AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: New York  (Read 625440 times)

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3971
  • Last Login: Today at 10:17:37 AM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3650 on: May 18, 2018, 12:34:42 PM »

Rotaries = Entering drivers must yield

There's no such connotation with the term; while some states may define the term "rotary", it doesn't have a universal meaning (other than as a New England-centric term for "traffic circle").
It is true for MA rotaries.

It's true that drivers must yield, yes. But that's a statute that Massachusetts has applied to rotaries; it's not a connotation of the term "rotary" itself. If they revised their statute to read "drivers within a rotary must yield the right of way to traffic entering the rotary", the circle would still be called a rotary.

By contrast, the term "roundabout" (in the U.S.) connotes a circular intersection with a specific set of design features, including the requirement to yield on the approaching legs. A circular intersection that doesn't have these design features would not be referred to as a roundabout.
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5850
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 06:07:38 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3651 on: May 18, 2018, 12:52:20 PM »

There's no such connotation with the term; while some states may define the term "rotary", it doesn't have a universal meaning (other than as a New England-centric term for "traffic circle").

Rotary as an engineering term goes back at least as far as the 1965 AASHO Blue Book, where it refers to a type of circular intersection where entering traffic is expected to merge with traffic already in the circulatory carriageway.  Intersections of this type were built outside the Northeast, notably at US 62/I-35 in Oklahoma City (the circulatory carriageway was removed in the early noughties but the bridges that carried it over I-35 remain in service as facilitated U-turns for the frontage roads).

By contrast, the term "roundabout" (in the U.S.) connotes a circular intersection with a specific set of design features, including the requirement to yield on the approaching legs. A circular intersection that doesn't have these design features would not be referred to as a roundabout.

Supposedly the term roundabout was invented in Britain in the 1920's by an American working for the BBC.  The (then) Road Research Laboratory did not carry out the original research that established the advantages of the yield-on-entry rule until much later, beginning in the late 1950's.  In Britain roundabout was and still is a general term for circular intersections of all types, most but not all of which have been converted to yield-on-entry.

The current approach to roundabout design arrived in the US in the 1990's and there has been a considerable amount of language policing by practitioners to try to restrict the use of the word roundabout to what are also called modern roundabouts, i.e. ones with yield on entry, inscribed circle diameters generally smaller than those of the old AASHO rotaries, and a concept of operation that does not rely on entering traffic merging at speed.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3971
  • Last Login: Today at 10:17:37 AM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3652 on: May 18, 2018, 01:11:22 PM »

There's no such connotation with the term; while some states may define the term "rotary", it doesn't have a universal meaning (other than as a New England-centric term for "traffic circle").

Rotary as an engineering term goes back at least as far as the 1965 AASHO Blue Book, where it refers to a type of circular intersection where entering traffic is expected to merge with traffic already in the circulatory carriageway.  Intersections of this type were built outside the Northeast, notably at US 62/I-35 in Oklahoma City (the circulatory carriageway was removed in the early noughties but the bridges that carried it over I-35 remain in service as facilitated U-turns for the frontage roads).

Were there circular junctions built that were identical save for the yielding requirement, which were not referred to as rotaries?

Quote
By contrast, the term "roundabout" (in the U.S.) connotes a circular intersection with a specific set of design features, including the requirement to yield on the approaching legs. A circular intersection that doesn't have these design features would not be referred to as a roundabout.

Supposedly the term roundabout was invented in Britain in the 1920's by an American working for the BBC.  The (then) Road Research Laboratory did not carry out the original research that established the advantages of the yield-on-entry rule until much later, beginning in the late 1950's.  In Britain roundabout was and still is a general term for circular intersections of all types, most but not all of which have been converted to yield-on-entry.

The current approach to roundabout design arrived in the US in the 1990's and there has been a considerable amount of language policing by practitioners to try to restrict the use of the word roundabout to what are also called modern roundabouts, i.e. ones with yield on entry, inscribed circle diameters generally smaller than those of the old AASHO rotaries, and a concept of operation that does not rely on entering traffic merging at speed.

Right; this specificity of design is what I mean by the connotations of "roundabout" as opposed to "rotary"; and the fact that British usage is more general is why I always hasten to specify "in the U.S."

In any event, even if rotaries are defined by a yield requirement, the salient point is that they are not synonymous with roundabouts, as the latter are a specific sub-type of circular intersection. That's in response to this earlier assertion:

I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries.
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5850
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 06:07:38 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3653 on: May 18, 2018, 01:50:28 PM »

Were there circular junctions built that were identical save for the yielding requirement, which were not referred to as rotaries?

The 1965 Blue Book does not mention yield on entry.  The presumption has to be that any circular intersection built to Blue Book standards was called a rotary (at least by engineers) regardless of priority rule.

In any event, even if rotaries are defined by a yield requirement, the salient point is that they are not synonymous with roundabouts, as the latter are a specific sub-type of circular intersection. That's in response to this earlier assertion:

I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries.

