New York

[vdeane]

The link on the press release works.  I wonder when they slipped that in.  Interesting that Rothman mentioned the I-81 numbers earlier... I think the I-690 ones are more questionable.

A few comments (which I might email to Region 3 once I can find a good way to do so).

I-81:
-There doesn't seem to be an exit number listed for I-81 N -> BL 81 N even though there is one for I-81 -> BL 81 S.  I hope this is a table oversight and not an inconsistency.

BL 81:
-5B and 5C NB should be swapped, as the NY 370 ramp comes first.

I-690:
-The mile numbers are inconsistent with the mileposts, which are continuous with NY 690.  They are also inconsistent with the exit numbers listed in the plans for D265136, which follow the mileposts.
-While current exit 6 is a big interchange and the ramps diverge a mile apart, it would be less confusing if exit 4 were used for both directions, which would remove some "alphabet soup" westbound.  Fudging a number by 1 to avoid suffixes is allowed per the current MUTCD.
-Bridge Street should be exit 13 in both directions.  While accessing it EB requires using the collector/distributor lanes, it is as much its own interchange as the US 11/Airport/Taft Road interchanges are on BL 81.  Treating this differently is inconsistent.

NY 481:
-Old exit 11 appears to be inconsistent with the plans for PIN 3806.73/D265142 (although the number listed in the chart appears more accurate).

(personal opinion)

I got back a response from Region 3 this morning.  I have included it below (pieces in bold are sections quoted from my original email).

Thanks for your circling back with me and your patience on a response. While not practicable for all highways, mile-based systems are in use in nearly all U.S. states and are widely viewed as more efficient than sequential numbering schemes. Aside from assisting motorists in determining their location and the distance to their preferred exit, mile-based systems also aid emergency responders in reaching drivers who are experiencing an emergency. The new mile-based exit number conversion project in Region 3 will ensure that Central New York conforms to current national standards.

 

Our traffic department has provided to responses to your specific comments and questions below. We truly appreciate your well researched comments, questions and feedback.

 

Would it not be more logical to change I-81, BL 81, and NY 481 next year when the projects to improve I-481 finish, and also to coordinate with Regions 7 and 9, and to do I-690/NY 690 in 2026 when that project finishes, than to change them all now?

 

Coordinating three different regions and 10 different construction projects would be very difficult and a logistical challenge. Please note, the I-81 Viaduct project is responsible for changing over exit numbers within the footprint of the project to the new mile-based number system. It will be a 5 year process to change over all the exits.  NY 481 is not impacted by the I-81 project and is not associated with I-481, there would be no benefit to delaying the changeover on NY 481.

 

I-81:
There doesn't seem to be an exit number listed for I-81 N -> BL 81 N even though there is one for I-81 -> BL 81 S.  I hope this is a table oversight and not an inconsistency.  These should be numbered as one is leaving I-81 to take those movements.

 

The I-81 NB to BL 81 NB (downtown/E glen Ave/Brighton Ave) is exit number 81.  Thank you for pointing this out as this exit is missing from the table.

 

BL 81:
-5B and 5C NB should be swapped, as the NY 370 ramp comes first.

 

The plans that would address these ramps have not been developed yet so they could change.

 

I-690/NY 690:
-The mile numbers are inconsistent with the mileposts, which are continuous with NY 690.  They are also inconsistent with the exit numbers listed in the plans for PIN 3501.93/D265136, which follow the mileposts.

This is still a work in progress and could be changed.

NY 481:
-Old exit 11 appears to be inconsistent with the plans for PIN 3806.73/D265142 (although the number listed in the chart appears more accurate).

 

You are correct, the new exit number is 3 as shown on the plans for PIN 3806.73.  The table has a typo showing exit 2. Thank you for pointing this out.

 

-I find it curious that NY 690 is not receiving exit numbers as part of this, especially as the mileage is continuous with I-690, which makes sense as they are functionally a single road, even though part of it is a state route and the rest an interstate.

This is still a work in progress and could be changed.

-While current exit 6 is a big interchange and the ramps diverge a mile apart, it would be less confusing if exit 4 were used for both directions, which would remove some "alphabet soup" westbound.  Fudging a number by 1 to avoid suffixes is allowed per the current MUTCD.

The proposed exit numbers were established to be as accurate as possible based on the MM markers. "Fudging" the numbers does remove the "alphabet soup", but does not help accuracy gauge the distance between exits like the milage base numbering system is intended to do.

-Bridge Street should be exit 13 in both directions.  While accessing it EB requires using the collector/distributor lanes, it is as much its own interchange as the US 11/Airport/Taft Road interchanges are on BL 81.  Treating this differently is inconsistent.

This is still a work in progress and could be changed, but see comment above about "fudging" numbers.

