New York

[seicer]

Yet West Virginia can go 70 MPH whereas the 85th percentile is hovering at 75 MPH?

There are sections of the West Virginia Turnpike that have such tight curves, yet it is signed at 60 MPH (and 65 MPH for those old enough to remember that).

Even with the upgrades at Hale Eddy, those curves are negotiable at speeds above 55 MPH. If they need advisory signs - which are just that, advisory and not enforceable, then just sign it and be done with it. West Virginia - and other states with hills and mountains, do this just fine.

[Jim]

I thought this was slightly interesting, and figured if anyone else thought so too they're probably members of this forum who read this thread.  I just traveled NY 7B for the first time today and noticed that every reference marker I paid attention to was still a NY 7 marker.  Does New York not bother updating these or is the route, for the purposes of these markers, still "7", while the actual NY 7 through the area, concurrent with I-88, only "88I"?

[vdeane]

NY generally doesn't update reference markers.  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it's not supposed to.  Part of I-390 near Wayland still has 245 markers, and part of NY 151 and all of Third Ave Ext (a reference route) say 43.  Meanwhile, most markers in Wayne County (47) use county code 37, and Tioga (97) still uses 65.

The reason for this is because accident reports are tied to the reference marker, so the marker in the field needs to stay correlated with any past reports.

[cl94]

Key word: generally. Region 5 hasn't gotten that memo.

[empirestate]

I thought this was slightly interesting, and figured if anyone else thought so too they're probably members of this forum who read this thread.  I just traveled NY 7B for the first time today and noticed that every reference marker I paid attention to was still a NY 7 marker.  Does New York not bother updating these or is the route, for the purposes of these markers, still "7", while the actual NY 7 through the area, concurrent with I-88, only "88I"?

NY generally doesn't update reference markers.  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it's not supposed to.  Part of I-390 near Wayland still has 245 markers, and part of NY 151 and all of Third Ave Ext (a reference route) say 43.  Meanwhile, most markers in Wayne County (47) use county code 37, and Tioga (97) still uses 65.

The reason for this is because accident reports are tied to the reference marker, so the marker in the field needs to stay correlated with any past reports.

Valerie's got it, exactly. And Jim's got it, too–this is the type of thing that always interested me and is why I set up a whole website on the topic.

[Michael]

I read an article this morning on Syracuse.com that said I-690 westbound in Syracuse had only one lane open due to lane striping and emergency repairs.  I drove it around 1:45 this afternoon, and both lanes were already reopened.  I noticed that there's a new solid stripe between the lanes at the first lane shift, and a rumble strip has been added between the lanes throughout the work zone.

[Alps]

Yet West Virginia can go 70 MPH whereas the 85th percentile is hovering at 75 MPH?

There are sections of the West Virginia Turnpike that have such tight curves, yet it is signed at 60 MPH (and 65 MPH for those old enough to remember that).

Even with the upgrades at Hale Eddy, those curves are negotiable at speeds above 55 MPH. If they need advisory signs - which are just that, advisory and not enforceable, then just sign it and be done with it. West Virginia - and other states with hills and mountains, do this just fine.

Advisory speeds are for all vehicles. Your passenger car can go 70 around those curves but a truck better not exceed 55.

[seicer]

Are speed advisory signs designed for a particular type of vehicle anyways? I can't remember the history behind it.

I was looking for photos of the large signs on the West Virginia Turnpike that show a truck tipping over along with the advisory speed for trucks, which is like the image below, just on a large yellow guide sign and flashing lights. For the curves that meet those needs, these would be more than adequate, especially given such a low traffic count and accident rate.

[cl94]

New York will not go above 55 if all vehicles cannot go 65 nearly consistently. They won't. Neither will most other places in the Northeast. Stopping sight distance is also an issue here. It's not like 55 is actually enforced on this stretch. Nor do I think we'll ever see above 55 here, as the design speed is ~55.

[seicer]

Uh, no.

Stopping sight distance isn't an issue on what will eventually become an interstate. It's a well-designed freeway for most of its length, although it is dated in several segments where NY 17 is well over 50 years old at this point. If sight distance has been an issue, it's one that has not been raised when segments have been upgraded or proposed for upgrading. This isn't that trecherous of a road that it's not different than similar facilities in other more mountainous states.

And yes, it is enforced. A lot. There has not been a time that I have driven it in the day or night and have spotted at a minimum two officers patrolling - even when it's 4 AM in the morning on a highway that receives practically no traffic at night. It's revenue generation, full stop. If it was for safety, we'd be seeing a high accident rate, but that's not the case. And the 85th percentile clearly shows that people disregard the speed limits as is.