To my mind, the key difference is in concept of operation, which is dictated largely by inscribed circle diameter.  I personally wouldn't call an AASHO rotary a roundabout even if it were in a jurisdiction with yield on entry as the default.  On the other hand, telling a person he is not correct to speak of a rotary as if it were the same thing as a modern roundabout does not go far toward persuading him of the advantages modern roundabouts offer.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2888
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:09:36 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3654 on: May 18, 2018, 02:47:05 PM »

Yes, tires.  Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.

How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9537
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:14:41 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: New York
« Reply #3655 on: May 18, 2018, 02:49:39 PM »

Yes, tires.  Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.

How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?

Or urban areas where one must make several 90-degree intersection turns?  I think it's splitting hairs to suggest that it would wear down tires that much or that quickly.  Heck, gravel roads do worse on tires than a roundabout.
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2176
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 05:27:42 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3656 on: May 18, 2018, 02:52:16 PM »

Yes, tires.  Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.

How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?
Abundance. I go through a loop ramp twice a day for commute, and none on weekends. I go through roundabout 7 times a day for commute plus twice every time I need to get a gallon of milk or a toothbrush or just get anywhere.

Tires are not an issue, but tie rod ends seem to be affected a bit.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2888
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:09:36 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3657 on: May 18, 2018, 02:54:33 PM »

Yes, tires.  Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.
How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?
Abundance. I go through a loop ramp twice a day for commute, and none on weekends. I go through roundabout 7 times a day for commute plus twice every time I need to get a gallon of milk or a toothbrush or just get anywhere.
Tires are not an issue, but tie rod ends seem to be affected a bit.

I don't go thru any roundabouts except on a very occasional basis.
YMMV.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5850
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 06:07:38 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3658 on: May 18, 2018, 03:02:43 PM »

How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?

Not at all.  I don't like loop ramps on freeways either.

Or urban areas where one must make several 90-degree intersection turns?

No difference there either.  I can take right turns from a stop slowly, but with permissive left turns speed is often dictated by the size of the traffic gap and as a result I do not expect tires to last long on the daily driver, which sees mainly urban service.

And before you all ask--no, I don't like stoplights either.  In cities I accept them as a necessary evil, but on through corridors in areas undergoing urbanization, I expect planning control to be used to keep stoplights to a minimum.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2888
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:09:36 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3659 on: May 18, 2018, 03:05:53 PM »

How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?
Not at all.  I don't like loop ramps on freeways either.

Much better than a diamond interchange with signals at the ramp terminals.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3971
  • Last Login: Today at 10:17:37 AM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3660 on: May 18, 2018, 04:29:04 PM »

Were there circular junctions built that were identical save for the yielding requirement, which were not referred to as rotaries?

The 1965 Blue Book does not mention yield on entry.  The presumption has to be that any circular intersection built to Blue Book standards was called a rotary (at least by engineers) regardless of priority rule.

That's my read on it as well: the yield on entry rule may be universally applied to rotaries, but isn't a defining characteristic of them.

Quote
In any event, even if rotaries are defined by a yield requirement, the salient point is that they are not synonymous with roundabouts, as the latter are a specific sub-type of circular intersection. That's in response to this earlier assertion:

I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries.

To my mind, the key difference is in concept of operation, which is dictated largely by inscribed circle diameter.  I personally wouldn't call an AASHO rotary a roundabout even if it were in a jurisdiction with yield on entry as the default.  On the other hand, telling a person he is not correct to speak of a rotary as if it were the same thing as a modern roundabout does not go far toward persuading him of the advantages modern roundabouts offer.

I'm sure it wouldn't. However, it should go a long way toward informing him that it is not the same thing as a roundabout. :-)
Logged

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1137
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: August 19, 2018, 10:15:21 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3661 on: May 18, 2018, 08:13:09 PM »

I just looked at Malta on Google Earth. What a mess! Especially at the I-87 interchange. Who built all these roundabouts? Was it all NYS DOT or were some done by the County or local municipality? And was this all the brainstorm of one particular engineer and/or was it some sort of regional experiment?
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5850
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 06:07:38 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3662 on: May 18, 2018, 10:18:22 PM »

Some casual Googling--search phrase {roundabouts Malta New York} without braces--suggests the first was built around 2005, with others being added later:  NY 67 by 2012 and the ones related to the Round Lake Bypass after 2014.  I actually think I have construction plans for at least one Malta roundabout in my NYSDOT plans collection, which is comprehensive for projects let after August 2013, but the D-numbers are not coming to mind.

https://theballstonjournal.com/2012/02/07/in-a-roundabout-way/

https://saratogatodaynewspaper.com/home/item/337-around-we-goagain-proposed-roundabouts-controversial-topic-at-malta-town-meeting

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/automobiles/wheels/as-americans-figure-out-the-roundabout-it-spreads-across-the-us.html
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Buffaboy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1039
  • Make I-90 thru Buffalo 8 lanes NOW!

  • Age: 22
  • Location: Buffalo and Utica, New York
  • Last Login: August 18, 2018, 03:37:20 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3663 on: May 20, 2018, 12:11:18 AM »

I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.
Logged
What's not to like about highways and bridges, intersections and interchanges, rails and planes?