So it looks like the I-690 exit numbers might be different than what's in the table.  I guess we'll see what ultimately gets posted.  I also wonder how far along the I-81 numbers are and when the NY 481 numbers might change.

[The Ghostbuster]

I do hope both NY 690 and Interstate 690 get exit numbers that are continuous from NY 690's western terminus at NY 48 and NY 631, to Interstate 690's eastern terminus at Interstate 481/future Interstate 81. However, if Interstate 690's exit number sequence starts at 1 at the Interstate 90/New York State Thruway, then NY 690 should get its own exit numbers, as I would oppose keeping them unnumbered.

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/11kitD59QhESZ8yS7
NYSDOT using the Verrazano Bridge as a control city is more than odd.  First of all this is Nassau County where unlike New York City would use more traditional control cities for the NY parkways on guides. Second the Cross Island does not go anywhere near the Verrazano Bridge.

Yes, the Cross Island becomes the Laurelton Parkway that becomes again the Belt Parkway that goes to it and in reality the Cross Island and Laurelton are indeed part of the Belt Parkway, but still the JFK airport is a long the way and would want that instead.  Plus, with the change in MUTCD you figure NYSDOT would have changed these guides to comply with the changes.

[Rothman]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/11kitD59QhESZ8yS7
NYSDOT using the Verrazano Bridge as a control city is more than odd.  First of all this is Nassau County where unlike New York City would use more traditional control cities for the NY parkways on guides. Second the Cross Island does not go anywhere near the Verrazano Bridge.

Yes, the Cross Island becomes the Laurelton Parkway that becomes again the Belt Parkway that goes to it and in reality the Cross Island and Laurelton are indeed part of the Belt Parkway, but still the JFK airport is a long the way and would want that instead.  Plus, with the change in MUTCD you figure NYSDOT would have changed these guides to comply with the changes.

Dear heavens.  Signs are replaced when they're needed -- when damaged or on a contract schedule for replacement.  Changes in the MUTCD do not trigger mass signage updates.

[SignBridge]

Well, two things. First, this is not an Interstate Highway. It's a restricted Parkway, which bars commercial traffic. The FHWA is less concerned about adherence to the Manual on this type of road than they are with Interstate Highways or so I've been told.

And second, the way I read the 2023 Manual it seems to refer only to showing destinations on the signs, not necessarily control cities, so it's possible the Manual is actually not insistent anymore on posted destinations being place names.

One could argue that JFK Airport might make more sense as a destination at this location, but that would largely be a matter of individual opinion. One could also argue for Brooklyn being the destination.

[PColumbus73]

I think using the bridges and tunnels is more useful than signing the boroughs.

I'm not from there, but my folks did go to Long Island once for the holidays, and knowing how to get to the bridges is most useful as a non-local. If we're insisting that a city needs to be signed, then Elizabeth, NJ / Philadelphia (New Rochelle / New Haven going north) might be used. Or trailblazers to I-95/NJTP. But that might be less than ideal.

[SignBridge]

I think using the bridges and tunnels is more useful than signing the boroughs.

I'm not from there, but my folks did go to Long Island once for the holidays, and knowing how to get to the bridges is most useful as a non-local. If we're insisting that a city needs to be signed, then Elizabeth, NJ / Philadelphia (New Rochelle / New Haven going north) might be used. Or trailblazers to I-95/NJTP. But that might be less than ideal.

Well, PColumbus73, we've been kicking this subject around for years on these boards and everybody's got their own ideas. In a perfect world where message overloading wasn't a problem I'd say put both a borough or city AND the bridge or tunnel name, and that is done in some places.

Interestingly some locations in NYC are now starting to show some of those cities you mentioned as the destinations, including Newark and New Haven. The destinations on NYC area signs have changed many times over the years depending on what theory was being used by the sign engineers at the time. 

[PColumbus73]

I think using the bridges and tunnels is more useful than signing the boroughs.

I'm not from there, but my folks did go to Long Island once for the holidays, and knowing how to get to the bridges is most useful as a non-local. If we're insisting that a city needs to be signed, then Elizabeth, NJ / Philadelphia (New Rochelle / New Haven going north) might be used. Or trailblazers to I-95/NJTP. But that might be less than ideal.

Well, PColumbus73, we've been kicking this subject around for years on these boards and everybody's got their own ideas. In a perfect world where message overloading wasn't a problem I'd say put both a borough or city AND the bridge or tunnel name, and that is done in some places.

Interestingly some locations in NYC are now starting to show some of those cities you mentioned as the destinations, including Newark and New Haven. The destinations on NYC area signs have changed many times over the years depending on what theory was being used by the sign engineers at the time. 

