new york to convert to mileage based exit numbering

[michael e dziatkowicz]

Finally New York has committed to changing their exit numbering to mileage
based. They don't have a timeframe as of yet because they are waiting for
the federal dot or state legislature to pass rules requiring the conversion
and hopefully provide funding for the changeover.

"New York is one of only a few states (including Delaware, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island) that still use a
consecutive numbering system while the remainder of the country has
converted to a reference post numbering system. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that now is the appropriate time to
complete the nationwide switchover to a reference post numbering system. It
has included language in the proposed 2009 National MUTCD which would
eliminate the consecutive numbering option. If enacted, the remaining
states would have up to 10 years to convert. Concurrently, state
legislation (S. 5358) would require that a reference post numbering system
be implemented by January 1, 2010. However, that bill did not pass in 2008
and was not considered in the recently concluded 2009 legislative session.



New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M. At a time when resources are scarce and there are demands to
repair bridges and deteriorating pavement, exit numbering is not seen as an
overall high priority in comparison. While the existing system could be
better in providing additional motorist information, it does accurately
identify interchange locations. It is similar to having a $15K vehicle
versus a $50K vehicle; both provide basic transportation. With the two exit
numbering systems, you can find your destination, but one does not come with
the enhancements."

[Froggie]

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
Finally New York has committed to changing their exit numbering to mileage
based. They don't have a timeframe as of yet because they are waiting for
the federal dot or state legislature to pass rules requiring the conversion
and hopefully provide funding for the changeover.
"New York is one of only a few states (including Delaware, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island) that still use a
consecutive numbering system while the remainder of the country has
converted to a reference post numbering system.  The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that now is the appropriate time to
complete the nationwide switchover to a reference post numbering system.  It
has included language in the proposed 2009 National MUTCD which would
eliminate the consecutive numbering option.  If enacted, the remaining
states would have up to 10 years to convert.  Concurrently, state
legislation (S. 5358) would require that a reference post numbering system
be implemented by January 1, 2010.   However, that bill did not pass in 2008
and was not considered in the recently concluded 2009 legislative session.
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M.  At a time when resources are scarce and there are demands to
repair bridges and deteriorating pavement, exit numbering is not seen as an
overall high priority in comparison.  While the existing system could be
better in providing additional motorist information, it does accurately
identify interchange locations.  It is similar to having a $15K vehicle
versus a $50K vehicle; both provide basic transportation.  With the two exit
numbering systems, you can find your destination, but one does not come with
the enhancements."

Source/link?

Froggie | Alexandria, VA | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/

[Marc Fannin]

Post by Froggie

[quote from unidentified source] "...Concurrently, state
legislation (S. 5358) would require that a reference post numbering system
be implemented by January 1, 2010.   However, that bill did not pass in 2008
and was not considered in the recently concluded 2009 legislative session." [snip]

Source/link?

I happened to find another bill on this, composed later and apparently
still active (the NYS site doesn't appear to have a bill status
option):

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S00523&sh=t
Senate Bill 523, '09-'10 Regular Sessions, 1/7/09 [nice URL, huh?]

_________________________________________________________________________
Marc Fannin|musxf579 @hotmail.com|http://roadfan.com/ (m.t.r FAQ, etc.)

[michael e dziatkowicz]

"The Thruway could be adapted in a manner similar to the Ohio Turnpike. The
exit
numbering currently starts at the southerly end of the Thruway near New York
City.
Numbering is allowed to start at either the western or southern termini.
Since 190 is
approximately twice the length of 187 on the Thruway and because there is a
series of
toll roads that traverse over the 190 corridor from west to east, the
numbering of exits
on the Thruway should begin at the western terminus as well and proceed
easterly and
southerly towards New York City.
The following is a listing of the approximate exit number for several key
Thruway
interchanges:
Existing
Consecutive
Location Possible
Reference Post
Exit # Exit #
Exit 61 Ripley EXIT 1
Exit 53 Buffalo @ I 190 EXIT 69
Exit 50 Niagara Falls @ I 290 EXIT 75
Exit 46 Rochester @ I 390 EXIT 133
Exit 36 Syracuse @ I 81 EXIT 213
Exit 31 Utica EXIT 263
Exit 24 Albany @ I 87 EXIT 347
Exit 19 Kingston EXIT 404
Exit 16 Harriman EXIT 450
Exit 15 Suffern EXIT 465
Exit 8 Cross Westchester Expressway EXIT 484
Exit 1 Yonkers EXIT 495 "

"How the Berkshire Spur would be treated would require some additional
thought and
input from the Thruway. The traditional reference post numbering system
would likely
cause confusion on a toll ticket . Perhaps some prefix designation, as is
currently in
place, would have to be retained.
At Exit 24 of the Thruway, "Toll Free 187" (Adirondack Northway) proceeds
north. The
following is a sampling of how the toll free portion of 187 could be treated
.
Existing
Consecutive
Location Possible
Reference Post
Exit
Exit
#
1 Washington Avenue
Exit #
---------------
EXIT 148
Exit 2 NY 5 (Wolf Road) EXIT 149
Exit 3 Proposed Interchange EXIT 150
Exit 4 Albany Airport EXIT 151
Exit 5 NY 155 EXIT 152
Exit 6 NY 2 EXIT 153
Exit 7 NY 7 ("Alternate Route 7") EXIT 154
Exit 8 Vischer Ferry EXIT 158
Exit 8A Grooms Road EXIT 159
Exit 9 NY 146 EXIT 161
Exit 10 Ushers Road EXIT 164
Exit 11 Round Lake Road EXIT 166
Exit 12 NY 67 EXIT 168
Additional Exits
Exit 15 NY 50 EXIT 178
Exit 18 Glens Falls EXIT 192
Exit 22 Lake George EXIT 202
Exit 30 US 9 (Keene Valley) EXIT 252
Exit 36 NY 3 @ Plattsburgh EXIT 298
Exit 43 US 9 @ Champlain EXIT 323 "

there are some examples of how NYSDOT proposes to address the changing
numbers on the thruway problem.

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
Finally New York has committed to changing their exit numbering to mileage
based. They don't have a timeframe as of yet because they are waiting for
the federal dot or state legislature to pass rules requiring the conversion
and hopefully provide funding for the changeover.
"New York is one of only a few states (including Delaware, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island) that still use a
consecutive numbering system while the remainder of the country has
converted to a reference post numbering system. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that now is the appropriate time to
complete the nationwide switchover to a reference post numbering system.
It
has included language in the proposed 2009 National MUTCD which would
eliminate the consecutive numbering option. If enacted, the remaining
states would have up to 10 years to convert. Concurrently, state
legislation (S. 5358) would require that a reference post numbering system
be implemented by January 1, 2010. However, that bill did not pass in 2008
and was not considered in the recently concluded 2009 legislative session.
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M. At a time when resources are scarce and there are demands to
repair bridges and deteriorating pavement, exit numbering is not seen as an
overall high priority in comparison. While the existing system could be
better in providing additional motorist information, it does accurately
identify interchange locations. It is similar to having a $15K vehicle
versus a $50K vehicle; both provide basic transportation. With the two
exit
numbering systems, you can find your destination, but one does not come with
the enhancements."

Source/link?

Froggie | Alexandria, VA | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/

[Froggie]

<snip most of post>

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
there are some examples of how NYSDOT proposes to address the changing
numbers on the thruway problem.

You still haven't provided a source or weblink for your information.

Froggie  |  Alexandria, VA  |  http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/

[michael e dziatkowicz]

i tried to post the files here but the server rejected them.
<snip most of post>

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
there are some examples of how NYSDOT proposes to address the changing
numbers on the thruway problem.

You still haven't provided a source or weblink for your information.