My Wikipedia county SVG maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Buffaboy

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3971
  • Last Login: Today at 10:17:37 AM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3664 on: May 20, 2018, 06:33:37 PM »

I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.

Fortunately, the subject is New York, so you haven't changed it at all! ;-)
Logged

Buffaboy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1039
  • Make I-90 thru Buffalo 8 lanes NOW!

  • Age: 22
  • Location: Buffalo and Utica, New York
  • Last Login: August 18, 2018, 03:37:20 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3665 on: May 20, 2018, 07:49:40 PM »

I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.

Fortunately, the subject is New York, so you haven't changed it at all! ;-)

You're right!
Logged
What's not to like about highways and bridges, intersections and interchanges, rails and planes?

My Wikipedia county SVG maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Buffaboy

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9537
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:14:41 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: New York
« Reply #3666 on: May 21, 2018, 11:37:42 AM »

I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.

Widening would have required a higher level of environmental review and permitting.  Basic reconstruction/repairing, up to and including upgrading to modern standards doesn't require much in the way of review as long as it does not add capacity.
Logged

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5334
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 05:16:40 PM
    • The Albany Hiker
Re: New York
« Reply #3667 on: May 23, 2018, 01:31:55 PM »

I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.

Widening would have required a higher level of environmental review and permitting.  Basic reconstruction/repairing, up to and including upgrading to modern standards doesn't require much in the way of review as long as it does not add capacity.

Goes beyond that. Widening would require relocation of a few buildings (think one is a CSO facility) along the east side of the Thruway, as well as realignment of an intersection and further property taking at the Seneca Street overpass. ROW there is barely wide enough for 3 lanes. Don't know where the ROW line is along the west side at Cazenovia Creek, but there may be a Section 4F issue as park property abuts Thruway ROW.

Staying in Buffalo, road diet for NY 954L (Broadway) is planned. Being familiar with this section, I'm not too concerned about any capacity issues this would cause, as that street gets no traffic. All signals west of Fillmore Avenue are being replaced and a couple are being removed. The signal replacements will have permissive-only FYAs for Broadway.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1030
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 27
  • Location: State Route 324, Tonawanda, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 03:47:38 PM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: New York
« Reply #3668 on: May 23, 2018, 03:57:22 PM »

(Should still be NY 130, but I digress.)

Broadway needs a lot more than a road diet. It needs a way to be turned into Buffalo's Harlem.
Logged
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University '17
B.A. History, Montclair State University '15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex County College '13

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9284
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 01:16:41 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3669 on: May 26, 2018, 09:20:00 PM »

I've been noticing around Rochester that there are a bunch of new interstate shields with 18'' numerals like is most of the rest of the country.  It really saddens me to see them invading here.  IMO, they're ugly.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2888
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:09:36 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3670 on: May 26, 2018, 09:23:37 PM »

I've been noticing around Rochester that there are a bunch of new interstate shields with 18'' numerals like is most of the rest of the country.  It really saddens me to see them invading here.  IMO, they're ugly.

I like the older designs better, as in the 1970s.  Those giant numbers that fill the whole lower part of the shield, are unattractive.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5334
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 05:16:40 PM
    • The Albany Hiker
Re: New York
« Reply #3671 on: May 27, 2018, 10:52:10 PM »

18" numerals are now standard in New York as part of the 2009 MUTCD adoption. Just took a few years for NYSDOT to a) incorporate them and b) get a decent amount of them posted.

Hey, at least they aren't doing Series B for 3DIs like Ohio did for a while. Now THOSE are butt-f'ing ugly. Many of those on BGSes replaced button copy shields, too.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9284
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 01:16:41 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3672 on: May 28, 2018, 07:55:22 PM »

Since when does the federal MUTCD require 18'' numerals?  NY switched 3di shields to series C a while ago, but I didn't see anything but 15'' numerals until this year.

Honestly, 18'' numerals make me want to puke.  Maybe I'll have to move to Florida to get away from them.  IMO they should be banned at the national level!
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2888
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:09:36 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3673 on: May 28, 2018, 09:07:25 PM »

Since when does the federal MUTCD require 18'' numerals?  NY switched 3di shields to series C a while ago, but I didn't see anything but 15'' numerals until this year.
Honestly, 18'' numerals make me want to puke.  Maybe I'll have to move to Florida to get away from them.  IMO they should be banned at the national level!

I didn't know how many inches tall they are, just that the numbers fill all the space on the lower part of the shield.  I don't like it one bit.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

D-Dey65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1816
  • Age: 52
  • Last Login: August 15, 2018, 09:28:14 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3674 on: May 29, 2018, 12:32:41 PM »

Today I was searching for a historic house in Upper Red Hook, New York named the "Lyle House" (which I still haven't found), when I stumbled upon this mysterious pull-off area on US 9 (Albany Post Road), next to Old Post Road:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/42°00'46.0%22N+73°53'15.0%22W/@42.0343217,-73.8474367,175m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d42.012778!4d-73.8875?hl=en


As expected, I have to ask why that exists.


Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.