New York

[vdeane]

New York redid its 511 site this week.  Honestly, I prefer the old version.  It didn't require keeping a big sidebar on the left side to see anything, and the view was more customizable - if you selected things like "incidents" or "closures" or "construction" it would break things down by "incident closure", "construction closure", "incident", etc.  Now it doesn't, making it harder to see these things at a glance.  Is that closure routine construction, or some incident closing the road?  Might not seem important, but if I'm driving to Rochester, I know that the Thruway mainline isn't going to be closed for construction, so I would just view the incident closures and could tell at a glance if there was anything in the area.  Now I have to just view "closures" or "incidents" and mouse over each and every one to see what it is.  And clicking on something now no longer brings up a pop-up dialog - now you have to look in the sidebar for that, hence why the sidebar needs to be out rather than using that area for more map space.  Is NY 9J closed from the rains earlier this year?  Google Maps says yes.  The old 511 site says yes.  The new 511 site give no indication of such, so it appears to be missing information.  And some things that are marked as "closed" when there are lane shifts, making things confusing for someone unfamiliar with the area.  If I was unfamiliar with I-490, for instance, I would assume that I would have to get off at exit 27 and get back on at exit 26, because it says I-490 west is "closed" (although the line is on the eastbound lanes).  This is supposed to be "easier to use"?

It's not all bad, though.  I do like that these layers now have polygon information highlighting the area affected instead of just points.  They also added border wait times around Buffalo, although I wish they would extend that to the entire border.  And the cameras now have buttons to click to go to the adjacent cameras on the route, so you can click one and then keep clicking through all of them in an are you want to look at rather than clicking points on the map each time.  That will be handy for monitoring the construction around Syracuse.  Although there's no message if a camera is unavailable - you just stay stuck with the spinning circle as it tries to load the video (the still images that used to load until you asked for video are gone).

[webny99]

The one I'm going to find the most interesting is Interstate 495. Presently, the exits are numbered 13-73. Exit 13 will likely become 1A, and Exit 73 would probably be numbered 71B.

Yeah, I'll be interested in all the 3di's and (especially) I-86/NY 17. At this point, it seems likely that it will get mileage based numbers by the time it's completed, if not before.


In other news, the I-590 NB on-ramp at Exit 2 (NY 31) is temporarily closed between phases of the bridge replacement project. I guess they needed longer than a weekend closure, but I hope they can wrap up this weekend because traffic has been a disaster with freeway-level traffic volumes (10k+) filtering through local streets to Exit 3. NY 65 was backed up to Allens Creek yesterday afternoon, and Elmwood EB was much busier than usual as well. There was also a long lineup on NY 31 to enter I-590 southbound, which strikes me as traffic either U-turning at Exit 1 (smart move, considering the DDI functions much like a Texas U-turn and you can often slip through without stopping), or opting for I-390 instead of I-590/I-490 to get to the west side.

This has also proved another longstanding theory I've had, which is that when I-590 NB is free flowing through Exit 5, it makes traffic worse on NY 590. Yesterday was particularly bad, with the I-490 EB merge, the Exit 7 merge, and the backup for Exit 10B all being much worse than normal (the latter had the mainline completely stopped all the way to Exit 8!).

[jp the roadgeek]

The one I'm going to find the most interesting is Interstate 495. Presently, the exits are numbered 13-73. Exit 13 will likely become 1A, and Exit 73 would probably be numbered 71B.

Yeah, I'll be interested in all the 3di's and (especially) I-86/NY 17. At this point, it seems likely that it will get mileage based numbers by the time it's completed, if not before.

Pretty accurate with the I-495 exits.  I gave the Exit 1's westbound to the Manhattan portal exits.  I have CR 58 as plain Exit 71 with the NY 25 exit being Exit 70. As long as NYSDOT doesn't do with I-495 what CTDOT did with CT 11 and include the ghost mileage across Manhattan to the Lincoln Tunnel.

For I-86/NY 17, I have the first exit as 1.  As for the heavy hitters: I-390 is 145, I-99 is 168A/168, I-81 is 244A (EB to NB) and 249 (WB to SB), I-84 is 363 A/B, and the eastern terminus is 381 A/B

[The Ghostbuster]

Since New York is renumbering exits very slowly, it remains to be seen which route will undergo renumbering next. We're in for a long wait.

[SignBridge]

The one I'm going to find the most interesting is Interstate 495. Presently, the exits are numbered 13-73. Exit 13 will likely become 1A, and Exit 73 would probably be numbered 71B.