Froggie | Alexandria, VA | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
"The Thruway could be adapted in a manner similar to the Ohio Turnpike. The
exit
numbering currently starts at the southerly end of the Thruway near New York
City.
Numbering is allowed to start at either the western or southern termini.
Since 190 is
approximately twice the length of 187 on the Thruway and because there is a
series of
toll roads that traverse over the 190 corridor from west to east, the
numbering of exits
on the Thruway should begin at the western terminus as well and proceed
easterly and
southerly towards New York City.
The following is a listing of the approximate exit number for several key
Thruway
Existing
Consecutive
Location Possible
Reference Post
Exit # Exit #
Exit 61 Ripley EXIT 1
Exit 31 Utica EXIT 263
Exit 19 Kingston EXIT 404
Exit 16 Harriman EXIT 450
Exit 15 Suffern EXIT 465
Exit 8 Cross Westchester Expressway EXIT 484
Exit 1 Yonkers EXIT 495 "
"How the Berkshire Spur would be treated would require some additional
thought and
input from the Thruway. The traditional reference post numbering system
would likely
cause confusion on a toll ticket . Perhaps some prefix designation, as is
currently in
place, would have to be retained.
At Exit 24 of the Thruway, "Toll Free 187" (Adirondack Northway) proceeds
north. The
following is a sampling of how the toll free portion of 187 could be treated
.
Existing
Consecutive
Location Possible
Reference Post
Exit
Exit
#
1 Washington Avenue
Exit #
---------------
EXIT 148
Exit 2 NY 5 (Wolf Road) EXIT 149
Exit 3 Proposed Interchange EXIT 150
Exit 4 Albany Airport EXIT 151
Exit 5 NY 155 EXIT 152
Exit 6 NY 2 EXIT 153
Exit 7 NY 7 ("Alternate Route 7") EXIT 154
Exit 8 Vischer Ferry EXIT 158
Exit 8A Grooms Road EXIT 159
Exit 9 NY 146 EXIT 161
Exit 10 Ushers Road EXIT 164
Exit 11 Round Lake Road EXIT 166
Exit 12 NY 67 EXIT 168
Additional Exits
Exit 15 NY 50 EXIT 178
Exit 18 Glens Falls EXIT 192
Exit 22 Lake George EXIT 202
Exit 30 US 9 (Keene Valley) EXIT 252
there are some examples of how NYSDOT proposes to address the changing

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
Finally New York has committed to changing their exit numbering to mileage
based. They don't have a timeframe as of yet because they are waiting for
the federal dot or state legislature to pass rules requiring the conversion
and hopefully provide funding for the changeover.
"New York is one of only a few states (including Delaware, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island) that still use a
consecutive numbering system while the remainder of the country has
converted to a reference post numbering system. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that now is the appropriate time to
complete the nationwide switchover to a reference post numbering system.
It
has included language in the proposed 2009 National MUTCD which would
eliminate the consecutive numbering option. If enacted, the remaining
states would have up to 10 years to convert. Concurrently, state
legislation (S. 5358) would require that a reference post numbering system
be implemented by January 1, 2010. However, that bill did not pass in 2008
and was not considered in the recently concluded 2009 legislative session.
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M. At a time when resources are scarce and there are demands to
repair bridges and deteriorating pavement, exit numbering is not seen as an
overall high priority in comparison. While the existing system could be
better in providing additional motorist information, it does accurately
identify interchange locations. It is similar to having a $15K vehicle
versus a $50K vehicle; both provide basic transportation. With the two
exit
numbering systems, you can find your destination, but one does not come with
the enhancements."

The Thruway should be two separate numbering systems, one for I-90 and
the other for I-87, and the Berkshire Section can carry the I-90
numbering.

But like I say, I will believe it when I see contracts let

[otto yamamoto]

Post by r***@gmail.com
The Thruway should be two separate numbering systems, one for I-90 and
the other for I-87, and the Berkshire Section can carry the I-90
numbering.
But like I say, I will believe it when I see contracts let

And when do you think that will be? NYSDOT's been dicking around trying
to avoid doing this for years. They'll find a way to weasel out of it for
as long as possible. I don't think I'll live to see it.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by otto yamamoto

Post by r***@gmail.com
The Thruway should be two separate numbering systems, one for I-90 and
the other for I-87, and the Berkshire Section can carry the I-90
numbering.
But like I say, I will believe it when I see contracts let

And when do you think that will be? NYSDOT's been dicking around trying
to avoid doing this for years. They'll find a way to weasel out of it for
as long as possible. I don't think I'll live to see it.
--
Otto Yamamoto

unless and until there is some sort of enforcement mechanism from the
federales, you are correct

it will be about the same time a direct connection is built at
Breezewood

and about the same time CA finishes their exit numbering

of the three, CA will probably happen first, maybe

[Jeff Morrison]

Post by r***@gmail.com
The Thruway should be two separate numbering systems, one for I-90 and
the other for I-87, and the Berkshire Section can carry the I-90
numbering.
But like I say, I will believe it when I see contracts let

Nah, too logical. :-P Of course, this would be the perfect time to do
such a conversion.

Would there be any chance of the Berkshire spur getting an odd x87 or
x90 designation, since that's the only part of the Thruway that
doesn't have any interstate number? (see: I-335, Kansas Turnpike)

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Jeff Morrison

Post by r***@gmail.com
The Thruway should be two separate numbering systems, one for I-90 and
the other for I-87, and the Berkshire Section can carry the I-90
numbering.
But like I say, I will believe it when I see contracts let

Nah, too logical. :-P Of course, this would be the perfect time to do
such a conversion.
Would there be any chance of the Berkshire spur getting an odd x87 or
x90 designation, since that's the only part of the Thruway that
doesn't have any interstate number? (see: I-335, Kansas Turnpike)

$10 million buckeroooskis, are you serious?

and an 3di for ONE interchange, for about 12 miles

are you serious?

[Steve Sobol]

In article <6670e5f2-3a7d-4b41-8ba5-826dac041c13
@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

Post by r***@gmail.com
$10 million buckeroooskis, are you serious?
and an 3di for ONE interchange, for about 12 miles
are you serious?

Crazier things have happened before.

I-490, Cleveland. About 2 miles.

I-175 and I-375 coming out of Tampa International Airport. Even shorter,
according to a friend of mine who lives down there.

Now, you'll undoubtedly point out that I-490 was supposed to be longer,
and you'll be correct. I don't know what the backstory is behind the
Florida 3di's.

[michael e dziatkowicz]

i think i-579 in pittsburgh is 1.5 or 2 miles long.

Post by Steve Sobol
In article <6670e5f2-3a7d-4b41-8ba5-826dac041c13
@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

Post by r***@gmail.com
$10 million buckeroooskis, are you serious?
and an 3di for ONE interchange, for about 12 miles
are you serious?

Crazier things have happened before.
I-490, Cleveland. About 2 miles.
I-175 and I-375 coming out of Tampa International Airport. Even shorter,
according to a friend of mine who lives down there.
Now, you'll undoubtedly point out that I-490 was supposed to be longer,
and you'll be correct. I don't know what the backstory is behind the
Florida 3di's.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA

[Larry Sheldon]

Post by Steve Sobol
In article <6670e5f2-3a7d-4b41-8ba5-826dac041c13
@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

Post by r***@gmail.com
$10 million buckeroooskis, are you serious?
and an 3di for ONE interchange, for about 12 miles
are you serious?

Crazier things have happened before.
I-490, Cleveland. About 2 miles.
I-175 and I-375 coming out of Tampa International Airport. Even shorter,
according to a friend of mine who lives down there.
Now, you'll undoubtedly point out that I-490 was supposed to be longer,
and you'll be correct. I don't know what the backstory is behind the
Florida 3di's.

Is I 380 still around? It can't be more than a mile can it? Doesn't go
anywhere, doesn't come from anyplace. I have no idea what it cost,
although I lived in the area when it was built.


Ah yes, the Quentin L Kopp Freeway (I think it was the Portola Freeway
back when although Portola is clear on the other side of the Sierra.....
3.3 miles.

