New York

[empirestate]

It should be noted that most surface streets inside the Inner Loop are well under capacity. Remove the exit for the Inner Loop and people will use University/Andrews, Broad, and the Clinton/St Paul-South one way pair, all of which can handle increased traffic.

You still have to somehow get to those streets from I-490, though.  To/from the east there's exit 14, but how will I-490 flow with so much more traffic using that exit (particularly getting on; the exit 13 on ramp currently adds a lane).  To/from the west, there wouldn't be good access at all, as the only downtown exits on I-490 in that direction are the current/former Inner Loop ones.

You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.

Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.

I think most people would consider having quiet surface streets to be a good thing.

That's a good point–they may think that indeed. But as it happens, quiet streets are already the norm downtown, and it's part of what makes it feel creepy to many people. The intent would rather be to make the streets a little more lively, not only with more traffic, but more local traffic. Whisking motorists into, through and out of the urban core is the design that's already there, and it is specifically what they're looking to revise.

[seicer]

It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.

I still need to post my photos of the parkway north of the new Gorgeview section. I was completing aerials for a client up there and you could practically stand in the middle of the roadway and not get hit by traffic for minutes at a time in the middle of a weekday. The parkway going out toward Youngstown and Fort Niagara is also vastly overbuilt - that includes a massive Y-junction for the fort. It clearly hasn't been maintained very well since it was built with rough-as-cob concrete pavement and deteriorated bridges.

[Rothman]

It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.

I still need to post my photos of the parkway north of the new Gorgeview section. I was completing aerials for a client up there and you could practically stand in the middle of the roadway and not get hit by traffic for minutes at a time in the middle of a weekday.

One would expect traffic to be less in the middle of a weekday headed away from the city...

[seicer]

But here? https://goo.gl/maps/yi4YCf7JJ3jkQFZi6

It will be interesting to see what happens to this segment of the highway now that it's been downsized to a two-lane road. It's eight lanes of traffic (counting NY 104) over the power canal (is there a more official name?) and all lanes are vastly underused.

[kalvado]

It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.

Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

[Rothman]

It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.

Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be.  The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist.  The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.

[vdeane]

You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.

Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.

Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely.  And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.

It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.

Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be.  The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist.  The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.

Yeah, Canada is where you go if you want to take a picture of the signature view or to make a vacation weekend with the kids.  If you want to enjoy the green space, that's what the US side is for.

[kalvado]

You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.

Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.

Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely.  And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.

It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.

Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be.  The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist.  The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.

Yeah, Canada is where you go if you want to take a picture of the signature view or to make a vacation weekend with the kids.  If you want to enjoy the green space, that's what the US side is for.

If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara  as a tourist destination.

[Rothman]

You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.

Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.

Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely.  And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.

It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.

Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be.  The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist.  The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.

Yeah, Canada is where you go if you want to take a picture of the signature view or to make a vacation weekend with the kids.  If you want to enjoy the green space, that's what the US side is for.

If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara  as a tourist destination.

But people are there to see the falls...

[kalvado]

You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.

Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.

Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely.  And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.

It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.

Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be.  The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist.  The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.

Yeah, Canada is where you go if you want to take a picture of the signature view or to make a vacation weekend with the kids.  If you want to enjoy the green space, that's what the US side is for.

If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara  as a tourist destination.

But people are there to see the falls...

If we're talking in the context of Moses Parkway, then green space in the area of  Devil's Hole and Whirlpool have some remote relation to the falls themselves, do not really offer falls views - and are totally unfriendly to non-locals.  My bladder almost exploded after Devil's hole hike (and unlike larger parks, stepping into more wooded area wasn't a real option). The main argument for removing Moses Parkway is to make green area more accessible to _locals_

If we're talking seeing the falls themselves, then Canadian side wins without much competition, with Maid of the Mist ride being very remote second.
So I don't really see the point of discussion. NY doesn't want tourist dollars - that's OK, there are other options. We may talk when some quality food - at least McDonalds, that already would be a great improvement! - is available to those who want to spend a day there. 

