News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

New York

Started by Alex, August 18, 2009, 12:34:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Alps

Quote from: SignBridge on December 11, 2014, 08:31:18 PM
Yeah well, the reason the NJ Turnpike Authority is finally changing to MUTCD signage had something to do with what you're talking about, though I don't know the exact details. But apparently some sort of pressure was brought to force compliance by a toll authority. 
Quote from: mtantillo on December 11, 2014, 08:50:43 PM
They probably threatened NJDOT.
No to both. The agency wanted to do this to stay ahead of the game before the FHWA comes knocking.


cl94

At some point in the past couple of months, NY 954L in Buffalo (Broadway) between Fillmore Ave and US 62/NY 130 got a road diet. Knew this was going to happen, but thought it was a year or two out. As part of a resurfacing project, 4-lane road with extra-wide curb lanes was restriped as 2 with a center turn lane, plus dedicated parking and bike lanes. Unlike most signs on this stretch of NYSDOT-maintained road, new signage as part of this project is NYSDOT-standard, complete with U-poles and Z-bars.

Road diets are becoming pretty common in Buffalo (a city-maintained stretch of NY 384 is another example), but this is the first I know of by NYSDOT in the area other than the Robert Moses Parkway.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Buffaboy

Quote from: cl94 on December 14, 2014, 10:08:25 PM
At some point in the past couple of months, NY 954L in Buffalo (Broadway) between Fillmore Ave and US 62/NY 130 got a road diet. Knew this was going to happen, but thought it was a year or two out. As part of a resurfacing project, 4-lane road with extra-wide curb lanes was restriped as 2 with a center turn lane, plus dedicated parking and bike lanes. Unlike most signs on this stretch of NYSDOT-maintained road, new signage as part of this project is NYSDOT-standard, complete with U-poles and Z-bars.

Road diets are becoming pretty common in Buffalo (a city-maintained stretch of NY 384 is another example), but this is the first I know of by NYSDOT in the area other than the Robert Moses Parkway.

Are roads in the area being shrinked because of the declining population, or something else, because I'm sure bike lanes could still be incorporated into regular road sizes.
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

vdeane

Traffic calming is a likely explanation.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

froggie

Traffic calming is one possibility.  Another is simply right-sizing the road to the traffic (Rochester Inner Loop being one example of this).  As a general rule, you don't need 4 lanes for an urban street with ADT less than 15K (and especially less than 10K).  2 lanes with a center left turn lane will work just fine, especially if there is an appreciable volume of left-turning traffic...studies have found that the 3-lane is more efficient than a 4-lane in this scenario.

The Broadway example that cl94 cited earlier appears to have an ADT level just under 15K.  Barring other potential factors/issues, it's an appropriate candidate for downsizing.

cl94

None of NY 954L needs four lanes. Most of the day, it's empty, and it's not like there's much along it. Its main use is an alternate to I-190 and NY 33, as the area west of Fillmore is burned-out with several empty lots. Speeds were quite high, as people would pass those going remotely close to the speed limit. Turn volumes were an issue, especially in the blocks surrounding the Broadway Market. Granted, I was there on a Sunday, but I don't forsee any problems. If anything, it might help balance traffic counts on major East Side streets.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Alps

Quote from: froggie on December 16, 2014, 01:35:54 PM
Traffic calming is one possibility.  Another is simply right-sizing the road to the traffic (Rochester Inner Loop being one example of this).  As a general rule, you don't need 4 lanes for an urban street with ADT less than 15K (and especially less than 10K).  2 lanes with a center left turn lane will work just fine, especially if there is an appreciable volume of left-turning traffic...studies have found that the 3-lane is more efficient than a 4-lane in this scenario.

The Broadway example that cl94 cited earlier appears to have an ADT level just under 15K.  Barring other potential factors/issues, it's an appropriate candidate for downsizing.


15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.

cl94

Quote from: Alps on December 16, 2014, 11:21:31 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 16, 2014, 01:35:54 PM
Traffic calming is one possibility.  Another is simply right-sizing the road to the traffic (Rochester Inner Loop being one example of this).  As a general rule, you don't need 4 lanes for an urban street with ADT less than 15K (and especially less than 10K).  2 lanes with a center left turn lane will work just fine, especially if there is an appreciable volume of left-turning traffic...studies have found that the 3-lane is more efficient than a 4-lane in this scenario.

The Broadway example that cl94 cited earlier appears to have an ADT level just under 15K.  Barring other potential factors/issues, it's an appropriate candidate for downsizing.


15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.