Probably not begin with 1 or 1A. You see I-495 was originally supposed to run through the Lincoln Tunnel across Manhattan on the Mid-Manhattan Expwy (never built) and thru the Q.M. Tunnel. Mileage based exit numbers begin at the state line which would be in the Lincoln Tunnel. So the first exit outside the Q.M.Tunnel would be whatever mile-marker it is from the middle of the Hudson River, maybe 3 ?

[machias]

I still think NYSDOT should also use the renumbering work to include roadways with unnumbered interchanges right now, like US 219, NY 400, NY 33. These three have enough interchanges to make it worthwhile.

[vdeane]

The one I'm going to find the most interesting is Interstate 495. Presently, the exits are numbered 13-73. Exit 13 will likely become 1A, and Exit 73 would probably be numbered 71B.

Probably not begin with 1 or 1A. You see I-495 was originally supposed to run through the Lincoln Tunnel across Manhattan on the Mid-Manhattan Expwy (never built) and thru the Q.M. Tunnel. Mileage based exit numbers begin at the state line which would be in the Lincoln Tunnel. So the first exit outside the Q.M.Tunnel would be whatever mile-marker it is from the middle of the Hudson River, maybe 3 ?

Those plans are long dead and I-495 no longer exists in the Lincoln Tunnel (and whether the tunnel is NY 495 or has no number at all depends on who you ask).  Why would it include mileage from the cancelled portion?  Especially as it presently doesn't have mile markers?  To be honest, I'm not sure that the reference markers even acknowledge it existing in Manhattan at all; the first one I can find in GIS is 495I X5M1 3000 where the Queens-Midtown Tunnel reaches land on the Queens side.

[SignBridge]

The one I'm going to find the most interesting is Interstate 495. Presently, the exits are numbered 13-73. Exit 13 will likely become 1A, and Exit 73 would probably be numbered 71B.

Probably not begin with 1 or 1A. You see I-495 was originally supposed to run through the Lincoln Tunnel across Manhattan on the Mid-Manhattan Expwy (never built) and thru the Q.M. Tunnel. Mileage based exit numbers begin at the state line which would be in the Lincoln Tunnel. So the first exit outside the Q.M.Tunnel would be whatever mile-marker it is from the middle of the Hudson River, maybe 3 ?

Those plans are long dead and I-495 no longer exists in the Lincoln Tunnel (and whether the tunnel is NY 495 or has no number at all depends on who you ask).  Why would it include mileage from the cancelled portion?  Especially as it presently doesn't have mile markers?  To be honest, I'm not sure that the reference markers even acknowledge it existing in Manhattan at all; the first one I can find in GIS is 495I X5M1 3000 where the Queens-Midtown Tunnel reaches land on the Queens side.

Why? Because that's the wacky way these things seem to get done, with that kind of reasoning..... For example: why is the Long Island Expwy still signed with an even number (495) when it is actually a spur, not a loop and should be an odd numbered Interstate for that reason.

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 495 originally stopped at Interstate 295 (formerly Interstate 78). The segment east of there was NY 495 until 1983, when Long Island successfully lobbied to have the Interstate 495 designation extended eastward. There were also extension proposals on both ends: the first, of course, was the unbuilt Mid-Manhattan Expressway connecting the Lincoln Tunnel with the Queens-Midtown Tunnel (NJ 495 was Interstate 495 until 1989 for this reason). Interstate 495 was also proposed to cross the Long Island Sound to connect with Interstate 95 in either Connecticut or Rhode Island, but all extensions were canceled.

[vdeane]

Why? Because that's the wacky way these things seem to get done, with that kind of reasoning..... For example: why is the Long Island Expwy still signed with an even number (495) when it is actually a spur, not a loop and should be an odd numbered Interstate for that reason.

They don't renumber interstates when these things happen.  Look at how I-278 never meets I-78, or how I-585 no longer meets I-85 (or any other interstate).  In the opposite directions, there's I-520, which became a beltway of Augusta.

Why?  Because nobody cares outside of us roadgeeks.  They're not going to include mileage from a cancelled portion of the road to make a statement about how "using an even 3di for a spur is wrong".

Interstate 495 originally stopped at Interstate 295 (formerly Interstate 78). The segment east of there was NY 495 until 1983, when Long Island successfully lobbied to have the Interstate 495 designation extended eastward. There were also extension proposals on both ends: the first, of course, was the unbuilt Mid-Manhattan Expressway connecting the Lincoln Tunnel with the Queens-Midtown Tunnel (NJ 495 was Interstate 495 until 1989 for this reason. Interstate 495 was also proposed to cross the Long Island Sound to connect with Interstate 95 in either Connecticut or Rhode Island, but all extensions were canceled.

And depending on who you ask, I-495 has a gap between I-278 and the Grand Central Parkway that, though it is signed I-495, isn't officially part of the route (much like I-695 over the Key Bridge used to be).

