Talk:New York State Thruway/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Freeway

I changed freeway to expressway, though I'm not even sure that that's the best term. You don't hear the term freeway much in New York -- and its definitely not free to drive on. The term expressway seems to be limied to certain urban areas. I'd always considered the Thruway as a limited-access or interstate highway with tolls. The Expressway article does link to Freeway which discusses differences in terminology. Nonenmac 18:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After discussing this with some other Thruway users and reading related Wikipedia articles, I changed expressway to highway which is more general and seems to fit. Nonenmac 21:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A freeway doesn't signify whether the highway is free or not, but it is the standard description for a limited access highway with grade-separated interchanges. An expressway is a limited access highway but not necessarily with grade-separated interchanges. In New York State, however, people use the term expressway to denote freeway. By the way, this article needs a photo of a blue background sign. I wonder if any still exist on the Thruway?Seldon25 (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Redesign

I'm working on a redesign of this page at User:TwinsMetsFan/New York State Thruway. Comments/suggestions are appreciated. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nice! Jgcarter 01:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Status report: all of the "Notes" section has been incorporated into other sections of the article and the Route description has been expanded to include all parts of the Thruway system. All that remains is to rework the mainline exit list (on my page) and the I-287 and I-95 exit lists (on their pages) and, once that's done, the article should be ready to move over. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Great work there. I just have one minor nit. The New England Thruway is not toll-free, although it is tolled northbound only. Also, wouldn't it be better to link to New England Thruway rather than Interstate 95 in New York? Other than this it looks good to go. --Polaron | Talk 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the report and the compliments. I will fix the statement regarding tolls on the NET to (hopefully) be more accurate. As for the New England Thruway, I would've linked there had I known the article existed. Now that I'm aware of its existence, I'll clean that article up instead of I-95 in NY. Speaking of which, an article probably exists for most (if not all) segments of I-95 in NY (including the Cross-Bronx Expressway and the Bruckner Expressway), so I'll begin cleaning those up as well and start outsourcing overly specific information from I-95 in NY to the appropriate article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
One bit of critique; you seem to alternate between "Main Article: XXX" and "More Information: XXX". Otherwise, Im VERY impressed!!!! Jgcarter 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've attempted to rectify the concerns above, both regarding the NET and the main article links. As always, comments/questions are welcome. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing: The Thruway runs northwest/southeast. You list it as just east/west. Perhaps you should list it more accurate in the infobox. Dont mean to be nitpicking ;o) Jgcarter 03:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of listing the Thruway's orientation as northwest/southeast, nor am I a fan of making it purely west/east. The problem lies within the shape of the mainline, which runs east-west for a much longer distance than it does north-south. The best option would probably be to say west/south for the orientation. This has been done in the past for NY 17, which has an even less-pronounced north-south section. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Content has been merged. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont get it

I'm trying to understand how I-84 is part of the NY State Thruway.. -- Johnny Albert 13:05, 16 Febraury 2007 (UTC)

NYSDOT transferred maintenance of I-84 over to the NYSTA in 1991 for maintenance reasons.[1] The process to return I-84 to the DOT began with the removal of the tolls on I-190 in Buffalo in 2006. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohh. Okay i sort of get it. -- Johnny Albert 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I-84 is not part of what is commonly referred to as the thruway. However, itis maintained by the thruway authority. Smartyshoe 12:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then one could claim that the canal system is part of the thruway too because it has been transfered to the thruway authority!148.78.243.25 (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Picture of route 17 shield in infobox