And does not connect to I 80.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_380_%28California%29
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

[Alex Tsiatas]

Post by Steve Sobol
In article <6670e5f2-3a7d-4b41-8ba5-826dac041c13
@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

Post by r***@gmail.com
$10 million buckeroooskis, are you serious?
and an 3di for ONE interchange, for about 12 miles
are you serious?

Crazier things have happened before.
I-490, Cleveland. About 2 miles.
I-175 and I-375 coming out of Tampa International Airport. Even shorter,
according to a friend of mine who lives down there.
Now, you'll undoubtedly point out that I-490 was supposed to be longer,
and you'll be correct. I don't know what the backstory is behind the
Florida 3di's.

Is I 380 still around?  It can't be more than a mile can it?  Doesn't go
anywhere, doesn't come from anyplace.  I have no idea what it cost,
although I lived in the area when it was built.
Ah yes, the Quentin L Kopp Freeway (I think it was the Portola Freeway
back when although Portola is clear on the other side of the Sierra.....
  3.3 miles.
And does not connect to I 80.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_380_%28California%29

380 is pretty well-used these days. It's a good way to switch between
280 and 101 if one has a lot of traffic, or if your destination is
better served by 280 (i.e. the western half of SF via 19th ave), or by
101 (i.e. SFO airport).

--
Requiescas in pace o email              Two identifying characteristics
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio        Infallibility, and the ability to
                                              learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
       http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
       http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

[necromancer - ECHM]

Post by Steve Sobol
I-175 and I-375 coming out of Tampa International Airport. Even shorter,
according to a friend of mine who lives down there.

Actually they are in St. Pete, near Tropicana Field.
See: http://tinyurl.com/ozq2f2

And they connect to IH275 instead of IH75...

--
necromancer - ECHM

[Steve Sobol]

Post by necromancer - ECHM

Post by Steve Sobol
I-175 and I-375 coming out of Tampa International Airport. Even shorter,
according to a friend of mine who lives down there.

Actually they are in St. Pete, near Tropicana Field.
See: http://tinyurl.com/ozq2f2

weird, my friend told me they were near the airport. Of course, it was
years ago, and I might just not be remembering it correctly.

[trivial guy]

Post by Steve Sobol

Post by necromancer - ECHM

Post by Steve Sobol
I-175 and I-375 coming out of Tampa International Airport. Even shorter,
according to a friend of mine who lives down there.

Actually they are in St. Pete, near Tropicana Field.
See: http://tinyurl.com/ozq2f2

weird, my friend told me they were near the airport. Of course, it was
years ago, and I might just not be remembering it correctly.

They are near the St. Pete airport, not the Tampa one.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by trivial guy

Post by Steve Sobol

Post by necromancer - ECHM

Post by Steve Sobol
I-175 and I-375 coming out of Tampa International Airport. Even shorter,
according to a friend of mine who lives down there.

Actually they are in St. Pete, near Tropicana Field.
See:http://tinyurl.com/ozq2f2

weird, my friend told me they were near the airport. Of course, it was
years ago, and I might just not be remembering it correctly.

They are near the St. Pete airport, not the Tampa one.

not really, about 10 miles

[Andrew Tompkins]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by trivial guy

Post by Steve Sobol

Post by necromancer - ECHM

Post by Steve Sobol
I-175 and I-375 coming out of Tampa International Airport. Even shorter,
according to a friend of mine who lives down there.

Actually they are in St. Pete, near Tropicana Field.
See:http://tinyurl.com/ozq2f2

weird, my friend told me they were near the airport. Of course, it was
years ago, and I might just not be remembering it correctly.

They are near the St. Pete airport, not the Tampa one.

not really, about 10 miles

True for the scheduled airline service airport. There is still an
airport near the end of I-175, on the bay in downtown St. Petersburg.
Primarily for general aviation and executive service.

--Andy

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Steve Sobol

Post by necromancer - ECHM

Post by Steve Sobol
I-175 and I-375 coming out of Tampa International Airport. Even shorter,
according to a friend of mine who lives down there.

Actually they are in St. Pete, near Tropicana Field.
See:http://tinyurl.com/ozq2f2

weird, my friend told me they were near the airport. Of course, it was
years ago, and I might just not be remembering it correctly.
--

FDOT has done quite a bit of new road const near TIA, but no new
interstates

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Steve Sobol
In article <6670e5f2-3a7d-4b41-8ba5-826dac041c13
@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

Post by r***@gmail.com
$10 million buckeroooskis, are you serious?
and an 3di for ONE interchange, for about 12 miles
are you serious?

Crazier things have happened before.
I-490, Cleveland. About 2 miles.

Right, and there is plenty of info if you want to Google Shaker Lakes
Frwy.

I-490 that was constructed gave Cleveland a new bridge over the
Cuyahoga which it needed badly.

Post by Steve Sobol
I-175 and I-375 coming out of Tampa International Airport. Even shorter,
according to a friend of mine who lives down there.

nope, neither has anything to do with TIA.

what those spurs do is a connection between I-275 and downtown St
Petersburg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_175


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_375_(Florida)

If I may ask, what is your connection between the op and the above?

I really don't see any.

what I see is NYS spending $10 million for changing exit numbers that
may be desirable but really not necessary

and is very unlikely to happen, maybe ever.

[Froggie]

Post by r***@gmail.com
what I see is NYS spending $10 million for changing exit numbers that
may be desirable but really not necessary
and is very unlikely to happen, maybe ever.

Well that's really up to the Feds now...

Michael D was kind enough to forward me the E-mail he received from
NYSDOT. In a nutshell, if proposed language for the 2009 National
MUTCD passes muster, the option to go with sequential-based exit
numbers will be dropped and using distance-based exit numbers will be
the requirement. States would have 10 years to comply, and the NYSDOT
E-mail suggests that they would comply.

Froggie | Alexandria, VA | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/

[Marc Fannin]

Post by Steve Sobol

Post by r***@gmail.com
and an 3di for ONE interchange, for about 12 miles
are you serious?

Crazier things have happened before.
I-490, Cleveland. About 2 miles.
I-175 and I-375 coming out of Tampa International Airport. Even shorter,
according to a friend of mine who lives down there.

There are various versions of these.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/long3di.html

_________________________________________________________________________
Marc Fannin|musxf579 @hotmail.com|http://roadfan.com/ (m.t.r FAQ, etc.)

[Larry Sheldon]

I 129 in Iowa (1/4 mile). (Extends into Nebraska for another 3 1/2
miles or so.

(Wonder what I 180 in Nebrasaka is.)

(3 1/2 miles also.)
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

[Nathan Perry]

In article

Post by Jeff Morrison

Post by r***@gmail.com
The Thruway should be two separate numbering systems, one for I-90 and
the other for I-87, and the Berkshire Section can carry the I-90
numbering.
But like I say, I will believe it when I see contracts let

Nah, too logical. :-P Of course, this would be the perfect time to do
such a conversion.
Would there be any chance of the Berkshire spur getting an odd x87 or
x90 designation, since that's the only part of the Thruway that
doesn't have any interstate number? (see: I-335, Kansas Turnpike)

Not an x90 unless they introduce 4dis! 190, 390, 590, 790 and 990 are
all taken. How about Spur 90, like Spur 270 in Maryland?

[H.B. Elkins]

Post by Nathan Perry
Not an x90 unless they introduce 4dis! 190, 390, 590, 790 and 990 are
all taken. How about Spur 90, like Spur 270 in Maryland?

It could be an x87, since all it does is connect I-90 to I-87 and has no exits
between those two interstates. Or I-90 could be routed along it and the existing
I-90 through Albany be given an even x90 designation. Or are all of those taken
in NY as well? Don't have a map in front of me to check.

Is there a site out there that has photos of all the interstate (1d/2d or 3d)
endings out there, like Dale Sanderson's usends.com?

