Bill would match N.Y. highway exits with mile numbers

[SignBridge]

Okay humor me here...............The MUTCD already requires exit numbering to be mileage based and specifically forbids consecutive exit numbering. (Sec. 2E-31-04) So why do we need to pass a law authorizing or requiring what's already mandated by the national standard?

[Duke87]

Because the MUTCD isn't legislation. It's a standard developed by an executive agency.

And even notwithstanding that, compliance with the MUTCD is not mandatory (it would be unconstitutional if it were). States must choose to comply with it. They also have the option of not complying with it and potentially giving up federal highway funding.

[MASTERNC]

What's wrong with numbering the thruway continuing the Deegan numbers?

The Northeast Extension of the PA Turnpike (I-476) exit numbers and mileage include the free section south of the east-west mainline (I-276).  I don't see this as any different.

Not to mention I-276 continuing the numbers from I-76 after it leaves the Turnpike at Valley Forge

[SignBridge]

It's easy to see why California resisited exit numbering for so many years. In some cases they are a bigger headache than they're worth and actually create more confusion than anything else. This discussion proves that. Also the MUTCD mandated exit numbering system does not take into account roads like the New York Thruway which (as discussed above) involves multiple compass directions and multiple interstate route numbers.

[froggie]

In some cases they are a bigger headache than they're worth and actually create more confusion than anything else. This discussion proves that.

I'm not following your reasoning.  HOW does this discussion prove that?

[SignBridge]

Well if you read all the above posts, there are so many questions and opinions on how NY Twy would have to have their exits numbered to comply with the MUTCD makes the point. No matter how they do the numbering, it's going to confuse people and/or not comply with the Manual. Consequently exit numbering is big headache. And situations like this are probably one reason California did not want to have to implement it.

[hbelkins]

Part of it depends on how you view things.

Is the Thruway an independent route that just happens to have two interstates overlaid on different parts of it?

Are Interstates 87 and 90 independent routes that just happen to have the Thruway overlaid on different parts of them?

Personally, I don't see what the big fuss would be if you numbered I-90 and I-87 separately as mileage-based routes, and if there happen to be duplicate exit numbers on the Thruway, so be it. After all, they are two separately-numbered routes. Pretend the Thruway doesn't exist. There's no confusion if you drive I-64 and I-75 in Kentucky and encounter the same exit number on the two routes.

I know that if I happened to be contemplating a trip from, say, Syracuse to NYC, I wouldn't say, "I'm taking the NY Thruway." I'd say "I'm taking I-90 east to I-87 south."

[SignBridge]

The Thruway came first, built in 1954 with it own exit numbering system, similar to the New Jersey and Penna. Turnpikes which also preceded the Interstate System. After the Interstate System began in 1956, different sections of the Thruway were given Interstate numbers as the Twy. was integrated into the larger Interstate network. So yes, the Thruway is an independent road with Interstates overlaid on it.

The Thruway is something of an institution to New Yorkers as are the N.J. and Penna. Tpke's in those states. If it had the same exit numbers in 2 different locations, it would be confusing to New Yorkers. And it would probably screw up the toll collection system, which is mileage based. Did you enter at Exit-10 on I-87 or at Exit-10 on I-90? They would be hundreds of miles apart. 

So you see how complicated any renumbering would be on this type of highway. And how potentially confusing it could get. And how exit numbers can sometimes cause more problems than they solve.

[xcellntbuy]

The New York State Legislature is notorious for one house legislative bills that go absolutely nowhere.  It is the most dysfunctional state legislature in the country.  I have no doubt New York will remain the largest State without a mileage-based exit system.

Changing all the Interstate signage, toll and non-toll, would cost a great deal of money.  New York cannot afford it.  New York cannot afford anything.  New York's citizens are taxed to death.  New York is broke.

The toll revenue of the Thruway is necessary to maintain the system well.  The Thruway needs to be expanded to six lanes in almost the entire Hudson Valley.  The Tappan Zee Bridge needs to be replaced.  The Grand Island bridges are in need of widening or replacement.

