I was thinking of creating a thread for NYC roads for awhile now...so here goes, like the New Jersey or Connecticut threads you can post items (articles, discussions, old photos, new photos, maps) about the 5 boroughs here:
First up:
HOV Lane extension on I-278.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/governor_announces_opening_of.html
Will this realllllly help?
Also, do you think the Kew Gardens interchange will actually help things? Although I can't find any plans of it online.
Some vintage shots of the old West Side Highway (including some signs): https://www.flickr.com/photos/m-joedicke/sets/72157622861957575
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 02, 2015, 03:30:46 PM
First up:
HOV Lane extension on I-278.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/governor_announces_opening_of.html
It's great they are trying to improve the hell that is the Staten Island Expressway, except this is more like a band-aid, if that. This is the ONLY highway that runs through Staten Island connecting New Jersey with another borough. There simply needs to be another. The freeway is too substandard to support the amount of traffic combined with the horrible driving skills demonstrated by tri-state area drivers.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 02, 2015, 03:30:46 PM
I was thinking of creating a thread for NYC roads for awhile now...so here goes, like the New Jersey or Connecticut threads you can post items (articles, discussions, old photos, new photos, maps) about the 5 boroughs here:
First up:
HOV Lane extension on I-278.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/governor_announces_opening_of.html
Will this realllllly help?
Also, do you think the Kew Gardens interchange will actually help things? Although I can't find any plans of it online.
The HOV lane extension will help once it makes it back toward the new Goethals. Until then, there are too many sources of traffic jams in Staten Island and something will always cause trouble. (A climbing lane up Todt Hill would really hit the spot, nao...)
Kew Gardens work won't help things. The backup is simply due to too many freeway cancellations. If the Clearview connected to the Nassau, you'd have a north-south relief route that would free up the Van Wyck. If the Cross-Brooklyn or Bushwick existed, you'd be able to clear up the traffic from JFK north to the LIE.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 02, 2015, 09:31:54 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 02, 2015, 03:30:46 PM
First up:
HOV Lane extension on I-278.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/governor_announces_opening_of.html
It's great they are trying to improve the hell that is the Staten Island Expressway, except this is more like a band-aid, if that. This is the ONLY highway that runs through Staten Island connecting New Jersey with another borough. There simply needs to be another.
Yes, they need to revive the formerly proposed Richmond Parkway extension to Todt Hill, and extend the West Shore Expressway north to the Willowbrook Expressway. They should also extend the Willowbrook Parkway to Great Kills Park. I know I'm using the old names, but that's besides the point.
From what I've seen and read about NYC Roads, their right-of-ways are so constrained, there is little one can do to improve them.
Well it's a large area with a lot of rowhouses and tight grid streets. ROW is almost nonexistent in terms of highway projects in New York City.
Do it like the Cypress Viaduct in Oakland. When it collapses, put it on a new alignment, a new structure, and a new government. Just not give a crap and give any citizens or building a second thought. Just rebuild it all.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 02, 2015, 06:58:58 PM
Some vintage shots of the old West Side Highway (including some signs): https://www.flickr.com/photos/m-joedicke/sets/72157622861957575
Great old photos. My first drive to New York City was when I was age 17 (1977) and the old West Side Highway was still standing in many, many places. West Street was oriented under or around it from 56th Street to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. It was quite a ride with my family.
The pictures are quite historic. Not only is the Highway gone, many of the docks and buildings are gone and so is the then-virtually brand new World Trade Center.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2015, 04:43:36 PM
From what I've seen and read about NYC Roads, their right-of-ways are so constrained, there is little one can do to improve them.
I think there are some things they can do like adding extra capacity for queuing cars on exits ramps on the Major Deegan etc.
There's this project coming up on the Harlem River Drive
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141110/east-harlem/125th-street-headed-for-3-years-of-detours-amid-harlem-river-drive-repairs
I also saw a project that will add a lane on I-95 NB between Wilkinson Ave and the Hutch.
There's things that can be done but even if they don't take a lot of land they are politically incorrect to do.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 03, 2015, 07:03:39 PM
There's this project coming up on the Harlem River Drive
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141110/east-harlem/125th-street-headed-for-3-years-of-detours-amid-harlem-river-drive-repairs
From the article:
QuoteThe Harlem River Drive Reconstruction Project, which includes rebuilding the 127th Street viaduct and adding a left side exit lane on Third Avenue,
Oh boy. What's currently a right exit is now going to be a left exit. That'll be fun.
In an odd way it makes sense, though, since doing this will eliminate the weave with the ramp from the 3rd Ave bridge. There isn't another feasible way of achieving that short of eliminating the ramp altogether.
Of course, so long as the lane drop at the Triboro exit and the following S-curve still remain, this won't stop being a perpetual traffic trouble spot.
QuoteI also saw a project that will add a lane on I-95 NB between Wilkinson Ave and the Hutch.
Okay now this I'm intrigued by!
It appears to be merely "In Development", though. (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X73127) Read: no details are available and odds are it won't actually happen.
Considering this is another major bottleneck, though, it could be damned helpful if done right.
Never believe NYCDOT until the job is actually let. The article seems it's relying upon draft documents. Maybe someone is trying to stir up NIMBYs?
Another question, this time about the reconstruction of the Van Wyck Expressway; Does NYSDOT #11 plan to add an overhead sign gantry over Main Street at the southbound exits for Queens Boulevard and the Van Wyck, or are they afraid of the potential uproar by NIMBYists?
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 03, 2015, 05:45:01 PM
Do it like the Cypress Viaduct in Oakland. When it collapses, put it on a new alignment, a new structure, and a new government. Just not give a crap and give any citizens or building a second thought. Just rebuild it all.
Yeah fuck democracy!
Nassau Expwy Signage along Belt Pkwy all gone.
Replaced with Ok signage that has both the NY-878 and I-679 shields on them.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8726/17180250945_c59fc5a6f9_z.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7688/17179658211_ce00eb8377_z.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7632/16992728110_c4f1b99f53_z.jpg)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8704/17154326726_191db2c0bb_z.jpg)
Also note on the Whitestone Bridge all 3 lanes are now open including the last exit before the tolls NB. Seems like a luxury.
Who has info on the Pulaski Bridge on-ramp stub that seems to have been intended to lead to the Long Island Expressway?
I hate the small "dept of transportation" logos on every sign, especially the big green highway ones. They look better without them. On the old button copy ones, there were small reference numbers that also were annoying. NY was the only state I recall seeing these.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 10, 2015, 10:42:36 AM
Who has info on the Pulaski Bridge on-ramp stub that seems to have been intended to lead to the Long Island Expressway?
It was.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 10, 2015, 10:42:36 AM
Who has info on the Pulaski Bridge on-ramp stub that seems to have been intended to lead to the Long Island Expressway?
Historic Aerials tells us that it has been there unchanged since the current bridge was built in the 1950s, at which time the Queens Midtown Tunnel and the highway leading to it already existed.
Beyond that, I know nothing and can only speculate.
But it is a logical assumption that the intended destination was the eastbound LIE. Consider that this movement would have been relatively simply with the old bridge one block to the west (make a right on Borden, make the next left onto the highway) but is convoluted with the current bridge sans that ramp (make a left, a right, and then three more lefts).
Quote from: J Route Z on September 10, 2015, 06:45:47 PM
On the old button copy ones, there were small reference numbers that also were annoying. NY was the only state I recall seeing these.
MA has been using them for decades.
Quote from: J Route Z on September 10, 2015, 06:45:47 PM
I hate the small "dept of transportation" logos on every sign, especially the big green highway ones. They look better without them.
From a collector's point of view, I think that label helps identify it as a genuine New York City sign and differentiates it from others manufactured for other municipalities in the country.
Just my two cents.
Quote from: M3019C LPS20 on October 04, 2015, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on September 10, 2015, 06:45:47 PM
I hate the small "dept of transportation" logos on every sign, especially the big green highway ones. They look better without them.
From a collector's point of view, I think that label helps identify it as a genuine New York City sign and differentiates it from others manufactured for other municipalities in the country.
Just my two cents.
Lowers the resale value. Seriously. If someone tries to sell it, the logo gives it away as a stolen sign.
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2015, 07:59:45 PM
Lowers the resale value. Seriously. If someone tries to sell it, the logo gives it away as a stolen sign.
How so? Plenty of signs enter private possession perfectly legally after they are retired. NYCDOT has even in the past explicitly sold old street signs to individuals rather than scrapping them.
Meanwhile the presence of that text alone hardly confirms that a sign is genuine, since anyone making signs could put it there. But its absence might suggest that a sign is either fake or not from New York City. Suggest, mind you - there are plenty of real NYCDOT signs in the wild without that text on them!
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2015, 07:59:45 PM
Quote from: M3019C LPS20 on October 04, 2015, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on September 10, 2015, 06:45:47 PM
I hate the small "dept of transportation" logos on every sign, especially the big green highway ones. They look better without them.
From a collector's point of view, I think that label helps identify it as a genuine New York City sign and differentiates it from others manufactured for other municipalities in the country.
Just my two cents.
Lowers the resale value. Seriously. If someone tries to sell it, the logo gives it away as a stolen sign.
I would have to disagree with you on that to some extent. It depends on what the sign is and how valuable it may be to a collector. Some that have the old
"DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC" labels (pre-1977) sell for more than others that are fairly newer. I'm just basing this observation from buying and selling them on the EBay market for the last several years.
Also, in the past (we're talking over 30 years ago), as the user above me mentioned, the former Department of Traffic used to have public auctions if old signs retired. The folks used to auction old traffic signal equipment as well.
Fast forward to 2015, and times have changed. Unless you know someone in the industry, the D.O.T. technically cannot take down a sign and give it to someone. It must be scrapped. The main reason is that it cannot be put up once again on an actual street corner, which is illegal. This is primarily why the NYCDOT sign store manufactures replicas of NYC signs single-sided rather than double-sided.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 04, 2015, 09:33:18 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2015, 07:59:45 PM
Lowers the resale value. Seriously. If someone tries to sell it, the logo gives it away as a stolen sign.
Suggest, mind you - there are plenty of real NYCDOT signs in the wild without that text on them!
I'm not sure about highway signs from there, but, AFAIK, standard road signs installed on New York City streets are required to use the
"DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION" label.
Speaking of said sign shop...
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/custom-signs.shtml
ixnay
I heard on WCBS Newsradio 88 that there are some discussions to toll the East River bridges. I'll try to find an article.
DeBlasio is in favor of exploring it but concedes there's not a push in Albany. Also, the MTA could have enough money if funds are not deverted from the MTA to other things by Albany.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 05, 2015, 09:01:59 PM
I heard on WCBS Newsradio 88 that there are some discussions to toll the East River bridges. I'll try to find an article.
DeBlasio is in favor of exploring it but concedes there's not a push in Albany. Also, the MTA could have enough money if funds are not deverted from the MTA to other things by Albany.
They've been talking about that for as long as I remember. It's under the same category as congestion pricing.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 05, 2015, 09:01:59 PM
I heard on WCBS Newsradio 88 that there are some discussions to toll the East River bridges. I'll try to find an article.
DeBlasio is in favor of exploring it but concedes there's not a push in Albany. Also, the MTA could have enough money if funds are not deverted from the MTA to other things by Albany.
The toll plan has been in the news a few times over the past year. It would also include a toll to travel south of the Queensboro Bridge in Manhattan.
Would those funds to the MTA be regular funds on those funds that Cuomo promised them without specifying where they money would come from?
If Sadik-Khan couldn't get it done, then the East River Bridges will never be tolled.
Does anyone think congestion pricing will ever come to NYC? I think if there is any place in the United States that should have congestion pricing, it is New York.
Quote from: vdeane on October 06, 2015, 01:01:41 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 05, 2015, 09:01:59 PM
I heard on WCBS Newsradio 88 that there are some discussions to toll the East River bridges. I'll try to find an article.
DeBlasio is in favor of exploring it but concedes there's not a push in Albany. Also, the MTA could have enough money if funds are not deverted from the MTA to other things by Albany.
The toll plan has been in the news a few times over the past year. It would also include a toll to travel south of the Queensboro Bridge in Manhattan.
Would those funds to the MTA be regular funds on those funds that Cuomo promised them without specifying where they money would come from?
Funny thing is that Cuomo was the one who dropped putting the governors name on "Entering New York" signs when you enter New York on surface roads. If he does that, there's no way he's gonna get those funds. Besides, Cuomo lied to us when he promised those funds.
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 08, 2015, 05:44:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 06, 2015, 01:01:41 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 05, 2015, 09:01:59 PM
I heard on WCBS Newsradio 88 that there are some discussions to toll the East River bridges. I'll try to find an article.
DeBlasio is in favor of exploring it but concedes there's not a push in Albany. Also, the MTA could have enough money if funds are not deverted from the MTA to other things by Albany.
The toll plan has been in the news a few times over the past year. It would also include a toll to travel south of the Queensboro Bridge in Manhattan.
Would those funds to the MTA be regular funds on those funds that Cuomo promised them without specifying where they money would come from?
Funny thing is that Cuomo was the one who dropped putting the governors name on "Entering New York" signs when you enter New York on surface roads. If he does that, there's no way he's gonna get those funds. Besides, Cuomo lied to us when he promised those funds.
Pataki dropped it
Quote from: cl94 on October 08, 2015, 05:45:47 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 08, 2015, 05:44:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 06, 2015, 01:01:41 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 05, 2015, 09:01:59 PM
I heard on WCBS Newsradio 88 that there are some discussions to toll the East River bridges. I'll try to find an article.
DeBlasio is in favor of exploring it but concedes there's not a push in Albany. Also, the MTA could have enough money if funds are not deverted from the MTA to other things by Albany.
The toll plan has been in the news a few times over the past year. It would also include a toll to travel south of the Queensboro Bridge in Manhattan.
Would those funds to the MTA be regular funds on those funds that Cuomo promised them without specifying where they money would come from?
Funny thing is that Cuomo was the one who dropped putting the governors name on "Entering New York" signs when you enter New York on surface roads. If he does that, there's no way he's gonna get those funds. Besides, Cuomo lied to us when he promised those funds.
Pataki dropped it
One of this first things he did as Governor, in fact.
Went to Jersey and back today to see a friend, here are my observations:
The HOV Lane project on the SIE/I-278 is complete, the sucky part however its HOV-3 instead of HOV-2 so its useless to me since I so rarely have more than one extra passenger, and never heading New Jersey bound.
The signage is similar to the HOV Lane on Long Island, green signs with the Diamond logo on the left pointing to a group of Exits,
^ | TO
V | EXITS 12-9
| ½ MILE
The Travel time sign just past the I-295/I-695 split telling you the times to the George Washington bridge is incredibly handy. This time around (3pm on a friday) Going I-278 to I-87 and back up to I-95 to the bridge approach was faster. (went Throggs/GWB Westbound, and Outerbridge/Verezano Eastbound)
Theres some construction going on, on the Belt Parkway between Exit 9 and 11, probably another bridge replacement.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on October 10, 2015, 12:12:21 AM
Went to Jersey and back today to see a friend, here are my observations:
The HOV Lane project on the SIE/I-278 is complete, the sucky part however its HOV-3 instead of HOV-2 so its useless to me since I so rarely have more than one extra passenger, and never heading New Jersey bound.
The signage is similar to the HOV Lane on Long Island, green signs with the Diamond logo on the left pointing to a group of Exits,
^ | TO
V | EXITS 12-9
| ½ MILE
The Travel time sign just past the I-295/I-695 split telling you the times to the George Washington bridge is incredibly handy. This time around (3pm on a friday) Going I-278 to I-87 and back up to I-95 to the bridge approach was faster. (went Throggs/GWB Westbound, and Outerbridge/Verezano Eastbound)
Theres some construction going on, on the Belt Parkway between Exit 9 and 11, probably another bridge replacement.
Maybe they will drop it to HOV-2 at some point. CT did that as well b/c of the lack of use of the lane. It should've been a general purpose lane.
it was a badly implemented bus lane before it was expanded into this.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 10, 2015, 09:32:18 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on October 10, 2015, 12:12:21 AM
Went to Jersey and back today to see a friend, here are my observations:
The HOV Lane project on the SIE/I-278 is complete, the sucky part however its HOV-3 instead of HOV-2 so its useless to me since I so rarely have more than one extra passenger, and never heading New Jersey bound.
The signage is similar to the HOV Lane on Long Island, green signs with the Diamond logo on the left pointing to a group of Exits,
^ | TO
V | EXITS 12-9
| ½ MILE
The Travel time sign just past the I-295/I-695 split telling you the times to the George Washington bridge is incredibly handy. This time around (3pm on a friday) Going I-278 to I-87 and back up to I-95 to the bridge approach was faster. (went Throggs/GWB Westbound, and Outerbridge/Verezano Eastbound)
Theres some construction going on, on the Belt Parkway between Exit 9 and 11, probably another bridge replacement.
Maybe they will drop it to HOV-2 at some point. CT did that as well b/c of the lack of use of the lane. It should've been a general purpose lane.
I do wonder. It's going to be a Bus/HOV lane, so all of the buses will get a nice ride, but there are Federal guidelines for utilization, which I believe require 500 riders/hour minimum at the peak utilization. NYSDOT (or whoever ends up operating the lane) may have to monitor volumes for a potential adjustment.
Quote from: Alps on October 11, 2015, 02:20:11 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 10, 2015, 09:32:18 PM
Maybe they will drop it to HOV-2 at some point. CT did that as well b/c of the lack of use of the lane. It should've been a general purpose lane.
I do wonder. It's going to be a Bus/HOV lane, so all of the buses will get a nice ride, but there are Federal guidelines for utilization, which I believe require 500 riders/hour minimum at the peak utilization.
If that requirement is measured in riders and not vehicles then the lane will have zero trouble meeting it. A quick check of express bus schedules suggests that between 7 and 8 AM on a weekday there are at least 47 buses using most or all of the HOV lane on Staten Island, with 71 more entering at or near the bridge and using it in Brooklyn. Given the intent for the lane to eventually be continuous across the bridge and all the way to the Battery Tunnel, HOV 3+ is reasonable. Even if they don't meet 500 riders per hour on the upstream end in the middle of Staten Island, the lanes overall will.
I suppose DOT could do 2+ in Staten Island and then 3+ upon reaching the bridge with all 2-occupancy vehicles required to exit the lane at that point, but that'd be needlessly confusing and cumbersome.
The trouble is that outside of rush hour the number of express buses is a tiny shadow of what it is during rush hour (some routes only run during rush hour). The old shorter HOV lane was woefully underused because outside of peak hours it was buses only when really outside of peak hours it should revert to general purpose like the lanes on the LIE do.
Quote from: cl94 on October 08, 2015, 05:45:47 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 08, 2015, 05:44:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 06, 2015, 01:01:41 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 05, 2015, 09:01:59 PM
I heard on WCBS Newsradio 88 that there are some discussions to toll the East River bridges. I'll try to find an article.
DeBlasio is in favor of exploring it but concedes there's not a push in Albany. Also, the MTA could have enough money if funds are not deverted from the MTA to other things by Albany.
The toll plan has been in the news a few times over the past year. It would also include a toll to travel south of the Queensboro Bridge in Manhattan.
Would those funds to the MTA be regular funds on those funds that Cuomo promised them without specifying where they money would come from?
Funny thing is that Cuomo was the one who dropped putting the governors name on "Entering New York" signs when you enter New York on surface roads. If he does that, there's no way he's gonna get those funds. Besides, Cuomo lied to us when he promised those funds.
Pataki dropped it
Yeah, with Cuomo's seemingly huge ego, it would have been out of character for him.
This is probably unlikely to happen, but how about making the HOV Lane an HOT Lane?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 13, 2015, 03:42:57 PM
This is probably unlikely to happen, but how about making the HOV Lane an HOT Lane?
Where's the money? Cuomo and Pataki promised the funds, but there's no funds.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 13, 2015, 08:13:46 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 11, 2015, 02:20:11 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 10, 2015, 09:32:18 PM
Maybe they will drop it to HOV-2 at some point. CT did that as well b/c of the lack of use of the lane. It should've been a general purpose lane.
I do wonder. It's going to be a Bus/HOV lane, so all of the buses will get a nice ride, but there are Federal guidelines for utilization, which I believe require 500 riders/hour minimum at the peak utilization.
If that requirement is measured in riders and not vehicles then the lane will have zero trouble meeting it.
I meant vehicles. Vehicles riding in the lane = riders. It was 2 AM. Sorry.
Driving on the Van Wyck recently and am amazed at how much bad signing there is from bubble shields to odd font on shields and BGSs. I didn't take any pics b/c I just can't bring myself to photograph it.
So instead I give you this:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/637/21954923896_b2f77c7f12_c.jpg)
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/decades_of_necessary_construct.html
Verrazano Bridge work...some things of interest: the widening of the ramps to the Belt and Gowanus.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 14, 2015, 07:19:16 PM
Driving on the Van Wyck recently and am amazed at how much bad signing there is from bubble shields to odd font on shields and BGSs. I didn't take any pics b/c I just can't bring myself to photograph it.
So instead I give you this:
That's not even on the Van Wyck...
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 15, 2015, 12:23:23 PM
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/decades_of_necessary_construct.html
Verrazano Bridge work...some things of interest: the widening of the ramps to the Belt and Gowanus.
If you have questions about any of the many projects here, I have answers.
Quote from: Alps on October 15, 2015, 06:40:14 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 14, 2015, 07:19:16 PM
Driving on the Van Wyck recently and am amazed at how much bad signing there is from bubble shields to odd font on shields and BGSs. I didn't take any pics b/c I just can't bring myself to photograph it.
So instead I give you this:
That's not even on the Van Wyck...
Looks like the ramp from the NB Cross Island to the TNB. I think Mergingtraffic's (love that handle) point is that the sign assembly has twice as many toll bridge signs as necessary.
ixnay
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 15, 2015, 12:23:23 PM
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/decades_of_necessary_construct.html
Verrazano Bridge work...some things of interest: the widening of the ramps to the Belt and Gowanus.
Oh good, so when the current work on the SIE "finishes," there will be an excuse for why there are still backups.
Quote from: ixnay on October 15, 2015, 08:48:19 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 15, 2015, 06:40:14 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 14, 2015, 07:19:16 PM
Driving on the Van Wyck recently and am amazed at how much bad signing there is from bubble shields to odd font on shields and BGSs. I didn't take any pics b/c I just can't bring myself to photograph it.
So instead I give you this:
That's not even on the Van Wyck...
Looks like the ramp from the NB Cross Island to the TNB. I think Mergingtraffic's (love that handle) point is that the sign assembly has twice as many toll bridge signs as necessary.
ixnay
The E-ZPass sign covers a dollar amount, IINM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 15, 2015, 09:21:55 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 15, 2015, 12:23:23 PM
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/decades_of_necessary_construct.html
Verrazano Bridge work...some things of interest: the widening of the ramps to the Belt and Gowanus.
Oh good, so when the current work on the SIE "finishes," there will be an excuse for why there are still backups.
The backups will still come from Todt Hill, really. That's what happens without a completed Richmond Pkwy.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 14, 2015, 07:19:16 PM
Driving on the Van Wyck recently and am amazed at how much bad signing there is from bubble shields to odd font on shields and BGSs. I didn't take any pics b/c I just can't bring myself to photograph it.
So instead I give you this:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/637/21954923896_b2f77c7f12_c.jpg)
somehow that sign survived a recent sign replacement on the Cross Island. I remember last year a lane was closed when I was driving somewhere up north (I forget) but they were installing the reflective signs just before that one.
Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2015, 09:55:48 PM
The E-ZPass sign covers a dollar amount, IINM
IINM????
ixnay
That sign also shows the lack of cardinal directions that we were discussing on another thread.
Quote from: Alps on October 15, 2015, 11:59:29 PM
The backups will still come from Todt Hill, really. That's what happens without a completed Richmond Pkwy.
Considering the now-dismantled interchange for Richmond Pkwy is beyond the top of the hill, how would that have really helped? No traffic that currently climbs the hill would be diverted away from it. If anything I'd think it'd make the backups worse since some south-shore bound traffic that currently exits at Hylan Blvd or Richmond Rd before the hill would climb the hill and take Richmond Pkwy instead.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 16, 2015, 03:33:43 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 15, 2015, 11:59:29 PM
The backups will still come from Todt Hill, really. That's what happens without a completed Richmond Pkwy.
Considering the now-dismantled interchange for Richmond Pkwy is beyond the top of the hill, how would that have really helped? No traffic that currently climbs the hill would be diverted away from it. If anything I'd think it'd make the backups worse since some south-shore bound traffic that currently exits at Hylan Blvd or Richmond Rd before the hill would climb the hill and take Richmond Pkwy instead.
Wait... you're talking westbound? I wasn't aware of WB backups. I'm talking about EB.
Quote from: Alps on October 16, 2015, 08:05:31 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 16, 2015, 03:33:43 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 15, 2015, 11:59:29 PM
The backups will still come from Todt Hill, really. That's what happens without a completed Richmond Pkwy.
Considering the now-dismantled interchange for Richmond Pkwy is beyond the top of the hill, how would that have really helped? No traffic that currently climbs the hill would be diverted away from it. If anything I'd think it'd make the backups worse since some south-shore bound traffic that currently exits at Hylan Blvd or Richmond Rd before the hill would climb the hill and take Richmond Pkwy instead.
Wait... you're talking westbound? I wasn't aware of WB backups. I'm talking about EB.
I was talking about eastbound, hence Gowanus work factoring in.
Westbound is not as bad, but occasionally someone blinks wrong and it crawls as soon as you get off the Verrazano. The Turnpike can also spill over onto the SIE, particularly on days when the Bayonne Bridge is closed.
The eastbound backups that I'm familiar with routinely ran from a between the two 440 junctions through to Manor Rd or so. These are construction related - whenever there was a lane closed the remaining two weren't enough.
I'm sure it backs up going this way during morning rush but I don't think I've ever been heading eastbound at that time of day so I can't fully comment.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 17, 2015, 09:51:48 AM
Quote from: route17fan on October 16, 2015, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: ixnay on October 16, 2015, 07:24:48 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2015, 09:55:48 PM
The E-ZPass sign covers a dollar amount, IINM
IINM????
ixnay
Acronym - If I'm Not Mistaken :)
Abbreviation, but whatever. Acronym would be spoken "inm."
initialism (http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/abbreviations/abbreviations-acronyms-and-initialisms-revisited/), actually.
Quote from: odditude on October 17, 2015, 12:08:24 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 17, 2015, 09:51:48 AM
Quote from: route17fan on October 16, 2015, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: ixnay on October 16, 2015, 07:24:48 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2015, 09:55:48 PM
The E-ZPass sign covers a dollar amount, IINM
IINM????
ixnay
Acronym - If I'm Not Mistaken :)
Abbreviation, but whatever. Acronym would be spoken "inm."
initialism (http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/abbreviations/abbreviations-acronyms-and-initialisms-revisited/), actually.
Fair enough.
I think the dollar amount covered was $3.50. Not sure.
the good ol days when getting off Long Island wasnt criminally expensive.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on October 17, 2015, 08:39:57 PM
the good ol days when getting off Long Island wasnt criminally expensive.
Word. I hated the $14 toll for the Outerbridge Crossing.
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 17, 2015, 08:44:38 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on October 17, 2015, 08:39:57 PM
the good ol days when getting off Long Island wasnt criminally expensive.
Word. I hated the $14 toll for the Outerbridge Crossing.
Wrong island.
What is the point of the Lower Level truck ban on the GWB and Verezano? They stuck it in after 9-11 but like if someone wants to cause harm does it matter what level they are on? It just seems like a massive pain in the ass for truck drivers to go down an already huge pain in the ass highway.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on October 18, 2015, 12:00:16 AM
What is the point of the Lower Level truck ban on the GWB and Verezano? They stuck it in after 9-11 but like if someone wants to cause harm does it matter what level they are on? It just seems like a massive pain in the ass for truck drivers to go down an already huge pain in the ass highway.
I have always assumed it was for two reasons: first, keeping trucks in one place makes surveillance and inspection more manageable. Second, the force of an explosive in an open space dissipates more easily. It also directly impacts one deck as opposed to two.
It's true that there are ways to cause harm no matter what, but given the scarcity, difficulty in replacing, and economic/social importance of these crossings, they get extra attention.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 13, 2015, 08:13:46 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 11, 2015, 02:20:11 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 10, 2015, 09:32:18 PM
Maybe they will drop it to HOV-2 at some point. CT did that as well b/c of the lack of use of the lane. It should've been a general purpose lane.
I do wonder. It's going to be a Bus/HOV lane, so all of the buses will get a nice ride, but there are Federal guidelines for utilization, which I believe require 500 riders/hour minimum at the peak utilization.
If that requirement is measured in riders and not vehicles then the lane will have zero trouble meeting it. A quick check of express bus schedules suggests that between 7 and 8 AM on a weekday there are at least 47 buses using most or all of the HOV lane on Staten Island, with 71 more entering at or near the bridge and using it in Brooklyn. Given the intent for the lane to eventually be continuous across the bridge and all the way to the Battery Tunnel, HOV 3+ is reasonable. Even if they don't meet 500 riders per hour on the upstream end in the middle of Staten Island, the lanes overall will.
I suppose DOT could do 2+ in Staten Island and then 3+ upon reaching the bridge with all 2-occupancy vehicles required to exit the lane at that point, but that'd be needlessly confusing and cumbersome.
The trouble is that outside of rush hour the number of express buses is a tiny shadow of what it is during rush hour (some routes only run during rush hour). The old shorter HOV lane was woefully underused because outside of peak hours it was buses only when really outside of peak hours it should revert to general purpose like the lanes on the LIE do.
Even outside of rush hour, there are plenty of cars using this bridge. And plenty of "carpools" (i.e. families heading back to the city together) that there probably is justification for keeping the lane HOV3+ at all times.
I have family in Queens, so most of my trips from MD to Queens involve taking the SIE to the VZ. And even at off-peak times, it's generally a crawl. Usually, the lane is closed off to all except buses and it's a pain, but I understand that there would be a bottleneck as the HOV lane merges in with the left lane before the defunct toll plaza.
Currently, the HOV lane merges into the left lane. The left two lanes of the SIE lead to the upper level of the bridge. The third lane leads to either upper level or lower level. And all lanes further to the right (coming in from entrances near the SIE) lead only to the lower level. To me, it would seem wiser to have the HOV lane become the left lane of the upper level of the bridge without merging, even if we can't restrict it to HOVs on the bridge itself. This would eliminate the last minute merge and provide a good excuse for keeping the lane open to general traffic (or HOV) at all times. Then, the next two lanes will go to the upper level. The third lane will go only to the lower level. And all lanes further to the right (coming in from entrances near the SIE) lead only to the lower level.
new state name shield for 278, not sure if its still there or not, its a 2014 Google Street View and I haven't been down that way in some time.
I know there was a state name 495 shield on the LIE just past the Cross Island exit but I think that was gone since I saw it once years ago then it was gone.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7679093,-73.9049146,3a,30.4y,70.16h,90.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCryN-2F-r8pyCKuhxIfdPA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Quote from: mrsman on October 18, 2015, 10:02:16 AM
Even outside of rush hour, there are plenty of cars using this bridge. And plenty of "carpools" (i.e. families heading back to the city together) that there probably is justification for keeping the lane HOV3+ at all times.
I have family in Queens, so most of my trips from MD to Queens involve taking the SIE to the VZ. And even at off-peak times, it's generally a crawl. Usually, the lane is closed off to all except buses and it's a pain, but I understand that there would be a bottleneck as the HOV lane merges in with the left lane before the defunct toll plaza.
Currently, the HOV lane merges into the left lane. The left two lanes of the SIE lead to the upper level of the bridge. The third lane leads to either upper level or lower level. And all lanes further to the right (coming in from entrances near the SIE) lead only to the lower level. To me, it would seem wiser to have the HOV lane become the left lane of the upper level of the bridge without merging, even if we can't restrict it to HOVs on the bridge itself. This would eliminate the last minute merge and provide a good excuse for keeping the lane open to general traffic (or HOV) at all times. Then, the next two lanes will go to the upper level. The third lane will go only to the lower level. And all lanes further to the right (coming in from entrances near the SIE) lead only to the lower level.
The whole point of the project currently on the bridge is to create a continuous HOV lane. It will still end into the left lane at most hours, though, because outside of the AM rush you just don't have many vehicles using it. The bridge is only wide enough for 7 lanes (barely), so something's gotta give. The bridge lane will be reversible, matching the Gowanus. You'll have to deal with the merge otherwise. Also, know that the entrances near the SIE lead to both levels. They drop into the middle between Upper and Lower with a choice of where to go.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 17, 2015, 01:54:09 PM
Quote from: odditude on October 17, 2015, 12:08:24 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 17, 2015, 09:51:48 AM
Quote from: route17fan on October 16, 2015, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: ixnay on October 16, 2015, 07:24:48 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2015, 09:55:48 PM
The E-ZPass sign covers a dollar amount, IINM
IINM????
ixnay
Acronym - If I'm Not Mistaken :)
Abbreviation, but whatever. Acronym would be spoken "inm."
initialism (http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/abbreviations/abbreviations-acronyms-and-initialisms-revisited/), actually.
Fair enough.
smh (lol)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 18, 2015, 12:57:52 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on October 18, 2015, 12:00:16 AM
What is the point of the Lower Level truck ban on the GWB and Verezano? They stuck it in after 9-11 but like if someone wants to cause harm does it matter what level they are on? It just seems like a massive pain in the ass for truck drivers to go down an already huge pain in the ass highway.
I have always assumed it was for two reasons: first, keeping trucks in one place makes surveillance and inspection more manageable. Second, the force of an explosive in an open space dissipates more easily. It also directly impacts one deck as opposed to two.
It's true that there are ways to cause harm no matter what, but given the scarcity, difficulty in replacing, and economic/social importance of these crossings, they get extra attention.
How about a car bomb on the lower level? They soon forgot that is what was used the very first time the WTC got attacked.
Also why stop cars on the Staten Island Ferry? Do trucks use that like cars use it? Probably not, but if a car bomb on the Staten Island Ferry is thought of, why not one on the bridges?
That's nonsense. Since when can you drive a car onto the Staten Island ferry?
Quote from: corco on October 20, 2015, 12:07:12 PM
That's nonsense. Since when can you drive a car onto the Staten Island ferry?
Before 9/11. They stopped allowing cars for security.
Yup. I remember my grandfather taking his car onto the ferry in the 1980s when we had gone into the city for something and we were then heading to my cousins' house on Staten Island. I don't ever remember seeing trucks using it.
Quote from: cl94 on October 20, 2015, 12:18:15 PM
Quote from: corco on October 20, 2015, 12:07:12 PM
That's nonsense. Since when can you drive a car onto the Staten Island ferry?
Before 9/11. They stopped allowing cars for security.
But they allow people on it. And as we all know, cars don't kill people, people do.
iPhone
Quote from: empirestate on October 20, 2015, 03:30:10 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 20, 2015, 12:18:15 PM
Quote from: corco on October 20, 2015, 12:07:12 PM
That's nonsense. Since when can you drive a car onto the Staten Island ferry?
Before 9/11. They stopped allowing cars for security.
But they allow people on it. And as we all know, cars don't kill people, people do.
Then it's simple. They should ban people. Skynet, are you listening?
On old sign sighting that I have passed many times when I lived in Albany but was not sure where it was to get a picture of it.
A white-on-black MERGING TRAFFIC sign!! :wow:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8436093,-73.9450125,3a,15y,38.57h,89.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFJWOSZXTaaO9qQtHBr8fjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Here seems to be the deal - it's facing the wrong direction on the ramp.
The next link is its' profile. I can not get a good view of it from under the overpass - but it is definitely there!!
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8437267,-73.9444253,3a,15y,271.06h,87.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqf4X4j7w7GJUhRKm1KeVmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Here it is - a better link
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8436215,-73.9444886,3a,15y,305.7h,86.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss6NnJTgw-pYoexIIdPUW3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It's on a concrete wall in the trees
Quote from: cl94 on October 20, 2015, 12:18:15 PM
Quote from: corco on October 20, 2015, 12:07:12 PM
That's nonsense. Since when can you drive a car onto the Staten Island ferry?
Before 9/11. They stopped allowing cars for security.
Yup, the bottom deck of the boats was originally used for vehicles - buses were allowed as well (not sure about trucks). Today you can go down there and walk around if you are so inclined, one reason to do so would be the relatively unrestricted views you get from the bow and stern. Lotsa empty space in the middle though.
Both terminals were rebuilt in the mid-2000s and as far as I'm aware there is still roadway in place for cars to get on the ferries if the city saw fit to allow it again (the Manhattan entrance is through here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7012681,-74.013797,3a,45.2y,146.61h,82.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shmr7F3sq9KV7dS5bdhG38g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)), but to date officials are still
paranoid concerned about the fact that it would be impractical to give vehicles boarding the boat any sort of security screening. Yes, the people walking on board are not security screened either and someone could do some pretty nasty damage with things they can fit on their person, but as with so many things in the world of trying to prevent terrorism it's more about security theater than about actual security.
Didn't take terrorism for the tragedy several years back...
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 20, 2015, 11:04:04 PM
Didn't take terrorism for the tragedy several years back...
It's just 14 years and counting...
Quote from: Duke87 on October 20, 2015, 10:59:47 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 20, 2015, 12:18:15 PM
Quote from: corco on October 20, 2015, 12:07:12 PM
That's nonsense. Since when can you drive a car onto the Staten Island ferry?
Before 9/11. They stopped allowing cars for security.
Yup, the bottom deck of the boats was originally used for vehicles - buses were allowed as well (not sure about trucks). Today you can go down there and walk around if you are so inclined, one reason to do so would be the relatively unrestricted views you get from the bow and stern. Lotsa empty space in the middle though.