And FWIW, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have significant portions at 70 MPH with Maine topping at 75 MPH. That's more than a few.

[jeffandnicole]

Uh, no.

Stopping sight distance isn't an issue on what will eventually become an interstate. It's a well-designed freeway for most of its length, although it is dated in several segments where NY 17 is well over 50 years old at this point. If sight distance has been an issue, it's one that has not been raised when segments have been upgraded or proposed for upgrading. This isn't that trecherous of a road that it's not different than similar facilities in other more mountainous states.

And yes, it is enforced. A lot. There has not been a time that I have driven it in the day or night and have spotted at a minimum two officers patrolling - even when it's 4 AM in the morning on a highway that receives practically no traffic at night. It's revenue generation, full stop. If it was for safety, we'd be seeing a high accident rate, but that's not the case. And the 85th percentile clearly shows that people disregard the speed limits as is.

And FWIW, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have significant portions at 70 MPH with Maine topping at 75 MPH. That's more than a few.

Still, there's a difference between strict enforcement, and enforcement in general.  What is the 85th percentile speed anyway?

If the cops are pulling people over at 60 mph, then it's strict enforcement.  If they're pulling people over at 75, then there's not much to argue there if they're going people a 20 mph leeway. 

[seicer]

I posted the 85th percentile in the page prior to this, but it's well in the 70's.

Cops don't generate much revenue if it's anything below 10 MPH, and based on my last conversation with an officer when I was pulled over on I-88, he mentioned to just keep it at "10 over and below."

[dgolub]

NY generally doesn't update reference markers.  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it's not supposed to.  Part of I-390 near Wayland still has 245 markers, and part of NY 151 and all of Third Ave Ext (a reference route) say 43.  Meanwhile, most markers in Wayne County (47) use county code 37, and Tioga (97) still uses 65.

The reason for this is because accident reports are tied to the reference marker, so the marker in the field needs to stay correlated with any past reports.

Also, the 25C, 27A, and 904 reference markers on what are now unsigned reference routes on Long Island.

[cl94]

They don't enforce below 70 on that road. And the issue here is DESIGN SPEED, not 85th percentile speed. NYSDOT won't post a speed limit above the design speed. Design speed here is 55.

[seicer]

I can personally vouch that they do enforce the speed limit. I received a ticket for travelling 65 in a 55 MPH zone in Hale Eddy, and that ticket was thrown out of court.

--

And yes, I heard your comments about design speed the first time - but the *entire highway* isn't designed to a 55 MPH speed limit. There are a handful sharper curves than normal, but as I explained earlier, that doesn't mean the *entire highway* should be signed for 55 MPH. If that was the case, West Virginia would have kept their interstates at 55 MPH, considering how many of their curves have advisory speeds of 55 MPH. And we know that many roads in the nation went to 55 MPH during the environmental/gas saving craze of the 1970's and never went back - just look how long it took New York to obtain 65 MPH speed limits, for instance.

The "design speed" is nothing more than engineering lingo that was broadly applied and is unfairly enforced. It's simply not based on any data that shows that accident rates are higher than other facilities of a similar nature; nor is it based on any data that shows virtually all travellers drive well above the "design speed" without incident.

Leaving it at this: We should be advocating for safe speed limits based on a variety of factors that includes not just a highway's design speed, but accident rate and the 85th percentile. If only a handful of curves prevents an entire highway from being signed at 70 MPH, then sign those curves appropriately and be done with it.

[J N Winkler]

Question about design speed on NY 17:  are the values being tossed about the design speeds actually listed in the construction plans--usually on the title sheet, per FAPG 630(b) Supp.--or are they imputed design speeds based on the latest edition of the Green Book?  There is often a wide gap between the two, especially for older facilities.

[seicer]

Interested in finding out more out of personal curiosity.

[vdeane]

Personally, I don't like the idea of setting speed limits for the lowest common denominator.  Why should I, driver of a Civic that can comfortably drive 70 if not 75 down that stretch of road, be restricted to 55 just because the trucks wouldn't be able to make some of the curves?  That's what advisory speeds are for.  Even going 60-65 feels quite slow on that road.  And yes, it IS crawling with cops.  This is definitely a road where it's hard to hold one's speed down.

(personal opinion)

Uh, no.

Stopping sight distance isn't an issue on what will eventually become an interstate. It's a well-designed freeway for most of its length, although it is dated in several segments where NY 17 is well over 50 years old at this point. If sight distance has been an issue, it's one that has not been raised when segments have been upgraded or proposed for upgrading. This isn't that trecherous of a road that it's not different than similar facilities in other more mountainous states.