As a former New Yorker who fled 14-1/2 years ago along with 4.6 million others since 1990, and still a property holder, my taxes are used to prop up welfare, idleness and waste, not the maintenance, care and expansion of critical infrastructure.  The dominant political and economic powerhouse of the Union 50 years ago, New York is just a shadow of it former greatness.

End of rant.

[empirestate]

As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." While mileage-based numbering may be preferable to various people, for various reasons, all of which deserve consideration, I've yet to see any reason why it overrides the expense and confusion of doing so. If we wake up one morning and find the shoemakers' elves have made it so, fine, but otherwise it's nowhere near the top of my priority list.

I know that if I happened to be contemplating a trip from, say, Syracuse to NYC, I wouldn't say, "I'm taking the NY Thruway." I'd say "I'm taking I-90 east to I-87 south."

True for most out-of-towners, I expect. Locals, however, would say "I'm taking the Thruway", so we have to decide who the exit numbers are for: locals or visitors. (Actually, locals would say "I'm taking 81 to 380 to 80 to the GW bridge," but that's another matter.)

The most oft-quoted reason for certain exit numbering systems is emergency response. I can't help but believe that today, in 2012, there is a simple enough way to use GPS and GIS together such that any exit, whether numbered 21 or 367 or Delta7#11, can be correlated to a specific geodetic point at no greater public expense than exit renumbering. Hell, when I switch on my phone, it has me more precisely located by cellular triangulation alone than any description I could aurally give!

[froggie]

And situations like this are probably one reason California did not want to have to implement it.

I highly doubt that.  CalTrans' concerns stemmed more from how they design their guide signs (without separate exit number panels) and from cost than anything else.  Almost all of their highways lacked exit numbers previously, so they didn't have the "confusion factor" to contend with like you're claiming.

[vdeane]

I know that if I happened to be contemplating a trip from, say, Syracuse to NYC, I wouldn't say, "I'm taking the NY Thruway." I'd say "I'm taking I-90 east to I-87 south."

Most people upstate don't even know I-90 and I-87 exist on the Thruway.  Of those who know those roads exist at all, I-90 is just the free portion in Albany and I-87 is just the Adirondack Northway (and includes the portion of the Northway that is just a reference route!).

New York is broke.

Not quite true any more.  They actually managed to balance the budget for once at the state level; now it's the lower governments who are broke, as NY accomplished the balanced budget essentially by robbing the lower levels of government for cash.  Speed enforcement has dropped accordingly too.  In fact, I almost never even see state troopers these days outside of the Thruway and the North County (where they're probably augmenting border patrol).

[national highway 1]

I'm OK with NY changing over to Mile-Based. If New York is broke on replacing signs, maybe just cheap out by putting greenout over the old sequential numbers. 

[KEVIN_224]

Maine did a lot of greenouts when they switched to mileage-based exiting for I-95 and I-295 in 2004. Haven't hear a peep from anybody.

[SidS1045]

I don't see what the big fuss would be if you numbered I-90 and I-87 separately as mileage-based routes, and if there happen to be duplicate exit numbers on the Thruway, so be it. After all, they are two separately-numbered routes. Pretend the Thruway doesn't exist.

One idea that might make sense...

http://www.upstatenyroads.com/signshop58.shtml

[OracleUsr]

Kind of in the same vein as the PA Turnpike trick when they went to distance numbering.  Interesting.

[D-Dey65]

I really have to go with SignBridge and EmpireState on opposing this bill, but Froggie you're right about California.

[Roadgeek Adam]

I support the bill to be honest, but besides the Thruway, I'd love to see what they want do with the Sunken Meadow, Sagtikos, Robert Moses, Bethpage, Meadowbrook and Wantagh Parkways, if they get affected at all.