Both terminals were rebuilt in the mid-2000s and as far as I'm aware there is still roadway in place for cars to get on the ferries if the city saw fit to allow it again (the Manhattan entrance is through here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7012681,-74.013797,3a,45.2y,146.61h,82.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shmr7F3sq9KV7dS5bdhG38g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)), but to date officials are still paranoid concerned about the fact that it would be impractical to give vehicles boarding the boat any sort of security screening. Yes, the people walking on board are not security screened either and someone could do some pretty nasty damage with things they can fit on their person, but as with so many things in the world of trying to prevent terrorism it's more about security theater than about actual security.
I seem to recall vehicles having been banned from the Staten Island Ferry at one point prior to 9-11 but then being allowed back on. An Internet search indicates vehicles were banned after a fire in the Manhattan terminal in 1992 messed up vehicular access and that they were allowed back onto the ferry in 1994 after repairs were completed.
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 21, 2015, 03:31:35 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 20, 2015, 11:04:04 PM
Didn't take terrorism for the tragedy several years back...
It's just 14 years and counting...
I assume he's referring to the 2010 incident where one of the ferries crashed while arriving at the St. George terminal because the reverse thrusters failed.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 21, 2015, 03:48:17 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 21, 2015, 03:31:35 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 20, 2015, 11:04:04 PM
Didn't take terrorism for the tragedy several years back...
It's just 14 years and counting...
I assume he's referring to the 2010 incident where one of the ferries crashed while arriving at the St. George terminal because the reverse thrusters failed.
I thought it was a reference to the 2003 medicated-captain crash in which 11 people died.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Flushing,+Queens,+NY/@40.749755,-73.850277,3a,66.8y,330.64h,83.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sj4WYXnxEDTbKltJYMgjhnw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c260054dc0633f:0xfaec24d1b474281e
To change the subject a bit this overpass is very interesting how they split the carriageways around the pier of the Long Island Railroad Overpass near Citi Field. I know that the original 4 lane parkway went through here as the EB lanes do not do this as well as this side being constructed much differently then the EB overpass. It obvious that when the GCP was expanded, they left the original overpass and just added another one to the end.
I have seen this done in various places in the US and its a sound solution then taking more time and money to make it look better for aesthetics.
Also nearby I see there is an Exit 9P. Rather unusual suffix, but then again NYS uses directional suffixes over A-B-C or else this would have been 9C. I am guessing the P stands for Park which Exit 9P is the ramp leading into Flushing Meadows Corona Park.
Quote from: Alps on October 19, 2015, 10:16:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 18, 2015, 10:02:16 AM
Even outside of rush hour, there are plenty of cars using this bridge. And plenty of "carpools" (i.e. families heading back to the city together) that there probably is justification for keeping the lane HOV3+ at all times.
I have family in Queens, so most of my trips from MD to Queens involve taking the SIE to the VZ. And even at off-peak times, it's generally a crawl. Usually, the lane is closed off to all except buses and it's a pain, but I understand that there would be a bottleneck as the HOV lane merges in with the left lane before the defunct toll plaza.
Currently, the HOV lane merges into the left lane. The left two lanes of the SIE lead to the upper level of the bridge. The third lane leads to either upper level or lower level. And all lanes further to the right (coming in from entrances near the SIE) lead only to the lower level. To me, it would seem wiser to have the HOV lane become the left lane of the upper level of the bridge without merging, even if we can't restrict it to HOVs on the bridge itself. This would eliminate the last minute merge and provide a good excuse for keeping the lane open to general traffic (or HOV) at all times. Then, the next two lanes will go to the upper level. The third lane will go only to the lower level. And all lanes further to the right (coming in from entrances near the SIE) lead only to the lower level.
The whole point of the project currently on the bridge is to create a continuous HOV lane. It will still end into the left lane at most hours, though, because outside of the AM rush you just don't have many vehicles using it. The bridge is only wide enough for 7 lanes (barely), so something's gotta give. The bridge lane will be reversible, matching the Gowanus. You'll have to deal with the merge otherwise. Also, know that the entrances near the SIE lead to both levels. They drop into the middle between Upper and Lower with a choice of where to go.
There would absolutely be use of this lane outside of AM rush. This is a very busy road, especially at the end of summer weekends (return to city after a trip to Jersey Shore) and a significant number of people travel on weekends with their families.
As far as making a HOV lane on the bridge itself though, it seems that this would require some kind of bypass ramp on the Brooklyn end (so that HOV traffic can continue onto the Gowanus and not be forced to go to the Belt Pkwy). Is something like this really planned?
In the meantime, the HOV lane on the SIE could be opened full time.
Why do they not use the left lane lower level for an exclusive HOV lane and use the lower level ramp as its exit for the Belt Parkway? Just so you know for well over a decade (maybe for well over that even) there was no lower level access to the Belt Parkway. Even though the ramp was always there for some reason the TBTA did not allow traffic to use the ramp for whatever reason.
A sign on the gantry across E Bound I-278 at the split informed motorists with a Belt Parkway and an arrow pointing to the upper level. It stood since I was a kid back in the 70's, it was there back in 1987 when I decided to clinch the JFK airport roads and part of the LIE in Queens. However, when I went to Coney Island back in 01 or 02, I noticed that the exclusive arrow was gone and both levels had access to it.
Anyway, if NYC survived that for all those years having only one ramp, then they can again.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 23, 2015, 08:41:58 AM
Anyway, if NYC survived that for all those years having only one ramp, then they can again.
NYC can't even survive a three-inch snowfall anymore...
Where do all the high taxes go then? NYC has very high taxes, hence the high rent, and why you have to pay your landlord to park your own car in your own apartment house extra on top of your ultra high rent? Even for us to park a car in a garage is pretty steep for even a half hour.
The city that charges more you seem to get so much less then the cheaper suburbs. That is a big shame!
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2015, 01:37:09 PM
Where do all the high taxes go then? NYC has very high taxes, hence the high rent, and why you have to pay your landlord to park your own car in your own apartment house extra on top of your ultra high rent? Even for us to park a car in a garage is pretty steep for even a half hour.
The city that charges more you seem to get so much less then the cheaper suburbs. That is a big shame!
You're familiar with the law of supply and demand, I'm sure, and know that New York would be very, very expensive without high taxes, right?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 24, 2015, 06:37:23 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2015, 01:37:09 PM
Where do all the high taxes go then? NYC has very high taxes, hence the high rent, and why you have to pay your landlord to park your own car in your own apartment house extra on top of your ultra high rent? Even for us to park a car in a garage is pretty steep for even a half hour.
The city that charges more you seem to get so much less then the cheaper suburbs. That is a big shame!
You're familiar with the law of supply and demand, I'm sure, and know that New York would be very, very expensive without high taxes, right?
Probably, but still raises a question why the most expensive city to live in has terrible amenities. Same for California being bankrupt for a state that has the highest cost of living. You would think that the more money that goes in would have something to show for, but it does not.
Yes I am familiar with supply and demand, as its when you have that last piece of food in a crowd of people, you could charge whatever you want to the highest bidder as long as it does not go over the maximum amount of what the person with the most money.
The original point is that taxes are high and none of it goes to roads, buses, or subways. No matter what NYC charges to live, its not going into the city treasury as the supply and demand is for the landowners to profit because of NYC being the place to move. Sean Hannity and his butt buddy Governor Dick Scott of Florida are not going to get all of New York to move to Florida as part of a campaign that Hannity wants to stab Cuomo in the back for all the jabs Andrew gives him about his show and how pro gun the Fox News/ Radio host is. Plus Scott has his own agenda, of raping all the farm land of Florida and rid the Orange Groves so new developers can build more homes to get more property taxes for our state that needs to cap development instead of expand it. Right now we have more than enough housing to handle everyone, as many older subdivisions are empty because the newer ones are tempting first home buyers to move into a much newer home.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2015, 07:18:48 PM
The original point is that taxes are high and none of it goes to roads, buses, or subways.
Much of it does, but for various reasons the money is spent very inefficiently because people just don't coordinate. NYCDOT repaves a street, the next year Con Ed comes through and rips it up to do utility work. NYCDOT paints a bus lane one year, then repaves the street the next year requiring the paint be redone. MTA replaces a switch in the subway, then replaces it again five years later because they have to rip it out to fix something with the structure underneath it. And so on and so forth.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2015, 01:37:09 PM
Where do all the high taxes go then? NYC has very high taxes, hence the high rent, and why you have to pay your landlord to park your own car in your own apartment house extra on top of your ultra high rent? Even for us to park a car in a garage is pretty steep for even a half hour.
The city that charges more you seem to get so much less then the cheaper suburbs. That is a big shame!
High taxes actually drive down property values, not up, because who wants to live somewhere where the tax bill is ridiculous? Rents are really high in NYC
despite high taxes, not because of them.
Quote from: corco on October 24, 2015, 09:59:39 PM
High taxes actually drive down property values, not up, because who wants to live somewhere where the tax bill is ridiculous? Rents are really high in NYC despite high taxes, not because of them.
I dunno man, New Jersey's property taxes range from 70-120% higher than the national average, yet New Jersey has some of the highest median housing values in the country.
Quote from: Zeffy on October 24, 2015, 10:24:58 PM
Quote from: corco on October 24, 2015, 09:59:39 PM
High taxes actually drive down property values, not up, because who wants to live somewhere where the tax bill is ridiculous? Rents are really high in NYC despite high taxes, not because of them.
I dunno man, New Jersey's property taxes range from 70-120% higher than the national average, yet New Jersey has some of the highest median housing values in the country.
Right, because incomes are higher and land is relatively scarce in that part of the country.
People don't like paying taxes. Therefore high tax rates are not something that drive up property values, because property value is inherently based on the things that people like about a place. Value is generated from things perceived positively, not things perceived negatively. High tax bills are perceived negatively.
Now, if those high tax rates are spent well, then government provides a higher level of service in those communities, which provides amenities like good schools that are otherwise unavailable, which drives up property values. But the high tax rates themselves absolutely do not drive up property values.
Generally, I'd bet areas with high property values are more likely to also be taxed at a high percentage. But correlation does not equal causation. In Duke's NYC example above, if seven different agencies didn't have oversight over functionally the same thing and agencies had more capacity to coordinate, taxes could be lower without diminishing level of service. That would not cause property values to drop - the level of service provided by government is part of what generates property value, not the tax rate.
Take a counter-example. Put yourself in, say, Carter County Montana. You're given five acres and a unabomber cabin along a county road. The county road is graded once every three years and is only passable by a 4WD vehicle most of the year. You are taxed at a rate of 20% of the assessed value of that property every year. Your tax dollars are sent to, say, Billings, to fund coal subsidies. You see no benefit from those tax payments. How much is that property worth to you? Probably nothing. You probably don't want it. You can barely get to it because the county can't afford to maintain the road, it's in an area where land is plentiful, and you're being asked to pay thousands of dollars in property tax annually to cover it. Under a normal tax regimen, such a property is probably worth $50,000 or so. Under a tax regimen where you have to pay $10,000 annually to receive no benefit, the property would actually have negative value. Somebody would have to pay you to take it. Property tax rates do not inherently cause property value to rise.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 24, 2015, 09:37:02 PM
NYCDOT repaves a street, the next year Con Ed comes through and rips it up to do utility work.
The next year? Try the next week; exactly this happened right outside my old apartment (more than once).
iPhone
Quote from: corco on October 24, 2015, 10:34:23 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 24, 2015, 10:24:58 PM
Quote from: corco on October 24, 2015, 09:59:39 PM
High taxes actually drive down property values, not up, because who wants to live somewhere where the tax bill is ridiculous? Rents are really high in NYC despite high taxes, not because of them.
I dunno man, New Jersey's property taxes range from 70-120% higher than the national average, yet New Jersey has some of the highest median housing values in the country.
Right, because incomes are higher and land is relatively scarce in that part of the country.
People don't like paying taxes. Therefore high tax rates are not something that drive up property values, because property value is inherently based on the things that people like about a place. Value is generated from things perceived positively, not things perceived negatively. High tax bills are perceived negatively.
Now, if those high tax rates are spent well, then government provides a higher level of service in those communities, which provides amenities like good schools that are otherwise unavailable, which drives up property values. But the high tax rates themselves absolutely do not drive up property values.
Generally, I'd bet areas with high property values are more likely to also be taxed at a high percentage. But correlation does not equal causation. In Duke's NYC example above, if seven different agencies didn't have oversight over functionally the same thing and agencies had more capacity to coordinate, taxes could be lower without diminishing level of service. That would not cause property values to drop - the level of service provided by government is part of what generates property value, not the tax rate.
Take a counter-example. Put yourself in, say, Carter County Montana. You're given five acres and a unabomber cabin along a county road. The county road is graded once every three years and is only passable by a 4WD vehicle most of the year. You are taxed at a rate of 20% of the assessed value of that property every year. Your tax dollars are sent to, say, Billings, to fund coal subsidies. You see no benefit from those tax payments. How much is that property worth to you? Probably nothing. You probably don't want it. You can barely get to it because the county can't afford to maintain the road, it's in an area where land is plentiful, and you're being asked to pay thousands of dollars in property tax annually to cover it. Under a normal tax regimen, such a property is probably worth $50,000 or so. Under a tax regimen where you have to pay $10,000 annually to receive no benefit, the property would actually have negative value. Somebody would have to pay you to take it. Property tax rates do not inherently cause property value to rise.
For the record, NYC's property taxes are actually quite low. NYC has plenty of other ways to generate revenue.
Quote from: Zeffy on October 24, 2015, 10:24:58 PM
I dunno man, New Jersey's property taxes range from 70-120% higher than the national average, yet New Jersey has some of the highest median housing values in the country.
Yet Newark and most of its suburbs have ridiculously high taxes and "cheap" housing, most of which is falling apart. If you have the down payment to afford a town with slightly higher prices, but lower taxes, its actually cheaper to live there despite the higher mortgage payment! The lack of services from those $6000-7000 a year in taxes is galling as well. You have to pay for garbage pickup and usually the towns have a full volunteer fire and first aid squad. Meanwhile, in most states the taxes are half (or less) and provide full garbage pickup, full paid fire dept., and EMS.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 25, 2015, 03:43:30 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 24, 2015, 10:24:58 PM
I dunno man, New Jersey's property taxes range from 70-120% higher than the national average, yet New Jersey has some of the highest median housing values in the country.
Yet Newark and most of its suburbs have ridiculously high taxes and "cheap" housing, most of which is falling apart. If you have the down payment to afford a town with slightly higher prices, but lower taxes, its actually cheaper to live there despite the higher mortgage payment! The lack of services from those $6000-7000 a year in taxes is galling as well. You have to pay for garbage pickup and usually the towns have a full volunteer fire and first aid squad. Meanwhile, in most states the taxes are half (or less) and provide full garbage pickup, full paid fire dept., and EMS.
How about surrendering the precious municipal autonomy that creates massive overduplication of services in New Jersey? It's a mystery to pretty much no one that's paying attention that the tenacious parochialism in New Jersey towns is responsible for wasted high taxes.
People in New Jersey want to have their cake and eat it too, for free.
Merging towns doesn't seem to produce the savings expected. While the municipal services portion of the tax bill goes down, the school taxes likely won't. It's a complex problem with no clear solution that nobody wants to solve.
http://njmonthly.com/articles/towns-schools/princetons-progress-municipal-consolidation/
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 25, 2015, 07:14:23 PM
Merging towns doesn't seem to produce the savings expected. While the municipal services portion of the tax bill goes down, the school taxes likely won't. It's a complex problem with no clear solution that nobody wants to solve.
http://njmonthly.com/articles/towns-schools/princetons-progress-municipal-consolidation/
In most towns, the vast majority of taxes go towards schools, not municipal, not county, not state.
But, our gas tax is low.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 27, 2015, 03:45:29 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 25, 2015, 07:14:23 PM
Merging towns doesn't seem to produce the savings expected. While the municipal services portion of the tax bill goes down, the school taxes likely won't. It's a complex problem with no clear solution that nobody wants to solve.
http://njmonthly.com/articles/towns-schools/princetons-progress-municipal-consolidation/
In most towns, the vast majority of taxes go towards schools, not municipal, not county, not state.
But, our gas tax is low.
Education, for better or for worse, is one of those areas over which people are least willing to surrender local control. Given the nature of New Jersey's municipal structure, you have a lot of very wealthy little enclaves with their own government that do not want their school rankings diluted by merger with inferior districts.
Schools, in fact, where one of the sticking points over which many of New Jersey's micro-boroughs were created.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 27, 2015, 01:58:56 PM
There is a signing project in the works that is replacing signage on NY-440 on Staten Island. These two were in the plans. Anybody know if they're still there or did they bite the dust?
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7373/16334987909_6b803ef9c8_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7285/16495252096_685988118e_c.jpg)
I was down there a few weeks back, much of the mainline signs on NY 440 are all new. As for the side streets that I'm not sure.
On those NY 440 signs, what's that "WS" in the lower right corner? A reference to the ongoing Fall Classic involving the boys from Flushing Meadows?
ixnay
It means "west shore" - an abbreviation on most old style button copy signs designating what road to which it belongs.
Others include CB and CBX for Cross Bronx Expy, HHP for Henry Hudson Pkwy, etc.
That topic was addressed here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12328.0 Old NYC BGS signs with letters on the bottom :)
Just curious: are there any button copy signs left on the Henry Hudson from the GWB northward or have they been replaced?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 30, 2015, 04:56:34 PM
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5731/22615832055_499903138f_c.jpg)
Everytime I drive the FDR I noticed a button copy sign that has disappeared. Yet, I see no contracts on NYDOT about a FDR signing contract or have I seen any. Even the "various locations" projects that i have seen don't have any FDR signage in them.
Do they do spot replacements without putting it out to bid?
PS the above sign is still there....for now.
Probably NYCDOT spot replacements. NYSDOT Region 11 only does large capital projects.
Quote from: vdeane on October 30, 2015, 06:30:08 PM
Probably NYCDOT spot replacements. NYSDOT Region 11 only does large capital projects.
Yeah, a number of the spot replacements I've seen within the five boroughs like NYCDOT signage, and some of them stick out like a sore thumb when everything else on the road is NYSDOT signage.
Quote from: route17fan on October 28, 2015, 12:50:58 PM
That topic was addressed here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12328.0 Old NYC BGS signs with letters on the bottom :)
Looks like Flickr has yanked the photo accompanying the initial post of that thread...
ixnay
I believe you may still be able to find some beat-up old button copy signs near the Marine Parkway Bridge leaving Breezy Point. Mapping software would show the location as eastbound Rockaway Point Boulevard at Beach 169 Street, although nobody in that area calls it Rockaway Point Boulevard (usually "the state road" is used, mainly because it's the only road in or out). The signs may have been replaced recently, though, because I believe the ones on the bridge were. I would ask my aunt, who lives right down the street in Roxbury, to confirm yea or nay, except she would have no idea what I'd be asking about even if I explained it in terms other than "button copy."
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 31, 2015, 12:05:00 PM
I believe you may still be able to find some beat-up old button copy signs near the Marine Parkway Bridge leaving Breezy Point. Mapping software would show the location as eastbound Rockaway Point Boulevard at Beach 169 Street, although nobody in that area calls it Rockaway Point Boulevard (usually "the state road" is used, mainly because it's the only road in or out). The signs may have been replaced recently, though, because I believe the ones on the bridge were. I would ask my aunt, who lives right down the street in Roxbury, to confirm yea or nay, except she would have no idea what I'd be asking about even if I explained it in terms other than "button copy."
Do you mean this (from Oct. 2012)?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5674477,-73.8821206,3a,48.9y,45.78h,104.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMl-e7zVSuwNdgKdhWPCTRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
ixnay
That's the one. Those are probably the same signs that were there when I first visited Breezy Point in the 1970s. I find it mildly amusing how they put on the fresh piece with the toll rate while letting the rest deteriorate, but on the other hand, the neighborhoods down that road are all private (Breezy Point and Roxbury operate as a single co-op; I'm not sure how the Silver Gull is run), so 99% of the people using that road know where they're going anyway.
I don't know whether those signs may have been replaced since the Google car went through.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 31, 2015, 12:05:00 PM
I believe you may still be able to find some beat-up old button copy signs near the Marine Parkway Bridge leaving Breezy Point. Mapping software would show the location as eastbound Rockaway Point Boulevard at Beach 169 Street, although nobody in that area calls it Rockaway Point Boulevard (usually "the state road" is used, mainly because it's the only road in or out). The signs may have been replaced recently, though, because I believe the ones on the bridge were. I would ask my aunt, who lives right down the street in Roxbury, to confirm yea or nay, except she would have no idea what I'd be asking about even if I explained it in terms other than "button copy."
Gone.
Quote from: Alps on October 31, 2015, 05:06:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 31, 2015, 12:05:00 PM
I believe you may still be able to find some beat-up old button copy signs near the Marine Parkway Bridge leaving Breezy Point. Mapping software would show the location as eastbound Rockaway Point Boulevard at Beach 169 Street, although nobody in that area calls it Rockaway Point Boulevard (usually "the state road" is used, mainly because it's the only road in or out). The signs may have been replaced recently, though, because I believe the ones on the bridge were. I would ask my aunt, who lives right down the street in Roxbury, to confirm yea or nay, except she would have no idea what I'd be asking about even if I explained it in terms other than "button copy."
Gone.
Thanks. Not necessarily a huge surprise because that area got a heck of a lot of attention due to the massive fire the night of Hurricane Sandy.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 01, 2015, 08:59:21 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 31, 2015, 05:06:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 31, 2015, 12:05:00 PM
I believe you may still be able to find some beat-up old button copy signs near the Marine Parkway Bridge leaving Breezy Point. Mapping software would show the location as eastbound Rockaway Point Boulevard at Beach 169 Street, although nobody in that area calls it Rockaway Point Boulevard (usually "the state road" is used, mainly because it's the only road in or out). The signs may have been replaced recently, though, because I believe the ones on the bridge were. I would ask my aunt, who lives right down the street in Roxbury, to confirm yea or nay, except she would have no idea what I'd be asking about even if I explained it in terms other than "button copy."
Gone.
Actually still there...but not for long, they are replacing the ramp bridges and the signs will be replaced as part of that project.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5743/22485193982_3ac87e1c94_c.jpg)
I'm still tempted to make a trip to SI to see if the Glen Rd button copy at NY-440 to see if the above signage is still there but it's the tolls that's preventing me.
I was just there and the signs were mostly gone. Maybe this is the one that survived... or am I completely misremembering?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.852027,-73.908992,3a,75y,20.24h,89.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCYOw8iM-shbysbx4mJvn5A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
I was always fascinated by roads in NYC that are underneath the elevated subway lines. I always noticed how not only does the line separate the neighborhoods on each side, but it prevents a roadway that would normally be four lanes into a narrow two lane roadway plus a service road as the piers prevent easy lane changes between the inner and outer roadways so to speak.
I know that people have become used to it and its part of NYC driving when you are under the El to have an added challenge like this here roadway which is Jerome Avenue in The Bronx which has the IRT Number 4 above it the entire 5.6 miles of street.
Just think what could be improved here if NYC was able to submerge the Number 4 line below the street like it is in Manhattan. Jerome Avenue would be more efficient and be able to use all four lanes instead of the main two lanes while the actual right lane is a service road to access parking spaces and right turns.
With the amount of money and time its taking them to put a Subway line under 2nd Ave in Manhattan, I doubt they will be burying any existing EL lines in the Bronx.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2015, 01:26:29 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.852027,-73.908992,3a,75y,20.24h,89.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCYOw8iM-shbysbx4mJvn5A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Just think what could be improved here if NYC was able to submerge the Number 4 line below the street like it is in Manhattan. Jerome Avenue would be more efficient and be able to use all four lanes instead of the main two lanes while the actual right lane is a service road to access parking spaces and right turns.
Well, you'd think that, but everyone would just end up double-parking in the right lane. Few four-lane streets in the city are actually able to function as such; in fact, I daresay the "service road" under elevated lines is blocked
less often than the right lane is on normal streets.
iPhone
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 07, 2015, 02:18:32 PM
With the amount of money and time its taking them to put a Subway line under 2nd Ave in Manhattan, I doubt they will be burying any existing EL lines in the Bronx.
Of course. That is why I said "IF" as NYC, relying on the State of New York for subsidies to keep the trains and buses rolling, could never do it especially with Andrew at the helm.
Most likely yes, with the service road probably being more free flowing than if it was a general use lane. I imagine just like the numbered streets in Manhattan where they are mostly two lanes, and with double and sometimes triple parking makes crosstown traffic almost difficult. I cannot remember when I did not have to wait two to three light changes at each avenue because of double parking vehicles or worse yet the delivery vehicles that make you miss a light cycle due to backing up into the delivery area they need to be in.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2015, 01:26:29 PM
I was always fascinated by roads in NYC that are underneath the elevated subway lines. I always noticed how not only does the line separate the neighborhoods on each side, but it prevents a roadway that would normally be four lanes into a narrow two lane roadway plus a service road as the piers prevent easy lane changes between the inner and outer roadways so to speak.
So here's a good question: what's the correct protocol for driving on a road like this? My first reaction to seeing one in the NYC meet was "what the hell". It was around that time the person I carpooled with (we had peeled off from the tour at that point) got extremely tired of NYC driving.
Quote from: vdeane on November 07, 2015, 10:42:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2015, 01:26:29 PM
I was always fascinated by roads in NYC that are underneath the elevated subway lines. I always noticed how not only does the line separate the neighborhoods on each side, but it prevents a roadway that would normally be four lanes into a narrow two lane roadway plus a service road as the piers prevent easy lane changes between the inner and outer roadways so to speak.
So here's a good question: what's the correct protocol for driving on a road like this? My first reaction to seeing one in the NYC meet was "what the hell". It was around that time the person I carpooled with (we had peeled off from the tour at that point) got extremely tired of NYC driving.
It depends on the width of the street. If there's room outside the piers for 2 lines of cars, treat as lane divider. You have about 2.5 car lengths between piers. If you can't fit 2 cars side by side, it's a parking lane. In most cases, there's enough room to treat the space outside the pier as a driving lane. This is mainly an issue in the Bronx, as most of the Brooklyn els and the Flushing Line typically straddle the street instead of putting supports in the middle.
Quote from: vdeane on November 07, 2015, 10:42:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2015, 01:26:29 PM
I was always fascinated by roads in NYC that are underneath the elevated subway lines. I always noticed how not only does the line separate the neighborhoods on each side, but it prevents a roadway that would normally be four lanes into a narrow two lane roadway plus a service road as the piers prevent easy lane changes between the inner and outer roadways so to speak.
So here's a good question: what's the correct protocol for driving on a road like this? My first reaction to seeing one in the NYC meet was "what the hell". It was around that time the person I carpooled with (we had peeled off from the tour at that point) got extremely tired of NYC driving.
Your safest bet is to treat it as a two lane road and stay in the middle. However, if you anticipate making a right turn, pay attention to what's going on outside the supports. If you see as you're approaching your turn that there's enough space on the outside to drive out there, you're going to want to move to the outside and treat it like a right turn lane.
Usually it is not possible to drive continuously on the outside of the supports, either because there really isn't enough room between the supports and the parked cars, or there is but double parked vehicles will force you to get back inside to go around them. People will sometimes try, though, so stay frosty.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 07, 2015, 11:56:04 PM
Usually it is not possible to drive continuously on the outside of the supports, either because there really isn't enough room between the supports and the parked cars, or there is but double parked vehicles will force you to get back inside to go around them. People will sometimes try, though, so stay frosty.
Jerome Ave., though, is one spot where you can often be successful driving on the outside, particularly between Woodlawn and Gun Hill.
Thanks for your input on this one. As I learned that maybe my fascination for the Jerome Avenue El situation is because it creates a great challenge for the motorists having the piers built in the street.
Also thanks for pointing out that in Queens the Flushing Line does straddle Roosevelt Avenue where the piers are off to the side of the roadway. However in Brooklyn, I am not too familiar with their El setups over roadways except for the one on the sitcom opening sequence for Welcome Back Kotter which has the piers in the street like Jerome Avenue.
Also I also learned that Jerome Avenue is where East Fordham Road becomes West Fordham Road and East Tremont Avenue becomes West Tremont Avenue as well as the numbered streets changing over as well. How come that ended up as the baseline instead of the nearby Grand Concourse which you would figure should have been due to its grand stature within the borough?
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2015, 12:04:35 PM
Also I also learned that Jerome Avenue is where East Fordham Road becomes West Fordham Road and East Tremont Avenue becomes West Tremont Avenue as well as the numbered streets changing over as well. How come that ended up as the baseline instead of the nearby Grand Concourse which you would figure should have been due to its grand stature within the borough?
Grand Concourse is relatively new; it was built after (?) WWI. Jerome Avenue is the more long-standing thoroughfare in the area, and you may also notice it aligns more closely with Fifth Avenue, which is the E/W dividing line in Manhattan. Yes, the Bronx is quite lopsided in terms of the E/W designation, but that's because its street numbering and address system are an extension of Manhattan's, and thus something of an afterthought to that borough.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2015, 12:04:35 PM
Thanks for your input on this one. As I learned that maybe my fascination for the Jerome Avenue El situation is because it creates a great challenge for the motorists having the piers built in the street.
Also thanks for pointing out that in Queens the Flushing Line does straddle Roosevelt Avenue where the piers are off to the side of the roadway. However in Brooklyn, I am not too familiar with their El setups over roadways except for the one on the sitcom opening sequence for Welcome Back Kotter which has the piers in the street like Jerome Avenue.
The only El in Brooklyn that consistently has piers in the road is the Culver Line on McDonald Avenue. That's one you need to treat as 2 lanes. Same with the Astoria Line in Queens. The West End is split, straddling north of 18th Avenue and in the middle south of there.
Here's a good primer as to how stuff is set up:
Piers in street:
White Plains Road (2, 5)
Broadway (1, mostly)
Jerome Avenue (4)
Pelham (6) - This one is marked as 4 lanes in some locations and is generally sufficiently wide to drive outside the piers
Astoria (N, Q)
Culver (F)
West End (D, southern half)
Myrtle (M, the short portion not over Myrtle Avenue or on a separate ROW)
Straddling:
New Lots (3)
Flushing (7)
Jamaica (J, M, Z)
Myrtle Avenue (M, most of line)
West End (D, northern half)
You forgot Rockaway Freeway in Queens as a straddling structure.
Also missing from your list: the A train along Liberty Ave (former BMT Fulton Elevated) has a straddling the street design.
To add some flair to this discussion, as best as I can tell from old photos the piers in street design was predominant amongst the former elevated lines in Manhattan. The connector between the 6th Ave and 9th Ave els along 53rd street straddled the street, though (makes sense, street was narrow). As did the 9th Ave el at its "suicide curve" along 110th St and north of there.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 08, 2015, 08:55:50 PM
Also missing from your list: the A train along Liberty Ave (former BMT Fulton Elevated) has a straddling the street design.
To add some flair to this discussion, as best as I can tell from old photos the piers in street design was predominant amongst the former elevated lines in Manhattan. The connector between the 6th Ave and 9th Ave els along 53rd street straddled the street, though (makes sense, street was narrow). As did the 9th Ave el at its "suicide curve" along 110th St and north of there.
I was just about to add the Liberty El.
If we're talking about former lines, the 5th Avenue El in Brooklyn straddled over 5th Avenue and had piers in the middle along Flatbush Avenue.
Honorable mentions:
LIRR along Atlantic Avenue in the vicinity of the Nostrand Avenue station has piers in the median with a left turn lane at some locations
Metro-North along Park Avenue has piers in the median and straddling north of 97th Street
Quote from: cl94 on November 08, 2015, 09:38:23 PM
Metro-North along Park Avenue has piers in the median and straddling north of 97th Street
Eh? Metro North has masonry embankment to 111th Street, then steel viaduct from there, but still always in the median of Park Ave. There are no travel lanes under the structure.
Quote from: empirestate on November 08, 2015, 11:41:59 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 08, 2015, 09:38:23 PM
Metro-North along Park Avenue has piers in the median and straddling north of 97th Street
Eh? Metro North has masonry embankment to 111th Street, then steel viaduct from there, but still always in the median of Park Ave. There are no travel lanes under the structure.
In the vicinity of 125th street. The station extends over the travel lanes.
Quote from: cl94 on November 09, 2015, 08:03:23 AM
Quote from: empirestate on November 08, 2015, 11:41:59 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 08, 2015, 09:38:23 PM
Metro-North along Park Avenue has piers in the median and straddling north of 97th Street
Eh? Metro North has masonry embankment to 111th Street, then steel viaduct from there, but still always in the median of Park Ave. There are no travel lanes under the structure.
In the vicinity of 125th street. The station extends over the travel lanes.
Ah, yes it does there, indeed. Elsewhere, there is parking and other auxiliary usage under the structure, but no travel. So there isn't any part I can think of that actually has dual-carriageway function.
While we are Uptown, could someone please explain how the current viaduct that carries the connecting freeway between both I-95 and the Harlem River Drive which is that very old inclined roadway with multiple arches tied into the old 178th and 179th Street tunnels? If you examine closely at the tunnel portal for the 178th Street tunnel you see its unused concrete roadway ties into the flyover bridge to the Washington Heights Bridge (aka the University Avenue Ramp). That would make sense as US 1 before it got routed onto Webster Avenue (yes US 1 was not on the Alexander Hamilton Bridge or Cross Bronx after they were both built) used the Washington Heights Bridge to cross the Harlem River before going up University to Fordham Road eastbound to its current alignment. However, unless the Harlem River Drive exit took a sharp left exit coming out of the tunnel, this configuration could have never worked.
Also, are the portals on the Hudson River side still there? Its hard to see from GSV on any of the Henry Hudson ramps or even from I-95 itself.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2015, 04:50:06 PM
While we are Uptown, could someone please explain how the current viaduct that carries the connecting freeway between both I-95 and the Harlem River Drive which is that very old inclined roadway with multiple arches tied into the old 178th and 179th Street tunnels? If you examine closely at the tunnel portal for the 178th Street tunnel you see its unused concrete roadway ties into the flyover bridge to the Washington Heights Bridge (aka the University Avenue Ramp). That would make sense as US 1 before it got routed onto Webster Avenue (yes US 1 was not on the Alexander Hamilton Bridge or Cross Bronx after they were both built) used the Washington Heights Bridge to cross the Harlem River before going up University to Fordham Road eastbound to its current alignment. However, unless the Harlem River Drive exit took a sharp left exit coming out of the tunnel, this configuration could have never worked.
I am not sure it ever did tie in to the tunnels. However, there is a ramp stub on the west side of the Harlem River Drive connector; could that have had something to do with it?
QuoteAlso, are the portals on the Hudson River side still there? Its hard to see from GSV on any of the Henry Hudson ramps or even from I-95 itself.
As far as I can tell, no. I believe the portals were obliterated, and the tunnels themselves truncated, by the construction of the GWB's lower deck.
EDIT: Ok, superseding my speculation above, you need to read this page (http://beyondcentralpark.com/BCPHighBridgePark.html) (and make sure to click through on all the photo sequences).
I just checked that one out. I had no idea midway up the viaduct there is a stub.
Also according to Papa Bear, from his renderings showing the route of the original viaduct splitting off to the right of the 1950 tunnel under 178th Street after exiting it. That means that today's Amsterdam Avenue exit ramp was not there then. Interesting they redid the new upper portion to look like the lower portion exactly with the arches which I think look cool!
I always admired that viaduct and think it looks so neat!
Edit, I saw another old photo showing the viaduct split into three. The upper portion had two splits in it and the Amsterdam Avenue ramp was four lanes leading down to the old tunnels.
A couple of topo links:
In 1947 (JPG (http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/img4/ht_icons/Browse/NY/NY_Central%20Park_122894_1947_24000.jpg)) we see (sort of) the four-armed viaduct structure leading to and from both Amsterdam Ave. and the two-way 178th Street tunnel. At its western end, the tunnel transitions at about Broadway from the 178th Street alignment into the centerline of the GWB. Here's a StreetView image (https://goo.gl/maps/8NbGG23s8tu) basically looking straight down the line of the tunnel facing east, and at about the same grade. If there were a remnant still visible today, it would be here (but there would be no portal, since this was not the opening of the tunnel).
Now, in the 1956 topo (JPG (http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/img4/ht_icons/Browse/NY/NY_Central%20Park_122895_1956_24000.jpg)) we have the configuration for the two one-way tunnels, at 178th and now also 179th Street. Again, the viaduct from HRD has four legs: to and from Amsterdam Ave. (about where the present-day connection is), to the 179th Street tunnel, and from the 178th Street tunnel. Also now added are the ramps between the tunnels and the Washington Bridge (181st Street); note that there's a crossover just east of the tunnel portals that likely allowed Washington Bridge traffic to reach HRD southbound. (This photo (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/trans-manhattan/img10.gif) from NYCRoads.com shows this crossover, along with the flared structure taking the HRD up to Amsterdam Ave.) Also observe that the ramp meeting Amsterdam Ave. at 175th Street is now only an exit ramp; in the prior arrangement it had been two-way.
(Update: Historic Aerials has a 1954 view of this configuration. There is definitely no ramp from Amsterdam to 179th, and the crossover doesn't look like it's open to general traffic.)
This 1956 version is essentially what we have today, except that the connections are now all squeezed together into the block between 178th and 179th Streets, which is now I-95 (and which now also extends eastward over the Alexander Hamilton Bridge). The only thing that seems to be missing is the ramp from Amsterdam Ave. into the 179th Street tunnel, although it may have been built at that time and been omitted from the map. (And again, the 179th Street tunnel curves at Broadway to meet the center of the GWB, and finding traces via StreetView is equally fruitless.)