[Froggie]

Post by H.B. Elkins
It could be an x87, since all it does is connect I-90 to I-87 and has no exits
between those two interstates. Or I-90 could be routed along it and the existing
I-90 through Albany be given an even x90 designation. Or are all of those taken
in NY as well? Don't have a map in front of me to check.

Yes, all the x90s in New York are taken, both odd and even...

Froggie | Alexandria, VA | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/

[Ralph Herman]

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:03:22 -0700, Froggie wrote
(in article

Post by Froggie

Post by H.B. Elkins
It could be an x87, since all it does is connect I-90 to I-87 and has no exits
between those two interstates. Or I-90 could be routed along it and the existing
I-90 through Albany be given an even x90 designation. Or are all of those taken
in NY as well? Don't have a map in front of me to check.

Yes, all the x90s in New York are taken, both odd and even...
Froggie | Alexandria, VA | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/

I-390 will be freed up when I-99 is designated between I-86 and I-590....

The Berkshire spur between Exits 21A and B1 could easily be designated a x87,
but I don't se that happening since the NYTA would be involved.

Ralph

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Ralph Herman

Post by Froggie

Post by H.B. Elkins
It could be an x87, since all it does is connect I-90 to I-87 and has no exits
between those two interstates. Or I-90 could be routed along it and the existing
I-90 through Albany be given an even x90 designation. Or are all of those taken
in NY as well? Don't have a map in front of me to check.

Yes, all the x90s in New York are taken, both odd and even...

I-390 will be freed up when I-99 is designated between I-86 and I-590....

A logical proposal, but has it been officially approved? For one thing,
it would involve a long overlap of I-99 and I-86.

[H.B. Elkins]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
A logical proposal, but has it been officially approved? For one thing,
it would involve a long overlap of I-99 and I-86.

Shoudn't be a problem, since there will also be an overlap with I-80. Plus, the
overlap wouldn't be nearly as long as, say, I-80 and I-90. It'd be more like
I-64 and I-81 (which I will be driving in three weeks).

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by H.B. Elkins

Post by Scott M. Kozel
A logical proposal, but has it been officially approved? For one thing,
it would involve a long overlap of I-99 and I-86.

Shoudn't be a problem, since there will also be an overlap with I-80. Plus, the
overlap wouldn't be nearly as long as, say, I-80 and I-90. It'd be more like
I-64 and I-81 (which I will be driving in three weeks).

Has it been officially approved?

[Nathan Perry]

Post by Ralph Herman
I-390 will be freed up when I-99 is designated between I-86 and I-590....

That would still leave the stretch from I-590 to I-490...and it would
also leave NY 390. NY doesn't like to duplicate unrelated state and
Interstate numbers.

But, NY 390 could become NY 99 since that designation was taken off of a
road in the Adirondacks.

[Froggie]

Post by Nathan Perry
That would still leave the stretch from I-590 to I-490...and it would
also leave NY 390. NY doesn't like to duplicate unrelated state and
Interstate numbers.

The real world suggests otherwise...NY 81, 86, 88, 90, 95, 190, 290,
295, 695 are all unrelated to the Interstates of the same numbers. NY
90 even takes the cake by crossing over I-90...

Froggie | Alexandria, VA | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/

[Nathan Perry]

In article

Post by Froggie

Post by Nathan Perry
That would still leave the stretch from I-590 to I-490...and it would
also leave NY 390. NY doesn't like to duplicate unrelated state and
Interstate numbers.

The real world suggests otherwise...NY 81, 86, 88, 90, 95, 190, 290,
295, 695 are all unrelated to the Interstates of the same numbers. NY
90 even takes the cake by crossing over I-90...

NY 278 also comes to mind.

Yes, of course in practice there are lots of duplicates...but there have
been some cases where duplications were purposely avoided: NY 84 was
changed to 284 because it intersects I-84...NY 87 got morphed into part
of NY 812...NY 88 has a different number reserved for it but not yet
applied. It's a half-hearted effort at best.

[Guy Olsen]

Post by Steve Sobol
In article

Post by Froggie

Post by Nathan Perry
That would still leave the stretch from I-590 to I-490...and it would
also leave NY 390. NY doesn't like to duplicate unrelated state and
Interstate numbers.

The real world suggests otherwise...NY 81, 86, 88, 90, 95, 190, 290,
295, 695 are all unrelated to the Interstates of the same numbers.  NY
90 even takes the cake by crossing over I-90...

NY 278 also comes to mind.
Yes, of course in practice there are lots of duplicates...but there have
been some cases where duplications were purposely avoided: NY 84 was
changed to 284 because it intersects I-84...

Does that mean NJ-284 once connected with NY-84 -- or used to be
NJ-84?

Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE

[eng5]

been some cases where duplications were purposely avoided:NY84 was
changed to 284 because it intersects I-84...
Does that mean NJ-284 once connected withNY-84 -- or used to be
NJ-84?

NJ 284 used to be NJ 84. NY 284 doesn't intersect I-84, but it does
run parallel and kinda close by.

I thought US 15 and I-390 were supposed to become I-83 from Harrisburg
to Rochester, or was that pre-Shuster thinking? Failing that, I don't
suppose there's any chance we could lobby to make I-390 (or I-88 for
that matter) into an x86, now that it runs *from* I-86 *to* a city...

[deanej]

Post by eng5

been some cases where duplications were purposely avoided:NY84 was
changed to 284 because it intersects I-84...
Does that mean NJ-284 once connected withNY-84 -- or used to be
NJ-84?

NJ 284 used to be NJ 84. NY 284 doesn't intersect I-84, but it does
run parallel and kinda close by.
I thought US 15 and I-390 were supposed to become I-83 from Harrisburg
to Rochester, or was that pre-Shuster thinking? Failing that, I don't
suppose there's any chance we could lobby to make I-390 (or I-88 for
that matter) into an x86, now that it runs *from* I-86 *to* a city...

I think the I-83 idea originated on MTR and was never official. I-390
was supposed to be I-486, but the I-86 designation did not come in
time for that.

[mkeen]

Post by Jeff Morrison

Post by r***@gmail.com
The Thruway should be two separate numbering systems, one for I-90 and
the other for I-87, and the Berkshire Section can carry the I-90
numbering.
But like I say, I will believe it when I see contracts let

Nah, too logical. :-P Of course, this would be the perfect time to do
such a conversion.
Would there be any chance of the Berkshire spur getting an odd x87 or
x90 designation, since that's the only part of the Thruway that
doesn't have any interstate number? (see: I-335, Kansas Turnpike)

I realize this is 14 years later, but the Berkshire spur is not the only part of the Thruway without any interstate number. You're forgetting the Garden State Parkway extension.

[Ralph Herman]

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
Finally New York has committed to changing their exit numbering to mileage
based. They don't have a timeframe as of yet because they are waiting for
the federal dot or state legislature to pass rules requiring the conversion
and hopefully provide funding for the changeover.
"New York is one of only a few states (including Delaware, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island) that still use a
consecutive numbering system while the remainder of the country has
converted to a reference post numbering system. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that now is the appropriate time to
complete the nationwide switchover to a reference post numbering system. It
has included language in the proposed 2009 National MUTCD which would
eliminate the consecutive numbering option. If enacted, the remaining
states would have up to 10 years to convert. Concurrently, state
legislation (S. 5358) would require that a reference post numbering system
be implemented by January 1, 2010. However, that bill did not pass in 2008
and was not considered in the recently concluded 2009 legislative session.
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M. At a time when resources are scarce and there are demands to
repair bridges and deteriorating pavement, exit numbering is not seen as an
overall high priority in comparison. While the existing system could be
better in providing additional motorist information, it does accurately
identify interchange locations. It is similar to having a $15K vehicle
versus a $50K vehicle; both provide basic transportation. With the two exit
numbering systems, you can find your destination, but one does not come with
the enhancements."