Control cities always end up being a thing, lol. Personally, the status quo is fine and I'm too far away to have a hard opinion anyway.

[James]

I posted some of my hot takes about NYS Thruway lane expansions so I'll post them here as well in addition to other highways I'd expand:

I-81:

Exit 106 (NY-49) to I-88: 6 lanes

Binghamton/I-86 Concurrency: 8 lanes

Exit 2 (I-86 East) to I-40 in TN: 6-8 lanes

(I-81 is basically the interior I-95 so yeah.)

I-84:

I-380 in PA to I-684: 6 lanes

I-684 to Danbury CT: 8 lanes

I-87:

Exit 7 (I-95) to Exit 16 (NY-17/I-86): 8 lanes

Exit 16 to Exit 21A (NY-912M): 6 lanes

Exit 21A to Exit 24 (I-90): 8 lanes

(Why the most direct, only 150-mile route between the largest city in the country and the capital city of the state is still only 4-lanes in some parts, I will never know.)

I-90:

-Exit 57 (NY-75) to Exit 55 (US-219): 6 lanes

-Exit 55 to Exit 49 (NY-78): 8 lanes
(6 thru-lanes when at the NY-400, I-190, Walden Ave, NY-33, and I-290 interchanges; also remove both Exit 52A - William St. and Exit 50A - Cleveland Dr. for better thru-traffic flow)

-Exit 49 to Exit 47 (I-490/Le Roy): 6 lanes

-Exit 45 (I-490/Victor) to Exit 25A (I-88): 6 lanes

-Exit 25A to Exit 24 (I-87): 8 lanes

-Exit 11 (US-9/US-20) to Exit 12 (US-9): 6 lanes

-NY-912M to I-84 in MA: 6 lanes (and then 8 lanes until Boston)

Buffalo is the entry/exit point for Toronto/Detroit traffic headed for New England and vice versa so I-90 should be minimum* 6 lanes from Buffalo to Boston in preparation for the future decades.

*except for a brief 4-lane break when bypassing Rochester. I would also significantly rebuild both I-490 interchanges. 

I-95

-GW Bridge to I-287: 8 lanes

-I-287 to New Haven CT: 10 lanes

[froggie]

^ Some serious overkill there, especially on I-81.

[James]

It's called "future-proofing".

All the expansions might not be needed now but they'll be needed in the coming decades - especially as people move up to Western NY as a result of climate change/fresh water.

I-81 between Syracuse and Scranton is also literally the link between Western NY/Toronto and NY City/New Jersey/Philly so I think it's reasonable for that section of I-81 to already be 6 lanes.

[Rothman]

Fictional.

[webny99]

I-81 between Syracuse and Scranton is also literally the link between Western NY/Toronto and NY City/New Jersey/Philly so I think it's reasonable for that section of I-81 to already be 6 lanes.

This is true but with some big caveats. From Buffalo city proper and Southtowns and pretty much anywhere in Ontario, it's usually a bit faster to use the Peace Bridge (if coming from Canada), then I-190 > I-90 > NY 400 > US 20A > NY 36 > I-390 > I-86. Then from Binghamton, it depends where in the NYC area you're going whether I-81 > I-380 > I-80 is faster or NY 17 > I-87. The GWB is the approximate cut off point depending on traffic conditions: points south generally use the former route while points north generally use the latter route. So, you could end up using Syracuse-Binghamton, Binghamton-Scranton, Syracuse-Scranton, or not using I-81 at all (except for the I-86 concurrency) depending on your endpoints.

[roadman65]

I think using the bridges and tunnels is more useful than signing the boroughs.

I'm not from there, but my folks did go to Long Island once for the holidays, and knowing how to get to the bridges is most useful as a non-local. If we're insisting that a city needs to be signed, then Elizabeth, NJ / Philadelphia (New Rochelle / New Haven going north) might be used. Or trailblazers to I-95/NJTP. But that might be less than ideal.

Well, PColumbus73, we've been kicking this subject around for years on these boards and everybody's got their own ideas. In a perfect world where message overloading wasn't a problem I'd say put both a borough or city AND the bridge or tunnel name, and that is done in some places.

Interestingly some locations in NYC are now starting to show some of those cities you mentioned as the destinations, including Newark and New Haven. The destinations on NYC area signs have changed many times over the years depending on what theory was being used by the sign engineers at the time. 

I noticed the signs on EB I-278 on the new Kosciusko Bridge have reverted back to using the Midtown Tunnel and Eastern LI again after going MUTCD for a short spell using Manhattan and Riverhead.

[SignBridge]

Coming off the Kosciusko Bridge, those are good destinations. I would use Midtown Tun, Manhattan and Eastern LI. Riverhead makes sense further east when you cross into Suffolk County. It's the county seat and the Expwy ends there. 