Quote from: Duke87 on November 07, 2015, 11:56:04 PM
Usually it is not possible to drive continuously on the outside of the supports, either because there really isn't enough room between the supports and the parked cars, or there is but double parked vehicles will force you to get back inside to go around them. People will sometimes try, though, so stay frosty.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9d/49/5c/9d495c05c53ba952b5be002ee7567698.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8588604,-73.9228798,3a,15y,43.32h,84.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1DvrgvxnDYovgOuaZNYCsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
I found this reference sign at the north end of the Harlem River Drive. Now is not the Harlem River Drive and Driveway both city maintained? If so why would a NYSDOT reference marker be used on a road they do not maintain?
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2015, 04:19:49 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8588604,-73.9228798,3a,15y,43.32h,84.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1DvrgvxnDYovgOuaZNYCsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
I found this reference sign at the north end of the Harlem River Drive. Now is not the Harlem River Drive and Driveway both city maintained? If so why would a NYSDOT reference marker be used on a road they do not maintain?
Because NYSDOT maintains it.
Most of the limited-access highways in Region 11 have reference markers regardless of who maintains them. A reference marker (or a reference route) does not necessarily indicate "maintained by NYSDOT".
Moving to Brooklyn, is any portion of the BQE in Brooklyn still maintained by NYCDOT? According to the highway inventory, NYSDOT maintains all of it.
Quote from: cl94 on November 10, 2015, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2015, 04:19:49 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8588604,-73.9228798,3a,15y,43.32h,84.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1DvrgvxnDYovgOuaZNYCsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
I found this reference sign at the north end of the Harlem River Drive. Now is not the Harlem River Drive and Driveway both city maintained? If so why would a NYSDOT reference marker be used on a road they do not maintain?
Because NYSDOT maintains it.
Most of the limited-access highways in Region 11 have reference markers regardless of who maintains them. A reference marker (or a reference route) does not necessarily indicate "maintained by NYSDOT".
Moving to Brooklyn, is any portion of the BQE in Brooklyn still maintained by NYCDOT? According to the highway inventory, NYSDOT maintains all of it.
A lot of the expressways and parkways have what's called split jurisdiction, where the city does regular maintenance but the state comes in for major construction*. However, HRD isn't one of these (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/Traffic%20Data%20Report%202010%20Appendix%20B%20-%20New%20York%20Parkways%20by%20Jurisdiction.pdf), but for whatever reason, NYSDOT still has its reference markers on all of the NYC parkways.
*It's more complicated than that; here's a good summary of what "split jurisdiction" actually entails:
https://riverdalenature.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Sam-Schwartz-Study-on-Jurisdiction-along-the-HHP.pdf
Is not the BQE promenade in Brooklyn and the GCP section between the BQE and the RFK NYCDOT maintained?
Quote from: empirestate on November 10, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 10, 2015, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2015, 04:19:49 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8588604,-73.9228798,3a,15y,43.32h,84.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1DvrgvxnDYovgOuaZNYCsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
I found this reference sign at the north end of the Harlem River Drive. Now is not the Harlem River Drive and Driveway both city maintained? If so why would a NYSDOT reference marker be used on a road they do not maintain?
Because NYSDOT maintains it.
Most of the limited-access highways in Region 11 have reference markers regardless of who maintains them. A reference marker (or a reference route) does not necessarily indicate "maintained by NYSDOT".
Moving to Brooklyn, is any portion of the BQE in Brooklyn still maintained by NYCDOT? According to the highway inventory, NYSDOT maintains all of it.
A lot of the expressways and parkways have what's called split jurisdiction, where the city does regular maintenance but the state comes in for major construction*. However, HRD isn't one of these (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/Traffic%20Data%20Report%202010%20Appendix%20B%20-%20New%20York%20Parkways%20by%20Jurisdiction.pdf), but for whatever reason, NYSDOT still has its reference markers on all of the NYC parkways.
*It's more complicated than that; here's a good summary of what "split jurisdiction" actually entails:
https://riverdalenature.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Sam-Schwartz-Study-on-Jurisdiction-along-the-HHP.pdf
The 2012 Official Description of Highway Touring Routes (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2012%20tour-bk.pdf) gives Harlem River Drive to NYSDOT, as does the 2014 inventory.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2015, 01:12:17 PM
Is not the BQE promenade in Brooklyn and the GCP section between the BQE and the RFK NYCDOT maintained?
Official Description and Roadway Inventory give all of the GCP to NYSDOT. Given a couple peculiarities regarding signage and markings, I wouldn't doubt it.
Quote from: cl94 on November 10, 2015, 01:57:56 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 10, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 10, 2015, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2015, 04:19:49 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8588604,-73.9228798,3a,15y,43.32h,84.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1DvrgvxnDYovgOuaZNYCsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
I found this reference sign at the north end of the Harlem River Drive. Now is not the Harlem River Drive and Driveway both city maintained? If so why would a NYSDOT reference marker be used on a road they do not maintain?
Because NYSDOT maintains it.
Most of the limited-access highways in Region 11 have reference markers regardless of who maintains them. A reference marker (or a reference route) does not necessarily indicate "maintained by NYSDOT".
Moving to Brooklyn, is any portion of the BQE in Brooklyn still maintained by NYCDOT? According to the highway inventory, NYSDOT maintains all of it.
A lot of the expressways and parkways have what's called split jurisdiction, where the city does regular maintenance but the state comes in for major construction*. However, HRD isn't one of these (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/Traffic%20Data%20Report%202010%20Appendix%20B%20-%20New%20York%20Parkways%20by%20Jurisdiction.pdf), but for whatever reason, NYSDOT still has its reference markers on all of the NYC parkways.
*It's more complicated than that; here's a good summary of what "split jurisdiction" actually entails:
https://riverdalenature.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Sam-Schwartz-Study-on-Jurisdiction-along-the-HHP.pdf
The 2012 Official Description of Highway Touring Routes (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2012%20tour-bk.pdf) gives Harlem River Drive to NYSDOT, as does the 2014 inventory.
You're right, so it does. Was there a change between 2010 and 2012? And were the reference markers installed as part of that change?
Quote from: empirestate on November 10, 2015, 03:31:58 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 10, 2015, 01:57:56 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 10, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 10, 2015, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2015, 04:19:49 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8588604,-73.9228798,3a,15y,43.32h,84.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1DvrgvxnDYovgOuaZNYCsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
I found this reference sign at the north end of the Harlem River Drive. Now is not the Harlem River Drive and Driveway both city maintained? If so why would a NYSDOT reference marker be used on a road they do not maintain?
Because NYSDOT maintains it.
Most of the limited-access highways in Region 11 have reference markers regardless of who maintains them. A reference marker (or a reference route) does not necessarily indicate "maintained by NYSDOT".
Moving to Brooklyn, is any portion of the BQE in Brooklyn still maintained by NYCDOT? According to the highway inventory, NYSDOT maintains all of it.
A lot of the expressways and parkways have what's called split jurisdiction, where the city does regular maintenance but the state comes in for major construction*. However, HRD isn't one of these (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/Traffic%20Data%20Report%202010%20Appendix%20B%20-%20New%20York%20Parkways%20by%20Jurisdiction.pdf), but for whatever reason, NYSDOT still has its reference markers on all of the NYC parkways.
*It's more complicated than that; here's a good summary of what "split jurisdiction" actually entails:
https://riverdalenature.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Sam-Schwartz-Study-on-Jurisdiction-along-the-HHP.pdf
The 2012 Official Description of Highway Touring Routes (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2012%20tour-bk.pdf) gives Harlem River Drive to NYSDOT, as does the 2014 inventory.
You're right, so it does. Was there a change between 2010 and 2012? And were the reference markers installed as part of that change?
I don't know if there was a change, but the reference markers were likely in place beforehand. All of the limited-access parkways in the City have them regardless of who maintains them.
Quote from: cl94 on November 10, 2015, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 10, 2015, 03:31:58 PM
Was there a change between 2010 and 2012? And were the reference markers installed as part of that change?
I don't know if there was a change, but the reference markers were likely in place beforehand. All of the limited-access parkways in the City have them regardless of who maintains them.
That's what I thought. I've been seeing them on all area parkways since I started visiting the area, and that was long before 2010. So, we're back to "for whatever reason"–that is, we still don't have the answer to why the markers appear on non-state roads; we've simply established that the HRD isn't an example of this.
Quote from: empirestate on November 10, 2015, 08:04:11 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 10, 2015, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 10, 2015, 03:31:58 PM
Was there a change between 2010 and 2012? And were the reference markers installed as part of that change?
I don't know if there was a change, but the reference markers were likely in place beforehand. All of the limited-access parkways in the City have them regardless of who maintains them.
That's what I thought. I've been seeing them on all area parkways since I started visiting the area, and that was long before 2010. So, we're back to "for whatever reason"–that is, we still don't have the answer to why the markers appear on non-state roads; we've simply established that the HRD isn't an example of this.
Correct. What's stranger is that there are
none on surface routes maintained by NYSDOT. If we trust the 2014 Roadway Inventory, this includes much of NY 9A north of the Battery Tunnel and sections of Ocean Parkway.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 07, 2015, 02:18:32 PM
With the amount of money and time its taking them to put a Subway line under 2nd Ave in Manhattan, I doubt they will be burying any existing EL lines in the Bronx.
And with people in the Bronx so accustomed to the El lines, I think they'd have an uproar against the MTA for trying it even if they did have the money. I'm not kidding. I think they'd raise holy hell against the MTA the same way they did with the Cross Bronx, and any potential expressways that could've relieved the Cross Bronx.
Speaking of the MTA vs roads, I just found out while searching for the neighborhood that the Yukon Bus Depot was in that the Eltingville Transit Center was built in the right-of-way for the truncated end of the Korean War Veterans Memorial Parkway. So now I can add the MTA to my shitlist for screwing up the roads of New York City.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 10, 2015, 11:48:26 PM
Speaking of the MTA vs roads, I just found out while searching for the neighborhood that the Yukon Bus Depot was in that the Eltingville Transit Center was built in the right-of-way for the truncated end of the Korean War Veterans Memorial Parkway. So now I can add the MTA to my shitlist for screwing up the roads of New York City.
How's that? It's not like the road was truncated
because they built a bus depot, was it? Like, "oh shit, there's a bus depot here; guess we better stop building this road!"
iPhone
Quote from: empirestate on November 11, 2015, 06:37:43 AM
How's that? It's not like the road was truncated because they built a bus depot, was it? Like, "oh shit, there's a bus depot here; guess we better stop building this road!"
iPhone
No, of course not. They just decided they were going to build the bus depot where they wanted to put the road.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 11, 2015, 08:49:58 AM
Quote from: empirestate on November 11, 2015, 06:37:43 AM
How's that? It's not like the road was truncated because they built a bus depot, was it? Like, "oh shit, there's a bus depot here; guess we better stop building this road!"
iPhone
No, of course not. They just decided they were going to build the bus depot where they wanted to put the road.
You mean the park and ride that opened 10 years ago, 30 years after the parkway was canceled? By that point, there was zero chance it would ever be extended, so how else should they use the ROW?
Quote from: cl94 on November 11, 2015, 09:05:17 AM
You mean the park and ride that opened 10 years ago, 30 years after the parkway was canceled? By that point, there was zero chance it would ever be extended, so how else should they use the ROW?
That's it, and they still should've and could've used it for it's intended purpose.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 11, 2015, 11:04:58 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 11, 2015, 09:05:17 AM
You mean the park and ride that opened 10 years ago, 30 years after the parkway was canceled? By that point, there was zero chance it would ever be extended, so how else should they use the ROW?
That's it, and they still should've and could've used it for it's intended purpose.
That ship had sailed 30 years ago. Better to make it into something else useful than leave it vacant.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 11, 2015, 11:04:58 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 11, 2015, 09:05:17 AM
You mean the park and ride that opened 10 years ago, 30 years after the parkway was canceled? By that point, there was zero chance it would ever be extended, so how else should they use the ROW?
That's it, and they still should've and could've used it for it's intended purpose.
Perhaps, but the reason they didn't is not because the MTA put a bus station there. I'm just trying to follow how you get from that to the MTA "screwing up" the roads, that's all. The road got screwed up, THEN the MTA put a bus station there, not the other way around.
iPhone
Quote from: MrDisco99 on November 11, 2015, 11:31:00 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 11, 2015, 11:04:58 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 11, 2015, 09:05:17 AM
You mean the park and ride that opened 10 years ago, 30 years after the parkway was canceled? By that point, there was zero chance it would ever be extended, so how else should they use the ROW?
That's it, and they still should've and could've used it for it's intended purpose.
That ship had sailed 30 years ago. Better to make it into something else useful than leave it vacant.
Agreed. The remainder is a park that is designated "forever wild". Nothing is going in there.
Quote from: empirestate on November 11, 2015, 12:14:54 PM
Perhaps, but the reason they didn't is not because the MTA put a bus station there. I'm just trying to follow how you get from that to the MTA "screwing up" the roads, that's all. The road got screwed up, THEN the MTA put a bus station there, not the other way around.
iPhone
They still have most of the ROW, and they still have the bridges, at least for Arthur Kill Road and Richmond Avenue. They should've revived the project.
Quote from: cl94 on November 11, 2015, 12:22:35 PM
Agreed. The remainder is a park that is designated "forever wild". Nothing is going in there.
Really? Because I saw an unfinished housing development where the road could've gone.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 11, 2015, 02:31:09 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 11, 2015, 12:14:54 PM
Perhaps, but the reason they didn't is not because the MTA put a bus station there. I'm just trying to follow how you get from that to the MTA "screwing up" the roads, that's all. The road got screwed up, THEN the MTA put a bus station there, not the other way around.
iPhone
They still have most of the ROW, and they still have the bridges, at least for Arthur Kill Road and Richmond Avenue. They should've revived the project.
That's fine, but I still don't see where the MTA comes in?
Quote from: empirestate on November 11, 2015, 02:35:31 PM
That's fine, but I still don't see where the MTA comes in?
Well, they built it in the northeast-bound lane. You've got admit it gets in the way of a revival. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been built. I'm just saying they could've chose a better spot.
These are two of the issues I was talking about in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16355.msg2092121#msg2092121). You can't solve traffic problems by thwarting road improvements.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 11, 2015, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 11, 2015, 02:35:31 PM
That's fine, but I still don't see where the MTA comes in?
Well, they built it in the northeast-bound lane. You've got admit it gets in the way of a revival.
I suppose it would get in the way, though probably not insurmountably so. But is that what you were saying? I thought you said that by building the station, the MTA had "screwed up the roads of New York City" because the station was preventing the completion of the parkway. But as we pointed out, the completion of the parkway had actually been prevented long before, and by totally unrelated factors.
So, if I understand you now, you mean that the MTA
will have screwed up the roads of New York City,
if and
when it's ever decided to finish that parkway? In that case...
QuoteSo now I can add the MTA to my shitlist...
...you can't quite add the MTA to your shitlist now; you'll have to wait until a plan is introduced that's hindered by the presence of their bus station.
(And even if that does happen, I think that in a project of the scale of building a parkway, relocating a bus station–or really, just part of the parking lot, it would appear–wouldn't amount to any kind of prohibitive obstacle. Not to the point of earning a spot on a shitlist, anyhow.) ;-)
In what way does the Eltingville bus station block the ROW for Richmond Parkway? Both unused overpasses over Arthur Kill Rd remain intact as does much of the abandoned pavement leading to them. The bus station is entirely to the side of where the road would go and could easily coexist with it if the extension were to be revived.
The parking lot for cars does encroach upon the parkway ROW, but only slightly. You could extend the parkway and only take out one row of parking, leaving the rest of the lot intact.
On that note, this adds an interesting flair to the old "why do people drive on parkways and park on driveways?" question. Depending on how you look at it this may be a circumstance where people park on a parkway. :spin:
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 11, 2015, 11:04:58 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 11, 2015, 09:05:17 AM
You mean the park and ride that opened 10 years ago, 30 years after the parkway was canceled? By that point, there was zero chance it would ever be extended, so how else should they use the ROW?
That's it, and they still should've and could've used it for it's intended purpose.
You are faulting, then, anyone who is not living 40 years in the past, and ignoring the political realities since. Just to clarify.
I think that in my head, every inch of ROW is useful. The state might use it again, and if the ROW is gone, then how will the state link ends together?
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 12, 2015, 08:00:23 PM
I think that in my head, every inch of ROW is useful. The state might use it again, and if the ROW is gone, then how will the state link ends together?
They're never going to. Robert Moses is gone. The focus in New York is back to transit. I see a subway tunnel to Staten Island being constructed before a parkway extension is built.
Quote from: cl94 on November 10, 2015, 08:30:44 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 10, 2015, 08:04:11 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 10, 2015, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 10, 2015, 03:31:58 PM
Was there a change between 2010 and 2012? And were the reference markers installed as part of that change?
I don't know if there was a change, but the reference markers were likely in place beforehand. All of the limited-access parkways in the City have them regardless of who maintains them.
That's what I thought. I've been seeing them on all area parkways since I started visiting the area, and that was long before 2010. So, we're back to "for whatever reason"–that is, we still don't have the answer to why the markers appear on non-state roads; we've simply established that the HRD isn't an example of this.
Correct. What's stranger is that there are none on surface routes maintained by NYSDOT. If we trust the 2014 Roadway Inventory, this includes much of NY 9A north of the Battery Tunnel and sections of Ocean Parkway.
I wonder how many of those reference markers are still being maintained/replaced/installed. A lot of people around here say that GPS has made them obsolete. Little surprise to me that the West Side Highway doesn't have them given the expense it would take to put them up. Probably also a permitting hassle that would be better off avoided as well.
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 12, 2015, 08:00:23 PM
I think that in my head, every inch of ROW is useful. The state might use it again, and if the ROW is gone, then how will the state link ends together?
Hell has a better chance of freezing over than they build any new expressway in New York City. This is the same administration that lowered the speed limit to 25, installed speed cameras, and has been adding bike lanes and "traffic calming" everywhere they possibly can, theres no way theyre going to finish a highway like that especially through a designated city park.
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 13, 2015, 04:48:15 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 13, 2015, 04:36:43 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 12, 2015, 08:00:23 PM
I think that in my head, every inch of ROW is useful. The state might use it again, and if the ROW is gone, then how will the state link ends together?
Hell has a better chance of freezing over than they build any new expressway in New York City. This is the same administration that lowered the speed limit to 25, installed speed cameras, and has been adding bike lanes and "traffic calming" everywhere they possibly can, theres no way theyre going to finish a highway like that especially through a designated city park.
Till either Cuomo or Pataki decides to do something, they got one last trick. It's to break the Constitution and shove the expressway down the throats of the people of NYC. No democracy. NYC is dying because of the refusal to build expressways. The state loses money because people are stupid to find out that NYC needs expressways.
Wow, this hostile autocratic streak in you is a recurring theme. Have you ever lived in a society where government has the kind of power you describe? Can you show us examples of thriving societies that work this way?
Tell us about this death of New York that's happening during a booming economy with unprecedented wealth, building, and population surges, and near-universal agreement that the city is in much better shape than it was during the crest of highway building in the 1960s and 1970s.
Hmm...
The freeways have been crowded for more than sixty years at this point. now the streets. now everywhere else.
The MTA has gone bust and is totally corrupt.
Holy abandoned buildings, batman!
Yet they still refuse to build roads. I'm still waiting for hell to freeze over. by that point NYC's gone.
Holy abandoned buildings?
You need to spend a little time studying recent New York history before weighing in like this. In 1980 the city looked like armies had cleared whole neighborhoods of their population, leaving empty blocks to burn and collapse.
I recommend you pick up a copy of Camilo José Vergara's The New American Ghetto. It will show you time-lapse documentation of unthinkable levels of abandonment and decay in New York that have not existed in your lifetime. Or go to Detroit today, and imagine that in New York.
Really, you can't be faulted for having a short perspective, but educate yourself about what you're talking about. Your eyes will be opened.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 13, 2015, 04:56:52 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 13, 2015, 04:48:15 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 13, 2015, 04:36:43 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 12, 2015, 08:00:23 PM
I think that in my head, every inch of ROW is useful. The state might use it again, and if the ROW is gone, then how will the state link ends together?
Hell has a better chance of freezing over than they build any new expressway in New York City. This is the same administration that lowered the speed limit to 25, installed speed cameras, and has been adding bike lanes and "traffic calming" everywhere they possibly can, theres no way theyre going to finish a highway like that especially through a designated city park.
Till either Cuomo or Pataki decides to do something, they got one last trick. It's to break the Constitution and shove the expressway down the throats of the people of NYC. No democracy. NYC is dying because of the refusal to build expressways. The state loses money because people are stupid to find out that NYC needs expressways.
Wow, this hostile autocratic streak in you is a recurring theme. Have you ever lived in a society where government has the kind of power you describe? Can you show us examples of thriving societies that work this way?
Tell us about this death of New York that's happening during a booming economy with unprecedented wealth, building, and population surges, and near-universal agreement that the city is in much better shape than it was during the crest of highway building in the 1960s and 1970s.
I have to say, he's giving me a Soviet Union under Stalin vibe. But then again, that's not what he was doing with his power. Anyway, to keep this road-related, we're lucky we have the roads in NYC that there are. There's a reason there's so much public transportation in the city and the metro area. :angry: :ded: :pan:
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 13, 2015, 04:36:43 PM
Hell has a better chance of freezing over than they build any new expressway in New York City. This is the same administration that lowered the speed limit to 25, installed speed cameras, and has been adding bike lanes and "traffic calming" everywhere they possibly can, theres no way theyre going to finish a highway like that especially through a designated city park.
Would you mind specifying which administration you mean? I can't tell from your examples alone, as some of them have occurred under a couple of different mayors recently. And I can't think offhand whose was the last administration under which a new expressway was built, so I'm having trouble following your connection to current policy.
iPhone
Quote from: empirestate on November 13, 2015, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 13, 2015, 04:36:43 PM
Hell has a better chance of freezing over than they build any new expressway in New York City. This is the same administration that lowered the speed limit to 25, installed speed cameras, and has been adding bike lanes and "traffic calming" everywhere they possibly can, theres no way theyre going to finish a highway like that especially through a designated city park.
Would you mind specifying which administration you mean? I can't tell from your examples alone, as some of them have occurred under a couple of different mayors recently. And I can't think offhand whose was the last administration under which a new expressway was built, so I'm having trouble following your connection to current policy.
iPhone
Was it Beame in the mid '70s with the West Shore Expressway (NY 440) on Staten Island?
ixnay
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 13, 2015, 05:07:30 PM
Hmm...
The freeways have been crowded for more than sixty years at this point. now the streets. now everywhere else.
The MTA has gone bust and is totally corrupt.
Holy abandoned buildings, batman!
Yet they still refuse to build roads. I'm still waiting for hell to freeze over. by that point NYC's gone.
Even with the gripes about the MTA, it's still the best public transportation system in the western hemisphere and one of the best in the world. You can get almost anywhere in the Tri-State with trains and buses. Braess' paradox would likely apply in this situation. With the increased capacity you'd see more cars on the road which would make traffic
worse because people that currently know to take public transportation everywhere would start to drive more. You can joke about the Cross Bronx needing 10 lanes, but expressways and parkways would still be congested if everything ever planned was built with 10 lanes and it might even take longer to get everywhere.
Quote from: empirestate on November 13, 2015, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 13, 2015, 04:36:43 PM
Hell has a better chance of freezing over than they build any new expressway in New York City. This is the same administration that lowered the speed limit to 25, installed speed cameras, and has been adding bike lanes and "traffic calming" everywhere they possibly can, theres no way theyre going to finish a highway like that especially through a designated city park.
Would you mind specifying which administration you mean? I can't tell from your examples alone, as some of them have occurred under a couple of different mayors recently. And I can't think offhand whose was the last administration under which a new expressway was built, so I'm having trouble following your connection to current policy.
iPhone
The diBlasio administration, a lot of the stuff was started under Bloomberg, possibly before. Maybe my post wasnt so clear, what I meant was with the current mayor in charge the chance of any new expressway is slim to none.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 14, 2015, 04:35:16 AM
Quote from: empirestate on November 13, 2015, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 13, 2015, 04:36:43 PM
Hell has a better chance of freezing over than they build any new expressway in New York City. This is the same administration that lowered the speed limit to 25, installed speed cameras, and has been adding bike lanes and "traffic calming" everywhere they possibly can, theres no way theyre going to finish a highway like that especially through a designated city park.
Would you mind specifying which administration you mean? I can't tell from your examples alone, as some of them have occurred under a couple of different mayors recently. And I can't think offhand whose was the last administration under which a new expressway was built, so I'm having trouble following your connection to current policy.
iPhone
The diBlasio administration, a lot of the stuff was started under Bloomberg, possibly before. Maybe my post wasnt so clear, what I meant was with the current mayor in charge the chance of any new expressway is slim to none.
Well I'm sure the chance is slim, but that's been the case for a long time now, so surely it has to do with more than who the mayor is at the moment.
iPhone
Quote from: cl94 on November 12, 2015, 09:47:32 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 12, 2015, 08:00:23 PM
I think that in my head, every inch of ROW is useful. The state might use it again, and if the ROW is gone, then how will the state link ends together?
They're never going to. Robert Moses is gone. The focus in New York is back to transit. I see a subway tunnel to Staten Island being constructed before a parkway extension is built.
I'd be surprised if we could even see that, and I'd like to. I still think it's foolish to focus on one and ignore the other.
Quote from: ixnay on November 13, 2015, 06:49:13 PM
Was it Beame in the mid '70s with the West Shore Expressway (NY 440) on Staten Island?
Actually, I believe Koch let the JFK Expressway stub section of the Clearview get built, and the half-assed version of the Nassau Expressway too.
Quote from: cl94 on November 13, 2015, 10:39:18 PM
Even with the gripes about the MTA, it's still the best public transportation system in the western hemisphere and one of the best in the world. You can get almost anywhere in the Tri-State with trains and buses. Braess' paradox would likely apply in this situation. With the increased capacity you'd see more cars on the road which would make traffic worse because people that currently know to take public transportation everywhere would start to drive more. You can joke about the Cross Bronx needing 10 lanes, but expressways and parkways would still be congested if everything ever planned was built with 10 lanes and it might even take longer to get everywhere.
Just look at Atlanta. The downtown connector is 16 lanes in some places and is still a parking lot during rush hour. If there's anything we've learned about city planning in the 20th century it's that you want to do whatever you can to keep people out of their cars.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/docs/10-12-2015-NCST_Brief_InducedTravel_CS6_v3.pdf
Here's a brief from Caltrans (a leader in "more, more, more lanes!") that concludes that building more lanes just leads to more traffic, in both the short and long terms. Sometimes more roads is not the answer.
Quote from: storm2k on November 16, 2015, 03:35:15 PM
http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/docs/10-12-2015-NCST_Brief_InducedTravel_CS6_v3.pdf
Here's a brief from Caltrans (a leader in "more, more, more lanes!") that concludes that building more lanes just leads to more traffic, in both the short and long terms. Sometimes more roads is not the answer.
Sponsored by the National Center for Sustainable Transportation, and from what I'm reading about them, they're another group dedicated to thwarting road improvements. You can post all the rigged studies you want, but the reality is that thwarting the construction of more lanes is what really leads to more traffic.
Quote from: cl94 on November 13, 2015, 10:39:18 PM
Even with the gripes about the MTA, it's still the best public transportation system in the western hemisphere and one of the best in the world. You can get almost anywhere in the Tri-State with trains and buses.
The keyword being "almost." There are a lot of subway lines that I'm really sorry were truncated too, as well as some railroad lines I think should get new tracks, grade eliminations and other improvements.
Quote from: cl94 on November 13, 2015, 10:39:18 PM
Braess' paradox would likely apply in this situation. With the increased capacity you'd see more cars on the road which would make traffic worse because people that currently know to take public transportation everywhere would start to drive more. You can joke about the Cross Bronx needing 10 lanes, but expressways and parkways would still be congested if everything ever planned was built with 10 lanes and it might even take longer to get everywhere.
I don't see leaving everything as is working out so great. I'm not saying we should add 10 lanes to the Cross Bronx, but there were plenty of other proposed expressways that could have relieved the Cross Bronx. If Robert Moses had never built a single parkway or expressway, all the cars, trucks, and buses that you see on them now would be crowded on the existing local streets.
Quote from: MrDisco99 on November 16, 2015, 10:43:36 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 13, 2015, 10:39:18 PM
Even with the gripes about the MTA, it's still the best public transportation system in the western hemisphere and one of the best in the world. You can get almost anywhere in the Tri-State with trains and buses. Braess' paradox would likely apply in this situation. With the increased capacity you'd see more cars on the road which would make traffic worse because people that currently know to take public transportation everywhere would start to drive more. You can joke about the Cross Bronx needing 10 lanes, but expressways and parkways would still be congested if everything ever planned was built with 10 lanes and it might even take longer to get everywhere.
Just look at Atlanta. The downtown connector is 16 lanes in some places and is still a parking lot during rush hour. If there's anything we've learned about city planning in the 20th century it's that you want to do whatever you can to keep people out of their cars.
Still I'd rather be stuck in my own private car where I can listen to my music and relax, vs being stuck in a crowded screeching tin can with all sorts of hoodlums and random people begging for money, selling candy, breakdancing and asking for money, and people that smell and all sortsa germs and disease roaming around the cabin.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 17, 2015, 12:50:09 AM
Still I'd rather be stuck in my own private car where I can listen to my music and relax, vs being stuck in a crowded screeching tin can with all sorts of hoodlums and random people begging for money, selling candy, breakdancing and asking for money, and people that smell and all sortsa germs and disease roaming around the cabin.
Matter of preference I suppose. I'd rather be on a train than sitting in traffic even if the train isn't any faster, since on the train I can zone out and rest my brain while when driving I need to keep constantly paying attention.
Meanwhile I can't listen to music while I'm stuck in traffic... to the point where if I have music on and I hit traffic, I need to turn the music off until I'm back to free flow speed. My driving music gets me pumped and makes me want to go, go, go. If I try listening to such things while stuck in traffic it makes the traffic twice as frustrating.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 17, 2015, 12:50:09 AM
Quote from: MrDisco99 on November 16, 2015, 10:43:36 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 13, 2015, 10:39:18 PM
Even with the gripes about the MTA, it's still the best public transportation system in the western hemisphere and one of the best in the world. You can get almost anywhere in the Tri-State with trains and buses. Braess' paradox would likely apply in this situation. With the increased capacity you'd see more cars on the road which would make traffic worse because people that currently know to take public transportation everywhere would start to drive more. You can joke about the Cross Bronx needing 10 lanes, but expressways and parkways would still be congested if everything ever planned was built with 10 lanes and it might even take longer to get everywhere.
Just look at Atlanta. The downtown connector is 16 lanes in some places and is still a parking lot during rush hour. If there's anything we've learned about city planning in the 20th century it's that you want to do whatever you can to keep people out of their cars.
Still I'd rather be stuck in my own private car where I can listen to my music and relax, vs being stuck in a crowded screeching tin can with all sorts of hoodlums and random people begging for money, selling candy, breakdancing and asking for money, and people that smell and all sortsa germs and disease roaming around the cabin.
Since you are 83 (you did describe the folks on trains as "hoodlums"), you get a pass, but you just described the sidewalk more than the subway, so I take it you're of the set that feels the public on the sidewalk are primarily scenery for you to see from a car.
With a description like that of the general rabble, I find it odd one would enter the city to begin with.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 17, 2015, 01:48:36 AM
Matter of preference I suppose. I'd rather be on a train than sitting in traffic even if the train isn't any faster, since on the train I can zone out and rest my brain while when driving I need to keep constantly paying attention.
Meanwhile I can't listen to music while I'm stuck in traffic... to the point where if I have music on and I hit traffic, I need to turn the music off until I'm back to free flow speed. My driving music gets me pumped and makes me want to go, go, go. If I try listening to such things while stuck in traffic it makes the traffic twice as frustrating.
On public transit I've done the most reading I'll ever do anywhere (college included). I don't carry a book anymore, but the little Distraction Buddy (also makes calls!) in my pocket goes a long way in their stead.
In traffic I always tune over to WCBS or WBZ or whatever the local traffic-roundup station is anyway.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 17, 2015, 12:50:09 AM
Quote from: MrDisco99 on November 16, 2015, 10:43:36 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 13, 2015, 10:39:18 PM
Even with the gripes about the MTA, it's still the best public transportation system in the western hemisphere and one of the best in the world. You can get almost anywhere in the Tri-State with trains and buses. Braess' paradox would likely apply in this situation. With the increased capacity you'd see more cars on the road which would make traffic worse because people that currently know to take public transportation everywhere would start to drive more. You can joke about the Cross Bronx needing 10 lanes, but expressways and parkways would still be congested if everything ever planned was built with 10 lanes and it might even take longer to get everywhere.
Just look at Atlanta. The downtown connector is 16 lanes in some places and is still a parking lot during rush hour. If there's anything we've learned about city planning in the 20th century it's that you want to do whatever you can to keep people out of their cars.
Still I'd rather be stuck in my own private car where I can listen to my music and relax, vs being stuck in a crowded screeching tin can with all sorts of hoodlums and random people begging for money, selling candy, breakdancing and asking for money, and people that smell and all sortsa germs and disease roaming around the cabin.
I guess it just depends on how important it is to get to where you're going. You strike me as someone who dislikes the city in general, not just public transit.
that is a quite accurate assessment. Im not a city person in the slightest, I prefer the quiet and peacefulness of the suburbs and the country.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 17, 2015, 06:38:37 AM
On public transit I've done the most reading I'll ever do anywhere (college included). I don't carry a book anymore, but the little Distraction Buddy (also makes calls!) in my pocket goes a long way in their stead.
Also true. Back when I commuted from Connecticut daily I would usually sleep on the train in the morning and would often read on the train in the evening. But these things were possible and easy because I pretty much always had a seat on those trains.
Nowadays I will often play with a portable electronic device of some form when I'm on the bus.
Not so much on the subway, though - I can't play with my phone with one hand while straphanging with the other, and I usually don't get a seat on the train. And since the things I do with my phone all require an active data or wifi signal, I can't do them while underground anyway.
Though we're getting rather far afield, the short answer is that yes, the more lanes you build, the more traffic you get. That's because people are now making compromised choices. When you unbottle their preferred choice, they flock to it. Double the capacity of the Lincoln Tunnel and it'll still clog up in rush hour. But now the delays will be lower, and they'll drop at the other crossings, and the train infrastructure won't be pressed over capacity. Etc. etc. More capacity is always a good thing, you just have to understand that in congested old-urban areas, you're building to catch up to the past, not to plan for the future.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 17, 2015, 01:48:36 AM
Matter of preference I suppose. I'd rather be on a train than sitting in traffic even if the train isn't any faster, since on the train I can zone out and rest my brain while when driving I need to keep constantly paying attention.
You know, I get where mariethefoxy is coming from, but I've stated in the past that when I'm in the city, I feel safer in the subway than in a cab.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 17, 2015, 01:48:36 AM
Meanwhile I can't listen to music while I'm stuck in traffic... to the point where if I have music on and I hit traffic, I need to turn the music off until I'm back to free flow speed. My driving music gets me pumped and makes me want to go, go, go. If I try listening to such things while stuck in traffic it makes the traffic twice as frustrating.
I feel ya. But even then, sometimes I might be in the mood for a tune during a traffic jam.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 17, 2015, 12:50:09 AM
Still I'd rather be stuck in my own private car where I can listen to my music and relax, vs being stuck in a crowded screeching tin can with all sorts of hoodlums and random people begging for money, selling candy, breakdancing and asking for money, and people that smell and all sortsa germs and disease roaming around the cabin.
Though of course, as I'm sure you've observed, relaxing behind the wheel while driving through NYC is usually quite difficult to achieve and probably inadvisable as well, since considerable mental acuity is called for. Although I guess more than a few people are managing it somehow, since one of my observations has been that NYC drivers do seem to exhibit a worrying amount of relaxation with respect to the driving process!
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 17, 2015, 01:35:28 PM
that is a quite accurate assessment. Im not a city person in the slightest, I prefer the quiet and peacefulness of the suburbs and the country.
In the NYC area, I actually don't find the suburbs to be much more peaceful, if at all, when it comes to the roads. I sum it up this way: if you think NYC drivers are bad in the city, try taking them out to Westchester or Long Island and give them the space to really do some damage! :-D
But there are different areas. I'm now in Putnam County, bordering northwestern Westchester, and it's actually comparatively rural compared not only to the suburbs closer in, but also the ones farther out in Dutchess and Orange Counties. While driving around my area is pretty low-key, I can hop on the Taconic or US 9 during rush hour and suddenly be surrounded by a manic rat-race of drivers trying to beat their best time between the city and their far-flung home 70 miles out.
Quote from: empirestate on November 17, 2015, 10:23:21 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 17, 2015, 12:50:09 AM
Still I'd rather be stuck in my own private car where I can listen to my music and relax, vs being stuck in a crowded screeching tin can with all sorts of hoodlums and random people begging for money, selling candy, breakdancing and asking for money, and people that smell and all sortsa germs and disease roaming around the cabin.
Though of course, as I'm sure you've observed, relaxing behind the wheel while driving through NYC is usually quite difficult to achieve and probably inadvisable as well, since considerable mental acuity is called for. Although I guess more than a few people are managing it somehow, since one of my observations has been that NYC drivers do seem to exhibit a worrying amount of relaxation with respect to the driving process!
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 17, 2015, 01:35:28 PM
that is a quite accurate assessment. Im not a city person in the slightest, I prefer the quiet and peacefulness of the suburbs and the country.
In the NYC area, I actually don't find the suburbs to be much more peaceful, if at all, when it comes to the roads. I sum it up this way: if you think NYC drivers are bad in the city, try taking them out to Westchester or Long Island and give them the space to really do some damage! :-D
But there are different areas. I'm now in Putnam County, bordering northwestern Westchester, and it's actually comparatively rural compared not only to the suburbs closer in, but also the ones farther out in Dutchess and Orange Counties. While driving around my area is pretty low-key, I can hop on the Taconic or US 9 during rush hour and suddenly be surrounded by a manic rat-race of drivers trying to beat their best time between the city and their far-flung home 70 miles out.
