate not finished yet, I-86/NY 17 is a much better alternative. And who is going to use the PA Turnpike system from the Ohio state line to Clarks Summit, unless you're trying to clinch roads?

Nobody would. Just as how nobody would use the entire length of the Thruway. Just makes calculations a little more reliable.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on December 21, 2014, 08:34:48 PM
Basically, nobody travels the entire Thruway, so people upstate only really know the mainline ticket system.  I didn't know that barrier tolls even existed outside of bridges until I started looking at roadgeek websites.  If you're from Buffalo and Rochester heading to downstate, you take 17.  Actually, that's not true - you probably take Amtrak, because NYC and its suburbs are, in your mind, nothing but 24/7/365 gridlocked carmageddon.  Most Thruway travelers take small sections.  When I was little, I'd see 45-44 most often, 45-36 came in second, 47-50 was once in a blue moon.  I've been on the Erie section exactly once - a clinching trip that I still don't know how I got my parents to agree to.  East of I-81 was rare.  Before I started attending non-NY roadmeets in 2011, the only times I saw it were a family trip to Boston (B3), a school field trip to Cape Cod (ditto), and a school trip to West Point (17).  Now that I've moved to Albany, I see a lot more of the Thruway than I ever did before, with 24-43/45 being a relatively frequent drive.

I had a much longer post that covered different points, but Chrome ate it when I bumped the network cable.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on December 21, 2014, 09:14:57 PM
Basically, nobody travels the entire Thruway, so people upstate only really know the mainline ticket system.  I didn't know that barrier tolls even existed outside of bridges until I started looking at roadgeek websites.  If you're from Buffalo and Rochester heading to downstate, you take 17.  Actually, that's not true - you probably take Amtrak, because NYC and its suburbs are, in your mind, nothing but 24/7/365 gridlocked carmageddon.  Most Thruway travelers take small sections.  When I was little, I'd see 45-44 most often, 45-36 came in second, 47-50 was once in a blue moon.  I've been on the Erie section exactly once - a clinching trip that I still don't know how I got my parents to agree to.  East of I-81 was rare.  Before I started attending non-NY roadmeets in 2011, the only times I saw it were a family trip to Boston (B3), a school field trip to Cape Cod (ditto), and a school trip to West Point (17).  Now that I've moved to Albany, I see a lot more of the Thruway than I ever did before, with 24-43/45 being a relatively frequent drive.

I had a much longer post that covered different points, but Chrome ate it when I bumped the network cable.

When I was a young lad and at college at SUNY Fredonia back in the mid 80s, several fellow students in my dorm were from Long Island and remarked on how long the Thruway was. I asked them why in the world they were traveling the length of the Thruway to get from Long Island to Fredonia (Thruway exit 59) and they basically didn't know. I guided several of them to Jamestown and then over NY 17 and they were quite thankful.

While I agree with Valerie that upstate folks tend not to drive the entire length of the Thruway, I have a hunch that, at least based on my experience, that downstate folks don't know anything but the Thruway for getting upstate. Back when NYS license plates identified the county of origin, it was easier to see who was driving long distances on the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 22, 2014, 12:04:15 AM
I dated someone from SUNY Fredonia they went there 1977-81
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 22, 2014, 12:10:13 AM
Eh, everyone I know from downstate at UB takes NY 17 or I-80. Now that everyone has GPS, the peoole with GPS use 80 (as that's how they get routed) instead of following the Thruway and those in the know take NY 17 (as they did before GPS). Before technology, the Thruway was the easiest way, but everyone just trust their phone or other device to route them the fastest way.

I will note that women traveling alone are much more likely to take the Thruway as it is better patrolled, while no man I know will waste the money on tolls.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: mtantillo on December 22, 2014, 03:25:51 PM
I-80 to I-380 to I-81 is typically faster than Thruway to NY 17, but many people choose Thruway to NY 17 just because it seems odd to drive from NYC to Upstate NY via such long distances in other states.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 22, 2014, 03:30:29 PM
I-80 to I-380 to I-81 is typically faster than Thruway to NY 17, but many people choose Thruway to NY 17 just because it seems odd to drive from NYC to Upstate NY via such long distances in other states.

With the traffic on I-80, it's usually no slower to take NY 17. Heck, the toll money you'd save by taking Tappan Zee or Bear Mountain would make up for any extra gas you'd use.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: hbelkins on December 22, 2014, 09:42:37 PM
I-80 to I-380 to I-81 is typically faster than Thruway to NY 17, but many people choose Thruway to NY 17 just because it seems odd to drive from NYC to Upstate NY via such long distances in other states.

I think I've mentioned this before, but my colleague from the two western Kentucky highway districts (Paducah and Madisonville) lives near Marion, Ky. If he's going to Frankfort, it's shorter for him to take I-64, I-164 I-69, US 41 and US 60 than it is to take the Western Kentucky Parkway. That, of course, involves a trip through southern Indiana. That route may be shorter, but it's not always faster because if he hits Louisville traffic, that can slow him down considerably.

He gets some funny looks from the bean counters if he goes through Indiana. They cannot comprehend that it might possibly shorter to get from one Kentucky point to another by going out of the state.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 04, 2015, 11:55:36 PM
New York Post: Thruway Authority executives forced out amid agency investigation (http://nypost.com/2015/01/01/thruway-authority-executives-forced-out-amid-agency-investigation/)

Quote
Two top executives at the New York State Thruway Authority submitted their resignations Wednesday — ahead of a scathing investigative report on the agency’s operations, sources said.

Quote
Executive Director Tom Madison and his chief of staff, John Bryan, have been forced out, sources told The Post.

Quote
The report by state Inspector General Catherine Leavy Scott is said to be damaging.

Quote
Gov. Andrew Cuomo appointed Madison, a former state transportation commissioner, as the authority’s executive director in August 2011.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on January 05, 2015, 12:16:37 AM
I somehow have managed to clinch the New York Thruway through a series of trips.

I clinched the I-90 portion (and obviously the Berkshire Extension) in my various trips from the Midwest to Boston

I clinched the I-87 portion driving from New York City to Vermont via Albany.

I clinched the Niagara Thruway (is that correct?) when I crossed into Niagara Falls, ON in route to Detroit from Boston.

I clinched the New England Thruway along I-95 from traveling from NC to Boston.

I used to hate damn Thruway but I've grown to have a weird love of it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on January 05, 2015, 12:19:43 AM
I somehow have managed to clinch the New York Thruway through a series of trips.

I clinched the I-90 portion (and obviously the Berkshire Extension) in my various trips from the Midwest to Boston

I clinched the I-87 portion driving from New York City to Vermont via Albany.

I clinched the Niagara Thruway (is that correct?) when I crossed into Niagara Falls, ON in route to Detroit from Boston.

I clinched the New England Thruway along I-95 from traveling from NC to Boston.

I used to hate damn Thruway but I've grown to have a weird love of it.

Did you get I-287? It's effectively become a toll-free section of the Thruway that's going nowhere anytime soon.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on January 05, 2015, 12:36:47 AM
I somehow have managed to clinch the New York Thruway through a series of trips.

I clinched the I-90 portion (and obviously the Berkshire Extension) in my various trips from the Midwest to Boston

I clinched the I-87 portion driving from New York City to Vermont via Albany.

I clinched the Niagara Thruway (is that correct?) when I crossed into Niagara Falls, ON in route to Detroit from Boston.

I clinched the New England Thruway along I-95 from traveling from NC to Boston.

I used to hate damn Thruway but I've grown to have a weird love of it.

I clinched I-87 when my parents didn't know about I-86 or I-86 about 10-15 years ago.

Then we've traveled on the Erie portion many times going to down south via Erie, Cleveland or Chicago. Would be much easier to head south of the 219 could be expedited, hence my avatar.

The rest of the 90 I've clinched going to W. Ma.

Then I've been on the Niagara Thriway countless times. What's your opinions on the toll removal that happened about a decade ago to them?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on January 05, 2015, 01:29:09 AM
I somehow have managed to clinch the New York Thruway through a series of trips.

I clinched the I-90 portion (and obviously the Berkshire Extension) in my various trips from the Midwest to Boston

I clinched the I-87 portion driving from New York City to Vermont via Albany.

I clinched the Niagara Thruway (is that correct?) when I crossed into Niagara Falls, ON in route to Detroit from Boston.

I clinched the New England Thruway along I-95 from traveling from NC to Boston.

I used to hate damn Thruway but I've grown to have a weird love of it.

Did you get I-287? It's effectively become a toll-free section of the Thruway that's going nowhere anytime soon.

And don't forget the Garden State Parkway connection!
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on January 05, 2015, 06:09:02 AM
I somehow have managed to clinch the New York Thruway through a series of trips.

I clinched the I-90 portion (and obviously the Berkshire Extension) in my various trips from the Midwest to Boston

I clinched the I-87 portion driving from New York City to Vermont via Albany.

I clinched the Niagara Thruway (is that correct?) when I crossed into Niagara Falls, ON in route to Detroit from Boston.

I clinched the New England Thruway along I-95 from traveling from NC to Boston.

I used to hate damn Thruway but I've grown to have a weird love of it.

I clinched I-87 when my parents didn't know about I-86 or I-86 about 10-15 years ago.

Then we've traveled on the Erie portion many times going to down south via Erie, Cleveland or Chicago. Would be much easier to head south of the 219 could be expedited, hence my avatar.

The rest of the 90 I've clinched going to W. Ma.

Then I've been on the Niagara Thriway countless times. What's your opinions on the toll removal that happened about a decade ago to them?

I've only been on it within the last couple of years so I have no opinion either way. I thought I remembered paying a toll but then again I'm probably just remembering the toll to cross into Canada.

And dammit, I need to go back and drive I-287 to get a full clinch of the Thruway. This is going to nag me until I get back up there.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on January 05, 2015, 10:39:50 AM
I found it interesting that going from Albany NY to Erie PA is a difference of only 10 miles (I-90 vs taking I-88 to I-86/NY 17) :)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on January 05, 2015, 01:08:50 PM
I somehow have managed to clinch the New York Thruway through a series of trips.

I clinched the I-90 portion (and obviously the Berkshire Extension) in my various trips from the Midwest to Boston

I clinched the I-87 portion driving from New York City to Vermont via Albany.

I clinched the Niagara Thruway (is that correct?) when I crossed into Niagara Falls, ON in route to Detroit from Boston.

I clinched the New England Thruway along I-95 from traveling from NC to Boston.

I used to hate damn Thruway but I've grown to have a weird love of it.

I clinched I-87 when my parents didn't know about I-86 or I-86 about 10-15 years ago.

Then we've traveled on the Erie portion many times going to down south via Erie, Cleveland or Chicago. Would be much easier to head south of the 219 could be expedited, hence my avatar.

The rest of the 90 I've clinched going to W. Ma.

Then I've been on the Niagara Thriway countless times. What's your opinions on the toll removal that happened about a decade ago to them?

I've only been on it within the last couple of years so I have no opinion either way. I thought I remembered paying a toll but then again I'm probably just remembering the toll to cross into Canada.

And dammit, I need to go back and drive I-287 to get a full clinch of the Thruway. This is going to nag me until I get back up there.
I-190 still has tolls at the Grand Island bridges.  The ones approaching downtown Buffalo were removed a few years ago.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 05, 2015, 01:42:08 PM
Is 84 still a non-Thruway-but-Thruway-maintained road?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on January 05, 2015, 01:51:14 PM
Is 84 still a non-Thruway-but-Thruway-maintained road?

No. Back to NYSDOT, but last I checked, it lacks reference markers.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cu2010 on January 05, 2015, 01:58:51 PM
I-84 has reference markers in Dutchess County now.

Oddly enough, they say "I-84" on them, not the NYSDOT-standard "84I".
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PHLBOS on January 05, 2015, 02:01:04 PM
Is 84 still a non-Thruway-but-Thruway-maintained road?
Not anymore.  The now-blank (where the Thruway logo was) mile markers (http://goo.gl/maps/kgvrQ) along I-84 are an indication of such.  Note: this MM was MILE 69 prior to its faded/salted washout.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on January 05, 2015, 03:17:42 PM
I-84 has reference markers in Dutchess County now.

Oddly enough, they say "I-84" on them, not the NYSDOT-standard "84I".

Region 5 does this in a few places, notably on I-290, where they're either "I290" or plain "290"
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on January 05, 2015, 08:29:03 PM
I-84 has reference markers in Dutchess County now.

Oddly enough, they say "I-84" on them, not the NYSDOT-standard "84I".

I think I-84 in New York State is the red-headed step cousin whether it's maintained by the Thruway or NYSDOT. The guide signs are erratically designed (mostly Thruway foolishness), the aforementioned I-84 reference markers in Dutchess County match nothing that is in any manual or documentation within NYSDOT and the basic condition of the row is substandard at best. I drove through there on New Year's Day and I can't believe that there are so many signs faded beyond comprehension along that road. It's like nobody wants it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on January 05, 2015, 10:07:06 PM
I-84 has reference markers in Dutchess County now.

Oddly enough, they say "I-84" on them, not the NYSDOT-standard "84I".

I think I-84 in New York State is the red-headed step cousin whether it's maintained by the Thruway or NYSDOT. The guide signs are erratically designed (mostly Thruway foolishness), the aforementioned I-84 reference markers in Dutchess County match nothing that is in any manual or documentation within NYSDOT and the basic condition of the row is substandard at best. I drove through there on New Year's Day and I can't believe that there are so many signs faded beyond comprehension along that road. It's like nobody wants it.

Problem is that we're just getting to the time when NYSDOT sign contracts for the highway could first be acted on. From what I can tell, they plan everything 5-10 years ahead of time. Partial maintenance was transferred 8 years ago and NYSDOT got full control in 2010. Signs probably would have been replaced faster if Orange County politicians didn't block the full transition in 2007, as NYSDOT didn't really do any "everyday" work until NYSTA was able to leave.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2015, 09:23:41 AM
The Thruway is closed west of Rochester is closed due to "lake-effect" snowfall.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on January 09, 2015, 02:43:52 PM
Thruway has reopened east of Exit 53. West of there could get another 1-3 feet of snow in the next day and a half. All other area expressways, excluding west of Exit 53, the NY 400 ramps to the Thruway, and all of US 219's limited-access section have reopened as well, with travel advisories lifted north of Orchard Park/Hamburg.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on January 10, 2015, 01:36:25 AM
WOW! For the season so far, Buffalo would potentially have over 10 feet of snow?!?! Incredible!
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on January 10, 2015, 08:07:50 PM
WOW! For the season so far, Buffalo would potentially have over 10 feet of snow?!?! Incredible!

Except they measure it at the airport. I flew out of there this morning and skies were clear. Snow was about 3 miles south, November storm was a mile south.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on January 10, 2015, 08:43:10 PM
WOW! For the season so far, Buffalo would potentially have over 10 feet of snow?!?! Incredible!

Except they measure it at the airport. I flew out of there this morning and skies were clear. Snow was about 3 miles south, November storm was a mile south.
Break line (of the November storm) seemed to be between Rehm Rd. and PleasantView Rd., on the north side of Depew, leading to Hillview Elementary on the north end.  North of Rehm, there was practically nothing - a foot at best. South of that (where I live), we got pummeled...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on January 11, 2015, 01:15:40 PM
Oh that's right - I forgot the snow was more south.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on March 21, 2015, 04:24:29 AM
Wgrz (http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/local/cheektowaga/2015/03/19/cleveland-drive-overpass-replacement-project-starts-monday/25057261/) reports that Thruway project construction in the Buffalo area (Cleveland Dr bridge, G.I. Bridge, EZPass lane) is imminent. Also mentioned is the realignment of the Cleveland Drive WB ramp and the addition of an auxiliary lane from the 290 to the 33. Putting 2+2 together I think that means the DOT wants to make the 90 a 5 lane highway. What do you think?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 21, 2015, 08:49:49 AM
Certainly does look like a widening and it is undoubtedly needed.

The Thruway needs expansion in many areas of the State.  Areas I have always been familiar with and in great need for 6 lanes run from Albany at Exit 23 south to Exit 16 at the Woodbury toll barrier and 8 lanes from Exit 16 all the way to the New York city line,  flyovers for Exit B1 for a cleaner connection for Interstate 90 would be another plus.

The cost?  Billions.  Does New York have the money?  No.  There is some very expensive landowners that would undoubtedly have to be compensated.  It would also take many years.  The arduous debates over a new Tappan Zee Bridge and the socialist mentality of what is the most dysfunctional state government in the Union serve as an enormous drag on New York's economy and decision-making.

Tolls would have to increase dramatically or would have to be reimposed in areas (Exit 15, Spring Valley and Ardsley barriers) long since removed from the old barrier and ticket system when I was much younger.  Nonetheless, the rise of electronic tolling options could allow greater ease to collect tolls from more points on the system, which I believe New York has not taken advantage of doing.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on March 22, 2015, 08:00:45 PM
Tolls are still collected both directions at the Yonkers barrier.  Not sure what you mean by Ardsley barrier.  There's much less toll-free travel allowed between the Yonkers barrier and the Tappan Zee than it would appear at first glance.  The Ardsley exit is a half diamond feeding into the Yonkers barrier, and the Saw Mill, I-287, and US 9 interchanges are right on top of the Tappan Zee.  The entire toll gap could be closed by making the Tappan Zee barrier two-way and adding ramp tolls to/from the south on the Saw Mill and to/from the north at US 9.  Closing the Nyack toll gap would be more work and probably not a good idea.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 22, 2015, 09:47:34 PM
Tolls are still collected both directions at the Yonkers barrier.  Not sure what you mean by Ardsley barrier.  There's much less toll-free travel allowed between the Yonkers barrier and the Tappan Zee than it would appear at first glance.  The Ardsley exit is a half diamond feeding into the Yonkers barrier, and the Saw Mill, I-287, and US 9 interchanges are right on top of the Tappan Zee.  The entire toll gap could be closed by making the Tappan Zee barrier two-way and adding ramp tolls to/from the south on the Saw Mill and to/from the north at US 9.  Closing the Nyack toll gap would be more work and probably not a good idea.
You are correct, Yonkers barrier.  Its been a very long time since I have been on the Thruway between Exit 8 and the Yonkers-New York City line.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 22, 2015, 10:04:52 PM
The Exit 15 barrier was removed when the end of the ticket system was moved to Exit 16. Spring Valley tolls for cars were eliminated in 1997, likely because the other river crossings do not charge for WB travel.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 23, 2015, 05:24:09 PM
The Spring Valley barrier is far enough west that it really doesn't qualify as a river crossing.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on March 23, 2015, 11:42:27 PM
Certainly does look like a widening and it is undoubtedly needed.

The Thruway needs expansion in many areas of the State.  Areas I have always been familiar with and in great need for 6 lanes run from Albany at Exit 23 south to Exit 16 at the Woodbury toll barrier and 8 lanes from Exit 16 all the way to the New York city line,  flyovers for Exit B1 for a cleaner connection for Interstate 90 would be another plus.

The cost?  Billions.  Does New York have the money?  No.  There is some very expensive landowners that would undoubtedly have to be compensated.  It would also take many years.  The arduous debates over a new Tappan Zee Bridge and the socialist mentality of what is the most dysfunctional state government in the Union serve as an enormous drag on New York's economy and decision-making.

Tolls would have to increase dramatically or would have to be reimposed in areas (Exit 15, Spring Valley and Ardsley barriers) long since removed from the old barrier and ticket system when I was much younger.  Nonetheless, the rise of electronic tolling options could allow greater ease to collect tolls from more points on the system, which I believe New York has not taken advantage of doing.

I agree, I feel AET hasn't been taken advantage of by many states as of now. That should change though.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on March 23, 2015, 11:52:08 PM
I agree, I feel AET hasn't been taken advantage of by many states as of now. That should change though.

I might be entirely wrong on this, but I thought Florida's tolled highways (except Florida's Turnpike?) use AET. Maryland has the Intercounty Connector / MD 200 which uses it as well. The problem is how do you convert roadways that relied on toll booths from their trumpets into normal interchanges? It costs a lot of money to do so. I cannot imagine how much money it would take the NYSTA to convert the Thruway into AET.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 24, 2015, 12:10:29 AM
I agree, I feel AET hasn't been taken advantage of by many states as of now. That should change though.

I might be entirely wrong on this, but I thought Florida's tolled highways (except Florida's Turnpike?) use AET. Maryland has the Intercounty Connector / MD 200 which uses it as well. The problem is how do you convert roadways that relied on toll booths from their trumpets into normal interchanges? It costs a lot of money to do so. I cannot imagine how much money it would take the NYSTA to convert the Thruway into AET.

Hence why they're doing the barrier tolls first. Most of the trumpets can stay as trumpets, even with AET, because they're fine as they are and/or there's a lot of development right up to the ROW. Heck, the only exits I'd say "rebuild soon" to are 21, 24, 29, 31, 34A-39 (excluding 35), 46, and 49. Half are freeway-freeway and all but two of the rest are in a relatively dense suburban area. 23 should be moved 1/3 mile south to connect to the current NY 23 and 29 is on the list because geometry sucks, but that could be fixed by realigning the ramps through a dirt lot directly to NY 5S or building a diamond/partial cloverleaf 3/4 mile west.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on March 24, 2015, 08:10:14 AM
Quote
23 should be moved 1/3 mile south to connect to the current NY 23

Topography would likely prevent this, given the close proximity of Catskill Creek and the resulting steep drop-off on the south side of 23.  The steep hill on the east side of the Thruway and north side of 23 also prevents a direct connection.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 1995hoo on March 24, 2015, 08:39:05 AM
I agree, I feel AET hasn't been taken advantage of by many states as of now. That should change though.

I might be entirely wrong on this, but I thought Florida's tolled highways (except Florida's Turnpike?) use AET. Maryland has the Intercounty Connector / MD 200 which uses it as well. The problem is how do you convert roadways that relied on toll booths from their trumpets into normal interchanges? It costs a lot of money to do so. I cannot imagine how much money it would take the NYSTA to convert the Thruway into AET.

You put off the interchange reconfiguration indefinitely because it's not really needed just for the sake of electronic tolling. The interchange will work as a trumpet. Perhaps other designs might be more efficient, but the trumpet will still work.

Regarding Florida, broadly speaking, the cashless roads are concentrated in the Miami area with a few exceptions (such as the elevated express roadway on the Selmon Expressway in the Tampa area). I think Texas has a few cashless toll roads as well—Route 130 is cashless, if I'm not mistaken.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on March 24, 2015, 03:50:59 PM
I agree, I feel AET hasn't been taken advantage of by many states as of now. That should change though.

I might be entirely wrong on this, but I thought Florida's tolled highways (except Florida's Turnpike?) use AET. Maryland has the Intercounty Connector / MD 200 which uses it as well. The problem is how do you convert roadways that relied on toll booths from their trumpets into normal interchanges? It costs a lot of money to do so. I cannot imagine how much money it would take the NYSTA to convert the Thruway into AET.

Hence why they're doing the barrier tolls first. Most of the trumpets can stay as trumpets, even with AET, because they're fine as they are and/or there's a lot of development right up to the ROW. Heck, the only exits I'd say "rebuild soon" to are 21, 24, 29, 31, 34A-39 (excluding 35), 46, and 49. Half are freeway-freeway and all but two of the rest are in a relatively dense suburban area. 23 should be moved 1/3 mile south to connect to the current NY 23 and 29 is on the list because geometry sucks, but that could be fixed by realigning the ramps through a dirt lot directly to NY 5S or building a diamond/partial cloverleaf 3/4 mile west.

You bring up an excellent point regarding Exit 31. What other exit on the Thruway, or any other Interstate for that matter, brings you to a side street to get on an auxilliary Interstate? In addition I think for the width of the city of Utica, there aren't enough Thruway access points like in the other Thruway cities.

If this was a post in the Fantasy forum, what I would do is keep the trumpet but make I-790 into a Y-split with it being parallel to I-90 and connect it to NY 5s by crossing southeast over the Mohawk River, Erie Canal and Sewage Plant Road. Then:


I got bored and made diagrams. Red represents deleted ramps, blue represents current ramps, orange represents new or reconfigured construction, and green represents Bleecker St, Culver Ave., Dwyer Ave. and Pitcher St.

(http://i.imgur.com/hIrbRi3.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/3kgp4K0.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/bkkDWxb.jpg)

Believe it or not, the same split that NY 49 has a couple miles west of these pictures is similar to the one I envisioned.

Just an idea.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: odditude on March 24, 2015, 05:29:10 PM
You bring up an excellent point regarding Exit 31. What other exit on the Thruway, or any other Interstate for that matter, brings you to a side street to get on an auxilliary Interstate?
I-95 to I-676 WB comes to mind. A few of the connections between I-95 and I-76 use surface roads as well (I can't remember which ones exactly off the top of my head).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 24, 2015, 05:33:18 PM
Regarding Exit 23, an elevated roadway, built above the Thruway itself, could be used to make a direct connexion with Route 23.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on March 24, 2015, 05:37:31 PM
You bring up an excellent point regarding Exit 31. What other exit on the Thruway, or any other Interstate for that matter, brings you to a side street to get on an auxilliary Interstate?
I-95 to I-676 WB comes to mind. A few of the connections between I-95 and I-76 use surface roads as well (I can't remember which ones exactly off the top of my head).

Well I really meant a child auxiliary Interstate, but yes the Philly ones are interesting surface st. connections
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 1995hoo on March 24, 2015, 05:54:10 PM
You bring up an excellent point regarding Exit 31. What other exit on the Thruway, or any other Interstate for that matter, brings you to a side street to get on an auxilliary Interstate?
I-95 to I-676 WB comes to mind. A few of the connections between I-95 and I-76 use surface roads as well (I can't remember which ones exactly off the top of my head).

I seem to recall for a long time you had to use a street with a traffic light to go from I-76 to I-176, though it's been corrected.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on March 24, 2015, 10:09:05 PM
You bring up an excellent point regarding Exit 31. What other exit on the Thruway, or any other Interstate for that matter, brings you to a side street to get on an auxilliary Interstate?
I-95 to I-676 WB comes to mind. A few of the connections between I-95 and I-76 use surface roads as well (I can't remember which ones exactly off the top of my head).

Well I really meant a child auxiliary Interstate, but yes the Philly ones are interesting surface st. connections
Plenty of times if you're going the "wrong" direction. I-95 SB to I-395 NB (and the reverse) in CT is one that I imagine has some associated demand. I-295 SB to I-95 NB in RI probably has somewhat less demand. I-80/I-280 in NJ is another of so many examples.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on March 24, 2015, 10:10:45 PM
Regarding Exit 23, an elevated roadway, built above the Thruway itself, could be used to make a direct connexion with Route 23.

Would have to be a really long one! :-P
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 24, 2015, 10:42:57 PM
Regarding Exit 23, an elevated roadway, built above the Thruway itself, could be used to make a direct connexion with Route 23.

Would have to be a really long one! :-P

I'm hoping they meant Exit 21. Honestly, Exit 21 is the only one I mentioned that might not need a rebuild just due to expense. The terrain certainly isn't forgiving. You'd basically have to replace the trumpet with a modified diamond similar to I-88's Exit 25 to avoid building through Home Depot. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that exit gets much in the way of traffic bound for NY 23.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 24, 2015, 10:55:27 PM
Please excuse my typo.  I was referring to Exit 21!
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on March 25, 2015, 12:18:29 PM


You bring up an excellent point regarding Exit 31. What other exit on the Thruway, or any other Interstate for that matter, brings you to a side street to get on an auxilliary Interstate? In addition I think for the width of the city of Utica, there aren't enough Thruway access points like in the other Thruway cities.

If this was a post in the Fantasy forum, what I would do is keep the trumpet but make I-790 into a Y-split with it being parallel to I-90 and connect it to NY 5s by crossing southeast over the Mohawk River, Erie Canal and Sewage Plant Road. Then:

  • from 31 EB, make a flyover ramp to I-790 WB after the toll barrier at the bridge over Genesee St. Then add a u-turn on that same ramp to I-790 EB ramp to NY 5s
  • from 31 WB, it would follow the same path
  • Since there isn't enough room for an I-790/NY 5s WB interchange with I-90, an access road can be constructed to Bleeker St., 1-2 miles east of current Exit 31 that intersects NY 5s and I-90 (a new exit 31a/whatever mile post it would be), and crosses Mohawk River/Erie Canal.

Just an idea.

Thruway Exit 31 was reconfigured to the current setup in 1988-89. Prior to that, Interstate 790 had a direct connection in both directions to the Thruway, the problem is that the section from NY 5/8/12 to the Thruway was a two-lane roadway. There was a third phase to the project that never materialized, which would have connected the east end of the expressway that straddles the Thruway with either NY 5 or NY 5S (sources conflict) near Dyke Rd.

With revitalization efforts of Downtown Utica, there has been talk of making the downtown area more pedestrian friendly, including making it walkable to the North Utica/Harbor Point area. I made the same suggestion you have about connecting NY 5S at Culver Ave to the stub end of Interstate 790 at Leland Ave., which would help get through traffic out of downtown, making that area feel more intimate and getting through traffic onto I-790 and related roadways.

I also suggested to the Thruway Authority that an E-ZPass only interchange be built at CR 840/Judd Rd., but they said that'd never happen. There is a politician pushing for an E-ZPass only interchange with NY 49 right before it stops straddling the Thruway, and I believe that's mentioned on the HOCTS long-range wish list, but the idea lacks adequate funding. Part of converting NY 49 to Rome to Interstate 790 would probably help with that idea.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on March 25, 2015, 12:59:47 PM


You bring up an excellent point regarding Exit 31. What other exit on the Thruway, or any other Interstate for that matter, brings you to a side street to get on an auxilliary Interstate? In addition I think for the width of the city of Utica, there aren't enough Thruway access points like in the other Thruway cities.

If this was a post in the Fantasy forum, what I would do is keep the trumpet but make I-790 into a Y-split with it being parallel to I-90 and connect it to NY 5s by crossing southeast over the Mohawk River, Erie Canal and Sewage Plant Road. Then:

  • from 31 EB, make a flyover ramp to I-790 WB after the toll barrier at the bridge over Genesee St. Then add a u-turn on that same ramp to I-790 EB ramp to NY 5s
  • from 31 WB, it would follow the same path
  • Since there isn't enough room for an I-790/NY 5s WB interchange with I-90, an access road can be constructed to Bleeker St., 1-2 miles east of current Exit 31 that intersects NY 5s and I-90 (a new exit 31a/whatever mile post it would be), and crosses Mohawk River/Erie Canal.

Just an idea.

Thruway Exit 31 was reconfigured to the current setup in 1988-89. Prior to that, Interstate 790 had a direct connection in both directions to the Thruway, the problem is that the section from NY 5/8/12 to the Thruway was a two-lane roadway. There was a third phase to the project that never materialized, which would have connected the east end of the expressway that straddles the Thruway with either NY 5 or NY 5S (sources conflict) near Dyke Rd.

With revitalization efforts of Downtown Utica, there has been talk of making the downtown area more pedestrian friendly, including making it walkable to the North Utica/Harbor Point area. I made the same suggestion you have about connecting NY 5S at Culver Ave to the stub end of Interstate 790 at Leland Ave., which would help get through traffic out of downtown, making that area feel more intimate and getting through traffic onto I-790 and related roadways.

I also suggested to the Thruway Authority that an E-ZPass only interchange be built at CR 840/Judd Rd., but they said that'd never happen. There is a politician pushing for an E-ZPass only interchange with NY 49 right before it stops straddling the Thruway, and I believe that's mentioned on the HOCTS long-range wish list, but the idea lacks adequate funding. Part of converting NY 49 to Rome to Interstate 790 would probably help with that idea.

I heard the Judd Rd argument from here as well. I don't understand the ambivalence about it when the spacing seems appropriate for such an exit.

Never thought about the impact of such an idea acting as a beltway and tying the city together; if they allocate more $$$ in the budget to infrastructure (they won't) such an idea wouldn't be a fantasy


iPhone
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 25, 2015, 01:04:14 PM
Judd Rd is 3 miles from the next exit west. It's under 5 minutes from NY 840 to Exit 32. I'd take NY 49 and/or NY 69 over Judd Rd.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on March 25, 2015, 08:30:23 PM
Judd Rd is 3 miles from the next exit west. It's under 5 minutes from NY 840 to Exit 32. I'd take NY 49 and/or NY 69 over Judd Rd.

Normally I'd agree with you but while the roads between NY/CR 840 and Exit 32 are county maintained roads, they were never really designed to handle the traffic that they handle now. Unfortunately CR 840 feels like it goes nowhere. I know that there's been mentions of somehow connecting CR 840 to NY 49, but I don't know how they would do that.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on March 25, 2015, 09:41:36 PM
Improving CR 32 seems like the obvious choice.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 25, 2015, 09:53:03 PM
Yeah, it's not like much would have to be done to really improve the current network. Realign two intersections to favor movements between NY 840 and the Thruway and you're good.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on March 25, 2015, 11:52:55 PM
Improving CR 32 seems like the obvious choice.

That would seem to be best, but why is the aux Interstate disconnected?

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on March 26, 2015, 12:42:45 AM
Regarding Exit 23, an elevated roadway, built above the Thruway itself, could be used to make a direct connexion with Route 23.

Would have to be a really long one! :-P

I'm hoping they meant Exit 21. Honestly, Exit 21 is the only one I mentioned that might not need a rebuild just due to expense. The terrain certainly isn't forgiving. You'd basically have to replace the trumpet with a modified diamond similar to I-88's Exit 25 to avoid building through Home Depot. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that exit gets much in the way of traffic bound for NY 23.

Indeed. Getting from NY 23 to the Thruway, despite not being a "direct" connection, is pretty painless. I've never felt inconvenienced any time I've done it. Getting off of the Thruway requires passing through one traffic signal. Getting to the Thruway requires passing through one stop sign. Traffic counts doing this are low enough that a four-lane toll plaza more than suffices. Meh.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on March 26, 2015, 12:16:46 PM
Improving CR 32 seems like the obvious choice.

Yeah, I agree that would be a good approach, but part of CR 32 goes through a gorge between Judd Rd and Oriskany, that could pose an issue.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Jim on March 27, 2015, 01:08:53 PM
So there's exactly one Albany-area traffic reporter (Carrie Lee?), who does traffic for the Clear Channel stations here, who always uses the term "Duanesburg Interchange Toll Bar" for the toll barrier at the east end of I-88 at its junction with Thruway Exit 25A.  I know it shouldn't bother me so much, but I've never heard anyone else use the term.  To the best of my memory, nowhere on the Thruway is "Duanesburg" listed on any Exit 25A signage, and the term "toll bar" isn't one in common usage in this area.  A Google search for the term shows it used only in a series of reports from a sigalert.org (until Google indexes this post, I suppose), which appears to be another Clear Channel product.  I'm guessing Ms. Lee is based somewhere else and is reading these without any idea that no one calls it that.  I've heard the location more commonly referred to as "the 25A tolls".
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: NE2 on March 27, 2015, 01:34:58 PM
"Toll Bar" is probably cut off because the full name is too long for the field.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 1995hoo on March 27, 2015, 06:21:43 PM
I've heard a number of traffic reporters, typically the ones on XM Radio, who simply read whatever the display says without thinking about what they're saying. It leads to weird results when the people who put in the information leave out articles and the like under the assumption the reporters will know to add them. Bad assumption. It leads to stuff like "I-395 is backed up from Capital Beltway to Occoquan River" (both should have "the"), but then you also get reporters who insert articles when they should not (example: there is a town in Virginia named Triangle, but some XM reporters apparently assume that word refers to an actual triangle and will say "I-95 is slow past the Triangle"—no, "the Triangle" is an area in North Carolina). Evidently you have to type in exactly what you want read and train them to read exactly that with no thought, which is kind of pathetic.

It sounds like this is something similar: as NE2 suggests, they abbreviated something,maybe for space reasons, but didn't use a period after the abbreviation. Some people seem to find that confusing for whatever reason. I wonder what this reporter would do if it said "Toll Plz" (for "plaza").
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 27, 2015, 07:12:57 PM
Shouldn't there be a "The" preceding "I-395" also?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 27, 2015, 07:30:33 PM
Shouldn't there be a "The" preceding "I-395" also?

Not ever in the Washington, D.C. media market.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 27, 2015, 07:31:40 PM
I've heard a number of traffic reporters, typically the ones on XM Radio, who simply read whatever the display says without thinking about what they're saying. It leads to weird results when the people who put in the information leave out articles and the like under the assumption the reporters will know to add them. Bad assumption. It leads to stuff like "I-395 is backed up from Capital Beltway to Occoquan River" (both should have "the"), but then you also get reporters who insert articles when they should not (example: there is a town in Virginia named Triangle, but some XM reporters apparently assume that word refers to an actual triangle and will say "I-95 is slow past the Triangle"—no, "the Triangle" is an area in North Carolina). Evidently you have to type in exactly what you want read and train them to read exactly that with no thought, which is kind of pathetic.

I am a reasonably satisfied customer of theirs, but not for traffic reports for reasons you state above - their traffic content is annoying, often out-of-date and not helpful. 

Even a rookie traffic anchor on WTOP (or, for that matter, WCBS in New York, WBZ in New England or KNX in Los Angeles) is better.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 27, 2015, 07:42:39 PM
Shouldn't there be a "The" preceding "I-395" also?

Not ever in the Washington, D.C. media market.

Damn straight. I hate how everyone in Buffalo puts "the" in front of everything.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on March 28, 2015, 04:37:13 PM
It sounds like this is something similar: as NE2 suggests, they abbreviated something,maybe for space reasons, but didn't use a period after the abbreviation.
NYSTA called the toll booths "toll barriers", so they could have just as easily chopped off the end in their database (perhaps a character limitation) instead of abbreviating it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on March 29, 2015, 10:19:50 AM
So there's exactly one Albany-area traffic reporter (Carrie Lee?), who does traffic for the Clear Channel stations here, who always uses the term "Duanesburg Interchange Toll Bar" for the toll barrier at the east end of I-88 at its junction with Thruway Exit 25A.  I know it shouldn't bother me so much, but I've never heard anyone else use the term.  To the best of my memory, nowhere on the Thruway is "Duanesburg" listed on any Exit 25A signage, and the term "toll bar" isn't one in common usage in this area.  A Google search for the term shows it used only in a series of reports from a sigalert.org (until Google indexes this post, I suppose), which appears to be another Clear Channel product.  I'm guessing Ms. Lee is based somewhere else and is reading these without any idea that no one calls it that.  I've heard the location more commonly referred to as "the 25A tolls".


I wonder if Exit 25A is called Duanesburg somewhere in the Thruway database because they already have Schenectady East and Schenectady West.  It's like Exit 39 is called State Fair Interchange even though it's a few miles away from the State Fairgrounds.

And I agree with Valerie, Toll Bar is probably an abbreviated Toll Barrier.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 29, 2015, 10:40:53 AM
So there's exactly one Albany-area traffic reporter (Carrie Lee?), who does traffic for the Clear Channel stations here, who always uses the term "Duanesburg Interchange Toll Bar" for the toll barrier at the east end of I-88 at its junction with Thruway Exit 25A.  I know it shouldn't bother me so much, but I've never heard anyone else use the term.  To the best of my memory, nowhere on the Thruway is "Duanesburg" listed on any Exit 25A signage, and the term "toll bar" isn't one in common usage in this area.  A Google search for the term shows it used only in a series of reports from a sigalert.org (until Google indexes this post, I suppose), which appears to be another Clear Channel product.  I'm guessing Ms. Lee is based somewhere else and is reading these without any idea that no one calls it that.  I've heard the location more commonly referred to as "the 25A tolls".