[vdeane]

The NY side feels like a park.  The Canadian side feels like a glitzy tourist trap with a nice view.

There are plenty of restaurants in the area, including Top of the Falls in the Goat Island portion of the park.

[Rothman]

The NY side feels like a park.  The Canadian side feels like a glitzy tourist trap with a nice view.

There are plenty of restaurants in the area, including Top of the Falls in the Goat Island portion of the park.

^This.

[The Ghostbuster]

Are there any more sequential-to-mileage-based exit numbering conversions in the near future? I know the Thruway will be converted the-day-after-never, but what about all the other roads in New York State?

[empirestate]

Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely.

Yeah, most of those wouldn't be the best idea, for that reason, and because they don't actually eliminate the Inner Loop; they keep it in place except without grade separations.

And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.

Exactly, you'd remove the infrastructure that allows for a straight shot, so as to restore the density of the urban core. Or, if that's not the aim, then you keep the bypass and all the traffic it facilitates. Either might be justifiable, but a halfway mixture of the two would not–and if the stated goal is to remove the Inner Loop, then you need to...well, remove it.

The design that makes the most sense to me would be Concept 6 with the Alternative 1 connection to I-490. Note, for example, that this option restores the grid at Delevan and Lyndhurst Streets; there's no reason to thread a boulevard through the middle of this block when both University/Andrews and Central Ave. are immediately adjacent.

[empirestate]

Double-posting because of the two divergent topics of conversation, but please merge if preferred.

Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Of course in the real world, it's nowhere near such a binary choice (and I realize you're aware of this and just stating it so for emphasis, but for clarity's sake...)–for one thing, not every trip to Niagara Falls allows the option of crossing the border. And, as we see below, we're dealing with different sides of the same coin, so the two are not simply interchangeable.

If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara  as a tourist destination.

But this is the very character of the New York side: it is more about experiencing the falls as a part of their environment (the natural environment, primarily, but also the industrial). That's why (or because) you have Goat Island, the Cave of the Winds, the geological museum, etc. It's distinct from the Canadian side, which is more built around the "touristy" experience.

If we're talking seeing the falls themselves, then Canadian side wins without much competition, with Maid of the Mist ride being very remote second.
So I don't really see the point of discussion. NY doesn't want tourist dollars - that's OK, there are other options.

Well, that right there is the point of it: it doesn't come down to the dark side/light side dichotomy you've framed it as; there's more to the equation than you envision. And it doesn't boil down to a "winner" or otherwise, nor does the success or failure of the New York side center on whether the parkway exists and is used as a centerpiece of development. As you pointed out, this could be one option, but it isn't the only possibility. However, the only other option is not, as you also pointed out, to cede all possible benefit to our neighbours across the river.

[kalvado]

Double-posting because of the two divergent topics of conversation, but please merge if preferred.

Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Of course in the real world, it's nowhere near such a binary choice (and I realize you're aware of this and just stating it so for emphasis, but for clarity's sake...)–for one thing, not every trip to Niagara Falls allows the option of crossing the border. And, as we see below, we're dealing with different sides of the same coin, so the two are not simply interchangeable.

If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara  as a tourist destination.

But this is the very character of the New York side: it is more about experiencing the falls as a part of their environment (the natural environment, primarily, but also the industrial). That's why (or because) you have Goat Island, the Cave of the Winds, the geological museum, etc. It's distinct from the Canadian side, which is more built around the "touristy" experience.

If we're talking seeing the falls themselves, then Canadian side wins without much competition, with Maid of the Mist ride being very remote second.
So I don't really see the point of discussion. NY doesn't want tourist dollars - that's OK, there are other options.