Why is the picture of route 17 shield in the infobox? 17 is not maintained by the thruway authority. So, why is it pictured? Smartyshoe 23:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably because of the short overlap at Suffern. I don't think any of those shields, except the Thruway logo, should be there. --NE2 13:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
But, NY 52 overlaps the Interstate 84 portion of the Thruway and it doesn't have a shield there. I think that only roads designated as thruway maintained roads (as opposed to roads that just overlap thruway-maintained roads) should be in the infobox. Smartyshoe 13:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure who added those shields in the first place. Agreed, only the Thruway shield should be there, and this is an issue on a number of toll roads in the northeast. About the only one that doesn't have extra shields is the New Jersey Turnpike. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the only one I have a problem with is 17. If the road is maintained by the thruway authority, I think it is fine. But if we keep 17, we'll have to add several other roads that are overlapping thruway-maintained roads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smartyshoe (talk • contribs) 15:26, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Maybe we should split New York State Thruway and New York State Thruway Authority. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I-84 is officially part of the Thruway; it's a road maintained by the Thruway Authority. If that is wrong, maybe this should be moved to New York State Thruway mainline with the NYSTA information split out; the only spurs that are currently part of this article are the GSP Connector (which is also covered in Garden State Parkway) and the Berkshire Connector. --NE2 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be easier just to add a blurb about 84, with a link to the main article, and the same for I-190. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smartyshoe (talk • contribs) 16:20, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
But is I-84, strictly speaking, part of the Thruway or only part of the Thruway system? --NE2 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with any potential split of the kind. Otherwise, that would cause complications for other similar toll road systems such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Besides, if I read the events of October 2006 correctly, I-84 will no longer be under NYSTA control/maintenance by the end of this year. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it would cause complications, any more than splitting Virginia Department of Transportation from state highways in Virginia. Note that the NYSTA also includes the New York State Canal Corporation. --NE2 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The way I read it, it seemed like you wanted to split portions of the system into their own articles, not what you implied with your last statement. I have no problems with splitting NYSTA to its own article, provided a quality article can be made of it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like officially I-84 is part of both the "Thruway system" and the Thruway itself: [2] So any article titled New York State Thruway should cover the entire system, using template:main for the branches. It might still make sense to split off NYSTA into an article that discusses its organization and politics. --NE2 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

history + natives

Shouldn't there be some mention in the history of the Iroquois like shutting the highway down for a day and setting it on fire and all that in the early nineties when Pataki tried to levy taxes on their reservations? I remember that was a pretty big deal way back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.118.190 (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

History relating to sections

But these were already open - how does this work?

535 miles closely matches the current system except for the GSP connection and the mainline south of Suffern. By 1960 it was 559 miles, which closely matches the current length.

--NE2 01:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Direction

I was wondering if someone could tell me why this article decided to start from the west and go east (and then south from Albany) when describing the route. I've noticed most articles do that, but in NY (as opposed to most other states) routes are not mile marked from west-east. The Thruway is numbered from the city of NY north to Albany and continued west to the PA line. To say that this article should be like all the others and go west to east because everyone else does ignores the uniqueness of NY roads/highways (like the fact that the Thruway is one of a very few interstates built prior to the interstate system and with no help from the federal gov't which paid 90% of interstate building in other states). Also I didn't happen to notice anything in the article about the Thruway having blue exit signs and that it was originally conceived that all interstates would have the same blue signs to match NY's but then green won out at the last minute (the head of the Thruway was color-blind and didn't notice the difference anyway) and much later the thruway changed to conform. Camelbinky (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment about all NY routes not being milemarked from west to east is incorrect; the NYSDOT traffic counts log all routes from west to east and south to north. But this has no bearing on the Thruway, which is not a NYSDOT entity. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Interstate designations

The second two paragraphs in the article--on Interstate highway designations--are well written, but is there a better place for them than the lead? Could a separate section be created for them? Skiasaurus (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Albany

There is very little information on the Thruway in the Albany area (Capital District), even though the two busiest exits in the ENTIRE Thruway system are the two in the city (24 & 25). I know most articles on state-wide and Hudson Valley oriented articles are dominated by downstaters but please be considerate of the fact that upstate sometimes has more imporantance and deserves more mentioning than minor things from your neck of the woods.148.78.243.25 (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am a current "downstater" and former Albany-area resident who understands the concern. I would suggest that you be bold and add the missing information about the Capital District to the page yourself. Philhower (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
He's right that the importance to the capital region of the Thruway is essential and needs to go in. JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The hatnote