Well yeah...the Taconic/Sprain Brook between the Cross Westchester and I-84 has no speed limit. I've gone well over 80 on parts of that stretch and been passed by lines of cars that had to be doing 100.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 17, 2015, 06:01:02 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 17, 2015, 06:38:37 AM
On public transit I've done the most reading I'll ever do anywhere (college included). I don't carry a book anymore, but the little Distraction Buddy (also makes calls!) in my pocket goes a long way in their stead.
Also true. Back when I commuted from Connecticut daily I would usually sleep on the train in the morning and would often read on the train in the evening. But these things were possible and easy because I pretty much always had a seat on those trains.
Nowadays I will often play with a portable electronic device of some form when I'm on the bus.
Not so much on the subway, though - I can't play with my phone with one hand while straphanging with the other, and I usually don't get a seat on the train. And since the things I do with my phone all require an active data or wifi signal, I can't do them while underground anyway.
Our signal underground has greatly improved here, but the old reliable Friday NYT crossword on my phone will keep me busy on any length of signal-free underground delay. The new larger smartphones definitely do make one-handed play, as is needed when standing, more of a literal (literal literal?) stretch.
Quote from: empirestate on November 17, 2015, 10:23:21 PM
In the NYC area, I actually don't find the suburbs to be much more peaceful, if at all, when it comes to the roads. I sum it up this way: if you think NYC drivers are bad in the city, try taking them out to Westchester or Long Island and give them the space to really do some damage! :-D
I grew up on Long Island, and I'll concur with you that drivers out there can be aggressive, at least in Nassau County, but I don't think it's quite as bad as in Manhattan.
Quote from: dgolub on November 18, 2015, 08:45:01 AM
Quote from: empirestate on November 17, 2015, 10:23:21 PM
In the NYC area, I actually don't find the suburbs to be much more peaceful, if at all, when it comes to the roads. I sum it up this way: if you think NYC drivers are bad in the city, try taking them out to Westchester or Long Island and give them the space to really do some damage! :-D
I grew up on Long Island, and I'll concur with you that drivers out there can be aggressive, at least in Nassau County, but I don't think it's quite as bad as in Manhattan.
Manhattan I actually place in a different category, since most of the motorists there are taxis, commercial vehicles or tourists. And I actually find the style there to be more manageable than the outer borough/suburban style.
Also, I do find Westchester to be worse than Long Island. My unscientific guess would be that Westchester has a higher proportion of NYC transplants, whereas Long Island has more "lifers" who weren't brought up so much with the city driving style.
Speed is low most places in Manhattan when most people are driving, lessening the severity of most offenses. The avenues are timed to what, 28 mph? And good luck racing down the FDR for very long. The Henry Hudson is the only place that traffic really flies, and a lot of that is New Jersey/Westchester traffic.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2015, 12:37:41 PM
The avenues are timed to what, 28 mph?
Yes, when the city-wide speed limit was 30. The timing has probably been changed since the limit was dropped to 25.
Quote from: empirestate on November 17, 2015, 10:23:21 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 17, 2015, 12:50:09 AM
Still I'd rather be stuck in my own private car where I can listen to my music and relax, vs being stuck in a crowded screeching tin can with all sorts of hoodlums and random people begging for money, selling candy, breakdancing and asking for money, and people that smell and all sortsa germs and disease roaming around the cabin.
Though of course, as I'm sure you've observed, relaxing behind the wheel while driving through NYC is usually quite difficult to achieve and probably inadvisable as well, since considerable mental acuity is called for. Although I guess more than a few people are managing it somehow, since one of my observations has been that NYC drivers do seem to exhibit a worrying amount of relaxation with respect to the driving process!
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 17, 2015, 01:35:28 PM
that is a quite accurate assessment. Im not a city person in the slightest, I prefer the quiet and peacefulness of the suburbs and the country.
In the NYC area, I actually don't find the suburbs to be much more peaceful, if at all, when it comes to the roads. I sum it up this way: if you think NYC drivers are bad in the city, try taking them out to Westchester or Long Island and give them the space to really do some damage! :-D
But there are different areas. I'm now in Putnam County, bordering northwestern Westchester, and it's actually comparatively rural compared not only to the suburbs closer in, but also the ones farther out in Dutchess and Orange Counties. While driving around my area is pretty low-key, I can hop on the Taconic or US 9 during rush hour and suddenly be surrounded by a manic rat-race of drivers trying to beat their best time between the city and their far-flung home 70 miles out.
depends on the highway, I find the parkways (Belt and Cross Island in particular) are much more difficult to be stuck in traffic on due to the narrower lanes and those horrible storm drains in the left lane.
Cross Bronx is still the worst, I dunno if its psychological or what, the Bruckner North towards New England is more of a relaxing time if I gotta be stuck somewhere, and Ive spent plenty of time stuck on that section.
Its never relaxing on the NYC roads, but I still stick by the fact I'd rather be in the privacy of my car because I hate crowded places, it adds a level of stress of its own. Im a girl that likes her privacy and peace and quiet.
As for Nassau drivers, theyre not that bad, not nearly as aggressive as the city.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2015, 12:37:41 PM
Speed is low most places in Manhattan when most people are driving, lessening the severity of most offenses. The avenues are timed to what, 28 mph? And good luck racing down the FDR for very long. The Henry Hudson is the only place that traffic really flies, and a lot of that is New Jersey/Westchester traffic.
Yes, until you get in a cab with some idiot driver who decides to go 50 MPH down Broadway on the Upper West Side and you hold on for dear life and pray that he doesn't kill any pedestrians.
Quote from: dgolub on November 20, 2015, 08:53:44 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2015, 12:37:41 PM
Speed is low most places in Manhattan when most people are driving, lessening the severity of most offenses. The avenues are timed to what, 28 mph? And good luck racing down the FDR for very long. The Henry Hudson is the only place that traffic really flies, and a lot of that is New Jersey/Westchester traffic.
Yes, until you get in a cab with some idiot driver who decides to go 50 MPH down Broadway on the Upper West Side and you hold on for dear life and pray that he doesn't kill any pedestrians.
Unfortunately, those days are over. Last time I took a cab, they drove like an 80 year old woman
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 20, 2015, 01:53:39 AM
Its never relaxing on the NYC roads, but I still stick by the fact I'd rather be in the privacy of my car because I hate crowded places, it adds a level of stress of its own. Im a girl that likes her privacy and peace and quiet.
Oh I don't doubt your preference, I was just incredulous at your definition of "relaxing". Although from what I remember you saying about liking to zoom around Connecticut's freeways at top speed, perhaps that's not surprising! :-)
QuoteAs for Nassau drivers, theyre not that bad, not nearly as aggressive as the city.
I'm not out there very often, but I would expect they're by and large the same drivers. Nassau County and Queens blend together pretty seamlessly in most places.
iPhone
Quote from: cl94 on November 20, 2015, 09:05:52 AM
Quote from: dgolub on November 20, 2015, 08:53:44 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2015, 12:37:41 PM
Speed is low most places in Manhattan when most people are driving, lessening the severity of most offenses. The avenues are timed to what, 28 mph? And good luck racing down the FDR for very long. The Henry Hudson is the only place that traffic really flies, and a lot of that is New Jersey/Westchester traffic.
Yes, until you get in a cab with some idiot driver who decides to go 50 MPH down Broadway on the Upper West Side and you hold on for dear life and pray that he doesn't kill any pedestrians.
Unfortunately, those days are over. Last time I took a cab, they drove like an 80 year old woman
You might have just had an atypical cab driver. Most of them are still pretty aggressive.
Quote from: dgolub on November 20, 2015, 06:57:22 PM
You might have just had an atypical cab driver. Most of them are still pretty aggressive.
No, the pixelated cabbies in Crazy Taxi are just "aggressive." A lot of the cab drivers I've ended up with are borderline maniacs. But I still paid them because they got me where I wanted to go. As I've said in previous posts, I still feel safer on the subway, even with all the panhandlers, peddlers, hobos and freaks.
The subway also doesn't take you several avenues out of the way to pad the fare until you say "Go the right way, please," then backhandedly try to lay the blame on a fictional misunderstanding of how you wanted to go.
Quote from: dgolub on October 30, 2015, 08:08:38 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 30, 2015, 06:30:08 PM
Probably NYCDOT spot replacements. NYSDOT Region 11 only does large capital projects.
I know this is old - but part of it was just waiting for bid information regarding signage in NYC by NYSDOT and this was as relevant as I could get; a project for some NYC area signage but no detailed plans - no plans at all, just proposal books.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263133
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 06:12:30 PM
The subway also doesn't take you several avenues out of the way to pad the fare until you say "Go the right way, please," then backhandedly try to lay the blame on a fictional misunderstanding of how you wanted to go.
Of course, there's no reason to. It's the same fare whether you're going just a few blocks or all the way from Riverdale to Far Rockaway.
Quote from: dgolub on March 26, 2016, 09:52:46 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 06:12:30 PM
The subway also doesn't take you several avenues out of the way to pad the fare until you say "Go the right way, please," then backhandedly try to lay the blame on a fictional misunderstanding of how you wanted to go.
Of course, there's no reason to. It's the same fare whether you're going just a few blocks or all the way from Riverdale to Far Rockaway.
You're missing my point, which is that I've had plenty of cab drivers require the scenario I described.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 27, 2016, 07:59:19 AM
Quote from: dgolub on March 26, 2016, 09:52:46 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 06:12:30 PM
The subway also doesn't take you several avenues out of the way to pad the fare until you say "Go the right way, please," then backhandedly try to lay the blame on a fictional misunderstanding of how you wanted to go.
Of course, there's no reason to. It's the same fare whether you're going just a few blocks or all the way from Riverdale to Far Rockaway.
You're missing my point, which is that I've had plenty of cab drivers require the scenario I described.
Yeah, I also had one who told me his meter was broken and then tried to rip me off. Not sure whether it was really broken or if he just rebooted it. Let it suffice to say that he didn't get any tip.
Quote from: dgolub on March 27, 2016, 09:41:40 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 27, 2016, 07:59:19 AM
Quote from: dgolub on March 26, 2016, 09:52:46 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 06:12:30 PM
The subway also doesn't take you several avenues out of the way to pad the fare until you say "Go the right way, please," then backhandedly try to lay the blame on a fictional misunderstanding of how you wanted to go.
Of course, there's no reason to. It's the same fare whether you're going just a few blocks or all the way from Riverdale to Far Rockaway.
You're missing my point, which is that I've had plenty of cab drivers require the scenario I described.
Yeah, I also had one who told me his meter was broken and then tried to rip me off. Not sure whether it was really broken or if he just rebooted it. Let it suffice to say that he didn't get any tip.
Don't forget how they always say the card reader is broken, but it always miraculously fixes itself when you threaten to call 311.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1621/25764476390_a4a4fca86c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FfHFdb)Original non-reflective button copy dating to the late 1960s, with the bottom replaced recently. I-95 SB. Cross Bronx Expressway. Bronx, NYC. (https://flic.kr/p/FfHFdb) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Some NYC Road sign eye candy!
Quote from: dgolub on March 27, 2016, 09:41:40 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 27, 2016, 07:59:19 AM
Quote from: dgolub on March 26, 2016, 09:52:46 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 06:12:30 PM
The subway also doesn't take you several avenues out of the way to pad the fare until you say "Go the right way, please," then backhandedly try to lay the blame on a fictional misunderstanding of how you wanted to go.
Of course, there's no reason to. It's the same fare whether you're going just a few blocks or all the way from Riverdale to Far Rockaway.
You're missing my point, which is that I've had plenty of cab drivers require the scenario I described.
Yeah, I also had one who told me his meter was broken and then tried to rip me off. Not sure whether it was really broken or if he just rebooted it. Let it suffice to say that he didn't get any tip.
Not too long ago I had a cabdriver get all hesitant when I told him that I wanted to go someplace where he was clearly not going to be able to pick up a return fare. He then told me very early in the trip that his card reader did not work and he was not accepting credit cards. I made him pull over and let me out at that point without paying him a dime. I reminded him that people are ditching cabs altogether over things like this.
It's important to remember that at any time these guys could probably call in your credit card number to their office where there shouldn't be any trouble taking the card.
I drove down the FDR and all the button copy signs SB by the Triboro are gone due to the construction project. Further down, all the I-495 button copy signs are gone due except the "exit now" sign.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1630/25637477563_c4ddf55ecc_c.jpg)
Anybody know when the button copy on the FDR were put up? The last highway in NYC with button copy and a without a blanket sign replacement project.
Also, are these still there?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6802338,-74.0048035,3a,75y,125.8h,82.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sr87nM4MuRpJppA9fwJqGwA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
my guess is late 60s early 70s on the button copy signs. The FDR appears to be the last highway to get the replacement signs, the button copy elsewhere in the city has been eliminated. Last weekend I drove the Belt Parkway from the Southern State to the Verezano and there was one button copy sign left, it was one of the advance signs for Exit 4, but other than that, its all newer signs and some of them actually appear to be carbon copy remakes of the previous signs.
also there is a TON of construction going on between Exits 11 and 14 with the drawbridge replacement.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 07, 2016, 09:46:43 PM
I drove down the FDR and all the button copy signs SB by the Triboro are gone due to the construction project. Further down, all the I-495 button copy signs are gone due except the "exit now" sign.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1630/25637477563_c4ddf55ecc_c.jpg)
Anybody know when the button copy on the FDR were put up? The last highway in NYC with button copy and a without a blanket sign replacement project.
Also, are these still there?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6802338,-74.0048035,3a,75y,125.8h,82.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sr87nM4MuRpJppA9fwJqGwA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Are you talking about north of the bridge on the Harlem River Drive or south of the bridge on the FDR? I was on there southbound coming off the bridge this past Sunday, so if there were sign replacements, they were very recent.
FWIW, a chase scene early in "007- live and let die" is on the lower FDR and still shows black on white signage, so that is I guess about 1973.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on April 08, 2016, 07:16:59 PM
FWIW, a chase scene early in "007- live and let die" is on the lower FDR and still shows black on white signage, so that is I guess about 1973.
It came out in 1973. It was probably filmed in 72.
Hey, I have another question; The southbound frontage road along Grand Central Parkway between 65th Avenue and 67th Road looks like it was originally designed for two-way traffic as a four-lane divided highway. Is this just speculation on my part?
looks to me like more of a service road of a service road, trying to separate the thru traffic on the service road from the residential traffic
Quote from: dgolub on April 08, 2016, 07:07:53 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 07, 2016, 09:46:43 PM
I drove down the FDR and all the button copy signs SB by the Triboro are gone due to the construction project. Further down, all the I-495 button copy signs are gone due except the "exit now" sign.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1630/25637477563_c4ddf55ecc_c.jpg)
Anybody know when the button copy on the FDR were put up? The last highway in NYC with button copy and a without a blanket sign replacement project.
Also, are these still there?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6802338,-74.0048035,3a,75y,125.8h,82.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sr87nM4MuRpJppA9fwJqGwA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Are you talking about north of the bridge on the Harlem River Drive or south of the bridge on the FDR? I was on there southbound coming off the bridge this past Sunday, so if there were sign replacements, they were very recent.
Heading SB, these are all gone due to the construction:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7594/16166729324_2e89e4b9cb_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7284/16787939062_a3cb99d2ef_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7643/16166749334_049f8e1589_c.jpg)
and the I-495 advance signage farther south are gone too except for the one I posted above.
PS. so is this one:
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8702/17267615905_a349691414_c.jpg)
Anyone notice the street lights are being replaced with new LED ones?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 09, 2016, 11:18:32 PM
Quote from: dgolub on April 08, 2016, 07:07:53 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 07, 2016, 09:46:43 PM
I drove down the FDR and all the button copy signs SB by the Triboro are gone due to the construction project. Further down, all the I-495 button copy signs are gone due except the "exit now" sign.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1630/25637477563_c4ddf55ecc_c.jpg)
Anybody know when the button copy on the FDR were put up? The last highway in NYC with button copy and a without a blanket sign replacement project.
Also, are these still there?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6802338,-74.0048035,3a,75y,125.8h,82.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sr87nM4MuRpJppA9fwJqGwA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Are you talking about north of the bridge on the Harlem River Drive or south of the bridge on the FDR? I was on there southbound coming off the bridge this past Sunday, so if there were sign replacements, they were very recent.
Heading SB, these are all gone due to the construction:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7594/16166729324_2e89e4b9cb_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7284/16787939062_a3cb99d2ef_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7643/16166749334_049f8e1589_c.jpg)
and the I-495 advance signage farther south are gone too except for the one I posted above.
PS. so is this one:
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8702/17267615905_a349691414_c.jpg)
OK, except for the last one, all of those are technically on the Harlem River Drive, so not where I was last weekend.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 09, 2016, 12:19:25 PM
Hey, I have another question; The southbound frontage road along Grand Central Parkway between 65th Avenue and 67th Road looks like it was originally designed for two-way traffic as a four-lane divided highway. Is this just speculation on my part?
I doubt it ever carried two way traffic, although a look at Historic Aerials does reveal something interesting: the Jewel Ave exit off the eastbound GCP was originally at the beginning of this divided section, it was moved down to its current location when the parkway was widened in the early 60s.
Under the original configuration, the lane on the parkway side of the divider would have allowed exiting traffic to proceed at higher speed for a couple blocks before being made to slow down by intersections and such.
Seems to me that divided section is a quirky vestige of the era in roadway design where the philosophy was to keep traffic moving as fast as possible without particular regard to the safety implications of such.
Quote from: J Route Z on April 10, 2016, 02:53:20 AM
Anyone notice the street lights are being replaced with new LED ones?
Yes. This is a gradual effort by the city which has been ongoing for several years.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 10, 2016, 12:29:04 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 09, 2016, 12:19:25 PM
Anyone notice the street lights are being replaced with new LED ones?
Yes. This is a gradual effort by the city which has been ongoing for several years.
Tell us more about your opinions on replacing existing lights with LEDs.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1585/26451047685_ff1bfdd7d5_z.jpg)
I spotted this by the Brooklyn Bridge
and this one is still there, I thought this was replaced but nope.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1609/26358567422_3d2e40e24f_z.jpg)
Quote from: Alps on April 10, 2016, 02:44:36 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 10, 2016, 12:29:04 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 09, 2016, 12:19:25 PM
Anyone notice the street lights are being replaced with new LED ones?
Yes. This is a gradual effort by the city which has been ongoing for several years.
Tell us more about your opinions on replacing existing lights with LEDs.
Why was I given credit for a message written by J Route Z?
There was a spot replacement project for various BGS around the 5 boroughs including the remaining non-reflective button copy on I-295 NB. Are these gone yet?
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/2/1614/25408665884_dec281f732_c.jpg)
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5762/22661448171_e9ee493ac6_c.jpg)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 31, 2016, 05:00:14 PM
There was a spot replacement project for various BGS around the 5 boroughs including the remaining non-reflective button copy on I-295 NB. Are these gone yet?
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/2/1614/25408665884_dec281f732_c.jpg)
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5762/22661448171_e9ee493ac6_c.jpg)
If they are, then it's very recent, within the last couple of months. They were still there the last time that I was through there.
Quote from: dgolub on June 01, 2016, 08:49:02 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 31, 2016, 05:00:14 PM
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5762/22661448171_e9ee493ac6_c.jpg)
If they are, then it's very recent, within the last couple of months. They were still there the last time that I was through there.
Willets Point Blvd is gone. I-295 sign was still there last week.
I wonder when sign replacements will come for the FDR and Van Wyck? FDR still has non-reflective button copy while the Van Wyck has reflective button copy around I-495 and just north of the Belt.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 15, 2016, 05:31:07 PM
Willets Point Blvd is gone. I-295 sign was still there last week.
I wonder when sign replacements will come for the FDR and Van Wyck? FDR still has non-reflective button copy while the Van Wyck has reflective button copy around I-495 and just north of the Belt.
No idea. The exit for West 96 Street from the southbound FDR Drive has had temporary orange construction signage for almost six years, even though there hasn't been any construction going on there for most of the time.
Van Wyck has a major project at the Kew Gardens interchange starting this fall. Signs are probably lumped in with that.
I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but the other morning, I actually made good time on the Cross Bronx Expressway!! :colorful: :-o :awesomeface:
No, really! I must've got from the Throgs Neck to Fort Lee in 20 minutes or something.
I wouldn't believe me either, but I did. Of course it was before 6:00 A.M., so I assume that had something to do with it.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 01, 2016, 09:45:07 PM
I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but the other morning, I actually made good time on the Cross Bronx Expressway!! :colorful: :-o :awesomeface:
No, really! I must've got from the Throgs Neck to Fort Lee in 20 minutes or something.
I wouldn't believe me either, but I did. Of course it was before 6:00 A.M., so I assume that had something to do with it.
I once did that in 10-15 minutes. Yes, it was in the middle of the night.
Quote from: cl94 on July 01, 2016, 11:25:30 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 01, 2016, 09:45:07 PM
I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but the other morning, I actually made good time on the Cross Bronx Expressway!! :colorful: :-o :awesomeface:
No, really! I must've got from the Throgs Neck to Fort Lee in 20 minutes or something.
I wouldn't believe me either, but I did. Of course it was before 6:00 A.M., so I assume that had something to do with it.
I once did that in 10-15 minutes. Yes, it was in the middle of the night.
It can be done at odd times of day too, when conditions are right. I've actually cruised the entire length of the Cross Bronx without much hassle, at like 11am or so.
Destiny has been fulfilled:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxK07Kex.jpg&hash=7e8272fbe22d74613c7fc6613d64783ab6dc0f7f)
Now they got to take it down and replace it with one in the correct font :P. If the boro color coded signs couldn't stay up, the Clearview ones gotta go too. ;)
Duke87, where was that Clearview Clearview sign blade taken?
ixnay
P.S. In the past on this site, I half joked about signs on the Clearview in Clearview. I didn't mean street corner blades, though, but actual exit signs on I-295 itself.
Quote from: ixnay on July 10, 2016, 07:10:36 PM
Duke87, where was that Clearview Clearview sign blade taken?
That particular one was on the southbound service road at 42nd Ave. There are at least a couple others in the area, though, including one at Northern Blvd.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 10, 2016, 06:49:56 PM
Now they got to take it down and replace it with one in the correct font :P. If the boro color coded signs couldn't stay up, the Clearview ones gotta go too. ;)
Then they have to rename it the Gothic Highway. :-D
Quote from: Alps on July 10, 2016, 11:49:38 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 10, 2016, 06:49:56 PM
Now they got to take it down and replace it with one in the correct font :P. If the boro color coded signs couldn't stay up, the Clearview ones gotta go too. ;)
Then they have to rename it the Gothic Highway. :-D
That's actually a cool name for a road.
Gothic Highway in Gotham...that sounds awesome! :D
I have to ask when is the work on the Van Wyck ever going to be completed? I've gone back and forth many of times and I've never seen anything done other then they finally repainted the lines coming off the JRP
iPhone
Was on the FDR yesterday I'm guessing a car that was stopped in the first lane sent everyone getting off Houston st the fastest I ever got to the Brooklyn Bridge on a Sunday.. But I have to ask whats up with the electric board not showing the avg travel time in like I'm guessing a month now?
And how do they get the avg travel time?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUHU8mlO.jpg&hash=12111cd7006d5a7cfa14a9bd0d51564adaa0a447)
Average times on the FDR in rush hour
Queensboro BR - FOREVER
Manhattan Br - ETERNITY
Brooklyn Br - WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER
That's the only way I can think of that's faster to get to Cadman plaza W unless i'm missing something else.. it always sucks to have to deal with the traffic.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on July 18, 2016, 01:01:01 PM
Average times on the FDR in rush hour
Queensboro BR - FOREVER
Manhattan Br - ETERNITY
Brooklyn Br - WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER
That was today on the Van Wyck, Lincoln Tunnel, and Cross Bronx. Pedestrian hit on the Van Wyck, XBL crash in the tunnel, and a crash on the CBX.
Last night coming home from seeing my GF some asshole on the JRP heading towards Queens flashed me because he wanted me to go faster and when I did not he sped up just before the last on ramp before the squeeze (I call it that) and at that time I had just moved over to the left lane because I did not want him running into me but he rammed himself right in front of a car as he ran out of merge space we all braked.. I for sure thought it was going to be a crash.
Quote from: MikeCL on July 18, 2016, 03:14:25 PM
Last night coming home from seeing my GF some asshole on the JRP heading towards Queens flashed me because he wanted me to go faster and when I did not he sped up just before the last on ramp before the squeeze (I call it that) and at that time I had just moved over to the left lane because I did not want him running into me but he rammed himself right in front of a car as he ran out of merge space we all braked.. I for sure thought it was going to be a crash.
In other words, your drive was 'normal'!!!
At least you got out of the way. Best thing you could do in such a situation.
It was just crazy I'd hate to see what would have happened if it was raining...
iPhone
were you in the left lane and he was trying to get past you?
Also on teh Belt Parkway there is one Button copy sign left, The westbound Exit 9 sign for Knapp St just past the lane shift back to normal from the new higher bridge.
Also they are making progress in replacing that diabolical drawbridge thankfully.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 10, 2016, 04:13:25 PM
were you in the left lane and he was trying to get past you?
Also on teh Belt Parkway there is one Button copy sign left, The westbound Exit 9 sign for Knapp St just past the lane shift back to normal from the new higher bridge.
Also they are making progress in replacing that diabolical drawbridge thankfully.
Yeah I was already in the left lane
iPhone
Any updates to the replacement of signs in the NYC boroughs? There were projects on the clearview and NY-440 to replace old signage. Also, I see spot replacements over the past year on the FDR. I haven't been down that way lately.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8408/28681698313_305378cfdb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KGvcDT)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/KGvcDT) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
This still there?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 06, 2016, 08:37:48 PM
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8408/28681698313_305378cfdb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KGvcDT)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/KGvcDT) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
This still there?
The CR-V? Yeah, probably.
Speaking of those signs funny how some signage remains about the Tri-Borough bridge and the replacement RFK
https://goo.gl/maps/rA8byJgZdh32
Noticed this white sign. Looked too new to be original, probably an exact replica - anyone know anything?
Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2016, 11:54:53 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/rA8byJgZdh32
Noticed this white sign. Looked too new to be original, probably an exact replica - anyone know anything?
Yeah, it probably is an exact replica of an older sign. Except for one-offs and replicas, black and white signs date to the 1950s/1960s. Since the bridge was last reconstructed in 1993/1994, I'd say this sign is about 22 years old and the original sign was well over 30 years old. For whatever reason the new sign is smaller (you can tell because of the support brackets around the sign).
Quick question concerning the toll booths leading to Jones Beach State Park: are the bypass lanes left open during the on-season? Or is Ocean Parkway a de-facto toll road Memorial Day-Labor Day?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 08, 2016, 10:37:18 PM
Quick question concerning the toll booths leading to Jones Beach State Park: are the bypass lanes left open during the on-season? Or is Ocean Parkway a de-facto toll road Memorial Day-Labor Day?
The bypass lanes are always open. You only need to go to the booth if you're buying a ticket to park in one of the lots at Jones Beach.
http://ny.curbed.com/2016/11/28/13763084/brooklyn-queens-expressway-repair-brooklyn-heights-promenade
The city's Department of Transportation is about to undertake its most expensive project to date, and fittingly it will involve the repair and rehabilitation of one of the city's most hated highways, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.
Beginning as early as 2020, the agency will launch a $1.7 billion project to repair a 1.5 mile-long stretch along the highway between Atlantic Avenue and Sands Street (near the Manhattan Bridge), the New York Times reports.
The expressway was built between 1944-1948 and spearheaded by Robert Moses, but in recent years, the highway has come to be identified with potholes, bumps, and it's high crash rate. Earlier this year, the transportation department hired experts to study the conditions of the highway. The consensus? The highway itself is stable but the rebars inside the concrete were starting to corrode and could eventually break leading to emergency repairs.
Part of the section being repaired includes the Brooklyn Heights Promenade, and this has local residents worried that they will temporarily lose a much-loved public space or that traffic from the highway could seep into local streets. The DOT however has ensured that that will not be the case, and that only parts of the promenade will remain closed during the repairs.
What the repairs will do however is increase access to the waterfront, which is blocked off in many areas along the cantilevered stretch of the BQE. This cantilever method was adopted as an alternative to the original plan for the highway, according to the Times. Previously, Moses intended for the highway to cut through the middle of Brooklyn Heights, but that would have led to the demolition of dozens of historic buildings in the area, and as a result it was moved to be along the waterfront.
The BQE's pricey repair will also include work on 21 bridges along that 1.5 mile-long stretch. Most of the costs for the repair will be borne by the city, but NYC is also looking for about 38 percent of the funds to come from the state.
Construction work will take about five years, and while some locals have expressed concerns about disruption, preliminary repair work along the highway has already pleased others. The city patched up some concrete and repaired some road surfaces along the highway, and it's already made big impact for residents in the area, according to the Times.
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/1/683/22603705427_15cb58c137_c.jpg)[/url]Non-reflective button copy directing you to the Brooklyn Bridge. Brooklyn, NYC. (https://flic.kr/p/ArpU86) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
You know what else is coming??
That's right! Cashless tolling is coming to ALL MTA-owned bridges and tunnels starting in 2017!
Don't believe me? Well, here is a YouTube video that explains it all!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFjgGfmegIA
It's about time! :clap: :clap: :clap:
Btw, there is a concrete road bed in the middle of the Manhattan Bridge...Wiki says that was built for I-478 to connect to I-78 LOMEX. However, it also said I-478 between the Manhattan Bridge and the proposed I-78 JCT would be depressed.
Is that true?
I ask b/c it looks like as the Manhattan bridge is coming down to surface level the median concrete road bed stays high. It would seem to be a quick rise and fall to meet the proposed depressed section between the proposed junction with I-78 and the bridge itself.
Anybody know?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 28, 2016, 03:46:48 PM
http://ny.curbed.com/2016/11/28/13763084/brooklyn-queens-expressway-repair-brooklyn-heights-promenade
The city's Department of Transportation is about to undertake its most expensive project to date, and fittingly it will involve the repair and rehabilitation of one of the city's most hated highways, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.
Slowly but surely, they're replacing the entire BQE.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 28, 2016, 09:38:27 PM
Btw, there is a concrete road bed in the middle of the Manhattan Bridge...Wiki says that was built for I-478 to connect to I-78 LOMEX. However, it also said I-478 between the Manhattan Bridge and the proposed I-78 JCT would be depressed.
Is that true?
I ask b/c it looks like as the Manhattan bridge is coming down to surface level the median concrete road bed stays high. It would seem to be a quick rise and fall to meet the proposed depressed section between the proposed junction with I-78 and the bridge itself.
Anybody know?
It's true, but I imagine the connections at the plaza would look a lot different if that had happened.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 28, 2016, 03:46:48 PM
http://ny.curbed.com/2016/11/28/13763084/brooklyn-queens-expressway-repair-brooklyn-heights-promenade
The city's Department of Transportation is about to undertake its most expensive project to date, and fittingly it will involve the repair and rehabilitation of one of the city's most hated highways, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.
Beginning as early as 2020, the agency will launch a $1.7 billion project to repair a 1.5 mile-long stretch along the highway between Atlantic Avenue and Sands Street (near the Manhattan Bridge), the New York Times reports.
The BQE's pricey repair will also include work on 21 bridges along that 1.5 mile-long stretch. Most of the costs for the repair will be borne by the city, but NYC is also looking for about 38 percent of the funds to come from the state.
Why aren't the Feds kicking in anything? Yes, it's grandfathered Interstate, but it's still original mileage.
Quote from: Alps on November 28, 2016, 10:56:58 PMWhy aren't the Feds kicking in anything? Yes, it's grandfathered Interstate, but it's still original mileage.
It is not clear to me, from anything I have read about this project, that the Feds are not contributing. NYCDOT also seems to be taking the lead on this project, at least for this phase, although the BQE is owned by NYSDOT. This burst of publicity seems to be associated with the start of a design contract for the improvements; actual construction will begin in 2020 or 2021 (depending on whether design-build or design-bid-build is chosen), and I am not sure whether construction will be handled by NYCDOT or NYSDOT.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bqe-atlantic-to-sands-apr2016.pdf
http://harlemriverpark.weebly.com/harlem-river-drive-flyover-project.html
I didn't know about the original plans for this. Too bad the NIMBYs got involved. A flyover would've been nice.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 05, 2016, 06:46:18 PM
http://harlemriverpark.weebly.com/harlem-river-drive-flyover-project.html
I didn't know about the original plans for this. Too bad the NIMBYs got involved. A flyover would've been nice.
That's not NIMBYism. That's environmental justice. They arrived at a compromise that gets improvements built without ruining the urban air and noise quality.
Interesting... wasn't aware the ramps were being reconfigured there. Are they moving or adding an exit? Hopefully I'll be able to keep my website's exit list up to date, but it's hard with NYC...
http://www.nysroads.com/fdrlist.php
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2016, 01:16:59 PM
Interesting... wasn't aware the ramps were being reconfigured there. Are they moving or adding an exit? Hopefully I'll be able to keep my website's exit list up to date, but it's hard with NYC...
http://www.nysroads.com/fdrlist.php
I think just making a right hand exit, a left hand exit.
Although finding info for this and others takes some work.
Also Kew Gardens interchange close to being done??https://www.dot.ny.gov/kgi
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 06, 2016, 07:26:04 PMAlso Kew Gardens interchange close to being done??
https://www.dot.ny.gov/kgi
Nope! Phase 2B is currently under advertisement.
I'm aware this is in New Jersey, but since that thread might be dead (last post was late November), and this is pretty close to NYC, I feel like this is good enough.
About the NJ 21 freeway, apparently it stops short of I-280. Have plans ever existed to at least complete the freeway to I-280, as Steve Anderson's site is outdated (the most recent date I found while reading was in 2000, relating to the northern extension)? It's a pretty short distance (about 3500 feet), but I heard it was due to opposition.
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 09, 2016, 12:17:50 AM
I'm aware this is in New Jersey, but since that thread might be dead (last post was late November), and this is pretty close to NYC, I feel like this is good enough.
About the NJ 21 freeway, apparently it stops short of I-280. Have plans ever existed to at least complete the freeway to I-280, as Steve Anderson's site is outdated (the most recent date I found while reading was in 2000, relating to the northern extension)? It's a pretty short distance (about 3500 feet), but I heard it was due to opposition.
Based on where the exit numbers start, I'd guess it was supposed to go all the way down to I-78 and US 22.
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 09, 2016, 12:17:50 AM
I'm aware this is in New Jersey, but since that thread might be dead (last post was late November), and this is pretty close to NYC, I feel like this is good enough.
About the NJ 21 freeway, apparently it stops short of I-280. Have plans ever existed to at least complete the freeway to I-280, as Steve Anderson's site is outdated (the most recent date I found while reading was in 2000, relating to the northern extension)? It's a pretty short distance (about 3500 feet), but I heard it was due to opposition.
Mods - this thread should be moved to the NJ thread instead.
The original idea for the 21 freeway was a freeway connection between 280 in Newark and 80 near Paterson. It was proposed in the 60s but never panned out, especially once the NJ-75 freeway died. I don't know all the politics why the last mile or so did not get built between 280 and where it currently starts, but there was a lot of community opposition. It is a mostly commercial corridor that isn't right on the river through that stretch, so a lot would have been affected. It's too bad that the former idea to have it cross the Passaic river north of Passaic and connect to the NJ-20 freeway did not pan out, that would have made a lot more sense.
Fun fact, if you take exit 5 NB, you can drive on a small piece of the original NJ-21 (the original McCarter Hwy). It's in decrepit shape though, I would assume NJDOT handed control to Newark and they have shown no interest in fixing it up.
As for the exit numbers, NJ uses mileage based exit numbers and 21's mileage starts at the 1-9/78/22 interchange so the numbers are consistent with that.
As for the
Quote from: storm2k on December 09, 2016, 11:04:49 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 09, 2016, 12:17:50 AM
I'm aware this is in New Jersey, but since that thread might be dead (last post was late November), and this is pretty close to NYC, I feel like this is good enough.
About the NJ 21 freeway, apparently it stops short of I-280. Have plans ever existed to at least complete the freeway to I-280, as Steve Anderson's site is outdated (the most recent date I found while reading was in 2000, relating to the northern extension)? It's a pretty short distance (about 3500 feet), but I heard it was due to opposition.
Mods - this thread should be moved to the NJ thread instead.
The original idea for the 21 freeway was a freeway connection between 280 in Newark and 80 near Paterson. It was proposed in the 60s but never panned out, especially once the NJ-75 freeway died. I don't know all the politics why the last mile or so did not get built between 280 and where it currently starts, but there was a lot of community opposition. It is a mostly commercial corridor that isn't right on the river through that stretch, so a lot would have been affected. It's too bad that the former idea to have it cross the Passaic river north of Passaic and connect to the NJ-20 freeway did not pan out, that would have made a lot more sense.
Fun fact, if you take exit 5 NB, you can drive on a small piece of the original NJ-21 (the original McCarter Hwy). It's in decrepit shape though, I would assume NJDOT handed control to Newark and they have shown no interest in fixing it up.
As for the exit numbers, NJ uses mileage based exit numbers and 21's mileage starts at the 1-9/78/22 interchange so the numbers are consistent with that.
As for the
The old piece used to be NJ 21A before they removed it from the system.
As for extending the freeway, at least part of the reason would be the interchange with 280 would destroy the area.
New suggestion, Over on northbound Exit 8B on the Bruckner Expressway, they really ought to have warning signs about the pedestrian and bicycle path in Pelham Bay Park before drivers leave I-95 and drive under the bridge for the on-ramp from Westchester Avenue.