This is not new news. NYSDOT has this information on it's website for quite
awhile at

https://www.nysdot.gov/about-nysdot/faq/nys-interstate-exit--system-
sequential-or-milepost-system

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
Finally New York has committed to changing their exit numbering to mileage
based. They don't have a timeframe as of yet because they are waiting for
the federal dot or state legislature to pass rules requiring the conversion
and hopefully provide funding for the changeover.
"New York is one of only a few states (including Delaware, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island) that still use a
consecutive numbering system while the remainder of the country has
converted to a reference post numbering system.  The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that now is the appropriate time to
complete the nationwide switchover to a reference post numbering system.  It
has included language in the proposed 2009 National MUTCD which would
eliminate the consecutive numbering option.  If enacted, the remaining
states would have up to 10 years to convert.  Concurrently, state
legislation (S. 5358) would require that a reference post numbering system
be implemented by January 1, 2010.   However, that bill did not pass in 2008
and was not considered in the recently concluded 2009 legislative session.
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M.  At a time when resources are scarce and there are demands to
repair bridges and deteriorating pavement, exit numbering is not seen as an
overall high priority in comparison.  While the existing system could be
better in providing additional motorist information, it does accurately
identify interchange locations.  It is similar to having a $15K vehicle
versus a $50K vehicle; both provide basic transportation.  With the two exit
numbering systems, you can find your destination, but one does not come with
the enhancements."

This is not new news.  NYSDOT has this information on it's website for quite
awhile at
https://www.nysdot.gov/about-nysdot/faq/nys-interstate-exit--system-
sequential-or-milepost-system

error 404

[necromancer]

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 07:55:53 -0700, Ralph Herman

Post by Ralph Herman
This is not new news. NYSDOT has this information on it's website for quite
awhile at
http://tinyurl.com/lv7cjt

The original link was taking people for a ride on Federal Route 404...

--
Calrog admits that his website is dead:

"Somebody is trying to suck on the teat of the WHL...
You'll never make it anywhere, necrophiliac."
--Carl Rogers - 2/18/08

ref: http://tinyurl.com/yt2ya4
Msg Id: Clouj.11632$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net

[H.B. Elkins]

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M.

Why? Why on God's green earth should it cost that much? How much would it cost
to get a bunch of die-cut numbers, take a bunch out in a bucket truck, take the
old numbers off the signs and rivet the new numbers into place?

[John A. Weeks III]

Post by H.B. Elkins

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M.

Why? Why on God's green earth should it cost that much? How much would it cost
to get a bunch of die-cut numbers, take a bunch out in a bucket truck, take the
old numbers off the signs and rivet the new numbers into place?

Lets say you were to bid on changing just one sign. How much would
you have to charge to make it worth while? Then consider that there
may be thousands of such signs within the state.

-john-

[Steve A]

Post by H.B. Elkins

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M.

Why? Why on God's green earth should it cost that much? How much would it cost
to get a bunch of die-cut numbers, take a bunch out in a bucket truck, take the
old numbers off the signs and rivet the new numbers into place?
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"

Most signs would be done via green-out. You need the right trucks to
go out there and green out both overhead and roadside signs. Then you
have the labor costs, vehicle and driver costs including gas, traffic
control for shoulder/lane closures as required. The material for the
sign is insignificant compared to these other costs. Even at $100 a
sign, with five signs per exit (1-mi, 1/2-mi, 1/4-mi, exit, gore) in
each direction and several thousand exits across the state, $10
million is very realistic.

[H.B. Elkins]

Post by Steve A
Most signs would be done via green-out. You need the right trucks to
go out there and green out both overhead and roadside signs. Then you
have the labor costs, vehicle and driver costs including gas, traffic
control for shoulder/lane closures as required. The material for the
sign is insignificant compared to these other costs. Even at $100 a
sign, with five signs per exit (1-mi, 1/2-mi, 1/4-mi, exit, gore) in
each direction and several thousand exits across the state, $10
million is very realistic.

Thankfully Kentucky doesn't do greenouts. We just rivet the letters onto the
signs. I guess they'd be done by contract, but if done by state forces, the
"cost" of labor, etc., could simply be absorbed into the general budget. Just
have the crews out changing exit signs instead of pulling ditchlines, cleaning
out culverts, etc.

[a***@yahoo.com.mx]

[Mr. Alpert:]

Post by Steve A
Most signs would be done via green-out. You need the right trucks to
go out there and green out both overhead and roadside signs. Then you
have the labor costs, vehicle and driver costs including gas, traffic
control for shoulder/lane closures as required. The material for the
sign is insignificant compared to these other costs. Even at $100 a
sign, with five signs per exit (1-mi, 1/2-mi, 1/4-mi, exit, gore) in
each direction and several thousand exits across the state, $10
million is very realistic.

I think the $10 million figure is a bit high even given your
assumptions. There are about 27,000 exits on the Interstate system for
a population of 300 million, so assuming that NYS' number of Interstate
exits is roughly proportionate to its share of the US population, that
makes about 2000 exits in NYS. $100 per sign * five signs per exit *
2000 exits = $1 million. Of course NYS has some freeways which are US
or state touring routes, plus the parkway system, but I don't think
these by themselves would add more than $1 million.

$10 million would be reasonable if the exit numbering change were
integrated into a statewide sign updating program. $5 million is about
what TxDOT paid for two massive sign replacement contracts in the
Houston area, which included not just sign panel replacements but also
removal of sign lighting fixtures. The work covered essentially all of
the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown MSA, which has a population of 5.7 million.

[Steve A]

Post by a***@yahoo.com.mx
[Mr. Alpert:]

Most signs would be done via green-out.  You need the right trucks to
go out there and green out both overhead and roadside signs.  Then you
have the labor costs, vehicle and driver costs including gas, traffic
control for shoulder/lane closures as required.  The material for the
sign is insignificant compared to these other costs.  Even at $100 a
sign, with five signs per exit (1-mi, 1/2-mi, 1/4-mi, exit, gore) in
each direction and several thousand exits across the state, $10
million is very realistic.

I think the $10 million figure is a bit high even given your
assumptions.  There are about 27,000 exits on the Interstate system for
a population of 300 million, so assuming that NYS' number of Interstate
exits is roughly proportionate to its share of the US population, that
makes about 2000 exits in NYS.  $100 per sign * five signs per exit *
2000 exits = $1 million.  Of course NYS has some freeways which are US
or state touring routes, plus the parkway system, but I don't think
these by themselves would add more than $1 million.

Well there are several issues here.
1) Parkways would also presumably be re-signed.
2) Ten signs per exit, because you have both directions.
3) Some exits have multiple ramps, meaning you'd have at least eight
signs (another 1/4 mile, 0 mile, gore).
4) I found the "$100" number in my toilet paper. In other words, I
have no idea whether that's high, low, or reasonable.

Post by a***@yahoo.com.mx
$10 million would be reasonable if the exit numbering change were
integrated into a statewide sign updating program.  $5 million is about
what TxDOT paid for two massive sign replacement contracts in the
Houston area, which included not just sign panel replacements but also
removal of sign lighting fixtures.  The work covered essentially all of
the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown MSA, which has a population of 5.7 million.

I would assume some signs have to be replaced, especially in the NYC
area, but at least some of those are NYCDOT maintained. New question:
If NYSDOT has to renumber, can they force NYCDOT to?

[Ralph Herman]

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:51:20 -0700, Steve A wrote
(in article

Post by Steve A

Post by a***@yahoo.com.mx
[Mr. Alpert:]

Most signs would be done via green-out.  You need the right trucks to
go out there and green out both overhead and roadside signs.  Then you
have the labor costs, vehicle and driver costs including gas, traffic
control for shoulder/lane closures as required.  The material for the
sign is insignificant compared to these other costs.  Even at $100 a
sign, with five signs per exit (1-mi, 1/2-mi, 1/4-mi, exit, gore) in
each direction and several thousand exits across the state, $10
million is very realistic.