What is with the cryptic hatnote on this article about the theater? Are people really getting the Thruway when looking for the theater or was this some weird vandalism that has gone unnoticed? I dont get that anyone would really confuse the two. I'd like to go ahead and remove the hatnote.Camelbinky (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be there in the off chance that somebody punches in the initials "NYST" and it is redirected to this article. There is, maybe, a one in fifty chance that this person was actually thinking about the New York State Theater at Lincoln Center, and the hatnote covers that possibilty. I agree, not a necessary hatnote. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Major junctions

I was planning on taking care of this issue when I cleaned up the article as a whole at some point, but we can definitely take care of it now. Here's what I would do: simply toss the I-90 and I-87 spurs (how can a spur be a major junction for its parent route?). I-390 could be an exception, as it does not terminate at I-90, continuing south from Rochester to I-86/NY 17. That will cut it down to seven junctions. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree but I'd keep the I-87/I-90 Junction. That'll make eight, thats fine. Jgcarter 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I counted the I-87/I-90 junction in Albany in my list but I forgot about the GSP (oops). Here are the junctions I intended on keeping:
  • NY 400 in Buffalo
  • I-390 in Henrietta (near Rochester)
  • I-81 in Syracuse
  • I-88 near Schenectady
  • I-87/I-90 in Albany
  • I-84 in Newburgh
  • NY 17 in Harriman
  • GSP in Ramapo
--TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, sounds good what what about the Palisades Interstate Parkway or the Mass Pike? Jgcarter 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say yes to the PIP but no to the Mass Pike. As you know, the Mass Pike connects to the Berkshire Connector, not the mainline. Now, I don't have an issue with adding the Mass Pike but if we add it, then someone could conceivably add the Queen Elizabeth Way in Buffalo, where it connects to Thruway I-190. So, my reasoning is that we should limit the junctions in the infobox to those on the mainline. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh right...I forgot. Beides, access is also provided at the 87-90 junction anyway, right? So yeah to the PIP, no to the Mass Pike. Jgcarter 01:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I just added back the I-287 and TSP junctions. The TSP one might be questionable, but the two I-287 junctions are quite large and busy. Certainly busier than some of the others upstate. 168.100.1.1 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
And I've reverted the addition. The Taconic Parkway junction is on the Berkshire Connector, not on the mainline, so it shouldn't be listed at all. The western I-287 junction had the same location as another junction, and we try to avoid repeating locations unless absolutely necessary, which it isn't here. The only one of the three that has some credibility is the eastern I-287 junction in Elmsford, but that doesn't really strike me as a "major" junction. – TMF 05:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, the three additional junctions brought the junction total to 12, which exceeds the project's limit of 10 junctions in an infobox. – TMF 05:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Component highways

