VT: Bennington Bypass Gets New Number (VT 279)
Douglas Kerr
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/Stories/0,1413,104~8678~1312023,00.html
http://tinyurl.com/96hm
The Bennington Bypass acquires a new name: Route 279
By BOBBY GATES
Staff Writer
BENNINGTON -- It's all but official - the Bennington Bypass will be numbered
Vermont Route 279.
While the decision still needs final approval from transportation officials
in Montpelier, all those involved in discussions to date said they have
heard no opposition to the Route 279 designation for the highway.
"The response has been very positive," said Steven Lynch, bypass project
manager.
One last missing piece is an official endorsement from the Bennington town
government, Lynch said.
"We don't require the town's approval but we certainly want its approval,"
he said.
There don't seem to be many other options other than Route 279, Lynch said.
"Nobody has come out with anything else that they think will work better,"
he said.
The numbering scenario is based on federal numbering guidelines that give
highways around cities and towns a number "2" prefix. That, combined with
U.S. Route 7 and Vermont Route 9 - which it will bypass - makes up the
proposed highway number.
The first section of the bypass, called the western leg, is already under
construction in New York and Vermont, while design work continues on the
northern and southern segments. The route number would apply to all three
segments, but of immediate concern is the western segment. The sign contract
for that part will be sent out to bid this fall, Lynch said.
But in New York state, where the Bennington Bypass begins, there is already
a Route 279. It's in western New York, east of Buffalo near Lake Ontario.
That would prevent New York from numbering its portion of the bypass Route
279, Lynch said. The solution is this - not only would Vermont Route 9
remain the same, but so would N.Y. Route 7. When the bypass forks off from
N.Y. Route 7 in Hoosick, N.Y., signs for the bypass will simply read "to
Vermont Route 279." The New York portion of the highway will have an
official number, designated by New York transportation officials, but that
number won't appear on any road signs to avoid confusing travelers, Lynch
said.
"Anybody traveling will swear Route 279 starts (in Hoosick)," Lynch said.
Last month, civic leaders met at the Bennington Museum after there was some
concern that not everyone was involved in discussions about the new signs
that would be erected along and near the new road.
The decisions made at the meeting appeased William B. Colvin, Bennington's
economic and community development director. The decision to not renumber
N.Y. Route 7 or Vermont Route 9 is advantageous for the town, he said.
That decision also received kudos from Ted Corbett, executive director of
the Better Bennington Corp. Keeping the current highways with the same
numbers will help visitors, he said.
"If they had any lesser nine, (visitors) would get confused," he said,
referring to suggestions that have been made to renumber Vermont Route 9 as
Historic Route 9 or Vermont Route 9A.
In addition to numbering decisions, it has also been decided that several
signs will be placed at the western end of the bypass in Hoosick to let
eastbound travelers know what Bennington has to offer.
Those signs will show the way to the Bennington Battle Monument, Bennington
Museum and historic downtown Bennington, a decision Corbett also applauded.
While the other two signs represent just one attraction, the downtown sign
represents every downtown business.
"That one sign represents at least 200 businesses, that represents a lot of
critical mass," he said.
There will also be one sign with a graphic depiction of outdoor recreation
and arts.
Final sign decisions lie with John Perkins at the Vermont Agency of
Transportation, Lynch said.
"The two of us could wrestle over it, but I don't think that will be
necessary," Lynch said.
For the signs in New York, transportation officials there have the final
say.
"The New York authorities are being very nice," Corbett said. "They are
giving us maximum signage."
Perkins could not be reached for comment this week.
Douglas Kerr
http://www.aot.state.vt.us/spu/bennbypass/default.htm
Steve
>
> From the Bennington (VT) Banner:
>
> a Route 279. It's in western New York, east of Buffalo near Lake Ontario.
> That would prevent New York from numbering its portion of the bypass Route
> 279, Lynch said. The solution is this - not only would Vermont Route 9
> remain the same, but so would N.Y. Route 7. When the bypass forks off from
> N.Y. Route 7 in Hoosick, N.Y., signs for the bypass will simply read "to
> Vermont Route 279." The New York portion of the highway will have an
> official number, designated by New York transportation officials, but that
> number won't appear on any road signs to avoid confusing travelers, Lynch
> said.
the same number. Couldn't they call it NY 1279 officially and post it
as NY 279? Then again, the Betsy Ross Bridge is signed as NJ 90 - how
much of the route is in NY?
Michael Moroney
>BENNINGTON -- It's all but official - the Bennington Bypass will be numbered
>Vermont Route 279.