I think the $10 million figure is a bit high even given your
assumptions.  There are about 27,000 exits on the Interstate system for
a population of 300 million, so assuming that NYS' number of Interstate
exits is roughly proportionate to its share of the US population, that
makes about 2000 exits in NYS.  $100 per sign * five signs per exit *
2000 exits = $1 million.  Of course NYS has some freeways which are US
or state touring routes, plus the parkway system, but I don't think
these by themselves would add more than $1 million.

Well there are several issues here.
1) Parkways would also presumably be re-signed.
2) Ten signs per exit, because you have both directions.
3) Some exits have multiple ramps, meaning you'd have at least eight
signs (another 1/4 mile, 0 mile, gore).
4) I found the "$100" number in my toilet paper. In other words, I
have no idea whether that's high, low, or reasonable.

Post by a***@yahoo.com.mx
$10 million would be reasonable if the exit numbering change were
integrated into a statewide sign updating program.  $5 million is about
what TxDOT paid for two massive sign replacement contracts in the
Houston area, which included not just sign panel replacements but also
removal of sign lighting fixtures.  The work covered essentially all of
the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown MSA, which has a population of 5.7 million.

I would assume some signs have to be replaced, especially in the NYC
If NYSDOT has to renumber, can they force NYCDOT to?

Most of the NYC freeways are now NYSDOT owned, NYCDOT does most normal
maintenance on the NYC freeways (NYSDOT District 11) under "contract" from
NYSDOT (lighting, sweeping, striping, snow removal).

Improvements and upgrades on NYSDOT owned NYC freeways (such as sign
contracts, bridge painting, etc) are done under contract by NYSDOT.

NYCDOT will go along with what the feds want, since they claim to follow the
Fed MUTCD. NYC is exempt from the NYS MUTCD supplement by state law.

I would suspect that the $10 million figure is due to completely new exit
tabs. and NYSDOT usually contracts out for this type of work. Caltrans has
the concession for greenouts :)

Also, in the next MUTCD, exit tabs will be required to insert a space between
the numeral and a suffix letter (25 A, not the current 25A).

Ralph

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Ralph Herman
(in article

Post by Steve A

Post by a***@yahoo.com.mx
[Mr. Alpert:]

Most signs would be done via green-out.  You need the right trucks to
go out there and green out both overhead and roadside signs.  Then you
have the labor costs, vehicle and driver costs including gas, traffic
control for shoulder/lane closures as required.  The material for the
sign is insignificant compared to these other costs.  Even at $100 a
sign, with five signs per exit (1-mi, 1/2-mi, 1/4-mi, exit, gore) in
each direction and several thousand exits across the state, $10
million is very realistic.

I think the $10 million figure is a bit high even given your
assumptions.  There are about 27,000 exits on the Interstate system for
a population of 300 million, so assuming that NYS' number of Interstate
exits is roughly proportionate to its share of the US population, that
makes about 2000 exits in NYS.  $100 per sign * five signs per exit *
2000 exits = $1 million.  Of course NYS has some freeways which are US
or state touring routes, plus the parkway system, but I don't think
these by themselves would add more than $1 million.

Well there are several issues here.
1) Parkways would also presumably be re-signed.
2) Ten signs per exit, because you have both directions.
3) Some exits have multiple ramps, meaning you'd have at least eight
signs (another 1/4 mile, 0 mile, gore).
4) I found the "$100" number in my toilet paper.  In other words, I
have no idea whether that's high, low, or reasonable.

Post by a***@yahoo.com.mx
$10 million would be reasonable if the exit numbering change were
integrated into a statewide sign updating program.  $5 million is about
what TxDOT paid for two massive sign replacement contracts in the
Houston area, which included not just sign panel replacements but also
removal of sign lighting fixtures.  The work covered essentially all of
the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown MSA, which has a population of 5.7 million.

I would assume some signs have to be replaced, especially in the NYC
If NYSDOT has to renumber, can they force NYCDOT to?

Most of the NYC freeways are now NYSDOT owned,  NYCDOT does most normal
maintenance on the NYC freeways (NYSDOT District 11) under "contract" from
NYSDOT (lighting, sweeping, striping, snow removal).  
Improvements and upgrades on NYSDOT owned NYC freeways (such as sign
contracts, bridge painting, etc) are done under contract by NYSDOT.
NYCDOT will go along with what the feds want, since they claim to follow the
Fed MUTCD.  NYC is exempt from the NYS MUTCD supplement by state law.
I would suspect that the $10 million figure is due to completely new exit
tabs.  and NYSDOT usually contracts out for this type of work.  Caltrans has
the concession for greenouts :)

[David Sturm]

Post by Ralph Herman
Also, in the next MUTCD, exit tabs will be required to insert a space between
the numeral and a suffix letter  (25 A, not  the current 25A).
Ralph

Ralph: I hadn't caught that. Do you have a link on that?

I'd rather see us move to the German system and use small letters and
go with 25a instead of 25A.

On the issue over all... it would seem to make more sense if NYSDOT
did this...

--Designate the whole of I-90 through Albany as an extension of I-88,
thus keeping I-90 on the Thruway and using all of the Berkshire
section.

--Extend I-87 across and over to I-278 and take it over all the way to
the NJ line.

--Then, milepost this extended I-87 northward from the NJ line, up
current 87, up the Thruway to the current Northway cutoff. Continue
the mileposting right on up the Northway to Montreal.

--Now, I-90's mileposts would cover from the PA line eastward to and
then on the Berkshire section cutoff.

--From the Berkshire southward, I-87's mileposts would determine the
exit numbers.

--Using rounding up and rounding down advantageously, no Thruway
section exit numbers would overlap...

Alternatively, a New York State Route "187" could be deemed to begin
with I-87 and continue westward on I-90/Thruway to the PA line.

But, since I use all of I-90 to go from New England to Ohio, as many
folks do... using I-90's mileposts would be in the true spirit of the
MUTCD. (Of course, that assumes keeping I-90 on the Thruway and
renumbering I-90 through Albany as either I-88 or an I-x87.)

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Ralph Herman
Also, in the next MUTCD, exit tabs will be required to insert a space between
the numeral and a suffix letter  (25 A, not  the current 25A).
Ralph

Ralph:  I hadn't caught that.  Do you have a link on that?
I'd rather see us move to the German system and use small letters and
go with 25a instead of 25A.

sorry to disagree, on the exit # panel, they should be caps

On the issue over all... it would seem to make more sense if NYSDOT
did this...
--Designate the whole of I-90 through Albany as an extension of I-88,

that would be horrible, NYSDOT will NEVER do it.

I-90 goes thru Albany, and so should its exit numbers

thus keeping I-90 on the Thruway and using all of the Berkshire
section.
--Extend I-87 across and over to I-278 and take it over all the way to
the NJ line.

you lost me on this

--Then, milepost this extended I-87 northward from the NJ line, up
current 87, up the Thruway to the current Northway cutoff.  Continue
the mileposting right on up the Northway to Montreal.
--Now, I-90's mileposts would cover from the PA line eastward to and
then on the Berkshire section cutoff.
--From the Berkshire southward, I-87's mileposts would determine the
exit numbers.
--Using rounding up and rounding down advantageously, no Thruway
section exit numbers would overlap...
Alternatively, a New York State Route "187" could be deemed to begin
with I-87 and continue westward on I-90/Thruway to the PA line.
But, since I use all of I-90 to go from New England to Ohio, as many
folks do... using I-90's mileposts would be in the true spirit of the
MUTCD.  (Of course, that assumes keeping I-90 on the Thruway and
renumbering I-90 through Albany as either I-88 or an I-x87.)

so in addition to a massive exit renumbering, you are going to suggest
a massive route numbering change

please give me a break

not that anything is going to happen anytime soon, but I stand by my
proposal

I-87 from the Triboro to Albany, exit 24 on the Thruway, then up the
Northway

I-90 from PA, thru Albany, across the Berkshire section to MA

where is JP Wing in all this?

http://sites.google.com/site/westnyroads/renumbering-i-90-and-i-87

why he has I-90 numbered from e-w I have no idea

I suppose to conform to the existing numbering

but if you are going to renumber, you should do it right

[deanej]

Post by r***@gmail.com
http://sites.google.com/site/westnyroads/renumbering-i-90-and-i-87
why he has I-90 numbered from e-w I have no idea
I suppose to conform to the existing numbering
but if you are going to renumber, you should do it right- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The reason I did it that way was so that I-90, I-87, and the Thruway
would all have continuous numbering. I doubt the Thruway will change
to have non-continuous numbering any time soon (isn't it the Thruway
Authority's fault that it's non-continuous now?). Also, many in NY
still think "Thruway" and not I-90/I-87. Though I do agree, ideally
I-90 and I-87 would each have their own numbers independent of the
Thruway. That list is just a compromise that I put together because I
think one set of numbers is better than three.