Well, that right there is the point of it: it doesn't come down to the dark side/light side dichotomy you've framed it as; there's more to the equation than you envision. And it doesn't boil down to a "winner" or otherwise, nor does the success or failure of the New York side center on whether the parkway exists and is used as a centerpiece of development. As you pointed out, this could be one option, but it isn't the only possibility. However, the only other option is not, as you also pointed out, to cede all possible benefit to our neighbours across the river.

Well, in no way I suggest chopping trees and paving entire Goat island. I am more talking about organizing a high throughput pipeline for tourists.

What parkway could help accomplish is setting up the flow with multiple stops and multiple points of interest. Whirpool, maybe power plants, ridge trails  - not as great as falls, but still worthwhile, and those could take pressure off the prime spot. E.g. offer services which don't have to be in a prime spot. Such arrangement would increase comfort big time, and allow for better crowd handling. I have South rim in mind as an example.
Right now, going to downstream points of interest means little, if any services...

[Rothman]

Double-posting because of the two divergent topics of conversation, but please merge if preferred.

Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Of course in the real world, it's nowhere near such a binary choice (and I realize you're aware of this and just stating it so for emphasis, but for clarity's sake...)–for one thing, not every trip to Niagara Falls allows the option of crossing the border. And, as we see below, we're dealing with different sides of the same coin, so the two are not simply interchangeable.

If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara  as a tourist destination.

But this is the very character of the New York side: it is more about experiencing the falls as a part of their environment (the natural environment, primarily, but also the industrial). That's why (or because) you have Goat Island, the Cave of the Winds, the geological museum, etc. It's distinct from the Canadian side, which is more built around the "touristy" experience.

If we're talking seeing the falls themselves, then Canadian side wins without much competition, with Maid of the Mist ride being very remote second.
So I don't really see the point of discussion. NY doesn't want tourist dollars - that's OK, there are other options.

Well, that right there is the point of it: it doesn't come down to the dark side/light side dichotomy you've framed it as; there's more to the equation than you envision. And it doesn't boil down to a "winner" or otherwise, nor does the success or failure of the New York side center on whether the parkway exists and is used as a centerpiece of development. As you pointed out, this could be one option, but it isn't the only possibility. However, the only other option is not, as you also pointed out, to cede all possible benefit to our neighbours across the river.

Well, in no way I suggest chopping trees and paving entire Goat island. I am more talking about organizing a high throughput pipeline for tourists.

What parkway could help accomplish is setting up the flow with multiple stops and multiple points of interest. Whirpool, maybe power plants, ridge trails  - not as great as falls, but still worthwhile, and those could take pressure off the prime spot. E.g. offer services which don't have to be in a prime spot. Such arrangement would increase comfort big time, and allow for better crowd handling. I have South rim in mind as an example.
Right now, going to downstream points of interest means little, if any services...

The parkway had those stops.

[kalvado]

Double-posting because of the two divergent topics of conversation, but please merge if preferred.

Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Of course in the real world, it's nowhere near such a binary choice (and I realize you're aware of this and just stating it so for emphasis, but for clarity's sake...)–for one thing, not every trip to Niagara Falls allows the option of crossing the border. And, as we see below, we're dealing with different sides of the same coin, so the two are not simply interchangeable.

If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara  as a tourist destination.

But this is the very character of the New York side: it is more about experiencing the falls as a part of their environment (the natural environment, primarily, but also the industrial). That's why (or because) you have Goat Island, the Cave of the Winds, the geological museum, etc. It's distinct from the Canadian side, which is more built around the "touristy" experience.

If we're talking seeing the falls themselves, then Canadian side wins without much competition, with Maid of the Mist ride being very remote second.
So I don't really see the point of discussion. NY doesn't want tourist dollars - that's OK, there are other options.

Well, that right there is the point of it: it doesn't come down to the dark side/light side dichotomy you've framed it as; there's more to the equation than you envision. And it doesn't boil down to a "winner" or otherwise, nor does the success or failure of the New York side center on whether the parkway exists and is used as a centerpiece of development. As you pointed out, this could be one option, but it isn't the only possibility. However, the only other option is not, as you also pointed out, to cede all possible benefit to our neighbours across the river.