I wonder if Exit 25A is called Duanesburg somewhere in the Thruway database because they already have Schenectady East and Schenectady West.  It's like Exit 39 is called State Fair Interchange even though it's a few miles away from the State Fairgrounds.

And I agree with Valerie, Toll Bar is probably an abbreviated Toll Barrier.

It is somewhere, but it isn't common. I did a quick Google search and got this: http://www.homefacts.com/environmentalhazards/New-York/Schenectady-County/Duanesburg/Tanks-Nys-Thruway-Authority-Nytank42994.html
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 1995hoo on March 29, 2015, 03:08:45 PM
Shouldn't there be a "The" preceding "I-395" also?

Why would there be? Why would there be any reason to put an article there? You don't normally say "the Interstate 395" unless it's in the context of something like "the Interstate 395 construction project continues near Landmark."



(Comments about XM traffic reporters omitted)

I am a reasonably satisfied customer of theirs, but not for traffic reports for reasons you state above - their traffic content is annoying, often out-of-date and not helpful. 

Even a rookie traffic anchor on WTOP (or, for that matter, WCBS in New York, WBZ in New England or KNX in Los Angeles) is better.

I've had XM service since 2004 and I am also satisfied, but I seldom listen to the traffic reports except when I'm in another city. If I'm driving near, say, Orlando, I'll tune in the XM traffic report rather than searching around for an FM report when I don't know which FM station I need. Also, when I'm in a different city it's the one time I find the XM reporters' sometimes odd wording to be helpful—they're less likely to use solely local jargon like road names out-of-area drivers may not know. (Of course, this is part of what can make it annoying to locals!) If I were driving in Chicago, for example, I wouldn't know any of the little names they use instead of Interstate numbers.

When I first got XM in 2004, each city had its own traffic channel on a recorded loop. That was useful if I missed the FM report because with FM, I'd have to wait ten minutes for the next report. Those ten minutes were crucial because I'd have to commit to a route by then, so the XM reports' continuous loop was useful. Nowadays, the XM channels are shared: DC and Baltimore being on the same channel makes a lot of sense, but the third city on that channel is Atlanta and that makes no sense at all. So you have a ten-minute wait now. I just opt for FM instead.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 29, 2015, 04:45:44 PM
Don't know if its the case now, but back in 2005, Sirius was using Shadow Traffic for their reports (then a part of Westwood One). I would hear the very same traffic reporters on Sirius that I did on the local FM stations. NY and Philly shared a station, so it worked well for driving in NJ since it basically covered the whole state.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 29, 2015, 06:25:26 PM
I've had XM service since 2004 and I am also satisfied, but I seldom listen to the traffic reports except when I'm in another city. If I'm driving near, say, Orlando, I'll tune in the XM traffic report rather than searching around for an FM report when I don't know which FM station I need. Also, when I'm in a different city it's the one time I find the XM reporters' sometimes odd wording to be helpful—they're less likely to use solely local jargon like road names out-of-area drivers may not know. (Of course, this is part of what can make it annoying to locals!) If I were driving in Chicago, for example, I wouldn't know any of the little names they use instead of Interstate numbers.

I just use the Inrix app on my Android tablet for out-of-town, unless I am in a city with a CBS all-news radio station (those tend to have good traffic reports, even though the traffic reports are often provided by a third party traffic reporting firm).

When I first got XM in 2004, each city had its own traffic channel on a recorded loop. That was useful if I missed the FM report because with FM, I'd have to wait ten minutes for the next report. Those ten minutes were crucial because I'd have to commit to a route by then, so the XM reports' continuous loop was useful. Nowadays, the XM channels are shared: DC and Baltimore being on the same channel makes a lot of sense, but the third city on that channel is Atlanta and that makes no sense at all. So you have a ten-minute wait now. I just opt for FM instead.

Baltimore and Washington together are fine, given how close together they are.  But Atlanta on the same channel makes no sense at all.

I could even see New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington together on the same channel. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on March 30, 2015, 01:50:46 AM
I wonder if Exit 25A is called Duanesburg somewhere in the Thruway database because they already have Schenectady East and Schenectady West.  It's like Exit 39 is called State Fair Interchange even though it's a few miles away from the State Fairgrounds.

I'm still hoping to find a full list of what NYSTA considers to be the formal interchange names.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 30, 2015, 10:04:27 AM
I think the closest thing to formal interchange names would be what was printed on the old full-size tickets.  I would not be surprised that one of our members has an old ticket from the days when the controlled system began in Spring Valley in their collection of road memorabilia.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on March 30, 2015, 10:08:14 AM
I wonder if Exit 25A is called Duanesburg somewhere in the Thruway database because they already have Schenectady East and Schenectady West.  It's like Exit 39 is called State Fair Interchange even though it's a few miles away from the State Fairgrounds.

I'm still hoping to find a full list of what NYSTA considers to be the formal interchange names.
Yeah, that would be pretty cool.

I think the closest thing to formal interchange names would be what was printed on the old full-size tickets.  I would not be surprised that one of our members has an old ticket from the days when the controlled system began in Spring Valley in their collection of road memorabilia.
This one from the 90s is the one that seems to be easy to find online: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/New_York_Thruway_Toll_Ticket.jpg
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 30, 2015, 11:15:43 AM
I think the closest thing to formal interchange names would be what was printed on the old full-size tickets.  I would not be surprised that one of our members has an old ticket from the days when the controlled system began in Spring Valley in their collection of road memorabilia.

You'd have to go really far back for that one. Ticket system was moved north decades ago.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on March 30, 2015, 02:17:10 PM
There is a vintage NY Thruway ticket at the Guilderland Service Area inside at the "History Happened Here" display. It is from Harriman - exit 16 - and very early.

 :nod: yes, some of us "accidentally lost" their tickets  ;-)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on March 30, 2015, 03:07:40 PM
I think the closest thing to formal interchange names would be what was printed on the old full-size tickets.  I would not be surprised that one of our members has an old ticket from the days when the controlled system began in Spring Valley in their collection of road memorabilia.

Yeah, unfortunately that is the closest I've seen. But it doesn't show names like "State Fair" and "Duanesburg", nor even more pedestrian ones like "Schenectady East" and "Schenectady West". It's the source of those names that I'd like to see.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 30, 2015, 03:45:49 PM
I think the closest thing to formal interchange names would be what was printed on the old full-size tickets.  I would not be surprised that one of our members has an old ticket from the days when the controlled system began in Spring Valley in their collection of road memorabilia.

You'd have to go really far back for that one. Ticket system was moved north decades ago.
Yes indeed.  When I was little, the signs were blue.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 30, 2015, 05:38:23 PM
Once the Thruway was completed, the ticket system always started at Harriman.  There was an across the road cash toll booth at Spring Valley.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 30, 2015, 05:48:18 PM
Once the Thruway was completed, the ticket system always started at Harriman.  There was an across the road cash toll booth at Spring Valley.

Nope. Woodbury barrier wasn't built until 1974.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on March 30, 2015, 06:39:30 PM
From the official Thruway timeline documents distributed at the New York State Fair in 2002. Interestingly, Interchange 25A is not named. 

November 25, 1963   With completion of the 16-mile northern end of the Taconic State Parkway, the Thruway opened its Taconic Interchange B2 on the Berkshire Section, a direct link between the two highways.
October 29, 1971   Coxsackie Interchange 21B was opened at Milepost 124.5. The $2,400,000 interchange was financed with State funds.
May 25, 1973   Collamer Interchange 34A, built by the State at Milepost 276.6 in Syracuse, opened.
May 28, 1982   Interchange 25A, which connects I-88 with the Thruway near Schenectady, opened.
November 1, 1987   A new State Fair Interchange 39 opened in Syracuse. The new interchange is located at milepost 289.53, approximately 1 mile west of the old Interchange 39.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Sam on March 30, 2015, 08:31:02 PM


Yeah, unfortunately that is the closest I've seen. But it doesn't show names like "State Fair" and "Duanesburg", nor even more pedestrian ones like "Schenectady East" and "Schenectady West". It's the source of those names that I'd like to see.

I don't know where (or if) you could  find a document with those names, but ... I've gathered an informal list of my own from listening to the Thruway radio system over the years.  These are the names the dispatchers and radio units use to identify the interchanges. I'm sure they're based on some official names.


New Rochelle Barrier
Yonkers Barrier
Tarrytown Barrier
Spring Valley Barrier
Woodbury Barrier
16-Harriman
17-Newburgh
18-New Paltz
19-Kingston
20-Saugerties East, Saugerties West
21-Catskill
21B-Coxsackie
B1-Post Road
B2-Taconic
Canaan Barrier
22-Selkirk
23-Boulevard
24-Washington Ave.
25-Schenectady
25A-Duanesburg
26-Rotterdam
27-Amsterdam
28-Fultonville
29-Canajoharie
29A-Little Falls
30-Herkimer
31-Utica
32-Westmoreland
33-Verona
34-Canastota
34A-Collamer
35-Thompson Road
36-Mattydale
37-Electronics
38-Liverpool
39-State Fair
40-Weedsport
41-Waterloo
42-Geneva
43-Manchester
44-Canandaigua
45-Victor
46-Henrietta
47-Le Roy
48-Batavia
48A-Pembroke
49-Depew
Williamsville Barrier
City Line Barrier
Black Rock Barrier
South Bridge
North Bridge
Lackawanna Barrier
56-Blasdell
57-Hamburg
57A-Eden
58-Silver Creek
59-Dunkirk
60-Westfield
Ripley Barrier
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Sam on March 30, 2015, 08:35:05 PM
Somewhere I once found a list of the official names of each segment of the Thruway system. In addition to the Niagara and Berkshire sections, there is a Mohawk Trail, Iroquois Path, etc. I'd love to be able to find that again.

"From a point on the mainline intersecting United States Highway Number 20 at or in the vicinity of Westmere to a point on the mainline intersecting United States Highway Number 11..." :)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: mrsman on March 30, 2015, 11:36:14 PM
I've had XM service since 2004 and I am also satisfied, but I seldom listen to the traffic reports except when I'm in another city. If I'm driving near, say, Orlando, I'll tune in the XM traffic report rather than searching around for an FM report when I don't know which FM station I need. Also, when I'm in a different city it's the one time I find the XM reporters' sometimes odd wording to be helpful—they're less likely to use solely local jargon like road names out-of-area drivers may not know. (Of course, this is part of what can make it annoying to locals!) If I were driving in Chicago, for example, I wouldn't know any of the little names they use instead of Interstate numbers.

I just use the Inrix app on my Android tablet for out-of-town, unless I am in a city with a CBS all-news radio station (those tend to have good traffic reports, even though the traffic reports are often provided by a third party traffic reporting firm).

When I first got XM in 2004, each city had its own traffic channel on a recorded loop. That was useful if I missed the FM report because with FM, I'd have to wait ten minutes for the next report. Those ten minutes were crucial because I'd have to commit to a route by then, so the XM reports' continuous loop was useful. Nowadays, the XM channels are shared: DC and Baltimore being on the same channel makes a lot of sense, but the third city on that channel is Atlanta and that makes no sense at all. So you have a ten-minute wait now. I just opt for FM instead.

Baltimore and Washington together are fine, given how close together they are.  But Atlanta on the same channel makes no sense at all.

I could even see New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington together on the same channel.

I don't pay for this service, but I remember having this on a recent rental car.  A quick check of their website:

132 Boston/Philly/Pittsburgh
133 NYC
134 DC/Balt/Atl
135 Chicago/Detroit
136 Miami/Orlando/St Pete
137 DFW/Houston/Phoenix
138 St Louis/Minneapolis
139 SF/Seattle
140 LA/San Diego

What I remember was that they grouped 3 cities together on each channel, but allowed LA and NYC to be on its own channel.  Based on the current list, they are still following that model to some degree.  NYC all by itself.  Chicago and LA with one other city.  And then group the rest.  Also, they decided not to open more channels to traffic, so like it or not there may be some odd groupings.

Atlanta had to go somewhere.  One option could have been grouping Boston with NYC.  Pittsburgh with Chicago and Detroit.  Philly with Baltimore and DC.  That would leave one channel open to put Atlanta with some new markets in the South (Raleigh, Nashville, Memphis ???).  Maybe as they expand their offerings.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: thenetwork on March 31, 2015, 11:09:14 AM
132 Boston/Philly/Pittsburgh
133 NYC

Put Boston and NYC on the same channel as the Northeast Channel, and include major traffic/weather issues from points in-between when warranted.


134 DC/Balt/Atl

Switch out Philadelphia with Atlanta and call it the Mid-Atlantic Corridor channel.  Atlanta would either be on it's own channel or paired up with other "isolated" Southern cities (New Orleans, Charlotte??)

135 Chicago/Detroit
136 Miami/Orlando/St Pete

No Problems with these channels, they make sense.

137 DFW/Houston/Phoenix
Switch out San Antonio for Phoenix and put Phoenix on it's own channel with Las Vegas.


138 St Louis/Minneapolis

St. Louis/KC/I-70 corridor would make a better stand alone channel.  Perhaps you could add Indianapolis.


139 SF/Seattle

Spin off Seattle onto a new channel pairing with Portland.  Rename the SFO Channel as the Bay Area Channel, including San Jose, Sacramento & Oakland.


140 LA/San Diego

Another perfect channel.   You could arguably put Vegas on this channel too for the I-15 corridor, but SoCal is a big enough monster on it's own already.


As for the remaining cities:

Minneapolis
-- this is such an isolated major city with no real good large city neighbor, unless you add Milwaukee (which should really be part of the CHI/DET Channel) or maybe even Denver (another isolated major city which merits a satellite traffic channel).


Pittsburgh
-- Sports fans may not like it, but put Pittsburgh on a channel with Cleveland, Buffalo and/or Columbus (all are large enough cities to warrant satellite traffic reports).

Not sure if a Nashville/Memphis channel is warranted, but would make for a logical pairing.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 31, 2015, 11:29:39 AM
Actually, if satellite radio covers Canada, put Buffalo with Toronto and Hamilton and include border times. People in Buffalo don't like to admit it, but it's basically one giant metro area.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alex on March 31, 2015, 11:36:19 AM
There is a vintage NY Thruway ticket at the Guilderland Service Area inside at the "History Happened Here" display. It is from Harriman - exit 16 - and very early.

 :nod: yes, some of us "accidentally lost" their tickets  ;-)

We videotaped our ticket on my first ride on the Thruway leading north from Newburgh (October 18, 1993):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/ny_thruway_toll_ticket_01.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/ny_thruway_toll_ticket_01.jpg)

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/ny_thruway_toll_ticket_02.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/ny_thruway_toll_ticket_02.jpg)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on March 31, 2015, 12:22:39 PM


Yeah, unfortunately that is the closest I've seen. But it doesn't show names like "State Fair" and "Duanesburg", nor even more pedestrian ones like "Schenectady East" and "Schenectady West". It's the source of those names that I'd like to see.

I don't know where (or if) you could  find a document with those names, but ... I've gathered an informal list of my own from listening to the Thruway radio system over the years.  These are the names the dispatchers and radio units use to identify the interchanges. I'm sure they're based on some official names.


New Rochelle Barrier
Yonkers Barrier
Tarrytown Barrier
Spring Valley Barrier
Woodbury Barrier
16-Harriman
17-Newburgh
18-New Paltz
19-Kingston
20-Saugerties East, Saugerties West
21-Catskill
21B-Coxsackie
B1-Post Road
B2-Taconic
Canaan Barrier
22-Selkirk
23-Boulevard
24-Washington Ave.
25-Schenectady
25A-Duanesburg
26-Rotterdam
27-Amsterdam
28-Fultonville
29-Canajoharie
29A-Little Falls
30-Herkimer
31-Utica
32-Westmoreland
33-Verona
34-Canastota
34A-Collamer
35-Thompson Road
36-Mattydale
37-Electronics
38-Liverpool
39-State Fair
40-Weedsport
41-Waterloo
42-Geneva
43-Manchester
44-Canandaigua
45-Victor
46-Henrietta
47-Le Roy
48-Batavia
48A-Pembroke
49-Depew
Williamsville Barrier
City Line Barrier
Black Rock Barrier
South Bridge
North Bridge
Lackawanna Barrier
56-Blasdell
57-Hamburg
57A-Eden
58-Silver Creek
59-Dunkirk
60-Westfield
Ripley Barrier


Those names you have listed are the ones that I've heard quite a few Thruway employees use over the years.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on March 31, 2015, 08:36:38 PM
Actually, if satellite radio covers Canada, put Buffalo with Toronto and Hamilton and include border times. People in Buffalo don't like to admit it, but it's basically one giant metro area.

They call it the "Golden Horseshoe..."

Too bad crossing the border couldn't be like going through EZPass.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on March 31, 2015, 08:51:16 PM
Get Nexus and cross at the Peace Bridge.  They're so used to locals crossing that way that they only ask one question (to check for goods coming in).  It's like the tail end of the car chase in the James Bond movie "The Living Daylights".

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 31, 2015, 10:07:35 PM
I only cross at the Peace Bridge unless it's backed up, I'm coming back from Toronto late at night (take 405), or I'm doing something in Niagara Falls (take 420/Rainbow). I don't have Nexus, but I typically get nothing more than "anything to declare?" and "where you going?" at any crossing going in and the US people ask where I live. If you've got New York or Ontario plates, they typically don't give you much of a problem at the Buffalo crossings.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PurdueBill on April 01, 2015, 12:58:25 AM
I'll contribute pics of my ticket from May 1998 iIrc--just before I got my Mass Pike FastLane tag.  It slid under the seat and I was paying $10.05 anyway so no biggie.  I'd rather have the ticket for memorabilia anyway.

(https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/314468_10100810795496258_1204997624_n.jpg?oh=0db7317cb3a033e4c88368727aab812f&oe=559C8685)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/298945_10100810797177888_1555614324_n.jpg?oh=cdca2470106fdfd3fe829b41f017e66b&oe=55AA9904&__gda__=1436533259_762f53fb010247c37240857955000eb2)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: WNYroadgeek on April 03, 2015, 03:13:24 PM
Exit 57A (Eden/Angola) to be temporarily closed starting Tuesday:

Quote
The Thruway Authority announced today a multi-phase, $3 million pavement rehabilitation project that will temporarily close the on and off ramps of I-90 exit 57A (Eden-Angola) beginning Tuesday, April 7.

The project, to be completed by Oakgrove Construction, will include:

  • Re-paving of the east and westbound on and off ramps
  • Re-paving of the roadway in the immediate vicinity of the toll plaza
  • Rehabilitation of the exit overpass structure
  • Guide rail replacement
  • Shoulder excavation
  • Drainage system improvements

The initial phase of the work will close the westbound off and on ramps and the exit overpass structure from April 7 through April 28.

The eastbound exit ramp will be closed from April 28 through May 6.

Work in the immediate vicinity of the toll plaza will be completed between May 7 and May 22.

The eastbound on ramp will be closed May 26 through June 8.

The final phase of the project includes a rehabilitation of the exit overpass beginning June 9 through mid-September. The overpass will be reduced to one lane during the work and temporary traffic lights will be installed on both sides of the overpass to facilitate traffic.

Motorists should follow the posted detours throughout the duration of the project.

http://www.thruway.ny.gov/news/pressrel/2015/04/2015-04-07-temp-closures.html
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on April 03, 2015, 06:50:36 PM
Exit 57A (Eden/Angola) to be temporarily closed starting Tuesday:

Quote
The Thruway Authority announced today a multi-phase, $3 million pavement rehabilitation project that will temporarily close the on and off ramps of I-90 exit 57A (Eden-Angola) beginning Tuesday, April 7.

The project, to be completed by Oakgrove Construction, will include:

  • Re-paving of the east and westbound on and off ramps
  • Re-paving of the roadway in the immediate vicinity of the toll plaza
  • Rehabilitation of the exit overpass structure
  • Guide rail replacement
  • Shoulder excavation
  • Drainage system improvements

The initial phase of the work will close the westbound off and on ramps and the exit overpass structure from April 7 through April 28.

The eastbound exit ramp will be closed from April 28 through May 6.

Work in the immediate vicinity of the toll plaza will be completed between May 7 and May 22.

The eastbound on ramp will be closed May 26 through June 8.

The final phase of the project includes a rehabilitation of the exit overpass beginning June 9 through mid-September. The overpass will be reduced to one lane during the work and temporary traffic lights will be installed on both sides of the overpass to facilitate traffic.

Motorists should follow the posted detours throughout the duration of the project.

http://www.thruway.ny.gov/news/pressrel/2015/04/2015-04-07-temp-closures.html

Good. Those ramps haven't been touched since the exit was built.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on April 06, 2015, 06:59:56 PM
My favorite border crossing story was from the Lewiston crossing. I ended up discussing college football with the Canadian border agent. No idea how it came up but it was a fun discussion.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: amroad17 on April 11, 2015, 11:24:52 PM
My grandparents had a 1971 Rand McNally that did list the interchange names of the Thruway in a box on the New York state map.  IIRC, Interchange 35 was named Carrier Circle, 39 was Syracuse-West (although I would have preferred State Fair), and 45 was either Rochester-East or Victor.  Of course, 25A and 34A were not listed.  I am not sure when 29A opened.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on April 12, 2015, 12:14:19 AM
My grandparents had a 1971 Rand McNally that did list the interchange names of the Thruway in a box on the New York state map.  IIRC, Interchange 35 was named Carrier Circle, 39 was Syracuse-West (although I would have preferred State Fair), and 45 was either Rochester-East or Victor.  Of course, 25A and 34A were not listed.  I am not sure when 29A opened.

29A and 34A opened in 1973
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on April 12, 2015, 04:14:50 PM
My grandparents had a 1971 Rand McNally that did list the interchange names of the Thruway in a box on the New York state map.  IIRC, Interchange 35 was named Carrier Circle, 39 was Syracuse-West (although I would have preferred State Fair), and 45 was either Rochester-East or Victor.  Of course, 25A and 34A were not listed.  I am not sure when 29A opened.

29A and 34A opened in 1973

I wish I had gotten a photo of the original 1 mile sign for Exit 34A, because it was a unique format, even for the Thruway.

(481)
Syracuse
Chittenango
EXIT 34A
1 MILE


The "tabbed" version wasn't put up until 1986 or so when the section of 481 between I-90 and Northern Blvd. was opened.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: jemacedo9 on April 12, 2015, 06:16:14 PM
Does anyone know the history behind this overpass design?  This is the NY 64 overpass just west of Exit 45 near Rochester.  https://goo.gl/maps/FQ5hT (https://goo.gl/maps/FQ5hT)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Sam on April 12, 2015, 07:52:55 PM
The West Bloomfield Rd. overpass next to it was the same design. It was replaced a few years ago with a standard type design.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on April 12, 2015, 09:34:09 PM
The West Bloomfield Rd. overpass next to it was the same design. It was replaced a few years ago with a standard type design.

I'd say more than a few years. Replacement was built in 1989 per the state database. I always thought that bridge was relatively new. Evidently it's original and holding out better than most bridges its age (or newer, for that matter).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on April 27, 2015, 07:29:50 PM
The North Grand Island Bridge had a pretty large incident today. The SB span is being redecked overnight with both directions on the NB span, but the contractor failed to have the bridge open by 6 AM (the scheduled time). Didn't reopen until after 6 PM. Traffic from the north was backed up to NY 182 and traffic from the south was back to the South bridge. Fine is $1,000/minute, capped at $125,000/day. Supposedly took 30-45 minutes to get through the mess (normally takes under 10).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PurdueBill on April 28, 2015, 10:18:50 AM
The North Grand Island Bridge had a pretty large incident today. The SB span is being redecked overnight with both directions on the NB span, but the contractor failed to have the bridge open by 6 AM (the scheduled time). Didn't reopen until after 6 PM. Traffic from the north was backed up to NY 182 and traffic from the south was back to the South bridge. Fine is $1,000/minute, capped at $125,000/day. Supposedly took 30-45 minutes to get through the mess (normally takes under 10).

Odd that the fine for 12 hours late is the same as for 3 hours late, which is only $5000 more than the fine for 2 hours late.  Once you get to 2 hours and 5 minutes behind, you might as well use the rest of the day!  Why not ramp it up?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on April 28, 2015, 01:12:13 PM
The North Grand Island Bridge had a pretty large incident today. The SB span is being redecked overnight with both directions on the NB span, but the contractor failed to have the bridge open by 6 AM (the scheduled time). Didn't reopen until after 6 PM. Traffic from the north was backed up to NY 182 and traffic from the south was back to the South bridge. Fine is $1,000/minute, capped at $125,000/day. Supposedly took 30-45 minutes to get through the mess (normally takes under 10).

Odd that the fine for 12 hours late is the same as for 3 hours late, which is only $5000 more than the fine for 2 hours late.  Once you get to 2 hours and 5 minutes behind, you might as well use the rest of the day!  Why not ramp it up?

My thought exactly. Thing was closed all flipping day and the surface roads between I-290 and Niagara Falls were clogged and, after 8:05, there was no incentive to reopen it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on April 28, 2015, 09:10:33 PM
I drove on the Thruway EB on Sunday and noticed that the Erie Canal Heritage Park just beyond the Port Byron Service Area is now open.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/314912/2015-04-26%2017.56.39.jpg)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 28, 2015, 11:01:26 PM
The North Grand Island Bridge had a pretty large incident today. The SB span is being redecked overnight with both directions on the NB span, but the contractor failed to have the bridge open by 6 AM (the scheduled time). Didn't reopen until after 6 PM. Traffic from the north was backed up to NY 182 and traffic from the south was back to the South bridge. Fine is $1,000/minute, capped at $125,000/day. Supposedly took 30-45 minutes to get through the mess (normally takes under 10).

Odd that the fine for 12 hours late is the same as for 3 hours late, which is only $5000 more than the fine for 2 hours late.  Once you get to 2 hours and 5 minutes behind, you might as well use the rest of the day!  Why not ramp it up?

My thought exactly. Thing was closed all flipping day and the surface roads between I-290 and Niagara Falls were clogged and, after 8:05, there was no incentive to reopen it.

Presumably because if something goes really wrong, the best approach to fixing it is not to bankrupt the contractor.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on April 28, 2015, 11:03:35 PM
I drove on the Thruway EB on Sunday and noticed that the Erie Canal Heritage Park just beyond the Port Byron Service Area is now open.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/314912/2015-04-26%2017.56.39.jpg)

So many things wrong with that assembly. Surprised it doesn't have a "text stop" sign.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on April 29, 2015, 06:52:24 PM
I drove on the Thruway EB on Sunday and noticed that the Erie Canal Heritage Park just beyond the Port Byron Service Area is now open.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/314912/2015-04-26%2017.56.39.jpg)

So many things wrong with that assembly. Surprised it doesn't have a "text stop" sign.

If its nice i suppose I can stop off next week coming home. I wish I could drive home all the time instead of taking stupid Amtrak.

Also, thanks Alps for that link on your website directing me to those historical satellite images. It was pretty crazy seeing my entire town as bunch of trees back in the 50s. I mean, I've used Google Earth historical imagery to go back to the 80s, but I haven't seen imagery for areas outside of Buffalo as much as I have today.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 05, 2015, 01:58:35 PM
Has anyone ever heard of any plans by the New York State Thruway Authority to even study the idea of widening the I-87 part of the Thruway so it is six lanes total (three each way) all the way from Harriman (Thruway Exit 16) to Albany (Exit 23)?

IMO, seems to be needed to handle the weekend traffic.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 02:01:42 PM
The fact that anyone thought that a road running from New York City to Albany should NOT be three lanes the whole way just speaks to how laughably incompetent some public officials can be.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Jim on May 05, 2015, 03:32:05 PM
You have to keep in mind how long ago the road was built.  2 lanes each way was likely sufficient for the time.  The fact that it hasn't been expanded by now is another story.  It does seem long overdue.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on May 05, 2015, 03:38:55 PM
You have to keep in mind how long ago the road was built.  2 lanes each way was likely sufficient for the time.  The fact that it hasn't been expanded by now is another story.  It does seem long overdue.

You do also have the Taconic across the river for non-commercial traffic. For selfish reasons, I do wish it went a little farther, up to Bennington perhaps. Anything to get from NYC to VT/NH without going through CT would be pretty nice. :-)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 05, 2015, 03:56:34 PM
You have to keep in mind how long ago the road was built.  2 lanes each way was likely sufficient for the time.  The fact that it hasn't been expanded by now is another story.  It does seem long overdue.

In defense of the Thruway, the I-87 section is otherwise still a well-engineered and well-maintained freeway-class road, better than more than a few "free" Interstates that I have driven in other states (such as Pennsylvania).

But a widening to six lanes would seem to be in order (I have only once (recently) driven the I-90 part of the Thruway, and only between Albany and Syracuse, and that seemed a lot less busy).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 05, 2015, 04:20:27 PM
You have to keep in mind how long ago the road was built.  2 lanes each way was likely sufficient for the time.  The fact that it hasn't been expanded by now is another story.  It does seem long overdue.

You do also have the Taconic across the river for non-commercial traffic. For selfish reasons, I do wish it went a little farther, up to Bennington perhaps. Anything to get from NYC to VT/NH without going through CT would be pretty nice. :-)

If anything, at least it should have gone the last few miles to US 20 so I could avoid the toll. Much harder to shunpike with the current road network.

On the topic of widening the Thruway, it would be nice, but look at the 4-lane sections near Buffalo with much higher amounts of weekday traffic (especially Exits 49-50 and 55-57). Those need to be 6 (and the free section needs to be 8+), but that's not happening anytime soon. It really isn't that expensive to widen to 6 lanes, as every bridge can already carry 3 lanes per direction and always has been able to carry that amount of lanes (because the thing was designed to be widened), but this is New York we're talking about.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 05:13:30 PM
You have to keep in mind how long ago the road was built.  2 lanes each way was likely sufficient for the time.  The fact that it hasn't been expanded by now is another story.  It does seem long overdue.

In defense of the Thruway, the I-87 section is otherwise still a well-engineered and well-maintained freeway-class road, better than more than a few "free" Interstates that I have driven in other states (such as Pennsylvania).

But a widening to six lanes would seem to be in order (I have only once (recently) driven the I-90 part of the Thruway, and only between Albany and Syracuse, and that seemed a lot less busy).

For as completely uninteresting as I find much of the I-90 section of the Thruway, it is a magnificently engineered highway. I will give them that.

Also, I once drove back to New Hampshire from NYC via I-87 to Albany and then NY Route 7 into Vermont. I got stuck in traffic at the Tappan Zee.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 05, 2015, 07:20:04 PM
For as completely uninteresting as I find much of the I-90 section of the Thruway, it is a magnificently engineered highway. I will give them that.

At least between Albany and Syracuse, I found the scenery to be rather nice.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 07:32:14 PM
For as completely uninteresting as I find much of the I-90 section of the Thruway, it is a magnificently engineered highway. I will give them that.

At least between Albany and Syracuse, I found the scenery to be rather nice.

The Southern Tier Expressway is the more scenic of the main east-west highways across upstate New York. The scenery is certainly nice. Once you pass Syracuse though, it starts to go downhill a bit (at least in my opinion). I was always a huge fan of the Southern Tier Expressway though and would recommend it to anyone who wants a really scenic drive across upstate New York and is just passing through. If you're going to points east, you can connect to I-90 in Albany and continue your trek.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2015, 07:33:31 PM
You have to keep in mind how long ago the road was built.  2 lanes each way was likely sufficient for the time.  The fact that it hasn't been expanded by now is another story.  It does seem long overdue.

You do also have the Taconic across the river for non-commercial traffic. For selfish reasons, I do wish it went a little farther, up to Bennington perhaps. Anything to get from NYC to VT/NH without going through CT would be pretty nice. :-)
  Take the Taconic to I-90.  Just go east for one exit and then up NY 22.   It is really nice that way.  True NY 22 is not freeway, but it is a good road despite being two lanes.  You can use that up to NY 7 and then east into VT (and NH).  Or use NY 43 to MA 43 to MA 2 East.  MA 2 is a nice ride through the Berkshires.  Once you get to Greenfield you have I-91 to take you into VT or NH.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 05, 2015, 07:46:00 PM
You have to keep in mind how long ago the road was built.  2 lanes each way was likely sufficient for the time.  The fact that it hasn't been expanded by now is another story.  It does seem long overdue.

You do also have the Taconic across the river for non-commercial traffic. For selfish reasons, I do wish it went a little farther, up to Bennington perhaps. Anything to get from NYC to VT/NH without going through CT would be pretty nice. :-)
  Take the Taconic to I-90.  Just go east for one exit and then up NY 22.   It is really nice that way.  True NY 22 is not freeway, but it is a good road despite being two lanes.  You can use that up to NY 7 and then east into VT (and NH).  Or use NY 43 to MA 43 to MA 2 East.  MA 2 is a nice ride through the Berkshires.  Once you get to Greenfield you have I-91 to take you into VT or NH.

But that requires paying a toll and that's the issue here. Taconic was supposed to go further north (in some original plans, to Saratoga) and, while there are still clearings visible, the NT looked quite different 40+ years ago.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on May 05, 2015, 08:31:55 PM
You do also have the Taconic across the river for non-commercial traffic. For selfish reasons, I do wish it went a little farther, up to Bennington perhaps. Anything to get from NYC to VT/NH without going through CT would be pretty nice. :-)

If anything, at least it should have gone the last few miles to US 20 so I could avoid the toll. Much harder to shunpike with the current road network.

Maybe I'm just not a hardcore shunpiker, but even if this connection existed I don't see how it would be worth using in order to save 38 cents.


As for six laning the road from exits 16 to 23... well, that's nearly 100 miles (97, precisely). If we extrapolate out what the widening between exits 23 and 24 cost ($115 million for 6 miles), we're talking nearly $2 billion. Some states would be ambitious enough to undertake such a thing but New York is not one of them.

Meanwhile, while that part of the Thruway does get rather crowded and sloggish a lot of the time, in the greater scheme of things it's not that bad. There are no particular bottlenecks creating stop and go queues, it's just general volume. New York has plenty of roads with far worse problems that ought to be higher prioriries. The Hutch, for example is much more desperately in need of six laning than the Thruway is (albeit probably less politically feasible because NIMBYs).


Also, it still amazes me how on weekends everyone piles on the Thruway while the Taconic remains a total ghost town until you get down to the Poughkeepsie area. How is it that people seemingly don't know it exists?

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 08:38:08 PM
Simple. The Thruway is more well known to tourists and the control city on I-87 is Albany (or New York City if you're coming FROM Albany). People just tend to take the road that appears most obvious.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 05, 2015, 08:50:43 PM
Also the lack of services. With the gas stations closed, there's no services close to the road north of NY 115. If you're going to Albany, that's a 55 mile gap without anything that can be easily found. No rest areas, either. The lower speed limit does deter some, yet travel speeds on the Taconic are often higher than those on the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Jim on May 05, 2015, 08:51:58 PM
Simple. The Thruway is more well known to tourists and the control city on I-87 is Albany (or New York City if you're coming FROM Albany). People just tend to take the road that appears most obvious.

At least for me, there's more to it than that.  I really enjoy the Taconic, and used it a lot when I was living in western Mass.  However, if there's weather or it's around dusk, it just doesn't feel safe to me.  The nasty accidents I saw and the sheer number deer I've seen on the Taconic, those made all the more dangerous by the trees being right up near the (nonexistent) shoulders of the road, made me choose the Thruway on a good number of trips.

Now, I live west of Albany and I'm often going south not to go to NYC but to get into NJ for points south, so the Taconic isn't as attractive an option anyway.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 09:00:09 PM
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever actually taken the Taconic. I'll need to take it the next time I'm in the Northeast.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on May 05, 2015, 09:08:46 PM
Also the lack of services. With the gas stations closed, there's no services close to the road north of NY 115. If you're going to Albany, that's a 55 mile gap without anything that can be easily found. No rest areas, either. The lower speed limit does deter some, yet travel speeds on the Taconic are often higher than those on the Thruway.
You do also have the Taconic across the river for non-commercial traffic. For selfish reasons, I do wish it went a little farther, up to Bennington perhaps. Anything to get from NYC to VT/NH without going through CT would be pretty nice. :-)
  Take the Taconic to I-90.  Just go east for one exit and then up NY 22.   It is really nice that way.  True NY 22 is not freeway, but it is a good road despite being two lanes.  You can use that up to NY 7 and then east into VT (and NH).  Or use NY 43 to MA 43 to MA 2 East.  MA 2 is a nice ride through the Berkshires.  Once you get to Greenfield you have I-91 to take you into VT or NH.

Well yeah, I know how to get there on the current roads. I go over to NY 22 via NY 295 and then cut across Vermont. But I mean, I'd like a way that isn't an hour longer than CT 15 to I-91 (and variants thereof).

Also the lack of services. With the gas stations closed, there's no services close to the road north of NY 115.

Sure there is: https://goo.gl/maps/IwkQT  :D
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 05, 2015, 09:31:03 PM
Also the lack of services. With the gas stations closed, there's no services close to the road north of NY 115. If you're going to Albany, that's a 55 mile gap without anything that can be easily found. No rest areas, either. The lower speed limit does deter some, yet travel speeds on the Taconic are often higher than those on the Thruway.
You do also have the Taconic across the river for non-commercial traffic. For selfish reasons, I do wish it went a little farther, up to Bennington perhaps. Anything to get from NYC to VT/NH without going through CT would be pretty nice. :-)
  Take the Taconic to I-90.  Just go east for one exit and then up NY 22.   It is really nice that way.  True NY 22 is not freeway, but it is a good road despite being two lanes.  You can use that up to NY 7 and then east into VT (and NH).  Or use NY 43 to MA 43 to MA 2 East.  MA 2 is a nice ride through the Berkshires.  Once you get to Greenfield you have I-91 to take you into VT or NH.

Well yeah, I know how to get there on the current roads. I go over to NY 22 via NY 295 and then cut across Vermont. But I mean, I'd like a way that isn't an hour longer than CT 15 to I-91 (and variants thereof).

Also the lack of services. With the gas stations closed, there's no services close to the road north of NY 115.

Sure there is: https://goo.gl/maps/IwkQT  :D

Okay, I missed ONE gas station
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on May 05, 2015, 09:34:58 PM
I have only once (recently) driven the I-90 part of the Thruway, and only between Albany and Syracuse, and that seemed a lot less busy
It certainly is.  The section between exits 27 and 32 is the third least traveled section of Thruway, after the Berkshire spur and Erie sections.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 09:40:26 PM
I remember once being in route from Albany to New Hampshire late at night and almost running out of gas in Vermont. I had forgotten to get gas in Albany before I left and I figured that there would be at least ONE open gas station in the whole state of Vermont.

I was almost wrong.

My gas light came on almost halfway across the state. I ended up finding one right off of I-91. I'd never been so happy to see a gas station on my life. If you ever end up driving through Vermont at night, make sure you have plenty of gas.

The Taconic Parkway could never beat that in terms of "O CRAP I AM RUNNING OUT OF GAS" fear.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on May 05, 2015, 10:00:10 PM
Quote
and I figured that there would be at least ONE open gas station in the whole state of Vermont.

There are plenty.  But they're all along 89, 91, or in Rutland.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 10:11:23 PM
Quote
and I figured that there would be at least ONE open gas station in the whole state of Vermont.

There are plenty.  But they're all along 89, 91, or in Rutland.

I took the NY 7 to US 7 to VT 11 to I-91 route so I passed south of Rutland. If I had been thinking, I would have adjusted my route to hit Rutland once I noticed my tank was low. It was a rookie mistake that I shouldn't have made, especially considering I had been living in the area for four years at that point.