[michael e dziatkowicz]

the thruway has agreed to changed to mileage based numbers whenever the
state does. Hopefully with the federal or state government will ask them to
change sometime soon.

Post by r***@gmail.com
http://sites.google.com/site/westnyroads/renumbering-i-90-and-i-87
why he has I-90 numbered from e-w I have no idea
I suppose to conform to the existing numbering
but if you are going to renumber, you should do it right- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The reason I did it that way was so that I-90, I-87, and the Thruway
would all have continuous numbering. I doubt the Thruway will change
to have non-continuous numbering any time soon (isn't it the Thruway
Authority's fault that it's non-continuous now?). Also, many in NY
still think "Thruway" and not I-90/I-87. Though I do agree, ideally
I-90 and I-87 would each have their own numbers independent of the
Thruway. That list is just a compromise that I put together because I
think one set of numbers is better than three.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
the thruway has agreed to changed to mileage based numbers whenever the
state does. Hopefully with the federal or state government will ask them to
change sometime soon.

Mike, it ain't happening

no one is going to "ask" them to

it is very expensive, and NYS is hardly flush with money


and do you realize how expensive it will be for that work in NYC

I am pretty sure 20 years from now, the same discussion will take
place.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by deanej

Post by r***@gmail.com
http://sites.google.com/site/westnyroads/renumbering-i-90-and-i-87
why he has I-90 numbered from e-w I have no idea
I suppose to conform to the existing numbering
but if you are going to renumber, you should do it right- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The reason I did it that way was so that I-90, I-87, and the Thruway
would all have continuous numbering.  I doubt the Thruway will change
to have non-continuous numbering any time soon (isn't it the Thruway
Authority's fault that it's non-continuous now?).

this was a product of the 1950's predating the interstate system.

there really were no standards then, and what few there were, were set
by the toll roads,as they were the only ones with any exit numbers

even when the interstates came thru, there was much debate over
whether to have exit numbers.

You probably don't remember the old Thruway blue and white exit signs.

As did the CT Tpk.





 Also, many in NY

Post by deanej
still think "Thruway" and not I-90/I-87.  Though I do agree, ideally
I-90 and I-87 would each have their own numbers independent of the
Thruway.  That list is just a compromise that I put together because I
think one set of numbers is better than three.

This will surprise you.

Back when I-88 was being built, there were discussions amongst Thruway
engineering people of changing the exit numbering then.

the idea was to put a toll booth south of 23, and another between 26
and 25A. If you notice from 25A to 24 is toll free now. That was
when 88 was killed east of Schenectady, the feds paid for the widening
with the condition that tolls in that section were removed for 88
traffic.

but in the end, they don't want any more barrier tolls, see the fiasco
at Williamsville, and they felt the exit numbering was so set in
people's minds that any change would be horribly confusing.

To you last point, if you are going to change exit numbering, I think
you should conform. I really don't know that the feds would permit it,
and why bother if you are still going to have exit numbering backwards.

[larrysheldonisalyingfuckinghypocrite]

Post by H.B. Elkins

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M.

Why? Why on God's green earth should it cost that much? How much would it cost
to get a bunch of die-cut numbers, take a bunch out in a bucket truck, take the
old numbers off the signs and rivet the new numbers into place?
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"

and he wonders why I think he is so stooopid

lets see NYSDOT, NY Thruway, NY City, several hundred miles of non-
interstate expwy

btw, I will believe it when I see contracts let

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by H.B. Elkins

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M.

Why? Why on God's green earth should it cost that much? How much would it cost
to get a bunch of die-cut numbers, take a bunch out in a bucket truck, take the
old numbers off the signs and rivet the new numbers into place?

When they did it in Virginia in the early 1990s, they 1) installed new
signs, 2) posted an "OLD" marker on top of the old sign, and 3) returned
12 months later and removed the old sign.

In New York state, there are at least 500 exits outside of NYC, and
probably at least 500 more if they post the exits in NYC.

[Ralph Herman]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by H.B. Elkins

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M.

Why? Why on God's green earth should it cost that much? How much would it cost
to get a bunch of die-cut numbers, take a bunch out in a bucket truck, take the
old numbers off the signs and rivet the new numbers into place?

When they did it in Virginia in the early 1990s, they 1) installed new
signs, 2) posted an "OLD" marker on top of the old sign, and 3) returned
12 months later and removed the old sign.
In New York state, there are at least 500 exits outside of NYC, and
probably at least 500 more if they post the exits in NYC.

From what I understand, the NY Thruway will also be renumbered to match MUTCD
requirements. Of course they have their own budget for their 500 miles of
roadway.

That is why I suspect NYSDOT is planning to do as Scott outlined, which
would require $10M a lot of new signs.

Ralph

[H.B. Elkins]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
When they did it in Virginia in the early 1990s, they 1) installed new
signs, 2) posted an "OLD" marker on top of the old sign, and 3) returned
12 months later and removed the old sign.

Pennsylvania still has a lot of "Old Exit XX" signs. Of course PA uses greenouts
to replace lettering and route markers instead of removing the old text or
shield and riveting new letters/numbers or shield in place of the old ones.

[Marc Fannin]

Post by H.B. Elkins
Pennsylvania still has a lot of "Old Exit XX" signs. Of course PA uses greenouts
to replace lettering and route markers instead of removing the old text or
shield and riveting new letters/numbers or shield in place of the old ones.

Interesing observation: The last two times I've been just into PA on
I-90 (July 22 and another time around then, forget the day), the OLD
EXIT xx signs have still been there, but the bottom half was folded
over the top half (for those who don't know, those signs were attached
to a post extending from the bottom of the main sign). I can't see
why they'd need to be used again soon....

_________________________________________________________________________
Marc Fannin|musxf579 @hotmail.com|http://roadfan.com/ (m.t.r FAQ, etc.)

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Marc Fannin

Post by H.B. Elkins
Pennsylvania still has a lot of "Old Exit XX" signs. Of course PA uses greenouts
to replace lettering and route markers instead of removing the old text or
shield and riveting new letters/numbers or shield in place of the old ones.

Interesing observation: The last two times I've been just into PA on
I-90 (July 22 and another time around then, forget the day), the OLD
EXIT xx signs have still been there, but the bottom half was folded
over the top half (for those who don't know, those signs were attached
to a post extending from the bottom of the main sign).  I can't see
why they'd need to be used again soon....
_________________________________________________________________________

not to quibble, but are you sure those were the old exit #'s?

I don't think they were hinged, not as I remember.

the hinged signs PA uses are detour sings


something like DETOUR
--------->

obviously they are hinged so as to be closed for future use

[Marc Fannin]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Marc Fannin

Post by H.B. Elkins
Pennsylvania still has a lot of "Old Exit XX" signs. Of course PA uses greenouts
to replace lettering and route markers instead of removing the old text or
shield and riveting new letters/numbers or shield in place of the old ones.