Well, in no way I suggest chopping trees and paving entire Goat island. I am more talking about organizing a high throughput pipeline for tourists.

What parkway could help accomplish is setting up the flow with multiple stops and multiple points of interest. Whirpool, maybe power plants, ridge trails  - not as great as falls, but still worthwhile, and those could take pressure off the prime spot. E.g. offer services which don't have to be in a prime spot. Such arrangement would increase comfort big time, and allow for better crowd handling. I have South rim in mind as an example.
Right now, going to downstream points of interest means little, if any services...

The parkway had those stops.

Stops - and little more than that. A food truck selling just bottled water, and no restrooms available can be hardly called "services".
That's what I am saying - parkway could be used for a profit, but state  paid for the demolition instead.

[D-Dey65]

Because you can't drive 55 MPH through the park? Or because they took out a vastly underutilized expressway along the river?

More like because they created a gap that should've been filled and then downgraded it, like with the Bear Mountain State Parkway and the Nassau Expressway.

[Roadgeek Adam]

You literally need all of 2 lanes. This stuff was built for a different time period compared to now.

There is no need for half the parkway/expressway network in Niagara Falls. Literally just 190 would be sufficient.

Pre-COVID, there was no demand leading to major backups. The casino and US side don't generate enough traffic.

[Alps]

You literally need all of 2 lanes. This stuff was built for a different time period compared to now.

There is no need for half the parkway/expressway network in Niagara Falls. Literally just 190 would be sufficient.

Pre-COVID, there was no demand leading to major backups. The casino and US side don't generate enough traffic.

if 190 was six lanes maybe

[ARMOURERERIC]

Family went to the falls in 1977, the road was already closed, but the lights and BGS,s were still in place.

[vdeane]

You literally need all of 2 lanes. This stuff was built for a different time period compared to now.

There is no need for half the parkway/expressway network in Niagara Falls. Literally just 190 would be sufficient.

Pre-COVID, there was no demand leading to major backups. The casino and US side don't generate enough traffic.

I seem to remember a significant backup approaching the roundabout on the Parkway during the 2015 Buffalo meet.  Turns out sending a parkway that's two lanes each way into a single-lane roundabout is much less efficient than an interchange.  Honestly, if it were me, the Riverway would be two-way (one lane each way) or the roundabout would have the U turn movement for John Daly Boulevard removed and two lanes come in from the parkway, with the right going to the city and the left to the Riverway.

[Roadgeek Adam]

I've not seen traffic into that roundabout since 2015. The demand is just not there. The only people crying foul are the ones who want freeways to exist because they exist. Sometimes the logic of reverting some things back is important too. It costs more to maintain a low-use parkway, especially one that had a bridge that would eventually need to be replaced, than to tear it out and convert it into a mixed-use pathway. It takes <5 minutes to get from 104 to Whirlpool Street in most cases, even on city streets, especially if you hit the lights well.

The LaSalle should come out next. It was a better idea when the beltway was an idea. Now it's a freeway stub to nowhere.

[vdeane]

I've not seen traffic into that roundabout since 2015. The demand is just not there. The only people crying foul are the ones who want freeways to exist because they exist. Sometimes the logic of reverting some things back is important too. It costs more to maintain a low-use parkway, especially one that had a bridge that would eventually need to be replaced, than to tear it out and convert it into a mixed-use pathway. It takes <5 minutes to get from 104 to Whirlpool Street in most cases, even on city streets, especially if you hit the lights well.

The LaSalle should come out next. It was a better idea when the beltway was an idea. Now it's a freeway stub to nowhere.

Well, that backup was pretty memorable.  Google also shows a fairly decent line in 2017.  Still, if it's better now than it was, that's fairly interesting.  The AADT seems to be stable - if anything, it's actually slightly higher now - so I can only assume that people have caught on to the fact that the chance of needing to yield entering the roundabout from the Parkway is close to zero.