[dgolub]

They don't renumber interstates when these things happen.  Look at how I-278 never meets I-78, or how I-585 no longer meets I-85 (or any other interstate).  In the opposite directions, there's I-520, which became a beltway of Augusta.

Why?  Because nobody cares outside of us roadgeeks.  They're not going to include mileage from a cancelled portion of the road to make a statement about how "using an even 3di for a spur is wrong".

Also, if they did anything with an eye toward a possible extension across Manhattan, the NIMBY crowd in New York City would go absolutely crazy, like what they've been doing with the disaster area in Brooklyn Heights over the last few years.

[The Ghostbuster]

The only way to build a road across Manhattan would be in a deep-bored tunnel. Even then, it would have to avoid existing utilities, pipes, and subway tunnels, which may keep such a tunnel a Fictional Highway.

[SignBridge]

My original point in my first post was only that NYSDOT might base mileage-revised LI Expwy exit numbers on the original plans for I495, not on what actually was or wasn't built. And I say that because state DOT's sometimes do corny, arbitrary  things like that based on technicalities, not reality.

[kalvado]

My original point in my first post was only that NYSDOT might base mileage-revised LI Expwy exit numbers on the original plans for I495, not on what actually was or wasn't built. And I say that because state DOT's sometimes do corny, arbitrary  things like that based on technicalities, not reality.

... to create a solution looking for the problem...

[jp the roadgeek]

My original point in my first post was only that NYSDOT might base mileage-revised LI Expwy exit numbers on the original plans for I495, not on what actually was or wasn't built. And I say that because state DOT's sometimes do corny, arbitrary  things like that based on technicalities, not reality.

... to create a solution looking for the problem...

As I stated in my post, there is precedent for doing it. When CTDOT added mileposts and changed the exit numbers on CT 11, they did so based on the mileage from where it was supposed to meet I-95 in Waterford, even though the road has ended just south of MP 10.4 since 1972.  Plans for expansion have officially been cancelled, yet they continue to log the route as complete.  It's absolutely dumb, but it has happened and it can happen with I-495.

[Rothman]

My original point in my first post was only that NYSDOT might base mileage-revised LI Expwy exit numbers on the original plans for I495, not on what actually was or wasn't built. And I say that because state DOT's sometimes do corny, arbitrary  things like that based on technicalities, not reality.

... to create a solution looking for the problem...

As I stated in my post, there is precedent for doing it. When CTDOT added mileposts and changed the exit numbers on CT 11, they did so based on the mileage from where it was supposed to meet I-95 in Waterford, even though the road has ended just south of MP 10.4 since 1972.  Plans for expansion have officially been cancelled, yet they continue to log the route as complete.  It's absolutely dumb, but it has happened and it can happen with I-495.

*shrug*

Given what forum members have thought about other NY conversions, I'm sure there will be griping over whatever new numbers are put on the LIE...which I'm not sure will happen anytime soon...

[vdeane]

My original point in my first post was only that NYSDOT might base mileage-revised LI Expwy exit numbers on the original plans for I495, not on what actually was or wasn't built. And I say that because state DOT's sometimes do corny, arbitrary  things like that based on technicalities, not reality.

... to create a solution looking for the problem...

As I stated in my post, there is precedent for doing it. When CTDOT added mileposts and changed the exit numbers on CT 11, they did so based on the mileage from where it was supposed to meet I-95 in Waterford, even though the road has ended just south of MP 10.4 since 1972.  Plans for expansion have officially been cancelled, yet they continue to log the route as complete.  It's absolutely dumb, but it has happened and it can happen with I-495.

As I understand it, CT 11's extension isn't nearly as dead as I-495's.

[The Ghostbuster]

The CT 11 extension was permanently canceled in 2016. Here is a story that was written about it 2 1/2 years ago: https://diversitycg.com/why-connecticuts-highway-to-nowhere-may-never-be-finished/.

[Rothman]

The CT 11 extension was permanently canceled in 2016. Here is a story that was written about it 2 1/2 years ago: https://diversitycg.com/why-connecticuts-highway-to-nowhere-may-never-be-finished/.

*shrug*

I don't see anything in the article that says the cancellation was permanent.

[vdeane]

My original point in my first post was only that NYSDOT might base mileage-revised LI Expwy exit numbers on the original plans for I495, not on what actually was or wasn't built. And I say that because state DOT's sometimes do corny, arbitrary  things like that based on technicalities, not reality.

... to create a solution looking for the problem...