Interesing observation: The last two times I've been just into PA on
I-90 (July 22 and another time around then, forget the day), the OLD
EXIT xx signs have still been there, but the bottom half was folded
over the top half (for those who don't know, those signs were attached
to a post extending from the bottom of the main sign).  I can't see
why they'd need to be used again soon....

not to quibble, but are you sure those were the old exit #'s?
I don't think they were hinged, not as I remember.
the hinged signs PA uses are detour sings
something like DETOUR
--------->
obviously they are hinged so as to be closed for future use

Hmm, I guess they are...I just checked the PENNDOT VideoLog, where the
photos for the relevant section were taken May 6 a year ago - here's
the PA-215 exit sign on I-90 WB:
http://tinyurl.com/ksr552 or
Loading Image...
- and in that photo it looks like the sign that I thought was the old
exit sign is on the lower left of the main sign, in front of the left
post, and the old exit sign itself is attached to the middle post.
I've just never seen colored detour signs on BGSs on the mainline,
only on ramps. Perhaps it's a change that's combined with the removal
of the old exit number signs.

_________________________________________________________________________
Marc Fannin|musxf579 @hotmail.com|http://roadfan.com/(m.t.r FAQ, etc.)

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Marc Fannin

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Marc Fannin

Post by H.B. Elkins
Pennsylvania still has a lot of "Old Exit XX" signs. Of course PA uses greenouts
to replace lettering and route markers instead of removing the old text or
shield and riveting new letters/numbers or shield in place of the old ones.

Interesing observation: The last two times I've been just into PA on
I-90 (July 22 and another time around then, forget the day), the OLD
EXIT xx signs have still been there, but the bottom half was folded
over the top half (for those who don't know, those signs were attached
to a post extending from the bottom of the main sign).  I can't see
why they'd need to be used again soon....

not to quibble, but are you sure those were the old exit #'s?
I don't think they were hinged, not as I remember.
the hinged signs PA uses are detour sings
something like          DETOUR
                                  --------->
obviously they are hinged so as to be closed for future use

Hmm, I guess they are...I just checked the PENNDOT VideoLog, where the
photos for the relevant section were taken May 6 a year ago - here's
the PA-215 exit sign on I-90 WB:http://tinyurl.com/ksr552 orhttp://www.dot7.state.pa.us/thumbnails/2008/PA2008CO25/185609K1020/00...
- and in that photo it looks like the sign that I thought was the old
exit sign is on the lower left of the main sign, in front of the left
post, and the old exit sign itself is attached to the middle post.
I've just never seen colored detour signs on BGSs on the mainline,
only on ramps.  Perhaps it's a change that's combined with the removal
of the old exit number signs.

are you referring to the detour signs that refer to blue, or brown or
whatever?

those are put wherever an engineer feels they are needed

they are used for some sort of local road detour.

you are aware every state route in PA has a number, but they are not
signed other the those little sr signs at intersections

I think it is a good system, very utilitarian. rather then sr 4321

follow the blue route detour

[JPI]

Post by H.B. Elkins

Post by Scott M. Kozel
When they did it in Virginia in the early 1990s, they 1) installed new
signs, 2) posted an "OLD" marker on top of the old sign, and 3) returned
 12 months later and removed the old sign.

Pennsylvania still has a lot of "Old Exit XX" signs. Of course PA uses greenouts
to replace lettering and route markers instead of removing the old text or
shield and riveting new letters/numbers or shield in place of the old ones.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"

Yes as of just a few days ago, the "old exit#" signs are still there
and its been 8 years??!!! Gotta love PENNDOT!

Jason Ilyes
JPI
Lebanon, TN
Home of the Barrel

[Free Lunch]

Post by JPI

Post by H.B. Elkins

Post by Scott M. Kozel
When they did it in Virginia in the early 1990s, they 1) installed new
signs, 2) posted an "OLD" marker on top of the old sign, and 3) returned
 12 months later and removed the old sign.

Pennsylvania still has a lot of "Old Exit XX" signs. Of course PA uses greenouts
to replace lettering and route markers instead of removing the old text or
shield and riveting new letters/numbers or shield in place of the old ones.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"

Yes as of just a few days ago, the "old exit#" signs are still there
and its been 8 years??!!! Gotta love PENNDOT!

It costs money to take them down.

[Marc Fannin]

Post by Free Lunch

Post by JPI
Yes as of just a few days ago, the "old exit#" signs are still there
and its been 8 years??!!! Gotta love PENNDOT!

It costs money to take them down.

It also seems like a reasonable time to keep them up, what with the
lag in map updates, etc., though it doesn't seem that the ones in the
northwest corner of the state have been up that long. As another
example, the Ohio Turnpike had their dual numbers up for over four
years (early '98 to late '02). You just have to think like a non-
roadgeek, including the fact that most people don't travel very far
distances by road that often, so they're only going to see these
things infrequently....

_________________________________________________________________________
Marc Fannin|musxf579 @hotmail.com|http://roadfan.com/ (m.t.r FAQ, etc.)

[Andrew M. Saucci, Jr.]

Remember that you'll need one guy to update the sign and five guys
to stand and watch and three supervisors to deal with the necessary
paperwork. This is government!

Post by H.B. Elkins

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M.

Why? Why on God's green earth should it cost that much? How much would it cost
to get a bunch of die-cut numbers, take a bunch out in a bucket truck, take the
old numbers off the signs and rivet the new numbers into place?
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"

[Ed-M]

Post by H.B. Elkins

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M.

Why? Why on God's green earth should it cost that much? How much would it cost
to get a bunch of die-cut numbers, take a bunch out in a bucket truck, take the
old numbers off the signs and rivet the new numbers into place?
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"

The bulk of the cost would be in traffic control (you KNOW how badly people drive in the USA); but also, to change from, for example, Exit 32 to Exit 407J, would require removing the exit tab from off the top of the sign and replacing it with a new one.

[Andrew M. Saucci, Jr.]

I am not expecting to see this any time soon. When they talk and
talk and talk and then say, "At a time when resources are scarce and there
are demands to repair bridges and deteriorating pavement, exit numbering is
not seen as an overall high priority in comparison," one can bet that it's
all talk. And frankly, I kind of agree. If I have to choose between a "six
of one and half a dozen of the other" type of conversion, and rehabilitating
a bridge so it doesn't fall down from underneath me, I'll take the bridge
rehabilitation. It looks as though New York will convert only if Uncle Sam
is willing to pay for it somehow.

Changing exit numbers isn't worth $10 million. Give me a tax
reduction instead and I can buy a map with both types of exit numbers with
my share of the proceeds.

Post by michael e dziatkowicz
Finally New York has committed to changing their exit numbering to mileage
based. They don't have a timeframe as of yet because they are waiting for
the federal dot or state legislature to pass rules requiring the
conversion and hopefully provide funding for the changeover.
"New York is one of only a few states (including Delaware, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island) that still use a
consecutive numbering system while the remainder of the country has
converted to a reference post numbering system. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that now is the appropriate time to
complete the nationwide switchover to a reference post numbering system.
It has included language in the proposed 2009 National MUTCD which would
eliminate the consecutive numbering option. If enacted, the remaining
states would have up to 10 years to convert. Concurrently, state
legislation (S. 5358) would require that a reference post numbering system
be implemented by January 1, 2010. However, that bill did not pass in
2008 and was not considered in the recently concluded 2009 legislative
session.
New York is taking the necessary steps to plan for an eventual conversion.
It should be realized that this represents a project that could easily
exceed $10M. At a time when resources are scarce and there are demands to
repair bridges and deteriorating pavement, exit numbering is not seen as
an overall high priority in comparison. While the existing system could
be better in providing additional motorist information, it does accurately
identify interchange locations. It is similar to having a $15K vehicle
versus a $50K vehicle; both provide basic transportation. With the two
exit numbering systems, you can find your destination, but one does not
come with the enhancements."

[t***@gmail.com]

.. But they can spend millions changing "rest stop" signs to "text stop" signs...