[roadman65]

Coming off the Kosciusko Bridge, those are good destinations. I would use Midtown Tun, Manhattan and Eastern LI. Riverhead makes sense further east when you cross into Suffolk County. It's the county seat and the Expwy ends there. 

I have no problem with the use of the Midtown Tunnel or Eastern Long Island. Just pointing out they changed the controls to please the MUTCD and then changed them back.   Plus the pull through uses borough names over the RFK Bridge making the assembly inconsistent.  Plus why list Queens as a pull through at this point when you're now in that borough with I-495 also serving points in Queens. It makes it appear only I-278 serves that particular borough.

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/11kitD59QhESZ8yS7
NYSDOT using the Verrazano Bridge as a control city is more than odd.  First of all this is Nassau County where unlike New York City would use more traditional control cities for the NY parkways on guides. Second the Cross Island does not go anywhere near the Verrazano Bridge.

Yes, the Cross Island becomes the Laurelton Parkway that becomes again the Belt Parkway that goes to it and in reality the Cross Island and Laurelton are indeed part of the Belt Parkway, but still the JFK airport is a long the way and would want that instead.  Plus, with the change in MUTCD you figure NYSDOT would have changed these guides to comply with the changes.

Dear heavens.  Signs are replaced when they're needed -- when damaged or on a contract schedule for replacement.  Changes in the MUTCD do not trigger mass signage updates.

I'm not complaining about the schedule that NYSDOT is on.  Just that it's odd that is used at that particular location.

BTW have you seen the guides for the Belt Parkway on the Southern State?  It uses Brooklyn.  So if they use one place on one and not on the other that shows that they could have went the whole hundred yards when originally signing those access points.

[vdeane]

I'm not complaining about the schedule that NYSDOT is on.  Just that it's odd that is used at that particular location.

BTW have you seen the guides for the Belt Parkway on the Southern State?  It uses Brooklyn.  So if they use one place on one and not on the other that shows that they could have went the whole hundred yards when originally signing those access points.

The Southern State Parkway is Region 10.  I am not convinced that Region 10 maintains the portion of the Cross Island Parkway that passes through Nassau County.  There are no obvious pavement changes that would indicate a change in jurisdiction, the signage remains on NYCDOT-specs, and what few reference markers are there have a region/county code of X5 instead of 03.  So it's likely a NYCDOT sign, not a Region 10 sign.

[D-Dey65]

Does anybody have any info on the damage to Suffolk County due to the recent flash floods besides the washout of Harbor Road in Stony Brook? And regarding that washout, was that over by the historic Grist Mill?

[kernals12]

Fascinating photos of the planned riverfront development that was to go with the cancelled Hudson River Expressway from the Reporter Dispatch May 7, 1969

[steviep24]

The new Tappan Zee Bridge already needs to have many of its cables replaced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXcDaI0sFW8

[The Ghostbuster]

Why can't they do things right the first time? Did nobody inspect the cables before they installed them? They should thank their lucky stars that only the durability of the cables was defective, and not something that would cause the bridge to prematurely collapse.

[D-Dey65]

Fascinating photos of the planned riverfront development that was to go with the cancelled Hudson River Expressway from the Reporter Dispatch May 7, 1969

So, the old New York Central Water Route would've survived, just under a tunnel. That makes more sense. I suppose some have mistakenly believed it was going to be completely eliminated by the HRX. Too bad it wasn't built.

New topic; Does anybody have any maps of the formerly proposed "Miracle Mile Bypass" for NY 25A? 

[kernals12]

Fascinating photos of the planned riverfront development that was to go with the cancelled Hudson River Expressway from the Reporter Dispatch May 7, 1969

So, the old New York Central Water Route would've survived, just under a tunnel. That makes more sense. I suppose some have mistakenly believed it was going to be completely eliminated by the HRX. Too bad it wasn't built.

New topic; Does anybody have any maps of the formerly proposed "Miracle Mile Bypass" for NY 25A? 

Cancelling it might have been for the best. It would've dumped a lot of traffic on the already congested Cross-Westchester Expressway

[D-Dey65]

Fascinating photos of the planned riverfront development that was to go with the cancelled Hudson River Expressway from the Reporter Dispatch May 7, 1969

So, the old New York Central Water Route would've survived, just under a tunnel. That makes more sense. I suppose some have mistakenly believed it was going to be completely eliminated by the HRX. Too bad it wasn't built.

New topic; Does anybody have any maps of the formerly proposed "Miracle Mile Bypass" for NY 25A? 

Cancelling it might have been for the best. It would've dumped a lot of traffic on the already congested Cross-Westchester Expressway

Perhaps, but it also turned the Croton Expressway into a short, stubby dead end.