>While the decision still needs final approval from transportation officials
>in Montpelier, all those involved in discussions to date said they have
>heard no opposition to the Route 279 designation for the highway.
>"The response has been very positive," said Steven Lynch, bypass project
>manager.
I wrote Mr. Lynch a while back inquiring about the bypass, he mentioned
the 279 number as "possible".
>The numbering scenario is based on federal numbering guidelines that give
>highways around cities and towns a number "2" prefix. That, combined with
>U.S. Route 7 and Vermont Route 9 - which it will bypass - makes up the
>proposed highway number.
Those are interstate rules, Mr. Lynch. Never heard of any federal
"guidelines" for state route numberings, and considering the hodgepodge
of state route systems, I doubt they exist.
>But in New York state, where the Bennington Bypass begins, there is already
>a Route 279. It's in western New York, east of Buffalo near Lake Ontario.
>That would prevent New York from numbering its portion of the bypass Route
>279, Lynch said. The solution is this - not only would Vermont Route 9
>remain the same, but so would N.Y. Route 7. When the bypass forks off from
>N.Y. Route 7 in Hoosick, N.Y., signs for the bypass will simply read "to
>Vermont Route 279." The New York portion of the highway will have an
>official number, designated by New York transportation officials, but that
>number won't appear on any road signs to avoid confusing travelers, Lynch
>said.
Good old NY reference routes. Same problem as whatever reference route
runs from NY 22 to MA 102 since NY 102 is elsewhere.
>The decisions made at the meeting appeased William B. Colvin, Bennington's
>economic and community development director. The decision to not renumber
>N.Y. Route 7 or Vermont Route 9 is advantageous for the town, he said.
>That decision also received kudos from Ted Corbett, executive director of
>the Better Bennington Corp. Keeping the current highways with the same
>numbers will help visitors, he said.
Of course it will hurt through travellers who would be better off
bypassing downtown Bennington.
-Mike
Michael Moroney
>I never realized NY had a problem with signing two separated routes with
>the same number. Couldn't they call it NY 1279 officially and post it
>as NY 279? Then again, the Betsy Ross Bridge is signed as NJ 90 - how
>much of the route is in NY?
I only know of a couple "dual" NY routes (different roads with the same
number), one is NY 27 on Long Island which had a piece removed from the
middle, one is in the Catskills where the middle was never built, and
the Bear Mtn Parkway, also with an unbuilt piece.
--
-Mike
Douglas Kerr
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:b72ji4$g4b$2...@pcls4.std.com...
On Long Island, the split state touring route is NY 24, not NY 27. IMO, the
eastern portion of NY 24 should be renumbered as NY 424. In the Catskills,
the split route is NY 42, and once again, I suggest renumbering one of the
two segments to make things less confusing for the traveler.
> --
>
> -Mike
Steve
I was more referring to NY 295 and other such routes, touring routes
well removed from Interstates with like designations.
Douglas Kerr
> "Douglas Kerr" <dke...@oswego.eduHORMEL> writes:
>
> >BENNINGTON -- It's all but official - the Bennington Bypass will be
numbered
> >Vermont Route 279.
>
> >While the decision still needs final approval from transportation
officials
> >in Montpelier, all those involved in discussions to date said they have
> >heard no opposition to the Route 279 designation for the highway.
> >"The response has been very positive," said Steven Lynch, bypass project
> >manager.
>
> I wrote Mr. Lynch a while back inquiring about the bypass, he mentioned
> the 279 number as "possible".
Using VT 279 as the number, as opposed to rerouting NY 7 and VT 9 and using
a VT 9A designation for what is now VT 9, or using some number like 67A or
even 67B, does make much more sense in the end.
>
> >The numbering scenario is based on federal numbering guidelines that give
> >highways around cities and towns a number "2" prefix. That, combined with
> >U.S. Route 7 and Vermont Route 9 - which it will bypass - makes up the
> >proposed highway number.
>
> Those are interstate rules, Mr. Lynch. Never heard of any federal
> "guidelines" for state route numberings, and considering the hodgepodge
> of state route systems, I doubt they exist.
However, VTrans has a habit of using FHWA numbering guidelines for their
spur and loop routes of Interstates with state designations. See VT 191 in
Newport and VT 289 in the Burlington area. Using VT 279 just takes this
tradition and uses it for a bypass that is not meant for connection to the
Interstate highway system.
>
> >But in New York state, where the Bennington Bypass begins, there is
already
> >a Route 279. It's in western New York, east of Buffalo near Lake Ontario.