Honestly, I am in support of Thruway Exit 1 being McLean Avenue (ex-NY 164) in Westchester and Exit 494 (495 if you want to round up) being Shortman Road in Ripley. I consider the Thruway a separate entity, and as a result feel its just the easiest way to handle it. If it ends up having I-87 having three Exit 1s, motorists have dealt with that for years already.

[vdeane]

The current situation with the Thruway seems to be motivated by toll tickets and intertia.  There hasn't been a standalone Thruway shield on the road for as long as I've been alive.  All the shields say I-90 or I-87, even on the part of the Berkshire spur that doesn't have an interstate designation (the just add TO).  If the exit numbers and mileposts were changed to reflect this, there would be no indication other than the tolls that the Thruway is separate (aside from DOT regions that insist on using the Thruway trailblazer rather than the new convention of spelling out Thruway).

[PHLBOS]

Here's a question with regards to I-287/the Cross Westchester Expressway:  At present the exit numbers start at 1 on the western end (I-87/Thruway merge/split) and the mile markers start at "0' at the same location.  With the change simply mean that I-287's exit numbers will simply follow those of the CWE or will the numbering (both exits and mile markers) finally acknowledge the fact that I-287 extends further west along the Thruway/Tappan Zee Bridge and breaks off near Suffren (current Exit 15, roughly 17 miles from Exit 8)?

[NE2]

Guys, this is the internet age. Everything is available online.
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2466B-2011

In particular:

Section 388 is added to the public authorities law to authorize the Thruway Authority, in consultation with the Department of Transportation, to develop and implement a plan to convert the exit numbers along interstate highways in New York to a mileage-based system.

(b) Follow the convention that the numbering shall start at the southernmost or westernmost terminus of the interstate.

[SignBridge]

PHLBOS brings up a good point. If I-287 is numbered as per the Manual, then it logically would start with Exit-1 (current Thruway Exit-15) in Suffern and end with whatever mileage based number it should be where I-287 meets I-95 in Rye (Westchester County).

But this might not be necessary because I believe I-87 and I-287 are signed concurrently on the Thruway from Suffern to Tarrytown where the C.W. Expwy. begins. The MUTCD (Sec. 2E-31-16) does allow for exit number "continuity" for only one of the overlapping routes. In fact it shows a similar situation in figure 2E-21.

BTW Deanej, the Thruway had Interstate markers posted as far back as 1963, when I first rode it as a kid with my parents. I remember my dad commenting on its being signed together as both 287-west and 87-north from the T.Z. Bridge to Suffern. 

[Alps]

PHLBOS brings up a good point. If I-287 is numbered as per the Manual, then it logically would start with Exit-1 (current Thruway Exit-15) in Suffern and end with whatever mileage based number it should be where I-287 meets I-95 in Rye (Westchester County).

But this might not be necessary because I believe I-87 and I-287 are signed concurrently on the Thruway from Suffern to Tarrytown where the C.W. Expwy. begins. The MUTCD (Sec. 2E-31-16) does allow for exit number "continuity" for only one of the overlapping routes. In fact it shows a similar situation in figure 2E-21.

It would absolutely be necessary, but I-287's exit numbers would be skipped while on the Thruway and then resume at the divergence, accounting for the overlap mileage.

[vdeane]

BTW Deanej, the Thruway had Interstate markers posted as far back as 1963, when I first rode it as a kid with my parents. I remember my dad commenting on its being signed together as both 287-west and 87-north from the T.Z. Bridge to Suffern. 

But were Thruway reassurance shields discontinued at that time?  I do know that NYSTA and some regions of NYSDOT seem to be de-emphasizing the Thruway as a separate entity in signage.  I know Thruway shields were common on Rochester area signage until the mid-90s when they gradually got replaced with I-90 shields.

[SignBridge]

Yes Steve (chuckle!) That's what I was trying to say that the MUTCD allows, but you said it better.

Deanej, sorry I'm not sure about the answer to your question. The best I can say is that thru the years, with each successive sign project, they've done different things at different times re: sign legends, markers, etc. Being from Long Island, I don't drive the T'way often enough to have really noticed what you're asking about.