new york to convert to mileage based exit numbering
michael e dziatkowicz
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 $50K vehicle; both provide basic transportation. With the two exit
numbering systems, you can find your destination, but one does not come with
the enhancements."
Froggie
wrote:
Source/link?
Froggie | Alexandria, VA | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
Ralph Herman
(in article <pdPpm.1818$tl3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>):
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
H.B. Elkins
>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"
John A. Weeks III
H.B. Elkins <hbel...@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:46:45 GMT, michael e dziatkowicz wrote:
>
> >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-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III � � � � � 612-720-2854 � � � � � �jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications � � � � � � � � � � � � http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Steve A
wrote:
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, $10
million is very realistic.
Marc Fannin
> ..."michael e dziatkowicz"...wrote:
>
> > [quote from unidentified source] "...Concurrently, state
> > legislation (S. 5358) would require that a reference post numbering system
> > be implemented by January 1, 2010. However, that bill did not pass in 2008
> > and was not considered in the recently concluded 2009 legislative session." [snip]
>
> Source/link?
I happened to find another bill on this, composed later and apparently
still active (the NYS site doesn't appear to have a bill status
option):
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S00523&sh=t
Senate Bill 523, '09-'10 Regular Sessions, 1/7/09 [nice URL, huh?]
_________________________________________________________________________
Marc Fannin|musxf579 @hotmail.com|http://roadfan.com/ (m.t.r FAQ, etc.)
larrysheldonisalyingfuckinghypocrite
wrote:
and he wonders why I think he is so stooopid
lets see NYSDOT, NY Thruway, NY City, several hundred miles of non-
interstate expwy
btw, I will believe it when I see contracts let
rsh...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 07:46:45 -0700, michael e dziatkowicz wrote
error 404
necromancer
<rlah...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>This is not new news. NYSDOT has this information on it's website for quite
>awhile at
>
The original link was taking people for a ride on Federal Route 404...
--
Calrog admits that his website is dead:
"Somebody is trying to suck on the teat of the WHL...
You'll never make it anywhere, necrophiliac."
--Carl Rogers - 2/18/08
ref: http://tinyurl.com/yt2ya4
Msg Id: Clouj.11632$Ej5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net
H.B. Elkins
>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.
argatla...@yahoo.com.mx
> 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
<argatlam_ro...@yahoo.com.mx> wrote:
> [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.
>
> $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?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> michael e dziatkowicz wrote:
>
>> 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.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Ralph Herman
(in article
<d34530c0-d7ea-4b8f...@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>):
> On Sep 9, 8:08ï¿œpm, "argatlam_ro...@yahoo.com.mx"
> <argatlam_ro...@yahoo.com.mx> wrote:
>> [Mr. Alpert:]
>>
>>> Most signs would be done via green-out. ï¿œYou need the right trucks to
>>> go out there and green out both overhead and roadside signs. ï¿œThen you
>>> have the labor costs, vehicle and driver costs including gas, traffic
>>> control for shoulder/lane closures as required. ï¿œThe material for the
>>> sign is insignificant compared to these other costs. ï¿œEven 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. ï¿œThere 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. ￜ$100 per sign * five signs per exit *
>> 2000 exits = $1 million. ï¿œOf 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.
>>
>> $10 million would be reasonable if the exit numbering change were
>> integrated into a statewide sign updating program. ￜ$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. ï¿œThe 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?
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 $10 million figure is due to completely new exit
tabs. and NYSDOT usually contracts out for this type of work. Caltrans has
the concession for greenouts :)
Also, in the next MUTCD, exit tabs will be required to insert a space between
the numeral and a suffix letter (25 A, not the current 25A).
Ralph
Ralph Herman
(in article <h89mlh$hvq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> H.B. Elkins <hbel...@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote:
>>
>> michael e dziatkowicz wrote:
>>
>>> 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
michael e dziatkowicz
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.
"Froggie" <fro...@mississippi.net> wrote in message
news:116ea34a-6459-4902...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Froggie
<snip most of post>
> 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.
H.B. Elkins
>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.
rsh...@gmail.com
wrote:
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
rsh...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:51:20 -0700, Steve A wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 8:08 pm, "argatlam_ro...@yahoo.com.mx"
> > <argatlam_ro...@yahoo.com.mx> wrote:
> >> [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
> >>> 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
> >> a population of 300 million, so assuming that NYS' number of Interstate
> >> exits is roughly proportionate to its share of the US population, that
> >> 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.
>
> >> $10 million would be reasonable if the exit numbering change were
> >> what TxDOT paid for two massive sign replacement contracts in the
> >> Houston area, which included not just sign panel replacements but also
Marc Fannin
> 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....
rsh...@gmail.com
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
otto yamamoto
> 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
michael e dziatkowicz
David Sturm
> 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.)