I acknowledge my hyperbole by saying the whole state though. The Green Mountain National Forest area is a terrible place to pass through while low on fuel.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on May 06, 2015, 12:19:56 AM
Sure there is: https://goo.gl/maps/IwkQT  :D

Okay, I missed ONE gas station

And a very nice diner! What more could you want? :-)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on May 06, 2015, 03:04:52 AM
You have to keep in mind how long ago the road was built.  2 lanes each way was likely sufficient for the time.  The fact that it hasn't been expanded by now is another story.  It does seem long overdue.

You do also have the Taconic across the river for non-commercial traffic. For selfish reasons, I do wish it went a little farther, up to Bennington perhaps. Anything to get from NYC to VT/NH without going through CT would be pretty nice. :-)

If anything, at least it should have gone the last few miles to US 20 so I could avoid the toll. Much harder to shunpike with the current road network.

On the topic of widening the Thruway, it would be nice, but look at the 4-lane sections near Buffalo with much higher amounts of weekday traffic (especially Exits 49-50 and 55-57). Those need to be 6 (and the free section needs to be 8+), but that's not happening anytime soon. It really isn't that expensive to widen to 6 lanes, as every bridge can already carry 3 lanes per direction and always has been able to carry that amount of lanes (because the thing was designed to be widened), but this is New York we're talking about.

I always thought 90 from Buffalo to ROC should be 6 lanes.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on May 06, 2015, 08:30:16 AM
Quote
I took the NY 7 to US 7 to VT 11 to I-91 route so I passed south of Rutland. If I had been thinking, I would have adjusted my route to hit Rutland once I noticed my tank was low. It was a rookie mistake that I shouldn't have made, especially considering I had been living in the area for four years at that point.

My usual route before I retired.

That said, I believe there's at least one station in Manchester where the pumps are on 24/7 as long as you pay with a credit/debit card.  Would've required you to go into the village though.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on May 06, 2015, 10:46:00 AM
I always thought 90 from Buffalo to ROC should be 6 lanes.

Surprisingly, there isn't often a huge volume of traffic between the two cities; while there may be times that 6 lanes would be helpful, that doesn't seem to be the prevailing pattern.

Interestingly, however, they did see fit to build six lanes between Exit 44 (Canandaigua) and Exit 45 (Rochester east), and in fact there are eight lanes between Exit 45 and the Seneca service plaza. The extra fourth lane going WB arises as essentially an exit/entrance auxiliary lane, whereas the one going EB functions as a climbing lane, but both are long enough to be considered full-fledged through lanes in their own right.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on May 06, 2015, 08:42:40 PM
I always thought 90 from Buffalo to ROC should be 6 lanes.

Surprisingly, there isn't often a huge volume of traffic between the two cities; while there may be times that 6 lanes would be helpful, that doesn't seem to be the prevailing pattern.

Interestingly, however, they did see fit to build six lanes between Exit 44 (Canandaigua) and Exit 45 (Rochester east), and in fact there are eight lanes between Exit 45 and the Seneca service plaza. The extra fourth lane going WB arises as essentially an exit/entrance auxiliary lane, whereas the one going EB functions as a climbing lane, but both are long enough to be considered full-fledged through lanes in their own right.

I noticed that as well. One thing that won't change anytime soon is the need for 2+ lanes east of Rochester and south of Exit 57.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 06, 2015, 10:12:04 PM
I always thought 90 from Buffalo to ROC should be 6 lanes.

Surprisingly, there isn't often a huge volume of traffic between the two cities; while there may be times that 6 lanes would be helpful, that doesn't seem to be the prevailing pattern.

Interestingly, however, they did see fit to build six lanes between Exit 44 (Canandaigua) and Exit 45 (Rochester east), and in fact there are eight lanes between Exit 45 and the Seneca service plaza. The extra fourth lane going WB arises as essentially an exit/entrance auxiliary lane, whereas the one going EB functions as a climbing lane, but both are long enough to be considered full-fledged through lanes in their own right.

I noticed that as well. One thing that won't change anytime soon is the need for 2+ lanes east of Rochester and south of Exit 57.

If you mean that it isn't needed. Traffic counts west of Silver Creek (and especially Dunkirk) are the lowest on the system if you exclude the non-Interstate portion of the Berkshire Spur.

6 between Buffalo and Rochester isn't needed. If they ever build an exit at/around Gunnville Rd or Ransom Rd on the eastern edge of Erie County as has been suggested for quite some time, you'd need 6 west of that exit, else the entire Rotterdam-NY 78 segment is fine at 4 lanes. Enough people shunpike for the medium-distance trips to make traffic manageable.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 06, 2015, 10:45:28 PM
As for six laning the road from exits 16 to 23... well, that's nearly 100 miles (97, precisely). If we extrapolate out what the widening between exits 23 and 24 cost ($115 million for 6 miles), we're talking nearly $2 billion. Some states would be ambitious enough to undertake such a thing but New York is not one of them.

Though the Thruway does not need to depend on motor fuel tax revenue to fund such a widening, which (at least in theory) should make it easier to fund, perhaps in stages.

Meanwhile, while that part of the Thruway does get rather crowded and sloggish a lot of the time, in the greater scheme of things it's not that bad. There are no particular bottlenecks creating stop and go queues, it's just general volume. New York has plenty of roads with far worse problems that ought to be higher prioriries. The Hutch, for example is much more desperately in need of six laning than the Thruway is (albeit probably less politically feasible because NIMBYs).

I assume that any widening of any parkway or freeway-class road (usually called an expressway in New York) south of Rockland County/Westchester County will be instantly opposed by an assortment of activists.  Though the Thruway does have the Tappan Zee replacement project going.

Also, it still amazes me how on weekends everyone piles on the Thruway while the Taconic remains a total ghost town until you get down to the Poughkeepsie area. How is it that people seemingly don't know it exists?

As I understand it, I am not supposed to drive my pickup truck on the Taconic State Parkway, since it is not a passenger car.

I have been on the Taconic before, and it is a nice road.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 06, 2015, 10:51:39 PM
Unless your pickup has commercial plates, you won't have a problem.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 06, 2015, 11:01:09 PM
Unless your pickup has commercial plates, you won't have a problem.

Agree. Pickups are fine unless it has a company logo or commercial plates.

Tappan Zee is mainly being replaced because it's going to fall in the river if it isn't.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 06, 2015, 11:56:07 PM
Unless your pickup has commercial plates, you won't have a problem.

It has "truck" plate series that Maryland no longer issues (at least for now, all vehicles under 26,000 pounds GVW get the same series of plates).

But no commercial markings or a USDOT number.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 07, 2015, 01:05:29 AM
Funny, I can remember back int he mid 1980's that there was alot of commuter traffic between 290 and 490 LeRoy
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on May 07, 2015, 01:15:50 AM
I assume that any widening of any parkway or freeway-class road (usually called an expressway in New York) south of Rockland County/Westchester County will be instantly opposed by an assortment of activists.  Though the Thruway does have the Tappan Zee replacement project going.

Not necessarily. The Westchester portion of the Taconic gradually six-laned, with the most recent section from NY 35 to the Putnam line having been finished only about 10 years ago. Reconstruction of the Thruway between the bridge and I-287 involved widening the road from six lanes to eight in the 1990s. Stretching back a bit further, some Long Island parkways were widened in the 1980s, and the Sprain Brook Parkway wasn't finished at all until 1982 (and still has its original pavement on the newest segment - wonders of concrete).

You are right, though, that there are political difficulties. With regards to the Hutch itself, note how the section from exit 26 to just south of exit 23 has a wider footprint will full shoulders and some bridges that are wide enough to accommodate six lanes. This is not an accident - this section of the road underwent a massive modernization project back in the 1980s and the original scope of the project involved a widening to six lanes, presumably with the intent of doing the same to other sections later. But then the communities adjacent to this section of the road flipped out at the idea of it being widened, and the state capitulated and finished the project without adding any lanes.

The problem wasn't any sort of activists, it was just plain old NIMBYs - the state was able to widen the Taconic because the communities along it more or less supported it, welcoming the wider, safer, less congested road. The Hutch meanwhile passes through some old money communities where you have a high concentration of influential people. People who will automatically oppose any significant alterations to anything nearby because it might negatively impact their property values. More noise, more pollution, more plebians darkening their perfect community with their filthy five figure salaries, etc. etc.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Dougtone on May 07, 2015, 06:25:02 AM
Has anyone ever heard of any plans by the New York State Thruway Authority to even study the idea of widening the I-87 part of the Thruway so it is six lanes total (three each way) all the way from Harriman (Thruway Exit 16) to Albany (Exit 23)?

IMO, seems to be needed to handle the weekend traffic.

Definitely. Long backups on Fridays going northbound and Sundays going southbound seem to be the norm on the Thruway, more so between Exit 16 (Harriman) and Exit 19 (Kingston), but delays can be found further north than Kingston as well at times.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 07, 2015, 07:54:28 AM

Unless your pickup has commercial plates, you won't have a problem.

It has "truck" plate series that Maryland no longer issues (at least for now, all vehicles under 26,000 pounds GVW get the same series of plates).

But no commercial markings or a USDOT number.

This got talked about a bit on MTR in the early 2000s because, if I recall correctly, New York had a change of view on trucks on parkways, and began to allow light trucks with passenger registrations.  I didn't have a truck at the time so I didn't pay close attention, but nowadays I drive wherever since the sticker in my truck window says "passenger non-commercial."
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 07, 2015, 09:08:10 AM

Unless your pickup has commercial plates, you won't have a problem.

It has "truck" plate series that Maryland no longer issues (at least for now, all vehicles under 26,000 pounds GVW get the same series of plates).

But no commercial markings or a USDOT number.

This got talked about a bit on MTR in the early 2000s because, if I recall correctly, New York had a change of view on trucks on parkways, and began to allow light trucks with passenger registrations.  I didn't have a truck at the time so I didn't pay close attention, but nowadays I drive wherever since the sticker in my truck window says "passenger non-commercial."
If memory serves, Massachusetts used to require that all pickup trucks and cargo vans (Ford Econolines for example) receive commercial plates regardless of usage as well.  The RMV changed that rule/policy sometime during the 90s.  I know that because when my brother bought his then-new '97 Ford Ranger pick-up; it had a standard-issue MA plate vs. the commerical plates.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on May 07, 2015, 10:19:16 AM

Unless your pickup has commercial plates, you won't have a problem.

It has "truck" plate series that Maryland no longer issues (at least for now, all vehicles under 26,000 pounds GVW get the same series of plates).

But no commercial markings or a USDOT number.

This got talked about a bit on MTR in the early 2000s because, if I recall correctly, New York had a change of view on trucks on parkways, and began to allow light trucks with passenger registrations.  I didn't have a truck at the time so I didn't pay close attention, but nowadays I drive wherever since the sticker in my truck window says "passenger non-commercial."

That's right, certain pick-ups can be registered as passenger vehicles:
http://dmv.ny.gov/registration/register-pick-truck-passenger-class-vehicle

Also, you can take seats out of a car to make it a commercial vehicle, or add seats to a cargo van to make it a passenger vehicle. You can register a conversion van as passenger but it has to remain converted:
http://dmv.ny.gov/vehicle-registration/vehicle-modifications-and-registration-class
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 07, 2015, 10:37:31 AM
Funny, I can remember back int he mid 1980's that there was a lot of commuter traffic between 290 and 490 LeRoy

I-490 has remarkably low traffic counts west of the immediate Rochester suburbs. AADT is well under 20,000 for the stretch. Go on it today and it's pretty empty.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 07, 2015, 06:26:55 PM
Also, you can take seats out of a car to make it a commercial vehicle, or add seats to a cargo van to make it a passenger vehicle. You can register a conversion van as passenger but it has to remain converted:
http://dmv.ny.gov/vehicle-registration/vehicle-modifications-and-registration-class

NJ allows any vehicle to be registered as commercial, including plain old sedans. Under NY law, those vehicles wouldn't be allowed on parkways. Using height and weight restrictions makes more sense then restricting by vehicle-use or registration class, much less grey areas. The restrictions north of Exit 105 on the Garden State Parkway are clearly defined as vehicles 10,000 lbs or more (6 tires or 3-or-more-axles). It excludes trucks without excluding passenger cars pulling trailers, or those handful of SUVs that tip the weight limit scale (think Ford Excursion).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on May 07, 2015, 06:42:13 PM
NJ allows any vehicle to be registered as commercial, including plain old sedans. Under NY law, those vehicles wouldn't be allowed on parkways. Using height and weight restrictions makes more sense then restricting by vehicle-use or registration class, much less grey areas. The restrictions north of Exit 105 on the Garden State Parkway are clearly defined as vehicles 10,000 lbs or more (6 tires or 3-or-more-axles). It excludes trucks without excluding passenger cars pulling trailers, or those handful of SUVs that tip the weight limit scale (think Ford Excursion).

Height and weight does seem to make more sense, except that the original theory behind the NY parkway restrictions has to do with the commercial purpose[/url] of the vehicle, not necessarily its physical characteristics. Not that that makes a whole lot of sense today; for example, taxis are allowed on the parkways, and not only are those used for a commercial purpose, the vehicles themselves are a commercial enterprise. And it's probably not appropriate to commute to and from work using the parkways, because that definitely hinders their recreational purpose.

School buses, on the other hand, aren't allowed on the parkways, which is ironic because they are passenger vehicles with an arguably non-commercial function. But you do see a lot of them on the parkways anyway, along with plenty of small commercial vehicles, because it's downstate New York, where people pretty much just do whatever. (It's also likely that certain school buses have been permitted by NYSDOT to use parts of the parkways, as some public buses have also.)
Title: New York State Thruway
Post by: Sam on May 07, 2015, 08:16:17 PM
commercial purpose of the vehicle, not necessarily its physical characteristics.

One reason I heard for the change  allowing passenger registrations on pickup trucks was that so many had become "family cars" with no business ties at all. Families were paying more to register a compact pickup than a heavier full-size car, and still being excluded from the LOSP on their weekend camping trips to Hamlin Beach, etc.

I think the Thruway charged by axle, so pickups and cars paid the same toll regardless of reg type, but I think you couldn't get a commuter permit on a pickup because of the commercial reg, even if it was your personal "car".
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Sam on May 07, 2015, 09:13:19 PM

Somewhere I once found a list of the official names of each segment of the Thruway system. In addition to the Niagara and Berkshire sections, there is a Mohawk Trail, Iroquois Path, etc. I'd love to be able to find that again.

Found it! Starts on page 5.

http://www.thruway.ny.gov/about/compliance/thruwaystatutes.pdf
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on May 07, 2015, 09:38:02 PM
The Ontario section should be called "the boring section".
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on May 07, 2015, 11:14:39 PM
I think the Thruway charged by axle, so pickups and cars paid the same toll regardless of reg type, but I think you couldn't get a commuter permit on a pickup because of the commercial reg, even if it was your personal "car".

The Thruway still charges by axle. At least, a Uhaul van pays the same cash toll as a car at the New Rochelle toll plaza. This has been confirmed empirically.

MTA meanwhile charges double the car toll to cross one of their bridges in the same vehicle. And you have to pay the highly inflated cash rate since you can't use your EZpass tag in there (different vehicle class).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on May 07, 2015, 11:39:43 PM
MTA meanwhile charges double the car toll to cross one of their bridges in the same vehicle. And you have to pay the highly inflated cash rate since you can't use your EZpass tag in there (different vehicle class).
Who would know?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on May 08, 2015, 10:39:19 AM
MTA meanwhile charges double the car toll to cross one of their bridges in the same vehicle. And you have to pay the highly inflated cash rate since you can't use your EZpass tag in there (different vehicle class).
Who would know?

Any one of the several cops walking around at every MTA toll plaza? I wasn't going to risk getting a ticket over $10 in toll money.

That said it looks like you can request a van tag on your existing account. In fact you can request a tag for any type of vehicle that doesn't require a CDL to drive without creating a separate account for it. Okay, good to know for next time.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on May 09, 2015, 12:41:02 AM
Went on the Thruway yesterday from exit 31 to 55, first time in a while. Here are some thoughts:

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: yanksfan6129 on May 09, 2015, 10:40:19 AM
Went on the Thruway yesterday from exit 31 to 55, first time in a while. Here are some thoughts:

  • West of Syracuse, for about 10-15 miles it's a concrete roadbed. Why is that?


That section of Thruway was reconstructed around 2010 or 2011, if my memory serves.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 09, 2015, 11:30:21 AM
Went on the Thruway yesterday from exit 31 to 55, first time in a while. Here are some thoughts:

  • West of Syracuse, for about 10-15 miles it's a concrete roadbed. Why is that?


That section of Thruway was reconstructed around 2010 or 2011, if my memory serves.

Correct
Title: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on May 09, 2015, 02:10:08 PM
Went on the Thruway yesterday from exit 31 to 55, first time in a while. Here are some thoughts:

  • West of Syracuse, for about 10-15 miles it's a concrete roadbed. Why is that?


That section of Thruway was reconstructed around 2010 or 2011, if my memory serves.

Correct

Do you think the monotube cantilevers will be the preferred type of gantry for the NYTA?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 09, 2015, 02:49:23 PM
Went on the Thruway yesterday from exit 31 to 55, first time in a while. Here are some thoughts:

  • West of Syracuse, for about 10-15 miles it's a concrete roadbed. Why is that?


That section of Thruway was reconstructed around 2010 or 2011, if my memory serves.

Correct

Do you think the monotube cantilevers will be the preferred type of gantry for the NYTA?

Exit 50 is likely a test case, as I have not seen any more in plans at this time. It might be a one-and-done, might not. When I start my summer job, I might learn more about what's going on with that.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on May 09, 2015, 09:56:20 PM
Went on the Thruway yesterday from exit 31 to 55, first time in a while. Here are some thoughts:

  • West of Syracuse, for about 10-15 miles it's a concrete roadbed. Why is that?

To quote many a New York roadgeek - I think the short answer to that is because it's consistently inconsistent.

Another example of that is NY 17/I-86 near Newtown Battlefield is new concrete as well. Another thread to be sure, but another example of random new surfacing.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 09, 2015, 10:00:47 PM
Went on the Thruway yesterday from exit 31 to 55, first time in a while. Here are some thoughts:

  • West of Syracuse, for about 10-15 miles it's a concrete roadbed. Why is that?

To quote many a New York roadgeek - I think the short answer to that is because it's consistently inconsistent.

Another example of that is NY 17/I-86 near Newtown Battlefield is new concrete as well. Another thread to be sure, but another example of random new surfacing.

That's concrete because the entire thing was realigned 4-5 years ago when they removed the at-grade intersections.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on May 09, 2015, 10:03:56 PM
understood - I was just pointing out that it was new (and very very smooth) concrete just like the thruway section.  :bigass:
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on May 09, 2015, 10:52:22 PM
Went on the Thruway yesterday from exit 31 to 55, first time in a while. Here are some thoughts:

  • West of Syracuse, for about 10-15 miles it's a concrete roadbed. Why is that?


I guess, now that I think about it, is that a better example is that section between Rochester (45) and is it 43 (?) that also happens to be concrete...just because. :)   it also keeps it on topic.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 10, 2015, 12:32:53 AM
Went on the Thruway yesterday from exit 31 to 55, first time in a while. Here are some thoughts:

  • West of Syracuse, for about 10-15 miles it's a concrete roadbed. Why is that?


I guess, now that I think about it, is that a better example is that section between Rochester (45) and is it 43 (?) that also happens to be concrete...just because. :)   it also keeps it on topic.

A really good example of that is a ~75 ft rough concrete section on the SB side of I-190/Niagara Spur between Exit 1 and I-90. Why it wasn't overlain with asphalt like the surrounding 1/2 mile or so remains a mystery to me. Reversing it, there's a ~0.9 mile asphalt section of I-190 in the middle of a 14 mile stretch of concrete surface just north of downtown Buffalo.

Then you have the reconstructed section of the mainline SW of Hamburg. The northern/eastern half of the EB side in this area is concrete with asphalt shoulders, while the rest of the project area, including the entire WB side, is asphalt.

At this point, I'm convinced NYSTA just picks surfacing material out of a hat, because there's no consistency, even within the same project.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on May 10, 2015, 01:47:19 AM
Excellent point - I forgot about 190   :nod:
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on May 10, 2015, 09:12:45 AM
I think a few people were missing /quote tags.  Hard to tell who wrote what...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on May 10, 2015, 07:22:04 PM
A really good example of that is a ~75 ft rough concrete section on the SB side of I-190/Niagara Spur between Exit 1 and I-90. Why it wasn't overlain with asphalt like the surrounding 1/2 mile or so remains a mystery to me. Reversing it, there's a ~0.9 mile asphalt section of I-190 in the middle of a 14 mile stretch of concrete surface just north of downtown Buffalo.
I assume that's because those sections are located at the former Buffalo and Black Rock barriers.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 10, 2015, 08:24:22 PM
A really good example of that is a ~75 ft rough concrete section on the SB side of I-190/Niagara Spur between Exit 1 and I-90. Why it wasn't overlain with asphalt like the surrounding 1/2 mile or so remains a mystery to me. Reversing it, there's a ~0.9 mile asphalt section of I-190 in the middle of a 14 mile stretch of concrete surface just north of downtown Buffalo.
I assume that's because those sections are located at the former Buffalo and Black Rock barriers.

Nope. The odd concrete section is under a bridge on the side opposite the barrier and the odd asphalt section is around Exit 8. Buffalo barrier was overlain and the Black Rock barrier got a new concrete roadbed.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on May 11, 2015, 12:48:14 AM
Went on the Thruway yesterday from exit 31 to 55, first time in a while. Here are some thoughts:

  • West of Syracuse, for about 10-15 miles it's a concrete roadbed. Why is that?


I guess, now that I think about it, is that a better example is that section between Rochester (45) and is it 43 (?) that also happens to be concrete...just because. :)   it also keeps it on topic.

A really good example of that is a ~75 ft rough concrete section on the SB side of I-190/Niagara Spur between Exit 1 and I-90. Why it wasn't overlain with asphalt like the surrounding 1/2 mile or so remains a mystery to me. Reversing it, there's a ~0.9 mile asphalt section of I-190 in the middle of a 14 mile stretch of concrete surface just north of downtown Buffalo.

Then you have the reconstructed section of the mainline SW of Hamburg. The northern/eastern half of the EB side in this area is concrete with asphalt shoulders, while the rest of the project area, including the entire WB side, is asphalt.

At this point, I'm convinced NYSTA just picks surfacing material out of a hat, because there's no consistency, even within the same project.

There is concrete right outside of Hamburg? I'm guessing it goes to 57b. Must've been added within the past couple of years, because I remember the reconstruction was going on but I thought it was just going to be asphalt.

It really is "consistently inconsistent."
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on May 11, 2015, 08:26:18 PM
The limits of a specific paving job and the type of project (simple resurfacing, major rehabilitation, full depth reconstruction) is determined largely by the surface crack rating and funding, as is the type of pavement to be selected.  After many decades of projects being done, it certainly can appear random, especially since projects spanning entire corridors are becoming more and more rare as NYSDOT and NYSTA are currently in "preservation mode".
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on May 25, 2015, 06:22:06 PM
Just visited the canal park in Port Byron today...
(http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i90/101_2303-s.JPG)
(http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i90/101_2304-s.JPG)
(http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i90/101_2305-s.JPG)

More pics/full size on the bottom of my I-90 page: http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i90&state=NY
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 25, 2015, 07:40:53 PM
Alright, I've got the monotube shot:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8848/17905288915_bdcac1fd75_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/thehzR)

As you can see, the Cleveland Drive overpass is gone (the assembly is immediately before where the overpass was/will be). Clearview, Interstate shield is Series C FHWA (thankfully...NYSTA has Clearview numerals a few exits down). Ramp splits away at the sign, so the sign is in error by not having upward-slanting arrows to the right and no mention is made of this being the last free exit, the latter of which was on the sign it replaced. Sorry for the bad picture, but I was driving and it was raining when I took it.

It might look like something straight out of Pennsylvania but, unfortunately, this is a good 70 miles from the PA border.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on May 26, 2015, 12:12:42 AM
Great picture, I saw it I think the day it went up actually; I was coming home from school a few weeks ago, but it was blocked by oncoming traffic and construction equipment preparing to tear down the bridge.

Also vdeane, can you actually drive through the heritage canal lock? That would be insane and definitely a must see when I go back.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on May 26, 2015, 07:51:27 AM
Can't drive through it, but you can walk or bike.  It's a bike path.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on May 26, 2015, 08:15:00 PM
Yep, just a walking/bike path.  The inside one is a loop; the outside ones just dead end.  They haven't even paved the part connecting the lock to the parking lot yet.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: yanksfan6129 on May 26, 2015, 08:21:42 PM
When did that monotube go up? I didn't notice it the last time I passed through that area.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 26, 2015, 08:41:42 PM
When did that monotube go up? I didn't notice it the last time I passed through that area.

Couple weeks ago
Title: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on July 07, 2015, 12:12:40 AM
So I was daydreaming about when/where AET would be coming on the Thruway and did a Google search, and at last check it looks like it's only going downstate. I dug a little deeper and found this page (http://www.nysroads.com/fic-thwy-aet.php) by vdeane that makes the exit 31 interchange look a lot simpler and cost-effective than the one I created in post 242 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13527.msg2052802#msg2052802). Of course it's just an abstract idea but it is cohesive nonetheless.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: MASTERNC on July 11, 2015, 07:47:03 PM
I traveled on the western section of the Thruway last week and noticed the speed limit had been decreased in the past 12 months from 65 MPH to 55 MPH in the section that traverses the Seneca Nation.  Also, the road was fairly rough (with permanent signs warning of such conditions).

Does anyone know if this was due to a dispute with the Senecas regarding road repairs or if the Senecas implemented the speed limit change (since they claim sovereignty in that stretch)?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 11, 2015, 07:52:13 PM
I traveled on the western section of the Thruway last week and noticed the speed limit had been decreased in the past 12 months from 65 MPH to 55 MPH in the section that traverses the Seneca Nation.  Also, the road was fairly rough (with permanent signs warning of such conditions).

Does anyone know if this was due to a dispute with the Senecas regarding road repairs or if the Senecas implemented the speed limit change (since they claim sovereignty in that stretch)?

Construction. A lot of the area is being redone this year. Conditions are due to the dispute over the casinos that started a long time ago.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: MASTERNC on July 11, 2015, 10:55:08 PM
I traveled on the western section of the Thruway last week and noticed the speed limit had been decreased in the past 12 months from 65 MPH to 55 MPH in the section that traverses the Seneca Nation.  Also, the road was fairly rough (with permanent signs warning of such conditions).

Does anyone know if this was due to a dispute with the Senecas regarding road repairs or if the Senecas implemented the speed limit change (since they claim sovereignty in that stretch)?

Construction. A lot of the area is being redone this year. Conditions are due to the dispute over the casinos that started a long time ago.

Maybe not this year.  I don't recall mileposts, but if this is correct, those signs (and speed reduction) will remain for the next few years.

Quote
East of Silver Creek (MP 451.5) to Silver Creek (Exit 58, MP 455.2): Pavement Rehabilitation

    Location: ML - MP: 451.5 to 455.2
    Estimated Letting Year: 2017
    Approved Construction Amount: $26,000,000.00
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 11, 2015, 11:01:16 PM
I traveled on the western section of the Thruway last week and noticed the speed limit had been decreased in the past 12 months from 65 MPH to 55 MPH in the section that traverses the Seneca Nation.  Also, the road was fairly rough (with permanent signs warning of such conditions).

Does anyone know if this was due to a dispute with the Senecas regarding road repairs or if the Senecas implemented the speed limit change (since they claim sovereignty in that stretch)?

Construction. A lot of the area is being redone this year. Conditions are due to the dispute over the casinos that started a long time ago.

Maybe not this year.  I don't recall mileposts, but if this is correct, those signs (and speed reduction) will remain for the next few years.

Quote
East of Silver Creek (MP 451.5) to Silver Creek (Exit 58, MP 455.2): Pavement Rehabilitation

    Location: ML - MP: 451.5 to 455.2
    Estimated Letting Year: 2017
    Approved Construction Amount: $26,000,000.00

Construction is going on right now with bridge replacements. Don't know how long stuff will be going on over there.
Title: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on July 11, 2015, 11:08:49 PM
I traveled on the western section of the Thruway last week and noticed the speed limit had been decreased in the past 12 months from 65 MPH to 55 MPH in the section that traverses the Seneca Nation.  Also, the road was fairly rough (with permanent signs warning of such conditions).

Does anyone know if this was due to a dispute with the Senecas regarding road repairs or if the Senecas implemented the speed limit change (since they claim sovereignty in that stretch)?

Construction. A lot of the area is being redone this year. Conditions are due to the dispute over the casinos that started a long time ago.

Maybe not this year.  I don't recall mileposts, but if this is correct, those signs (and speed reduction) will remain for the next few years.

Quote
East of Silver Creek (MP 451.5) to Silver Creek (Exit 58, MP 455.2): Pavement Rehabilitation

    Location: ML - MP: 451.5 to 455.2
    Estimated Letting Year: 2017
    Approved Construction Amount: $26,000,000.00

Construction is going on right now with bridge replacements. Don't know how long stuff will be going on over there.

One bridge is wrapping up (4 Mile Level Road?), another is just getting started (Milestrip Road maybe?).

Bridges on the Thruway in the area outside the reservation are being completely redone (traffic down to a couple of lanes).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 11, 2015, 11:10:58 PM
It'll be a couple straight years of projects. I know they're also doing work at the Cattaraugus Creek bridge at some point. Area certainly needs it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on July 11, 2015, 11:13:55 PM

It'll be a couple straight years of projects. I know they're also doing work at the Cattaraugus Creek bridge at some point. Area certainly needs it.

I don't know if it's structurally deficient, but the decking is definitely worn as well as its guardrails.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on July 11, 2015, 11:37:03 PM
In my experience, Seneca Nation - State relations are a bigger deal on I-86 (stay out of the right lane EB if they haven't fixed it yet) and along US 219.   In general, I'd say those relations haven't been the best in recent years, either.

Then again, there was that time in 1992 where they dropped burning tire barricades onto the Thruway...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 12, 2015, 12:33:19 AM
In my experience, Seneca Nation - State relations are a bigger deal on I-86 (stay out of the right lane EB if they haven't fixed it yet) and along US 219.   In general, I'd say those relations haven't been the best in recent years, either.

Then again, there was that time in 1992 where they dropped burning tire barricades onto the Thruway...

They supposedly fixed I-86. Was closed all last summer for reconstruction.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on July 12, 2015, 12:37:04 AM
In my experience, Seneca Nation - State relations are a bigger deal on I-86 (stay out of the right lane EB if they haven't fixed it yet) and along US 219.   In general, I'd say those relations haven't been the best in recent years, either.

Then again, there was that time in 1992 where they dropped burning tire barricades onto the Thruway...

I remember that! It made it to CNN at the time and my family and I were going back and forth to Olean on - back then NY 17 - and you're right, that section near Seneca Junction will make your teeth rattle.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on July 12, 2015, 12:51:35 AM
I read that in 2009 the Seneca Nation considered installing toll booths on the Thruway in the reservation. That would have been a bureaucratic nightmare.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on July 12, 2015, 08:45:27 AM
In my experience, Seneca Nation - State relations are a bigger deal on I-86 (stay out of the right lane EB if they haven't fixed it yet) and along US 219.   In general, I'd say those relations haven't been the best in recent years, either.

Then again, there was that time in 1992 where they dropped burning tire barricades onto the Thruway...

They supposedly fixed I-86. Was closed all last summer for reconstruction.

This wasn't the project that went right up to the western boundary, right?  If it was actually done through the SNI land, that's great and quite long overdue (as I think everyone involved -- NYSDOT and SNI -- would admit).  I remember the back-and-forth with SNI and supposedly everyone just saying, "Let's just get this done now since it's so horrible" at some point, but I wasn't sure if the project actually got authorized (and, obviously, I haven't been out there for over a year or so).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 12, 2015, 12:36:48 PM
In my experience, Seneca Nation - State relations are a bigger deal on I-86 (stay out of the right lane EB if they haven't fixed it yet) and along US 219.   In general, I'd say those relations haven't been the best in recent years, either.

Then again, there was that time in 1992 where they dropped burning tire barricades onto the Thruway...

They supposedly fixed I-86. Was closed all last summer for reconstruction.

This wasn't the project that went right up to the western boundary, right?  If it was actually done through the SNI land, that's great and quite long overdue (as I think everyone involved -- NYSDOT and SNI -- would admit).  I remember the back-and-forth with SNI and supposedly everyone just saying, "Let's just get this done now since it's so horrible" at some point, but I wasn't sure if the project actually got authorized (and, obviously, I haven't been out there for over a year or so).

I know the section on Seneca land was closed for several months last year. I'm assuming that it was fixed. I'll try and get down there at some point to see.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on July 12, 2015, 04:23:34 PM
I recall reading several news articles about how I-86 between exits 21 and 23 was closed for reconstruction last year.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Sam on July 15, 2015, 12:34:44 PM
A couple of random Thruway-related observations from the past few weeks (no pics as I was driving):

Lighting has been added to a few BGSes and gore signs. At Batavia and Pembroke there are arms mounted to the tops of the signs. East of Syracuse there are work lights on wooden posts with solar panels nearby.

Lighted ramps leading to and from the canal locks near Fonda are under construction. Another heritage area, perhaps?

There are TOLL auxiliary signs on the route sign assemblies on NY 77. Those are the first of those I've seen anywhere.  (https://goo.gl/maps/J5Rvf, https://goo.gl/maps/ijXjd)

Also on the mainline at Pembroke are the comically boldface *DO* *NOT* STOP IN LANE signs. I'm sure those are for Darien Lake concert traffic, but they are so adamant it makes me chuckle. (https://goo.gl/maps/NaMrK)

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on July 15, 2015, 12:38:13 PM
Lighted BGSes? That's odd.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on July 15, 2015, 12:45:06 PM
Lighted BGSes? That's odd.

Yeah, there are solar panels provided the juice for the lights that have been put up over the past year or so. The Thruway Authority did the same thing for one of the WB panels for Exit 32. I don't know if this is a way around reflectivity requirements or what's going on. I don't recall the lit panels being that old. I'm hoping they don't get replaced because then we'll be stuck with Clearview and if the new signs in Buffalo are any indication, they'll be less readable than the older lit up signs at night.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on July 15, 2015, 12:53:17 PM

Lighted BGSes? That's odd.

Yeah, there are solar panels provided the juice for the lights that have been put up over the past year or so. The Thruway Authority did the same thing for one of the WB panels for Exit 32. I don't know if this is a way around reflectivity requirements or what's going on. I don't recall the lit panels being that old. I'm hoping they don't get replaced because then we'll be stuck with Clearview and if the new signs in Buffalo are any indication, they'll be less readable than the older lit up signs at night.

Do you think they will come to the Ontario section, or is this just one of those trial things?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 15, 2015, 03:12:31 PM
The lights have been in place west of Buffalo in several locations for over a year. I know this has been mentioned several times before. "Toll" assemblies on NY 77 went up no later than 2013, probably earlier.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on July 15, 2015, 03:23:53 PM
There are TOLL auxiliary signs on the route sign assemblies on NY 77. Those are the first of those I've seen anywhere.  (https://goo.gl/maps/J5Rvf, https://goo.gl/maps/ijXjd)
Not the only ones around.  I've seen them on Fuller Rd at I-90 (pictured) and at the NY 31F/I-490 interchange.
(http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/cr11-156/101_0757-s.JPG)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on July 15, 2015, 07:53:43 PM
What's the construction in the background?  Some SUNY expansion?
Title: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on July 15, 2015, 08:14:31 PM
What's the construction in the background?  Some SUNY expansion?

That's SUNY Poly's Albany campus. If you study nanoscale engineering (only about 100-300 students), you'd go there. Everyone else attends the other campus.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: thenetwork on July 15, 2015, 09:12:05 PM
The lights have been in place west of Buffalo in several locations for over a year. I know this has been mentioned several times before. "Toll" assemblies on NY 77 went up no later than 2013, probably earlier.

White-on-Black TOLL banners???  That is....odd. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: WNYroadgeek on July 16, 2015, 12:15:35 AM
There are TOLL auxiliary signs on the route sign assemblies on NY 77. Those are the first of those I've seen anywhere.  (https://goo.gl/maps/J5Rvf, https://goo.gl/maps/ijXjd)

There's also some (properly rendered in white on blue) along US 20 in Pavilion (namely at its' intersections with NY 19 and NY 63).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 24, 2015, 06:28:28 PM
Another round of new advances for Exit 9 is up along I-190. All FHWA. I stress that this is an NYSDOT project, but it certainly makes one wonder if NYSTA is preparing to drop Clearview.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on July 24, 2015, 06:38:52 PM

Another round of new advances for Exit 9 is up along I-190. All FHWA. I stress that this is an NYSDOT project, but it certainly makes one wonder if NYSTA is preparing to drop Clearview.

Why would they want to drop it? It's becoming the standard.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 24, 2015, 08:32:57 PM

Another round of new advances for Exit 9 is up along I-190. All FHWA. I stress that this is an NYSDOT project, but it certainly makes one wonder if NYSTA is preparing to drop Clearview.

Why would they want to drop it? It's becoming the standard.

Because sources tell us that the FHWA is getting ready to rescind interim approval. I talked to a couple people from FHWA at TRB about it and they're preparing to pull the plug. The font is either equivalent to or worse than FHWA fonts depending on application and many states/agencies are blatantly violating some of the regulations.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: hbelkins on July 24, 2015, 09:03:33 PM
many states/agencies are blatantly violating some of the regulations.

The fact that there are regulations about the use of fonts on signs... Oh wait, don't get me started.  :banghead:
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on July 24, 2015, 09:04:04 PM
Because sources tell us that the FHWA is getting ready to rescind interim approval. I talked to a couple people from FHWA at TRB about it and they're preparing to pull the plug. The font is either equivalent to or worse than FHWA fonts depending on application and many states/agencies are blatantly violating some of the regulations.

My county, which was one of two counties in New Jersey to use Clearview for their street sign blades and signs, seems to have backpedaled on that. I've seen many new FHWA street blades in Somerset County which makes me think that they are dropping it as well. NJDOT has already said that the Clearview on I-295 and I-195 was an experiment, which ultimately failed.

If you use it like PennDOT / PTC does now (which is only used in the destination legend and nothing else), then Clearview is great. However, if you use it like MDSHA, NYSTA, or a number of state signing agencies, then you are impacting the legibility of the sign. Series EEM will become the new standard for destination legends as EM's main feature was a thicker stroke width to accommodate button copy reflectors. We don't use button copy (sadly) anymore, but the letterforms of Series E with the spacing of Series EM has proven to be just as legibile if not more than Clearview in a number of applications.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on July 25, 2015, 03:25:26 PM
All of the newer FHWA signs on the Thruway are all NYSDOT-style instead of NYSTA-style, so I'm guessing that they were made from the NYSDOT sign shop or a contractor rather than NYSTA's sign shop.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Flyer78 on July 25, 2015, 08:27:51 PM
The lights have been in place west of Buffalo in several locations for over a year. I know this has been mentioned several times before. "Toll" assemblies on NY 77 went up no later than 2013, probably earlier.