Speaking of the I-95/Pelham Parkway Interchange, what were those extra RIRO ramps from the west-to-north and south-to-west outer ramps?
Can't wait for this:
MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT ON N/B BRUCKNER EXPWY, BRONX CO., NYC
Project ID No. X73127
Description
Photo of Construction This project will provide mobility improvement on the North bound Bruckner Expressway between Wilkinson Avenue and Hutchinson River Parkway exit ramp, construct an exit ramp from North bound Hutchinson River Parkway to Bartow Avenue and reconfigure Pelham Parkway interchange. .
Project Overview
Project Status
The current status of the project is In Development.
The Bid Opening is expected to be in Winter 2018/2019.
Construction is expected to begin in Winter 2018/2019.
Construction is expected to be completed in Spring 2021.
and this:
REALIGNMENT OF THE BRONX RIVER PKWY AT GUN HILL RD. BX, NYC
Project ID No. X11025
Description
Photo of Construction This project will implement safety improvements at the Bronx River Parkway ramps at Gun Hill Road. These include widening, extending and improving the geometry of the ramps . Realign Bronx River Pkwy Mainline at Gun Hill Rd Exits. Project to include Construction of Deceleration Lane in the NB Direction; Widening of Existing Exit Ramps to 2 Lanes & Install Concrete Median Barrier to Reduce Accidents & Improve Mobility. Bx, NYC
Project Overview
Project Status
The current status of the project is In Development.
The Bid Opening is expected to be in Summer 2017.
Construction is expected to begin in Summer 2017.
Construction is expected to be completed in Summer 2018.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 14, 2016, 06:15:27 PM
Photo of Construction This project will provide mobility improvement on the North bound Bruckner Expressway between Wilkinson Avenue and Hutchinson River Parkway exit ramp, construct an exit ramp from North bound Hutchinson River Parkway to Bartow Avenue and reconfigure Pelham Parkway interchange. .
Maybe this means they'll get rid of that atrocious merge going from the Hutch onto I-95 south. I wonder what the exit number for Bartow Avenue will be. Probably either 4 or 4A.
I'm trying to envision how either of these projects are going to be carried out, because the NYSDOT site isn't providing me any pics or maps. All I see when I look up anything in the Bronx is the Bruckner Expressway/Sheridan Expressway deconstruction project.
That section of the Bruckner was completely rebuilt in 2002-03, any reason why they didn't do it then? Also part of that construction is on NYTA ROW as the New England Thruway starts at Pelham Parkway (the transition of which used to be MUCH more noticeable before the above reconstruction was done).
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 14, 2016, 11:42:24 PM
That section of the Bruckner was completely rebuilt in 2002-03, any reason why they didn't do it then? Also part of that construction is on NYTA ROW as the New England Thruway starts at Pelham Parkway (the transition of which used to be MUCH more noticeable before the above reconstruction was done).
You say that like it isn't still a noticeable transition.
As far as part of it being on NYSTA ROW, NYSDOT typically takes the lead on projects that are on both. It's one giant interchange, so one project makes sense. They didn't mention anything about the SB side, but I always take the Whitestone if coming from the Hutch and going to the Island just to avoid that merge.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 14, 2016, 02:55:54 PM
Speaking of the I-95/Pelham Parkway Interchange, what were those extra RIRO ramps from the west-to-north and south-to-west outer ramps?
Service access to the train tracks. The NY & New Haven Railroad used to have a maintenance facility there.
Quote from: dgolub on December 14, 2016, 06:56:21 PM
Maybe this means they'll get rid of that atrocious merge going from the Hutch onto I-95 south.
Not really room available to do much about that. And given that the description specifically mentions the northbound Bruckner, seemingly out of the scope of this project. What I am guessing this will involve is the interchange with Pelham Parkway being reduced from a full(ish) cloverleaf into a parclo, with the aim of eliminating the nasty weaving in the area which is the source of frequent traffic jams.
My guess is that they're going to get rid of the NB-WB loop ramp because it's redundant. Widen the bridge over Pelham Parkway to get rid of the stop sign or move things around a little to make it a left from EB Pelham to I-95 NB (more likely).
Adding the new exit from the Hutch will help with some of this as well, because traffic to Baychester and Co-Op City from the NB Hutch currently has to get off at Pelham and immediately hop onto the New England Thruway, only to get off at the next exit.
Quote from: cl94 on December 15, 2016, 12:34:08 AM
move things around a little to make it a left from EB Pelham to I-95 NB (more likely).
That doesn't help with the weave between that ramp and the offramp to the Hutch, though.
I threw this concept together a while back as a way to resolve the situation. Let's see if what they implement resembles this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FazFZywI.jpg&hash=bc20f4cb6ad3515c56ccd4ffdd97164d043f251a)
I was thinking more about the cloverleaf weave (which is also a PITA and the Hutch merge could be remedied by realigning the ramp), but that would be better (albeit more disruptive). Only issue is that they'd still have to widen the bridge to get rid of the stop sign. I thought up a couple concepts as well and I'll throw them up here when I get out of the office.
Based on the description I can see the 4th NB lane on I-95 extend to the Hutch, as this area ties up almost all day.
Quote from: cl94 on December 15, 2016, 01:43:06 PM
Only issue is that they'd still have to widen the bridge to get rid of the stop sign.
Not necessarily. My quick sketch shows the onramps from Pelham Pkwy and Westchester Ave still merging separately, if you made them merge with each other before joining I-95, you wouldn't need to widen the bridge as the ramp from Westchester Ave already adds a lane. You could then, without the ramps in the NE quadrant, simply have that 4th lane continue all the way to the exit for the Hutch and drop there. This would create an auxiliary lane which is three times longer than either of the current weaves.
Meanwhile if you want something less disruptive to existing traffic patterns, you could build a traditional pair of parclo ramps in the SE quadrant (though with the existing braiding maintained) and remove the existing long ramp from 95 NB to Shore Rd (which, fun fact, is actually the former alignment of Shore Rd from before I-95 was built). My method creates a more circuitous routing for traffic to and from points west, but it reuses more existing pavement and would therefore presumably be cheaper.
So I was taking the FDR yesterday and went to cross the Triborough bridge holy crap that huge I love NY sign is full color and hugely distracting! It was I guess recycling as I was coming up to the bridge plus with the construction going on.. I think it's really too much given I was coming around that corner and trying to move to the right lane.
iPhone
On the FDR again on Sunday and I think it's exit 5 the backside of ConEd were the sign says stay in lane in the first lane..... they really need to put a warning saying about a bump. It's a huge dip I figured it would have been taken care of by now
iPhone
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/03/19/cuomo-bruckner-sheridan-interchange/
https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/843514801670242307/photo/1
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – A long awaited, massive infrastructure project may soon be on the way to the South Bronx.
As WCBS 880's Kelly Waldron reports, the Sheridan Expressway sliced right through the community more than fifty years ago, cutting residents off from the riverfront.
If Governor Cuomo gets his way, the expressway will be transformed into a boulevard that is both pedestrian and cyclist friendly.
"Slow the traffic down, have pedestrian crossings so people can get across it and get to the Bronx River and enjoy the Bronx river," Cuomo said in the Sunday announcement.
The $1.8 billion plan also calls for the redesign of the Bruckner Expressway.
"And you have to build a whole new road and bridge system that goes from the Bruckner directly into Hunts Point," Cuomo said.
More than 78,00 vehicles travel to the Hunts Point Peninsula daily, including 13,000 trucks using local roads which has increased and contributed to poor air quality in the community, according to Cuomo's office.
The project will be completed in multiple phases, and the governor says he has allocated the $700 million needed for the first phase of the project in this year's state budget, which is expected to be voted on April 1.
It's going to be the southern version of NY-198. Cuomo has done more to ruin freeflowing roads to satisfy the vocal minority.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 19, 2017, 07:16:56 PM
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/03/19/cuomo-bruckner-sheridan-interchange/
https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/843514801670242307/photo/1
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – A long awaited, massive infrastructure project may soon be on the way to the South Bronx.
As WCBS 880's Kelly Waldron reports, the Sheridan Expressway sliced right through the community more than fifty years ago, cutting residents off from the riverfront.
If Governor Cuomo gets his way, the expressway will be transformed into a boulevard that is both pedestrian and cyclist friendly.
"Slow the traffic down, have pedestrian crossings so people can get across it and get to the Bronx River and enjoy the Bronx river," Cuomo said in the Sunday announcement.
The $1.8 billion plan also calls for the redesign of the Bruckner Expressway.
"And you have to build a whole new road and bridge system that goes from the Bruckner directly into Hunts Point," Cuomo said.
More than 78,00 vehicles travel to the Hunts Point Peninsula daily, including 13,000 trucks using local roads which has increased and contributed to poor air quality in the community, according to Cuomo's office.
The project will be completed in multiple phases, and the governor says he has allocated the $700 million needed for the first phase of the project in this year's state budget, which is expected to be voted on April 1.
It's going to be the southern version of NY-198. Cuomo has done more to ruin freeflowing roads to satisfy the vocal minority.
I wonder where the general public stands on this issue...will there be protests against this?
No. It has been in the works for quite a while.
The story around here is that there is an old photo of people actually lying down on the Sheridan to show how little used it was...decades ago. :D
In my opinion, there has been a lot of work at the local level to prepare for it.
Quote from: Rothman on March 20, 2017, 09:23:53 AM
No. It has been in the works for quite a while.
The story around here is that there is an old photo of people actually lying down on the Sheridan to show how little used it was...decades ago. :D
In my opinion, there has been a lot of work at the local level to prepare for it.
I agree. Not only has this been in the works for ages, it is practically useless with the northern section connecting it to the New England Thruway being canceled. AADT is 35K - lower than many streets in the City and roughly half of the West Side Highway. PHVs max out at 1450, well under what is expected on a city expressway. I have used the Sheridan once - to clinch it. If it were complete, it would be very useful for through traffic. Not in its current state.
Quote from: cl94 on March 20, 2017, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 20, 2017, 09:23:53 AM
No. It has been in the works for quite a while.
The story around here is that there is an old photo of people actually lying down on the Sheridan to show how little used it was...decades ago. :D
In my opinion, there has been a lot of work at the local level to prepare for it.
I agree. Not only has this been in the works for ages, it is practically useless with the northern section connecting it to the New England Thruway being canceled. AADT is 35K - lower than many streets in the City and roughly half of the West Side Highway. PHVs max out at 1450, well under what is expected on a city expressway. I have used the Sheridan once - to clinch it. If it were complete, it would be very useful for through traffic. Not in its current state.
Actually I have no use for it. If there was a free flowing connection to and from the east then I would.
Quote from: TML on March 20, 2017, 01:29:06 AM
I wonder where the general public stands on this issue...will there be protests against this?
I have not heard any non-roadgeek speak strongly in favor of keeping the Sheridan as is. Usually people's reaction to the suggestion of getting rid of it is along the lines of "might as well, no one really uses it." Naturally, as a road very few people use with any regularity, it's a road very few people have any strong personal interest in keeping.
Meanwhile the people most negatively impacted by its downgrading won't be the drivers who'll have to slow down and maybe stop at a light or two, but rather the current working class residents of the neighborhood who will inevitably be forced out to make way for luxury condos.
Wow, if only 35K vehicles used it each day, then that traffic could easily be handled by an arterial street.
How is NYC going to address the change in the MUTCD for their stoplights? Now with one signal head per lane and many avenues being five or six lanes wide with the current double guy arms not able to span a whole width of the street in many places. I am guessing they are not going to comply at all.
I can see them replacing the 8-8-8 with 12-12-12 like on the West Side Highway they already did as the mast arms do support the weight (well at least the two way heads), so that probably won't be an issue. But NYC going span wire like the rest of the state or installing montotubes at every intersection in all five boroughs, I do not see them doing that like they have not replaced the controllers for each signal.
Plus backplates in the city as well. This should all prove interesting.
I've seen a bunch of upgrades recently to 12-12-12 on main arterials, and some newer or updated installs have more than one signal on the arms.
Other than that, I dont see much in terms of progress toward MUTCD compliance with backplates, one signal per lane, etc
Quote from: roadman65 on April 05, 2017, 12:19:33 PM
How is NYC going to address the change in the MUTCD for their stoplights? Now with one signal head per lane and many avenues being five or six lanes wide with the current double guy arms not able to span a whole width of the street in many places. I am guessing they are not going to comply at all.
I can see them replacing the 8-8-8 with 12-12-12 like on the West Side Highway they already did as the mast arms do support the weight (well at least the two way heads), so that probably won't be an issue. But NYC going span wire like the rest of the state or installing montotubes at every intersection in all five boroughs, I do not see them doing that like they have not replaced the controllers for each signal.
Plus backplates in the city as well. This should all prove interesting.
As far as the backplates go, as long as the speed limit (and/or 85th percentile speed) is below 45 mph, they're not required.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-kosciuszko-bridge-brings-frustrating-jams-commuters-article-1.3114066
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on April 29, 2017, 09:11:19 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-kosciuszko-bridge-brings-frustrating-jams-commuters-article-1.3114066
ixnay
I'm inclined to agree it's just people checking out the new bridge. Even with the same lane balance as existing, the shallower grades should help traffic accelerate and merge, decreasing the truck slowness that contributes mightily to existing issues.
So the new bridge is open now?
Yes.
From http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/04/28/new-kosciuszko-bridge-open/
QuoteIt's the first of two spans that will replace the old 78-year-old structure connecting Greenpoint, Brooklyn and Maspeth, Queens over Newtown creek.
For now, traffic will go in both directions until the construction of the second span is complete, expected to be early 2020.
I'm surprised nobody on AARoads picked this up. I found out about it at the bottom of page 122 of http://506sports.com/forum/index.php?topic=3523.3025 (registration necessary to access the mb there but it's free).
ixnay
As of at least this morning, if not yesterday, all traffic is on the new bridge - there was a weeklong cutover.
Does anyone plan to drive across the new bridge anytime soon? If so, snap some pictures.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2017, 04:17:47 PM
Does anyone plan to drive across the new bridge anytime soon? If so, snap some pictures.
Yes, I went across there yesterday. I have pictures and will be uploading the first batch to my site at http://www.eastcoastroads.com later this evening.
Drove the Bronx River Parkway from Exit 9 to 1 the other day, most of the button copy is gone except for a few signs at Exit 6 (US 1 - Boston Road) also the Red button copy "PKWY ENDS" signs are gone as the signs for Exit 2 and 1 are all new.
Also the Throggs Neck Bridge has some lane shifts approaching the toll plaza, which im guess is preperation for the AET system which I cant wait for them to impliment since the fact the EZ Pass lanes still have that stupid bar that goes up and down kinda defeats the purpose of it saving time since it still slow to get thru.
If anyone can get a clear pic of the still standing non-reflective button copy "Meeker/Morgan 1/2 Mile" sign please share it.
PS...is this relic still there?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8408/28681698313_305378cfdb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KGvcDT)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/KGvcDT) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 08, 2017, 07:16:25 PM
If anyone can get a clear pic of the still standing non-reflective button copy "Meeker/Morgan 1/2 Mile" sign please share it.
You mean this one (taken 6/28/14)?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fi278%2F100_9489-s.JPG&hash=c20574401b937d6a12d6625f2b55470937cca2df)
Quote from: mariethefoxy on May 04, 2017, 10:17:20 PM
Drove the Bronx River Parkway from Exit 9 to 1 the other day, most of the button copy is gone except for a few signs at Exit 6 (US 1 - Boston Road) also the Red button copy "PKWY ENDS" signs are gone as the signs for Exit 2 and 1 are all new.
Is it replace-in-kind or updated legends?
Looked like the same carbon copy reflective sign replacements the city has done on other parkways.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 08, 2017, 07:16:25 PM
If anyone can get a clear pic of the still standing non-reflective button copy "Meeker/Morgan 1/2 Mile" sign please share it.
PS...is this relic still there?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8408/28681698313_305378cfdb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KGvcDT)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/KGvcDT) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Hope that car is yours cause if it someone else's than the owner is in big trouble. Car strippers just love to steal car parts along many NYC expressways and parkways in a matter of minutes.
Anyway, that sign bridge needs new panels as it is so faded. Plus the new signs do not use bridges as control points unless the other side of the crossing has no worthwhile points of interest to motorists, I believe now Queens is being used elsewhere so it might fit in with I-676 and already Newark is being used further on down the line on I-95 so I imagine that will replace the classic Geo Washington Br as was not only used here but city wide.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 08, 2017, 07:16:25 PM
If anyone can get a clear pic of the still standing non-reflective button copy "Meeker/Morgan 1/2 Mile" sign please share it.
PS...is this relic still there?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8408/28681698313_305378cfdb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KGvcDT)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/KGvcDT) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
I passed by there on the bus two days ago, and yes, it's still there. Unfortunately, the bus driver had a jacket with reflectors on it hanging on the back of his seat, and their reflection on the front window was winding up smack in the middle of all my pictures, so I gave up on photography after the first few miles.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2017, 04:17:47 PM
Does anyone plan to drive across the new bridge anytime soon? If so, snap some pictures.
There are a few of them in Wikimedia Commons right now;
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BklynQns_Expy_Kosciuszko_05.jpg
Which is how I found out it was opened.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 15, 2017, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2017, 04:17:47 PM
Does anyone plan to drive across the new bridge anytime soon? If so, snap some pictures.
There are a few of them in Wikimedia Commons right now;
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BklynQns_Expy_Kosciuszko_05.jpg
Which is how I found out it was opened.
I've also got some on my site at http://www.eastcoastroads.com/states/ny/nyinter/i278.
Quote from: dgolub on May 15, 2017, 09:06:59 PM
I've also got some on my site at http://www.eastcoastroads.com/states/ny/nyinter/i278.
Yes I see that now.
Further up, what's with the blank spaces for the exit to Astoria Boulevard?
http://www.eastcoastroads.com/states/ny/nyinter/i278/fullsize/278e43_2.jpg
New York Post: Troopers are handing out traffic tickets at astronomical rate (http://nypost.com/2017/05/14/troopers-are-handing-out-traffic-tickets-at-astronomical-rate/)
QuoteThey're super troopers – at least when it comes to slinging traffic tickets.
QuoteState Police officers doled out 14,542 summonses to New York City motorists in the first four months of this year – an astonishing 759 percent increase from all of last year, when they scribbled just 1,692, records show.
QuoteThe troopers – blue-and-yellow fixtures on upstate highways but once a rarity on city streets – gave out only four tickets in here in 2015 and none in 2014.
QuoteIn December, Gov. Cuomo deployed 150 state cops to patrol city highways, bridges and tunnel crossings. Their presence achieved two Cuomo goals: to haul in revenue to state coffers, and rankle Ârival Mayor de Blasio, Âaccording to observers.
Is phase 1 of the Kew Gardens interchange complete? Any traffic improvements in that area?
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 15, 2017, 09:54:20 PM
Quote from: dgolub on May 15, 2017, 09:06:59 PM
I've also got some on my site at http://www.eastcoastroads.com/states/ny/nyinter/i278.
Yes I see that now.
Further up, what's with the blank spaces for the exit to Astoria Boulevard?
http://www.eastcoastroads.com/states/ny/nyinter/i278/fullsize/278e43_2.jpg
Probably used to have the shield for Truck I-278, from the era before trucks under 12'6'' were allowed on Grand Central Parkway.
Quote from: vdeane on May 16, 2017, 08:07:44 PM
Probably used to have the shield for Truck I-278, from the era before trucks under 12'6'' were allowed on Grand Central Parkway.
Yeah, you know this has always bugged me. They still want trucks over 12'6" to leave at Astoria Boulevard, but the clearance beneath the BMT Astoria Line station is also 12'6." The bridge under the New York Connecting Railroad is also lower on the service roads than the main road, but they're all fairly high there... at least by New York standards.
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2015, 07:59:45 PM
Quote from: M3019C LPS20 on October 04, 2015, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on September 10, 2015, 06:45:47 PM
I hate the small "dept of transportation" logos on every sign, especially the big green highway ones. They look better without them.
From a collector's point of view, I think that label helps identify it as a genuine New York City sign and differentiates it from others manufactured for other municipalities in the country.
Just my two cents.
Lowers the resale value. Seriously. If someone tries to sell it, the logo gives it away as a stolen sign.
The MTA "stole" one of those signs and used them for the end of a subway line;
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Woodlawn;_IRT_Jerome_Avenue;_Stop_Sign;_Trk_4.jpg
cl94, while I understand your reasoning behind rejecting them, I have to go with M3019C LPS20 on this one. The inscriptions give a localized uniqueness that a standard stop sign won't have. And New York City isn't the only government that used to do this. There were plenty of them with the inscription "N.C.D.P.W" (Nassau County Department of Public Works), "Suffolk County," Town of islip," "Town of Smithtown," etcetera.
http://www.silive.com/news/2017/06/upper_level_verrazano_bridge_h.html#incart_2box_silive-homepage-featured
The HOV lane will be continuous to the Gowanus.
that Hov lane on Staten Island needs to be Hov 2 instead of Hov 3 and should be time based like the one on the LIE
This thread is making me homesick for NY. 😻
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 13, 2017, 12:11:30 AM
that Hov lane on Staten Island needs to be Hov 2 instead of Hov 3 and should be time based like the one on the LIE
Agreed. Something also needs to happen with the last minute merge on the HOV lane as you approach the VN bridge*. Currently, there are four lanes approaching eastbound at Hylan. The left lane (HOV) is forced to merge into the second lane. The second and third lane lead to the upper level of the bridge. The fourth lane allows you the choice of either upper or lower level. A fifth lane comes in from Hylan and forces you onto the lower level. The entrance from Narrows Road forces you to merge onto either level. The entrance from Lily Pond shrinks from 2 lanes to 1 and becomes the far right lane of the lower level entrance (without merging).
This should change to avoid the forced merge of the HOV lane. The left three lanes (HOV + 2 regular lanes) should lead to the upper level. Period. The right lane, the lane from Hylan, and the lane from Lily Pond can form the three lanes of the lower level. Narrows Road entrance will continue to merge as it currently does.
Basically, the only change I am proposing is to force the fourth lane onto the lower level, instead of allowing it a choice between upper and lower levels. And now there will be room for the HOV lane to have its own lane on the bridge and not be forced to merge in.
* I understand that the DOT plans to eventually extend the HOV lane onto the bridge to make a continuous HOV lane from SIE to Bridge to Gowanus leading to the Battery Tunnel. This would require reconfiguirng the upper level so that the left lane does not force an exit onto the Belt Pkwy. I'm suggesting that my recommeded changes can be made without new concrete (just new painting) even without treatment for the bridge.
The HOV lane has already been extended.
http://www.silive.com/news/2017/06/verrazanos_upper_level_hov_lan.html
If they make the HOV lane continuous over the bridge, how will drivers exit from the upper level to the Belt Pkwy. without crossing the HOV lane? Or is the plan to have all Belt. Pkwy. traffic use the lower level?
Quote from: SignBridge on July 03, 2017, 08:56:07 PM
If they make the HOV lane continuous over the bridge, how will drivers exit from the upper level to the Belt Pkwy. without crossing the HOV lane? Or is the plan to have all Belt. Pkwy. traffic use the lower level?
A new ramp has been built which snakes the HOV lane through the interchange. You can see part of it on satellite view, it's the ramp with the green surface next to the westbound roadway. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6124539,-74.0291374,292m/data=!3m1!1e3)
The Belt Parkway will be a left exit from the main lanes, and a right exit from the HOV lane.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 03, 2017, 08:56:07 PM
If they make the HOV lane continuous over the bridge, how will drivers exit from the upper level to the Belt Pkwy. without crossing the HOV lane? Or is the plan to have all Belt. Pkwy. traffic use the lower level?
HOV lane is left of the Belt lane. It goes down the median.
Okay I get it now. I just assumed that the existing left lane was the HOV lane. But looking at it from overhead on Google Earth, I see that a separate ramp is now there for the HOV lane to the left of the Belt Pkwy exit. Thanks.
idn't they take away a general purpose lane for the HOV lane on the BQE or Gowanus?
Any update on the HRD realignment in Harlem near 125th street exit?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 04, 2017, 08:59:03 PM
idn't they take away a general purpose lane for the HOV lane on the BQE or Gowanus?
Any update on the HRD realignment in Harlem near 125th street exit?
They didn't. There's been a lot of reconstruction to squeeze the HOV lane between 3 lanes each way.
Man I haven't driven in the city now for 2 months (engine repair) but I have to ask because it just looks bad.. the Brooklyn Bridge when do they repave? I assume the exposed deck is not a issue?
Also what's the deal for the Whitestone and Ezpass last time I drove out that way was back in Feb :( and I saw they tore down the cash booths
The Whitestone is slated to be converted to all electronic tolling in October.
Thank you
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 10:17:15 PM
The Whitestone is slated to be converted to all electronic tolling in October.
Let's see; Sign up for E-Z Pass now and get no discount because I haven't been a New York State resident in 18 years, or take the toll-by-plate option. Which to choose?
In the meantime I was checking out the Bronx River Parkway and Harlem Line, and I just saw the condition of the Bronx River Parkway bridge
over the Harlem Line at Woodlawn.
http://uglybridges.com/1382244
YIKES! If I were still there, I'd tell NYSDOT Region 11 to build that new bridge now and transport it by helicopter to the site of the current bridge or something like that. Either way, they can't let that thing fall apart.
And all I wanted to do was see if the big spaces currently being used for bike lanes on the southbound on ramp were the original northbound lane right-of-way.
http://maps.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/?z=8&p=1022184,265055&c=GIS1951&s=i:EAST+233+STREET,BRONX+RIVER+PARKWAY,BRONX
It is.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 08, 2017, 08:14:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 10:17:15 PM
The Whitestone is slated to be converted to all electronic tolling in October.
Let's see; Sign up for E-Z Pass now and get no discount because I haven't been a New York State resident in 18 years, or take the toll-by-plate option. Which to choose?
You can get a NY tag as a non-resident, though if you do it online they'll send you a Port Authority one (with the fee). You can get a fee-free one from the MTA or Thruway by taking a roadtrip and buying it at one of the retailers that sell them on-the-go.
https://www.e-zpassny.com/en/onthego/locations.shtml
What is it with NYC making 3DI shields bubble shields? Can they not make them regular?! Did they get a hold of a template or something? I mean as they're designing the signs they must look at it and say something is off.
I've seen more bubble shields driving around recently.
It was NYSDOT spec for a while, at least until NY adopted the federal MUTCD. Maybe NYCDOT never gave them up?
I noticed theres a lot of new state name interstate shields in the city
Has anyone driven over the Varrazano Bridge since the open road tolling began?
There were two button copy signs after the toll plaza for Bay St & Lily Pond Ave. I wonder if those will remain?
Quote from: mariethefoxy on July 11, 2017, 01:42:11 AM
I noticed theres a lot of new state name interstate shields in the city
Are they on the expressways or just on the city streets? I haven't gone over into the city since February
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 12, 2017, 06:49:24 PM
Has anyone driven over the Varrazano Bridge since the open road tolling began?
There were two button copy signs after the toll plaza for Bay St & Lily Pond Ave. I wonder if those will remain?
Oh hell no.
Quote from: plain on July 12, 2017, 07:50:28 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on July 11, 2017, 01:42:11 AM
I noticed theres a lot of new state name interstate shields in the city
Are they on the expressways or just on the city streets? I haven't gone over into the city since February
The one I remember seeing was on Westchester Avenue in The Bronx by the southbound onramp to the Hutch. It looked very new. I haven't seen a new one on an expressway mainline though I could have sworn I saw a state name 495 shield on 495 West just past Exit 31, but next time I went there it was gone.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 12, 2017, 06:49:24 PM
Has anyone driven over the Varrazano Bridge since the open road tolling began?
There were two button copy signs after the toll plaza for Bay St & Lily Pond Ave. I wonder if those will remain?
Still there, for now. Drove over the bridge tonight. I'm sure they'll be replaced as they finish up the work demolishing the old toll plaza.
Speaking of the new SIE, has anyone noticed that the poles for the new cantilever BGS's are absolutely huge? Is this a new NYSDOT standard?
Are there any colored street signs left anywhere?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 15, 2017, 06:55:18 PM
Are there any colored street signs left anywhere?
If there are, DON'T POST WHERE IN PUBLIC. Every time Kevin Walsh posted about an old sign, lamp, signal, etc. on Forgotten NY, NYCDOT took it down within a month.
There are a couple still in the Bronx, I believe. And at least one in Queens.
To cl94's point, of the four places I can think of where one may still exist in the wild, two of them are on streets NYCDOT does not maintain.
I also noticed all the NB I-495 button copy signs for Exit 8 have been replaced on the FDR with bubble shields. I think one lone SB button copy for Exit 8 still stands.
Quote from: Alps on July 16, 2017, 01:33:40 AM
There are a couple still in the Bronx, I believe. And at least one in Queens.
Anyone still have pictures of those?
Some random pics I took:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4387/36642556241_6b1b44ec1a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XPYFn4)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4326/36142850136_e1718f6f26_c.jpg)
[url=https://flic.kr/p/WSBim3]
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4315/36015977542_b1e1e2b27e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/X4Py9y)
N.Y. Times: Open-Road Tolls Could Pave the Way for Manhattan Congestion Pricing (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/nyregion/new-york-open-road-tolls-congestion-pricing.html)
QuoteAs debate about creating a toll system to limit traffic in the most congested parts of Manhattan heats up, a transformation in technology could make congestion pricing a far more realistic notion than when it was last proposed a decade ago.
QuoteBy the end of the year, nine crossings around the city will employ an open-road, cashless collection system that does away with tollbooths, toll lanes and toll collectors. Instead, sensors and cameras installed both above the road and in the pavement itself will capture cars and trucks as they zip by at full speed — automatically charging the 90 percent of drivers with E-ZPass transponders, and billing the other 10 percent by mail.
QuoteA decade ago, when the Bloomberg administration first proposed congestion pricing, such tolling technology was in its infancy and not widely used. Now, it is in place in some 35 jurisdictions, and its deployment in New York is the most ambitious use of the technology in a complicated urban setting.
QuoteGov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who had not shown any enthusiasm for congestion pricing, has embraced the idea of late as a way to raise billions of dollars for the city's ailing subway system. But Mayor Bill de Blasio has been steadfast in his opposition, and has instead pushed a plan to raise transportation funds by increasing taxes on wealthy New Yorkers.
I'd take congestion pricing in Manhattan over the speed cameras Blas keeps advocating. Congestion pricing could do a ton of good, especially if freight rates are high enough to encourage more off-hours delivery. A shocking number of NYC's speed cameras are in locations illegal under NY law, anyway.
Quote from: cl94 on August 26, 2017, 10:52:32 PM
I'd take congestion pricing in Manhattan over the speed cameras Blas keeps advocating. Congestion pricing could do a ton of good, especially if freight rates are high enough to encourage more off-hours delivery. A shocking number of NYC's speed cameras are in locations illegal under NY law, anyway.
Congestion pricing is an attempt to move traffic by setting a price on it.
Automated traffic enforcement in most places is about raising revenue, ideally from out-of-town drivers who do not know where there is automated enforcement equipment installed.
Well, the congestion pricing plan here is about raising revenue too, for the MTA.
Quote from: cl94 on August 26, 2017, 10:52:32 PM
I'd take congestion pricing in Manhattan over the speed cameras Blas keeps advocating. Congestion pricing could do a ton of good, especially if freight rates are high enough to encourage more off-hours delivery. A shocking number of NYC's speed cameras are in locations illegal under NY law, anyway.
The law authorizing the speed cameras defines a school zone as anything within X amount of feet of a school (any school). X is set high enough to cover something like 75-80% of the city. NYC wants X raised to cover 100% of the city and the cap on the number of cameras allowed to be eliminated.
As of this morning there is a new BGS on the southbound FDR just before exit 4, the font looks like a hybrid of Highway Gothic and Clearview. It is really ugly, I'll try to get a pic from the bus tomorrow
Does anyone know how they're going to reconfigure I-278 West after the VNB in place of the toll booths? The road is very wide there with all the ramps off the expressway/bridge.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 02, 2017, 03:15:16 PM
Does anyone know how they're going to reconfigure I-278 West after the VNB in place of the toll booths? The road is very wide there with all the ramps off the expressway/bridge.
I doubt they'll make any substantial changes in the relatively-near future other than adding a bridge so upper level traffic can exit (like they did with the EB side when those toll booths finally came down a few years ago). The wide ROW will give them room for that. They might add an accident investigation area in there.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 02, 2017, 03:15:16 PM
Does anyone know how they're going to reconfigure I-278 West after the VNB in place of the toll booths? The road is very wide there with all the ramps off the expressway/bridge.
Basically, there are two overhead electronic toll gantries. Last time I was through there back in August, there were still some of the concrete barriers from each toll lane, but they're ridding themselves of a lot of the roadway overall.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 02, 2017, 03:15:16 PM
Does anyone know how they're going to reconfigure I-278 West after the VNB in place of the toll booths? The road is very wide there with all the ramps off the expressway/bridge.
I know exactly how, but if it hasn't been released, I can't tell you. Just keep in mind that there is an Upper and a Lower, so if there's no toll booth, they don't necessarily need to come together so quickly.
Quote from: Alps on October 02, 2017, 06:38:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 02, 2017, 03:15:16 PM
Does anyone know how they're going to reconfigure I-278 West after the VNB in place of the toll booths? The road is very wide there with all the ramps off the expressway/bridge.
I know exactly how, but if it hasn't been released, I can't tell you. Just keep in mind that there is an Upper and a Lower, so if there's no toll booth, they don't necessarily need to come together so quickly.
If it's a NYSDOT project, it hasn't been released. Assuming things haven't changed since I last spoke with NYCDOT (and I'm not bound to secrecy), it'll be somewhat similar to the south side so trucks can safely and legally get to the exits.
Quote from: Alps on October 02, 2017, 06:38:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 02, 2017, 03:15:16 PM
Does anyone know how they're going to reconfigure I-278 West after the VNB in place of the toll booths? The road is very wide there with all the ramps off the expressway/bridge.
I know exactly how, but if it hasn't been released, I can't tell you. Just keep in mind that there is an Upper and a Lower, so if there's no toll booth, they don't necessarily need to come together so quickly.
Good to know thanks! are the remaining button copy WB signs endangered? I haven't seen any work near the gantries.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 02, 2017, 07:58:41 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 02, 2017, 06:38:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 02, 2017, 03:15:16 PM
Does anyone know how they're going to reconfigure I-278 West after the VNB in place of the toll booths? The road is very wide there with all the ramps off the expressway/bridge.
I know exactly how, but if it hasn't been released, I can't tell you. Just keep in mind that there is an Upper and a Lower, so if there's no toll booth, they don't necessarily need to come together so quickly.
Good to know thanks! are the remaining button copy WB signs endangered? I haven't seen any work near the gantries.
That has been made public and yes. R11 is doing a major citywide sign replacement. Any remaining button copy is scheduled to be removed by 2020 or so.
Quote from: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 02, 2017, 07:58:41 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 02, 2017, 06:38:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 02, 2017, 03:15:16 PM
Does anyone know how they're going to reconfigure I-278 West after the VNB in place of the toll booths? The road is very wide there with all the ramps off the expressway/bridge.
I know exactly how, but if it hasn't been released, I can't tell you. Just keep in mind that there is an Upper and a Lower, so if there's no toll booth, they don't necessarily need to come together so quickly.
Good to know thanks! are the remaining button copy WB signs endangered? I haven't seen any work near the gantries.
That has been made public and yes. R11 is doing a major citywide sign replacement. Any remaining button copy is scheduled to be removed by 2020 or so.
I guess cherish these while you can
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4498/37468652522_2dfc525198_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Z5YD1o)
Quote
That has been made public and yes. R11 is doing a major citywide sign replacement. Any remaining button copy is scheduled to be removed by 2020 or so.
That means the FDR as well or is that a NYC DOT maintained road?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4457/36829279163_149a8cfc54_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Y7tFzM)
Anybody know what was originally on the sign under the Icahn Stadium overlay?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 04, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4457/36829279163_149a8cfc54_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Y7tFzM)
Anybody know what was originally on the sign under the Icahn Stadium overlay?
"Icahn Stadium was built on the footprint of the old Municipal Stadium.'
Quote from: Alps on October 04, 2017, 06:39:12 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 04, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4457/36829279163_149a8cfc54_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Y7tFzM)
Anybody know what was originally on the sign under the Icahn Stadium overlay?
"Icahn Stadium was built on the footprint of the old Municipal Stadium.'
Interesting....also the Bruckner Right Lanes and Deegan etc Left Lanes signs are still up.....for now. (Sigh) Couldn't get a pic.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 04, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4457/36829279163_149a8cfc54_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Y7tFzM)
Anybody know what was originally on the sign under the Icahn Stadium overlay?
Downing Stadium :)
Can report on the new configuration at the Throgs Neck: the right lane coming from the Cross Bronx now ends prior to the merge. The Harding Ave exit has a more pronounced decel lane since it begins from the hatched out old lane.
Traffic from 695 already had a lane drop before the merge. The left lane coming from it now ends after the merge.
As of Monday night only part of the toll plaza had been removed and traffic was still passing through three of the old lanes (at slow speed, creating some congestion).
Will certainly be interesting to see how well this operates when done. Previously, the toll plaza effectively metered traffic entering the bridge. I suspect there will still be congestion, except now it will be sluggish across the bridge and possibly jammed up entering the Cross Island instead of held back behind the toll plaza.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 04, 2017, 08:58:50 PM
Can report on the new configuration at the Throgs Neck: the right lane coming from the Cross Bronx now ends prior to the merge. The Harding Ave exit has a more pronounced decel lane since it begins from the hatched out old lane.
Traffic from 695 already had a lane drop before the merge. The left lane coming from it now ends after the merge.
As of Monday night only part of the toll plaza had been removed and traffic was still passing through three of the old lanes (at slow speed, creating some congestion).