> >That would prevent New York from numbering its portion of the bypass
Route
> >279, Lynch said. The solution is this - not only would Vermont Route 9
> >remain the same, but so would N.Y. Route 7. When the bypass forks off
from
> >N.Y. Route 7 in Hoosick, N.Y., signs for the bypass will simply read "to
> >Vermont Route 279." The New York portion of the highway will have an
> >official number, designated by New York transportation officials, but
that
> >number won't appear on any road signs to avoid confusing travelers, Lynch
> >said.
>
> Good old NY reference routes. Same problem as whatever reference route
> runs from NY 22 to MA 102 since NY 102 is elsewhere.
Yes, in Nassau County. I support just using a reference route for these
cases, as the more important sections of the highway is in New England and
not New York State.
>
> >The decisions made at the meeting appeased William B. Colvin,
Bennington's
> >economic and community development director. The decision to not renumber
> >N.Y. Route 7 or Vermont Route 9 is advantageous for the town, he said.
> >That decision also received kudos from Ted Corbett, executive director of
> >the Better Bennington Corp. Keeping the current highways with the same
> >numbers will help visitors, he said.
>
> Of course it will hurt through travellers who would be better off
> bypassing downtown Bennington.
True, but if control cities on signs leading to VT 279 are something to the
tune of Rutland, Brattleboro, Troy and Williamstown (or Pittsfield), while
signs for US 7 and VT 9 point to Bennington, it could be beneficial to all.
>
> -Mike
Michael G. Koerner
NY 90 isn't that far from I-90.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Douglas Kerr
"Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote in message
news:3E94DF29...@dataex.com...
> Steve wrote:
> >
> > Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve <smal...@mit.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > >I never realized NY had a problem with signing two separated routes
with
> > > >the same number. Couldn't they call it NY 1279 officially and post
it
> > > >as NY 279? Then again, the Betsy Ross Bridge is signed as NJ 90 -
how
> > > >much of the route is in NY?
> > >
> > > I only know of a couple "dual" NY routes (different roads with the
same
> > > number), one is NY 27 on Long Island which had a piece removed from
the
> > > middle, one is in the Catskills where the middle was never built, and
> > > the Bear Mtn Parkway, also with an unbuilt piece.
> > > --
> > >
> > > -Mike
> >
> > I was more referring to NY 295 and other such routes, touring routes
> > well removed from Interstates with like designations.
>
> NY 90 isn't that far from I-90.
In Montezuma, where NY 90 crosses over I-90 and then paralells I-90 for a
short distance, you can see NY 90 shields from the Thruway. Interesting
indeed.
Michael Moroney
>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >I never realized NY had a problem with signing two separated routes with
>> >the same number. Couldn't they call it NY 1279 officially and post it
>> >as NY 279? Then again, the Betsy Ross Bridge is signed as NJ 90 - how
>> >much of the route is in NY?
>>
>> I only know of a couple "dual" NY routes (different roads with the same
>> number), one is NY 27 on Long Island which had a piece removed from the
>> middle, one is in the Catskills where the middle was never built, and
>> the Bear Mtn Parkway, also with an unbuilt piece.
>I was more referring to NY 295 and other such routes, touring routes
>well removed from Interstates with like designations.
This is a little different, where the interstate route and NY state route
are different "classes" (and I-295 is technically NY 295I as well).
You mentioned two state routes bearing the 279 number, which doesn't
happen except for a handful of "broken" routes. I also don't know of any
NY state routes bearing numbers for completely different routes
(non-multiplexed) except for maybe a few reference routes (NY 344 manages
to have 3 ends this way)
--
-Mike
Emi Melissa Briet
(Michael Moroney) wrote:
> Good old NY reference routes. Same problem as whatever reference route
> runs from NY 22 to MA 102 since NY 102 is elsewhere.
Could always find out the actual route# by looking at the top row of the
little green "mile markers" by the side of the road =)
--
Emi Melissa Briet -- Kawaii techie-chan and DDR Maniac! ^.^v
Keep your ear to the radio, and keep hot water with you at all times!
Douglas Kerr
"Emi Melissa Briet" <e...@emiofbrie.com> wrote in message
news:emi-100403...@rrcs-central-24-123-116-102.biz.rr.com...
> In article <b72jbm$g4b$1...@pcls4.std.com>, mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com
> (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
> > Good old NY reference routes. Same problem as whatever reference route
> > runs from NY 22 to MA 102 since NY 102 is elsewhere.
>
> Could always find out the actual route# by looking at the top row of the
> little green "mile markers" by the side of the road =)
Or look at http://www.empirestateroads.com/sr/refroute8.html, as the road is
clearly in Columbia County.