Noticed ground mounted lights westbound for the 481 exit, as well as Exit 39 for 690. In both cases, it looked like the eastbound compliment was lit as well.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 31, 2015, 05:50:57 PM
I-90 closing overnight in Cheektowaga at Exit 50A now through Wednesday night (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/news/pressrel/2015/07/2015-07-31-overnight-closures.html). Detour for through traffic is via NY 33 and NY 78, detour for I-290 traffic is NY 277. Steel is going up. Only full closure is Sunday night, others are directional. Weather dependent, of course.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on August 13, 2015, 08:50:39 PM
I thought the Thruway Authority was better than this. Did NYSTA tone the Clearview down since these were put up? I've found a number of signs that feature negative contrast Clearview around the Nyack area.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.096891,-74.0464077,3a,41y,274.54h,90.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6n9SkrWxu2t9Wq-PlSvwvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0980071,-74.0392494,3a,15y,266.04h,94.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWO-5PJ8zcsYVMALjmyCCjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on August 13, 2015, 08:53:54 PM

I thought the Thruway Authority was better than this. Did NYSTA tone the Clearview down since these were put up? I've found a number of signs that feature negative contrast Clearview around the Nyack area.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.096891,-74.0464077,3a,41y,274.54h,90.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6n9SkrWxu2t9Wq-PlSvwvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0980071,-74.0392494,3a,15y,266.04h,94.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWO-5PJ8zcsYVMALjmyCCjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I feel like I can't tell the difference between this and the Clearview I see around WNY.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on August 13, 2015, 08:56:13 PM
I feel like I can't tell the difference between this and the Clearview I see around WNY.

From what I've seen, the Clearview in the Western half of New York looks to be everything but negative contrast use. Here, it's pretty much everywhere, though I haven't seen one in the shield numerals yet (and hope I don't). I thought NYSTA used it like PennDOT and TXDOT used to use it - everywhere but negative contrast situations.

EDIT: I spoke too soon. Look at what I found (ON A NEW JERSEY MARKER NO-LESS):
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1196899,-74.1270413,3a,44.9y,290.05h,99.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD6TwcXiMOYtMuCxL6xdB7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on August 13, 2015, 10:56:23 PM
I feel like I can't tell the difference between this and the Clearview I see around WNY.

From what I've seen, the Clearview in the Western half of New York looks to be everything but negative contrast use. Here, it's pretty much everywhere, though I haven't seen one in the shield numerals yet (and hope I don't). I thought NYSTA used it like PennDOT and TXDOT used to use it - everywhere but negative contrast situations.

EDIT: I spoke too soon. Look at what I found (ON A NEW JERSEY MARKER NO-LESS):
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1196899,-74.1270413,3a,44.9y,290.05h,99.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD6TwcXiMOYtMuCxL6xdB7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

NYSTA uses it for everything. Negative contrast is everywhere and the Exit 55 advances have it in the shields.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PurdueBill on August 16, 2015, 08:21:19 PM
NYSTA uses it for everything. Negative contrast is everywhere and the Exit 55 advances have it in the shields.

That will be the undoing of Clearview...agencies using it in all sorts of unapproved applications.  I'm happy with Massachusetts and Indiana, two states I have association with, for not jumping on the bandwagon, and sad that Delaware, which I also have association with, went from having some of the better looking signs around to some of the worst in part due to botched Clearview.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: hbelkins on August 16, 2015, 10:03:11 PM
agencies using it in all sorts of unapproved applications.

The idea that the feds can approve what fonts states use on signs, and how those fonts are used, still frosts my flakes.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on August 17, 2015, 08:51:58 PM
Anyone got the milk for HB's flakes?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on August 17, 2015, 09:54:47 PM

agencies using it in all sorts of unapproved applications.

The idea that the feds can approve what fonts states use on signs, and how those fonts are used, still frosts my flakes.

So, you like the idea? That sounds like favorable imagery.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on August 18, 2015, 12:16:53 PM
I feel like I can't tell the difference between this and the Clearview I see around WNY.

From what I've seen, the Clearview in the Western half of New York looks to be everything but negative contrast use. Here, it's pretty much everywhere, though I haven't seen one in the shield numerals yet (and hope I don't). I thought NYSTA used it like PennDOT and TXDOT used to use it - everywhere but negative contrast situations.

EDIT: I spoke too soon. Look at what I found (ON A NEW JERSEY MARKER NO-LESS):
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1196899,-74.1270413,3a,44.9y,290.05h,99.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD6TwcXiMOYtMuCxL6xdB7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

NYSTA uses it for everything. Negative contrast is everywhere and the Exit 55 advances have it in the shields.

I frequently send emails and letters to the Thruway Authority complaining about their abuse of Clearview. I even print out the guidelines from the FHWA site and send along a brochure, complete with Thruway references where they're doing it wrong. 

They've never responded.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PHLBOS on August 18, 2015, 01:37:16 PM
EDIT: I spoke too soon. Look at what I found (ON A NEW JERSEY MARKER NO-LESS):
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1196899,-74.1270413,3a,44.9y,290.05h,99.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD6TwcXiMOYtMuCxL6xdB7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Obviously, only the NJ 17 shield on that BGS is new.  The original NJ 17 shield must've either fallen off or became faded beyond recognition.

I frequently send emails and letters to the Thruway Authority complaining about their abuse of Clearview. I even print out the guidelines from the FHWA site and send along a brochure, complete with Thruway references where they're doing it wrong. 

They've never responded.
Even worse, the Thruway Authority doesn't even use reflectorized lettering & numerals for their newer BGS' w/Clearview (at least along the I-87/287 segment) thereby making them almost impossible to read at night from a distance.  Such litterally defeats the whole reason for using the Clearview font.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on August 18, 2015, 01:56:50 PM

I feel like I can't tell the difference between this and the Clearview I see around WNY.

From what I've seen, the Clearview in the Western half of New York looks to be everything but negative contrast use. Here, it's pretty much everywhere, though I haven't seen one in the shield numerals yet (and hope I don't). I thought NYSTA used it like PennDOT and TXDOT used to use it - everywhere but negative contrast situations.

EDIT: I spoke too soon. Look at what I found (ON A NEW JERSEY MARKER NO-LESS):
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1196899,-74.1270413,3a,44.9y,290.05h,99.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD6TwcXiMOYtMuCxL6xdB7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

NYSTA uses it for everything. Negative contrast is everywhere and the Exit 55 advances have it in the shields.

I frequently send emails and letters to the Thruway Authority complaining about their abuse of Clearview. I even print out the guidelines from the FHWA site and send along a brochure, complete with Thruway references where they're doing it wrong. 

They've never responded.

Interesting how we as taxpayers fund these agencies and cannot correspond with any of them over concerns. I mean really, there can't be 20,000 people writing to the NYSTA a year over this.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on August 18, 2015, 06:28:34 PM
I'm pretty sure NYSTA is funded entirely through toll dollars... some of which go to NYSDOT and the canal, on top of Thruway needs.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on August 18, 2015, 06:50:00 PM
I'm pretty sure NYSTA is funded entirely through toll dollars... some of which go to NYSDOT and the canal, on top of Thruway needs.

Correct. That's why the trucker's union is suing NYSTA. Personally, I think that the canal should be NYSDOT and taxpayer-supported (if not NYSTA as well), but they don't ask my opinion.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on August 18, 2015, 06:57:53 PM
Sorry for my ignorance, I thought NYSTA was taxpayer funded.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on August 18, 2015, 07:22:45 PM
I'm pretty sure NYSTA is funded entirely through toll dollars... some of which go to NYSDOT and the canal, on top of Thruway needs.

Correct. That's why the trucker's union is suing NYSTA. Personally, I think that the canal should be NYSDOT and taxpayer-supported (if not NYSTA as well), but they don't ask my opinion.

I think it's funny that they're suing NYSTA when the PTC is a much worse offender.

Given the canal's recreational purpose, it would probably be best off with the Office of Parks and Recreation.  It's worth noting, though, that NYSDOT had the canal prior to the Thruway taking over.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on August 18, 2015, 07:51:12 PM
I'm pretty sure NYSTA is funded entirely through toll dollars... some of which go to NYSDOT and the canal, on top of Thruway needs.

Correct. That's why the trucker's union is suing NYSTA. Personally, I think that the canal should be NYSDOT and taxpayer-supported (if not NYSTA as well), but they don't ask my opinion.

I think it's funny that they're suing NYSTA when the PTC is a much worse offender.

Given the canal's recreational purpose, it would probably be best off with the Office of Parks and Recreation.  It's worth noting, though, that NYSDOT had the canal prior to the Thruway taking over.

PTC funds at least go to maintaining highways. The canals thing is a different story entirely- toll dollars going to maintain recreational waterways. Certainly needs to be maintained, but not at the expense of much-needed Thruway funds, especially now that every bridge needs a replacement.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2015, 09:28:54 AM
I'm pretty sure NYSTA is funded entirely through toll dollars... some of which go to NYSDOT and the canal, on top of Thruway needs.

Correct. That's why the trucker's union is suing NYSTA. Personally, I think that the canal should be NYSDOT and taxpayer-supported (if not NYSTA as well), but they don't ask my opinion.

I think it's funny that they're suing NYSTA when the PTC is a much worse offender.

Given the canal's recreational purpose, it would probably be best off with the Office of Parks and Recreation.  It's worth noting, though, that NYSDOT had the canal prior to the Thruway taking over.

PTC funds at least go to maintaining highways.

Not since Act 44 (2007) and then Act 89 (2013) were passed by the Pennsylvania legislature.

Details here (https://www.paturnpike.com/business/act44_plan.aspx).

Relevant part, with emphasis added:

Quote
Act 89 substantially altered the Commission’s funding obligations to PennDOT. While the Commission’s payment obligation remains at $450 million annually through Fiscal Year 2022, none of the payments are dedicated to highways and bridges. Instead, all $450 million is allocated to support transit capital, operating, multi-modal and other non-highway programs.

The canals thing is a different story entirely- toll dollars going to maintain recreational waterways. Certainly needs to be maintained, but not at the expense of much-needed Thruway funds, especially now that every bridge needs a replacement.

I respectfully disagree.  The canals have more in common with the Thruway (at least the main canal runs roughly parallel to the I-90 part) than paying SEPTA and Port Authority of Allegheny County employees, which have absolutely nothing to do with the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on August 20, 2015, 03:26:42 PM
I'm pretty sure NYSTA is funded entirely through toll dollars... some of which go to NYSDOT and the canal, on top of Thruway needs.

Correct. That's why the trucker's union is suing NYSTA. Personally, I think that the canal should be NYSDOT and taxpayer-supported (if not NYSTA as well), but they don't ask my opinion.

I think it's funny that they're suing NYSTA when the PTC is a much worse offender.

Given the canal's recreational purpose, it would probably be best off with the Office of Parks and Recreation.  It's worth noting, though, that NYSDOT had the canal prior to the Thruway taking over.

NYSDOT's Policy Bureau some years back (say, eight or so) was actually touting the growth of freight use of the canal. 

I think they were laughed out of the room.   :sombrero:
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2015, 06:45:35 PM
NYSDOT's Policy Bureau some years back (say, eight or so) was actually touting the growth of freight use of the canal. 

I think they were laughed out of the room.   :sombrero:

I have not seen freight on that canal myself (but I am seldom in that part of the world), and the last time I was near it was in Utica before the "canal season" started.

My impression is that it could be useful for some sorts of freight, but that is in theory only. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on August 20, 2015, 07:02:49 PM
NYSDOT's Policy Bureau some years back (say, eight or so) was actually touting the growth of freight use of the canal. 

I think they were laughed out of the room.   :sombrero:

I have not seen freight on that canal myself (but I am seldom in that part of the world), and the last time I was near it was in Utica before the "canal season" started.

My impression is that it could be useful for some sorts of freight, but that is in theory only.

There's the occasional barge that goes to North Tonawanda from Lake Erie that passes through the Black Rock lock. International RR Bridge swing span is also open quite often. As most small craft bypass the lock entirely by going down the main channel, it implies that there's at least some moderately-sized stuff passing through the westernmost few miles.

Remember that the canal system also includes the Champlain Canal and the canals linking Lake Ontario to the Finger Lakes. There's a decent amount of barge traffic up the Champlain Canal to Fort Edward, especially with the dredging going on (which all of the locals hate because the water is worse now than it was when everything was at the bottom).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on August 20, 2015, 11:25:46 PM
I read somewhere that it's actually called the Barge Canal in Utica and that it was (or is) at times more useful than the Thruway because of the freight sizes it can handle.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on August 20, 2015, 11:26:44 PM
I read somewhere that it's actually called the Barge Canal in Utica and that it was (or is) at times more useful than the Thruway because of the freight sizes it can handle.

The entire thing is the New York State Barge Canal, as is the entire canal system.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on August 20, 2015, 11:43:18 PM
I should have added that they were using percentages to exaggerate small actual numbers (i.e., We've had 100% growth in freight traffic! = We had 10 barges last year and 20 this year!).

I work with a guy who used to work on the canal.  There were fun things about it, such as boat captains leaving you a six pack when you operate the lock, but also not so fun things about it, like working alongside violent ex-cons on parole. :D
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2015, 06:11:30 PM
I should have added that they were using percentages to exaggerate small actual numbers (i.e., We've had 100% growth in freight traffic! = We had 10 barges last year and 20 this year!).

Transit agencies like to engage in similar exaggeration.

I work with a guy who used to work on the canal.  There were fun things about it, such as boat captains leaving you a six pack when you operate the lock, but also not so fun things about it, like working alongside violent ex-cons on parole.

I thought it was only public transit agencies that hired ex-cons into nice well-paid transportation jobs?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: MrDisco99 on November 02, 2015, 11:40:23 AM
Briefly jumped on the Thruway while on a road trip through the northeast last month (exit 23 through the Berkshire connector to the MassPike).  I noticed the tickets shrunk to the same size that everyone else uses, as opposed to the big tickets they handed out when I clinched the mainline a few years ago.  Tolls seemed to be the same though.

I wonder if the Thruway will be the last holdouts on running a closed ticketed system and human toll collectors.  Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts have at least taken baby steps into the modern age.  Wonder what it would take for NY to stop being so stubborn.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 02, 2015, 12:00:15 PM
Briefly jumped on the Thruway while on a road trip through the northeast last month (exit 23 through the Berkshire connector to the MassPike).  I noticed the tickets shrunk to the same size that everyone else uses, as opposed to the big tickets they handed out when I clinched the mainline a few years ago.  Tolls seemed to be the same though.

I wonder if the Thruway will be the last holdouts on running a closed ticketed system and human toll collectors.  Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts have at least taken baby steps into the modern age.  Wonder what it would take for NY to stop being so stubborn.

It'll always be a closed system, but they're starting the AET transition within the next few months at Tappan Zee. Barriers are being converted first.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 02, 2015, 01:02:32 PM
Briefly jumped on the Thruway while on a road trip through the northeast last month (exit 23 through the Berkshire connector to the MassPike).  I noticed the tickets shrunk to the same size that everyone else uses, as opposed to the big tickets they handed out when I clinched the mainline a few years ago.  Tolls seemed to be the same though.
That occurred a couple years back when the Thruway replaced the ticket dispensers (the old ones were printing faded tickets).  The new tickets use one standard ticket for all vehicle classes (using the class 2L rates) rather than printing customized toll schedules for every vehicle class.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: MrDisco99 on November 02, 2015, 01:55:06 PM
Briefly jumped on the Thruway while on a road trip through the northeast last month (exit 23 through the Berkshire connector to the MassPike).  I noticed the tickets shrunk to the same size that everyone else uses, as opposed to the big tickets they handed out when I clinched the mainline a few years ago.  Tolls seemed to be the same though.
That occurred a couple years back when the Thruway replaced the ticket dispensers (the old ones were printing faded tickets).  The new tickets use one standard ticket for all vehicle classes (using the class 2L rates) rather than printing customized toll schedules for every vehicle class.

Haha yes they were faded.  I have the very streaky exit 15 ticket from when I drove the mainline in 2012 and you can barely read it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on November 03, 2015, 07:02:00 PM
How were you guys able to keep the tickets, when you're supposed to give them to the collector?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 03, 2015, 07:50:02 PM
How were you guys able to keep the tickets, when you're supposed to give them to the collector?

I have the very streaky exit 15 ticket from when I drove the mainline in 2012 and you can barely read it.

I'm assuming he drove it all at once. If you go the entire length, you get charged the maximum toll, which is what you'd be charged if you don't have a ticket.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 03, 2015, 08:13:54 PM
This was one of the perks of the infamous Mass Pike wave-through in heavy traffic—you got a free souvenir ticket!
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: MrDisco99 on November 03, 2015, 09:27:03 PM
Yeah if you tell the attendant you lost your ticket, you pay the maximum toll from the furthest endpoint.  If that's where you came from anyway, then it doesn't cost you anything to do it.  This way I've collected tickets from just about every ticketed toll road I've driven... FL, OH, PA, NJ, NY (both sections), and MA.

The only exception was the one in Indiana which has an automated payment system and no human in the booth.  Rather than call for help and wait, I decided to just insert my ticket and keep going.

Interestingly, if you keep your ticket on the Thruway they make you fill out some form with some of your personal info including your license plate number.  I'm guessing this is so they can keep track of people doing this kind of thing to fraud the system.  Only the NY Thruway had me do this.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 03, 2015, 10:28:32 PM
Yeah if you tell the attendant you lost your ticket, you pay the maximum toll from the furthest endpoint.  If that's where you came from anyway, then it doesn't cost you anything to do it.  This way I've collected tickets from just about every ticketed toll road I've driven... FL, OH, PA, NJ, NY (both sections), and MA.

The only exception was the one in Indiana which has an automated payment system and no human in the booth.  Rather than call for help and wait, I decided to just insert my ticket and keep going.

Interestingly, if you keep your ticket on the Thruway they make you fill out some form with some of your personal info including your license plate number.  I'm guessing this is so they can keep track of people doing this kind of thing to fraud the system.  Only the NY Thruway had me do this.

Runs your plate through the system. Knowing the weird way New York thinks, the thought may be that that criminals trying to make a getaway would "lose" their ticket to avoid being tracked. For example, if there's an amber alert and they thought someone got on the Thruway, they radio it out to everyone and pay attention to entrance point/car type. If someone conveniently loses a ticket in this situation, making them put down their info in the system and if they refuse, they can send the cops out for that.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: thenetwork on November 03, 2015, 11:53:47 PM
Back in the 80s and into the 90s along the Ohio Turnpike, some of the Toll Plazas had an entrance booth for "Passenger Cars Only", and thus the only tickets dispensed (from an automatic dispenser) were for the Class 1 cars.

Some of the dispensers would stick a ticket out before the next car would come through to reduce the wait/stop time for cars.  I had figured out that if you took the first ticket and waited a few extra seconds, another ticket would stick out.  I drove a stick shift at the time, so I would purposely "stall" the car and by the time I got the car started again, I could grab a second ticket and scram.

Another you could collect an OH Tpk ticket was to drive around the back side of the Service Plaza right before the main exit.  If the delivery gate between the turnpike service plaza and the local employee parking lot was open, then drive out the local road.   This happened once when the car of a college carpool I was a passenger in crapped out right before the Service Plaza.  Tow truck came by and picked us up and took us right through the open gate (a simple, long, chain link swing gate) and to the local garage where I had to call my parents for the rest of the ride home.

Nowadays, they use automatic gate arms, cameras and intercom systems for vehicles to pass on and off the Turnpike side of the Service Plaza. And the Passenger Car Only ticket dispensing lanes are probably long gone as well.

The extra tickets I collected were only for preservation purposes only, and not used to pay a lesser toll. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 04, 2015, 08:04:09 AM
Back in the 80s and into the 90s along the Ohio Turnpike, some of the Toll Plazas had an entrance booth for "Passenger Cars Only", and thus the only tickets dispensed (from an automatic dispenser) were for the Class 1 cars.

Some of the dispensers would stick a ticket out before the next car would come through to reduce the wait/stop time for cars.  I had figured out that if you took the first ticket and waited a few extra seconds, another ticket would stick out.  I drove a stick shift at the time, so I would purposely "stall" the car and by the time I got the car started again, I could grab a second ticket and scram.

Another you could collect an OH Tpk ticket was to drive around the back side of the Service Plaza right before the main exit.  If the delivery gate between the turnpike service plaza and the local employee parking lot was open, then drive out the local road.   This happened once when the car of a college carpool I was a passenger in crapped out right before the Service Plaza.  Tow truck came by and picked us up and took us right through the open gate (a simple, long, chain link swing gate) and to the local garage where I had to call my parents for the rest of the ride home.

Nowadays, they use automatic gate arms, cameras and intercom systems for vehicles to pass on and off the Turnpike side of the Service Plaza. And the Passenger Car Only ticket dispensing lanes are probably long gone as well.

The extra tickets I collected were only for preservation purposes only, and not used to pay a lesser toll.

Car lanes are gone, especially now that E-ZPass is there
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 04, 2015, 12:43:54 PM
There's a passenger car only lane getting on the Thruway at exit 24 (lane 3).  No idea if it once only had class 2L tickets or why it's there now.

Another you could collect an OH Tpk ticket was to drive around the back side of the Service Plaza right before the main exit.  If the delivery gate between the turnpike service plaza and the local employee parking lot was open, then drive out the local road.   This happened once when the car of a college carpool I was a passenger in crapped out right before the Service Plaza.  Tow truck came by and picked us up and took us right through the open gate (a simple, long, chain link swing gate) and to the local garage where I had to call my parents for the rest of the ride home.
Sounds like it was also a way to avoid paying.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 04, 2015, 01:35:18 PM
There's a passenger car only lane getting on the Thruway at exit 24 (lane 3).  No idea if it once only had class 2L tickets or why it's there now.

Being as it's the only machine I know of on the system and the machines that formerly existed only spat out 2L tickets, I'm assuming it once had 2L tickets. As for why it's still there, who knows. Most of the car lanes and ticket machines went the way of the dodo when E-ZPass was introduced.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on November 04, 2015, 07:04:20 PM
Yeah if you tell the attendant you lost your ticket, you pay the maximum toll from the furthest endpoint.  If that's where you came from anyway, then it doesn't cost you anything to do it.  This way I've collected tickets from just about every ticketed toll road I've driven... FL, OH, PA, NJ, NY (both sections), and MA.

The only exception was the one in Indiana which has an automated payment system and no human in the booth.  Rather than call for help and wait, I decided to just insert my ticket and keep going.

Interestingly, if you keep your ticket on the Thruway they make you fill out some form with some of your personal info including your license plate number.  I'm guessing this is so they can keep track of people doing this kind of thing to fraud the system.  Only the NY Thruway had me do this.

You don't really have to fill out anything personal. I scrawled it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on November 05, 2015, 10:23:05 AM
Speaking of the toll tickets, what does "breakdown ticket" mean? I understand the words, just not the context. Does that mean the machine dispensing the tickets broke down? (which is my interpretation)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on November 05, 2015, 01:00:59 PM
Speaking of the toll tickets, what does "breakdown ticket" mean? I understand the words, just not the context. Does that mean the machine dispensing the tickets broke down? (which is my interpretation)
As I recall, at one point the Thruway had a regulation which established a maximum time frame that a person could be within the System upon receiving a toll ticket.  If you exceeded that time, you were then assessed an additional fee or fine.  I believe a 'breakdown ticket' was used to waive this additional fee or fine in situations where, due to mechanical problems, you ended up exceeding that time limit.  It would have been issued by the State Police upon responding to your vehicle.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SectorZ on November 05, 2015, 04:16:36 PM
Speaking of the toll tickets, what does "breakdown ticket" mean? I understand the words, just not the context. Does that mean the machine dispensing the tickets broke down? (which is my interpretation)
As I recall, at one point the Thruway had a regulation which established a maximum time frame that a person could be within the System upon receiving a toll ticket.  If you exceeded that time, you were then assessed an additional fee or fine.  I believe a 'breakdown ticket' was used to waive this additional fee or fine in situations where, due to mechanical problems, you ended up exceeding that time limit.  It would have been issued by the State Police upon responding to your vehicle.

Nothing like rubbing in the fact that you were stuck due to a breakdown, but let's charge you more for the privilege of being stuck. I'm surprised they actually made a waiver for it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: thenetwork on November 05, 2015, 06:44:31 PM
As I recall, at one point the Thruway had a regulation which established a maximum time frame that a person could be within the System upon receiving a toll ticket.  If you exceeded that time, you were then assessed an additional fee or fine.  I believe a 'breakdown ticket' was used to waive this additional fee or fine in situations where, due to mechanical problems, you ended up exceeding that time limit.  It would have been issued by the State Police upon responding to your vehicle.

What about in situations such as last year when hundreds of vehicles were stranded on the Thruway south & west of Buffalo due to 7 feet of snow?   Is that situation addressed in a regulation?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 05, 2015, 06:47:38 PM
As I recall, at one point the Thruway had a regulation which established a maximum time frame that a person could be within the System upon receiving a toll ticket.  If you exceeded that time, you were then assessed an additional fee or fine.  I believe a 'breakdown ticket' was used to waive this additional fee or fine in situations where, due to mechanical problems, you ended up exceeding that time limit.  It would have been issued by the State Police upon responding to your vehicle.

What about in situations such as last year when hundreds of vehicles were stranded on the Thruway south & west of Buffalo due to 7 feet of snow?   Is that situation addressed in a regulation?

You mean the storm where Cuomo blamed everyone stuck in it for entering the Thruway, even though it was open at the time each vehicle entered?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: thenetwork on November 05, 2015, 06:50:22 PM
As I recall, at one point the Thruway had a regulation which established a maximum time frame that a person could be within the System upon receiving a toll ticket.  If you exceeded that time, you were then assessed an additional fee or fine.  I believe a 'breakdown ticket' was used to waive this additional fee or fine in situations where, due to mechanical problems, you ended up exceeding that time limit.  It would have been issued by the State Police upon responding to your vehicle.

What about in situations such as last year when hundreds of vehicles were stranded on the Thruway south & west of Buffalo due to 7 feet of snow?   Is that situation addressed in a regulation?

You mean the storm where Cuomo blamed everyone stuck in it for entering the Thruway, even though it was open at the time each vehicle entered?

Yep.  That's the one where they issued the breakdown tickets to all the NYSTA snowplows that couldn't plow the Thruway anymore. :)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on November 05, 2015, 10:23:43 PM
If you read Roadman's post above, he says the breakdown ticket was used to waive the extra toll for being on the system too long.

I know on the Thruway and some other toll roads, when a trooper calls a tow truck for a disabled car, they issue a ticket certifying that the tow was called at a certain time, etc. and it explains the Toll Road's towing policies and procedures. Someone showed me such a Thruway ticket many years ago. The Thruway Authority treats its users as paying customers or "patrons" in their parlance.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on November 12, 2015, 12:29:31 PM
The NYS Thruway Authority has been installing signs along NYSDOT routes in the Syracuse and Utica area marking "emergency detours". These signs are smaller, but identical in design to the Emergency Detour signs used in conjunction with the Utica North-South Arterial Project and, unfortunately, they are in all caps Clearview (the NYSTA just doesn't get the proper use of Clearview). Many of the signs are installed on single posts, which probably won't survive a typical Central New York winter very well.

"Emergency Detour B" takes motorists from Thruway Exit 33 to Thruway Exit 31 via the NY 365/49/5/I-790 corridor in the Utica-Rome area. (I contacted NYSDOT as this is another reason we should just have NY 790).

"Emergency Detour C" takes motorists from Thruway Exit 34A to Thruway Exit 39 via I-481 and I-690.

While I am not a fan of the Thruway closing during snowstorms, since it essentially just dumps traffic onto local roads and makes NYSDOT and/or local municipalities deal with the issue, I like the idea of signed emergency detours. However, I am becoming concerned about motorist information overload with the growing number of signs turning up at every single interchange along these detour routes, especially in the Utica-Rome area where they sign every park, tennis court, airport, state police barracks, scenic route and information stop on small, separate signs at every freeway interchange (in clear violation of MUTCD Chapter 2H).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 12, 2015, 02:03:45 PM
The NYS Thruway Authority has been installing signs along NYSDOT routes in the Syracuse and Utica area marking "emergency detours". These signs are smaller, but identical in design to the Emergency Detour signs used in conjunction with the Utica North-South Arterial Project and, unfortunately, they are in all caps Clearview (the NYSTA just doesn't get the proper use of Clearview). Many of the signs are installed on single posts, which probably won't survive a typical Central New York winter very well.

"Emergency Detour B" takes motorists from Thruway Exit 33 to Thruway Exit 31 via the NY 365/49/5/I-790 corridor in the Utica-Rome area. (I contacted NYSDOT as this is another reason we should just have NY 790).

"Emergency Detour C" takes motorists from Thruway Exit 34A to Thruway Exit 39 via I-481 and I-690.

While I am not a fan of the Thruway closing during snowstorms, since it essentially just dumps traffic onto local roads and makes NYSDOT and/or local municipalities deal with the issue, I like the idea of signed emergency detours. However, I am becoming concerned about motorist information overload with the growing number of signs turning up at every single interchange along these detour routes, especially in the Utica-Rome area where they sign every park, tennis court, airport, state police barracks, scenic route and information stop on small, separate signs at every freeway interchange (in clear violation of MUTCD Chapter 2H).

They installed some around Buffalo last year along US 62 and I-290 for issues at the Grand Island Bridges. A is northbound and B is southbound.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 13, 2015, 01:15:05 PM
The Cleveland Drive (Exit 50A) overpass project is now complete:

Quote
Governor Cuomo announced the completion of a major Thruway Authority construction project in Cheektowaga. The $11.3 million Cleveland Drive Overpass project includes several renovations that will alleviate congestion and improve traffic flow along one of the busiest stretches of the New York State Thruway (I-90). View a photograph here.

"This new construction will decrease traffic and congestion on one of the busiest parts of the Thruway and improve the experience for the thousands of Western New York residents who depend on this vital part of the region’s transportation system,” Governor Cuomo said. "The completion of this project, which was finished on time and on-budget, is one more example of this administration’s commitment to investing and improving infrastructure across New York State.”

In addition to replacing the overpass, work included the realignment of the Cleveland Drive on-ramp to I-90 westbound and a lane extension from I-290 eastbound to NY Route 33 in efforts to alleviate further traffic concerns. The design of the new overpass also creates wider roadway shoulders by not requiring a center pier support.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-completion-113-million-thruway-infrastructure-project-western-new-york
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on November 13, 2015, 01:32:24 PM
The Cleveland Drive (Exit 50A) overpass project is now complete:

Quote
Governor Cuomo announced the completion of a major Thruway Authority construction project in Cheektowaga. The $11.3 million Cleveland Drive Overpass project includes several renovations that will alleviate congestion and improve traffic flow along one of the busiest stretches of the New York State Thruway (I-90). View a photograph here.

"This new construction will decrease traffic and congestion on one of the busiest parts of the Thruway and improve the experience for the thousands of Western New York residents who depend on this vital part of the region’s transportation system,” Governor Cuomo said. "The completion of this project, which was finished on time and on-budget, is one more example of this administration’s commitment to investing and improving infrastructure across New York State.”

In addition to replacing the overpass, work included the realignment of the Cleveland Drive on-ramp to I-90 westbound and a lane extension from I-290 eastbound to NY Route 33 in efforts to alleviate further traffic concerns. The design of the new overpass also creates wider roadway shoulders by not requiring a center pier support.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-completion-113-million-thruway-infrastructure-project-western-new-york

You beat me to it! I had it in my clipboard too...

(https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/thumbnails/image/NYSTAClevelandDriveOverpassOpen.jpg)

I see they have backplates there. A nice touch (though I know it is standard).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on November 13, 2015, 01:41:51 PM
I confirmed today that the Thruway Authority is reevaluating the use of Clearview and specifying FHWA Highway Gothic in future signing projects. The decreased legibility of the overhead signs in Buffalo was a contributing factor.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on November 13, 2015, 07:39:31 PM
Nice that they came to their senses.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 13, 2015, 09:58:20 PM
I confirmed today that the Thruway Authority is reevaluating the use of Clearview and specifying FHWA Highway Gothic in future signing projects. The decreased legibility of the overhead signs in Buffalo was a contributing factor.

About flipping time. The Buffalo signs are a bunch of crap.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 14, 2015, 12:29:33 PM
I confirmed today that the Thruway Authority is reevaluating the use of Clearview and specifying FHWA Highway Gothic in future signing projects. The decreased legibility of the overhead signs in Buffalo was a contributing factor.
I have to wonder if those signs in Buffalo had the same issues as the Thruway Clearview signs had further south (along the I-87/287 duo-plex); the lettering was not reflectorized and such resulted in being impossible to read at night.  Of course, that's more of a reflectivity issue than a Clearview vs. FHWA Highway Gothic scenario.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 14, 2015, 03:20:23 PM
I confirmed today that the Thruway Authority is reevaluating the use of Clearview and specifying FHWA Highway Gothic in future signing projects. The decreased legibility of the overhead signs in Buffalo was a contributing factor.
I have to wonder if those signs in Buffalo had the same issues as the Thruway Clearview signs had further south (along the I-87/287 duo-plex); the lettering was not reflectorized and such resulted in being impossible to read at night.  Of course, that's more of a reflectivity issue than a Clearview vs. FHWA Highway Gothic scenario.

They probably are, but the Buffalo signs also had the issue of using Clearview for negative contrast. Heck, on some of the signs, even the shields were Clearview.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on November 14, 2015, 07:52:52 PM
I'm surprised that a toll-road agency that runs such an excellent radio network (frequencies 453.425 and 453.525 on your scanners) would be so ignorant when it comes to signing. But I guess different people are in charge of each.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 14, 2015, 09:02:38 PM
I'm surprised that a toll-road agency that runs such an excellent radio network (frequencies 453.425 and 453.525 on your scanners) would be so ignorant when it comes to signing. But I guess different people are in charge of each.

NYSTA is usually really good about signage. That is what made it odd. There was a year or two that had bad signage.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Zeffy on November 14, 2015, 09:19:46 PM
They probably are, but the Buffalo signs also had the issue of using Clearview for negative contrast. Heck, on some of the signs, even the shields were Clearview.

I've seen some advance street name warning signs in Bucks County, PA use negative contrast Clearview, and at night (which now hits when I get out of work), I can barely read them without squinting. I don't know what about it makes it impossible to read, but it's not just an appearance thing - I can barely read any form of negative contrast Clearview when at night unless I try really hard or I am right on top of the sign.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 14, 2015, 10:22:50 PM
I suspect the non-reflective lettering is the key to why the Thruway signs weren't visible at night, not the clearview.  So, in the end, the roadgeeks will be happy, but the signs will still be unreadable at night.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 16, 2015, 12:34:01 PM
I suspect the non-reflective lettering is the key to why the Thruway signs weren't visible at night, not the clearview.  So, in the end, the roadgeeks will be happy, but the signs will still be unreadable at night.
The funny thing is that the older (25+ year old) signs actually used reflectorized lettering and the majority of them are still in decent shape as well as readable.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on November 16, 2015, 07:26:19 PM
Amazing how a well designed and built, good quality installation will last a long time.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on November 16, 2015, 07:36:20 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I distinctly remember them erecting all overhead signs in Rockland County back in circa 1988-89 to replace ground signs at the time.  I remember that was the last of the "ROUTE 59- Spring Valley" sign going NB with "Nanuet" on another plate below it as that also was the last of the mohicans for old Thruway signage.  I kind of liked the new ones going all shield and leaving out the text, even though history is now gone both simultaneously.

Anyway, are these the signs being referred to as being 25 years old?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 16, 2015, 07:55:37 PM
I suspect the non-reflective lettering is the key to why the Thruway signs weren't visible at night, not the clearview.  So, in the end, the roadgeeks will be happy, but the signs will still be unreadable at night.
The funny thing is that the older (25+ year old) signs actually used reflectorized lettering and the majority of them are still in decent shape as well as readable.

Not the ones in Buffalo. The unreadable Clearview signs replaced signs that were unreadable at night. The reflectivity was mediocre at best. Not in great shape, either (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.847069,-78.7916245,3a,18.8y,30.08h,101.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sk83RV4pgUpfXCyzn0FEAFA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dk83RV4pgUpfXCyzn0FEAFA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D86.641068%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on November 16, 2015, 08:16:25 PM
That Exit-54 photo in cl94's above post is typical of Thruway signing. They use the wrong size arrow for the sign format. When the arrow is to the side of the legend the long-stem arrow should be used. The short-stem arrow is intended for signs where the arrow is placed below the legend, where vertical space is limited. When it comes to signing, the Thruway Authority just doesn't "get it"! They should take lessons from NYSDOT who mostly gets it right.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 16, 2015, 10:03:30 PM
That Exit-54 photo in cl94's above post is typical of Thruway signing. They use the wrong size arrow for the sign format. When the arrow is to the side of the legend the long-stem arrow should be used. The short-stem arrow is intended for signs where the arrow is placed below the legend, where vertical space is limited. When it comes to signing, the Thruway Authority just doesn't "get it"! They should take lessons from NYSDOT who mostly gets it right.

On the same sign bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8476378,-78.7915072,3a,15y,215.26h,99.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svsl1QW2YZsSEnmWembcheg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). This one might make you blind.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cu2010 on November 16, 2015, 10:40:00 PM
They should take lessons from NYSDOT who mostly gets it right.

NYSDOT gets it wrong a lot these days, too!
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on November 16, 2015, 10:50:48 PM
NYSDOT makes their mistakes too, but they do better signing than the Thruway Authority.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on November 17, 2015, 06:58:43 PM
NYSDOT makes their mistakes too, but they do better signing than the Thruway Authority.

They do. I don't like how NYSTA (AFAIK) doesn't have county or town border signs. I'd rather see those before I see mile-based exits, but I'm sure it's not even being planned. I like to know when I cross borders.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: ixnay on November 17, 2015, 07:44:14 PM
NYSDOT makes their mistakes too, but they do better signing than the Thruway Authority.

They do. I don't like how NYSTA (AFAIK) doesn't have county or town border signs. I'd rather see those before I see mile-based exits, but I'm sure it's not even being planned. I like to know when I cross borders.

Neither does the NJTA that I've noticed (at least for the Turnpike, which I've been on a lot more times than the GSP).

ixnay
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on November 17, 2015, 09:24:57 PM
NYSDOT makes their mistakes too, but they do better signing than the Thruway Authority.

They do. I don't like how NYSTA (AFAIK) doesn't have county or town border signs. I'd rather see those before I see mile-based exits, but I'm sure it's not even being planned. I like to know when I cross borders.

I had a huge argument over email with NYSTA about county line signs on the Thruway about a decade ago. I stressed the importance of county line signs as a navigational aid for motorists. They said that motorists don't really concern themselves with what county they're in, I countered that since the National Weather Service issues weather alerts based on county they should include county line signs.  They offered to send me a map.  Their rationale was that if they signed county lines, they'd have to sign every town and village border as well.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 17, 2015, 09:28:44 PM
NYSDOT makes their mistakes too, but they do better signing than the Thruway Authority.

They do. I don't like how NYSTA (AFAIK) doesn't have county or town border signs. I'd rather see those before I see mile-based exits, but I'm sure it's not even being planned. I like to know when I cross borders.

I had a huge argument over email with NYSTA about county line signs on the Thruway about a decade ago. I stressed the importance of county line signs as a navigational aid for motorists. They said that motorists don't really concern themselves with what county they're in, I countered that since the National Weather Service issues weather alerts based on county they should include county line signs.  They offered to send me a map.  Their rationale was that if they signed county lines, they'd have to sign every town and village border as well.

And yet amazing there are states of comparable size that do just fine signing counties.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on November 17, 2015, 10:15:39 PM
NYSDOT makes their mistakes too, but they do better signing than the Thruway Authority.

They do. I don't like how NYSTA (AFAIK) doesn't have county or town border signs. I'd rather see those before I see mile-based exits, but I'm sure it's not even being planned. I like to know when I cross borders.

