New York

[vdeane]

Lol let's study flying cars then

Are you trying to be as obtuse and unreasonable as possible?

[Plutonic Panda]

Lol let's study flying cars then

Are you trying to be as obtuse and unreasonable as possible?

I'm being facetious obviously. I don't know why I have to spell that out with a crayon. But that's ridiculous to suggest that every single ptoposed project should be subject for a tunnel study. The only one being obtuse and unreasonable. Here is you because we both know that there is no way in hell they are going to select the tunnel alternative. So no, they don't need to study it.

It doesn't even make sense that they wouldn't even consider preserving future right away for a tunnel in the future. Should the need ever arise in syracuse. I would actually be against a tunnel in this case. They need to rebuild the highway to modern standards as much as possible. You claim, they're studying every possible alternative and that is a bunch of bullshit.

Also, Stop pretending like DOTs Are so innocent and do everything they can to look out for the public's best interest.

[Rothman]

The materials from tonight's open house on I-787, including potential concepts, are online.

https://webapps.dot.ny.gov/reimagining-i-787

Why do they Even bother with tunnel options since we know, especially given a lot of posters here Who just go with the status quo of oh, it's too expensive. Doesn't make sense blah, blah blah.

I mean, even now, it seems like every other country and their dog are able to build tunnels with no problem. We just can't do it in the united states. It should have been done in Syracuse, but they didn't do it So what makes anyone think they're gonna do it here. They need to keep this freeway. But i'm sure they will go with the boulevard option. Par for the course with new york.

You're still beating this broken drum...

Like clockwork.

And just like how you can't help yourself by not responding I can't help myself by not beating this broken drum. I'll keep beating it.

At least you admit the drum is broken.

[Plutonic Panda]

More like new york is broken, but sure

[Rothman]

More like new york is broken, but sure

Pfft.  WIN!

[vdeane]

I'm being facetious obviously. I don't know why I have to spell that out with a crayon. But that's ridiculous to suggest that every single ptoposed project should be subject for a tunnel study. The only one being obtuse and unreasonable. Here is you because we both know that there is no way in hell they are going to select the tunnel alternative. So no, they don't need to study it.

Let's take a look at what happened in Syracuse.  The tunnel was dismissed fairly quickly for being too costly relative to the benefits it would provide and for having engineering challenges (like the high water table).  Groups like Save81 weren't happy, and successfully forced the state to study it again, delaying the project for several years.  Given that I seem to remember someone saying that Region 3 was favoring the viaduct a decade ago, it would be ironic if Save81's effort to prevent the viaduct removal instead caused it by delaying the project long enough for the political winds to change.

This system of evaluating an alternative that isn't expected to be implemented to get everything documented is actually very similar to the "no build" alternative that is required by law to be included in every project.

[Plutonic Panda]

We live in a clown world. Shit like this is why our infrastructure is falling apart.

[froggie]

It's a Catch-22.  Past practices were very damaging to the environment (both natural and built).  This was a contributing factor to why NEPA was passed, as an attempt to remedy/mitigate that damage.  But now NIMBY's (amongst others, but primarily NIMBY's) have seized upon NEPA as a way to stall and ultimately kill projects of all types.  Add in the litigatious nature of American society, and the "study to death" nature of today's projects is the result.

Nevermind that America has for decades UNDERinvested in infrastructure.  To the point we can't even maintain what we currently have.

[Plutonic Panda]

Agree that's a very reasonable take. We can still invest in our roadways without having to remove freeways in urban settings. None of this seems to help the working class anyways. I'd be much more open to these types of removals, if we had a much better mass transit system. Even then, it wouldn't be my first choice but I wouldn't constantly beat a dead horse over it.

[steviep24]

Finally got a photo of the new HAWK signal in downtown Rochester. This is on E Main St. at First Federal Plaza. A normal traffic signal used to be at this mid block crossing.

[The Ghostbuster]

There is a signal like that here in Madison on N. Blair St.: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0793819,-89.3798744,3a,75y,137.19h,92.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1so_qOOYUp7UyEqv4cmwfsVA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Do_qOOYUp7UyEqv4cmwfsVA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D321.16843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu.

[Rothman]

Finally got a photo of the new HAWK signal in downtown Rochester. This is on E Main St. at First Federal Plaza. A normal traffic signal used to be at this mid block crossing.

Wonder if NYSDOT Region 4 had anything to do with this...

[SignBridge]

Is that a state road? That would be the determining factor re: what agency erected the signal.

[Rothman]

Is that a state road? That would be the determining factor re: what agency erected the signal.