I think the motivation for the diet was the addition of a center turn lane. Given the location of the counts, the street loses about 40% of its volume in about a mile, dropping from 14576 at Mohr St to 9002 at Guilford St (both projections for 2012 based on 2008 counts). Before the diet, I couldn't go down the road without getting stuck behind someone making a left or a bike/pedestrians hogging the right lane. Except for the lights at and just east of Fillmore, I rarely get stopped at a red light.

There's probably a newer set of counts that isn't on the data viewer and, given the depopulation of the neighborhood and the closing of the largest office building in Buffalo and the outsourcing of its jobs, it's very possible that volumes are much lower. Just look at an aerial of the area to see how many empty lots there are, and that's 2+ years ago.

Long story short, half of the road (the part not yet converted) doesn't get much traffic and the other half was in dire need of turn lanes. As the on-street parking is used quite often, the sidewalks can't be easily narrowed, and bike traffic is high, it's probably the best solution, especially with the high speeds of vehicles on the street. At a signal, if two lanes are occupied, one is/was almost certainly blocked by someone turning left.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

froggie

Quote15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.

FHWA mentions that 4-to-3s are doable up to about 20K, though the particulars will depend on the specific scenario.

vdeane

Quote from: cl94 on December 16, 2014, 11:47:49 PM
There's probably a newer set of counts that isn't on the data viewer and, given the depopulation of the neighborhood and the closing of the largest office building in Buffalo and the outsourcing of its jobs, it's very possible that volumes are much lower. Just look at an aerial of the area to see how many empty lots there are, and that's 2+ years ago.
Latest count on Broadway from Fillmore to US 62, taken 100' E of Mohr St in April 2014, has a total AADT of 16,310 (8029 EB, 8217 WB) with peak hour volumes of 761 EB and 721 WB.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cl94

Which means the PHV is still acceptable with one lane. Vehicles are spaced 4.73 seconds apart on average, which would be well under jam density, even at 30 mph.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Alps

Quote from: froggie on December 17, 2014, 07:42:25 AM
Quote15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.

FHWA mentions that 4-to-3s are doable up to about 20K, though the particulars will depend on the specific scenario.
You're right about the latter, but FHWA are not traffic engineers per se. Will traffic get through there? Yes, but a lot more unhappily. I don't buy the new-age hippy-dippy BS.
Quote from: cl94 on December 17, 2014, 02:23:11 PM
Which means the PHV is still acceptable with one lane. Vehicles are spaced 4.73 seconds apart on average, which would be well under jam density, even at 30 mph.
I'm looking at traffic lights in a suburban to semiurban area. If not, you get US 30 in PA, which is an absolutely dreadful road with all the trucks (or just one slow driver) and no passing zones. 800/hr is a LOT to get through a traffic light in one lane.

cl94

I'm not saying I think there shouldn't be two travel lanes, but the left lane was rarely usable at intersections due to people turning left and the lack of PPLT phasing. I've rarely seen an intersection along that street that didn't have someone turning left and forcing everyone else into one lane. Also, I think the expectation/hope was that people coming from Walden Avenue would use parallel (and underutilized) Sycamore Street instead of Broadway, as the latter would no longer be a speedway.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Buffaboy

Quote from: cl94 on December 17, 2014, 11:35:10 PM
I'm not saying I think there shouldn't be two travel lanes, but the left lane was rarely usable at intersections due to people turning left and the lack of PPLT phasing. I've rarely seen an intersection along that street that didn't have someone turning left and forcing everyone else into one lane. Also, I think the expectation/hope was that people coming from Walden Avenue would use parallel (and underutilized) Sycamore Street instead of Broadway, as the latter would no longer be a speedway.

Will they do it to Exchange St.? I know they've been using it as a drag strip and it's probably part of the "revitalization plan."
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

machias

It looks like the aging button copy near Rome, N.Y. in NYSDOT region 2 is finally getting replaced. The signs being replaced as part of D262792 have been up since the original building of the NY 49/365 interchange in the mid-late 1970s.

I had a conversation with NYSDOT about 18 months ago about new overhead panels on NY 49 East approaching NY 5/8/12 and it looks like there were some redesigning of the panels as a result of our conversation. Chatting with NYSDOT does make a difference.