I had a huge argument over email with NYSTA about county line signs on the Thruway about a decade ago. I stressed the importance of county line signs as a navigational aid for motorists. They said that motorists don't really concern themselves with what county they're in, I countered that since the National Weather Service issues weather alerts based on county they should include county line signs.  They offered to send me a map.  Their rationale was that if they signed county lines, they'd have to sign every town and village border as well.

And yet amazing there are states of comparable size that do just fine signing counties.

And the MassPike does sign every town line, on a toll road that takes up a commensurate proportion of that state's area.

That being said, I made the discovery a couple years ago that NYSTA does indeed sign one particular county line in the two places the system crosses it: on both I-87 and I-95 at the Bronx/Westchester County line. (That's also the New York City line, but despite their rationale cited above, signing this boundary by the lesser-known county names didn't seem to compel them to sign the city as well!)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 17, 2015, 11:11:49 PM
NYSDOT makes their mistakes too, but they do better signing than the Thruway Authority.

They do. I don't like how NYSTA (AFAIK) doesn't have county or town border signs. I'd rather see those before I see mile-based exits, but I'm sure it's not even being planned. I like to know when I cross borders.

I had a huge argument over email with NYSTA about county line signs on the Thruway about a decade ago. I stressed the importance of county line signs as a navigational aid for motorists. They said that motorists don't really concern themselves with what county they're in, I countered that since the National Weather Service issues weather alerts based on county they should include county line signs.  They offered to send me a map.  Their rationale was that if they signed county lines, they'd have to sign every town and village border as well.

And yet amazing there are states of comparable size that do just fine signing counties.

And the MassPike does sign every town line, on a toll road that takes up a commensurate proportion of that state's area.

That being said, I made the discovery a couple years ago that NYSTA does indeed sign one particular county line in the two places the system crosses it: on both I-87 and I-95 at the Bronx/Westchester County line. (That's also the New York City line, but despite their rationale cited above, signing this boundary by the lesser-known county names didn't seem to compel them to sign the city as well!)

They sign the occasional city line as well. The Buffalo and Niagara Falls city lines are signed on I-190 where maintained by NYSTA. Niagara Falls one is just south of the North Grand Island Bridge and it is button copy.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on November 18, 2015, 09:58:24 AM
And yet amazing there are states of comparable size that do just fine signing counties.
And the MassPike does sign every town line, on a toll road that takes up a commensurate proportion of that state's area.

Speaking of such, the new city/town line signs to be installed on the MassPike West Stockbridge to Auburn and Auburn to Boston projects will include county lines where applicable.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on November 18, 2015, 10:04:30 AM
http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214390_taa15-34b_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf

D214390 will replace a really old overpass over I-87 just north of exit 19 (NY 28 Kingston) - it's the Sawkill Rd overpass and a really old overpass!

GSV link:  https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kingston,+NY/@41.9529318,-74.0197875,3a,75y,56.93h,84.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWpxUi6lmwRamoiwFenrICw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWpxUi6lmwRamoiwFenrICw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D45.092804%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x89dd0f012dc98127:0x41d7895a5832c913!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: xcellntbuy on November 18, 2015, 01:14:51 PM
http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214390_taa15-34b_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf

D214390 will replace a really old overpass over I-87 just north of exit 19 (NY 28 Kingston) - it's the Sawkill Rd overpass and a really old overpass!

GSV link:  https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kingston,+NY/@41.9529318,-74.0197875,3a,75y,56.93h,84.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWpxUi6lmwRamoiwFenrICw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWpxUi6lmwRamoiwFenrICw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D45.092804%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x89dd0f012dc98127:0x41d7895a5832c913!6m1!1e1

I used to drive under that overpass 20 years ago and it NEEDED to be painted then!  It's an old one, probably from around 1960, as old I am.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on November 18, 2015, 09:08:24 PM
The original Thruway overpasses date back to the Thruway's opening circa 1954.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2015, 09:31:53 PM

And yet amazing there are states of comparable size that do just fine signing counties.
And the MassPike does sign every town line, on a toll road that takes up a commensurate proportion of that state's area.

Speaking of such, the new city/town line signs to be installed on the MassPike West Stockbridge to Auburn and Auburn to Boston projects will include county lines where applicable.

This was standard practice going way back by MassHighway and its predecessors.  I recall the probably-original markers on 495 in the 1970s and 80s as it jumped frequently from county to county, but can't recall if town-line markers within a county also listed the county.  Somehow I have since stopped paying those signs any attention.

I suppose this will bring the Mass Pike in line with the general statewide practice.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on November 19, 2015, 01:24:35 PM

And yet amazing there are states of comparable size that do just fine signing counties.
And the MassPike does sign every town line, on a toll road that takes up a commensurate proportion of that state's area.

Speaking of such, the new city/town line signs to be installed on the MassPike West Stockbridge to Auburn and Auburn to Boston projects will include county lines where applicable.

This was standard practice going way back by MassHighway and its predecessors.  I recall the probably-original markers on 495 in the 1970s and 80s as it jumped frequently from county to county, but can't recall if town-line markers within a county also listed the county.  Somehow I have since stopped paying those signs any attention.

I suppose this will bring the Mass Pike in line with the general statewide practice.

MassDOW/MassHighway/MassDOT standard town line markers include the county name only at county lines, and not at each city/town line within the county.  And, although including the county name at county lines was originally the standard, it had been inconsistently applied on signs through the years.

As for the signs on the Turnpike, Mass. Turnpike Authority standards did not call for including the county name on town line signs at county borders, which is why the information did not appear on signs installed under the MTA's mid-1990s sign updating projects.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on November 21, 2015, 12:31:06 PM
Quote
Traffic on Main Street in Williamsville isn’t getting any better, so village officials are dusting off old proposals for a new Youngs Road Thruway interchange to relieve stifling congestion. They want an interchange that links the Thruway to the village as well as Buffalo Niagara International Airport.

And in the process, they lambaste Amherst Town officials for failing to build the infrastructure to accommodate “unbridled development growth.”

While the village has neither the authority nor the money to sponsor such a major project, Mayor Brian J. Kulpa says it’s time to “start the conversation” with an eye toward reducing traffic problems on major thoroughfares like Main Street.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/williamsville/williamsville-seeks-new-thruway-interchange-to-relieve-main-st-congestion-20151121

This is an idea that I think is stupid. For one, the physical toll barrier hasn't been moved eastward yet. By the time it does AET will be here and it'll have been replaced by a gantry.

Second, it's so close to the Transit Road exit that it doesn't make much sense positionally speaking. I would argue that it makes more sense for a Wehrle Dr interchange and maybe even Ransom Road interchange than a Youngs Rd. one.

The area got it wrong when they didn't build that beltway 40 years ago.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 21, 2015, 11:12:11 PM
I would argue that it makes more sense for a Wehrle Dr interchange and maybe even Ransom Road interchange than a Youngs Rd. one.

The problem with that is there's absolutely nowhere on Wehrle to put an interchange. At least there's some land to work with at the Youngs overpass.

But yeah, probably won't see anything come of this proposal unless NYSTA ever goes through with their plan to remove the Williamsville Toll Barrier and build a new one in Newstead.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on November 21, 2015, 11:41:42 PM
I would argue that it makes more sense for a Wehrle Dr interchange and maybe even Ransom Road interchange than a Youngs Rd. one.

The problem with that is there's absolutely nowhere on Wehrle to put an interchange. At least there's some land to work with at the Youngs overpass.

But yeah, probably won't see anything come of this proposal unless NYSTA ever goes through with their plan to remove the Williamsville Toll Barrier and build a new one in Newstead.

It took me awhile to realize this. Unless they used eminent domain then it just wouldn't happen.

I saw a comment on the Buffalo News by an Artvoice editor who went after the Newstead town officials because they oppose toll barriers there. NYSTA needs to get AET going within 10 years.

If they do move booths beforehand though, I'd say they should move the Lackawanna one back to around Rogers Road.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 22, 2015, 02:15:14 PM
Did someone ever tell Newstead that the moved barrier wouldn't be anything like Williamsville because the vast majority of Thruway traffic uses E-ZPass and that those users wouldn't even need to slow down?  I was wondering why the project died, seeing as it first appeared on the Thruway's site 15 years ago.  Honestly, they should have just built it anyways.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 22, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Did someone ever tell Newstead that the moved barrier wouldn't be anything like Williamsville because the vast majority of Thruway traffic uses E-ZPass and that those users wouldn't even need to slow down?  I was wondering why the project died, seeing as it first appeared on the Thruway's site 15 years ago.  Honestly, they should have just built it anyways.

Environmental issues. Stretch between Exits 48A and 49 is mostly wetlands.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: jasonsk287 on November 22, 2015, 09:03:51 PM
NYSDOT makes their mistakes too, but they do better signing than the Thruway Authority.

They do. I don't like how NYSTA (AFAIK) doesn't have county or town border signs. I'd rather see those before I see mile-based exits, but I'm sure it's not even being planned. I like to know when I cross borders.

I had a huge argument over email with NYSTA about county line signs on the Thruway about a decade ago. I stressed the importance of county line signs as a navigational aid for motorists. They said that motorists don't really concern themselves with what county they're in, I countered that since the National Weather Service issues weather alerts based on county they should include county line signs.  They offered to send me a map.  Their rationale was that if they signed county lines, they'd have to sign every town and village border as well.

The PA Turnpike uses PA's small blue and white signs to sign county lines. PennDOT signs, generally, each township and county border on their state roads, but on the Turnpike it's just counties. So, as you know, there's proof that their rationale is flawed.

I've always felt, as I've driven I-87 from LI to Albany many times, that county lines are absolutely necessary. NYSDOT does it, so why can't the Thruway?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2015, 09:34:09 PM
New Jersey is even more flawed as NJDOT signs town borders only, but no county lines.  However, the Garden State Parkway signs only county lines on blue pentagon signs, no town limits.  The NJ Turnpike signs no crossings between counties and communities.  I do not know about the ACE as I have yet to clinch it west of the airport.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: odditude on November 23, 2015, 08:41:11 AM
NJDOT signs town borders only, but no county lines.
given there's no unincorporated land in NJ, there's no real need to sign this info - even if it might be nice to see.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 23, 2015, 09:23:03 AM
NJDOT signs town borders only, but no county lines.
given there's no unincorporated land in NJ, there's no real need to sign this info - even if it might be nice to see.

Town lines are great for location. New York doesn't really have unincorporated land, either, and town line signs do wonders for wayfinding. Especially with sequential exit numbers, it's often a lot easier for the typical motorist to judge distance by town/county lines than by milemarkers.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on November 23, 2015, 09:33:26 AM
NJDOT signs town borders only, but no county lines.
given there's no unincorporated land in NJ, there's no real need to sign this info - even if it might be nice to see.

Town lines are great for location. New York doesn't really have unincorporated land, either, and town line signs do wonders for wayfinding. Especially with sequential exit numbers, it's often a lot easier for the typical motorist to judge distance by town/county lines than by milemarkers.

The National Weather Service sends out weather alerts by county (or parts of counties, "Northern Oneida", etc.).  For an agency that is still getting lambasted for the snowstorm in Buffalo last year, and posting "Emergency Detour" signs all over creation, you'd think the Thruway Authority could put up 40 signs (I roughly counted that the Thruway passes through 20 counties) marking county lines. The Thruway carries a lot of traffic from motorists not familiar with the area. They've put up that many signs indicating how many times you pass in and out of the Erie Canal and Hudson River Heritage Areas, and they don't provide any tangible navigational assistance at all.

40 signs. There's that many "Emergency Detour" signs between Utica and Verona.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 23, 2015, 10:16:06 AM
Likewise, Connecticut doesn't mark county lines on roads either. Municipal boundaries are signed. Village boundaries are only shown on local streets. The name of the village is in a cursive script with the outline of the state surrounding it.

Maine mentions county lines on I-295 and I-95/Maine Turnpike.

Are county lines mentioned on I-84 in New York? I don't recall any the last time I was there.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 23, 2015, 11:01:55 AM
Likewise, Connecticut doesn't mark county lines on roads either. Municipal boundaries are signed. Village boundaries are only shown on local streets. The name of the village is in a cursive script with the outline of the state surrounding it.

Maine mentions county lines on I-295 and I-95/Maine Turnpike.

Are county lines mentioned on I-84 in New York? I don't recall any the last time I was there.

Yes (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5132513,-73.6837969,3a,75y,168.43h,78.68t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sws-rhQqlRoLbSMvF1NN-Mg!2e0!5s20141001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) and no. Newburgh-Beacon Bridge has no county line signs, but that's also maintained by NYSBA. Some of their crossings have signs, some don't. Bear Mountain doesn't have signs, either.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on November 23, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
Likewise, Connecticut doesn't mark county lines on roads either. Municipal boundaries are signed. Village boundaries are only shown on local streets. The name of the village is in a cursive script with the outline of the state surrounding it.

Maine mentions county lines on I-295 and I-95/Maine Turnpike.

Are county lines mentioned on I-84 in New York? I don't recall any the last time I was there.

Yes (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5132513,-73.6837969,3a,75y,168.43h,78.68t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sws-rhQqlRoLbSMvF1NN-Mg!2e0!5s20141001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) and no. Newburgh-Beacon Bridge has no county line signs, but that's also maintained by NYSBA. Some of their crossings have signs, some don't. Bear Mountain doesn't have signs, either.

Putnam-Dutchess County line on I-84 comes to mind - there may be others, but that one is one I remember.
 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 23, 2015, 01:59:18 PM
Also keep in mind that I-84 was maintained by NYSTA for a couple decades, and the Thruway DEFINITELY exerted its influence on I-84's signage.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: odditude on November 23, 2015, 02:16:19 PM
NJDOT signs town borders only, but no county lines.
given there's no unincorporated land in NJ, there's no real need to sign this info - even if it might be nice to see.

Town lines are great for location. New York doesn't really have unincorporated land, either, and town line signs do wonders for wayfinding. Especially with sequential exit numbers, it's often a lot easier for the typical motorist to judge distance by town/county lines than by milemarkers.
to clarify, i was saying that county line info isn't that important in NJ - no argument on the utility of town line signage.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on November 23, 2015, 02:39:46 PM
Also keep in mind that I-84 was maintained by NYSTA for a couple decades, and the Thruway DEFINITELY exerted its influence on I-84's signage.

Yeah, the new panels they installed right before I-84 went back to NYSDOT are very clear evidence that I-84 was the bastard step child while under NYSTA jurisdiction. Those signs are awful, which is shame because the NYSDOT signs before them were actually quite well done and among the very last of NYSDOT button copy use.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on November 23, 2015, 06:49:56 PM
NJDOT signs town borders only, but no county lines.
given there's no unincorporated land in NJ, there's no real need to sign this info - even if it might be nice to see.
It's also false, but roadman65 saying something false is like rain falling from the sky.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on November 23, 2015, 06:51:49 PM
NYSDOT makes their mistakes too, but they do better signing than the Thruway Authority.

They do. I don't like how NYSTA (AFAIK) doesn't have county or town border signs. I'd rather see those before I see mile-based exits, but I'm sure it's not even being planned. I like to know when I cross borders.

I had a huge argument over email with NYSTA about county line signs on the Thruway about a decade ago. I stressed the importance of county line signs as a navigational aid for motorists. They said that motorists don't really concern themselves with what county they're in, I countered that since the National Weather Service issues weather alerts based on county they should include county line signs.  They offered to send me a map.  Their rationale was that if they signed county lines, they'd have to sign every town and village border as well.

The PA Turnpike uses PA's small blue and white signs to sign county lines. PennDOT signs, generally, each township and county border on their state roads, but on the Turnpike it's just counties. So, as you know, there's proof that their rationale is flawed.

I've always felt, as I've driven I-87 from LI to Albany many times, that county lines are absolutely necessary. NYSDOT does it, so why can't the Thruway?
I don't find it necessary. I care about what exit I'm going to and what town I'm heading toward. I don't navigate by counties and I'm not sure who does. It's more of a "that's nice" or political bone thrown to the counties. On freeways, I also don't care what town I'm in if there's no exit to it. If there is an exit, it'll show up on the guide sign, so once again I don't find town line signs necessary. Helpful, maybe, maybe not. This goes out the window on surface highways where I need to know what town I'm entering.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on November 23, 2015, 09:06:11 PM
Quote from: Alps
This goes out the window on surface highways where I need to know what town I'm entering.

What makes surface highways different from freeways/tollways?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: odditude on November 23, 2015, 09:35:27 PM
Quote from: Alps
This goes out the window on surface highways where I need to know what town I'm entering.

What makes surface highways different from freeways/tollways?
likely that there's no egress from a limited-access highway in every town, therefore only the actual locations of exits matter.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on November 24, 2015, 12:04:18 AM
Quote from: Alps
This goes out the window on surface highways where I need to know what town I'm entering.

What makes surface highways different from freeways/tollways?
likely that there's no egress from a limited-access highway in every town, therefore only the actual locations of exits matter.
And no big guide signs for each exit.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: NJ on November 25, 2015, 06:05:44 PM
What's the earliest point where Montreal is seen on overhead sign as well as bilingual signs on the Thruway?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 25, 2015, 07:03:35 PM
What's the earliest point where Montreal is seen on overhead sign as well as bilingual signs on the Thruway?

Montreal is a control city at Exit 24. No bilingual signs on the Thruway.

Bilingual signs start at the Essex-Clinton county line on the Northway. A-15 is first mentioned on an assembly at Northway Exit 22 in Lake George.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 25, 2015, 07:06:51 PM

What's the earliest point where Montreal is seen on overhead sign as well as bilingual signs on the Thruway?

Not what you asked, but it used to be on a mileage sign in Spring Valley.  I felt very exotic when I used to drive past that sign very near home.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Beeper1 on November 25, 2015, 07:21:52 PM
There is a supplemental BGS for Montreal on the Berkshire Spur WB just before it meets mainline I-87.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on November 25, 2015, 08:20:35 PM
Many years ago there was a sign in French northbound for Exit-24. It said Province de Quebec, Prochaine Sortie. (Apologies if my spelling is slightly off) No idea if it's still posted that way.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: route17fan on November 25, 2015, 09:17:51 PM
Many years ago there was a sign in French northbound for Exit-24. It said Province de Quebec, Prochaine Sortie. (Apologies if my spelling is slightly off) No idea if it's still posted that way.

Not currently, though I have seen a picture of that sign on the Thruway on the internet and is presumably in a book.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:51:22 PM
Where is exit 24?

I thought the Thruway had bilingual signs near the border.

What's the earliest point where Montreal is seen on overhead sign as well as bilingual signs on the Thruway?

Montreal is a control city at Exit 24. No bilingual signs on the Thruway.

Bilingual signs start at the Essex-Clinton county line on the Northway. A-15 is first mentioned on an assembly at Northway Exit 22 in Lake George.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:52:18 PM
It's still there.. Everytime I drive to Woodbury Commons Outlet I see the sign


What's the earliest point where Montreal is seen on overhead sign as well as bilingual signs on the Thruway?

Not what you asked, but it used to be on a mileage sign in Spring Valley.  I felt very exotic when I used to drive past that sign very near home.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 25, 2015, 10:09:00 PM
Many years ago there was a sign in French northbound for Exit-24. It said Province de Quebec, Prochaine Sortie. (Apologies if my spelling is slightly off) No idea if it's still posted that way.

Not currently, though I have seen a picture of that sign on the Thruway on the internet and is presumably in a book.

Not in my lifetime. Very good chance it wasn't replaced when the last of the signs became MUTCD-compliant.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 25, 2015, 11:19:44 PM
There's also the English and French "limited cell phone service" signs on the Northway just past Pottersville.
(http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i87/101_1900-s.JPG)
(http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i87/101_1901-s.JPG)

Where is exit 24?

I thought the Thruway had bilingual signs near the border.
It's the junction of I-90 and I-87 in Albany, nowhere near the border.  No French signage there now.  The Thruway doesn't get anywhere remotely close to Quebec; the closest it gets to Canada period is Buffalo.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: NJ on November 26, 2015, 08:04:40 AM
There's also the English and French "limited cell phone service" signs on the Northway just past Pottersville.
(http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i87/101_1900-s.JPG)
(http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i87/101_1901-s.JPG)

Where is exit 24?

I thought the Thruway had bilingual signs near the border.
It's the junction of I-90 and I-87 in Albany, nowhere near the border.  No French signage there now.  The Thruway doesn't get anywhere remotely close to Quebec; the closest it gets to Canada period is Buffalo.

Isn't NY Thruway and I-87 same thing?!
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on November 26, 2015, 08:34:46 AM
There was a "prochaine sortie" sign at exit 24 back when the Thruway had the "mishmash" guide panels -- mid to late 80s if memory serves correctly.

The guide panels back then were incredibly inconsistent with materials used. The destinations would be button copy but 1 MILE would be retroreflective tape. Some signs were the opposite. The border would be button copy but nothing else on the sign would be, etc. These signs were black on the back and roughly the same age as the signs with the cutoff d as an a. The "Province du Quebec - prochaine sortie" sign was not in button copy and the prochaine sortie was in all capital Series E.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on November 26, 2015, 08:35:01 AM
The Thruway doesn't get anywhere remotely close to Quebec; the closest it gets to Canada period is Buffalo.

Isn't NY Thruway and I-87 same thing?!

Only as far as exit 24. Beyond there the Thruway turns west and is I-90 for the rest (the majority) of its length. I-87 from Albany to Canada is a free NYSDOT maintained road known as the Adirondack Northway or "the Northway" for short.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on November 26, 2015, 10:26:33 AM
The Thruway doesn't get anywhere remotely close to Quebec; the closest it gets to Canada period is Buffalo.

Isn't NY Thruway and I-87 same thing?!

Only as far as exit 24. Beyond there the Thruway turns west and is I-90 for the rest (the majority) of its length. I-87 from Albany to Canada is a free NYSDOT maintained road known as the Adirondack Northway or "the Northway" for short.

And prior to the Thruway, I-87 is the Major Deegan Expressway. That's why there's three sets of interchange numbers along I-87: Exit 1-14 for the Major Deegan, 1-24 for the Thruway and 1-43 for the Northway.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: NJ on November 26, 2015, 11:39:24 AM
Regardless of the name of the highway, it's still I-87 throughout to Montreal
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 26, 2015, 08:12:46 PM
Technically it's only I-87 to the border and then becomes A-15 ;).

The Thruway isn't just a name that happens to be on part of the road.  It's its own system that I-87 just happens to overlap with for 148 miles.  The Thruway was there first.  In fact, many people along the Thruway don't even know I-90 and I-87 exist on it - it's just "the Thruway".  To someone from the Albany area, I-87 is ONLY the Northway, and I-90 is only the free section; we really do say things like "take I-87 until it ends, then take the exit for the Thruway" (and the road is pretty much signed that way).

I-90 has three sets of numbers as well: 61-24, 1-12, B1-B3.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 26, 2015, 08:38:53 PM
Technically it's only I-87 to the border and then becomes A-15 ;).

The Thruway isn't just a name that happens to be on part of the road.  It's its own system that I-87 just happens to overlap with for 148 miles.  The Thruway was there first.  In fact, many people along the Thruway don't even know I-90 and I-87 exist on it - it's just "the Thruway".  To someone from the Albany area, I-87 is ONLY the Northway, and I-90 is only the free section; we really do say things like "take I-87 until it ends, then take the exit for the Thruway" (and the road is pretty much signed that way).

I-90 has three sets of numbers as well: 61-24, 1-12, B1-B3.

People in Albany know about I-90 being continuous because the free section is colloquially "free 90". Don't know how it is now, but traffic reports used "free 90". Few refer to I-87 by number. There is the Northway and there is the Thruway. I-87 is one of the very few 2DIs, if not the only one, that has no sections that are commonly referred to by number. Outside of heavily-populated areas, surface roads are referred to by number. I-88 only has a number, as do the 3DIs.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on November 26, 2015, 10:12:06 PM
Vdeane makes a good point about the Thruway and other states' signature toll roads having existed before the Interstate Hwy. System was created and how the incorporating or overlapping of the Interstates onto those roads has created some confusion.

Some historic trivia. Most of the NY Thruway opened in 1954, though the Buffalo section I believe was opened later, in 1957 and the New England Section circa 1959. The Interstate System was legislated into existence in 1956 under President Eisenhower who envisioned a national highway system similar to the German Autobahns.   

With regard to the three different sets of exit numbers on I-87, can you imagine how screwed up it will all get if NYSDOT and NYSTA ever renumber the exits using the federally mandated mileage based system in the MUTCD? We've previously discussed that elsewhere on these boards and it will be a mess if they ever do it. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 26, 2015, 11:27:16 PM
With regard to the three different sets of exit numbers on I-87, can you imagine how screwed up it will all get if NYSDOT and NYSTA ever renumber the exits using the federally mandated mileage based system in the MUTCD? We've previously discussed that elsewhere on these boards and it will be a mess if they ever do it.

It won't really affect much because the Thruway plans to adopt AET. Even if there were still tickets, no number on a single ticket would be duplicated. We went over that as well because a few of us ran the numbers. Helps that the first 80 miles of I-90 and south of Exit 16 aren't on the main ticket system. The Albany exits on I-90 would be well over 300.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: shadyjay on November 27, 2015, 12:41:40 PM
My Non-AET solution: 

Make the Thruway through Albany toll-free.  Build two new plazas, one near Selkirk and one near Schenectady, both with 2 high speed EZ-Pass lanes.  Separate tickets for the Schenectady-Buffalo and Selkirk-Downstate section.  Then you won't have to worry about the exit numbers conflicting on the tickets.  At the same time, you can build the direct Thruway NB->I-87NB ramps (and vice versa) passing beneath US 20/Western Ave, open to any vehicle.  Eliminates the Exit 24 toll plaza and (most of the) delays there.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on November 27, 2015, 01:26:30 PM
 

With regard to the three different sets of exit numbers on I-87, can you imagine how screwed up it will all get if NYSDOT and NYSTA ever renumber the exits using the federally mandated mileage based system in the MUTCD? We've previously discussed that elsewhere on these boards and it will be a mess if they ever do it. 

I don't think it would be a mess at all. The Thruway is eventually going to switch and their plan is to sign the Thruway as one single entity, with Exit 1 in Ripley and Exit 496 at Hall Place.  Not an ideal situation by any means, but it's not awful. The Northway would start around Exit 158.  The free portion of I-90 would be well into the 300s.

If the Thruway Authority numbered according to the interstate the Thruway is following, the numbers still wouldn't be that confusing.  As mentioned earlier, there would be no duplication of numbers between I-90 and I-87 and the similar numbers would be on opposite sides of the state (for example Batavia on I-90 would be Exit 106, Saugerties on I-87 would be Exit 110), minimizing confusion to motorists. In addition, making the interstate route numbering more prominent would assist with minimizing confusion.  It would be a shift in thinking, interstate numbers instead of "The Thruway", which would probably be a blow to the ego of the Thruway Authority, but it doesn't make this approach wrong.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 07:37:03 PM
Technically it's only I-87 to the border and then becomes A-15 ;).

The Thruway isn't just a name that happens to be on part of the road.  It's its own system that I-87 just happens to overlap with for 148 miles.  The Thruway was there first.  In fact, many people along the Thruway don't even know I-90 and I-87 exist on it - it's just "the Thruway".  To someone from the Albany area, I-87 is ONLY the Northway, and I-90 is only the free section; we really do say things like "take I-87 until it ends, then take the exit for the Thruway" (and the road is pretty much signed that way).

I-90 has three sets of numbers as well: 61-24, 1-12, B1-B3.
I have heard someone in Glens Falls refer to it by number.  I used to think the Northway was called to it by name too until I heard a local say otherwise.

Yes between the NYS Thruway and Major Deegan, I would hear someone say if they were going NB, take the Major Deegan into the Thruway instead of saying I-87 or Route 87 north only.

Then again here if FL we have many who live in Tampa going to Miami say "Take I-75 southbound to Alligator Alley" instead of just saying "Take I-75 South."  In New Jersey my uncle lived in Linden, but worked in Secaucus, and took Route 1 & 9 North to Tonnelle Avenue to County Road to get to work.  Tonnelle Avenue, as most of us know, is part of Routes 1 & 9, but to non road geeks they call em as they see em, and most think Route 1 & 9 continues into NYC via The Holland Tunnel just like Route 3 is the route inside the Lincoln Tunnel because  NJ 495 is a continuous freeway  with NJ 3 at its east end.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on November 27, 2015, 07:53:23 PM
I don't think it would be a mess at all. The Thruway is eventually going to switch and their plan is to sign the Thruway as one single entity, with Exit 1 in Ripley and Exit 496 at Hall Place.  Not an ideal situation by any means, but it's not awful.

It's better than what currently exists only because it's mile based. Less distance is backwards, but now the backwards part will include the most highly traveled part. And I-87 and I-90 will still have three sets of exit numbers each.

There is no practical reason why the Thruway could not number exits using 87 and 90's mileposts, but they won't because it would require too much interagency cooperation for New York.


Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 08:01:49 PM
Why can't the Deegan and Northway have the same set?  Just skip over those numbers that the NYSTA does not want to use.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 27, 2015, 08:16:07 PM
I don't think it would be a mess at all. The Thruway is eventually going to switch and their plan is to sign the Thruway as one single entity, with Exit 1 in Ripley and Exit 496 at Hall Place.  Not an ideal situation by any means, but it's not awful.

It's better than what currently exists only because it's mile based. Less distance is backwards, but now the backwards part will include the most highly traveled part. And I-87 and I-90 will still have three sets of exit numbers each.

There is no practical reason why the Thruway could not number exits using 87 and 90's mileposts, but they won't because it would require too much interagency cooperation for New York.

Using 87 and 90's mile posts would also make sense for navigational reasons. If I'm entering NY from PA on the Thruway, I'm likely not taking it all the way to NYC. If I'm a long distance traveler, I'm taking 90 to MA line or jumping off on NY 7 to go to Vermont. It might helpful to know how far I have until the MA state line, less helpful to know how far until NYC.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 08:23:52 PM
That brings up a question, does anyone other than us here, who look to clinch highways for the sake of clinching, do use all 495 miles of the Thruway in one sitting? 

I would have to agree with Nature Boy on that. Due to its awkward routing and the fact you have Route 17 (soon to be all I-86) which cuts your travel time big time.  Even my dad going to Niagara Falls never took the Thruway from the NYC area.  He cut through New Jersey and NE PA and took NY 17 from Binghamton westward to cut over later.  This was even before I-390 was completed!

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 27, 2015, 09:32:56 PM
IMO if you're going to redo all the mileposts on the Thruway, you might as well give I-90 and I-87 their own numbers.  Especially if the Thruway ever goes AET on the ticket system.  Doing otherwise just feels messy to me.

From what I know of the plan, I-87 on the Northway would continue the numbers based on I-87's total mileage from I-278.  Free 90 would continue the mileage from the PA line.  No idea what the situation would be on the Berkshire Spur, but I-90 and I-87 would each have at most two sets of numbers instead of three.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: shadyjay on November 27, 2015, 10:38:08 PM
No idea what the situation would be on the Berkshire Spur, but I-90 and I-87 would each have at most two sets of numbers instead of three.

Just continue the mile-based numbering from Ripley right to Mass... Thruway, free 90, and Berkshire Spur would be one continuous exit numbering sequence.  No exits exist on the Berkshire Spur west of free 90, except the Thruway jct.  Only major change would be signing the through route WB (Berkshire Spur to I-87) as the exit number, instead of 90WB exiting from itself getting the number.  Or to eliminate confusion, remove the exit number altogether. 

Or, truncate the toll/ticket portion to a point between I-87 and I-90, perhaps with an AET gantry.  Then to get the lost revenue, convert the existing plaza near Exit B3 to a barrier toll. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 27, 2015, 11:24:20 PM
The person in Glens Falls who used the number must be a transplant. Everyone there is name only. I'd know because that's where I grew up. The Northway, NY 9L, and US 9 within Glens Falls and Lake George are only referred to by name.

As to whether people do the entire length at once, no. But there are a heck of a lot of people who will use it between New York and Buffalo for the regular patrols and frequent services. That's 420ish/496 miles. Women traveling alone and seniors prefer the security and reliable services, even if it takes longer and costs a lot more.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: dgolub on November 28, 2015, 09:38:30 AM
From what I know of the plan, I-87 on the Northway would continue the numbers based on I-87's total mileage from I-278.  Free 90 would continue the mileage from the PA line.  No idea what the situation would be on the Berkshire Spur, but I-90 and I-87 would each have at most two sets of numbers instead of three.

It could continue the exit numbering scheme from free I-90.  Heading west, it would be considered a numbered exit to stay on the Berkshire Spur across the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge.  Coming across the bridge heading east, it would be a split at the end for I-90 east or west, with no exit number either way.

Alternatively, they could reroute I-90 along the full length of the Berkshire Spur, multiplexed it with I-87 at what's now exits 21A-24, and redesignate free I-90 as I-487 or I-687 or something like that.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on November 28, 2015, 10:49:00 AM


Alternatively, they could reroute I-90 along the full length of the Berkshire Spur, multiplexed it with I-87 at what's now exits 21A-24, and redesignate free I-90 as I-487 or I-687 or something like that.

That's what they should have done in the first place, but I have a feeling someone in Albany had an ego that demanded a two-digit interstate.  I-90 was moved off the Berkshire Spur to the existing routing in the early 1970s. I can't believe anyone thought that was a good idea and I'm surprised the Thruway went along with it, because it lends to toll money being diverted from the Thruway (when motorists stay on I-90).

I don't ever see free 90 becoming I-487 because that would make too much sense for the New York State political arena (which is involved in many things they shouldn't be, like route numbers).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on November 28, 2015, 12:02:23 PM
I can't believe anyone thought that was a good idea and I'm surprised the Thruway went along with it, because it lends to toll money being diverted from the Thruway (when motorists stay on I-90).

Perhaps on its face it's head-scratching, but you'd be surprised with how well the Thruway keeps people on the Bershire Spur.  The signage is well-done to that effect.  They have large signs leading people to I-87 and major destinations, whereas the exit for I-90 has it going to Hudson and Albany. 

The signage is so effective that even my road-savvy father was even wondering how he never ended up on the free section of I-90 when he went through there back in the 1980s a couple of times.   He figured it out, of course, but if time is a factor, it's really not worth the trouble to get off the Thruway, go through Albany, and back on it (especially around rush hour).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: AMLNet49 on November 28, 2015, 12:30:44 PM
Isn't the object to avoid multiplexed interstates where possible? Especially in the northeast where multiplexes are rare and thus confusing (the only one is 87/287, but for all practical purposes there might as well just be two seperate 287s. There's also the very short 87/90 in Albany but I'm not sure most people realize it's a multiplex because it's so short). Having the 2DI on an independent route I think is a good thing, plus it gives through traffic drivers on I-90 a bit of toll relief.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2015, 12:50:29 PM
The person in Glens Falls who used the number must be a transplant. Everyone there is name only. I'd know because that's where I grew up. The Northway, NY 9L, and US 9 within Glens Falls and Lake George are only referred to by name.

As to whether people do the entire length at once, no. But there are a heck of a lot of people who will use it between New York and Buffalo for the regular patrols and frequent services. That's 420ish/496 miles. Women traveling alone and seniors prefer the security and reliable services, even if it takes longer and costs a lot more.
  I thought so as well.  Or, he might of been trying to make it easy on us as we were asking him directions at the time.

I thought that he might of said that so we could find it as the entrance ramps do not say "Northway."  Its like the Beachline here in Florida.  Ramp signs say FL 528, but locals use it by name, however if giving out directions, of course, I will say "Highway 528" to them because the ramps are signed for that.  To tell them to look for the Beachline would confuse them so much, due to the lack of signs there even though Tallahassee went through a lot of work to get the name changed in response to tourist group lobbyists thinking that the Space Coast would get more revenue if the name got changed from "Beeline" to "Beachline."
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 28, 2015, 03:08:06 PM
The signage instructing through traffic to remain on the Thruway is numerous, even though the time savings is negligible outside of rush hours. The Berkshire Spur west of Exit B1 may be the least-traveled section of the Thruway system, but NYSTA gets $1.65 for every car that doesn't take Free 90. I tell people to time their travel so they hit Albany around lunchtime so they can eat/refuel at the cheaper establishments along Free 90, but most don't think that way.

I-90 was moved off because the FHWA and AASHTO try to limit the amount of time a federally-designated route spends on a toll road.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: NJ on November 28, 2015, 03:11:25 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/I-90_-_Thruway_split_w_of_Albany_NY.jpg/800px-I-90_-_Thruway_split_w_of_Albany_NY.jpg)

Beautiful signage very clear, nice fonts and design.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2015, 07:05:03 PM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: noelbotevera on November 28, 2015, 07:33:24 PM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
The free I-90 is the cheaper way. Some people don't know about this and take the more expensive route by staying on I-87.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: dgolub on November 28, 2015, 08:33:57 PM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

After you've already passed exit 21A telling you to get off there for the Berkshire Connector to Boston.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 28, 2015, 08:34:37 PM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
The free I-90 is the cheaper way. Some people don't know about this and take the more expensive route by staying on I-87.

I notice that states will always direct traffic onto the toll road, even when the free way is the best way.

See: Portland as a control city on I-95 at the I-295/95 junction in West Gardiner, Maine. Even though I-295 goes through downtown Portland.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 28, 2015, 08:38:04 PM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
The free I-90 is the cheaper way. Some people don't know about this and take the more expensive route by staying on I-87.

I notice that states will always direct traffic onto the toll road, even when the free way is the best way.

See: Portland as a control city on I-95 at the I-295/95 junction in West Gardiner, Maine. Even though I-295 goes through downtown Portland.

No, it's called toll authorities encouraging traffic to use their highways. In most of these cases, the toll authority placed the signage.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 28, 2015, 08:40:35 PM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
The free I-90 is the cheaper way. Some people don't know about this and take the more expensive route by staying on I-87.

I notice that states will always direct traffic onto the toll road, even when the free way is the best way.

See: Portland as a control city on I-95 at the I-295/95 junction in West Gardiner, Maine. Even though I-295 goes through downtown Portland.

No, it's called toll authorities encouraging traffic to use their highways. In most of these cases, the toll authority placed the signage.

Which I find problematic because the purpose of road signs is to navigate you to your destination, not to generate revenue for the people who put them there.

I understand the motivation.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2015, 09:03:58 PM
The KTA originally did not have "Kansas City" for I-35 north at Emporia  on the Kansas Turnpike until circa 2000.  I bet that must be a blow to their profits when they added "Kansas City" to the guide sign where I-35 leaves the Turnpike.

It still says "Kansas City" on the pull through signs though, but I am sure not many want to pay the toll and use the free I-35 to KC instead.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on November 28, 2015, 10:09:00 PM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

After you've already passed exit 21A telling you to get off there for the Berkshire Connector to Boston.

I'm pretty sure the original poster is referring to the Boston designation for I-90 EAST from I-87 SB before the 87/90 interchange.

I always found it interesting that as you drive by the Exit 24 ramp on the connector between I-90 EB and I-87 SB, you pass under signs that say "Boston" and then look to the left and can see "90 EAST Albany Boston" as overheads on I-90. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 29, 2015, 03:08:43 PM

Technically it's only I-87 to the border and then becomes A-15 ;).

The Thruway isn't just a name that happens to be on part of the road.  It's its own system that I-87 just happens to overlap with for 148 miles.  The Thruway was there first.  In fact, many people along the Thruway don't even know I-90 and I-87 exist on it - it's just "the Thruway".  To someone from the Albany area, I-87 is ONLY the Northway, and I-90 is only the free section; we really do say things like "take I-87 until it ends, then take the exit for the Thruway" (and the road is pretty much signed that way).