Will certainly be interesting to see how well this operates when done. Previously, the toll plaza effectively metered traffic entering the bridge. I suspect there will still be congestion, except now it will be sluggish across the bridge and possibly jammed up entering the Cross Island instead of held back behind the toll plaza.
I will be interested as well. I had worked on an alternative design that preserved merging lane parity and then squeezed the center lanes together. The theory predicted that what's now out there resulted in traffic too dense for the weave from I-695 to the exit before the bridge, and subsequent breakdown in flow during peak hours. Reality and theory often don't align, though.
What also should happen once work is finished is that the onramp from Harding Ave should be open 24/7, since the reason for closing it rush hours and weekends in the first place (prevent people from driving through the neighborhood to jump the queue at the toll plaza) will no longer exist.
I'm not holding my breath for this, though.
Quote from: route17fan on October 04, 2017, 07:25:22 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 04, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4457/36829279163_149a8cfc54_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Y7tFzM)
Anybody know what was originally on the sign under the Icahn Stadium overlay?
Downing Stadium :)
Home in 1974 to the World Football League's NY Stars. By the end of the season they'd become the Charlotte Hornets.
ixnay
Another question; What's with the Steinway Street bridges and dead end street over the Grand Central Parkway?
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 06, 2017, 10:20:30 PM
Another question; What's with the Steinway Street bridges and dead end street over the Grand Central Parkway?
I think this was asked years ago and it wasn't a street at all, but parking for some building in the median that for some reason wasn't removed. Possibly a power plant or the like.
Yeah, note these little vents visible on street view (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7691668,-73.9104975,3a,56.1y,142.62h,73.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sR5OpWwZcFVJvGWVnpliEOg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DR5OpWwZcFVJvGWVnpliEOg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D233.58162%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656). And the cable going in on the left. And all of the "WSNY" manhole covers.
WSNY is "Water Supply of New York", so from that we can infer that the area under there serves some purpose related to such.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 07, 2017, 06:02:45 PM
Yeah, note these little vents visible on street view (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7691668,-73.9104975,3a,56.1y,142.62h,73.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sR5OpWwZcFVJvGWVnpliEOg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DR5OpWwZcFVJvGWVnpliEOg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D233.58162%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656). And the cable going in on the left. And all of the "WSNY" manhole covers.
WSNY is "Water Supply of New York", so from that we can infer that the area under there serves some purpose related to such.
Water supply is the most likely reason. 1954 aerial shows nothing other than the jut-out and the thing didn't open until 1936. I'll try to remember to ask my grandfather if there was anything else there the next time I talk to him (he grew up a couple blocks away on 42nd Street)
I thought it might've been a proposed ramp, or an old ramp or something like that. Sort of a two-lane road that becomes a left exit going towards the Triborough Bridge and a left entrance going the other way.
Man by the time I start driving back to the city these signs are going to look so different lol
D263552 is a NYSDOT (mostly overhead) signing contract. Under supplemental information and sign face layouts is a new design for the Grand Central Parkway shield. It's worth checking out. Overheads include mainly the Bronx River Parkway, and one for Van Dam St on the LIE, a couple for I-278, among others.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263552
Quote from: route17fan on November 02, 2017, 05:47:18 AM
D263552 is a NYSDOT (mostly overhead) signing contract. Under supplemental information and sign face layouts is a new design for the Grand Central Parkway shield. It's worth checking out. Overheads include mainly the Bronx River Parkway, and one for Van Dam St on the LIE, a couple for I-278, among others.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263552
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm having a tough time opening anything on that page. Can you (or anyone else) post an image?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4503/38110071482_9fabd2e018_o.png) (https://flic.kr/p/214E5vY)
Quote from: hubcity on November 03, 2017, 11:47:43 AM
Quote from: route17fan on November 02, 2017, 05:47:18 AM
D263552 is a NYSDOT (mostly overhead) signing contract. Under supplemental information and sign face layouts is a new design for the Grand Central Parkway shield. It's worth checking out. Overheads include mainly the Bronx River Parkway, and one for Van Dam St on the LIE, a couple for I-278, among others.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263552
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm having a tough time opening anything on that page. Can you (or anyone else) post an image?
(https://i.imgur.com/36RH8NL.png)
Looks like a sharp shield. I like how it incorporates the Unisphere. Maybe they'll start doing this style shields for other parkways. An update for the Belt Pkwy in this style with the lighthouse would be nice too.
Also of interest from that contract, they are looking to move a lot of signs off structures and onto ground mounts. Cost savings for not having to maintain the overhead structures, I guess?
A couple years ago, R11 announced that they're moving to this shield with a unique symbol for each of the parkways inside city limits. The Belt won't get a lighthouse (besides those signs that have been up for years) because Henry Hudson has a lighthouse.
The I-895 sign on the BRP is recent and it's already being replaced.
Quote from: cl94 on November 03, 2017, 12:34:05 PM
A couple years ago, R11 announced that they're moving to this shield with a unique symbol for each of the parkways inside city limits. The Belt won't get a lighthouse (besides those signs that have been up for years) because Henry Hudson has a lighthouse.
Did they put out what each parkway will have for a symbol?
Quote from: storm2k on November 05, 2017, 11:06:02 PM
Did they put out what each parkway will have for a symbol?
No, all they've said publicly is that it will be different for each. I do know that when the Henry Hudson shields first showed up a few years ago, we were told that more designs for other parkways would be coming but they were still working on making sure there weren't any intellectual property issues with any of the images they were looking to use. No word on whether that process has been completed or not.
I would figure at this point that the debut of other designs is simply waiting for the parkway in question to have a sign project. They're not going to go around removing perfectly good signs to replace them with these, the new designs will show up only in places where an old shield was due for replacement.
N.Y. Times: New York's Tilt Toward Congestion Pricing Was Years in the Making (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/nyregion/congestion-pricing-new-york.html)
For decades, the plan to reduce traffic by charging drivers in crowded zones in Manhattan has been revived again and again.QuoteIt is the Lazarus of congestion plans: reduce traffic in New York City by charging drivers in crowded areas at peak traffic times.
QuoteFor decades, urban planners, economists, city officials and business leaders have revived again and again some version of a toll system both to manage the city's worsening traffic and provide more revenue for public transit. Over and over it was batted down, only to be resurrected, most recently in August when Governor Andrew M. Cuomo declared that "congestion pricing is an idea whose time has come."
QuoteNow a state task force, called Fix NYC, has been assembled with the goal of developing another congestion pricing plan. It has been nine years since the last major effort by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg died in Albany after state legislative leaders refused to bring it to a vote. Mr. Cuomo, after once expressing doubt about congestion pricing's chances, is expected to unveil a plan early next year and make it a centerpiece of his legislative agenda.
Honestly, congestion pricing is a necessity. There's no reason for most people to be driving into Manhattan. But unlike many, I believe that trucks should be charged less than cars. That's probably the easiest way to solve the delivery issues in the City if retailers are unwilling to go off-hours.
If there were no reason to drive into Manhattan, then people wouldn't do it.
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2017, 01:51:30 PM
If there were no reason to drive into Manhattan, then people wouldn't do it.
Exactly. When I want to go to Long Island, I have to drive through Manhattan to do it (realistically).
Many people drive into Manhattan because they are not familiar with or confident in mass-transit. Several times I have met fellow Long Islanders in Midtown-Manhattan for lunch and I have taken the train and subway while they drove in, got caught in traffic jams and parked in an expensive garage. Oh well......
Quote from: cl94 on November 29, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
Honestly, congestion pricing is a necessity. There's no reason for most people to be driving into Manhattan.
There's not no reason; I drive into Manhattan occasionally. Usually I prefer the train, but sometimes that means an eight-hour day when I only have three hours of actual work to do. Driving in can significantly shorten those lead times predicated by the train timetable, and I can often find parking for about what it would cost to buy the train ticket.
More to the point, though, is that if there were no reason to drive into Manhattan, then congestion pricing wouldn't be a necessity–in fact, it would be pointless because nobody would pay it!
Is there a reason for people to drive into central London, which has congestion pricing?
ixnay
Quote from: Alps on November 29, 2017, 06:45:25 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2017, 01:51:30 PM
If there were no reason to drive into Manhattan, then people wouldn't do it.
Exactly. When I want to go to Long Island, I have to drive through Manhattan to do it (realistically).
Ideally, the best solution to this would be to either build the Mid-Manhattan Expressway or have a tunnel under Manhattan connecting I-495 and NJ 495. Absent that, they might be able to address this issue by refunding part of the toll for motorists who exit within a short time (perhaps half an hour) of entering so that through traffic doesn't get penalized by congestion pricing. In fact, through traffic might benefit because you wouldn't have to share the road with all the people driving into Manhattan who could be taking the train.
Quote from: dgolub on November 30, 2017, 08:56:33 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 29, 2017, 06:45:25 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2017, 01:51:30 PM
If there were no reason to drive into Manhattan, then people wouldn't do it.
Exactly. When I want to go to Long Island, I have to drive through Manhattan to do it (realistically).
Ideally, the best solution to this would be to either build the Mid-Manhattan Expressway or have a tunnel under Manhattan connecting I-495 and NJ 495. Absent that, they might be able to address this issue by refunding part of the toll for motorists who exit within a short time (perhaps half an hour) of entering so that through traffic doesn't get penalized by congestion pricing. In fact, through traffic might benefit because you wouldn't have to share the road with all the people driving into Manhattan who could be taking the train.
No, the idea is to shunt them around midtown through other means. The problem is that most of those other means will likely see heavier traffic and are already saturated as is.
Quote from: dgolub on November 30, 2017, 08:56:33 AM
In fact, through traffic might benefit because you wouldn't have to share the road with all the people driving into Manhattan who could be taking the train.
I wonder what proportion of Manhattan traffic actually falls into this category, though? It's not as if the trains are a secret–an awful lot of "people who could be taking the train" are, in fact, taking the train. Do we have any numbers on this? Presumably any congestion pricing initiative would have studied this very question.
Of course, the same anti-pricing arguments were used in Stockholm when they first introduced congestion pricing. Support was around 35% just before implementation. It had majority support almost immediately and increased to 70% by 2014. Plenty of papers backing that up and this is an area I do research in.
The reduction in traffic doesn't have to be large for there to be major savings. Yes, research into this has been done but, as far as New York, I do not have actual numbers. The reality of the matter is that relatively few people
need to drive to a destination in Manhattan unless they're making a delivery. And the congestion charge is a drop in the bucket relative to what parking in Manhattan actually costs.
As far as "but what if someone needs to go through Manhattan": proposals generally place Upper Manhattan outside of the cordon area and some reduce the charge for vehicles just passing from one of the tunnels to Long Island. Tolls outside the cordon area would be reduced.
Quote from: storm2k on November 30, 2017, 11:42:48 AM
No, the idea is to shunt them around midtown through other means. The problem is that most of those other means will likely see heavier traffic and are already saturated as is.
False, the idea is to get them to use public transit.
Quote from: dgolub on November 30, 2017, 08:56:33 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 29, 2017, 06:45:25 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2017, 01:51:30 PM
If there were no reason to drive into Manhattan, then people wouldn't do it.
Exactly. When I want to go to Long Island, I have to drive through Manhattan to do it (realistically).
Ideally, the best solution to this would be to either build the Mid-Manhattan Expressway or have a tunnel under Manhattan connecting I-495 and NJ 495. Absent that, they might be able to address this issue by refunding part of the toll for motorists who exit within a short time (perhaps half an hour) of entering so that through traffic doesn't get penalized by congestion pricing. In fact, through traffic might benefit because you wouldn't have to share the road with all the people driving into Manhattan who could be taking the train.
I could see Uber drivers darting in and out (creating extra traffic) to avoid the charges if that happened.
Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2017, 12:21:56 PM
Of course, the same anti-pricing arguments were used in Stockholm when they first introduced congestion pricing. Support was around 35% just before implementation. It had majority support almost immediately and increased to 70% by 2014. Plenty of papers backing that up and this is an area I do research in.
Of course, the same anti-pricing arguments were used in Stockholm when they first introduced a congestion tax.FTFY.
Swedish law does not allow congestion pricing or tolling. But it
does allow their version of the Internal Revenue Service (
Skatteverket) to impose a congestion
tax.
Otherwise, your statement is absolutely correct.
What you may not know is that the revenue collected is being used to build a long western bypass highway for route E4, called
Förbifart Stockholm (Stockholm Bypass), which will be about 21 kilometers (13 miles) in length. Of the 21 kilometers, about 18 kilometers (about 11.1 miles) will be in tunnel. This is similar in scale to what would be needed to get from the New Jersey Turnpike to Queens or Brooklyn in tunnel. More information can be found in English on the Swedish National Transportation Administration's Web site here (https://www.trafikverket.se/en/startpage/projects/Road-construction-projects/the-stockholm-bypass/) (some of the content seems a little dated, as construction is now well under way).
Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2017, 12:21:56 PM
The reduction in traffic doesn't have to be large for there to be major savings. Yes, research into this has been done but, as far as New York, I do not have actual numbers. The reality of the matter is that relatively few people need to drive to a destination in Manhattan unless they're making a delivery. And the congestion charge is a drop in the bucket relative to what parking in Manhattan actually costs.
Agree about reduction in traffic.
But on the other hand, Steve has a valid point - is it fair to ask drivers going from points in North Jersey to places in Queens or Brooklyn (or east to Nassau or Suffolk Counties) to pay a congestion toll to cross the island of Manhattan? That's not a trip that is especially easy or convenient by transit, as transit is very much oriented to Manhattan, not for "through" movements across the island.
Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2017, 12:21:56 PM
As far as "but what if someone needs to go through Manhattan": proposals generally place Upper Manhattan outside of the cordon area and some reduce the charge for vehicles just passing from one of the tunnels to Long Island. Tolls outside the cordon area would be reduced.
The correct (but expensive) way is not to divert them (what are the two viable routes - I-95 via the GWB, Trans-Manhattan Expressway and (in some cases) the Cross-Bronx Expressway - or the I-278 corridor via Goethals, V-Z, Gowanus and so on (very congested)), but to revive the proposal by Robert Moses for Lower Manhattan Expressway (Lomex) as a set of bored tunnels, possibly with no access to Manhattan except for vent shafts. That allows most traffic (presumably not HAZMATs) wanting to make the trip to do so without using the crowded streets of Manhattan.
Forcing people onto public transit by increasing the cost of vehicular traffic has never set right with me. Seems very myopic to living as a single. Families need to run around picking things and other people up. Public transit can be a horrible replacement.
I know NYC has grocery delivery and whatnot in more places than most, but the restriction on freedom through congestion pricing is intolerable to me.
Quote from: Rothman on November 30, 2017, 03:20:35 PM
Forcing people onto public transit by increasing the cost of vehicular traffic has never set right with me. Seems very myopic to living as a single. Families need to run around picking things and other people up. Public transit can be a horrible replacement.
Though IMO pricing is better than the current "method," which to allow road traffic congestion to be severe for many hours each day.
Quote from: Rothman on November 30, 2017, 03:20:35 PM
I know NYC has grocery delivery and whatnot in more places than most, but the restriction on freedom through congestion pricing is intolerable to me.
Given the alternative (which is leaving things as they are), I think pricing is a better way to go. We would not have had MD-200 (of which I am a frequent user) without the road being priced.
There is no perfect solution here. But pricing certainly wins the cost-benefit analysis with minimal impacts to residents/businesses along major highway corridors. This might also pump some much-needed funding into commuter rail and subway improvements (like actually building 2 new tunnels under both the Hudson and East Rivers for Amtrak/NJ Transit and new signals on busy subway lines that allow for more trains).
I think we can all agree that the current situation cannot be sustained and expanding highway capacity is unrealistic for many reasons (most importantly lack of ROW). Expand park-and-rides at commuter rail stations, build a few on the subway, replace/expand the damn North River Tunnels so NJ Transit can send more trains into Penn, and finish East Side Access so LIRR can divert half their trains to Grand Central and greatly increase capacity there. Vehicle capacity in Manhattan is virtually impossible to increase at this point and, thanks to online shopping, UPS/FedEx are sending in more trucks than ever.
It is also worth mentioning that 76.6% of Manhattan households lack a vehicle (source (http://blog.tstc.org/2017/04/21/car-free-new-york-city/)). Nobody in the outer boroughs does shopping that requires a car in Manhattan.
If I were setting prices, I'd place a relatively low cost on cars/trucks and a VERY high per-hour cost on tour buses. IMO, those stupid things are the biggest problem with driving in Manhattan. Also place a surcharge on intra-Manhattan taxi trips (this could also encourage cab drivers to start servicing the outer boroughs), as virtually every trip you could take in Manhattan is no slower on transit.
I believe congestion pricing in New York is long overdue. However, I would implement time-of-day congestion pricing. Charging one flat pricing fee wouldn't be enough. And all revenues from the congestion pricing plan would go to maintaining the roads that are priced (and reconstructing them when the time comes).
Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2017, 04:14:02 PM
If I were setting prices, I'd place a relatively low cost on cars/trucks and a VERY high per-hour cost on tour buses. IMO, those stupid things are the biggest problem with driving in Manhattan. Also place a surcharge on intra-Manhattan taxi trips (this could also encourage cab drivers to start servicing the outer boroughs), as virtually every trip you could take in Manhattan is no slower on transit.
Don't forget about Uber/Lyft, which has been a factor in congestion in recent years. And could render your attempt to have intra-Manhattan trips take transit irrelevant.
Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2017, 12:21:56 PM
Of course, the same anti-pricing arguments were used in Stockholm when they first introduced congestion pricing. Support was around 35% just before implementation. It had majority support almost immediately and increased to 70% by 2014. Plenty of papers backing that up and this is an area I do research in.
Apologies if you thought I was making an argument against (or for) congestion pricing–I was literally just wondering what percentage of "people driving into Manhattan...could be taking the train." That phrase struck me as something difficult to quantify, yet surely it must've been looked at if it's an argument in favor of the plan.
Even without knowing the actual numbers, then, how would one go about establishing that number? How would you decide what constitutes "could have taken the train", and how would you pick out which drivers fit that category and which actually "need" to drive?
Quote from: empirestate on November 30, 2017, 09:00:09 PMApologies if you thought I was making an argument against (or for) congestion pricing–I was literally just wondering what percentage of "people driving into Manhattan...could be taking the train." That phrase struck me as something difficult to quantify, yet surely it must've been looked at if it's an argument in favor of the plan.
Even without knowing the actual numbers, then, how would one go about establishing that number? How would you decide what constitutes "could have taken the train", and how would you pick out which drivers fit that category and which actually "need" to drive?
One method of coming up with numbers is to do a household survey. It is inevitable that many assumptions would have to be made about the characteristics of trips that could be diverted to transit, but these qualifications would almost inevitably be stripped off when quoting the headline numbers in advocacy contexts.
I have my own reservations about congestion pricing, but Manhattan is no place to try to structure a day without feeling like a prisoner of congestion.
I think congestion pricing would be very successful at reducing traffic overall and raising needed funds to pay for local roads and transit projects (both capital intensive projects like new tunnels and more mundane but useful projects like express buses to better serve the outer boroughs). Since it is targeting crossing 60th street or crossing the East River, many people who make those trips could a) take a commuter train or a subway instead, b) take the trip at off-peak times, or c) bypass Manhattan altogether.
Let's look at some specific issues:
Right now, as most people familiar with the area know, the northbound Gowanus is bumper to bumper. The left two lanes lead to the toll [Hugh Carey] Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (BBT) (and traffic moves pretty well) and the right lanes towards the BQE are at a standstill. Yet, a significant amount of the traffic on the BQE is actually headed toward the free Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, or Williamsburg Bridge crossings. If the cost to cross into Manhattan at the BBT is the same as the bridges, then a lot of the traffic on the Gowanus will take the BBT instead of the bridges and relieve traffic on the BQE as well as the bridges.
Further, if the toll on the bridges and tunnels is equalized, we will see fewer people divert to take the free crossing and just take the most direct crossing. This impacts a lot of surface street traffic, especially in Brooklyn and Queens. The toll tunnels are largely connected to the expressway system and the bridges are largely connected to surface streets. In Queens, especially, there is a significant amount of traffic that leaves the LIE to take the free Queensboro Bridge, even though a trip on the QMT is shorter. If the toll is equalized, this traffic stays on the expressway.
For those who would have taken the free bridges and are now going to take a lower toll and bypass the CBD, the proposed scheme is also helpful. All non-CBD crossings will now have a lower toll than before.* So if you are going from Secaucus-Queens or Jersey City-Brooklyn you can drive through Manhattan local streets and pay a high toll or bypass (GWB/Triboro or via Staten Island) at a reduced rate. For those taking the direct routing, while they will pay more, they will also have the benefit of significantly less congestion through Manhattan.
* From what I understand, the ratio of tolls proposed will be locked in by legislation. So if the new toll on the Triboro Bridge is $3 and the new toll on the Queensboro Bridge is $5, that 3 to 5 ratio will continue even as the toll increases over time.
Pfft. NYCDOT can't spend the FHWA funds it gets in any sort of reasonable amount of time. More money? Mo' problems!
(personal opinion expressed)
Quote from: mrsman on December 03, 2017, 08:08:11 PM
I think congestion pricing would be very successful at reducing traffic overall and raising needed funds to pay for local roads and transit projects (both capital intensive projects like new tunnels and more mundane but useful projects like express buses to better serve the outer boroughs). Since it is targeting crossing 60th street or crossing the East River, many people who make those trips could a) take a commuter train or a subway instead, b) take the trip at off-peak times, or c) bypass Manhattan altogether.
Let's look at some specific issues:
Right now, as most people familiar with the area know, the northbound Gowanus is bumper to bumper. The left two lanes lead to the toll [Hugh Carey] Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (BBT) (and traffic moves pretty well) and the right lanes towards the BQE are at a standstill. Yet, a significant amount of the traffic on the BQE is actually headed toward the free Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, or Williamsburg Bridge crossings. If the cost to cross into Manhattan at the BBT is the same as the bridges, then a lot of the traffic on the Gowanus will take the BBT instead of the bridges and relieve traffic on the BQE as well as the bridges.
Further, if the toll on the bridges and tunnels is equalized, we will see fewer people divert to take the free crossing and just take the most direct crossing. This impacts a lot of surface street traffic, especially in Brooklyn and Queens. The toll tunnels are largely connected to the expressway system and the bridges are largely connected to surface streets. In Queens, especially, there is a significant amount of traffic that leaves the LIE to take the free Queensboro Bridge, even though a trip on the QMT is shorter. If the toll is equalized, this traffic stays on the expressway.
For those who would have taken the free bridges and are now going to take a lower toll and bypass the CBD, the proposed scheme is also helpful. All non-CBD crossings will now have a lower toll than before.* So if you are going from Secaucus-Queens or Jersey City-Brooklyn you can drive through Manhattan local streets and pay a high toll or bypass (GWB/Triboro or via Staten Island) at a reduced rate. For those taking the direct routing, while they will pay more, they will also have the benefit of significantly less congestion through Manhattan.
* From what I understand, the ratio of tolls proposed will be locked in by legislation. So if the new toll on the Triboro Bridge is $3 and the new toll on the Queensboro Bridge is $5, that 3 to 5 ratio will continue even as the toll increases over time.
You're equating congestion pricing with bridge tolls. Two separate issues. If NY "sells" its free bridges to the MTA for tolling, that is not a congestion charge. It seems that it has a decent chance of actually happening now that MTA has gone all-electronic, at least as far north as the Queensboro.
Quote from: Alps on December 03, 2017, 11:23:18 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 03, 2017, 08:08:11 PM
I think congestion pricing would be very successful at reducing traffic overall and raising needed funds to pay for local roads and transit projects (both capital intensive projects like new tunnels and more mundane but useful projects like express buses to better serve the outer boroughs). Since it is targeting crossing 60th street or crossing the East River, many people who make those trips could a) take a commuter train or a subway instead, b) take the trip at off-peak times, or c) bypass Manhattan altogether.
Let's look at some specific issues:
Right now, as most people familiar with the area know, the northbound Gowanus is bumper to bumper. The left two lanes lead to the toll [Hugh Carey] Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (BBT) (and traffic moves pretty well) and the right lanes towards the BQE are at a standstill. Yet, a significant amount of the traffic on the BQE is actually headed toward the free Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, or Williamsburg Bridge crossings. If the cost to cross into Manhattan at the BBT is the same as the bridges, then a lot of the traffic on the Gowanus will take the BBT instead of the bridges and relieve traffic on the BQE as well as the bridges.
Further, if the toll on the bridges and tunnels is equalized, we will see fewer people divert to take the free crossing and just take the most direct crossing. This impacts a lot of surface street traffic, especially in Brooklyn and Queens. The toll tunnels are largely connected to the expressway system and the bridges are largely connected to surface streets. In Queens, especially, there is a significant amount of traffic that leaves the LIE to take the free Queensboro Bridge, even though a trip on the QMT is shorter. If the toll is equalized, this traffic stays on the expressway.
For those who would have taken the free bridges and are now going to take a lower toll and bypass the CBD, the proposed scheme is also helpful. All non-CBD crossings will now have a lower toll than before.* So if you are going from Secaucus-Queens or Jersey City-Brooklyn you can drive through Manhattan local streets and pay a high toll or bypass (GWB/Triboro or via Staten Island) at a reduced rate. For those taking the direct routing, while they will pay more, they will also have the benefit of significantly less congestion through Manhattan.
* From what I understand, the ratio of tolls proposed will be locked in by legislation. So if the new toll on the Triboro Bridge is $3 and the new toll on the Queensboro Bridge is $5, that 3 to 5 ratio will continue even as the toll increases over time.
You're equating congestion pricing with bridge tolls. Two separate issues. If NY "sells" its free bridges to the MTA for tolling, that is not a congestion charge. It seems that it has a decent chance of actually happening now that MTA has gone all-electronic, at least as far north as the Queensboro.
From what I understand, the MoveNY plan implements a toll that does not change based on time of day or congestion on the ground. Tolls on the QB, BB, MB, and WB will match the tolls on the QMT and the BBT. Tolls that do not head to the CBD (Throgs Neck, Whitestone, Triboro) will be reduced by a specific ratio. Crossing 60th street will incur a toll that is simialr to the toll on the East River bridges.
A true variable toll would be amazing - tolls would raise or fall based on actual traffic levels. I don't believe such a thing will ever get passed in NYC for existing infrastructure (but there may be support for express lanes that take over underutilized HOV lanes
I'm not a fan of the bus lanes on the main crosstown streets like 23rd and 34th.
Take a look at this picture of 23rd looking eastbound, between 7th and 8th.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7449239,-73.9975664,3a,75y,134.1h,86.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCL5cNRUotKR7ZCbPuCnCRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Westbound, there are two lanes. A bus lane along the curb and another lane. The bus lane is not 24 hours and cars/trucks frequently block the lane to drop off passengers and make deliveries. Eastbound, there are three lanes: general traffic, buses, parking.
What really bothers me is the orientation of the street. If you look at an older image (or look carefully on the current image to where the paint lines used to be) you will see that the street used to be 2 lanes in each direction and parking on both sides. Each general lane was wide enough for most trucks and buses. Why is it that the addition of bus lanes caused the street to lose a whole lane for traffic. It would have been a lot better if the street were kept at 6 lanes with 1 general lane, 1 bus lane, and 1 parking lane in each direction. THe parking regulations should be adjusted to make sure there are plenty of loading zones, to avoid double parking in the bus lane.
Quote from: mrsman on December 06, 2017, 01:33:17 AM
I'm not a fan of the bus lanes on the main crosstown streets like 23rd and 34th.
Take a look at this picture of 23rd looking eastbound, between 7th and 8th.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7449239,-73.9975664,3a,75y,134.1h,86.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCL5cNRUotKR7ZCbPuCnCRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Westbound, there are two lanes. A bus lane along the curb and another lane. The bus lane is not 24 hours and cars/trucks frequently block the lane to drop off passengers and make deliveries. Eastbound, there are three lanes: general traffic, buses, parking.
What really bothers me is the orientation of the street. If you look at an older image (or look carefully on the current image to where the paint lines used to be) you will see that the street used to be 2 lanes in each direction and parking on both sides. Each general lane was wide enough for most trucks and buses. Why is it that the addition of bus lanes caused the street to lose a whole lane for traffic. It would have been a lot better if the street were kept at 6 lanes with 1 general lane, 1 bus lane, and 1 parking lane in each direction. THe parking regulations should be adjusted to make sure there are plenty of loading zones, to avoid double parking in the bus lane.
Sounds a lot like what Portland is doing for their MAX lines and bus mall. For whatever reason, city planners are giving extra lane space for these busses therefore dropping the amount of total lines and occasionally parking spots.
If this is out of place, I apologize, I'm just trying to compare and relate it to something else to make a little more sense out of it.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 06, 2017, 02:41:49 AM
Quote from: mrsman on December 06, 2017, 01:33:17 AM
I'm not a fan of the bus lanes on the main crosstown streets like 23rd and 34th.
Take a look at this picture of 23rd looking eastbound, between 7th and 8th.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7449239,-73.9975664,3a,75y,134.1h,86.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCL5cNRUotKR7ZCbPuCnCRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Westbound, there are two lanes. A bus lane along the curb and another lane. The bus lane is not 24 hours and cars/trucks frequently block the lane to drop off passengers and make deliveries. Eastbound, there are three lanes: general traffic, buses, parking.
What really bothers me is the orientation of the street. If you look at an older image (or look carefully on the current image to where the paint lines used to be) you will see that the street used to be 2 lanes in each direction and parking on both sides. Each general lane was wide enough for most trucks and buses. Why is it that the addition of bus lanes caused the street to lose a whole lane for traffic. It would have been a lot better if the street were kept at 6 lanes with 1 general lane, 1 bus lane, and 1 parking lane in each direction. THe parking regulations should be adjusted to make sure there are plenty of loading zones, to avoid double parking in the bus lane.
Sounds a lot like what Portland is doing for their MAX lines and bus mall. For whatever reason, city planners are giving extra lane space for these busses therefore dropping the amount of total lines and occasionally parking spots.
If this is out of place, I apologize, I'm just trying to compare and relate it to something else to make a little more sense out of it.
I think your comment is on point. It is clearly a case of following design standards blindly without thought as to whether something else can work. Basically nycdot is telling the car driving public that you must sacrifice 3 lanes for buses. That doesn't seem practical or reasonable.
Quote from: mrsman on December 06, 2017, 01:33:17 AM
What really bothers me is the orientation of the street. If you look at an older image (or look carefully on the current image to where the paint lines used to be) you will see that the street used to be 2 lanes in each direction and parking on both sides. Each general lane was wide enough for most trucks and buses.
Ehhh... It was striped as 2 lanes each way but it wasn't really wide enough for it. An example of said older imagery. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7449155,-73.9975817,3a,37.9y,114.87h,85.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9YaMEgx6OBdEeOB501Xp0w!2e0!5s20160701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) Note how traffic is driving single file despite the striping. And it's easy to see why - could you fit your car in that right lane around that parked truck?
Quote from: Duke87 on October 04, 2017, 11:23:45 PM
What also should happen once work is finished is that the onramp from Harding Ave should be open 24/7, since the reason for closing it rush hours and weekends in the first place (prevent people from driving through the neighborhood to jump the queue at the toll plaza) will no longer exist.
I decided to check out this area on Google Street View, since I've only seen it from the end of the Cross Bronx. What I found is when you don't use the Harding Avenue on-ramp and turn right onto Longstreet Avenue, it briefly ends for one block between Chaffee Avenue and Hatting Place, and between Hatting and Glennon Places becomes... (
Brace Yourself)..
A DIRT ROAD!!!! :wow: :-o
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 10:17:15 PM
The Whitestone is slated to be converted to all electronic tolling in October.
I waived at the toll camera gantry as I passed under it in November. I'm still waiting for the bill from this.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 04, 2018, 10:21:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 10:17:15 PM
The Whitestone is slated to be converted to all electronic tolling in October.
I waived at the toll camera gantry as I passed under it in November. I'm still waiting for the bill from this.
Aren't you from NJ? I could be misremembering because you don't post your location. MTA may not have reciprocity with a lot of states - they may have focused on the closest few contributing the most traffic to their bridges.
Edit: Appears you were once from the NY metro area but now live well to the south of here, so yeah, that's probably why.
When my mother an I drove up in September, she got a bill a couple of months later. Judging by that I should be getting mine this month, even with the snow delays.
Funny that you should associate me with New Jersey, though. I've heard people claim I have a New Jersey accent despite being raised on Long Island.
I could never figure that out.
:confused:
N.Y. Times op-ed: How to Get New York Moving Again (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/07/opinion/new-york-traffic-cuomo.html)
QuoteThe next time you're in Midtown Manhattan on a weekday afternoon, I encourage you to try a little game: Take a brisk crosstown walk, and look around.
QuoteFor starters, it's a nice way to take in the city while getting some exercise. It will also give you a sense for one of New York's pressing problems. If you watch the vehicles around you, you will probably notice that you are traveling faster than some of them.
QuoteDespite having internal combustion engines – which I'm pretty sure are more powerful than your body – the vehicles will crawl forward at a few miles an hour. Then they will stop and wait for a light to turn green or a gridlocked intersection to clear. Meanwhile, you will keep moving. When I'm walking across Manhattan, I often find that I can outrace a car.
QuoteThe average vehicle speed in Midtown today is just 4.7 miles an hour. That's 28 percent slower than five years ago. Given that most people can walk up to 4 miles an hour, the human body is sometimes Manhattan's fastest mode of transportation.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 08, 2018, 12:20:01 AM
N.Y. Times op-ed: How to Get New York Moving Again (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/07/opinion/new-york-traffic-cuomo.html)
QuoteThe next time you're in Midtown Manhattan on a weekday afternoon, I encourage you to try a little game: Take a brisk crosstown walk, and look around.
QuoteFor starters, it's a nice way to take in the city while getting some exercise. It will also give you a sense for one of New York's pressing problems. If you watch the vehicles around you, you will probably notice that you are traveling faster than some of them.
QuoteDespite having internal combustion engines – which I'm pretty sure are more powerful than your body – the vehicles will crawl forward at a few miles an hour. Then they will stop and wait for a light to turn green or a gridlocked intersection to clear. Meanwhile, you will keep moving. When I'm walking across Manhattan, I often find that I can outrace a car.
QuoteThe average vehicle speed in Midtown today is just 4.7 miles an hour. That's 28 percent slower than five years ago. Given that most people can walk up to 4 miles an hour, the human body is sometimes Manhattan's fastest mode of transportation.
I'd love to see the average speeds through central London before and after congestion pricing was implemented there.
ixnay
I do an awful lot of crosstown walking, since I commute into Grand Central but almost always work somewhere on the West Side. And I never use the subway to make the trip–now granted, that's mainly because I don't want to pay another fare to get someplace I can walk to in 20 minutes. But it's also because I don't think I can get there any faster: by the time I navigate the corridors and concourses to the subway shuttle platform, add in dwell time, and the subsequent navigation out of Times Square station, and the remaining blocks' walk to my destination, I gain no time. (And if I'd have to take a connecting subway, forget it!)
http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1709698&GUID=9518C471-1983-4D22-82B5-15CE7EF4D9A4
177th Street replacing Cross Bronx Expressway frontages.
My question - where? Anywhere west of the Sheridan, I-95 is down by 175th St., so I assume it's east of there. Well, pretty much as soon as 177th and I-95 come together, the Bronx ceases to have a numbered street grid. That'll stick out like a sore thumb. Should have been named to blend into the other streets if that's what they were really after.
Per the text of the act itself, it is (in less complex terms) between the Bronx River Pkwy and the Bruckner Interchange.
This is actually a revert to the street's original name - E. 177th St was extended eastward to Bruckner Blvd several decades before the Cross Bronx Expressway was built along the same alignment. And, of course, people kept referring to that stretch of road as E. 177th St even after the change.
Also note the name of a particular station on the IRT #6 train, which is directly over this section of the Cross Bronx: "Parkchester - E. 177th St". It was never renamed after the highway was built. With this change, that station's name and the street's name will match again.
Oh, and who says The Bronx has no numbered street grid east of there? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.853423,-73.8316092,17z) ;)
Hey I drive to Weehawken about 3 Times a week when going back into Manhattan how come the ezpass lane does not show if it read my pass or not but at the new Rochelle toll it does show
Quote from: MikeCL on January 13, 2018, 09:43:10 AM
Hey I drive to Weehawken about 3 Times a week when going back into Manhattan how come the ezpass lane does not show if it read my pass or not but at the new Rochelle toll it does show
That screen very often doesn't show. Especially at the Lincoln Tunnel I've noticed. Not sure if it's a maintenance issue or an equipment issue.
Quote from: Alps on January 13, 2018, 11:55:31 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on January 13, 2018, 09:43:10 AM
Hey I drive to Weehawken about 3 Times a week when going back into Manhattan how come the ezpass lane does not show if it read my pass or not but at the new Rochelle toll it does show
That screen very often doesn't show. Especially at the Lincoln Tunnel I've noticed. Not sure if it's a maintenance issue or an equipment issue.
Ok it freaked me out until I got to the other toll and saw it picked it up. I need to fully switch over to my mta ezpass. I'm trying to figure out how i can avoid that toll on the parkway on 9A I forgot how I did it the first time.. I don't want to take the GW bridge because it sets me way back unless I can take the GW and somehow get to 9A bypassing that toll since I'm getting hit with $6 because it's not a NY pass
Quote from: MikeCL on January 13, 2018, 02:54:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 13, 2018, 11:55:31 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on January 13, 2018, 09:43:10 AM
Hey I drive to Weehawken about 3 Times a week when going back into Manhattan how come the ezpass lane does not show if it read my pass or not but at the new Rochelle toll it does show
That screen very often doesn't show. Especially at the Lincoln Tunnel I've noticed. Not sure if it's a maintenance issue or an equipment issue.