The designs have a few R2 quirks but overall I'm comfortable with the results. I look forward to seeing these panels go up.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=6704&p_is_digital=Y

J N Winkler

NYSDOT's "striping shields" get a mention on Slate's "What's That Thing?" recurring feature:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/12/18/what_s_that_thing_demystifying_new_york_road_signs.html
"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

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 21, 2014, 11:08:12 AM
NYSDOT's "striping shields" get a mention on Slate's "What's That Thing?" recurring feature:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/12/18/what_s_that_thing_demystifying_new_york_road_signs.html

I, of course, figured those out without having to read an article. :-)

(A similar system is that of single and double delineators in different colors–white, yellow, green–showing snowplows where the edge of the roadway and of guide rails is.)

cl94

Plans posted for NY 400 bridge reconstruction over NY 240. Being widened to include shoulders and standard-width travel lanes. No added lanes, but it appears that the curve radius for the NB-EB movement may be increased slightly. Plans include the first Region 5 APL sign I've seen for NB 400 at I-90, as the left lane is an option lane. Will require some weekend closures with lengthy detours. Work supposed to begin this summer.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Duke87

Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings.

Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.

Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

mrsman

Quote from: Duke87 on January 07, 2015, 09:26:18 PM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings.

Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.

Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.

It's too bad they implemented cashless toll on the Henry Hudson as that is a toll bridge that leads to Connecticut (not directly). 

There probably are relatively few Connecticut plates at the Verrazano Bridge.

cl94

Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 03:43:42 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 07, 2015, 09:26:18 PM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings.

Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.

Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.

It's too bad they implemented cashless toll on the Henry Hudson as that is a toll bridge that leads to Connecticut (not directly). 

There probably are relatively few Connecticut plates at the Verrazano Bridge.

They did it on Henry Hudson because it's only passenger cars and nearly 90% of cars crossing have E-ZPass. Easier to implement if you don't have to worry about different vehicle classes.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

mrsman

Quote from: cl94 on January 10, 2015, 08:09:23 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 03:43:42 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 07, 2015, 09:26:18 PM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings.

Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.

Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.

It's too bad they implemented cashless toll on the Henry Hudson as that is a toll bridge that leads to Connecticut (not directly). 

There probably are relatively few Connecticut plates at the Verrazano Bridge.

They did it on Henry Hudson because it's only passenger cars and nearly 90% of cars crossing have E-ZPass. Easier to implement if you don't have to worry about different vehicle classes.

Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse.  There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.

THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.

cl94

Quote from: mrsman on January 18, 2015, 08:07:58 AM
Quote from: cl94 on January 10, 2015, 08:09:23 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 03:43:42 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 07, 2015, 09:26:18 PM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings.

Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.

Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.

It's too bad they implemented cashless toll on the Henry Hudson as that is a toll bridge that leads to Connecticut (not directly). 

There probably are relatively few Connecticut plates at the Verrazano Bridge.

They did it on Henry Hudson because it's only passenger cars and nearly 90% of cars crossing have E-ZPass. Easier to implement if you don't have to worry about different vehicle classes.

Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse.  There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.

THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.

I'm just giving the MTA's logic. Certainly does make more sense from their perspective to do it somewhere with very few cash users in case they discover issues with the license plate system that result in free crossings or overcharging.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

vdeane

Quote from: mrsman on January 18, 2015, 08:07:58 AM
Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse.  There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.

THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.
Keep in mind that the AET system at the Henry Hudson was, in fact, a TRIAL.  It makes sense to try things where the impact is minimized if something goes wrong.  I'd say that the MTA considers the trial a success given that they plan to demolish the booths soon.  They don't yet have plans to expand it, though, because of difficulties collecting tolls/fees from NY and CT residents who don't pay.  I'm sure it will expand once they can get the NY legislature to pass a bill suspending the registrations of people with unpaid tolls and a revised agreement with CT allowing them to bill CT cars by licence plate.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cl94

Quote from: vdeane on January 18, 2015, 09:05:55 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 18, 2015, 08:07:58 AM
Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse.  There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.

THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.
Keep in mind that the AET system at the Henry Hudson was, in fact, a TRIAL.  It makes sense to try things where the impact is minimized if something goes wrong.  I'd say that the MTA considers the trial a success given that they plan to demolish the booths soon.  They don't yet have plans to expand it, though, because of difficulties collecting tolls/fees from NY and CT residents who don't pay.  I'm sure it will expand once they can get the NY legislature to pass a bill suspending the registrations of people with unpaid tolls and a revised agreement with CT allowing them to bill CT cars by licence plate.

Also note that NYSTA will begin adopting AET this year and has been pushing the related legislation in Albany with the assistance of downstate lawmakers. If that bill does go through and NYSTA makes the switch south of Harriman as is planned, I fully expect every TBTA crossing to go AET within the next decade.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)



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.