AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: New York  (Read 693321 times)

02 Park Ave

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 683
  • Happy motoring!

  • Location: Cherry Hill, New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 12:27:52 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3900 on: November 29, 2018, 05:27:05 PM »

I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.
Logged
C-o-H

webny99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2509
  • Roadgeek Forever.

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 04:21:37 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3901 on: November 29, 2018, 05:31:00 PM »

I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.

That and I-90, because Thruway.

I don't care how long it takes as long as it actually happens and gets done properly (meaning one set of numbers for I-90, and one set for I-87).
Logged
Left Lane is For Passing, Not Camping!
Threads Started
Counties Clinched

Mccojm

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 39
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Long Island, NY (Suffolk County)
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 09:52:25 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3902 on: November 29, 2018, 05:59:09 PM »

I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.

I think I-495 on Long Island or any of the initeratates in nyc will be last. There is no funding to change exit signs on Long Island with too many other areas that are priority like trying to get our 10K+ curb ramps to be federal ADA PROWAG compliant (Iím stuck on the curb ramp specialist team, I still canít belive the amount of time and money being wasted on some of these esp those that failed by 0.2% slopes.) also, I believe down here will be last as the link I provided state that many of our exits are closer than a mile together which starts messing up the mileage based exits scheme.
Logged
My input does not reflect those of NYS, NYSDOT, or any other government or non-government agency.  Do not take anything I say as truth unless it is released by said agencies.

NYSDOT R10 Long Island Experience:
TCI: 05/2013-07/2016
JE/ET: 07/2016-05/2018
PET: 05/2018-Present

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 928
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 03:24:30 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3903 on: November 29, 2018, 10:48:55 PM »

I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.

I think I-495 on Long Island or any of the initeratates in nyc will be last. There is no funding to change exit signs on Long Island with too many other areas that are priority like trying to get our 10K+ curb ramps to be federal ADA PROWAG compliant (Iím stuck on the curb ramp specialist team, I still canít belive the amount of time and money being wasted on some of these esp those that failed by 0.2% slopes.) also, I believe down here will be last as the link I provided state that many of our exits are closer than a mile together which starts messing up the mileage based exits scheme.
I bet NYCDOT will ask the FHWA for some kind of exemption to stick to sequential exit numbers.  That would mean that I-87, I-95, I-495 and I-78 would have their Exit 0's outside the Five Boroughs, then count down the closer you got to Manhattan.  Forget the SRs and Parkways, those will probably stay sequential forever.

I also think you're gonna end up with a situation where all Thruway ROW stays sequential and then the continuing Interstates will have their exits be milage based.  The Berkshire Extension portion of I-90 and Free I-90 would both be milage-based as well.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10440
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 10:27:20 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: New York
« Reply #3904 on: November 30, 2018, 08:21:43 AM »

^ Some states up here have already asked FHWA for exemptions and waivers.  I know Vermont did a few years ago.  They were politely told "no".

As for the Thruway...given the typical distance between exits, there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't make the Thruway exit numbers mileage-based.
Logged

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1259
  • Last Login: May 16, 2019, 04:39:51 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3905 on: November 30, 2018, 09:16:56 AM »

I think once the Thruway goes all electronic for its tolling, the notion of having separate exit numbers for I-90 and I-87 will be a lot easier.
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6405
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 04:33:28 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3906 on: November 30, 2018, 12:10:09 PM »

I also think you're gonna end up with a situation where all Thruway ROW stays sequential and then the continuing Interstates will have their exits be milage based.  The Berkshire Extension portion of I-90 and Free I-90 would both be milage-based as well.
Such would likely mean that the CWE portion of I-287's current MM CW 0 at I-87/NYS Thruway would become MM 20.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5547
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 10:51:36 PM
    • The Albany Hiker
Re: New York
« Reply #3907 on: November 30, 2018, 12:25:12 PM »

I think once the Thruway goes all electronic for its tolling, the notion of having separate exit numbers for I-90 and I-87 will be a lot easier.

Somewhat easier. You still have institutional inertia, which is a real thing in New York.

^ Some states up here have already asked FHWA for exemptions and waivers.  I know Vermont did a few years ago.  They were politely told "no".