And yes, it is enforced. A lot. There has not been a time that I have driven it in the day or night and have spotted at a minimum two officers patrolling - even when it's 4 AM in the morning on a highway that receives practically no traffic at night. It's revenue generation, full stop. If it was for safety, we'd be seeing a high accident rate, but that's not the case. And the 85th percentile clearly shows that people disregard the speed limits as is.

And FWIW, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have significant portions at 70 MPH with Maine topping at 75 MPH. That's more than a few.

Sight distance actually has been an issue with upgrading NY 17 to I-86.  There was a project part of the upgrade between NY 17K and I-84 to reconstruct the road, not because of pavement condition or to widen it, but to remove the bunny hops.

[D-Dey65]

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/14/love-ny-signs-state-wanted-swap-signs-almost-identical-ones/335041002/

Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration has pledged to erect revamped I Love NY road signs to replace the current controversial ones, which are at the center of a years-long dispute that led the federal government to withhold $14 million in highway funding on Feb. 1.

But just days before, the state submitted a proposal calling for new signs nearly identical to the ones already lining the state's highways – with the same size, colors, tourism logos, web address and mobile application that are currently on display.



-

I think that region based tourism signs are not a bad idea, but their latest proposal, before the feds nixed $14 million in highway funding, solved pretty much nothing.

I agree with you on this, but they still can't be everywhere, like they are now. I'm still okay with leaving the existing signs in Port Jefferson alone, since they're clearly meant for people coming off the ferry from Bridgeport.

[jeffandnicole]

...
And yes, I heard your comments about design speed the first time - but the *entire highway* isn't designed to a 55 MPH speed limit. There are a handful sharper curves than normal, but as I explained earlier, that doesn't mean the *entire highway* should be signed for 55 MPH. If that was the case, West Virginia would have kept their interstates at 55 MPH, considering how many of their curves have advisory speeds of 55 MPH.

But the NYSDOT doesn't set the guidelines in West Virginia, or in any other state for that matter.  If West Virginia chooses to sign their roads higher than the design speed, that's their policy. NY's policy is different.  That goes for many other aspects of the roads and highways as well.  Other states allow 65 mph on 2 lane roads.  NYSDOT doesn't.  Again, there may be perfectly fine areas where 65 would work.  But just because Texas or Nevada allows it doesn't mean New York has to allow it.

[vdeane]

Just because they're legally allowed to be different doesn't mean they SHOULD be.  That 55 stretch from Hale Edds to Roscoe is PAINFUL to drive because of the low speed limit and quite frankly I'm glad I live in an area where I don't have to deal with it.  There are also a few two lane roads that are painful to drive because the geometry is good enough for higher speeds (NY 12 north of Alexandria Bay comes to mind, and that road actually was designed such that an in-place upgrade to an interstate would be feasible).

Driving in New England is even worse.  I try to avoid non-interstates where possible especially in MA and CT.

(personal opinion)

[Buffaboy]

Apparently the ORT gantries on the GI bridges are in and ready to go by March. But the toll booths will still remain? So that means that you have to fly into these booths doing 55+ hoping you don't crash into the sides I guess.

[jeffandnicole]

Just because they're legally allowed to be different doesn't mean they SHOULD be.  That 55 stretch from Hale Edds to Roscoe is PAINFUL to drive because of the low speed limit and quite frankly I'm glad I live in an area where I don't have to deal with it.  There are also a few two lane roads that are painful to drive because the geometry is good enough for higher speeds (NY 12 north of Alexandria Bay comes to mind, and that road actually was designed such that an in-place upgrade to an interstate would be feasible).

Driving in New England is even worse.  I try to avoid non-interstates where possible especially in MA and CT.

(personal opinion)

This is also where all-inclusive policies don't work well.  Just like zero-tolerance in schools, sometimes exceptions should be made based on circumstances. 

Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph.  Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.  When the NMSL was repealed, many of those highways could have their limits raised.  And in most states, they looked at the overall actual design to determine if the roadway could handle faster limits.  If there were exceptions, could they be handled by advisory postings, or was a lower limit for a longer stretch of roadway warranted. 

[J N Winkler]

Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph.  Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.

I would dispute that.  FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.

I would not want to assert that a specific highway like NY 17 between Hale Edds and Roscoe was designed for a particular design speed without actually looking at the design speeds listed in the construction plans and pulling out the edition of the Green Book (or, if applicable, Blue Book) that was current at the time of design.

[Beltway]

Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph.  Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.

I would dispute that.  FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.

I would dispute that as well.  AFAIK the normal rural Interstate standards remained at 70 mph from the 1970s onward.