It's also a matter of whether HSIP was used for the project, which would require Region 4's traffic engineer to sign off on that fund source's usage.

[TheDon102]

Question for all of you, The small portion of I-287/NY-17 that isn't on the thruway mainline in Rockland county, is that portion NYS Thruway Authority or NYSDOT owned?

[steviep24]

Is that a state road? That would be the determining factor re: what agency erected the signal.

It's also a matter of whether HSIP was used for the project, which would require Region 4's traffic engineer to sign off on that fund source's usage.

That is a Monroe County DOT install. City of Rochester project but all non NYSDOT signals in Monroe County are owned by the county.

EDIT TO ADD: I should say most non NYSDOT signals are owned by Monroe County. There are some signals in East Rochester that are owned by that village and I know of a village owned signal in Brockport.

[vdeane]

Is that a state road? That would be the determining factor re: what agency erected the signal.

It's also a matter of whether HSIP was used for the project, which would require Region 4's traffic engineer to sign off on that fund source's usage.

That is a Monroe County DOT install. City of Rochester project but all non NYSDOT signals in Monroe County are owned by the county.

EDIT TO ADD: I should say most non NYSDOT signals are owned by Monroe County. There are some signals in East Rochester that are owned by that village and I know of a village owned signal in Brockport.

Main Street is federal aid eligible, so it could be what we in NYSDOT call a "local project" using federal funds, which does have NYSDOT involvement (although not to the same extent of capital projects on our system).

Speaking of Main Street, I'm curious if NY 31 is going to be moved there when the upper deck of the Broad Street Bridge is removed.

Question for all of you, The small portion of I-287/NY-17 that isn't on the thruway mainline in Rockland county, is that portion NYS Thruway Authority or NYSDOT owned?

I can't imagine there's any NYSDOT portion, since the interchange ramps basically go all the way to the state line.

[Rothman]

Like vdeane said, it's fed aid eligible.  I'd bet HSIP was used.  Region 3 has soured on HAWKs; wonder if Region 4's RTE was like, "Whatever, it's MUTCD compliant..."

[SignBridge]

Like vdeane said, it's fed aid eligible.  I'd bet HSIP was used.  Region 3 has soured on HAWKs; wonder if Region 4's RTE was like, "Whatever, it's MUTCD compliant..."

Why would Region 3 (only) have soured on HAWKS? Did they come their senses regarding the fact that dark signals are actually prohibited by the MUTCD??

[Rothman]

Like vdeane said, it's fed aid eligible.  I'd bet HSIP was used.  Region 3 has soured on HAWKs; wonder if Region 4's RTE was like, "Whatever, it's MUTCD compliant..."

Why would Region 3 (only) have soured on HAWKS? Did they come their senses regarding the fact that dark signals are actually prohibited by the MUTCD??

Because I believe Region 3 has concluded that other solutions are more effective than a special system that requires a little instruction sheet be posted next to it.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[seicer]

Where has the FHWA prohibited the use of HAWK signals? They are listed on page 728-729 of the 2023 MUTCD under Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon.

[vdeane]

Where has the FHWA prohibited the use of HAWK signals? They are listed on page 728-729 of the 2023 MUTCD under Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon.

They haven't... are you maybe thinking of NYSDOT Region 3 not liking them?

[SignBridge]

Like vdeane said, it's fed aid eligible.  I'd bet HSIP was used.  Region 3 has soured on HAWKs; wonder if Region 4's RTE was like, "Whatever, it's MUTCD compliant..."

Why would Region 3 (only) have soured on HAWKS? Did they come their senses regarding the fact that dark signals are actually prohibited by the MUTCD??

Because I believe Region 3 has concluded that other solutions are more effective than a special system that requires a little instruction sheet be posted next to it.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Thank you Mr. Rothman! That is a great answer that I completely agree with. Good for Region 3 !

And to answer a few other posters'  questions, yes the Manual does permit HAWK signals. My point is that prior to this, the Manual prohibited dark signals, except for railroad crossings. Signals were always required to be lighted unless they were bagged or turned away from traffic. And that I think is because it was assumed that a dark signal was potentially dangerous and/or misleading. Somewhere along the line the FHWA seems to have lost their way regarding this concept.

And as Mr. Rothman said above, if you need to post an instruction sheet on the signal, then its meaning must not be very clear to drivers. 

[Rothman]

Where has the FHWA prohibited the use of HAWK signals? They are listed on page 728-729 of the 2023 MUTCD under Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon.

Who said they prohibited them?

[seicer]

I interpreted this as a statement that the FHWA prohibited HAWK signals (pedestrian hybrid beacons) because they were dark unless activated. But I see the follow-up and that makes sense.