Precisely. It's going to happen whether people like it or not. There is no reason to not change other than people being reluctant to change. If a slow change is what's necessary to make people warm up to it, so be it. Better than MA, which planned a change and then had to back down due to public outcry.

Quote
As for the Thruway...given the typical distance between exits, there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't make the Thruway exit numbers mileage-based.

The mainline has no exits closer than a mile north of Westchester County. Even then, you could fudge some numbers to make only a couple of A/B pairs necessary.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

machias

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 665
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Chicago, IL
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 10:19:29 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3908 on: December 01, 2018, 03:59:08 PM »

I think once the Thruway goes all electronic for its tolling, the notion of having separate exit numbers for I-90 and I-87 will be a lot easier.

Somewhat easier. You still have institutional inertia, which is a real thing in New York.

^ Some states up here have already asked FHWA for exemptions and waivers.  I know Vermont did a few years ago.  They were politely told "no".

Precisely. It's going to happen whether people like it or not. There is no reason to not change other than people being reluctant to change. If a slow change is what's necessary to make people warm up to it, so be it. Better than MA, which planned a change and then had to back down due to public outcry.


I still think they should number the interchanges by distance on the longer non-Interstates (US 219, NY 400, NY 33, NY 104 in Rochester area, NY 49 in Utica-Rome) to get motorists used to the idea.  R5 missed the boat when they recently replaced every guide panel on NY 400.
Logged

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1264
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 10:13:53 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3909 on: December 01, 2018, 07:24:48 PM »

I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12371
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3910 on: December 02, 2018, 01:55:09 AM »

I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.
Negative. Not required.

Mccojm

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 39
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Long Island, NY (Suffolk County)
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 09:52:25 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3911 on: December 02, 2018, 03:47:35 AM »

I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.

Itís not required which is why NY has taken a lackadaisical approach to switching. Until itís mandated and/or federal govt provides the funding to do so NY will continue to allocate limited funds to other priorities. In the states eyes, the sequential exits work fine and itís a case of ďif it ainít broke then donít fix itĒ
Logged
My input does not reflect those of NYS, NYSDOT, or any other government or non-government agency.  Do not take anything I say as truth unless it is released by said agencies.

NYSDOT R10 Long Island Experience:
TCI: 05/2013-07/2016
JE/ET: 07/2016-05/2018
PET: 05/2018-Present

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9956
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 07:18:45 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3912 on: December 02, 2018, 07:08:23 PM »

I wouldn't be surprised if upstate regions are a little more interested in switching than Regions 10/11.

(personal opinion)
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1264
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 10:13:53 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3913 on: December 02, 2018, 09:06:47 PM »

I believe you folks are mistaken. In the 2009 Manual's Section 2E - Freeways and Expressways, Sec. 2E.31.04 states: Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used. The Manual does not show any distinction on this requirement between Interstate vs. U.S. or State freeways and expressways.
Logged

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5547
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 10:51:36 PM
    • The Albany Hiker
Re: New York
« Reply #3914 on: December 02, 2018, 10:03:09 PM »

I believe you folks are mistaken. In the 2009 Manual's Section 2E - Freeways and Expressways, Sec. 2E.31.04 states: Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used. The Manual does not show any distinction on this requirement between Interstate vs. U.S. or State freeways and expressways.

But the feds only care about Interstates (at least as far as conversions go). See Georgia and Pennsylvania, which changed Interstates but not non-Interstate freeways. Those states have no real plan to change over the non-Interstates. I could swear there's another state or two that uses sequential for non-Interstates and distance-based for Interstates, but I may be mistaken.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3573
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 09:25:26 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3915 on: December 02, 2018, 10:14:41 PM »

^ The MUTCD applies to almost all roads.  If FHWA wanted to, they could withhold federal funding for any projects on a roadway using non-MUTCD compliant exit numbering, or even withhold all federal funds for Georgia and Pennsylvania until a conversion plan was established.
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6753
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 10:35:07 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: New York
« Reply #3916 on: December 02, 2018, 10:21:48 PM »

I could swear there's another state or two that uses sequential for non-Interstates and distance-based for Interstates, but I may be mistaken.