Marc Fannin
> On Sep 10, 3:12 pm, Marc Fannin...wrote:
>
> > H. B. Elkins wrote:
> >
> > > 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
http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/thumbnails/2008/PA2008CO25/185609K1020/000019496323/000019977102.jpg
- 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.
rsh...@gmail.com
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
rsh...@gmail.com
> rshe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 3:12 pm, Marc Fannin...wrote:
>
> > > H. B. Elkins wrote:
>
> > > > 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
> - 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
rsh...@gmail.com
> On Sep 9, 10:14 pm, Ralph Herman <rlaher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> 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
>
>
> - 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
state does. Hopefully with the federal or state government will ask them to
change sometime soon.
"deanej" <dean...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8071dfde-a9db-49e4...@m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Jeff Morrison
> 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)
JPI
wrote:
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
wrote in misc.transport.road:
It costs money to take them down.
rsh...@gmail.com
> On Sep 11, 6:09 pm, "rshe...@gmail.com" <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >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
> 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.
rsh...@gmail.com
wrote:
> 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.
rsh...@gmail.com
$10 million buckeroooskis, are you serious?
and an 3di for ONE interchange, for about 12 miles
are you serious?
Steve Sobol
@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, rsh...@gmail.com says...
> $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
sjs...@JustThe.net
michael e dziatkowicz
"Steve Sobol" <sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.251751039...@news.justthe.net...
Larry Sheldon
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
necromancer - ECHM
wrote:
>
>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
rsh...@gmail.com
> In article <6670e5f2-3a7d-4b41-8ba5-826dac041c13
>
> > $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.
>
> 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.
Steve Sobol
_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO-WAY.com says...
>
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:57:39 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjs...@JustThe.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >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
Steve Sobol <sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote:
>In article <p5fra5ll5mik9h32g...@4ax.com>, 55
>_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO-WAY.com says...
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:57:39 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjs...@JustThe.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >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.
rsh...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <MPG.25182a8744653686989...@news.justthe.net>,
> Steve Sobol <sjso...@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <p5fra5ll5mik9h32gmnka38h993mls0...@4ax.com>, 55
> >_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO-WAY.com says...
>
> >> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:57:39 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjso...@JustThe.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >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
rsh...@gmail.com
> In article <p5fra5ll5mik9h32gmnka38h993mls0...@4ax.com>, 55
> _sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO-WAY.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:57:39 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjso...@JustThe.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >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
Nathan Perry
<ae51e6d5-6fab-4bc1...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Jeff Morrison <jeffmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
>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
>
> 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...
Alex Tsiatas
> Steve Sobol wrote:
> > In article <6670e5f2-3a7d-4b41-8ba5-826dac041c13
>
> >> $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).
Froggie
>
> 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.
Ralph Herman
(in article
<e7d69f7b-4690-4000...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>):
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
Marc Fannin
> ...JPI...wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
> >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.)
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Froggie wrote
>> H.B. Elkins <hbelk...@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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...
>
A logical proposal, but has it been officially approved? For one thing,
it would involve a long overlap of I-99 and I-86.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
H.B. Elkins
>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).
Andrew Tompkins
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
Marc Fannin
> ...rsh...@gmail.com says...
>
> > 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
Larry Sheldon
miles or so.
(Wonder what I 180 in Nebrasaka is.)
(3 1/2 miles also.)
Nathan Perry
Ralph Herman <rlah...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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
>
> 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...
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
>> 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
<77bdae36-b378-47ae...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Froggie <fro...@mississippi.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 9:08�pm, Nathan Perry <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> In article
> <77bdae36-b378-47ae-af14-2a55d7586...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Froggie <frog...@mississippi.net> wrote:
> > > On Sep 15, 9:08 pm, Nathan Perry <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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...
>
> 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
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.
Andrew M. Saucci, Jr.
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 $10 million. Give me a tax
reduction instead and I can buy a map with both types of exit numbers with
my share of the proceeds.
"michael e dziatkowicz" <mnm...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pdPpm.1818$tl3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> 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."
>
>
>
Andrew M. Saucci, Jr.
to stand and watch and three supervisors to deal with the necessary
paperwork. This is government!
"H.B. Elkins" <hbel...@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote in message
news:h88k5...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:46:45 GMT, michael e dziatkowicz wrote:
>
>>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?
trimbl...@gmail.com
Ed-M
> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:46:45 GMT, michael e dziatkowicz wrote:
>
> >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"
mkeen
> On Sep 10, 1:30 pm, "rshe...@gmail.com" <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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)