I-90 has three sets of numbers as well: 61-24, 1-12, B1-B3.
I have heard someone in Glens Falls refer to it by number.  I used to think the Northway was called to it by name too until I heard a local say otherwise.

Yes between the NYS Thruway and Major Deegan, I would hear someone say if they were going NB, take the Major Deegan into the Thruway instead of saying I-87 or Route 87 north only.

Then again here if FL we have many who live in Tampa going to Miami say "Take I-75 southbound to Alligator Alley" instead of just saying "Take I-75 South."  In New Jersey my uncle lived in Linden, but worked in Secaucus, and took Route 1 & 9 North to Tonnelle Avenue to County Road to get to work.  Tonnelle Avenue, as most of us know, is part of Routes 1 & 9, but to non road geeks they call em as they see em, and most think Route 1 & 9 continues into NYC via The Holland Tunnel just like Route 3 is the route inside the Lincoln Tunnel because  NJ 495 is a continuous freeway  with NJ 3 at its east end.

It's like 128 in Mass.  Most of Tonnelle is part of 1-9, but most of 1-9 is not Tonnelle.  "Tonnelle Ave." refers to a specific part of the road.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2015, 03:44:55 PM
Its also like St. George Avenue being part of NJ 27, and NJ 35.  It amazing, though, how many think that NJ 27 ends in Rahway at the place it becomes St. George Avenue.  Then you have a friend of mine from High School who thinks that NJ 35 goes all the way up St. George where NJ 27 is assigned to it.

Of course, Elizabeth has to be the oddball out, as they call it Rahway Avenue, which I am sure a lot of people think its still St. George Avenue at that point.  Just like in Kissimmee, FL everyone thinks that Main Street is Orange Blossom Trail because it is connected to it.

In fact Old Dixie Highway in Orange County, FL was erroneously referred to as "Orange Avenue" for decades before both Orange and Osceola Counties renamed Old Dixie Highway to Orange Avenue to please the people who are ignorant which is most of the non road geeks when it comes to roads.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on November 29, 2015, 11:16:33 PM
Interesting conversation (but I am late to it and don't feel like joining in, because the whole Albany mess is like Breezewood in a way and it always hurts my head).

This is my favorite video of the Thruway:


Also, when did they pave asphalt over the concrete (if that's what they did, because a car was driving on just concrete at the end), and why/where?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on November 30, 2015, 02:03:25 PM
Often that's done to extend the life of the pavement.  Overlaying the concrete with asphalt is like resurfacing.  I'd guess that a majority of freeway miles in NY (possibly even overall state route miles) are overlays.  Often time overlays have been widened too for wider travel lanes and shoulders, especially on surface streets.  Having a concrete roadbed that's barely a lane wide (dating back to the 1900s in many cases) with the rest being widened out with asphalt is not uncommon.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 30, 2015, 02:58:27 PM
Often that's done to extend the life of the pavement.  Overlaying the concrete with asphalt is like resurfacing.  I'd guess that a majority of freeway miles in NY (possibly even overall state route miles) are overlays.  Often time overlays have been widened too for wider travel lanes and shoulders, especially on surface streets.  Having a concrete roadbed that's barely a lane wide (dating back to the 1900s in many cases) with the rest being widened out with asphalt is not uncommon.

Correct (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/hm51.cfm). A significant majority of freeway mileage in New York consists of overlays, as does a majority of major arterial mileage. I can't readily find data to prove it, but judging by crack patterns and the NYSDOT highway inventory, the vast majority of state highway mileage is overlays, as is mileage of some major county routes. An overlay is a relatively cheap way to resurface the road, as the foundation is typically sound. Combined with mill-and-fill operations, the base concrete can often last several decades. A lot of New York's state highway mileage consists of overlays over concrete placed well before the Interstate system was begun.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on November 30, 2015, 05:24:05 PM
So this is just normal road construction I take it.

Does that mean that this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.750778,-78.8553914,3a,75y,159.51h,66.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCX0x4XRRO9myFfE-NnAJdg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) will be resurfaced in the coming years as well?

Also where are these "composite" roads?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: ixnay on November 30, 2015, 08:19:00 PM
Nice video, Buffaboy, and nice jazz tune to go along with it.

ixnay
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 30, 2015, 08:22:03 PM
In FHWA terminology, composite, as defined at the bottom of my link, is the technical term for an overlay.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on November 30, 2015, 09:30:45 PM
In FHWA terminology, composite, as defined at the bottom of my link, is the technical term for an overlay.
I've seen "flexible" used for asphalt in some contexts. Really wish they could just use the actual name of the substance.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on November 30, 2015, 10:23:05 PM
The term "flexible" pavement refers to asphalt paving. Concrete is known as "rigid" pavement.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on November 30, 2015, 11:06:42 PM
In FHWA terminology, composite, as defined at the bottom of my link, is the technical term for an overlay.
I've seen "flexible" used for asphalt in some contexts. Really wish they could just use the actual name of the substance.

There are types of flexible pavement that are not "standard" asphalt concrete. "Flexible" is used when they lump chipseal and stuff that isn't asphalt concrete into the same category as asphalt.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: noelbotevera on December 01, 2015, 01:42:36 AM
In FHWA terminology, composite, as defined at the bottom of my link, is the technical term for an overlay.
I've seen "flexible" used for asphalt in some contexts. Really wish they could just use the actual name of the substance.

There are types of flexible pavement that are not "standard" asphalt concrete. "Flexible" is used when they lump chipseal and stuff that isn't asphalt concrete into the same category as asphalt.
So all they do is just shovel dirt, lay grass over it, whine to the FHWA saying it's flexible, then they say ok? Wow, looks like paving is way easier now.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: odditude on December 01, 2015, 09:39:56 AM
So all they do is just shovel dirt, lay grass over it, whine to the FHWA saying it's flexible, then they say ok? Wow, looks like paving is way easier now.
...where did that idea come from?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 09:47:58 AM
...have no clue.  At least he is not that dzlabe character who was the talk of the town last week.  However, we have to expect this here.  Some of us come from different walks and some think differently than others especially when our community is made up of a lot of those who fit the developmentally challenged category.

I am not saying that he is, but expect the unexpected here like you have to driving the roads.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 01, 2015, 09:54:41 AM
So all they do is just shovel dirt, lay grass over it, whine to the FHWA saying it's flexible, then they say ok? Wow, looks like paving is way easier now.
...where did that idea come from?

No. An unpaved or gravel road is not flexible pavement. A flexible pavement has to have a binding coat.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: odditude on December 01, 2015, 12:37:50 PM
especially when our community is made up of a lot of those who fit the developmentally challenged category.
...and where did that come from?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 01, 2015, 01:55:33 PM
especially when our community is made up of a lot of those who fit the developmentally challenged category.
...and where did that come from?

The person who made the statement I think he's referring to is 11. Give him a break.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on December 01, 2015, 02:31:37 PM
Often that's done to extend the life of the pavement.  Overlaying the concrete with asphalt is like resurfacing. 

Like what they've done to NY 85 so far.  I've been wondering if the asphalt will kink where those old rotten concrete joints were.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 01, 2015, 03:03:50 PM
Often that's done to extend the life of the pavement.  Overlaying the concrete with asphalt is like resurfacing. 

Like what they've done to NY 85 so far.  I've been wondering if the asphalt will kink where those old rotten concrete joints were.

It will unless they rebuilt the bad joints. Always does.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on December 01, 2015, 03:30:13 PM
Often that's done to extend the life of the pavement.  Overlaying the concrete with asphalt is like resurfacing. 

Like what they've done to NY 85 so far.  I've been wondering if the asphalt will kink where those old rotten concrete joints were.

It will unless they rebuilt the bad joints. Always does.

Yay.  I thought the original plan was to replace the concrete, which made a heckuva lot more sense to me than the overlay they've done...

...but I'm getting off the thread's topic.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on December 01, 2015, 05:56:56 PM
I believe NY 85 got a crack and seat treatment (basically, a giant hammer breaks up the pavement and then a very heavy truck drives over it to set it back in place) to make the concrete behave more like asphalt, which should prevent that.  Ditto for Washington Avenue Extension (which I KNOW got a crack and seat because I was there).  Not sure why the complete reconstruction option for the southern part of NY 85 was abandoned, but rehabilitation of that section was one of the alternatives.

I-88, alas, did not get a crack and seat.  The rutting is already visible and the pavement is only a year old on the WB side.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 01, 2015, 06:27:12 PM
NY 85 did get a crack and seat. There won't be as much in the way of reflective cracking, but it'll show through in a few years because the joints are still there. Just hope it isn't like the overlays Region 5 did over the past couple years that started showing after a couple months.

I don't know why Region 1 didn't just do a partial- or full-depth when they had their entire stretch of I-88 contraflowed in 2003 to address major bridge issues. Pavement condition was poor back then and it took them over 10 years to do an overlay.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on December 01, 2015, 08:07:45 PM
Crack. And seat. </butthead>


iPhone
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Jim on December 03, 2015, 02:16:09 PM
Thought I had my own picture, but I don't see one so this will have to suffice:

https://goo.gl/maps/39p12StgGDL2

This sign, WB just beyond 25A in Rotterdam, was there this morning on my way to Albany, but gone and loaded onto trucks on my way home this afternoon.  I mean not just the signs but I believe the whole thing.  It looked like the crews were working on affixing new signs to the overpass just beyond and were painting some new arrows in the left lane.  I won't be back through that stretch in daylight until Monday to see the ultimate results.  They definitely need the "lane ends" signage, but the I-90 Buffalo green sign always seemed pretty useless.  Yes, you're on I-90 West toward Buffalo but there's nothing you can do about it until you get to Exit 26...

It has always shocked me how many people seem to be taken completely by surprise when their lane ends there.

The lane drop there is very unfortunate, as it occurs on a fairly significant uphill segment that often causes side-by-side trucks to slow traffic to well below the limit.  A third "no trucks" lane until the top of the upgrade would really help.  I assume it's hard/expensive to do so because of the next overpass a little way up carrying Putnam Rd.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on December 03, 2015, 06:30:05 PM
Something about this toll plaza strikes me as odd...but I can't put my finger on it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.906288,-74.5668675,3a,75y,74.2h,77.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4MflXyWrcXiUaOCrp8KUdA!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: amroad17 on December 03, 2015, 07:49:09 PM
Something about this toll plaza strikes me as odd...but I can't put my finger on it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.906288,-74.5668675,3a,75y,74.2h,77.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4MflXyWrcXiUaOCrp8KUdA!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656
The space at that plaza probably is needed for the double- and triple-trailer trucks that roam the Thruway.  Or, the Thruway Authority decided to use the former parking lot of some store as a toll plaza.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 03, 2015, 08:02:08 PM
Something about this toll plaza strikes me as odd...but I can't put my finger on it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.906288,-74.5668675,3a,75y,74.2h,77.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4MflXyWrcXiUaOCrp8KUdA!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656
The space at that plaza probably is needed for the double- and triple-trailer trucks that roam the Thruway.  Or, the Thruway Authority decided to use the former parking lot of some store as a toll plaza.

Tandem parking. It's so odd because of the former Beech-Nut factory right there. Now that the factory has closed, I wonder if it will be rebuilt into something more conventional.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on December 03, 2015, 09:54:30 PM
Something about this toll plaza strikes me as odd...but I can't put my finger on it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.906288,-74.5668675,3a,75y,74.2h,77.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4MflXyWrcXiUaOCrp8KUdA!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656
The space at that plaza probably is needed for the double- and triple-trailer trucks that roam the Thruway.  Or, the Thruway Authority decided to use the former parking lot of some store as a toll plaza.

Tandem parking. It's so odd because of the former Beech-Nut factory right there. Now that the factory has closed, I wonder if it will be rebuilt into something more conventional.

Something else I noticed was that the booth itself looks like it's original, but I don't really know.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Jim on December 03, 2015, 10:02:11 PM
About the Exit 29 toll booths referenced here, the view is completely different now.  The portion of the old Beech Nut plant adjacent to the ramp has been demolished, but many large piles of rubble remain on the site.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 03, 2015, 10:14:08 PM
About the Exit 29 toll booths referenced here, the view is completely different now.  The portion of the old Beech Nut plant adjacent to the ramp has been demolished, but many large piles of rubble remain on the site.

That's recent. I don't remember the plant being gone when I was through there a couple months ago, but I may not have been paying attention.

Booth is definitely original. If a set of toll booth only has 3 lanes, it's original.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on December 11, 2015, 10:51:37 AM
Why did they put a "rough road" sign here? I drove through here over the summer, I could've sworn I never saw this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5826701,-79.063615,3a,18y,266.18h,87.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stiyk-J4y_XF07hjUaWRr8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 11, 2015, 11:50:28 AM
Why did they put a "rough road" sign here? I drove through here over the summer, I could've sworn I never saw this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5826701,-79.063615,3a,18y,266.18h,87.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stiyk-J4y_XF07hjUaWRr8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Spring or summer. Seneca Nation isn't allowing NYSTA to reconstruct the highway over a treaty dispute. That's why the limit was lowered to 55.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: seicer on December 11, 2015, 12:17:02 PM
And the same reason why reconstruction of I-86 (NY 17, when it was built in 1995) was held up for so long - and why it took so long to complete, in the southern tier. Even building the road took quite a few years because of extensive holdups.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on December 11, 2015, 01:53:34 PM
Is there a reason why the state didn't get an agreement allowing them to maintain the road when they got the agreement allowing them to build the road?  The two would seem to go together to me.

Why did they put a "rough road" sign here? I drove through here over the summer, I could've sworn I never saw this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5826701,-79.063615,3a,18y,266.18h,87.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stiyk-J4y_XF07hjUaWRr8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Spring or summer. Seneca Nation isn't allowing NYSTA to reconstruct the highway over a treaty dispute. That's why the limit was lowered to 55.
Is it a "real" 55 zone or a work zone?  Street view appears to indicate the latter near the overpass project... couldn't find evidence of any other 55 zones in the area.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 11, 2015, 03:33:09 PM
Is there a reason why the state didn't get an agreement allowing them to maintain the road when they got the agreement allowing them to build the road?  The two would seem to go together to me.

Why did they put a "rough road" sign here? I drove through here over the summer, I could've sworn I never saw this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5826701,-79.063615,3a,18y,266.18h,87.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stiyk-J4y_XF07hjUaWRr8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Spring or summer. Seneca Nation isn't allowing NYSTA to reconstruct the highway over a treaty dispute. That's why the limit was lowered to 55.
Is it a "real" 55 zone or a work zone?  Street view appears to indicate the latter near the overpass project... couldn't find evidence of any other 55 zones in the area.

It's real. Confirmed by NYSTA today. A NYSTA rep gave a presentation in one of my classes this morning. Both those and the rough road signs are on Z-bars. They have no timeline as to when it'll get fixed because of a dispute over the terms of the easement. SNI claims the easement has expired and refuses to do much negotiation until Cuomo backs off on the casino revenue.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on December 11, 2015, 03:49:42 PM
Are the limits exact with the reservation?  If it's permanent I should update my exit list.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 11, 2015, 04:44:47 PM
Are the limits exact with the reservation?  If it's permanent I should update my exit list.

Goes down 0.2 miles outside the reservation on each side. Increases back to 65 just past Exit 58 WB and where the reconstructed section begins EB. Again, it is semi-permanent per NYSTA until the treaty stuff gets resolved and/or the state can work something out with the Senecas.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on December 11, 2015, 08:39:28 PM
I wonder what SNI toll booths would look like/how they would work if they had implemented them a few years ago.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 11, 2015, 08:51:23 PM
I wonder what SNI toll booths would look like/how they would work if they had implemented them a few years ago.

As it currently works, New York pays a small amount per vehicle passing through the reservation. Thanks to ticket counts and E-ZPass data, it is relatively easy to determine the number. SNI doesn't have a beef against the people using the highway. The issues are with the state government that is violating federal treaties by trying to collect taxes on SNI land. Per Public Law 83-280 as stated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, states cannot impose taxes on reservation land.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on December 12, 2015, 12:39:33 AM
The incident where the Senecas dropped burning tires onto the Thruway back in 1992 has scarred relations between NY and SNI ever since.

Also, the USACE treatment of the villages that were connected by the Red House Bridge didn't help matters, either!

Blunder after blunder...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: jwolfer on December 12, 2015, 01:13:41 AM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
The free I-90 is the cheaper way. Some people don't know about this and take the more expensive route by staying on I-87.

I notice that states will always direct traffic onto the toll road, even when the free way is the best way.

See: Portland as a control city on I-95 at the I-295/95 junction in West Gardiner, Maine. Even though I-295 goes through downtown Portland.

No, it's called toll authorities encouraging traffic to use their highways. In most of these cases, the toll authority placed the signage.
The toll authority is the state
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on December 12, 2015, 11:49:48 AM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
The free I-90 is the cheaper way. Some people don't know about this and take the more expensive route by staying on I-87.

I notice that states will always direct traffic onto the toll road, even when the free way is the best way.

See: Portland as a control city on I-95 at the I-295/95 junction in West Gardiner, Maine. Even though I-295 goes through downtown Portland.

No, it's called toll authorities encouraging traffic to use their highways. In most of these cases, the toll authority placed the signage.
The toll authority is the state

As has been stated over and over again in these forums: No, it is not.  Public authorities (including NYSTA) may be created by the state, but they operate totally outside of it (essentially "spun off" from state government).  That lack of accountability (despite some Governor-appointed board members) is one of the reasons why I hate them.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on December 12, 2015, 11:59:49 AM
One could argue that it's on a state-by-state basis.  Sure, in many states (especially your own) they are public or quasi-public authorities that operate in parallel to (as opposed to underneath) the state.  But that's not the case everywhere.  For example, the three tolled turnpikes in New Hampshire fall under NHDOT (basically "the state" as the term is being discussed here).  Likewise, the Mass Pike falls under MassDOT.  And Maryland's toll facilities fall under a subdivision of MDOT.

There's even a case where toll facilities fall directly under a city as opposed to a state or public authority (2 such facilities, soon to be 3, in Chesapeake, VA).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on December 12, 2015, 12:13:27 PM
One could argue that it's on a state-by-state basis.  Sure, in many states (especially your own) they are public or quasi-public authorities that operate in parallel to (as opposed to underneath) the state.  But that's not the case everywhere.  For example, the three tolled turnpikes in New Hampshire fall under NHDOT (basically "the state" as the term is being discussed here).  Likewise, the Mass Pike falls under MassDOT.  And Maryland's toll facilities fall under a subdivision of MDOT.

There's even a case where toll facilities fall directly under a city as opposed to a state or public authority (2 such facilities, soon to be 3, in Chesapeake, VA).


I'll do a mea culpa here and say that Maine's structure is similar to New York's. I had assumed that Maine's toll road structure was similar to NH and MA.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: jwolfer on December 12, 2015, 12:34:50 PM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
The free I-90 is the cheaper way. Some people don't know about this and take the more expensive route by staying on I-87.

I notice that states will always direct traffic onto the toll road, even when the free way is the best way.

See: Portland as a control city on I-95 at the I-295/95 junction in West Gardiner, Maine. Even though I-295 goes through downtown Portland.

No, it's called toll authorities encouraging traffic to use their highways. In most of these cases, the toll authority placed the signage.
The toll authority is the state

As has been stated over and over again in these forums: No, it is not.  Public authorities (including NYSTA) may be created by the state, but they operate totally outside of it (essentially "spun off" from state government).  That lack of accountability (despite some Governor-appointed board members) is one of the reasons why I hate them.
No need for your dickish tone... In my mind created by the state it is "the state".. Just a different division. No different from the myriad of bureaucratic agencies etc.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: seicer on December 12, 2015, 01:34:24 PM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
The free I-90 is the cheaper way. Some people don't know about this and take the more expensive route by staying on I-87.

I notice that states will always direct traffic onto the toll road, even when the free way is the best way.

See: Portland as a control city on I-95 at the I-295/95 junction in West Gardiner, Maine. Even though I-295 goes through downtown Portland.

No, it's called toll authorities encouraging traffic to use their highways. In most of these cases, the toll authority placed the signage.
The toll authority is the state

As has been stated over and over again in these forums: No, it is not.  Public authorities (including NYSTA) may be created by the state, but they operate totally outside of it (essentially "spun off" from state government).  That lack of accountability (despite some Governor-appointed board members) is one of the reasons why I hate them.

This is the first time I've heard this - and as lame visitor who doesn't come here much, I would appreciate a more polite tone.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 12, 2015, 04:45:16 PM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
The free I-90 is the cheaper way. Some people don't know about this and take the more expensive route by staying on I-87.

I notice that states will always direct traffic onto the toll road, even when the free way is the best way.

See: Portland as a control city on I-95 at the I-295/95 junction in West Gardiner, Maine. Even though I-295 goes through downtown Portland.

No, it's called toll authorities encouraging traffic to use their highways. In most of these cases, the toll authority placed the signage.
The toll authority is the state

As has been stated over and over again in these forums: No, it is not.  Public authorities (including NYSTA) may be created by the state, but they operate totally outside of it (essentially "spun off" from state government).  That lack of accountability (despite some Governor-appointed board members) is one of the reasons why I hate them.
No need for your dickish tone... In my mind created by the state it is "the state".. Just a different division. No different from the myriad of bureaucratic agencies etc.

But that doesn't mean your view is correct. Everyone in New York knows the Thruway Authority is its own entity. As Froggie said, many states have the toll authority as part of the state DOT and many do not. New York doesn't.

Maine is similar to New York in how it is structured, as are Ohio and Illinois.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: AMLNet49 on December 12, 2015, 08:58:23 PM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
The free I-90 is the cheaper way. Some people don't know about this and take the more expensive route by staying on I-87.

I notice that states will always direct traffic onto the toll road, even when the free way is the best way.

See: Portland as a control city on I-95 at the I-295/95 junction in West Gardiner, Maine. Even though I-295 goes through downtown Portland.

No, it's called toll authorities encouraging traffic to use their highways. In most of these cases, the toll authority placed the signage.
The toll authority is the state

As has been stated over and over again in these forums: No, it is not.  Public authorities (including NYSTA) may be created by the state, but they operate totally outside of it (essentially "spun off" from state government).  That lack of accountability (despite some Governor-appointed board members) is one of the reasons why I hate them.
No need for your dickish tone... In my mind created by the state it is "the state".. Just a different division. No different from the myriad of bureaucratic agencies etc.

But that doesn't mean your view is correct. Everyone in New York knows the Thruway Authority is its own entity. As Froggie said, many states have the toll authority as part of the state DOT and many do not. New York doesn't.

Maine is similar to New York in how it is structured, as are Ohio and Illinois.

Indeed. The toll highway authorities are self sustaining, almost like businesses. Tolls collected on the thruway for example don't go anywhere except back into Thruway maintenance.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on December 12, 2015, 09:14:16 PM
Not quite.  The Canal Corp was folded into the Thruway Authority, so some tolls go towards the canals (which are a financial drain).  They also pass along some money to NYSDOT.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: The Nature Boy on December 12, 2015, 09:17:43 PM
To go back to my original point:

I-295 is maintained by the Maine Department of Transportation and the signage for the Falmouth Spur uses "NH - Mass" as the control city even when staying on I-295 is in fact quicker.

That is an example of a state DOT trying to at least direct money towards the Turnpike Authority.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on December 12, 2015, 09:41:50 PM
Does anyone know what the bureaucratic structure was in Connecticut back when they had tolls on the Turnpike/I-95? I was never aware of any separate Authority back then.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on December 13, 2015, 12:45:51 AM
To go back to my original point:

I-295 is maintained by the Maine Department of Transportation and the signage for the Falmouth Spur uses "NH - Mass" as the control city even when staying on I-295 is in fact quicker.

That is an example of a state DOT trying to at least direct money towards the Turnpike Authority.
Not necessarily, as they would want through traffic to bypass Portland.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Beeper1 on December 13, 2015, 12:54:13 AM
Does anyone know what the bureaucratic structure was in Connecticut back when they had tolls on the Turnpike/I-95? I was never aware of any separate Authority back then.

Connecticut never had a separate authority for the old Conn Turnpike.  It was always administered by ConnDOT.   I believe the Merritt Parkway may have originally been under the control of a separate entity when it was first built, but was eventually taken over by ConnDOT by the 1950s.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 13, 2015, 11:11:20 AM

It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
The free I-90 is the cheaper way. Some people don't know about this and take the more expensive route by staying on I-87.

I notice that states will always direct traffic onto the toll road, even when the free way is the best way.

See: Portland as a control city on I-95 at the I-295/95 junction in West Gardiner, Maine. Even though I-295 goes through downtown Portland.

No, it's called toll authorities encouraging traffic to use their highways. In most of these cases, the toll authority placed the signage.
The toll authority is the state

As has been stated over and over again in these forums: No, it is not.  Public authorities (including NYSTA) may be created by the state, but they operate totally outside of it (essentially "spun off" from state government).  That lack of accountability (despite some Governor-appointed board members) is one of the reasons why I hate them.
No need for your dickish tone... In my mind created by the state it is "the state".. Just a different division. No different from the myriad of bureaucratic agencies etc.

Depends on whether you mean "the state," the political subdivision of the United States, or "the state," the conceptual figment that is the government ("l'etat" in "l'etat, c'est moi.")

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's power derives from Congress, so it falls under the latter but not the former.  Its directors are chosen by the state governors, but that is the extent of its political or fiscal tie to state government.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: shadyjay on December 13, 2015, 03:49:08 PM
To go back to my original point:

I-295 is maintained by the Maine Department of Transportation and the signage for the Falmouth Spur uses "NH - Mass" as the control city even when staying on I-295 is in fact quicker.

That is an example of a state DOT trying to at least direct money towards the Turnpike Authority.

That, and probably also since I-95 was the "thru route" (Maine Tpke, Falmouth Spur, I-295 north of spur) before the great renumbering c 2004. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on December 14, 2015, 10:01:18 AM
It says Boston to stay on the Thruway, but coming into this interchange from the north on I-87 it says to use free I-90 to Boston.

Also the Mass Pike Shield is nice off to the side of the Thruway shield.
The free I-90 is the cheaper way. Some people don't know about this and take the more expensive route by staying on I-87.

I notice that states will always direct traffic onto the toll road, even when the free way is the best way.

See: Portland as a control city on I-95 at the I-295/95 junction in West Gardiner, Maine. Even though I-295 goes through downtown Portland.

No, it's called toll authorities encouraging traffic to use their highways. In most of these cases, the toll authority placed the signage.
The toll authority is the state

As has been stated over and over again in these forums: No, it is not.  Public authorities (including NYSTA) may be created by the state, but they operate totally outside of it (essentially "spun off" from state government).  That lack of accountability (despite some Governor-appointed board members) is one of the reasons why I hate them.
No need for your dickish tone... In my mind created by the state it is "the state".. Just a different division. No different from the myriad of bureaucratic agencies etc.


It's this mentality that leads the public to be easily misled into blaming the wrong people for bad behavior.

Thanks, Obama.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on December 14, 2015, 09:22:10 PM
In my mind created by the state it is "the state".. Just a different division. No different from the myriad of bureaucratic agencies etc.
It's this mentality that leads the public to be easily misled into blaming the wrong people for bad behavior.

Eh. I'll allow it under the principle of "the buck stops here". Just because the state government of New York has seen fit to create semi-autonomous "public benefit corporations" with the intention of shielding themselves from accountability does not mean we ought to let them off the hook as they would like us to do. The state has the authority to consolidate or dissolve these entities at any time if they see fit.

For the purpose of what started this argument, though, you are correct - NYSTA's decision to guide through traffic to stay on the Thruway rather than follow 90 was made by them, not the state government.

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on December 28, 2015, 11:01:09 PM
I think the whole purpose behind the Boston and Mass Pike to stay on the Thruway was made as many non road geeks following I-90 to Boston know that that staying on 90 off the toll road goes there as well.   It just suggests to them that they could use the Thruway and the Berkshire Section to get there in a means to bypass Downtown Albany.

Remember non road geeks probably know that I-90 goes all the way to Boston and no break in route continuity.  Plus the GPS I am sure will send them on Free I-90 anyway.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 29, 2015, 12:08:53 AM
I think the whole purpose behind the Boston and Mass Pike to stay on the Thruway was made as many non road geeks following I-90 to Boston know that that staying on 90 off the toll road goes there as well.   It just suggests to them that they could use the Thruway and the Berkshire Section to get there in a means to bypass Downtown Albany.

Remember non road geeks probably know that I-90 goes all the way to Boston and no break in route continuity.  Plus the GPS I am sure will send them on Free I-90 anyway.

Google Maps and Mapquest often route people down to Exit 21A. Saves one minute if driving the speed limit. I'd rather save money and have easy access to cheaper gas/food.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on December 29, 2015, 01:16:22 AM
I think the whole purpose behind the Boston and Mass Pike to stay on the Thruway was made as many non road geeks following I-90 to Boston know that that staying on 90 off the toll road goes there as well.   It just suggests to them that they could use the Thruway and the Berkshire Section to get there in a means to bypass Downtown Albany.

Remember non road geeks probably know that I-90 goes all the way to Boston and no break in route continuity.  Plus the GPS I am sure will send them on Free I-90 anyway.

Google Maps and Mapquest often route people down to Exit 21A. Saves one minute if driving the speed limit. I'd rather save money and have easy access to cheaper gas/food.
Me too. If I went from Syracuse to Boston, I would cut through town on free I-90.  I would only do the unnumbered Berkshire for clinching purposes only.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on December 29, 2015, 08:47:02 AM
Remember that the 45 mph work zone limit is still in effect around the Patroon Island Bridge (Free I-90's speed limit is 55 through Albany until Defreestville).  Also, as surprising as it may seem, Albany does have a rush hour where "Exit 24" (Thruway/Northway/Free I-90) and the I-90/I-787 interchanges do get congested.

Thruway can be faster, with a constant 65 mph speed limit, especially now with the lane that the Thruway "recently" added.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on December 29, 2015, 01:00:40 PM
Heck, Albany's rush hour is arguably WORSE than any other upstate city's rush hour.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on December 29, 2015, 04:38:17 PM
Heck, Albany's rush hour is arguably WORSE than any other upstate city's rush hour.

I agree completely. The Northway is often stopped approaching the Twin Bridges. Buffalo has virtually no traffic (regardless of what people around here like to say). Rochester is a little worse, but not nearly as bad as Albany.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on January 18, 2016, 08:45:45 PM
I drove north on the Thruway in Rockland County this past week and I was surprised at the signing for Exit-14B/Garden State Pkwy. The signs show a "standard" exit configuration, but it's actually not. The right-lane is an option-lane there is a lane-drop of an auxiliary-lane that starts maybe a half-mile back at the entrance from Route-59. It should have been signed accordingly but it's not. Thruway Authority must be asleep at their drawing boards, so to speak. But then, they've never been really sharp about signing.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on January 18, 2016, 09:14:42 PM
I drove north on the Thruway in Rockland County this past week and I was surprised at the signing for Exit-14B/Garden State Pkwy. The signs show a "standard" exit configuration, but it's actually not. The right-lane is an option-lane there is a lane-drop of an auxiliary-lane that starts maybe a half-mile back at the entrance from Route-59. It should have been signed accordingly but it's not. Thruway Authority must be asleep at their drawing boards, so to speak. But then, they've never been really sharp about signing.

I can almost assure you that it will be replaced by an APL at some point. NYSTA option lane signage Upstate has been replaced by APLs when option lanes are installed or signs replaced.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on January 18, 2016, 09:20:52 PM
Should have been done already, when the lane configuration was changed. Bet even NYS DOT Region-10 would have done it........
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on January 18, 2016, 09:29:35 PM
Should have been done already, when the lane configuration was changed. Bet even NYS DOT Region-10 would have done it........

It has been an option lane since long before NYSTA started using APLs
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on February 04, 2016, 06:37:08 PM
So much sensationalism in this article, can anyone fill us in? cl94?

Quote
The Thruway’s almost nightly eastbound backups – the joy of radio traffic reporters and the bane of commuters near the “big blue water tower” – should be headed toward extinction under state plans to add a fourth lane to the superhighway.

Thruway Authority officials plan to add a fourth eastbound lane to the approximately one-mile stretch between the Youngmann Highway and Kensington Expressway. A fourth westbound lane was added to that section last year.

The result will be an “LA type” stretch – rare for upstate – featuring eight lanes of two-way traffic in what Thruway officials label one of the nation’s 50 most congested bottlenecks.

“There’s really been a positive impact on the westbound lanes,” said Maria C. Lehman, the Thruway Authority’s interim executive director. “Now this will provide a better approach there where you have all that congestion.”

Traffic tie-ups are a frequent affair during rush hour on this stretch of the Thruway as commuters leaving the city head east toward the Williamsville toll barrier. Volume on the Thruway’s “free section” hits about 145,000 vehicles daily, Lehman said, almost twice as much as the Kensington Expressway and equivalent to the Thruway’s busiest downstate stretches near the Tappan Zee Bridge.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/traffic/eight-lane-superhighway-expected-to-relieve-blue-water-tower-backups-20160204
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on February 04, 2016, 06:51:11 PM
So much sensationalism in this article, can anyone fill us in? cl94?

Quote
The Thruway’s almost nightly eastbound backups – the joy of radio traffic reporters and the bane of commuters near the “big blue water tower” – should be headed toward extinction under state plans to add a fourth lane to the superhighway.

Thruway Authority officials plan to add a fourth eastbound lane to the approximately one-mile stretch between the Youngmann Highway and Kensington Expressway. A fourth westbound lane was added to that section last year.

The result will be an “LA type” stretch – rare for upstate – featuring eight lanes of two-way traffic in what Thruway officials label one of the nation’s 50 most congested bottlenecks.

“There’s really been a positive impact on the westbound lanes,” said Maria C. Lehman, the Thruway Authority’s interim executive director. “Now this will provide a better approach there where you have all that congestion.”

Traffic tie-ups are a frequent affair during rush hour on this stretch of the Thruway as commuters leaving the city head east toward the Williamsville toll barrier. Volume on the Thruway’s “free section” hits about 145,000 vehicles daily, Lehman said, almost twice as much as the Kensington Expressway and equivalent to the Thruway’s busiest downstate stretches near the Tappan Zee Bridge.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/traffic/eight-lane-superhighway-expected-to-relieve-blue-water-tower-backups-20160204

You mean the 8th lane they just added? I don't know what the hell they're talking about because it already has 8 lanes. Maybe they're referring to how NYSTA wants to extend the auxiliary lane from the EB-EB loop ramp to where the WB ramp merges in?

It also isn't that rare - 8+ lanes between exits is normal in Albany when exits are spaced that closely. Almost all of I-90 between the Thruway and I-787 is 8-9 lanes between exits.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on February 04, 2016, 06:55:15 PM
So much sensationalism in this article, can anyone fill us in? cl94?

Quote
The Thruway’s almost nightly eastbound backups – the joy of radio traffic reporters and the bane of commuters near the “big blue water tower” – should be headed toward extinction under state plans to add a fourth lane to the superhighway.

Thruway Authority officials plan to add a fourth eastbound lane to the approximately one-mile stretch between the Youngmann Highway and Kensington Expressway. A fourth westbound lane was added to that section last year.

The result will be an “LA type” stretch – rare for upstate – featuring eight lanes of two-way traffic in what Thruway officials label one of the nation’s 50 most congested bottlenecks.

“There’s really been a positive impact on the westbound lanes,” said Maria C. Lehman, the Thruway Authority’s interim executive director. “Now this will provide a better approach there where you have all that congestion.”

Traffic tie-ups are a frequent affair during rush hour on this stretch of the Thruway as commuters leaving the city head east toward the Williamsville toll barrier. Volume on the Thruway’s “free section” hits about 145,000 vehicles daily, Lehman said, almost twice as much as the Kensington Expressway and equivalent to the Thruway’s busiest downstate stretches near the Tappan Zee Bridge.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/traffic/eight-lane-superhighway-expected-to-relieve-blue-water-tower-backups-20160204

You mean the 8th lane they just added? I don't know what the hell they're talking about because it already has 8 lanes. Maybe they're referring to how NYSTA wants to extend the auxiliary lane from the EB-EB loop ramp to where the WB ramp merges in?

It also isn't that rare - 8+ lanes between exits is normal in Albany when exits are spaced that closely. Almost all of I-90 between the Thruway and I-787 is 8-9 lanes between exits.

Yeah this didn't make sense at all...

If I wasn't thinking, I would have thought they were building a beltway or something — this was the headline:

"Eight-lane superhighway expected to relieve blue water tower backups"

Maybe they mean four travel lanes?

Edit: they said they want to build sound barriers up to the Cheektowaga backyards, maybe they are actually doing the widening to 4 travel lanes as well as keeping the exit lanes
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on February 19, 2016, 05:26:46 PM
With all of the bridge work they're doing on the Berkshire Spur, I'd have figured that they had put some sort of median barrier on the Castleton Bridge. Nope. It remains the only place in New York where the speed limit is 65 and the only thing separating you from opposing traffic is a line of construction barrels. Anyone know why the heck NYSTA hasn't put a barrier on that thing yet?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on February 19, 2016, 07:51:53 PM
With all of the bridge work they're doing on the Berkshire Spur, I'd have figured that they had put some sort of median barrier on the Castleton Bridge. Nope. It remains the only place in New York where the speed limit is 65 and the only thing separating you from opposing traffic is a line of construction barrels. Anyone know why the heck NYSTA hasn't put a barrier on that thing yet?
I don't know, but it could be related to bridge design. A barrier adds a substantial dead load to the bridge. Sometimes the entire deck has to be replaced (orthotropic) to lighten the bridge enough.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on February 19, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
With all of the bridge work they're doing on the Berkshire Spur, I'd have figured that they had put some sort of median barrier on the Castleton Bridge. Nope. It remains the only place in New York where the speed limit is 65 and the only thing separating you from opposing traffic is a line of construction barrels. Anyone know why the heck NYSTA hasn't put a barrier on that thing yet?
I don't know, but it could be related to bridge design. A barrier adds a substantial dead load to the bridge. Sometimes the entire deck has to be replaced (orthotropic) to lighten the bridge enough.

That's what I was assuming. My point was more of that they have traffic that's virtually undivided going 65 in each direction. A line of plastic bollards and/or a lower speed limit would have made sense, especially in a state that keeps stuff with higher design standards at 55.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on February 20, 2016, 10:32:44 AM
With all of the bridge work they're doing on the Berkshire Spur, I'd have figured that they had put some sort of median barrier on the Castleton Bridge. Nope. It remains the only place in New York where the speed limit is 65 and the only thing separating you from opposing traffic is a line of construction barrels. Anyone know why the heck NYSTA hasn't put a barrier on that thing yet?
I don't know, but it could be related to bridge design. A barrier adds a substantial dead load to the bridge. Sometimes the entire deck has to be replaced (orthotropic) to lighten the bridge enough.

That's what I was assuming. My point was more of that they have traffic that's virtually undivided going 65 in each direction. A line of plastic bollards and/or a lower speed limit would have made sense, especially in a state that keeps stuff with higher design standards at 55.
If they have crossover accidents, then sure. If there's really no history to suggest a problem, then despite our perception, drivers are doing okay with it. That's up to the agency to know.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on February 21, 2016, 07:02:53 PM
I noticed they replaced the big BGS on I-90 EB before the 190 with one in Clearview...and they added a truck tipover warning sign.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on February 21, 2016, 08:20:29 PM
Opinion piece Thruway must embrace technology: New York should replace its manned toll plazas with fully electronic collection

Quote
New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s plans for the New York State Thruway include: freezing tolls through 2020, cutting tolls in half for a million frequent travelers and eliminating tolls altogether for agricultural vehicles. In addition, he has pledged to invest heavily in desperately needed roadway infrastructure improvements. That’s welcome news for Thruway travelers and for the state’s business and tourism sectors.