You're probably thinking of Virginia, which is more of a mixed bag. I-264, I-664, and VA 267 are sequential (although I-264 is close to mile-based due to luck), while many of its other non-Interstate freeways are unnumbered.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐22.40.99.10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚127.141.159
NH 27,111A; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32

Flickr

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5547
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 10:51:36 PM
    • The Albany Hiker
Re: New York
« Reply #3917 on: December 02, 2018, 10:28:33 PM »

^ The MUTCD applies to almost all roads.  If FHWA wanted to, they could withhold federal funding for any projects on a roadway using non-MUTCD compliant exit numbering, or even withhold all federal funds for Georgia and Pennsylvania until a conversion plan was established.

Could they? Certainly. Will they? Doubtful, as they have shown that they don't care as much about non-Interstates.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1264
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 10:13:53 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3918 on: December 02, 2018, 10:38:10 PM »

Well I have no real knowledge of what the FHWA's priorities are and it may well be true that they concentrate their enforcement efforts on Interstate highways. I'm just saying what the official Manual rule is. That exit numbering is required to be mileage based on all freeways and expressways. Period. That's the standard.

 Some of you were insisting in earlier posts that this was not the rule when in fact it is. So let's keep our facts straight and accurate as much as possible.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12371
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3919 on: December 02, 2018, 11:46:50 PM »

The FHWA requires mile-based exit numbers on Interstates. They do not require ANY exit numbers on non-Interstates. Yes, if you use them, they must be mile-based as well.

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1259
  • Last Login: May 16, 2019, 04:39:51 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3920 on: December 03, 2018, 09:04:50 AM »

Could be worse. Ohio's non-interstates are the luck of the draw with mileage-based exits. Will it be unsigned? Or signed in accordance with the statewide mileage total? Or countywide mileage total? Find out on Route 2!
Logged

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5547
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 10:51:36 PM
    • The Albany Hiker
Re: New York
« Reply #3921 on: December 03, 2018, 09:46:43 AM »

Could be worse. Ohio's non-interstates are the luck of the draw with mileage-based exits. Will it be unsigned? Or signed in accordance with the statewide mileage total? Or countywide mileage total? Find out on Route 2!

Or US 33. Exits in District 6 are signed by statewide mileage, but those in Athens County are county mileage.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6252
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 10:30:33 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3922 on: December 03, 2018, 11:05:26 AM »

I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.

Negative. Not required.

Really?

Quote from: FHWA, in MUTCD 2009 ß 2E.31.02
Standard:  Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit.  Interchange exit numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide Sign, Exit Direction Sign, and Exit Gore sign.

I am pretty sure the NPRM and NFR for the 2009 MUTCD make it clear that it is FHWA's intention to extend the requirement to provide exit numbering to non-Interstate freeways as well as Interstates.  In the MUTCD itself, the preceding paragraph in ß 2E.31 makes it clear that the only scenario in which FHWA envisions exit numbering not being provided on freeways or expressways is AASHTO expressways with a mixture of flat intersections and grade separations.  And even there provision of exit numbering is urged if there is "appreciable continuity of interchange facilities."
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1259
  • Last Login: May 16, 2019, 04:39:51 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3923 on: December 03, 2018, 11:41:42 AM »

Could be worse. Ohio's non-interstates are the luck of the draw with mileage-based exits. Will it be unsigned? Or signed in accordance with the statewide mileage total? Or countywide mileage total? Find out on Route 2!

Or US 33. Exits in District 6 are signed by statewide mileage, but those in Athens County are county mileage.

At least there are interchange numbers, considering the complexity of the exits there.
Logged

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1264
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: May 18, 2019, 10:13:53 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3924 on: December 03, 2018, 08:57:29 PM »

JNW hit the nail on the head with his quote from Sec. 2E-31. The MUTCD does not seem to distinguish between Interstate freeways and Non-Interstate freeways. The standards are the same for all freeways. And a freeway is defined as any highway with full control of access vs. an Expressway which is partial control of access.

And again, I'm not saying the FHWA enforces the standards equally among all freeways. I'm not sure what their priorities and policies are. I'm only saying how the Manual actually reads.

Our friend Mr. Alps would do well to read the Manual before making repeated mis-statements of fact concerning what the Manual does and doesn't say.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.