Ok it freaked me out until I got to the other toll and saw it picked it up. I need to fully switch over to my mta ezpass. I'm trying to figure out how i can avoid that toll on the parkway on 9A I forgot how I did it the first time.. I don't want to take the GW bridge because it sets me way back unless I can take the GW and somehow get to 9A bypassing that toll since I'm getting hit with $6 because it's not a NY pass
If you're on 9A take the Mosholu to 87 and cross over one of the Harlem River free bridges.
Quote from: Alps on January 13, 2018, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on January 13, 2018, 02:54:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 13, 2018, 11:55:31 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on January 13, 2018, 09:43:10 AM
Hey I drive to Weehawken about 3 Times a week when going back into Manhattan how come the ezpass lane does not show if it read my pass or not but at the new Rochelle toll it does show
That screen very often doesn't show. Especially at the Lincoln Tunnel I've noticed. Not sure if it's a maintenance issue or an equipment issue.
Ok it freaked me out until I got to the other toll and saw it picked it up. I need to fully switch over to my mta ezpass. I'm trying to figure out how i can avoid that toll on the parkway on 9A I forgot how I did it the first time.. I don't want to take the GW bridge because it sets me way back unless I can take the GW and somehow get to 9A bypassing that toll since I'm getting hit with $6 because it's not a NY pass
If you're on 9A take the Mosholu to 87 and cross over one of the Harlem River free bridges.
Ah man but if I have it right I would still have to head way north in Jersey? It's so easy getting out of the tunnel and Weehawken would be the first exit.
Quote from: MikeCL on January 13, 2018, 05:31:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 13, 2018, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on January 13, 2018, 02:54:46 PM
Ok it freaked me out until I got to the other toll and saw it picked it up. I need to fully switch over to my mta ezpass. I'm trying to figure out how i can avoid that toll on the parkway on 9A I forgot how I did it the first time.. I don't want to take the GW bridge because it sets me way back unless I can take the GW and somehow get to 9A bypassing that toll since I'm getting hit with $6 because it's not a NY pass
If you're on 9A take the Mosholu to 87 and cross over one of the Harlem River free bridges.
Ah man but if I have it right I would still have to head way north in Jersey? It's so easy getting out of the tunnel and Weehawken would be the first exit.
Didn't know that's where you were going. Yeah, the downside of the free route is that you must cross Manhattan on surface streets, so it does eat up a bunch of your time. (You could in theory take 87 to 95 to 9A, but that only helps you when the Highbridge interchange isn't backed up, which is typically something like 5:15-5:23 AM on the third Sunday of months with R in them.
Quote from: Alps on January 14, 2018, 02:35:34 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on January 13, 2018, 05:31:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 13, 2018, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on January 13, 2018, 02:54:46 PM
Ok it freaked me out until I got to the other toll and saw it picked it up. I need to fully switch over to my mta ezpass. I'm trying to figure out how i can avoid that toll on the parkway on 9A I forgot how I did it the first time.. I don't want to take the GW bridge because it sets me way back unless I can take the GW and somehow get to 9A bypassing that toll since I'm getting hit with $6 because it's not a NY pass
If you're on 9A take the Mosholu to 87 and cross over one of the Harlem River free bridges.
Ah man but if I have it right I would still have to head way north in Jersey? It's so easy getting out of the tunnel and Weehawken would be the first exit.
Didn't know that's where you were going. Yeah, the downside of the free route is that you must cross Manhattan on surface streets, so it does eat up a bunch of your time. (You could in theory take 87 to 95 to 9A, but that only helps you when the Highbridge interchange isn't backed up, which is typically something like 5:15-5:23 AM on the third Sunday of months with R in them.
I've gone through Highbridge at 3 AM on a Wednesday and it was clear. But yes, it's only clear in the middle of the night, and then you have to hope they're not doing construction.
Found a 1970's pic with big white signs:
https://thesmokingnun.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2917573532_9554920d2a_o.jpg
One or two other road images here as well:
https://thesmokingnun.wordpress.com/category/world-trade-center/page/2/
Regarding southbound I-695 southbound near I-295 in Throgs Neck. I can't imagine anyone getting to the off ramp for Pennyfield and Harding Avenues, without cutting off traffic from the Cross Bronx Expressway. So what do the rest of you think? Should there be a new off-ramp leading to a bridge over the Cross Bronx, or should the ramp from I-695 be channelized so that nobody can cross those lanes?
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 26, 2018, 01:44:51 PM
Should there be a new off-ramp leading to a bridge over the Cross Bronx,
No way the cost of that is justifiable.
Quoteor should the ramp from I-695 be channelized so that nobody can cross those lanes?
Maybe, if it proves to be a safety issue. But AFAIK it isn't. The key here is that not a lot of traffic uses that exit.
It's actually improved compared to how it was pre-AET - you only need to dart across two lanes of traffic now instead of three.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 26, 2018, 09:02:47 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 26, 2018, 01:44:51 PM
Should there be a new off-ramp leading to a bridge over the Cross Bronx,
No way the cost of that is justifiable.
Quoteor should the ramp from I-695 be channelized so that nobody can cross those lanes?
Maybe, if it proves to be a safety issue. But AFAIK it isn't. The key here is that not a lot of traffic uses that exit.
It's actually improved compared to how it was pre-AET - you only need to dart across two lanes of traffic now instead of three.
I have unofficial thoughts on the matter, but I'm just the guy who did the traffic analysis, not the guy who decided on the final lane configuration that does not jive with the traffic analysis. Suffice it to say that if you merge together a total of 5 lanes it works, but not if you merge together 4 lanes. I-295 as two lanes brings too dense of a traffic stream during peak hours to facilitate I-695 traffic weaving over in that space. Although three lanes is a longer distance to move over, the benefit to traffic density is so great that it actually does work. (You would then squeeze the two middle lanes together as you approach the bridge.) But that's unofficial.
Interesting.
What about during non-peak hours, though? If the issue is that two lanes makes the peak hour traffic too dense, there must logically be some number of VPH below which two lanes becomes better, right?
I would also figure there would be some VPH number above which two lanes becomes better for that particular maneuver - namely, enough traffic to cause LOS F with two lanes that would be a higher LOS with three. Where now, because traffic has slowed to stop and go conditions, you can just put on your blinker and wait for someone to let you over.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 27, 2018, 12:39:26 PM
Interesting.
What about during non-peak hours, though? If the issue is that two lanes makes the peak hour traffic too dense, there must logically be some number of VPH below which two lanes becomes better, right?
I would also figure there would be some VPH number above which two lanes becomes better for that particular maneuver - namely, enough traffic to cause LOS F with two lanes that would be a higher LOS with three. Where now, because traffic has slowed to stop and go conditions, you can just put on your blinker and wait for someone to let you over.
Yeah, but LOS F is still LOS F, whether you're talking about "too much traffic to merge into" or "no one's moving". "Easier" doesn't have a defined metric to it, since in theory you're shooting for LOS D or better in an urban area. Yes, two lanes works well for much of the day, since there is a measure of directional flow, but three lanes still works for the entire day. The LOS F in this case involves a dense stream and applies strictly to the weave, meaning that traffic will continue to move at LOS D on the mainline, but exiting traffic is SOL.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7964125,-73.920768,3a,75y,33.71h,86.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIMrSfPxg07qBVwbImC6IEg!2e0!5s20171101T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Does anyone know if these are still up on the Triboro?
and any TRUCK I-278 shields left?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4322/36142231396_62b0ca2e80_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/X4LodC)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 26, 2018, 03:22:04 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7964125,-73.920768,3a,75y,33.71h,86.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIMrSfPxg07qBVwbImC6IEg!2e0!5s20171101T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Does anyone know if these are still up on the Triboro?
and any TRUCK I-278 shields left?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4322/36142231396_62b0ca2e80_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/X4LodC)
I drove this stretch back in September twice, after the Yankees "home" game at Citi Field and after an actual home game at YS. That stretch of Queens Blvd. was still heavily signed TRUCK I-278.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/isiu989215kczoq/20014-10-07_Community%20Board%20PowerPoint%20Presentation.ppt?dl=0
I saw this about the HRD rehab at 125th st. It looks like they're adding a lane though NB?
Anybody drive over the VZB lately? What's the status of the toll area? Have they narrowed the road yet and replaced the signs?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4211/35717682302_3f7c7af23c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WqfsyE)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 15, 2018, 10:16:56 AM
Anybody drive over the VZB lately? What's the status of the toll area? Have they narrowed the road yet and replaced the signs?
As of yesterday...
The upper and lower levels are served by separate gantries on the SI side of the bridge shortly before the roadways merge back together. As with other MTA crossings, the old toll plaza is completely gone, jersey barriers have been installed to maintain the roadway to ordinary width, and the spare space is being used for storage / as a place for cops to hang out.
And yes all of the signs appear to have been replaced, although I only drove straight through and was not exploring ramps.
Jackie Robinson Parkway signs will feature iconic Brooklyn Dodger's image (https://www.amny.com/transit/jackie-robinson-day-parkway-signs-1.17996439)
QuoteIn honor of Jackie Robinson Day, the city's Department of Transportation unveiled new signage Thursday for the Jackie Robinson Parkway that includes a grayscale illustration of Robinson at bat in his number 42 Brooklyn Dodgers uniform. It's the first time the parkway will feature the image of the sports legend and racial justice icon who broke the color line in Major League Baseball on April 15, 1947.
QuoteCrews have already installed 25 of the new signs – either three feet by three feet, or two feet by two feet in size, depending on location. The city plans to replace all of the signs along the parkway with the new design, which features black lettering on a white background to more closely match the parkway signs out on Long Island. The current signs, green with white lettering, were first installed when the city renamed the highway after the Hall of Famer in 1997.
There's a picture of the new shield and it is
glorious.
I love that sign! It's awesome! :)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 16, 2018, 09:33:57 AM
I love that sign! It's awesome! :)
I like it too, even though the Upstate New York Parkway shields are more colorful. I've never really been a fan of NYC Parkways trying to copy Long Island parkway shields. In fact, even though the Grand Central Parkway shield is in black and white, it's still pretty distinct.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 15, 2018, 03:32:01 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 15, 2018, 10:16:56 AM
Anybody drive over the VZB lately? What's the status of the toll area? Have they narrowed the road yet and replaced the signs?
As of yesterday...
The upper and lower levels are served by separate gantries on the SI side of the bridge shortly before the roadways merge back together. As with other MTA crossings, the old toll plaza is completely gone, jersey barriers have been installed to maintain the roadway to ordinary width, and the spare space is being used for storage / as a place for cops to hang out.
And yes all of the signs appear to have been replaced, although I only drove straight through and was not exploring ramps.
So all the button copy in the area are gone including these?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4498/37468652522_2dfc525198_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Z5YD1o)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4317/36015591312_ccd1eb0490_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WSzjwU)
A lot of the signage on the Verrazano is shown as replaced in street view, though it looks like the signs for Bay Street might not have been replaced yet (or at least they hadn't gotten to them when street view went through). The new signs actually show the exit numbers and look like normal road signs.
Rockaways: Are the Beach Channel Drive button copy signs still around near the Veterans Memorial Cross Bay Bridge?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 16, 2018, 02:41:04 PM
So all the button copy in the area are gone including these?
Those are definitely gone.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 19, 2018, 08:52:05 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 16, 2018, 02:41:04 PM
So all the button copy in the area are gone including these?
Those are definitely gone.
I guess Staten Island is the first borough to be completely devoid of button copy.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 26, 2018, 04:55:56 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 19, 2018, 08:52:05 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 16, 2018, 02:41:04 PM
So all the button copy in the area are gone including these?
Those are definitely gone.
I guess Staten Island is the first borough to be completely devoid of button copy.
There were a couple of frontage road signs along 440 that I think survived even the last round of replacement, but I haven't been back since the one interchange was converted to ugliness. I also think there's an entrance BGS or two along 278. Getting scarce though.
There may have been a thread or post on the reconstruction of the Long Island Expressway/Grand Central Parkway interchange a while back;
https://www.google.com/maps/place/40°44'15.1%22N+73°50'43.5%22W/@40.7400517,-73.8489445,708m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.737514!4d-73.845404?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C3%82%C2%B044'15.1%22N+73%C3%82%C2%B050'43.5%22W/@40.7400517,-73.8489445,708m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.737514!4d-73.845404?hl=en)
But so far, I haven't found anything on it.
UPDATE, June 3, 2018: I modified my link.
Here's another LIE and Parkway interchange I'm looking at, specifically Cross Island Parkway.
I was originally looking at the older version of the interchange with Cross Island and NY 25A, so I could spot the east-to-north loop ramp that used to be there. Then I scrolled down to the Long Island Expressway to see if I could find any evidence of the gas station that used to be south of the south-to-east loop ramp.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=15&lat=40.758333&lon=-73.747222
It's barely visible. However, what I did find was what appears to be an embankment for a proposed ramp connecting that loop ramp to West Alley Road, and a lot of bike trails that I originally thought were on and off ramps. Evidently, some topography maps thought those were on and off ramps too.
When I see this I imagine old people that don't understand the difference between "zoom" and "font size".
(https://i.imgur.com/l5eo4CV.jpg)
Quote from: _Simon on June 28, 2018, 11:36:04 PM
When I see this I imagine old people that don't understand the difference between "zoom" and "font size".
(https://i.imgur.com/l5eo4CV.jpg)
All those messages are set centrally, so someone responsible for making that sign made a booboo.
Drove over the Verrazano today on my way to and from a party in Brooklyn. Can confirm that this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.602713,-74.0637978,3a,15y,319.47h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGBmeeMCQfup-qtvwQd_kEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the last old button copy sign in the whole area. These signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6022475,-74.0591307,3a,75y,252.26h,91.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKvvsmP9DRAG4GCX6XceRnw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) have both been replaced, and they look like signs you'd see in Georgia, where the exit tab is part of the main sign with a line (ILDOT does that also in some places--at least they used to on a number of Chicago-area expressways that got signs replaced in the early 90s). The exits right off the bridge are 15 N-S-W. I thought NYSDOT had stopped using directional suffices and adopted A-B-C lettering to comply with MUTCD?
I saw this when I went to see the fireworks... it's been awhile since I been on the FDR (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180709/6152056143c7e190b40f7c7bd378e6b0.jpg)
Quote from: Alps on June 28, 2018, 11:50:21 PM
Quote from: _Simon on June 28, 2018, 11:36:04 PM
When I see this I imagine old people that don't understand the difference between "zoom" and "font size".
(https://i.imgur.com/l5eo4CV.jpg)
All those messages are set centrally, so someone responsible for making that sign made a booboo.
I've seen that mistake as well my first thought was I have glasses and if I was at speed I'd never be able to read it
Quote from: MikeCL on July 09, 2018, 04:05:58 AM
I saw this when I went to see the fireworks... it's been awhile since I been on the FDR (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180709/6152056143c7e190b40f7c7bd378e6b0.jpg)
Your photo was taken before 7:10 because otherwise I'd have been in it!
Quote from: Alps on July 09, 2018, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on July 09, 2018, 04:05:58 AM
I saw this when I went to see the fireworks... it's been awhile since I been on the FDR (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180709/6152056143c7e190b40f7c7bd378e6b0.jpg)
Your photo was taken before 7:10 because otherwise I'd have been in it!
Lol.. boy do I have videos of that.. i got down here around 4:50 and I had to wait in line for another 40 min before we could walk down to the drive.. by 7:30 they opened the gates and people tried to run to cross over the concrete barrier the cops stopped them dead in the tracks..
This was around 8:30 the video was time stamped
https://youtu.be/ltmF1u8yEuU
I won't be doing it again next year...
Quote from: storm2k on July 09, 2018, 02:07:16 AM
Drove over the Verrazano today on my way to and from a party in Brooklyn. Can confirm that this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.602713,-74.0637978,3a,15y,319.47h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGBmeeMCQfup-qtvwQd_kEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the last old button copy sign in the whole area. These signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6022475,-74.0591307,3a,75y,252.26h,91.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKvvsmP9DRAG4GCX6XceRnw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) have both been replaced, and they look like signs you'd see in Georgia, where the exit tab is part of the main sign with a line (ILDOT does that also in some places--at least they used to on a number of Chicago-area expressways that got signs replaced in the early 90s). The exits right off the bridge are 15 N-S-W. I thought NYSDOT had stopped using directional suffices and adopted A-B-C lettering to comply with MUTCD?
Interesting, I thought this was removed.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4211/35717682302_3f7c7af23c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WqfsyE)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 09, 2018, 02:50:59 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 09, 2018, 02:07:16 AM
Drove over the Verrazano today on my way to and from a party in Brooklyn. Can confirm that this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.602713,-74.0637978,3a,15y,319.47h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGBmeeMCQfup-qtvwQd_kEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the last old button copy sign in the whole area. These signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6022475,-74.0591307,3a,75y,252.26h,91.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKvvsmP9DRAG4GCX6XceRnw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) have both been replaced, and they look like signs you'd see in Georgia, where the exit tab is part of the main sign with a line (ILDOT does that also in some places--at least they used to on a number of Chicago-area expressways that got signs replaced in the early 90s). The exits right off the bridge are 15 N-S-W. I thought NYSDOT had stopped using directional suffices and adopted A-B-C lettering to comply with MUTCD?
Interesting, I thought this was removed.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4211/35717682302_3f7c7af23c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WqfsyE)
It will probably be gone at some point soon. It's on closed off pavement as they finish the reconfiguration of the area for AET.
Quote from: MikeCL on July 09, 2018, 08:31:33 AM
This was around 8:30 the video was time stamped
https://youtu.be/ltmF1u8yEuU
I won't be doing it again next year...
Jesus, dude, you were standing about 5 feet behind me.
Quote from: Alps on July 09, 2018, 09:23:11 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on July 09, 2018, 08:31:33 AM
This was around 8:30 the video was time stamped
https://youtu.be/ltmF1u8yEuU
I won't be doing it again next year...
Jesus, dude, you were standing about 5 feet behind me.
Haha small world :D man I'm so glad my wife pulled me away just as we were stepping on the concrete divider the show ended and it was a flood of people back the other way.. I forgot the street over but I did not know it was traffic on that one.. I never heard so many horns honk at once.
Glad to see the lone remaining button copy I-495 sign still hangs
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4326/36142850136_e1718f6f26_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/X4Py9y)
As soon as I saw it I was trying to bring out my camera fast I thought about you guys here
Was in upper Manhattan yesterday, and saw this great sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8302916,-73.9398151,3a,20.7y,316.58h,97.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srYZYjXmCvMK1l_wCGIU8jg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). It looks like NYCDOT tried to replicate one of the PA's GWB symbol signs coming off the Macombs Dam Bridge (for comparison, here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8299112,-73.938911,3a,17.2y,312.65h,100.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO6BXC0ovUbf0NHDA66iFJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is a proper one a bit further back). Very interesting take on the signs. Also note the HRD shields. Wonder what the redesigned HRD shields will look like.
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2018, 01:28:26 PM
Was in upper Manhattan yesterday, and saw this great sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8302916,-73.9398151,3a,20.7y,316.58h,97.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srYZYjXmCvMK1l_wCGIU8jg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). It looks like NYCDOT tried to replicate one of the PA's GWB symbol signs coming off the Macombs Dam Bridge (for comparison, here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8299112,-73.938911,3a,17.2y,312.65h,100.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO6BXC0ovUbf0NHDA66iFJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is a proper one a bit further back). Very interesting take on the signs. Also note the HRD shields. Wonder what the redesigned HRD shields will look like.
Cool replication! Though not authentic, still a great sign.
In the interests of "branding", Gov. Cuomo has again decided to ignore the MUTCD.
https://nypost.com/2018/07/24/cuomo-spent-253k-on-colored-pylons-that-may-violate-standards/
QuoteAbout 3,500 orange pylons affixed to the center of the roadways inside the Brooklyn-Battery and Queens-Midtown tunnels were replaced as part of a $588 million reconstruction project to fix flood-related damage from 2012's Hurricane Sandy.
The new, plastic poles are blue with bands of reflective gold tape, to match the state's official colors – and the colored tiles that Cuomo used to decorate the tunnels' walls and ceiling, which sources have said added $20 million to $30 million to the total cost.
Quote from: DRMan on July 26, 2018, 01:01:42 PM
In the interests of "branding", Gov. Cuomo has again decided to ignore the MUTCD.
https://nypost.com/2018/07/24/cuomo-spent-253k-on-colored-pylons-that-may-violate-standards/
QuoteAbout 3,500 orange pylons affixed to the center of the roadways inside the Brooklyn-Battery and Queens-Midtown tunnels were replaced as part of a $588 million reconstruction project to fix flood-related damage from 2012’s Hurricane Sandy.
The new, plastic poles are blue with bands of reflective gold tape, to match the state’s official colors — and the colored tiles that Cuomo used to decorate the tunnels’ walls and ceiling, which sources have said added $20 million to $30 million to the total cost.
Let alone the color of the pole not being orange - the reflective tape needs to match the color of the lane line.
Quote from: DRMan on July 26, 2018, 01:01:42 PM
In the interests of "branding", Gov. Cuomo has again decided to ignore the MUTCD.
https://nypost.com/2018/07/24/cuomo-spent-253k-on-colored-pylons-that-may-violate-standards/
QuoteAbout 3,500 orange pylons affixed to the center of the roadways inside the Brooklyn-Battery and Queens-Midtown tunnels were replaced as part of a $588 million reconstruction project to fix flood-related damage from 2012's Hurricane Sandy.
The new, plastic poles are blue with bands of reflective gold tape, to match the state's official colors – and the colored tiles that Cuomo used to decorate the tunnels' walls and ceiling, which sources have said added $20 million to $30 million to the total cost.
I think theres a big difference between this and the stupid signs that they had to remove. Making the pylons match the state's branding isn't a terrible idea because it makes the tunnel look nicer and less industrial. The signs upstate that did nothing and had no purpose dont serve to impress visitors (who often take the battery tunnel into manhattan from JFK) and really served no purpose whatsoever.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180805/bbbf2c4bb6af186b658ddde9abbf1e41.jpg)
Not sure where to put this one but I'm guessing these are from the 60's?
Quote from: MikeCL on August 05, 2018, 03:38:45 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180805/bbbf2c4bb6af186b658ddde9abbf1e41.jpg)
Not sure where to put this one but I'm guessing these are from the 60's?
Where is that assembly of button copy? I thought it was on U.S. 46 but GSV isn't helping.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on August 05, 2018, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 05, 2018, 03:38:45 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180805/bbbf2c4bb6af186b658ddde9abbf1e41.jpg)
Not sure where to put this one but I'm guessing these are from the 60's?
Where is that assembly of button copy? I thought it was on U.S. 46 but GSV isn't helping.
ixnay
You have this sign which I've never seen work
https://goo.gl/maps/Pkq5Acbddv82
and the picture from which I took it on North Bergen blvd U.S. 9
https://goo.gl/maps/a3qHG3kxHiT2
I found it. It's after Caspars Lane, but before you go over Main St. The trick to me was finding that used car lot. Thanks.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on August 05, 2018, 06:43:44 PM
I found it. It's after Caspars Lane, but before you go over Main St. The trick to me was finding that used car lot. Thanks.
ixnay
lol don't feel bad I had a little hard time myself
General question - does anyone know why NYC continued to use all-steel construction for overpasses and the like when the rest of the country had switched to concrete (late '40s-'50s)?
I'm not sure why they don't fix this (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180905/ba7fb1c0bfaac4aef51800307ffcfb4d.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180905/88bd21eb0c59f3b6abdbd78a93112276.jpg)
Fix what exactly?
Most likely, the insane small text on the right VMS on the pull-through.
Quote from: shadyjay on September 05, 2018, 08:15:41 PM
Most likely, the insane small text on the right VMS on the pull-through. But this is on the Cross Bronx portion of I-95, which is not part of the Thruway. Actually, it could be on the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.
I don't think we have a thread for the cross Bronx section here unless I missed it here on taptalk
Shadyjay, point taken. I had not even noticed that small text, probably 'cause it was too small. That's a pretty glaring error on somebody's part. This is the Cross Bronx Expwy on top of the Alexander Hamilton Bridge just before the split.
In the further away shot, it looks like an LED block of lights that are malfunctioning while the rest of the sign is "off".
Quote from: MikeCL on September 05, 2018, 08:17:34 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 05, 2018, 08:15:41 PM
Most likely, the insane small text on the right VMS on the pull-through. But this is on the Cross Bronx portion of I-95, which is not part of the Thruway. Actually, it could be on the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.
I don't think we have a thread for the cross Bronx section here unless I missed it here on taptalk
There is a NYC Roads thread this would be more appropriate for.
I can't believe it's still like that, that was pointed out a while ago, I didn't think it'd last longer than a day
I was trying to remember where I saw it posted before.. it's so small I'm not sure how it can be not noticed
Quote from: MikeCL on September 05, 2018, 05:59:26 PM
I'm not sure why they don't fix this (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180905/ba7fb1c0bfaac4aef51800307ffcfb4d.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180905/88bd21eb0c59f3b6abdbd78a93112276.jpg)
Hey man, smaller vehicles can see smaller text? Where have you been? :sombrero:
Quote from: MikeCL on September 05, 2018, 05:59:26 PM
I'm not sure why they don't fix this (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180905/ba7fb1c0bfaac4aef51800307ffcfb4d.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180905/88bd21eb0c59f3b6abdbd78a93112276.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180908/fd7508b4db370fe65284a5ef764ccb04.jpg)
SM-S820L
Does NYCDOT use signal preemption ANYWHERE? I was in the Rockaways yesterday and it seemed like some intersections with residential streets had their lights times instead of triggered. It was annoying stopping for no one.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 15, 2018, 10:00:57 PM
Does NYCDOT use signal preemption ANYWHERE? I was in the Rockaways yesterday and it seemed like some intersections with residential streets had their lights times instead of triggered. It was annoying stopping for no one.
I don't think so for the two years I drove around the city I've never seen it.. looks like if it's a intersection with a cross walk it's tied into that with the countdown
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 15, 2018, 10:00:57 PM
Does NYCDOT use signal preemption ANYWHERE? I was in the Rockaways yesterday and it seemed like some intersections with residential streets had their lights times instead of triggered. It was annoying stopping for no one.
It sounds like you are talking about actuation (signal phases skip if not needed), not preemption (light instantly changes to give a priority vehicle a green on demand).
NYCDOT doesn't do either, though.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 16, 2018, 09:00:34 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 15, 2018, 10:00:57 PM
Does NYCDOT use signal preemption ANYWHERE? I was in the Rockaways yesterday and it seemed like some intersections with residential streets had their lights times instead of triggered. It was annoying stopping for no one.
It sounds like you are talking about actuation (signal phases skip if not needed), not preemption (light instantly changes to give a priority vehicle a green on demand).
NYCDOT doesn't do either, though.
NYCDOT uses transit signal priority, but otherwise you're correct.
Aren't all or most traffic signals in NYC still on fixed timers, even in the 21st Century?
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 16, 2018, 04:07:36 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 16, 2018, 09:00:34 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 15, 2018, 10:00:57 PM
Does NYCDOT use signal preemption ANYWHERE? I was in the Rockaways yesterday and it seemed like some intersections with residential streets had their lights times instead of triggered. It was annoying stopping for no one.
It sounds like you are talking about actuation (signal phases skip if not needed), not preemption (light instantly changes to give a priority vehicle a green on demand).
NYCDOT doesn't do either, though.
NYCDOT uses transit signal priority, but otherwise you're correct.
What are those bar looking things angled down near most stop lines is that for the transit signal?
Quote from: SignBridge on September 16, 2018, 08:09:31 PM
Aren't all or most traffic signals in NYC still on fixed timers, even in the 21st Century?
On 11th ave it is I know a few around the city are the same.. I've never seen them go out of sync
Also, is there a particular reason why you can't get to the Throgs Neck from the Cross Island Parkway coming eastbound?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 16, 2018, 10:39:09 PM
Also, is there a particular reason why you can't get to the Throgs Neck from the Cross Island Parkway coming eastbound?
I think it was built so that you'd take the Whitestone if you lived in that little area. Or use other local streets to the Throgs Neck. But what happens is that if the Whitestone is backed up for some reason, you can't divert easily to the Throgs Neck.
Can someone explain this sign to me? Does this mean ez pass is only for certain times at night or discount for night travel? If so not really much stands out for that..
Speaking of that I have no clue why my gps (Waze) wants me to take the PIP to the bridge unless not that I know of that I can bypass the toll I normally get off at Hudson terr. And just take River rd all the way to Weehawken.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180917/1449994f047bc131ee21277af454ee5f.jpg)
Quote from: MikeCL on September 17, 2018, 01:24:39 PM
Can someone explain this sign to me? Does this mean ez pass is only for certain times at night or discount for night travel? If so not really much stands out for that..
Speaking of that I have no clue why my gps (Waze) wants me to take the PIP to the bridge unless not that I know of that I can bypass the toll I normally get off at Hudson terr. And just take River rd all the way to Weehawken.
(image omitted)
it reads to me that that (road/entrance/whatever) is only usable by E-ZPass holders during the times listed. presumably, the cash booth(s) aren't manned during those times.
Quote from: odditude on September 17, 2018, 04:09:57 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on September 17, 2018, 01:24:39 PM
Can someone explain this sign to me? Does this mean ez pass is only for certain times at night or discount for night travel? If so not really much stands out for that..
Speaking of that I have no clue why my gps (Waze) wants me to take the PIP to the bridge unless not that I know of that I can bypass the toll I normally get off at Hudson terr. And just take River rd all the way to Weehawken.
(image omitted)
it reads to me that that (road/entrance/whatever) is only usable by E-ZPass holders during the times listed. presumably, the cash booth(s) aren't manned during those times.
Correct. Out of staters get caught up by this all the time.
These things are getting too complicated and confusing. Too much detailed data to be read and understood in too short a time.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 17, 2018, 08:25:29 PM
These things are getting too complicated and confusing. Too much detailed data to be read and understood in too short a time.
I agree the night stars thing was not the first Hong that came to mind about ez pass only for those times.
Quote from: Alps on September 16, 2018, 11:36:24 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 16, 2018, 10:39:09 PM
Also, is there a particular reason why you can't get to the Throgs Neck from the Cross Island Parkway coming eastbound?
I think it was built so that you'd take the Whitestone if you lived in that little area. Or use other local streets to the Throgs Neck. But what happens is that if the Whitestone is backed up for some reason, you can't divert easily to the Throgs Neck.
You mean
when it is backed up - there is no "if for some reason" here. :) Backups approaching the Whitestone are a routine occurrence due to the lack of through lanes and substandard geometry at the interchange with the Cross Island.
But yeah, a lot of interchanges in NYC are missing movements that either are or would have been (if other planned freeways were built) redundant for non-local movements.
The Cross Island-Throggs Neck example is particularly egregious because
usually a missing movement can be completed easily enough using local streets. From the Cross Island Southbound it is physically impossible to get to the Throggs Neck Bridge via any method short of getting on the Clearview southbound and U-turning at the next interchange.
Quote from: MikeCL on September 17, 2018, 01:24:39 PM
Can someone explain this sign to me? Does this mean ez pass is only for certain times at night or discount for night travel? If so not really much stands out for that..
Speaking of that I have no clue why my gps (Waze) wants me to take the PIP to the bridge unless not that I know of that I can bypass the toll I normally get off at Hudson terr. And just take River rd all the way to Weehawken.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180917/1449994f047bc131ee21277af454ee5f.jpg)
Alternate issue: the Earth's shadow is much smaller than the moon, and you can see a star through something that is ostensibly a solid object.
Quote from: MikeCL on September 17, 2018, 01:24:39 PM
Can someone explain this sign to me? Does this mean ez pass is only for certain times at night or discount for night travel? If so not really much stands out for that..
Speaking of that I have no clue why my gps (Waze) wants me to take the PIP to the bridge unless not that I know of that I can bypass the toll I normally get off at Hudson terr. And just take River rd all the way to Weehawken.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180917/1449994f047bc131ee21277af454ee5f.jpg)
This is a poorly designed sign by the PA. I've seen this many times when I used to travel on the PIP frequently. What happens is that the lower level of the GWB is EZ-Pass only during overnight hours and there are no cash lanes. It could be better written, or include a note that cash users need to make for the upper level instead. If the PA ever goes to ORT, that would become moot, but I seem them less eager to move to that than any other agency.
Quote from: storm2k on September 18, 2018, 10:22:45 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on September 17, 2018, 01:24:39 PM
Can someone explain this sign to me? Does this mean ez pass is only for certain times at night or discount for night travel? If so not really much stands out for that..
Speaking of that I have no clue why my gps (Waze) wants me to take the PIP to the bridge unless not that I know of that I can bypass the toll I normally get off at Hudson terr. And just take River rd all the way to Weehawken.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180917/1449994f047bc131ee21277af454ee5f.jpg)
This is a poorly designed sign by the PA. I've seen this many times when I used to travel on the PIP frequently. What happens is that the lower level of the GWB is EZ-Pass only during overnight hours and there are no cash lanes. It could be better written, or include a note that cash users need to make for the upper level instead. If the PA ever goes to ORT, that would become moot, but I seem them less eager to move to that than any other agency.
I've been wanting to see where it leads I've looked on gsv but it jumps around so I can't tell why it would make me pay a toll does that make me exit from NJ only to go into NY then back to NJ again?
Quote from: Alps on September 18, 2018, 12:10:56 AMAlternate issue: the Earth's shadow is much smaller than the moon, and you can see a star through something that is ostensibly a solid object.
Alternate to the alternate issue: a moon-and-stars design (however executed) is not a FHWA-approved symbol.
Quote from: MikeCL on September 19, 2018, 03:55:20 PM
I've been wanting to see where it leads I've looked on gsv but it jumps around so I can't tell why it would make me pay a toll does that make me exit from NJ only to go into NY then back to NJ again?
The sign pertains to a ramp that goes to the southbound PIP after its last exit, so by that point it feeds directly into the George Washington Bridge. There is no access to any part of NJ from that ramp.
Quote from: vdeane on September 19, 2018, 08:44:36 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on September 19, 2018, 03:55:20 PM
I've been wanting to see where it leads I've looked on gsv but it jumps around so I can't tell why it would make me pay a toll does that make me exit from NJ only to go into NY then back to NJ again?
The sign pertains to a ramp that goes to the southbound PIP after its last exit, so by that point it feeds directly into the George Washington Bridge. There is no access to any part of NJ from that ramp.
Ah ok the view on gsv must of been north but looking backwards towards the street
Haven't been down the FDR since April...any more button copy gone? How's the HRD project near E 125th St?
From WABC/Channel 7: City officials insist BQE has to be rebuilt (https://abc7ny.com/traffic/city-officials-insist-bqe-has-to-be-rebuilt/4307541/)
QuoteWhat people don't see is crumbling cement and rusting steel at the base of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway that runs beneath the Promenade. City officials insist it all has to be rebuilt.
QuoteEngineers want to reconstruct a 1.5 mile stretch from Atlantic Avenue to the Manhattan Bridge. Demolishing the Promenade and replacing it with a temporary six-lane highway while the original BQE is rebuilt, below.
QuoteThe only alternative is to rebuild the BQE lane by lane, which would take two years longer, cost hundreds of millions more, and detour traffic through local streets.
Just wait until Brooklyn Heights NIMBY's get their hands on this...
Grumbles about the BQE or "Triple Cantilever" are growing. So far, I have only been aware of scoffs at the cost of doing so, but my perception is pressure is growing in the City agencies to get the thing programmed somehow.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2018, 10:32:56 AM
Grumbles about the BQE or "Triple Cantilever" are growing. So far, I have only been aware of scoffs at the cost of doing so, but my perception is pressure is growing in the City agencies to get the thing programmed somehow.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I remember checking out a presentation that NYC DOT did maybe a year or two ago where they basically warned that the condition of the triple cantilever is getting to a critical stage. Plus, crash rates are roughly 10 times the average through that section since it's so narrow. Something is going to have to give at some point soon.
Quote from: storm2k on September 24, 2018, 10:39:10 PM
From WABC/Channel 7: City officials insist BQE has to be rebuilt (http://city%20officials%20insist%20bqe%20has%20to%20be%20rebuilt)
QuoteWhat people don't see is crumbling cement and rusting steel at the base of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway that runs beneath the Promenade. City officials insist it all has to be rebuilt.
QuoteEngineers want to reconstruct a 1.5 mile stretch from Atlantic Avenue to the Manhattan Bridge. Demolishing the Promenade and replacing it with a temporary six-lane highway while the original BQE is rebuilt, below.
QuoteThe only alternative is to rebuild the BQE lane by lane, which would take two years longer, cost hundreds of millions more, and detour traffic through local streets.
Just wait until Brooklyn Heights NIMBY's get their hands on this...
When I click on the link, I get
"This site can't be reached
city%20officials%20insist%20bqe%20has%20to%20be%20rebuilt's server IP address could not be found."
It was this way when I was dressing to leave for work, and I'm back home and I still gt that message.
OTOH I Googled and got this link
https://abc7ny.com/traffic/city-officials-insist-bqe-has-to-be-rebuilt/4307541/
which works.
ixnay
Page 4 of this: https://9670f26306f0aa722eb1-bf8a0720b767c6949515361a19a9737f.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploads/document/document/90/BQE_2018-01-17_DRAFT_SCOPE_OF_WORK.pdf (https://9670f26306f0aa722eb1-bf8a0720b767c6949515361a19a9737f.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploads/document/document/90/BQE_2018-01-17_DRAFT_SCOPE_OF_WORK.pdf) describes all the non-Interstate-standard design elements that they hope to mitigate. Seems like they would like to widen the lanes from 10 feet (yikes) to 12 and add acceleration lanes where possible. I know the entrances from Atlantic are Stop-controlled and on a curve.