As I stated in my post, there is precedent for doing it. When CTDOT added mileposts and changed the exit numbers on CT 11, they did so based on the mileage from where it was supposed to meet I-95 in Waterford, even though the road has ended just south of MP 10.4 since 1972.  Plans for expansion have officially been cancelled, yet they continue to log the route as complete.  It's absolutely dumb, but it has happened and it can happen with I-495.

Well, I think we can rule out this happening here.  I discovered quite by accident today that the 511 displays for the VMS signs reveal the cumulative mileage of a route at the location of the sign.  It's actually a fun little easter egg, to see the real mileage of I-90 and I-87, or state route freeways that have other mile markers posted (presumably... there aren't any showing right now).  Conversely, it also shows the mileage of I-690 on its own, not including NY 690 (which Region 3 did attempt to use as a basis for mile-based exit numbers on that route initially, before thinking better of it and including NY 690 to match the posted mileage).  The VMS sign on I-495 at 31st Place around Long Island City shows as mile 2.3, so measuring backwards from there, the official mile 0 is shown to be 2nd Avenue in Manhattan.  Given that using a different mileage set would only serve to further piss off people in NYC that already think NYSDOT is too highway oriented (which has sunk projects in the past, most recently the five bridges project in the Bronx), I think it's safe to say that, if/when I-495 gets mile-base exit numbers, they'll be starting at 2nd Avenue, not the middle of the Lincoln Tunnel.

An interesting unrelated tidbet?  I-587 is inventoried backwards, starting at NY 32, just like NY 28.

[SignBridge]

My original point in my first post was only that NYSDOT might base mileage-revised LI Expwy exit numbers on the original plans for I495, not on what actually was or wasn't built. And I say that because state DOT's sometimes do corny, arbitrary  things like that based on technicalities, not reality.

... to create a solution looking for the problem...

As I stated in my post, there is precedent for doing it. When CTDOT added mileposts and changed the exit numbers on CT 11, they did so based on the mileage from where it was supposed to meet I-95 in Waterford, even though the road has ended just south of MP 10.4 since 1972.  Plans for expansion have officially been cancelled, yet they continue to log the route as complete.  It's absolutely dumb, but it has happened and it can happen with I-495.

Well, I think we can rule out this happening here.  I discovered quite by accident today that the 511 displays for the VMS signs reveal the cumulative mileage of a route at the location of the sign.  It's actually a fun little easter egg, to see the real mileage of I-90 and I-87, or state route freeways that have other mile markers posted (presumably... there aren't any showing right now).  Conversely, it also shows the mileage of I-690 on its own, not including NY 690 (which Region 3 did attempt to use as a basis for mile-based exit numbers on that route initially, before thinking better of it and including NY 690 to match the posted mileage).  The VMS sign on I-495 at 31st Place around Long Island City shows as mile 2.3, so measuring backwards from there, the official mile 0 is shown to be 2nd Avenue in Manhattan.  Given that using a different mileage set would only serve to further piss off people in NYC that already think NYSDOT is too highway oriented (which has sunk projects in the past, most recently the five bridges project in the Bronx), I think it's safe to say that, if/when I-495 gets mile-base exit numbers, they'll be starting at 2nd Avenue, not the middle of the Lincoln Tunnel.

An interesting unrelated tidbet?  I-587 is inventoried backwards, starting at NY 32, just like NY 28.

Okay....... so NYS DOT's official designation of where I-495 begins is roughly at the west end of the Queens-Midtown Tunnel. Works for me.

[The Ghostbuster]

Since Interstate 495 doesn't have mile markers posted along the route, it would be hard to tell where mile 0 is. Second Ave. is probably the best place to start.

[D-Dey65]

If there's any example of an unnecessary highway project on Long Island, it's the Crooked Hill Road (Suffolk CR 13) off-ramp leading from the east-to-southbound ramp between the I-495 and the Sagtikos State Parkway. Honestly, there's no reason for this to exist. If you want to go to Crooked Hill Road from the L.I.E., get off at the former Exit 52 to Commack Road (Suffolk CR 4), and just go straight to the end. Unless they're planning to convert the ramps for Commack Road into a SPUI and/or a DDI, the new ramp is a total waste, and a road hazard.

[roadman65]

I read someplace that I-88 in Oneonta has mile based exit numbers?  It was on untrustworthy Social Media probably.

Does anyone know for sure if NYSDOT started on that particular route yet?

[cockroachking]

I read someplace that I-88 in Oneonta has mile based exit numbers?  It was on untrustworthy Social Media probably.

Does anyone know for sure if NYSDOT started on that particular route yet?

Yes.

https://www.facebook.com/gribblenation/posts/the-exit-numbers-along-i-88-in-upstate-new-york-are-currently-being-changed-from/1747847010680481/

FWIW I was on I-88 that same day between Bainbridge and Sidney, and those exits had converted as well.