We need more, however, much more. The Thruway is decades behind the times. Years ago, Ontario provincial planners began to study the feasibility of providing an alternative route to relieve traffic loads on their busy Highway 401 across the northern perimeter of the exploding Toronto Metropolitan region. Even with 16 lanes at some points, the 401 still slows to a crawl during high-volume periods and resembles a scene from “Mad Max” in what passes for lighter traffic flows.

Construction began on the 407 in the late 1980s and in June 1997 it became the first fully electronic toll road in the world. As vehicles enter and exit the 407 ETR, they pass under toll bars at highway speed. Gone are the toll plazas with their traffic-choking booths to slow or stop traffic. Those with a 407 ETR transponder (similar to and made by the same manufacturer as the widely used E-ZPass) receive a monthly bill. Those without a transponder have their license plates video-ID’d and are billed at a much higher rate. Provincial licensing authorities enforce payment (pay up or lose your license) as do many cooperating state agencies in America.

Over the years, the 407 ETR has expanded and now spans nearly 70 miles. The electronic toll concept has grown as well. Nearly every toll road in the United States is electronic. New toll roads (yes, they are growing) are universally electronic. Most of the older toll roads have replaced their toll plazas and manned booths with the technology pioneered on the 407 ETR.

Meanwhile, in New York, we have one of the last toll roads with manned toll plazas. It’s clear that the Thruway Authority has its head in the sand when it comes to change. There are a host of reasons large and small why New York should join the nearly universal move to electronic toll collection around the world.

Issues like relocating the Williamsville toll plaza will vanish. Vastly more important are the human beings manning those toll booths, exposed to horrific toxins, risking their health, risking or shortening their lives in a job as redundant as the elevator operators that disappeared years ago. In addition to removing these folks from harm’s way, an electronic Thruway will reduce overall pollution dramatically, save time, save fuel, save money and reduce costs, eliminating the need to raise tolls in the foreseeable future.

http://www.buffnews.com/opinion/viewpoints/thruway-must-embrace-technology-new-york-should-replace-its-manned-toll-plazas-with-fully-electronic-collection-20160221
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 22, 2016, 08:31:10 AM
One of the last toll roads with manned toll plazas?  Not really...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on February 22, 2016, 06:57:15 PM
Obviously they aren't paying attention to NYSTA's press releases, because Tappan Zee is supposedly going live in about 2 months. Last I heard, it is still on schedule and they are testing it now. Yonkers, Harriman, and New Rochelle are supposedly going to be up within the next couple years. The other closed system of similar magnitude (Pennsylvania) is just doing its switch as well.

As far as last, nowhere close. Ohio just got E-ZPass, for Christ's sake. We've heard nothing out of Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, or Ohio about AET (that I know of)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on February 22, 2016, 06:59:28 PM
That article is so full of BS it's not even funny.  They keep talking about how the surrounding states are AET and don't have separate toll authorities.  Let's take a look at the surrounding states.  Heck, let's add in the rest of the IAG!

New York: Mostly not AET, various authorities
Vermont: No tolls
New Hampshire: Not AET, NHDOT
Maine: Not AET, Maine Turnpike Authority
Massachusetts: implementing AET, Mass Turnpike Authority prior to merger with MassHighway
Rhode Island: AET, RIDOT
Connecticut: No tolls
New Jersey: Not AET (was investigating), New Jersey Turnpike Authority and Atlantic City Expressway
Pennsylvania: Implementing partial AET, Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority
Ohio: Not AET (not even E-ZPass until recently), Ohio Turnpike Authoirty
Indiana: Not AET, separate authority prior to privatization
Illinois: Not AET, separate authority
Delaware: Not AET (will be some AET with US 301), DOT?
Maryland: Some AET, MDTA
Virginia: Some AET, mix VDOT/TransUrban
North Carolina: AET, DOT?
West Virginia: Not AET, separate authority
Kentucky: Will be AET, DOT?
Ontario: AET, mix MTO and 407 ETR
Québec: Partially AET, public private partnerships

For fun, let's count anything that's mixed or I'm unsure of in the article's favor (I won't even count privatized entities that were never another public authority as being separate authorities), and not include NY:
-AET: 5
-Not fully or not AET: 12
-Separate agency: 8
-DOT/privatized: 9

So, basically, the article is full of shit.  The toll roads are overwhelmingly not AET, and a little over half don't have a separate public authority, and almost all of the latter are newer toll roads, and not part of the old Turnpikes; if we eliminated the Canadian provinces and the southern states with newer toll roads, it wouldn't even be a contest.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: ixnay on February 22, 2016, 08:16:29 PM
Where's Delaware (and for that matter, the Delaware River and Bay Authority [DE/NJ])?

Where's the Delaware River Port Authority, the Burlington County Bridge Commission, and the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission (all PA/NJ)?

ixnay
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on February 22, 2016, 08:24:25 PM
Depending on how you count the Ontario border bridges, most don't have an electronic toll system of any sort. Hell, most of the bridges in that damn newspaper's backyard just got E-ZPass.

Missed West Virginia, which has no AET (and one tolled Ohio River bridge with nothing).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on February 22, 2016, 08:52:07 PM
Quote
Maryland: Some AET, separate authority

MdTA, which operates the Maryland toll facilities, falls under MDOT.

Quote
Virginia: Some AET, mix VDOT/TransUrban

Virginia is all over the place, much as ixnay suggested with New Jersey.  Besides VDOT (Coleman Bridge) and TransUrban (95/395 and Beltway HO/T lanes), there are the three toll facilities in Chesapeake which all belong to that city.  Three of the tolled facilities in Richmond are run by a regional agency, while a fourth (Pocohontas Pkwy/VA 895) is owned by a bunch of banks after TransUrban "walked away from it".  The CBBT is a separate agency.  The Dulles Toll Road is run by the airport authority, while the Dulles Greenway is private.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on February 22, 2016, 09:05:16 PM
It wasn't even really an opinion piece, it was really a "fiction" piece.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: ixnay on February 23, 2016, 07:58:38 AM
MdTA, which operates the Maryland toll facilities, falls under MDOT.

Unlike the the PTC and the NJTA, which are separate from their respective states' DOTs.  Otherwise a certain interchange in Bucks County, PA would probably have been fully up and running a long time ago.  Same for I-295 being connected to the NJTP/PaTPK connector.

ixnay
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 23, 2016, 09:51:08 AM
Where's Delaware (and for that matter, the Delaware River and Bay Authority [DE/NJ])?
I believe all toll facilities in Delaware have E-ZPass but not AETs that I'm aware of.

Where's the Delaware River Port Authority, the Burlington County Bridge Commission, and the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission (all PA/NJ)?
E-ZPass, yes; AETs, no.

Otherwise a certain interchange in Bucks County, PA would probably have been fully up and running a long time ago.  Same for I-295 being connected to the NJTP/PaTPK connector.
I don't believe there was ever a plan for an interchange directly linking I-295 to the Turnpike Connector.  Given I-295's close proximity to the Connector's interchange with the mainline NJ Turnpike (which was just recently expanded); such would have taken up too much real estate in the immediate region; especially since the nearby US 130 interchange (unsigned Exit 6A) was (relatively recently) upgraded to a full-blown, dual-trumpet interchange 2 decades ago.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on February 23, 2016, 07:01:30 PM
Delaware and West Virginia slipped my mind there.  Added, though it's only a minor change to the results.  MDTA strikes me as a sub-agency (like NYSDOT's regions), so it would appear to have more in common with the separate authorities than not (ex: still has top brass), but in the spirit of giving the newspaper every advantage possible to make a point, I counted it as DOT.

I wasn't really getting down into the weeds with listing every little bridge authority (the NY list would be very long if I did, for example) and instead focused on the old turnpikes; that said, if all a state had was a bridge (ex: Kentucky) or some other little thing, I counted it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: MASTERNC on February 23, 2016, 07:55:08 PM
That article is so full of BS it's not even funny.  They keep talking about how the surrounding states are AET and don't have separate toll authorities.  Let's take a look at the surrounding states.  Heck, let's add in the rest of the IAG!

New York: Mostly not AET, various authorities
Vermont: No tolls
New Hampshire: Not AET, NHDOT
Maine: Not AET, Maine Turnpike Authority
Massachusetts: implementing AET, Mass Turnpike Authority prior to merger with MassHighway
Rhode Island: AET, RIDOT
Connecticut: No tolls
New Jersey: Not AET (was investigating), New Jersey Turnpike Authority and Atlantic City Expressway
Pennsylvania: Implementing partial AET, Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority
Ohio: Not AET (not even E-ZPass until recently), Ohio Turnpike Authoirty
Indiana: Not AET, separate authority prior to privatization
Illinois: Not AET, separate authority
Delaware: Not AET (will be mixed with US 301), DOT?
Maryland: Some AET, MDTA (under MDSHA)
Virginia: Some AET, mix VDOT/TransUrban
North Carolina: AET, DOT?
West Virginia: Not AET, separate authority
Kentucky: Will be AET, DOT?
Ontario: AET, mix MTO and 407 ETR
Québec: Partially AET, public private partnerships


From the signage presented in the plans (see Section 3 on the below website), the new US 301 toll road in Delaware will be AET.  I know the flyover video shows conventional toll booths though.

http://deldot.gov/information/projects/us301/index.shtml#horizontalTab2
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 24, 2016, 09:06:35 AM
Bold emphasis added to below-quote:
From the signage presented in the plans (see Section 3 on the below website), the new US 301 toll road in Delaware will be AET.
Key words will be.  As mentioned earlier, none of Delaware's existing toll facilities I'm aware of have AETs; although most (the Delaware Memorial Bridge being an exception) do have E-ZPass Express lanes that could be converted to such in the future.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on February 24, 2016, 07:19:52 PM
Plus I know of no plans to convert I-95 or DE 1 to AET.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: mariethefoxy on February 24, 2016, 07:54:49 PM
Route 1 would be quite easy since the high speed lanes are already there, just need to do it for the ramp tolls which have slow speed ezpass lanes.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 25, 2016, 09:42:52 PM
That article is so full of BS it's not even funny.  They keep talking about how the surrounding states are AET and don't have separate toll authorities.  Let's take a look at the surrounding states.  Heck, let's add in the rest of the IAG!

Quote
Delaware: Not AET (will be mixed with US 301), DOT?

I think U.S. 301 is planned to be all-AET now. Delaware toll roads are run as part of DelDOT (currently just I-95 at the Maryland border and Delaware 1 (Relief Route))

Quote
Pennsylvania: Implementing partial AET, Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority

The only AET so far is entering the East-West Mainline of the Turnpike from the New Jersey Turnpike, but the PTC has said they are going to transition to cashless across the entire PTC network, and they are in the process of hiring contractor(s) to build the cashless toll collection system.

Quote
Maryland: Some AET, MDTA (under MDSHA)

MDTA uses SHA standards for most things, and they have the same personnel system, but they are entirely independent of SHA (the state considers MDTA to be an "unbudgeted" agency, which means it usually does not get tax dollars). MDTA is run by an independent board, which is chaired by the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation.

MDTA has the ICC (200), which has been all-AET since inception, as have the I-95 Express Toll Lanes north of Baltimore. Conversion to AET is being actively considered (I believe the Francis Scott Key Bridge on the Baltimore Beltway (Md. 695 (signed as I-695)) has been high on the list for a conversion to AET, but members of the General Assembly raised objections for reasons not clear to me.

There are two small privately-owned toll crossings of the Potomac River (White's Ferry and the Oldtown Bridge far upstream), they are cash only.

Quote
Virginia: Some AET, mix VDOT/TransUrban

Virginia has a hodgepodge.  When I say owned by private owners, I believe that means owned by VDOT, but maintained and operated by a private concession company. I think this list is all of them:


Quote
So, basically, the article is full of shit.  The toll roads are overwhelmingly not AET, and a little under half don't have a separate public authority, and almost all of the latter are newer toll roads, and not part of the old Turnpikes; if we eliminated the Canadian provinces and the southern states with newer toll roads, it wouldn't even be a contest.

The only AET so far among the legacy Eastern Turnpike Complex (all of which takes E-ZPass) is at the east end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on February 25, 2016, 10:00:03 PM
I think U.S. 301 is planned to be all-AET now. Delaware toll roads are run as part of DelDOT (currently just I-95 at the Maryland border and Delaware 1 (Relief Route))
"Mixed" as in mix of AET and booths, not as in ORT lanes.  I've edited the post to use less ambiguous but more awkward phrasing since everyone seems to be getting confused.  Also corrected Maryland AGAIN (shouldn't have listened to the people claiming MDTA was under MDSHA...).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: froggie on February 26, 2016, 08:40:51 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus
The Pocahontas Parkway (Va. 895) crossing the James River is also Transurban;

Not anymore.  Transurban walked away from 895 almost 3 years ago.  It's run by some entity called DBi Services now.

Quote
The South Norfolk Jordan Bridge (Va. 337) over the Elizabeth River is owned by Figg Bridge Developers

It should be noted that this bridge is AET.

Quote
The Elizabeth River crossings (Midtown Tunnel, U.S. 58 and Downtown Tunnel, I-264) are jointly owned by Skanska and Macquarie.

Still owned by VDOT.  Are operated by the ERC consortium.

Also, two others that you missed:  both the Chesapeake Expressway (VA 168) and the Steel Bridge (US 17) are owned by the city of Chesapeake.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: mrsman on February 26, 2016, 02:31:43 PM
I am very highly in favor of AETs, so long as those without transponders are treated fairly.

In many places, those without transponders are charged an exorbitant penalty for using an all electronic facililty.  This is wrong.  Not everybody is a regular traveler and may not have a local transponder. The fee for driving without a transponder should be no more than double the regular toll rate.

Eventually, we will have a national interoperable toll transponder.  Hopefully those will not charge any monthly fees. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2016, 03:38:51 PM
I am very highly in favor of AETs, so long as those without transponders are treated fairly.

In many places, those without transponders are charged an exorbitant penalty for using an all electronic facililty.  This is wrong.  Not everybody is a regular traveler and may not have a local transponder. The fee for driving without a transponder should be no more than double the regular toll rate.

Eventually, we will have a national interoperable toll transponder.  Hopefully those will not charge any monthly fees.

This. In much of the country, everything accepts E-ZPass, so even if you don't get a local discount, you wouldn't get the service fee. In New York, for example, you don't have much of an excuse for not having a transponder, because the New York service center only charges a fee if you have a Port Authority tag. Some of toll penalties for not having a tag are outrageous. Take 407 in Ontario. There's a $4.05/trip camera surcharge plus $3.75/month (which is equal to the monthly transponder fee). Even with the insane per km tolls, there are possible trips where the camera toll is more triple the regular toll rate. That is ludicrous and it is the reason why I refuse to use the road.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: noelbotevera on February 26, 2016, 04:10:02 PM
Speaking of AET, turns out the new Tappan Zee Bridge will have it. Also, it seems construction is going a little slow. Considering I haven't been on the Tappan Zee since 2009-2010...eh.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2016, 04:26:36 PM
Speaking of AET, turns out the new Tappan Zee Bridge will have it. Also, it seems construction is going a little slow. Considering I haven't been on the Tappan Zee since 2009-2010...eh.

Have you been over the Tappan Zee Bridge? 

Are you aware how l-o-n-g it is?

Are you aware how much construction progress has been made so far?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: noelbotevera on February 26, 2016, 04:59:39 PM
Speaking of AET, turns out the new Tappan Zee Bridge will have it. Also, it seems construction is going a little slow. Considering I haven't been on the Tappan Zee since 2009-2010...eh.

Have you been over the Tappan Zee Bridge? 

Are you aware how l-o-n-g it is?

Are you aware how much construction progress has been made so far?
I'm an idiot. Yep, the bridge is a wee over three miles, and they're over halfway done.  Yes, i have been on the bridge before, but again, this was six-seven years ago.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2016, 05:17:58 PM
Speaking of AET, turns out the new Tappan Zee Bridge will have it. Also, it seems construction is going a little slow. Considering I haven't been on the Tappan Zee since 2009-2010...eh.

Have you been over the Tappan Zee Bridge? 

Are you aware how l-o-n-g it is?

Are you aware how much construction progress has been made so far?
I'm an idiot. Yep, the bridge is a wee over three miles, and they're over halfway done.  Yes, i have been on the bridge before, but again, this was six-seven years ago.

Built over the widest part of the Hudson River. Furthest south it could be without the Port Authority having control. The work is actually going pretty fast compared to a lot of projects in this state. It's on schedule to be complete in 2018, with the first span open next year.

At least they replaced the deck on the old bridge so there aren't any holes. Around the turn of the century, they had quite a few emergency closures to do patches.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 01, 2016, 01:03:57 PM
NYSTA is doing a resurfacing project and guardrail replacement between Exits 24 and 25 (link (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214456_taa16-8_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf)). Sign replacements are minimal and NYSTA is NOT adding an option lane heading EB, at least not as part of this contract. The 2 mile left exit advance is being replaced with an overhead with the new style "left exit" tab. One of the I-87 SB pull-throughs is being replaced and a location is not immediately evident. It might be the button copy one at Exit 24.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 01, 2016, 06:19:42 PM
NYSTA is doing a resurfacing project and guardrail replacement between Exits 24 and 25 (link (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214456_taa16-8_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf)). Sign replacements are minimal and NYSTA is NOT adding an option lane heading EB, at least not as part of this contract. The 2 mile left exit advance is being replaced with an overhead with the new style "left exit" tab. One of the I-87 SB pull-throughs is being replaced and a location is not immediately evident. It might be the button copy one at Exit 24.

Major thing I didn't note: Exits 24 and 25 are getting the wrong way detection systems that were installed at I-190 Exit 9. These involve a series of radar guns and other sensors that will activate VMSes signs if a wrong-way vehicle is detected.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on March 01, 2016, 07:42:21 PM
Just thought of something: while not having an option lane at exit 24 has a detrimental effect on traffic trying to get to the exit, what if that's by design?  I wouldn't put it past the Thruway Authority to put their own system before the efficiency of the whole network, and the current situation does leave two dedicated Thruway lanes in the morning rush.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 01, 2016, 08:00:41 PM
Just thought of something: while not having an option lane at exit 24 has a detrimental effect on traffic trying to get to the exit, what if that's by design?  I wouldn't put it past the Thruway Authority to put their own system before the efficiency of the whole network, and the current situation does leave two dedicated Thruway lanes in the morning rush.

It does, but it also gets slow drivers moving to the left lane back at I-88 thanks to GPS systems that tell people what lane to be in. Granted, I wouldn't put it past NYSTA, either, but they've been putting in option lanes in the Buffalo and New York regions and the positive effects on traffic have been significant.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Flyer78 on March 11, 2016, 03:53:57 PM
Syracuse Post-Standard opinion piece on freezing tolls, and points out some of the bookkeeping required to earn the credit on tolls as proposed by the Governor.

http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/03/gov_cuomo_freeze_thruway_tolls_and_spend_the_rest_on_fixing_upstate_roads_editor.html

Quote
t's not. It's complicated. Drivers of passenger vehicle must purchase the $25 E-Z Pass and pay $50 or more in tolls each year to receive a credit. And they are responsible for entering the toll information on their yearly New York state income tax returns. (That requires some bookkeeping that often escapes people's attention at tax time.)

Also of note in the article is the "File Photo" which features cars at a toll plaza with the old Liberty plates. Of course, it was also apparently pre EZ Pass installation, which sort of goes with the theme of the editorial of discounts for all... but I am not sure I can give them that much credit.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 11, 2016, 05:37:15 PM
Gimmicks, just like his daddy did from 1983-1995.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on March 11, 2016, 05:37:47 PM
That is a cool photo.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on March 12, 2016, 04:17:44 PM
Syracuse Post-Standard opinion piece on freezing tolls, and points out some of the bookkeeping required to earn the credit on tolls as proposed by the Governor.

http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/03/gov_cuomo_freeze_thruway_tolls_and_spend_the_rest_on_fixing_upstate_roads_editor.html

Quote
t's not. It's complicated. Drivers of passenger vehicle must purchase the $25 E-Z Pass and pay $50 or more in tolls each year to receive a credit. And they are responsible for entering the toll information on their yearly New York state income tax returns. (That requires some bookkeeping that often escapes people's attention at tax time.)

Also of note in the article is the "File Photo" which features cars at a toll plaza with the old Liberty plates. Of course, it was also apparently pre EZ Pass installation, which sort of goes with the theme of the editorial of discounts for all... but I am not sure I can give them that much credit.

That photo is not necessarily pre-E-ZPass.  The liberty plates were in use through 2001.  E-ZPass with along the entire Thruway by February 1997.  Further, the photo has no date and depicts the middle of the plaza; E-ZPass lanes are typically on the sides, so they wouldn't be visible here.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Duke87 on March 12, 2016, 04:45:17 PM
I still think it's ridiculous that NY has a state toll road which is cheaper per mile than any of its peers, and we're talking about finding some way to directly or indirectly reduce the tolls further.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on March 12, 2016, 04:53:45 PM
FYI: The assembly version of the budget doesn't include the toll discount; the senate's version does.  It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Flyer78 on March 12, 2016, 09:20:25 PM
That photo is not necessarily pre-E-ZPass.  The liberty plates were in use through 2001.  E-ZPass with along the entire Thruway by February 1997.  Further, the photo has no date and depicts the middle of the plaza; E-ZPass lanes are typically on the sides, so they wouldn't be visible here.

Entirely possible, the Liberty Plates caught my eye first, but my logic was there does not appear to be antennae nor feedback displays that were installed with E-ZPass -- of course they could be obscured. I guess the antennae could be as well, though in most car-level photos, you can see them hanging down. At its youngest, it is still likely a 15 year old photo...

At least it is the correct toll agency. The paper here in Philly uses a NJ Turnpike picture for anything toll related -- even if it is the DRPA bridges, Pa Turnpike, etc.


Edit, I was bored and tried to search around more to see if the picture had been used before or identify the plaza. (Not on the E-ZPass point, just something better to do than my taxes) http://media.syracuse.com/news/photo/2010/01/2001-03-13-sdc-thruwayjpg-3ef1b84d02584d74_large.jpg ... Based on the file name, that could be from March 13, 2001. Happy Birthday.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 13, 2016, 08:39:18 PM
NYSTA has signed a set of emergency detour routes along much of the mainline west of Utica. I know the detours near Utica have already been mentioned, but there is a long-distance signed detour from Exit 51 to Exit 45 or somewhere east of that point. This detour uses a combination of NY 33, NY 77, NY 5, I-490, and possibly other routes. The detour is signed prominently along these roads, while the connection from each exit along the stretch to the detour is signed very clearly beginning at the gore points. "Emergency Detour E" runs west, while "Emergency Detour F" runs east. All of the signs are all-caps Clearview. I think there is a similar detour west of Exit 55. Similar to the color detours in PA, I'm assuming that the NYSTA detours are intended to be used in the event of a full closure.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: WNYroadgeek on March 13, 2016, 10:49:04 PM
NYSTA has signed a set of emergency detour routes along much of the mainline west of Utica. I know the detours near Utica have already been mentioned, but there is a long-distance signed detour from Exit 51 to Exit 45 or somewhere east of that point. This detour uses a combination of NY 33, NY 77, NY 5, I-490, and possibly other routes. The detour is signed prominently along these roads, while the connection from each exit along the stretch to the detour is signed very clearly beginning at the gore points. "Emergency Detour E" runs west, while "Emergency Detour F" runs east. All of the signs are all-caps Clearview. I think there is a similar detour west of Exit 55. Similar to the color detours in PA, I'm assuming that the NYSTA detours are intended to be used in the event of a full closure.

Here are all of them:

Central NY: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=898042593643990&id=529852543796332
Western NY: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=896876750427241&id=529852543796332
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on March 14, 2016, 12:39:00 PM
NYSTA has signed a set of emergency detour routes along much of the mainline west of Utica. I know the detours near Utica have already been mentioned, but there is a long-distance signed detour from Exit 51 to Exit 45 or somewhere east of that point. This detour uses a combination of NY 33, NY 77, NY 5, I-490, and possibly other routes. The detour is signed prominently along these roads, while the connection from each exit along the stretch to the detour is signed very clearly beginning at the gore points. "Emergency Detour E" runs west, while "Emergency Detour F" runs east. All of the signs are all-caps Clearview. I think there is a similar detour west of Exit 55. Similar to the color detours in PA, I'm assuming that the NYSTA detours are intended to be used in the event of a full closure.

I've noticed one or two of the Emergency detour signs along NY Route 49 have already fallen down. I was surprised that the NYSTA put many of the signs up on a single post, especially along the freeways and expressways.  NYSDOT R2 is really big on using single posts for everything, so the detour signs don't look out of place, just equally unwieldy. 

Do the detour signs elsewhere in the state have the non-reflective letter designator as well? At night you can see "EMERGENCY DETOUR" from much farther away than the non-reflective letter.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 14, 2016, 02:58:12 PM
I've noticed one or two of the Emergency detour signs along NY Route 49 have already fallen down. I was surprised that the NYSTA put many of the signs up on a single post, especially along the freeways and expressways.  NYSDOT R2 is really big on using single posts for everything, so the detour signs don't look out of place, just equally unwieldy. 

Do the detour signs elsewhere in the state have the non-reflective letter designator as well? At night you can see "EMERGENCY DETOUR" from much farther away than the non-reflective letter.

NYSDOT has been cutting back on the dual posts lately. I've seen very few large-sized speed limit signs that require two posts, with many, at least in R5, being replaced by smaller signs that only require one post.

Non-reflective lettering is the case on every sign I have seen.

Here are all of them:

Central NY: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=898042593643990&id=529852543796332
Western NY: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=896876750427241&id=529852543796332

Missing are the other A and B, which were designated earlier and run along US 62 and I-290 to bypass the Grand Island bridges.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 21, 2016, 01:05:25 PM
NYSTA Facebook: Tappan Zee AET goes live April 23 (https://www.facebook.com/529852543796332/photos/a.529862433795343.1073741827.529852543796332/936665456448370/?type=3&theater)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on March 21, 2016, 06:23:47 PM
NYSTA Facebook: Tappan Zee AET goes live April 23 (https://www.facebook.com/529852543796332/photos/a.529862433795343.1073741827.529852543796332/936665456448370/?type=3&theater)
Can't find what the relative prices will be for "toll by Internet" vs. E-ZPass.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: dgolub on March 21, 2016, 07:08:43 PM
Anyone know anything about when AET at Yonkers and Harriman is happening?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on March 21, 2016, 07:24:32 PM
Anyone know anything about when AET at Yonkers and Harriman is happening?

Will the AET efforts be moving north and west from there?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 21, 2016, 07:40:46 PM
Anyone know anything about when AET at Yonkers and Harriman is happening?

Will the AET efforts be moving north and west from there?

No clue about Yonkers and Harriman. I expect they'll wait a month or two before doing anything else to work out any issues with Tappan Zee.

As far as moving Upstate, nothing other than Yonkers, Harriman, and New Rochelle has been made public. I expect the first "Upstate" locations to be Grand Island, as they're the only 2 barrier tolls that haven't been announced. The main ticket system will almost certainly be last due to the expense and time required to install all of the equipment and nobody who can say so publicly has any idea about how NYSTA will do the two ticket systems (keep "collection points" at exits, do like MassDOT and put a "barrier" between each exit pair, or some combination of the two). Being as NYSTA is midway through a project that adds an E-ZPass lane to the Williamsville barrier, we're probably talking a good 5-10+ years before anything happens to the main system. They wouldn't have done the project, which involves building a new facilities building for the toll plaza, if they were expecting a conversion anytime soon.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on March 21, 2016, 09:48:30 PM
If NYSTA does plan to do the GI bridge, they better hurry up because I saw a news story a week or two ago suggesting that some want the booths eliminated entirely.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: thenetwork on March 21, 2016, 10:00:22 PM
The main ticket system will almost certainly be last due to the expense and time required to install all of the equipment and nobody who can say so publicly has any idea about how NYSTA will do the two ticket systems...we're probably talking a good 5-10+ years before anything happens to the main system.

Probably the first section of the ticket system to be converted will likely be the Erie Section from Buffalo to PA since they are independent of the Mainline Section east of Buffalo. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Flyer78 on March 22, 2016, 10:37:55 AM
Probably the first section of the ticket system to be converted will likely be the Erie Section from Buffalo to PA since they are independent of the Mainline Section east of Buffalo. 

Makes sense, that always seems to be the "beta" test location for the larger ticket-system. They had the mag-stripe on-demand tickets first, then the replacement for those first, as well. I also seem to recall they tested digital (text) signs for E-Zpass before making the decision to select the folding signs.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 22, 2016, 11:36:18 AM
Probably the first section of the ticket system to be converted will likely be the Erie Section from Buffalo to PA since they are independent of the Mainline Section east of Buffalo. 

Makes sense, that always seems to be the "beta" test location for the larger ticket-system. They had the mag-stripe on-demand tickets first, then the replacement for those first, as well. I also seem to recall they tested digital (text) signs for E-Zpass before making the decision to select the folding signs.

The main ticket system will almost certainly be last

As already stated. Isn't the test location for everything, though. The automatic ticket dispensers have only seen a lot of use east of Syracuse.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on March 22, 2016, 12:56:35 PM
Of course, it's easy to test things like automatic ticket dispensers at a single booth since those don't require the entire system to use them to work... unlike the toll tickets and AET.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Flyer78 on March 23, 2016, 10:01:53 AM
I had wondered if the dispensers would be making a come-back... was there a version for the mag-stripe era? I assumed the Thruway lacked an auto-vehicle identification system to determine the class, and I know it was simplified in the last decade as well. Prior to that was (still in use, though altered media) sings about Cars Only / Nothing in Tow

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Jim on March 23, 2016, 12:19:08 PM
Speaking of "Cars Only/Nothing in Tow", the Exit 24 ticket dispenser lane recently added a big white "Cars Only/Nothing in Tow" folding sign atop the toll barrier (like the E-ZPass Only ones) in addition to the electronic sign that's been there as long as I can remember. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on March 23, 2016, 03:19:11 PM
I had wondered if the dispensers would be making a come-back... was there a version for the mag-stripe era? I assumed the Thruway lacked an auto-vehicle identification system to determine the class, and I know it was simplified in the last decade as well. Prior to that was (still in use, though altered media) sings about Cars Only / Nothing in Tow

Of course, there are only 4 locations that I know of (Woodbury, Canaan, 24, 25A). Why they never went in near Buffalo, where most light vehicles don't have E-ZPass out of fear of being tracked by the government (seriously) and the percent of tourists is high, is beyond me, as that section sees the highest percentage of ticket users. The mag stripe, I'm assuming, is why the lanes are only for cars with nothing in tow, as the new tickets are for everything.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Flyer78 on March 23, 2016, 07:14:20 PM
One of the original benefits to the mag-stripe tickets were they were printed "on demand" so they could show you the tolls for a vehicle class, as well as adjust prices when tolls increased. While they came into existence before the more frequent increases, I thought it was a good way to handle them, other than say, the PA Turnpike's brief experiment with dropping tolls on their tickets. Yes, E-ZPass solves all that.

...where most light vehicles don't have E-ZPass out of fear of being tracked by the government (seriously) ...

I can tell you the same fears existed among people in CNY as well, and they exist here in the Philly area. Start talking about DOT cameras and their head explodes. Then they use the loyalty card on their smart phone for any merchant and charge the transaction... E-ZPass is the least of their geo-location concerns :)...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on March 29, 2016, 06:27:43 PM
O.K., where did this sign exist?

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4054/4288695313_7b6b8a60c9_z.jpg?zz=1) (https://flic.kr/p/7wYFGD)Interstate 90 - New York (https://flic.kr/p/7wYFGD) by Doug Kerr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/), on Flickr
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 29, 2016, 06:42:26 PM
Looks like the Syracuse area, possibly Exit 34A, a long time ago.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on March 29, 2016, 06:48:59 PM
Looks like the Syracuse area, possibly Exit 34A, a long time ago.

Judging by the dates on his pictures, looks like 2000-2003. I wonder why they changed the control city.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on March 29, 2016, 11:11:49 PM
O.K., where did this sign exist?

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4054/4288695313_7b6b8a60c9_z.jpg?zz=1) (https://flic.kr/p/7wYFGD)Interstate 90 - New York (https://flic.kr/p/7wYFGD) by Doug Kerr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/), on Flickr

It was definitely on the entrance ramp at Collamer (Exit 34A). I was sad when it was replaced with Albany/Buffalo.  I've never been a fan of Albany/Buffalo as the control cities. I guess I'm a cranky old guy but I'd rather see "Utica and East" and "Rochester and West".
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on April 04, 2016, 09:46:54 PM
I was visiting my parents in Buffalo last month and decided to check out the recently-completed South Newstead Road bridge replacement over the Thruway. Interestingly, NYSTA decided to surface the bridge with asphalt instead of the typical concrete.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on April 23, 2016, 07:26:20 PM
If I go 80 on the Thruway mainline will I typically get pulled over?

Everyone does it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: kalvado on April 23, 2016, 09:38:28 PM
If I go 80 on the Thruway mainline will I typically get pulled over?

Everyone does it.
As far as I remember, NYS has +15 MPH and above as a top tier speeding violation. So 80 maybe a gray area, but I got pulled over for 81 in 65 zone...
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on April 23, 2016, 10:20:11 PM
If I go 80 on the Thruway mainline will I typically get pulled over?

Everyone does it.
As far as I remember, NYS has +15 MPH and above as a top tier speeding violation. So 80 maybe a gray area, but I got pulled over for 81 in 65 zone...

80 is a bit high for regular travel, but 65 also isn't the fastest for a road of its class.

Somebody needs to introduce legislation to bump it up to 70-75.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on April 23, 2016, 10:26:15 PM
There was a bill to raise NY's maximum speed limit to 75 a couple years ago.  It didn't go anywhere.  Heck, Long Island still doesn't have 65!
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on April 24, 2016, 12:13:47 AM
There was a bill to raise NY's maximum speed limit to 75 a couple years ago.  It didn't go anywhere.  Heck, Long Island still doesn't have 65!

Haven't been to LI yet, but I hear the speed limits are perpetually stuck at 50 and below.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: dgolub on April 24, 2016, 09:15:13 AM
There was a bill to raise NY's maximum speed limit to 75 a couple years ago.  It didn't go anywhere.  Heck, Long Island still doesn't have 65!

Haven't been to LI yet, but I hear the speed limits are perpetually stuck at 50 and below.

Not true.  The expressways and parkways are all 55 MPH.  There are also a batch of surface roads that are 55 MPH, although some of those that used to have been lowered to 50 MPH.  It used to be that parts of NY 25 and NY 25A in Nassau County were 55 MPH, but they lowered them to 50 MPH.  I'm pretty sure that that leaves no surface roads with a speed limit over 50 MPH in Nassau, but there are still some in Suffolk, including some county routes like CR 97.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman65 on April 24, 2016, 07:55:16 PM
There was a bill to raise NY's maximum speed limit to 75 a couple years ago.  It didn't go anywhere.  Heck, Long Island still doesn't have 65!
I cannot see why the LIE cannot be 65 mph at least in Suffolk, or even the easternmost section near Riverhead.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on April 24, 2016, 09:16:47 PM
You're right about the eastern L.I.E. Roadman. Originally it was 65mph "out east" before the "double-nickel".  The road was designed for it and NYSDOT should restore it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Alps on April 24, 2016, 11:09:08 PM
If I go 80 on the Thruway mainline will I typically get pulled over?

Everyone does it.
If you do what other people are doing, you will be fine. Don't do 80 when everyone else is doing 70. I just did 77 in a 50 (work zone) in Texas. Everyone else was doing it, and a cop even came and passed us all by (we slowed down to about 59 for a bit).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on April 25, 2016, 01:46:33 AM
If I go 80 on the Thruway mainline will I typically get pulled over?

Everyone does it.
If you do what other people are doing, you will be fine. Don't do 80 when everyone else is doing 70. I just did 77 in a 50 (work zone) in Texas. Everyone else was doing it, and a cop even came and passed us all by (we slowed down to about 59 for a bit).

I mean it's not the greatest thing to do, BUT I'm pretty sure cops don't pull over a guy going 78 in a 65 when someone else is also going 80.

I'm usually a vigilant driver and keep my eyes on my mirrors and U-Turns for Ford Crown Victorias and Mustangs.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: dgolub on April 25, 2016, 08:44:33 AM
You're right about the eastern L.I.E. Roadman. Originally it was 65mph "out east" before the "double-nickel".  The road was designed for it and NYSDOT should restore it.

Agreed.  There's no good reason not to.  It just contributes to people viewing speed limits as a joke, since most people are doing something like 65 MPH anyway out there.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PHLBOS on April 25, 2016, 09:04:27 AM
I'm usually a vigilant driver and keep my eyes on my mirrors and U-Turns for Ford Crown Victorias and Mustangs.
Are highway patrols still even using Mustangs?  The last official Police-Packaged (as opposed to a retail model in police colors) Mustangs were the 1993 models.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on April 25, 2016, 10:24:15 AM
I'm usually a vigilant driver and keep my eyes on my mirrors and U-Turns for Ford Crown Victorias and Mustangs.
Are highway patrols still even using Mustangs?  The last official Police-Packaged (as opposed to a retail model in police colors) Mustangs were the 1993 models.

I don't get pulled over often and try to avoid cops, but I feel like I've seen a couple over the past few years. I could be wrong through.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Snappyjack on April 25, 2016, 10:31:27 AM
The police cars in use right now by the State Police and most other agencies are a mix of the Ford Crown Victoria, Ford Taurus, Dodge Charger, Chevy Caprice, and Chevy Tahoe.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Henry on April 25, 2016, 10:44:47 AM
I'm usually a vigilant driver and keep my eyes on my mirrors and U-Turns for Ford Crown Victorias and Mustangs.
Are highway patrols still even using Mustangs?  The last official Police-Packaged (as opposed to a retail model in police colors) Mustangs were the 1993 models.
Yes, they were sold as the Mustang SSP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_SSP) from 1982 to 1993. Originally, the CA Highway Patrol used Camaros, but they proved troublesome with their camshaft and engine issues.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: PHLBOS on April 25, 2016, 12:01:53 PM
I'm usually a vigilant driver and keep my eyes on my mirrors and U-Turns for Ford Crown Victorias and Mustangs.
Are highway patrols still even using Mustangs?  The last official Police-Packaged (as opposed to a retail model in police colors) Mustangs were the 1993 models.
Yes, they were sold as the Mustang SSP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_SSP) from 1982 to 1993. Originally, the CA Highway Patrol used Camaros, but they proved troublesome with their camshaft and engine issues.
The posted Wiki link article is missing some key information regarding why such vehicles were even considered and used as police vehicles (the CAFE-related downsizing that took place back then making big-block engines for large sedans no longer available) and why such vehicles ultimately fell out of favor (engine performance on large sedans improved to an acceptable level (among state police agencies) again).

Patrol vehicles like the Mustang and Camaro packages were, IMHO, basically used by departments as enclosed motorcycles.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on April 25, 2016, 12:56:42 PM
You're right about the eastern L.I.E. Roadman. Originally it was 65mph "out east" before the "double-nickel".  The road was designed for it and NYSDOT should restore it.
There was a bill in the legislature to raise the speed limit east of exit 40 to 65 about 15 years ago.  Too bad it never went anywhere.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: dgolub on April 25, 2016, 07:14:49 PM
You're right about the eastern L.I.E. Roadman. Originally it was 65mph "out east" before the "double-nickel".  The road was designed for it and NYSDOT should restore it.
There was a bill in the legislature to raise the speed limit east of exit 40 to 65 about 15 years ago.  Too bad it never went anywhere.