I do not see why I keep getting reverted in adding the component highways parameter to the infobox. It is a valid parameter for Infobox road and is used in other articles such as Pennsylvania Turnpike and Ohio Turnpike. Dough4872 00:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope you have more rationale than this. You added said parameter to the article on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, an article that's been your pet project, and likewise the parameter's use on the Ohio Turnpike was added by an editor with a vested interest in the article. I personally don't see the benefit to the parameter. Infoboxes should be concise and show only a small selection of key facts about the road: length, establishment date, extents. {{infobox road}} is quickly heading the way of the bloated {{infobox bridge}}, but that doesn't mean articles should be forced to use all of these extraneous parameters. – TMF (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I really don't see the problem with adding the parameter - what numbering designations the road carries would be quite important, I would think. --Rschen7754 03:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
From the perspective of someone who doesn't care about roads, it really isn't. At least in Western New York, signage leading travelers to the Thruway rarely mention I-90; instead, the assemblies only have the Thruway trailblazer. This is probably done to match common parlance, which puts much greater emphasis on the Thruway name than the Interstate Highway numbers. – TMF (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I have problems with this adjustment on a National level, because it means NJ 700, I-95 and I-95M should have spots in the NJ Turnpike article. Also, why do we need the parameter if people could just find this out by reading the lead? Mitch32(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 13:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Regarding TMFs last argument, the PA Turnpike is signed similarly to the NY Thruway in that the toll road is given more precedence than the route number. Despite this, it still has the parameter for the component highways. I feel that this parameter is necessary to indicate what route numbers a named road has. Dough4872 21:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
@Mitch: because people would have to read the lead, and this provides the information in a visual format. By that argument, we might as well get rid of the infobox. --Rschen7754 21:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Then we should make the lead intriguing. I still haven't seen an answer to my problem with the unsigned numbers. Mitch32(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Unsigned numbers can be listed, I see no harm with it. Dough4872 22:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I do. No one is going to get it because for example, how many of us not roadgeeks know an NJ 700 exists? Or an I-95M? Mitch32(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)
It's one thing if the road is unsigned for its entire route, like NJ 700 or I-95M. Then it would be like any of the reference routes in New York that have articles, for instance the Taconic State Parkway infobox does not note that it is NY 987G, that's in the lead only. However, I-87 is signed both South of the Thruway on the Major Deegan and North of the Thruway on the Adirondack Northway, while I-90 is signed both East and West of the Thruway as well. If you don't put it in the infobox, but you do put in that it terminates at I-90 on the Pennsylvania Border and I-87 on the NYC border, it's going to look like either those roads end there and continue onto the Thruway (and eventually eachother) or that they continue on in both directions afterwards on a completely separate road than the Thruway (see virtually every road article that doesn't have complex designations like this.) So in summary, if it's a designation that's unsigned for the entire route, like New York Reference Route 987G, that should only be in the lead, but if it's signed in parts, it should be in the infobox. Also, most of the I-87 Thruway portion is signed as I-87. I've driven it multiple times, from Albany (and points west) to at least 287, save between Exits 17 and 18 (since from where I live, I'd get on/off at Exit 17 if going South and Exit 18 if going North or to points west) and all of it is signed. As for points west, I'm not sure how far the signing goes, but I know that most, if not all, of the I-87 portion is signed as such. Smartyllama (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Smartyllama. If the highway is signed, include it in the infobox. Based on my own original research, I-90 is well signed from intersecting roads in the Syracuse area. Typically the big green signs say "[I-90 marker] Thruway," usually without the Thruway marker. I agree that the term "Thruway" is used much more often in spoken form than "I-90" to refer to the road, but that does not mean we do not include the associated Interstates in this situation where infobox space is not scarce.  VC  23:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

But the point is why do we care about what's in the infobox. We want people reading the articles, therefore the lead should be a priority over the infobox. Mitch32(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 02:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
But the infobox is important in giving readers a quick glance about the key facts of a route. The route designations for a named road is one of them. Dough4872 14:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The infobox is long enough on some displays, and I think we should consider the idea that we can't let it get to the size where railroads with NRHPs does. Mitch32(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 20:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
And therein lies the difference in philosophy between myself and many of the other editors who have posted here. The parameters that should be in the infobox template have been there for years. All of the parameters that have been added in the past few months are excessive. Yes, I know some were added to accommodate other countries and entice them to convert their articles' infoboxes to {{infobox road}} (a process that I don't give two damns about). If other editors like these parameters and the excessively long infoboxes that form from their use, more power to them. Personally, I think they're unneeded. – TMF (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The list of "component highways" in the infobox makes it appear as if the numbered highways in question are included entirely within the named road. Unless one is familiar with the geography of the area and the extents of the numbered routes, this new "feature" isn't really helpful in this particular case and is in fact confusing to one unfamiliar with the road or place. If the entirety of the numbered roads were indeed part of the named road, then this makes sense, but this is not the case here. It would be more helpful if the label were "route number designations" rather than "component highways". --Polaron | Talk 18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I must disagree. If the designation is followed by a "from Foo to Bar" qualifier, then it does not make it seem as if the designation takes up the whole route's length. TCN7JM 20:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
They are still not component highways. It's just that these certain routes follow portions of the Thruway. Why not relabel it as the more accurate "route number designations" rather than the potentially confusing term "component highways"? --Polaron | Talk 20:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Either way, it's still too crufty to be in the infobox. – TMF (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on New York State Thruway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York State Thruway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on New York State Thruway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Seneca Nation lawsuit