I could see why they might want to keep it at 55 MPH in Nassau, but they could raise it to 65 MPH in Suffolk, especially east of NY 112 where the exits get much more sparse.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on May 13, 2016, 05:24:49 PM
Sound barriers are going up east of Henry St south of Exit 52a. Is this in preparation for a potential widening?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 13, 2016, 10:40:39 PM
Sound barriers are going up east of Henry St south of Exit 52a. Is this in preparation for a potential widening?

It is in the long-term plans. As of last year, nobody at the MPO knew of anything that would happen in the near future other than a minor rearrangement at Exit 51, and they're the people who typically know that stuff.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 24, 2016, 12:39:51 PM
Rest area on the WB side between Exits 28 and 29 opens tomorrow (press release (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/news/pressrel/2016/05/2016-05-24-ma-lock13-rest-area.html)). Might have to swing out there tomorrow afternoon to see for myself.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on May 24, 2016, 01:01:34 PM
Looks like they pulled the press release.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 24, 2016, 01:03:37 PM
Looks like they pulled the press release.

That was fast. They pulled it from Facebook as well.

Tuesday means plans day at NYSTA and today's release is huge. Widening to 9 lanes between Exits 50A and 51 (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214471_tab16-17_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf), with the extra lane in the EB direction. This will eliminate the merge at the cloverleaf that causes the only significant traffic issue unrelated to toll booths in the Buffalo area. Also in the contract is diamond grinding on I-190.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on May 25, 2016, 04:04:21 PM
Looks like they pulled the press release.

That was fast. They pulled it from Facebook as well.

Tuesday means plans day at NYSTA and today's release is huge. Widening to 9 lanes between Exits 50A and 51 (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214471_tab16-17_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf), with the extra lane in the EB direction. This will eliminate the merge at the cloverleaf that causes the only significant traffic issue unrelated to toll booths in the Buffalo area. Also in the contract is diamond grinding on I-190.

Damn that's huge!
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 25, 2016, 08:23:49 PM
The new Rest Area west of Exit 28 was open this afternoon. I got a few pictures and will post when I have access to a computer. Within view are some hideous Clearview signs intended for boaters that I will post as well.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on May 28, 2016, 11:53:01 PM
Sorry for the delay in posting pictures. The new rest area opened no later than Wednesday. 1 mile advance signage lists "Lock 13 Living History Rest Area" in all-caps Clearview. Gore signage is the standard "rest area" gore sign. I did not get a picture of either sign located on the Thruway due to traffic.

At the gore and midway down the ramp:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7444/26711858793_c6dc29216b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GGrfZx) (https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7408/27043159930_977fc5bed8.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HcHgh7)

A couple exterior shots of the building. I did not get any interior shots, but I can tell you that, when entering under the "Taste NY" sign, there is a store area with restrooms in the back.
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7435/27248005021_08415574c3.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HvP9A2) (https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7358/27284953316_c7b45c7c95.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Hz5w2A)

Pictures of the lock, dam, and informational signage:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7767/27247973561_e6950ae3f5.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HvNZeB) (https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7659/27284922526_f56b5dccd2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Hz5mSJ) (https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7225/27220635282_c79099ca62.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HtoSvY)

And then there's that Clearview I was talking about:
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7163/26711508483_44ab7ca198.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GGpsRH)

I apologize for the relatively poor image quality. I am not the best photographer and all of these were taken on my phone, the first 2 while driving.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on May 29, 2016, 09:57:02 AM
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7659/27284922526_f56b5dccd2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Hz5mSJ)

When we were kids, we called these "bridges to nowhere". Unfortunately there was no easy way at the time to satisfy our curiosity as to what these structures were; this interpretive rest area might have helped.

And I didn't know any of them actually were proper bridges; which two carry roadways?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Jim on May 29, 2016, 10:10:48 AM
And I didn't know any of them actually were proper bridges; which two carry roadways?

NY 103 crosses over the Mohawk on the Lock 9 "bridge" between Rotterdam Junction and Glenville, and Lock 12 (I think that's the right number) carries a road between Fort Hunter and Tribes Hill.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on May 29, 2016, 12:27:00 PM
1 mile advance signage lists "Lock 13 Living History Rest Area" in all-caps Clearview. Gore signage is the standard "rest area" gore sign. I did not get a picture of either sign located on the Thruway due to traffic.
Fortunately, I do have pictures of the Thruway signs.  Unfortunately, they probably won't get uploaded until next Saturday with my next site update.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on June 08, 2016, 12:08:46 PM
Looks like they pulled the press release.

I know why it was so quickly pulled and I suspect you may as well.

*smug*

:D
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on June 08, 2016, 12:14:13 PM
Looks like they pulled the press release.

I know why it was so quickly pulled and I suspect you may as well.

*smug*

:D

Oh? Do tell. I know the thing was open on the day.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Rothman on June 08, 2016, 12:24:09 PM
Looks like they pulled the press release.

I know why it was so quickly pulled and I suspect you may as well.

*smug*

:D

Oh? Do tell. I know the thing was open on the day.

As HAL 9000 said, "I'm sorry, Dave.  I'm afraid I can't do that."  It'll hit the news sooner or later.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on June 08, 2016, 08:03:25 PM
That reminds me... I took pictures of the advance signs over Memorial Day.
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i90/101_4263-s.JPG)
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i90/101_4264-s.JPG)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on July 16, 2016, 01:14:32 AM
What's going on with NY-400/I-190 in Buffalo? The backups are pretty bad and I can't seem to figure out what the work is.

You'd think they are building new interchanges.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 16, 2016, 01:29:39 AM
What's going on with NY-400/I-190 in Buffalo? The backups are pretty bad and I can't seem to figure out what the work is.

You'd think they are building new interchanges.

400 is a bridge replacement.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on July 18, 2016, 01:29:05 PM
How can the backups at the Williamsville Toll barrier be mitigated?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 18, 2016, 01:47:39 PM
How can the backups at the Williamsville Toll barrier be mitigated?

All-electronic tolling or people in Buffalo being less paranoid about government surveillance and getting E-ZPass. Dead serious. I've heard way too many people say they're afraid of Big Brother tracking them, as if license plate cameras and cell phones don't already do that.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on July 18, 2016, 02:10:03 PM
I'm not sure if most people even know that licence plate cameras exist.  One would think that people would know about cell phone tracking in the post-Snowden era, but I wouldn't be surprised if many people are still ignorant of that, too.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: kalvado on July 18, 2016, 02:14:11 PM
How can the backups at the Williamsville Toll barrier be mitigated?

All-electronic tolling or people in Buffalo being less paranoid about government surveillance and getting E-ZPass. Dead serious. I've heard way too many people say they're afraid of Big Brother tracking them, as if license plate cameras and cell phones don't already do that.
ezpass-only lanes operating at full speed, like in Woodbury, could also help.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 18, 2016, 02:43:12 PM
How can the backups at the Williamsville Toll barrier be mitigated?

All-electronic tolling or people in Buffalo being less paranoid about government surveillance and getting E-ZPass. Dead serious. I've heard way too many people say they're afraid of Big Brother tracking them, as if license plate cameras and cell phones don't already do that.
ezpass-only lanes operating at full speed, like in Woodbury, could also help.

That was canned a few years ago. The big issue in the Buffalo area is the low percentage of E-ZPass users. Woodbury is over 75% last I checked, hence why express lanes work. Go through that barrier and almost everyone stays in the express lanes. The Buffalo area is around or under 50%, which is one of the major reasons why NYSTA didn't see a reason to put them in if they'll have AET in 10-15 years anyway. We'd still have the big backup in the cash lanes and, because so many people are paying cash, the backup might extend beyond the split. Niagara Falls getting a lot of visitors from outside the IAG complicates matters further.

Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on July 18, 2016, 02:52:41 PM
How can the backups at the Williamsville Toll barrier be mitigated?

All-electronic tolling or people in Buffalo being less paranoid about government surveillance and getting E-ZPass. Dead serious. I've heard way too many people say they're afraid of Big Brother tracking them, as if license plate cameras and cell phones don't already do that.

I've heard the same arguments and you can just get an RFID bag for free from EZPass

I got one for the first time last week and it's a breeze.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 18, 2016, 02:54:29 PM
One would think that people would know about cell phone tracking in the post-Snowden era, but I wouldn't be surprised if many people are still ignorant of that, too.

After the Erie County Sheriff's Office was caught illegally using Stingray a little while back, people in Buffalo have been quite conscious about it, as it is always in the news.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on July 18, 2016, 05:21:57 PM
The planned ORT lanes would have also moved the barrier to Newstead, where it faced NIMBY opposition.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 18, 2016, 09:07:12 PM
The planned ORT lanes would have also moved the barrier to Newstead, where it faced NIMBY opposition.

The EIS was also quite poor. Most of the stretch between NY 77 and NY 78 is wetlands. Only way they could have gotten local support out that way was if they added a free exit in the eastern part of Lancaster.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 02:51:05 PM
Cross-post from the Tappan Zee thread:

Thruway Closed between Exits 8 and 12 until further notice due to crane collapse

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/2016/07/19/crane-collapses-closes-tappan-zee-bridge/87290800/

So much for the brand-new deck on the old bridge. Crane went right through it.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: seicer on July 19, 2016, 03:18:32 PM
Curious as to why a new deck was placed on the old bridge when it's going to be demolished - was it in that bad of condition?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 03:27:11 PM
Yeah, it was. Before they redecked it a couple years ago, they spent 20 years patching holes as they appeared. I remember there being quite a bad period in the late 90s-early 2000s where several holes that went all the way through formed and chunks of concrete were falling onto boats in the river. There's a reason why I didn't cross it for 15 years.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on July 19, 2016, 04:11:52 PM
So one of the major bridges across the Hudson River is completely closed, with no reliable ETA of when it will be reopened.  Yet, on their website, the Thruway Authority advises
Quote
Motorists may wish to seek alternate routes

Who writes this stuff?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 04:19:48 PM
So one of the major bridges across the Hudson River is completely closed, with no reliable ETA of when it will be reopened.  Yet, on their website, the Thruway Authority advises
Quote
Motorists may wish to seek alternate routes

Who writes this stuff?

Good question. They're diverting most traffic at 287 on either side. Bear Mountain appears to be backed up to the Taconic, I-95 SB is backed up to the New Rochelle tolls, Newburgh-Beacon is congested, Thruway SB backed up to Woodbury, the list goes on and on.

If I had to get down there, I'd cross as far north as possible.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on July 19, 2016, 04:32:23 PM
So one of the major bridges across the Hudson River is completely closed, with no reliable ETA of when it will be reopened.  Yet, on their website, the Thruway Authority advises
Quote
Motorists may wish to seek alternate routes

Who writes this stuff?

Good question. They're diverting most traffic at 287 on either side. Bear Mountain appears to be backed up to the Taconic, I-95 SB is backed up to the New Rochelle tolls, Newburgh-Beacon is congested, Thruway SB backed up to Woodbury, the list goes on and on.

If I had to get down there, I'd cross as far north as possible.

Here's the full alert posted on the Thruway Authority's web page.  Talk about an understatement.

Quote
ACCIDENT I-87 - NYS THRUWAY IN BOTH DIRECTIONS FROM MILEPOST 13.1 TO 16.2 ON TAPPAN ZEE BRIDGE
Accident, all lanes blocked I-87 - NYS Thruway in both directions from milepost 13.1 to 16.2 on TAPPAN ZEE BRIDGE. All northbound traffic must exit at 8. All southbound traffic must exit at exit 15.
Motorists should plan for extended delays. Motorists may wish to seek alternate routes. During major incidents, the Authority broadcasts information on Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) and activates Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) to alert motorists.

And somebody obviously forgot that it's not exactly easy to cross the Hudson River if you can't use the Tappan Zee Bridge.



Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 19, 2016, 05:53:50 PM
So one of the major bridges across the Hudson River is completely closed, with no reliable ETA of when it will be reopened.  Yet, on their website, the Thruway Authority advises
Quote
Motorists may wish to seek alternate routes

Who writes this stuff?

Good question. They're diverting most traffic at 287 on either side. Bear Mountain appears to be backed up to the Taconic, I-95 SB is backed up to the New Rochelle tolls, Newburgh-Beacon is congested, Thruway SB backed up to Woodbury, the list goes on and on.

If I had to get down there, I'd cross as far north as possible.

Rip Van Winkle Bridge all the way, baby.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on July 19, 2016, 06:29:39 PM
If I had to get down there, I'd cross as far north as possible.

Rip Van Winkle Bridge all the way, baby.

Nuts to that; I'd wade across Lake Tear-in-the-Clouds!
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 19, 2016, 08:32:48 PM
So one of the major bridges across the Hudson River is completely closed, with no reliable ETA of when it will be reopened.  Yet, on their website, the Thruway Authority advises
Quote
Motorists may wish to seek alternate routes

Who writes this stuff?

Good question. They're diverting most traffic at 287 on either side. Bear Mountain appears to be backed up to the Taconic, I-95 SB is backed up to the New Rochelle tolls, Newburgh-Beacon is congested, Thruway SB backed up to Woodbury, the list goes on and on.

If I had to get down there, I'd cross as far north as possible.

And that, in part, is the answer to Roadman's question.  There is simply no highway that you can divert 100,000 vehicle to.

Thus, seek alternate routes, because a route that works for you won't work for someone else.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on July 19, 2016, 08:45:31 PM
As of 5pm, all northbound lanes were reopened. From the news video I saw earlier in the day I'd say the NYSTA did a commendable of job of clearing the debris and getting at least one direction moving again. I fully expected the entire bridge to be closed until tomorrow.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on July 20, 2016, 09:27:26 AM
So one of the major bridges across the Hudson River is completely closed, with no reliable ETA of when it will be reopened.  Yet, on their website, the Thruway Authority advises
Quote
Motorists may wish to seek alternate routes

Who writes this stuff?

Good question. They're diverting most traffic at 287 on either side. Bear Mountain appears to be backed up to the Taconic, I-95 SB is backed up to the New Rochelle tolls, Newburgh-Beacon is congested, Thruway SB backed up to Woodbury, the list goes on and on.

If I had to get down there, I'd cross as far north as possible.

And that, in part, is the answer to Roadman's question.  There is simply no highway that you can divert 100,000 vehicle to.

Thus, seek alternate routes, because a route that works for you won't work for someone else.
I agree with advising people to use alternate routes.  Given the circumstances of this situation (total bridge closure for unknown period), I do not agree with phrasing it as "motorists may wish to use alternate routes".  I also do not agree with the "Roadway closed at Exit XX, with no other information"  In other words, "our road is closed, you figure out another way to get across the Hudson."

And no, I'm not expecting the Thruway Authority to post a signed detour to all of the other bridges across the river.  But a little information about other available bridges wouldn't hurt (consider Mom and Pop tourist that are totally unfamiliar with the area).

Lastly, even the tone of the alert seriously downplayed the severity of the situation.  Stating "Accident" instead of "Road Closure" is very misleading, as it implies to the average person "oh, this will be cleared up shortly."
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: kalvado on July 20, 2016, 10:23:11 AM
I agree with advising people to use alternate routes.  Given the circumstances of this situation (total bridge closure for unknown period), I do not agree with phrasing it as "motorists may wish to use alternate routes".  I also do not agree with the "Roadway closed at Exit XX, with no other information"  In other words, "our road is closed, you figure out another way to get across the Hudson."

And no, I'm not expecting the Thruway Authority to post a signed detour to all of the other bridges across the river.  But a little information about other available bridges wouldn't hurt (consider Mom and Pop tourist that are totally unfamiliar with the area).

Lastly, even the tone of the alert seriously downplayed the severity of the situation.  Stating "Accident" instead of "Road Closure" is very misleading, as it implies to the average person "oh, this will be cleared up shortly."

I would assume they used one of 10 pre-written messages. I believe "seek alternative road" is a generic wording used in emergency with no pre-planned detour. And yes, closed Tapan Zee is a huge mess, you cannot be fully prepared for that.
I assume things would be a bit sorted out if closure went into next day,  but we didn't see anything beyond first response.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on July 20, 2016, 10:53:56 AM
I agree with advising people to use alternate routes.  Given the circumstances of this situation (total bridge closure for unknown period), I do not agree with phrasing it as "motorists may wish to use alternate routes".  I also do not agree with the "Roadway closed at Exit XX, with no other information"  In other words, "our road is closed, you figure out another way to get across the Hudson."

And no, I'm not expecting the Thruway Authority to post a signed detour to all of the other bridges across the river.  But a little information about other available bridges wouldn't hurt (consider Mom and Pop tourist that are totally unfamiliar with the area).

Lastly, even the tone of the alert seriously downplayed the severity of the situation.  Stating "Accident" instead of "Road Closure" is very misleading, as it implies to the average person "oh, this will be cleared up shortly."

I would assume they used one of 10 pre-written messages. I believe "seek alternative road" is a generic wording used in emergency with no pre-planned detour. And yes, closed Tapan Zee is a huge mess, you cannot be fully prepared for that.
I assume things would be a bit sorted out if closure went into next day,  but we didn't see anything beyond first response.


Points taken.  I guess my bias against the current PR philosophy of "choose the pre-selected message that most closely fits the situation" (as opposed to providing accurate messages based on the actual situation) is showing.  Then again, back in the day when I was involved in PR, state DOT PR people were actual engineers that were given PR training.  Now they hire former media hacks for the jobs, and try to automate the public announcement systems (i.e., the ten "stock" messages) as much as possible - IMO Boston's MBTA transit system is one of the worst in this regard.

I'm not entirely convinced the current system provides a greater benefit to the public than the old way did.  Especially where "local" news outlets, which used to pick up the slack, are increasingly shying away from providing actual local news.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 20, 2016, 12:53:23 PM
Using the VMS boards, the best you can do is 27 characters per line for 6 lines; 3 lines on a rotating basis, such as:

TAPPAN ZEE
   BRIDGE
   CLOSED

    SEEK
ALTERNATE
  ROUTES

Maybe they could've said...

   TAPPAN ZEE
BRIDGE CLOSED

USE 87 SOUTH
  TO GWB TO
    80 WEST

But remember...it's rush hour.  The GWB is already at capacity to begin with, with the other highways close to capacity.  Do you just use one route as an alternative?  You can't put too much info on the sign, because people would easily become confused.

And remember also...if mom & pop traveler don't know their way around too much, what are the chances they're even going to know the name of the bridge and where it's located?  Do now do you say I-287 closed at Exit 9?  Do you say Use 87 South to 95 South to 80 West?

You're never going to make 100% of the people understand what you're trying to say...as the saying goes, make it idiot-proof and they'll design a better idiot.  You shoot for the common terminology that the vast majority of the people know and go with it. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on July 20, 2016, 02:50:25 PM
Quote
You can't put too much info on the sign, because people would easily become confused

Totally agree there are practical and procedural limitations as to what you can and should put on VMS signs.  But my comments were specifically directed at the information provided on the Authority's web page, where one has much greater flexibility to post detailed information about alternate routes and the like.  Also remember that, on a web site, that additional information does not need to be placed in the body of the initial traffic alert.

Quote
You shoot for the common terminology that the vast majority of the people know and go with it
 
Correct again.  However, once the full extent of the incident was known, I still maintain there was no legitimate reason to continue to downplay the severity of the disruption on the web page by stating "Accident" instead of "Road Closure".  Not to mention stating "may wish to use alternate routes" instead of "should seek alternate routes" is incorrect, as it conveys a totally different meaning as to the severity of the disruption.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 20, 2016, 04:10:32 PM
Quote
You can't put too much info on the sign, because people would easily become confused

Totally agree there are practical and procedural limitations as to what you can and should put on VMS signs.  But my comments were specifically directed at the information provided on the Authority's web page, where one has much greater flexibility to post detailed information about alternate routes and the like.  Also remember that, on a web site, that additional information does not need to be placed in the body of the initial traffic alert.

Quote
You shoot for the common terminology that the vast majority of the people know and go with it
 
Correct again.  However, once the full extent of the incident was known, I still maintain there was no legitimate reason to continue to downplay the severity of the disruption on the web page by stating "Accident" instead of "Road Closure".  Not to mention stating "may wish to use alternate routes" instead of "should seek alternate routes" is incorrect, as it conveys a totally different meaning as to the severity of the disruption.

I agree. Until the press conference with Cuomo, everything from NYSTA, including their website and social media, said "accident" without indicating a long-term closure. Google showed it pretty quick thanks to Waze (patting my own back here, I'm the one who relayed exact closure data to higher-ups to have it posted, and everything posted on here by others regarding closures was relayed to have it shown on the map), but NYSTA could have been a lot better.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 20, 2016, 06:11:39 PM
It was a 5 or 6 hour closure. Wasn't exactly long term. A flipped over truck or fatal can last several hours as well.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on July 20, 2016, 06:59:03 PM
It was a 5 or 6 hour closure. Wasn't exactly long term. A flipped over truck or fatal can last several hours as well.
With respect, there was a big difference here.  Unlike a rollover or a fatal crash, which are (unfortunately) increasingly common enough that the DOT or toll agency can reliably predict the duration of any given lane or roadway closure to within about half an hour, the potential duration of the Tappan Zee closure was not truly known until after the structural engineers had completed their inspections.  Based on that alone, I maintain my position that NYSTA should have been more proactive in the information they provided to their patrons once the circumstances and extent of the accident were known to them.

I also believe that NYSTA was extremely lucky in that the crane collapsed onto the old bridge where two deck sections met at a pier.  If the crane had fallen in the middle of one of the deck spans, chances are very good that the bridge would still be completely closed to traffic today.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Buffaboy on July 20, 2016, 10:35:28 PM
Here's something I noticed on the Thruway headed east, just past the Lackawanna booths: the Welcome to NY sign. Must've been put up today.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on July 21, 2016, 12:17:45 PM
I dropped a line to the Thruway Authority about marking county borders since I hadn't asked them about it in a couple of years. I based my question around the fact that they're marking watersheds, why can't they mark county borders, especially since the National Weather Service issues watches and warnings based on counties. I received a response today indicating that there were no plans to mark county borders, as they had worked with the NWS and determined that since the NWS is going to change their way of identifying watch/warning areas, there was no reason to mark county lines at this time.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: Snappyjack on July 21, 2016, 12:32:06 PM
They make a new excuse every time it seems. I've gotten everything from "they're not needed" to "they're a distraction to drivers". That last one always makes me laugh, considering we need a sign every time we cross into the Erie Canal Heritage Corridor.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 21, 2016, 12:59:40 PM
They make a new excuse every time it seems. I've gotten everything from "they're not needed" to "they're a distraction to drivers". That last one always makes me laugh, considering we need a sign every time we cross into the Erie Canal Heritage Corridor.

There might be more of those signs than there would be county line signs. Seriously.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 21, 2016, 01:44:45 PM
Tappan Zee update (source) (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/news/pressrel/2016/07/2016-07-21-tz-lane-closures.html):

Quote
The Thruway Authority today announced that phase one of the deck repair operations on the Tappan Zee Bridge (I-87/I-287) will require the southbound Tappan Zee Bridge to be reduced to one lane beginning tonight, July 21. Three northbound lanes will remain open to traffic during the work. This repair operation is part of the Thruway Authority’s rapid response to the damage caused by the crane collapse earlier this week. At the Governor’s direction, these expedited overnight repairs will minimize impacts to motorists during peak travel periods.

Beginning at 8 p.m. tonight, southbound traffic at exit 11 (Nyack - South Nyack - US Route 9W) will be reduced to one lane until the completion of the work at approximately 5 a.m. tomorrow morning. At least one southbound lane will remain open at all times during the operation, with the exception of an approximately 20-minute period expected to begin at 9:30 p.m. During that time, State Police will stop and hold all traffic approaching the bridge beginning from exit 10 (Nyack - South Nyack - US Route 9W).

Three northbound lanes will remain open through the entire operation. Following the completion of the overnight repair work, traffic will resume on three northbound and three southbound lanes of the bridge in time for the Friday morning commute. Phase two of the work to repair the far right lane will be announced in the coming days.
Motorists traveling southbound on the New York State Thruway in the vicinity of the Tappan Zee Bridge during the closure times should expect delays and are advised to seek alternate routes.

TL;DR: Don't try and cross tonight
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2016, 02:26:25 PM
They make a new excuse every time it seems. I've gotten everything from "they're not needed" to "they're a distraction to drivers". That last one always makes me laugh, considering we need a sign every time we cross into the Erie Canal Heritage Corridor.

Why are they needed?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on July 21, 2016, 10:32:19 PM
I dropped a line to the Thruway Authority about marking county borders since I hadn't asked them about it in a couple of years. I based my question around the fact that they're marking watersheds, why can't they mark county borders, especially since the National Weather Service issues watches and warnings based on counties. I received a response today indicating that there were no plans to mark county borders, as they had worked with the NWS and determined that since the NWS is going to change their way of identifying watch/warning areas, there was no reason to mark county lines at this time.

Did you follow up ther response by asking why, then, they have they gone ahead and signed a few? What's different about Bronx, Westchester and Rockland Counties that makes them sign-worthy (not to mention Ramapo and Suffern)?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 22, 2016, 06:51:09 AM
I dropped a line to the Thruway Authority about marking county borders since I hadn't asked them about it in a couple of years. I based my question around the fact that they're marking watersheds, why can't they mark county borders, especially since the National Weather Service issues watches and warnings based on counties. I received a response today indicating that there were no plans to mark county borders, as they had worked with the NWS and determined that since the NWS is going to change their way of identifying watch/warning areas, there was no reason to mark county lines at this time.

Did you follow up ther response by asking why, then, they have they gone ahead and signed a few? What's different about Bronx, Westchester and Rockland Counties that makes them sign-worthy (not to mention Ramapo and Suffern)?

As someone who has only been on a significant portion of the Thruway on a trip to Schroon Lake back in 2009, if I remember correctly, I basically forgot where I was between I-84 and I-90 near Albany.  (based partly on the lack of county lines, if my parents needed to ask me where I was all I could really say is between Albany and I-287 to make any sense IMO.)
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: kalvado on July 22, 2016, 10:39:46 AM
I dropped a line to the Thruway Authority about marking county borders since I hadn't asked them about it in a couple of years. I based my question around the fact that they're marking watersheds, why can't they mark county borders, especially since the National Weather Service issues watches and warnings based on counties. I received a response today indicating that there were no plans to mark county borders, as they had worked with the NWS and determined that since the NWS is going to change their way of identifying watch/warning areas, there was no reason to mark county lines at this time.

Did you follow up ther response by asking why, then, they have they gone ahead and signed a few? What's different about Bronx, Westchester and Rockland Counties that makes them sign-worthy (not to mention Ramapo and Suffern)?

As someone who has only been on a significant portion of the Thruway on a trip to Schroon Lake back in 2009, if I remember correctly, I basically forgot where I was between I-84 and I-90 near Albany.  (based partly on the lack of county lines, if my parents needed to ask me where I was all I could really say is between Albany and I-287 to make any sense IMO.)

Why do you think that county names would make more sense than exit numbers or service plazas names? Both exits and plazas are well signed, and can also be used as references.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on July 22, 2016, 01:00:23 PM
The common rationale given to justify enhanced mileposts, overpass street name signs, and the like is to provide greater orientation for drivers, for both better navigation and more accurate location reporting of incidents and crashes for relaying to emergency responders.  As upstatenyroads noted above, National Weather Service alerts and advisories are identified by the counties they cover.  This is key for people both inside and outside of the specific area.   Anybody who has monitored NOAA weather radio while traveling, especially in rural areas, can attest to the fact that it is easily possible to pick up signals from one or more NOAA stations not covering the area you're driving through at the time.  Having counties identified on the highway can help people determine the applicability of the weather information to their location. 

As for the "distraction" excuse, county lines correlate with city/town boundaries, which are consistently signed on nearly all Interstates and freeways.  The potential distraction by adding county information to these signs at county boundaries (to use a MassDOT example, Entering Andover/Essex County) is negligible.

IMO, these reasons are sufficient justification for identifying county lines with signing on Interstate and freeways.

Quote
as they had worked with the NWS and determined that since the NWS is going to change their way of identifying watch/warning areas, there was no reason to mark county lines at this time

What changes?  While the NWS has been making revisions to how the weather alerts and other information are presented, I have not heard anything (official or otherwise) suggesting that NWS watch/warning areas were no longer going to be identified by county or sub-county (i.e. Northern XX County).  For one thing, the whole SAME system that NOAA and others have been implementing and promoting is entirely county and sub-county based, and would effectively have to be scrapped if they wholesale changed their reporting system.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on July 22, 2016, 01:14:37 PM
As for the "distraction" excuse, county lines correlate with city/town boundaries, which are consistently signed.  The potential distraction by adding county information to these signs (to use a MassDOT example, Entering Andover/Essex County) is negligible.

No, the Thruway doesn't sign any city/town/village lines, as a rule. In fact, the only ones I can think of at all are the aforementioned Ramapo and Suffern on I-287, which are signed along with the state and county line at that location. There is a "welcome"-type sign just before the NYC line (and the Bronx County markers of course coincide with the city line, despite not mentioning it), and there are a couple others as you enter the general region of a city. But no other actual markings of municipal limits.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on July 22, 2016, 01:26:42 PM
As for the "distraction" excuse, county lines correlate with city/town boundaries, which are consistently signed.  The potential distraction by adding county information to these signs (to use a MassDOT example, Entering Andover/Essex County) is negligible.

No, the Thruway doesn't sign any city/town/village lines, as a rule. In fact, the only ones I can think of at all are the aforementioned Ramapo and Suffern on I-287, which are signed along with the state and county line at that location. There is a "welcome"-type sign just before the NYC line (and the Bronx County markers of course coincide with the city line, despite not mentioning it), and there are a couple others as you enter the general region of a city. But no other actual markings of municipal limits.
Don't drive the Thruway often, but now that I think about it, you are correct.  And the lack of boundary signs only makes the idiotic "watershed", "Erie Canal district", and other politically motivated signs even more unjustified.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on July 22, 2016, 01:30:47 PM
I dropped a line to the Thruway Authority about marking county borders since I hadn't asked them about it in a couple of years. I based my question around the fact that they're marking watersheds, why can't they mark county borders, especially since the National Weather Service issues watches and warnings based on counties. I received a response today indicating that there were no plans to mark county borders, as they had worked with the NWS and determined that since the NWS is going to change their way of identifying watch/warning areas, there was no reason to mark county lines at this time.

Did you follow up ther response by asking why, then, they have they gone ahead and signed a few? What's different about Bronx, Westchester and Rockland Counties that makes them sign-worthy (not to mention Ramapo and Suffern)?

I did, but I didn't get a response. IMHO, I believe Westchester, Rockland and those signs were up before the Thruway took over that particular stretch of roadway, or there may have been an enthusiastic contractor in the mix.

They did send me a list of the counties and the milepost location where the Thruway crosses a county line. They have that inventoried down to the hundredth of a mile. Just no signs.

The NWS changes mentioned were changing coverage areas from full political boundaries to a "polygon warning system" which won't necessarily correlate with political boundaries, so there's no reason to sign them.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: roadman on July 22, 2016, 02:43:43 PM
The NWS changes mentioned were changing coverage areas from full political boundaries to a "polygon warning system" which won't necessarily correlate with political boundaries, so there's no reason to sign them.

Weak argument, IMO.  What NYSTA fails to recognize is that NOAA alerts under the current polygon system still reference sections of counties.  Therefore, having county boundary information on signs is still beneficial - even if the area of an alert doesn't exactly line up with the larger jurisdictional (not political) boundaries.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 22, 2016, 02:51:24 PM
I've yet to see anyone post why county signs would be beneficial, in such a way where other signs would not be beneficial.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: vdeane on July 22, 2016, 03:32:36 PM
It's worth noting that NY is a home rule state with powerful counties.  Laws change based on county boundary, such as the age to buy cigarettes or whether fireworks are legal.

And, of course, NOAA.  Polygons are great for websites and the TV.  Not so much for radio.

It's silly that the Thruway has all the useless political signs but doesn't want to sign counties.  It feels weird to cross into another county without a sign.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: empirestate on July 22, 2016, 04:12:52 PM
Did you follow up ther response by asking why, then, they have they gone ahead and signed a few? What's different about Bronx, Westchester and Rockland Counties that makes them sign-worthy (not to mention Ramapo and Suffern)?

I did, but I didn't get a response. IMHO, I believe Westchester, Rockland and those signs were up before the Thruway took over that particular stretch of roadway, or there may have been an enthusiastic contractor in the mix.

That may explain Rockland, but it doesn't explain the Bronx/Westchester marking. The Thruway has maintained its mainline and the New England section since the beginning. (There is also a matching state line marker on the Garden State connector, which also has been in the system forever).

I've yet to see anyone post why county signs would be beneficial, in such a way where other signs would not be beneficial.

I'm pretty sure I've seen that answer posted a few times. But speaking for myself, I'm only interested in whether it's being done, not whether it's beneficial.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 22, 2016, 06:35:48 PM
Did you follow up ther response by asking why, then, they have they gone ahead and signed a few? What's different about Bronx, Westchester and Rockland Counties that makes them sign-worthy (not to mention Ramapo and Suffern)?

I did, but I didn't get a response. IMHO, I believe Westchester, Rockland and those signs were up before the Thruway took over that particular stretch of roadway, or there may have been an enthusiastic contractor in the mix.

That may explain Rockland, but it doesn't explain the Bronx/Westchester marking. The Thruway has maintained its mainline and the New England section since the beginning. (There is also a matching state line marker on the Garden State connector, which also has been in the system forever).

I've yet to see anyone post why county signs would be beneficial, in such a way where other signs would not be beneficial.

I'm pretty sure I've seen that answer posted a few times. But speaking for myself, I'm only interested in whether it's being done, not whether it's beneficial.

At least one sign on I-287 in Rockland is in Clearview. Nobody but NYSTA would have put that up.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: thenetwork on July 22, 2016, 07:30:02 PM
The Thruway IDs damn near every overpass and underpass by name already. So what's another pair of signs every 20-30 miles?  If they didn't tell us every road/route/river was passing over or under the roadway, then I might side with them. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 22, 2016, 07:32:38 PM
The Thruway IDs damn near every overpass and underpass by name already. So what's another pair of signs every 20-30 miles?  If they didn't tell us every road/route/river was passing over or under the roadway, then I might side with them.

Most waterways are not signed. Only the Buffalo River, Genesee River, Niagara River, Mohawk River, canals, and stuff draining into the Hudson River south of Albany.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 22, 2016, 07:40:28 PM
I dropped a line to the Thruway Authority about marking county borders since I hadn't asked them about it in a couple of years. I based my question around the fact that they're marking watersheds, why can't they mark county borders, especially since the National Weather Service issues watches and warnings based on counties. I received a response today indicating that there were no plans to mark county borders, as they had worked with the NWS and determined that since the NWS is going to change their way of identifying watch/warning areas, there was no reason to mark county lines at this time.

Did you follow up ther response by asking why, then, they have they gone ahead and signed a few? What's different about Bronx, Westchester and Rockland Counties that makes them sign-worthy (not to mention Ramapo and Suffern)?

As someone who has only been on a significant portion of the Thruway on a trip to Schroon Lake back in 2009, if I remember correctly, I basically forgot where I was between I-84 and I-90 near Albany.  (based partly on the lack of county lines, if my parents needed to ask me where I was all I could really say is between Albany and I-287 to make any sense IMO.)

Why do you think that county names would make more sense than exit numbers or service plazas names? Both exits and plazas are well signed, and can also be used as references.

It's worth noting that NY is a home rule state with powerful counties.  Laws change based on county boundary, such as the age to buy cigarettes or whether fireworks are legal.

And, of course, NOAA.  Polygons are great for websites and the TV.  Not so much for radio.

It's silly that the Thruway has all the useless political signs but doesn't want to sign counties.  It feels weird to cross into another county without a sign.

Honestly mileage based exit numbers would be more beneficial than both.  (and maybe interchange names similar to the PA Turnpike)  I will admit that I was freaked out by not seeing county lines for 100+ miles.

(Normally this would seem to be a stupid question.)  How long at this point have mile markers been on the Thruway?
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on July 22, 2016, 09:32:54 PM
Since it was built in the 1950's.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: machias on July 22, 2016, 09:57:42 PM
Since it was built in the 1950's.

The normal style of mile markers you see now are relatively new to the Thruway (since the mid 1980s). Before then there were smaller, border less mile markers. Unfortunately I can't remember if they were green or blue.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: SignBridge on July 22, 2016, 10:06:42 PM
(Chuckle) They were probably blue, as pretty much all signs on the "original" Thruway were that color including regulatory signs, which now are black-on-white.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 22, 2016, 11:03:35 PM
It's silly that the Thruway has all the useless political signs but doesn't want to sign counties.  It feels weird to cross into another county without a sign.

I don't believe that the New Jersey Turnpike has a single county  line sign posted on the Turnpike either.

Though NJTA does post them on its other toll road, the Garden State Parkway, perhaps because the previous agency that ran the Parkway, NJHA did post them (though the county line signs are not exactly what the MUTCD specifies).

For good reasons cited above about weather, I think county line signs should be mandatory on all freeway-class roads, including the N.Y.S. Thruway and the N.J. Turnpike. 
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 22, 2016, 11:16:40 PM
For good reasons cited above about weather, I think county line signs should be mandatory on all freeway-class roads, including the N.Y.S. Thruway and the N.J. Turnpike.

Tell that to the New England states. Vermont posts them subtly on freeway town line signs, but I don't remember seeing any in Massachusetts or Connecticut (and I know I've crossed county lines in both).
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 22, 2016, 11:36:08 PM
For good reasons cited above about weather, I think county line signs should be mandatory on all freeway-class roads, including the N.Y.S. Thruway and the N.J. Turnpike.

Tell that to the New England states. Vermont posts them subtly on freeway town line signs, but I don't remember seeing any in Massachusetts or Connecticut (and I know I've crossed county lines in both).

Keeping in mind that at least in Connecticut, the counties have been reduced to historic relics (and I think it may be true in  Massachusetts too), though people still talk about at least some of them (as I believe does NOAA), it would probably be appropriate to post the  town lines and perhaps the county lines for reasons of public safety.

Never been to Alaska, but since they have no counties up there, I do not know if other political subdivisions (including municipal and borough boundaries) are posted or not.

Bottom line - always post state boundaries (state DOTs tend to be very good about that, roads maintained by  county or municipal governments, not always so much), and post the boundaries of political subdivisions of state as used by NOAA.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cl94 on July 22, 2016, 11:39:16 PM
For good reasons cited above about weather, I think county line signs should be mandatory on all freeway-class roads, including the N.Y.S. Thruway and the N.J. Turnpike.

Tell that to the New England states. Vermont posts them subtly on freeway town line signs, but I don't remember seeing any in Massachusetts or Connecticut (and I know I've crossed county lines in both).

Keeping in mind that at least in Connecticut, the counties have been reduced to historic relics, though people still talk about at least some of them (as I believe does NOAA), it would probably be appropriate to post the  town lines and perhaps the county lines for reasons of public safety.

Never been to Alaska, but since they have no counties there, I do not know if other political subdivisions (including municipal boundaries) are posted or not.

Massachusetts is the same way in places. I specifically mentioned Connecticut because I heard a weather alert on the radio while driving today and I had no idea if it applied to me because counties aren't posted. Until they push alerts to everyone's phones automatically based on GPS location, the county one is located in is important.
Title: Re: New York State Thruway
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 22, 2016, 11:45:34 PM