The Senecas have filed a lawsuit (W. NY Case No. 1:18-cv-429; Channel 2 Buffalo report April 12, 2018) against the Thruway regarding maintenance and compensation issues relating to the section running through their Cattaraugas Reservation. This should probably be mentioned, or at least the conditions leading up to it, but I'm not sure how to word it, what weight to give it, or where it should be included. Mapsax (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Split article

Today some new information about the New York State Thruway Authority was added to the article. Now the lead sentence of the article says that "The New York State Thruway, often called simply the Thruway, is a New York State public-benefit corporation." (citations omitted for clarity). The first and third citations added clarifies the error in this addition: the public-benefit corporation is the New York State Thruway Authority, not the New York State Thruway. As I noted in a previous edit summary, the thruway is a road, while the thruway authority is the corporation.

Accordingly, I'm going to propose that this new information be split into a separate article, New York State Thruway Authority about the organization and history of that corporation. This would mirror the split between Mackinac Bridge (article about the structure) and Mackinac Bridge Authority (organization with jurisdiction over the structure) or the split between Michigan State Trunkline Highway System/List of state trunkline highways in Michigan/M-1 (Michigan highway)/et al. and Michigan Department of Transportation. Imzadi 1979 → 18:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. But, we say, New York State Thruway system is a collection of six individual components. What would New York State Thruway include? Just the mainline, or all of the six components? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The RD section already covers the six components. The additions that would be split out are the Organization section any content in the lead and History sections that applies to the NYSTA and not the physical roads themselves other than anything that would be appropriate as a summary. Then the bolded term in the lead for the NYSTA would be converted to a wikilink. Imzadi 1979 → 19:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The Problem: The problem with this proposed split is that it would essentially be a duplicate article and a waste of site resources because it would only add the observation that the road is organized as a New York State public-benefit corporation. I do not understand the continued, passionate, and immediate response to my attempts to indicate this formal association, other than the observation that NYS public benefit corporations are associated with political controversy in New York State politics.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, hello again to User:RoySmith, who appears to be vigorous in his or her patrols of new york state public benefit corporations state-wide and not just with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Smellyshirt5: I don't think it would be a duplicate. We don't have any place on Wikipedia that currently notes the members of the six-member board by name. (See Michigan Department of Transportation for a listing of the state transportation commissioners as an example.) What about the history of the authority's directors? Again, the MDOT article has a list of the past and present directors. What about content about any operational divisions? MDOT has seven regions, so does the NYSTA have some other similar unit? All of this alone is more content than we'd need in an article titled and about the thruway road itself. How about a general history of how the authority was formed?
My biggest, and most immediate, issue has been how you've been conflating the authority with the road. They're separate things. It just so happens at the moment that New York State Thruway Authority redirects to New York State Thruway, but as shown with other toll facilities and their agencies, most of them have separate articles for each. Political controversy has nothing to do with the edits. Rather, it's a matter of accuracy in not calling the road a corporation and forgetting that the authority is the corporation. I support noting that the authority is a corporation 1000%, but not when you keep mistakenly saying the road itself is. Imzadi 1979 → 20:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay I'm convinced.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

10 junctions Max!

Please stop overfilling the junction list. 10 junctions is the limit. I'll admit that I didn't know about that rule until recently, but now that I know about it, I'm trying to make sure it is abided by. For the Thruway, I think its fair that we limit the junctions to ones with interstates.Needforspeed888

I think 11 is ok; the Garden State Parkway is a really important road. Peterjack1 (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It says in the code “only list 8–10 junctions”, so we need to abide by that rule. If you insist on having more than 10, you need to get the rules changed. Needforspeed888 (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Seneca Nation lawsuit continued

[Continued from here] It's now a they said/they said situation. Sept. 15, 2019: WKBW-TV The Buffalo News I definitely now defer to someone else because it's getting tougher to maintain NPOV with this, unless things are just quoted verbatim. Mapsax (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC) [Add] The New York Times has joined in the fun. Mapsax (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC) [Second add] OK, there's been an agreement reached (The Buffalo News NYSTA press release), so maybe in ten weeks (planned) when the Thruway has been repaired this will all be trivia in the past...or will it be a notable part of the highway's history? The contention has been there since its initial construction. Mapsax (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

We need to exempt MOS:RJL from this article

Hi, I think we need to come to a consensus about MOS:RJL in this article. I understand that it's the standard, but the NYS Thruway has some really, really inaccurate signage. In order to be more encyclopedic, I think we should only use it case by case, as some routes that exits directly connect to, such as NY 59 at exit 11, NY 32 at exit 16, and NY 212 at exit 20, just aren't signed for some reason. Not including them in the exit list is inaccurate. Smith0124 (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Two words: notes column. Imzadi 1979 → 05:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Still seems inaccurate, I think we need the shield too. Smith0124 (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, we don't need the marker even in the destination column, but as a matter of convention, we include it there. The notes column is for supplemental information, so if it doesn't fit elsewhere, that's where it should go. Imzadi 1979 → 05:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel like accuracy should be a matter of convention too. It's just the right thing to do. Smith0124 (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
(I believe my message on Smith's talk page prompted this.) Not sure how using the notes column would still be inaccurate, as the entire table is "encyclopedic", not just the destinations column. — C16SH (speak up) 07:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"New York State Route NYST" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect New York State Route NYST. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 11#New York State Route NYST until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Content moved from Interstate 90#New York

I'm not sure where this would fit in the Thruway or I-90 (NY) article, so I'm just going to dump this here if someone finds it useful for a later expansion. From rev 1057907210:

The Berkshire Connector was originally constructed as part of the Thruway project in the middle 1950s and received its current designation as I-90 in 1958. The road roughly follows the course of the 19th-century Erie Canal for much of its length in New York State. "I-90" (operated by NYSDOT) carries I-90 between the two; however, the Berkshire Section directly connects to the mainline at Thruway interchange 21A 6.5 miles (10.5 km) west of the point where I-90 joins it at Thruway interchange B1.

The mileposts and exit numbers on the New York State Thruway mainline originate at the New York City line and increase northward along I-87 and westward along I-90. As a result, mileposts and exit numbers on the I-90 section of the Thruway mainline increase from east to west, contrary to modern practices where numbers increase from the west or south. The NYSDOT-maintained portion in between, known to locals as "I-90," does number its mileage and exits in the traditional west-to-east method. Coincidentally, the NYSDOT maintained portion of I-90 is oriented geographically north–south for most of its length, so the exit numbers seem to increase from north to south. Exit and milepost numbering starts over again when the Berkshire Section of the Thruway begins, with exit and mile numbers preceded by the letter B (Exit B1, Exit B2, Mile B1, Mile B2, etc.)

There once were two metric-only signs on the westbound New York State Thruway around Syracuse, which is about 100 miles (160 km) from Ontario. The NYS Thruway Authority decided to test metric signage, which may have briefly included an 88 km/h (55 mph) speed limit sign, on the Thruway. There was also a sign displaying the distance to the I-81 interchange in kilometers in DeWitt. These signs are now only displayed in mile figures.

I-790 in Utica used to have a completely direct connection with I-90 at Thruway interchange 31. Various road redesign projects over the years have eventually led to this direct connection being partially severed. Traffic exiting the Thruway must use two different surface streets to reach I-790. However, it is still possible to travel from I-790 directly onto the Thruway. I-790 has some other oddities: no exit numbers, no reassurance markers, and it runs concurrently with New York State Route 5 (NY 5) for its entire length.

SounderBruce 10:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_State_Thruway/Archive_1&oldid=1140125917"