Quote from: crispy93 on September 25, 2018, 07:01:31 PM
Page 4 of this: https://9670f26306f0aa722eb1-bf8a0720b767c6949515361a19a9737f.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploads/document/document/90/BQE_2018-01-17_DRAFT_SCOPE_OF_WORK.pdf (https://9670f26306f0aa722eb1-bf8a0720b767c6949515361a19a9737f.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploads/document/document/90/BQE_2018-01-17_DRAFT_SCOPE_OF_WORK.pdf) describes all the non-Interstate-standard design elements that they hope to mitigate. Seems like they would like to widen the lanes from 10 feet (yikes) to 12 and add acceleration lanes where possible. I know the entrances from Atlantic are Stop-controlled and on a curve.
10 foot lanes are not uncommon on older arterials and are honestly not as big of a problem as some engineers often make them out to be. Passenger cars can handle even 8-foot lanes at high speed without too much problem. The lack of shoulders is a bigger issue imo.
Bet they end up doing it the hard way, even if it is more time consuming and expensive. The NIMBY's in Brooklyn Heights probably have the political clout to stop DOT's plan for the temporary highway.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 25, 2018, 08:39:38 PM
Bet they end up doing it the hard way, even if it is more time consuming and expensive. The NIMBY's in Brooklyn Heights probably have the political clout to stop DOT's plan for the temporary highway.
But how many of them drive to work? Have they ever experienced the daily crawl on the BQE? You can't say your against something when you're not even aware of the problem.
Well actually they can, and they probably will. Affluence talks.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2018, 07:34:24 PM
Quote from: crispy93 on September 25, 2018, 07:01:31 PM
Page 4 of this: https://9670f26306f0aa722eb1-bf8a0720b767c6949515361a19a9737f.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploads/document/document/90/BQE_2018-01-17_DRAFT_SCOPE_OF_WORK.pdf (https://9670f26306f0aa722eb1-bf8a0720b767c6949515361a19a9737f.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploads/document/document/90/BQE_2018-01-17_DRAFT_SCOPE_OF_WORK.pdf) describes all the non-Interstate-standard design elements that they hope to mitigate. Seems like they would like to widen the lanes from 10 feet (yikes) to 12 and add acceleration lanes where possible. I know the entrances from Atlantic are Stop-controlled and on a curve.
10 foot lanes are not uncommon on older arterials and are honestly not as big of a problem as some engineers often make them out to be. Passenger cars can handle even 8-foot lanes at high speed without too much problem. The lack of shoulders is a bigger issue imo.
I am a traffic and highway engineer and I laugh at you. 10 foot lanes can work up to about 40 mph. 8 foot lanes, what you're saying is completely nonsensical. We shoot for 11 foot lanes on freeway work zones and 12 foot is the standard free-flow. 10.5' is about the narrowest you can be comfortable on a road that's all passenger cars. The BQE is not that.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2018, 07:34:24 PM
Quote from: crispy93 on September 25, 2018, 07:01:31 PM
Page 4 of this: https://9670f26306f0aa722eb1-bf8a0720b767c6949515361a19a9737f.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploads/document/document/90/BQE_2018-01-17_DRAFT_SCOPE_OF_WORK.pdf (https://9670f26306f0aa722eb1-bf8a0720b767c6949515361a19a9737f.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploads/document/document/90/BQE_2018-01-17_DRAFT_SCOPE_OF_WORK.pdf) describes all the non-Interstate-standard design elements that they hope to mitigate. Seems like they would like to widen the lanes from 10 feet (yikes) to 12 and add acceleration lanes where possible. I know the entrances from Atlantic are Stop-controlled and on a curve.
10 foot lanes are not uncommon on older arterials and are honestly not as big of a problem as some engineers often make them out to be. Passenger cars can handle even 8-foot lanes at high speed without too much problem. The lack of shoulders is a bigger issue imo.
Maybe on a parkway with no commercial traffic? The BQE in this area is a critical conduit for commercial traffic heading to different parts of the city. It can be downright hairy driving in there with a ton of trucks mixed into that traffic. They absolutely need more space in there.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2018, 07:34:24 PM
...Passenger cars can handle even 8-foot lanes at high speed without too much problem. The lack of shoulders is a bigger issue imo.
Uh, no they can't. If we compare this to parking spots: Most parking regulations strive for 10 foot wide spots. 9 foot wide parking stalls are generally allowed but can be a little tight. 8 feet wide and you can barely open the door. Now try driving along someone when they're barely 12 inches away from you.
I'd like to see an example of a road with 8 foot lanes.
Unit lane width of 8 ft is essentially a sidewalk highway. Historically, highways with 9 ft unit lane width required vehicles meeting from opposite directions to go onto the verge to pass each other safely. 10 ft unit lane width translates to a 30% capacity reduction. Crash risk (expressed as reported crashes per unit vehicle distance travelled) is at a minimum for unit lane width between 11 ft and 12 ft, actually a bit closer to 11 ft than 12 ft.
How wide are some of those lanes on the bridges around NYC? Didn't the Bayonne Bridge have 9' lanes or something?
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 19, 2018, 04:48:56 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 18, 2018, 12:10:56 AMAlternate issue: the Earth's shadow is much smaller than the moon, and you can see a star through something that is ostensibly a solid object.
Alternate to the alternate issue: a moon-and-stars design (however executed) is not a FHWA-approved symbol.
The FHWA has been overreaching and meddling too much in state signage affairs for the last decade anyway. The symbol may suck but at least it's a sign of state signage independence
The independence that proves nothing. It's unreadable at higher speeds. It's conflicting and confusing. I am generally pretty adept at reading signs - travel enough, and have EZ-Pass, so I'm not foreign to the concept. But twice I've been through there and can't make out heads-or-tails about it.
Quote from: seicer on September 26, 2018, 02:12:57 PM
How wide are some of those lanes on the bridges around NYC? Didn't the Bayonne Bridge have 9' lanes or something?
Goethals was 10 and change with minimal shoulders. That was the worst. Even Outerbridge has a slight advantage though I forget why.
Quote from: seicer on September 26, 2018, 04:11:49 PM
The independence that proves nothing. It's unreadable at higher speeds. It's conflicting and confusing. I am generally pretty adept at reading signs - travel enough, and have EZ-Pass, so I'm not foreign to the concept. But twice I've been through there and can't make out heads-or-tails about it.
Same here which is why I decided to ask you here what it was about.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2018, 11:32:02 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2018, 07:34:24 PM
...Passenger cars can handle even 8-foot lanes at high speed without too much problem. The lack of shoulders is a bigger issue imo.
Uh, no they can't. If we compare this to parking spots: Most parking regulations strive for 10 foot wide spots. 9 foot wide parking stalls are generally allowed but can be a little tight. 8 feet wide and you can barely open the door. Now try driving along someone when they're barely 12 inches away from you.
I'd like to see an example of a road with 8 foot lanes.
I lowballed by around half a foot, but there are plenty of 8.5—9 foot lanes on arterials where passenger cars are easily able to exceed 50 mph. The Bronx River Parkway around Bronxville and Jamaicaway in Boston come to mind. It's a squeeze and of course suboptimal, but I don't know that 10 foot lanes are "yikes"-worthy.
When Metro-North Railroad bought out most private lots around their stations in the 90s, they tightened all the spaces to 8.5 feet to squeeze out the most parking possible, and it's really not a big deal. Unless two F-350s are parked next to each other, there is more than enough room to get out comfortably. The bigger problem in these lots is the super narrow access aisles, some spaces are almost impossible to back into when all the spaces around it are occupied.
On interstates, yes 12 foot lanes are an appropriate design minimum and we should really be trying to upgrade the substandard sections. But some traffic engineers act like 10 foot lanes on a city street are the end of the world because The Book says they're too narrow, and it can get a little ridiculous.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 26, 2018, 08:02:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2018, 11:32:02 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2018, 07:34:24 PM
...Passenger cars can handle even 8-foot lanes at high speed without too much problem. The lack of shoulders is a bigger issue imo.
Uh, no they can't. If we compare this to parking spots: Most parking regulations strive for 10 foot wide spots. 9 foot wide parking stalls are generally allowed but can be a little tight. 8 feet wide and you can barely open the door. Now try driving along someone when they're barely 12 inches away from you.
I'd like to see an example of a road with 8 foot lanes.
I lowballed by around half a foot, but there are plenty of 8.5—9 foot lanes on arterials where passenger cars are easily able to exceed 50 mph. The Bronx River Parkway around Bronxville and Jamaicaway in Boston come to mind. It's a squeeze and of course suboptimal, but I don't know that 10 foot lanes are "yikes"-worthy.
When Metro-North Railroad bought out most private lots around their stations in the 90s, they tightened all the spaces to 8.5 feet to squeeze out the most parking possible, and it's really not a big deal. Unless two F-350s are parked next to each other, there is more than enough room to get out comfortably. The bigger problem in these lots is the super narrow access aisles, some spaces are almost impossible to back into when all the spaces around it are occupied.
On interstates, yes 12 foot lanes are an appropriate design minimum and we should really be trying to upgrade the substandard sections. But some traffic engineers act like 10 foot lanes on a city street are the end of the world because The Book says they're too narrow, and it can get a little ridiculous.
Except we're talking about an interstate highway in this instance? One that serves an enormous amount of truck traffic?
Bronx River ain't safe.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2018, 11:32:02 AM
I'd like to see an example of a road with 8 foot lanes.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7123414,-73.9678339,3a,46.5y,304h,89.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM24XMYvfiOonz8Kjdi7gFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Had a question, does anybody have any information on the reconstruction of the Harlem River Drive, and when it will be complete? Thanks.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 26, 2018, 11:32:13 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2018, 11:32:02 AM
I'd like to see an example of a road with 8 foot lanes.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7123414,-73.9678339,3a,46.5y,304h,89.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM24XMYvfiOonz8Kjdi7gFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
And looking at the taxi here: https://goo.gl/maps/88wa3H33EbQ2 , he's having trouble keeping to his own side of the roadway!
Given that this is currently a very substandard freeway in NYC and likely ROW-contained, I think I'd take proper shoulders and acceleration/deceleration lanes over widening the travel lanes from 10' to 12', if I had to choose. Of course, all is ideal.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 27, 2018, 01:20:48 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 26, 2018, 11:32:13 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2018, 11:32:02 AM
I'd like to see an example of a road with 8 foot lanes.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7123414,-73.9678339,3a,46.5y,304h,89.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM24XMYvfiOonz8Kjdi7gFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
And looking at the taxi here: https://goo.gl/maps/88wa3H33EbQ2 , he's having trouble keeping to his own side of the roadway!
Functionally, that section of the bridge operates as if it is only one lane on each roadway. It is unusual to see anyone pass anyone else, especially on the inner roadways which
feel narrower due to being encaged although I don't think they actually are.
I know not why this absurdity persists, you would think it sensible to restripe those roadways as one lane each with shoulder space. Would likely not cause any capacity issues either, as that is constrained primarily by Delancey Street and secondarily by congestion on the BQE.
Does or did this sign ever work? It seems pretty tacky to just leave it up(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180927/48058abfb3d258552749261d1419afb9.jpg)
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 26, 2018, 08:02:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2018, 11:32:02 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2018, 07:34:24 PM
...Passenger cars can handle even 8-foot lanes at high speed without too much problem. The lack of shoulders is a bigger issue imo.
Uh, no they can't. If we compare this to parking spots: Most parking regulations strive for 10 foot wide spots. 9 foot wide parking stalls are generally allowed but can be a little tight. 8 feet wide and you can barely open the door. Now try driving along someone when they're barely 12 inches away from you.
I'd like to see an example of a road with 8 foot lanes.
I lowballed by around half a foot, but there are plenty of 8.5—9 foot lanes on arterials where passenger cars are easily able to exceed 50 mph. The Bronx River Parkway around Bronxville and Jamaicaway in Boston come to mind. It's a squeeze and of course suboptimal, but I don't know that 10 foot lanes are "yikes"-worthy.
When Metro-North Railroad bought out most private lots around their stations in the 90s, they tightened all the spaces to 8.5 feet to squeeze out the most parking possible, and it's really not a big deal. Unless two F-350s are parked next to each other, there is more than enough room to get out comfortably. The bigger problem in these lots is the super narrow access aisles, some spaces are almost impossible to back into when all the spaces around it are occupied.
On interstates, yes 12 foot lanes are an appropriate design minimum and we should really be trying to upgrade the substandard sections. But some traffic engineers act like 10 foot lanes on a city street are the end of the world because The Book says they're too narrow, and it can get a little ridiculous.
Speaking of lanes what are the line sizes on the JRP? On the Queens side it's narrow
Quote from: Duke87 on September 26, 2018, 11:32:13 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2018, 11:32:02 AM
I'd like to see an example of a road with 8 foot lanes.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7123414,-73.9678339,3a,46.5y,304h,89.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM24XMYvfiOonz8Kjdi7gFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7123414,-73.9678339,3a,46.5y,304h,89.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM24XMYvfiOonz8Kjdi7gFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
I believe those are 9 foot lanes. Also https://goo.gl/maps/LbTQxEsJJ4F2 (https://goo.gl/maps/LbTQxEsJJ4F2)
(Edit: Used Google measure tool and both come out to 18 foot roadways.)
So I suspect the Brooklyn Bridge is around 9 FT as well? I wonder if they finally paved it? The bunch of exposed deck of the bridge I thought was always a little unsettling.
Quote from: Alps on September 28, 2018, 12:17:56 AM(Edit: Used Google measure tool and both come out to 18 foot roadways.)
I am glad you posted to suggest the Google measure tool. Yesterday I actually composed a post to ask how many of these candidates for low unit lane width were based on objective sources such as construction plans sets, measurements made by laying a measuring stick perpendicular across a striped lane, etc., but deleted it before committing it because I felt the tone came across as annoyed-sounding and excessively argumentative.
In late 2015, NYSDOT advertised a contract (D262963 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_DIGITAL_DOCS.show?p_arg_names=p_d_id&p_arg_values=D262963)) for short-term rehabilitation of the Triple Cantilever section that (IIRC) has record plans for the original construction as well as the complete plans for a previous rehabilitation in 2009 (D261302).
Quote from: Alps on September 26, 2018, 05:03:38 PM
Quote from: seicer on September 26, 2018, 02:12:57 PM
How wide are some of those lanes on the bridges around NYC? Didn't the Bayonne Bridge have 9' lanes or something?
Goethals was 10 and change with minimal shoulders. That was the worst. Even Outerbridge has a slight advantage though I forget why.
PANYNJ widened the approach spans on the latter from 1962 to 1963 so that the lanes were 12' each. The Goethals only saw a few parts of the deck on the NJ side widened.
Just checked out GSV for I-278 and the Verrazano and noticed it has the updated imagery showing the new layout with cashless tolling. I did see they have not replaced this sign.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/851/40777837465_572567869f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/258p5pc)
Any construction set up on the Sheridan? If so where abouts? Are they going north to south?
QuoteAny construction set up on the Sheridan? If so where abouts? Are they going north to south?
Nobody has any pics or updates on the Sheridan? Kinda surprised with all the talk around here.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 18, 2018, 05:44:57 PM
QuoteAny construction set up on the Sheridan? If so where abouts? Are they going north to south?
Nobody has any pics or updates on the Sheridan? Kinda surprised with all the talk around here.
I don't think anything much is happening yet.
Quote from: Alps on November 18, 2018, 06:07:00 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 18, 2018, 05:44:57 PM
QuoteAny construction set up on the Sheridan? If so where abouts? Are they going north to south?
Nobody has any pics or updates on the Sheridan? Kinda surprised with all the talk around here.
I don't think anything much is happening yet.
Correct.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 29, 2018, 03:25:41 PM
Just checked out GSV for I-278 and the Verrazano and noticed it has the updated imagery showing the new layout with cashless tolling. I did see they have not replaced this sign.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/851/40777837465_572567869f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/258p5pc)
Any construction set up on the Sheridan? If so where abouts? Are they going north to south?
Hope they never do classic gantry and sign
When is the Harlem River Drive going to be completed?
Why does NYC love to use steel plates in the road? Anyone know if they finished paving 11th ave to The Lincoln tunnel? I messed up my car on one of those huge raised manhole covers like 4-5 weeks ago like a day before that snow storm.
I refuse to go back that way until it's fixed meanwhile at least it forced me to change my exhaust out quicker.
Spent the majority of the last two days in Manhattan.
It was incredible. I have been down there before, but only for sightseeing, and on a Saturday. Totally different ballgame at rush hour on a weekday. Took the Lincoln Tunnel in (and out) on Monday. Took the PIP to GWB inbound this morning and came out via the Holland Tunnel (to return to EWR). Of the four trips (EWR to where we stayed overnight via Manhattan yesterday, and vice versa today), all took over an hour, and this morning had the lightest traffic.
Officially, I could never live in NYC and have to deal with that nightmare. Cool to see, but a beast to deal with. I'll take upstate, thank you very much!
To be fair, the construction on NJ 495 is no doubt making traffic worse than it already is. But yeah, I would NOT want to live somewhere with that kind of congestion!
Quote from: vdeane on December 11, 2018, 08:25:21 PM
To be fair, the construction on NJ 495 is no doubt making traffic worse than it already is. But yeah, I would NOT want to live somewhere with that kind of congestion!
I don't get it... 495 was worn down to the steel rebar in some areas how could they let it get that bad??
Patch, patch, patch. To do any sort of deck overhaul would have been just as horrendous as it is now, and if you can get by for decades with just patching, why not?
Quote from: Alps on November 18, 2018, 06:07:00 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 18, 2018, 05:44:57 PM
QuoteAny construction set up on the Sheridan? If so where abouts? Are they going north to south?
Nobody has any pics or updates on the Sheridan? Kinda surprised with all the talk around here.
I don't think anything much is happening yet.
Yeah, I've used it a couple times recently. Nary a peep.
Quote from: bluecountry on November 22, 2018, 08:59:37 AM
When is the Harlem River Drive going to be completed?
Probably right after the last sidewalk shed in the city comes down. :-D
Quote from: webny99 on December 11, 2018, 08:00:17 PM
Officially, I could never live in NYC and have to deal with that nightmare. Cool to see, but a beast to deal with. I'll take upstate, thank you very much!
Well, if you lived IN the city, you wouldn't have to deal with it; only those who drive in or out do. (But you'd be constantly bitching about the subway, so there's that.)
And there's something about living, and having to drive, in the immediate suburbs that's almost more frustrating than driving in the city proper: when you realize you've spent all that money and moved that much farther from the action, yet you haven't gotten any significant relief from crowding and congestion. (And if you think drivers are bad inside NYC, wait till you get 'em outside of the city, where they have room to really do some damage.) :D
New topic; I found an interesting sign at the Queens-Midtown Tunnel while doing research on the routes of Command Bus Company.
https://bus.nycsubway.org/perl/show?571
The "STOP: Do Not Enter" light isn't as much of a curiosity as the standard "Do Not Enter" sign beneath it, which looks interchangeable. Does anybody know what the other message on the sign is?
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 20, 2019, 08:12:41 AM
New topic; I found an interesting sign at the Queens-Midtown Tunnel while doing research on the routes of Command Bus Company.
https://bus.nycsubway.org/perl/show?571
The "STOP: Do Not Enter" light isn't as much of a curiosity as the standard "Do Not Enter" sign beneath it, which looks interchangeable. Does anybody know what the other message on the sign is?
Probably QMT with an arrow, for 2-way traffic in a single tube.
Quote from: Alps on January 20, 2019, 09:48:28 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 20, 2019, 08:12:41 AM
New topic; I found an interesting sign at the Queens-Midtown Tunnel while doing research on the routes of Command Bus Company.
https://bus.nycsubway.org/perl/show?571
The "STOP: Do Not Enter" light isn't as much of a curiosity as the standard "Do Not Enter" sign beneath it, which looks interchangeable. Does anybody know what the other message on the sign is?
Probably QMT with an arrow, for 2-way traffic in a single tube.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.nycsubway.org%2Fbus%2Fi1%2Fimg_571.jpg&hash=3c7f4507372ab9c2ea50434adc623d3c65446f25)
ixnay
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4816/39853162653_39ea257f3c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23HFSN2)
Get it while you can before I-895 becomes part of folklore.
Quote from: Alps on January 20, 2019, 09:48:28 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 20, 2019, 08:12:41 AM
New topic; I found an interesting sign at the Queens-Midtown Tunnel while doing research on the routes of Command Bus Company.
https://bus.nycsubway.org/perl/show?571
The "STOP: Do Not Enter" light isn't as much of a curiosity as the standard "Do Not Enter" sign beneath it, which looks interchangeable. Does anybody know what the other message on the sign is?
Probably QMT with an arrow, for 2-way traffic in a single tube.
Looks like it on streetview. Those signs are still there. The traffic light is mostly still there too, except for the newer 12 inch section on bottom.
I wish Streetview wasn't giving me so much trouble zooming down on that area right now.
Another question; where are the maps of the proposed reconstruction of Bruckner Expressway near Pelham and Hutchinson River Parkways that was mentioned earlier?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/40°51'10.3%22N+73°49'37.7%22W/@40.8597138,-73.8289268,700m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.852871!4d-73.827138?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C3%82%C2%B051'10.3%22N+73%C3%82%C2%B049'37.7%22W/@40.8597138,-73.8289268,700m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.852871!4d-73.827138?hl=en)
Because I was thinking an extension of Baychester Avenue south from Co-Op City to the Pelham Bay Park subway station with no connection to either of these roads might be a way to keep local traffic away from the expressway.
Was in Queens today and noticed the button copy for the GCP by 114th street and ramps are gone as are the button copy on 96 Rd Ave and Jewel Ave.
A new I-278 RFK 1 1/4 Miles advance BGS went up on the FDR Drive NB.
This one hangs on by JFK
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7894/46705922604_1650c6c7b8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2eaf4zE)
I-678 still two lanes through the Kew Gardens interchange but progress seems to be happening there.
The two new express lanes at the OBX toll booth almost look ready.
So I've seen on GSV that the FDR has gotten a lot of new signage, but I'm guessing most of the contracts have been in kind replacements just with updated retroflective signs, like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7350119,-73.9747669,3a,75y,351.08h,98.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOqN1zbZhmtYxBiesvL-CYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) which is clearly a new sign, but still keeps the old school center aligned exit tab? There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason along the FDR for which way the tabs are aligned. Would have thought they would take the time for these updates to ensure that the exit tabs are either right or left aligned per updated requirements, like they did further north on the Harlem River Dr segment north of the Triboro.
Quote from: storm2k on March 24, 2019, 01:14:14 PM
So I've seen on GSV that the FDR has gotten a lot of new signage, but I'm guessing most of the contracts have been in kind replacements just with updated retroflective signs, like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7350119,-73.9747669,3a,75y,351.08h,98.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOqN1zbZhmtYxBiesvL-CYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) which is clearly a new sign, but still keeps the old school center aligned exit tab? There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason along the FDR for which way the tabs are aligned. Would have thought they would take the time for these updates to ensure that the exit tabs are either right or left aligned per updated requirements, like they did further north on the Harlem River Dr segment north of the Triboro.
I think the sign you linked is a NYC install hence the horrible bubble shield.
Also I think Staten Island has only two button copy signs left, the BAY ST sign coming off the VNB, which isn't even served by traffic anymore with the new AET layout and this one on Lafferts Lane.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6150116,-74.1591709,3a,75y,284.29h,104.59t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sU4nemSwSUe15DTdCjaNXoA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DU4nemSwSUe15DTdCjaNXoA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D175.54985%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
If somebody knows for sure let us know.
Do people here have any thoughts on the congestion pricing proposals?
I'm hopefully optimistic that a tolling system can be implemented that would not be too punitive. It doesn't seem like there is that much information on pricing, hours, or even the exact boundaries of what is proposed. (Perhaps that is by design.)
Anyway, I would hope that whatever is implemented should do the following:
Two-way tolls on Verrazano,
The tolls on Henry Hudson Bridge and the tolls to the Rockaways should be really cheap to avoid people bypassing the tolls, say $1.50 for cars with EZ-Pass and scalable for buses and trucks and toll by plate.
THe tolls on Verrazano, Triboro, Whitestone, and Throgs Neck, should also be significantly reduced. IMO something like $5 EZ-Pass for cars would be fair. If possible, the toll on the Triboro for Bronx-Manhattan traffic should match the HHB, and the tolls for Bronx-Queens and Manhattan-Queens should match the Whitestone tolls.
Any toll paid on the Lincoln, Holland, Midtown, or Battery tunnel should be credited toward the congestion charge.
Any toll paid on the HHB or Triboro should be credited toward the congestion charge, if you then cross the zone within 2 hours.
THe congestion charge should be free between 12 midnight and 5 am, and the charge should change with time of day, based on traffic conditions. An absolute maximum of $15, even at the busiest times and a daytime minimum of $5 would be nice.
All must pay the charge. There should be no carveouts based on income or the need to go to a doctor.
The boundary should be adjusted to allow for free travel from the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR Drive, so long as you don't exit before 60th street, and to allow for traffic on the Upper East Side free travel to/from the Queensboro Bridge at all times.
Travel within the zone should be free, unless you cross a boundary. Travel on the FDR drive with the zone (like say from 42nd to Grand St) should also be free.
I understand the need for funding for transporation, and a proper system can be designed to discourage pass-through traffic in Manhattan, but it should be done with fairness in mind.
If anyone has other ideas or some knowledge as to more specifics of the plans, please comment.
Quote from: mrsman on March 31, 2019, 08:27:23 AM
Two-way tolls on Verrazano
Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.
Quote
Any toll paid on the Lincoln, Holland, Midtown, or Battery tunnel should be credited toward the congestion charge
Sounds fair, but it would cripple the program from a revenue perspective. PANYNJ isn't going to share any money with any other agency. Keep in mind the toll has almost doubled over the past 10 years to fund the agency's more money-losing ventures like PATH and the new WTC.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 03:38:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 31, 2019, 08:27:23 AM
Two-way tolls on Verrazano
Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.
....
Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?
Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano" is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2019, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 03:38:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 31, 2019, 08:27:23 AM
Two-way tolls on Verrazano
Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.
....
Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?
Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano" is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)
The switch to one-way tolling on the Verrazano was opposed by local authorities and only came about due to an act of Congress. (https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/24/nyregion/for-verrazano-one-way-tolls.html)
Thanks. Obviously I didn't know that.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 08:15:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2019, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 03:38:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 31, 2019, 08:27:23 AM
Two-way tolls on Verrazano
Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.
....
Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?
Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano" is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)
The switch to one-way tolling on the Verrazano was opposed by local authorities and only came about due to an act of Congress. (https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/24/nyregion/for-verrazano-one-way-tolls.html)
How is Congress butting in to something so hyper-local even constitutional?
Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2019, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 08:15:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2019, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 03:38:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 31, 2019, 08:27:23 AM
Two-way tolls on Verrazano
Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.
....
Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?
Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano" is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)
The switch to one-way tolling on the Verrazano was opposed by local authorities and only came about due to an act of Congress. (https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/24/nyregion/for-verrazano-one-way-tolls.html)
How is Congress butting in to something so hyper-local even constitutional?
Presumably they found it affects interstate commerce (which it probably does). The Commerce Clause was found to apply in the famous
Heart of Atlanta Motel case involving a single-location non-chain motel that did not allow black guests, federal law about integration notwithstanding. The motel owner argued that Congress had no authority to require his business to rent rooms to blacks, but the federal courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) disagreed and found that motel accommodations clearly relate to interstate commerce.
Given that precedent, I think it's clear that tolling on the Verrazzano Bridge is far more obviously connected to interstate commerce than a single-location motel in Georgia.
There are other bases Congress could use to regulate that sort of thing, but interstate commerce is the most frequent and the most obvious.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2019, 09:11:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2019, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 08:15:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2019, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 03:38:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 31, 2019, 08:27:23 AM
Two-way tolls on Verrazano
Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.
....
Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?
Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano" is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)
The switch to one-way tolling on the Verrazano was opposed by local authorities and only came about due to an act of Congress. (https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/24/nyregion/for-verrazano-one-way-tolls.html)
How is Congress butting in to something so hyper-local even constitutional?
Presumably they found it affects interstate commerce (which it probably does). The Commerce Clause was found to apply in the famous Heart of Atlanta Motel case involving a single-location non-chain motel that did not allow black guests, federal law about integration notwithstanding. The motel owner argued that Congress had no authority to require his business to rent rooms to blacks, but the federal courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) disagreed and found that motel accommodations clearly relate to interstate commerce.
Given that precedent, I think it's clear that tolling on the Verrazzano Bridge is far more obviously connected to interstate commerce than a single-location motel in Georgia.
There are other bases Congress could use to regulate that sort of thing, but interstate commerce is the most frequent and the most obvious.
I would think the law in the hotel case would have applied to all hotels, not just the one. And if Congress wants to look at interstate commerce implications of tolling, then they can look at all the traffic diverting into Manhattan to avoid the sky high Verrazzano (incidentally, someone needs to tell Google of the correct spelling) tolls. Air quality in Staten Island, however, does not strike me as being remotely related to interstate commerce, so if anything, this law is hindering it and always has.
Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2019, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2019, 09:11:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2019, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 08:15:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2019, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 03:38:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 31, 2019, 08:27:23 AM
Two-way tolls on Verrazano
Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.
....
Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?
Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano" is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)
The switch to one-way tolling on the Verrazano was opposed by local authorities and only came about due to an act of Congress. (https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/24/nyregion/for-verrazano-one-way-tolls.html)
How is Congress butting in to something so hyper-local even constitutional?
Presumably they found it affects interstate commerce (which it probably does). The Commerce Clause was found to apply in the famous Heart of Atlanta Motel case involving a single-location non-chain motel that did not allow black guests, federal law about integration notwithstanding. The motel owner argued that Congress had no authority to require his business to rent rooms to blacks, but the federal courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) disagreed and found that motel accommodations clearly relate to interstate commerce.
Given that precedent, I think it's clear that tolling on the Verrazzano Bridge is far more obviously connected to interstate commerce than a single-location motel in Georgia.
There are other bases Congress could use to regulate that sort of thing, but interstate commerce is the most frequent and the most obvious.
I would think the law in the hotel case would have applied to all hotels, not just the one. And if Congress wants to look at interstate commerce implications of tolling, then they can look at all the traffic diverting into Manhattan to avoid the sky high Verrazzano (incidentally, someone needs to tell Google of the correct spelling) tolls. Air quality in Staten Island, however, does not strike me as being remotely related to interstate commerce, so if anything, this law is hindering it and always has.
Do any metro NYC locals call it the VZB? As for the correct spelling (which I first became aware of via a monument abutting, of all things, the boardwalk in Rehoboth Beach, DE a few years ago), now that we know Giovanni had double z's, shall we call this somewhat famous bridge "the Razz", since you can't spell Verrazzano without "razz"? :) Or maybe the Sleepy Span since its name has multiple z's? :sleep:
ixnay
Mostly we just call it the Verrazzano Bridge.........
Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2019, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2019, 09:11:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2019, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 08:15:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2019, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 03:38:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 31, 2019, 08:27:23 AM
Two-way tolls on Verrazano
Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.
....
Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?
Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano" is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)
The switch to one-way tolling on the Verrazano was opposed by local authorities and only came about due to an act of Congress. (https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/24/nyregion/for-verrazano-one-way-tolls.html)
How is Congress butting in to something so hyper-local even constitutional?
Presumably they found it affects interstate commerce (which it probably does). The Commerce Clause was found to apply in the famous Heart of Atlanta Motel case involving a single-location non-chain motel that did not allow black guests, federal law about integration notwithstanding. The motel owner argued that Congress had no authority to require his business to rent rooms to blacks, but the federal courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) disagreed and found that motel accommodations clearly relate to interstate commerce.
Given that precedent, I think it's clear that tolling on the Verrazzano Bridge is far more obviously connected to interstate commerce than a single-location motel in Georgia.
There are other bases Congress could use to regulate that sort of thing, but interstate commerce is the most frequent and the most obvious.
I would think the law in the hotel case would have applied to all hotels, not just the one. And if Congress wants to look at interstate commerce implications of tolling, then they can look at all the traffic diverting into Manhattan to avoid the sky high Verrazzano (incidentally, someone needs to tell Google of the correct spelling) tolls. Air quality in Staten Island, however, does not strike me as being remotely related to interstate commerce, so if anything, this law is hindering it and always has.
The law in the motel case did apply to all hotels. It was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or 1965 (I forget the year). The motel owner argued that because his motel only had one location well inside Georgia, the Civil Rights Act couldn't apply to him.
But the Commerce Clause is a LOT broader than you probably think it is. Note also that I don't know whether Congress cited the Commerce Clause in the Verrazano situation. I speculated on that because it's an obvious one, but there are other bases they can use. A common one is to tie something to highway funds–if the state doesn't do a certain thing, the state will lose some portion (or all) of its federal highway funding. The courts have found that to be permissible as long as what Congress demands the state do is not otherwise unconstitutional. For example, Congress cannot demand that a state declare Judaism to be the state religion because that would violate the First Amendment. But Congress can demand that a state not post any speed limit higher than 55 mph because nothing in the Constitution applies there, and the Tenth Amendment doesn't dictate otherwise because the state does not have a right to federal highway funds.
Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2019, 09:42:48 PM
Verrazzano (incidentally, someone needs to tell Google of the correct spelling)
Has it not updated for everyone yet? I just checked and both the place point and the road segments have the corrected spelling.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 03:38:04 PM
Quote
Any toll paid on the Lincoln, Holland, Midtown, or Battery tunnel should be credited toward the congestion charge
Sounds fair, but it would cripple the program from a revenue perspective. PANYNJ isn't going to share any money with any other agency. Keep in mind the toll has almost doubled over the past 10 years to fund the agency's more money-losing ventures like PATH and the new WTC.
Dosen't PANYNJ charge tolls for other bridges/tunnels around NYC, instead of those four?
Quote from: Verlanka on April 01, 2019, 09:26:06 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 31, 2019, 03:38:04 PM
Quote
Any toll paid on the Lincoln, Holland, Midtown, or Battery tunnel should be credited toward the congestion charge
Sounds fair, but it would cripple the program from a revenue perspective. PANYNJ isn't going to share any money with any other agency. Keep in mind the toll has almost doubled over the past 10 years to fund the agency's more money-losing ventures like PATH and the new WTC.
Dosen't PANYNJ charge tolls for other bridges/tunnels around NYC, instead of those four?
Yes, and the Port Authority doesn't run the Midtown and Battery tunnels, either. The point is which crossings connect to the area that would likely fall within the congestion charging zone. There would be no reason, for example, to allow for a rebate on Outerbridge tolls because southwestern Staten Island is a long way away from Lower Manhattan.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2019, 10:13:52 PM
But the Commerce Clause is a LOT broader than you probably think it is. Note also that I don't know whether Congress cited the Commerce Clause in the Verrazano situation. I speculated on that because it's an obvious one, but there are other bases they can use. A common one is to tie something to highway funds–if the state doesn't do a certain thing, the state will lose some portion (or all) of its federal highway funding. The courts have found that to be permissible as long as what Congress demands the state do is not otherwise unconstitutional. For example, Congress cannot demand that a state declare Judaism to be the state religion because that would violate the First Amendment. But Congress can demand that a state not post any speed limit higher than 55 mph because nothing in the Constitution applies there, and the Tenth Amendment doesn't dictate otherwise because the state does not have a right to federal highway funds.
IMO the court overreached on that. It goes against the entire spirit the Constitution was written under. The federal government should only be able to apply conditions to funds that relate to how funds get spent, not tangentially related or unrelated things (so design requirements for a project funded with federal highway funds could be set, types of projects, etc., but not things like mandating a 55 mph max speed limit or a drinking age of 21).
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 31, 2019, 11:05:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2019, 09:42:48 PM
Verrazzano (incidentally, someone needs to tell Google of the correct spelling)
Has it not updated for everyone yet? I just checked and both the place point and the road segments have the corrected spelling.
When I type posts on here, Chrome's spell check underlines "Verrazzano" with a red squiggly line.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2019, 09:59:04 AM
Yes, and the Port Authority doesn't run the Midtown and Battery tunnels, either. The point is which crossings connect to the area that would likely fall within the congestion charging zone. There would be no reason, for example, to allow for a rebate on Outerbridge tolls because southwestern Staten Island is a long way away from Lower Manhattan.
Heck, now people in the Hudson Valley are trying to get the Tappan Zee Bridge added to the list of places giving a toll rebate.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 31, 2019, 10:05:15 PM
Mostly we just call it the Verrazano Bridge.........
FTFYAEE (and everyone else). VNB is the accepted abbreviation.
Two finds from the maps exhibit currently at the NYC Transit Museum:
1) The westerly part of Conduit Blvd. had a proposed "Southern Pkwy." inside it. Other than adding a NW-E ramp, it had underpasses of a few roads starting at Liberty before merging into Conduit. The map dated to the 1960s, so I couldn't tell if this predated the I-78 proposal, postdated it, or was a mapo. It would kinda make sense for the Southern Pkwy. (now the part of the Belt along JFK) to head up that way though. Only kinda.
2) There were proposed high-speed ramps to/from the northern Bronx River Parkway to E 180th St. just north of the Sheridan Expwy. It didn't look like these would be directly freeway to freeway, but only a couple blocks off, still increasing the utility of I-895.
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-chester-20190425-rl7c5dlwijgyfmvudsrjf42zhi-story.html
Thoughts?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 25, 2019, 05:14:14 PM
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-chester-20190425-rl7c5dlwijgyfmvudsrjf42zhi-story.html
Thoughts?
Expect years of drama over this before anything happens.
This a major project in a highly visible location... and one where physical and practical constraints are such that every conceivable alternative will cause major headaches to some large group of people for some nontrivial period of time.
The irony of the situation is that the triple-cantilever design was itself designed to minimize impact on the neighborhood by building the road into the side of a hill at (what was then) the edge of the residential area instead of just carving a trench through the middle as was more common, and as Robert Moses wanted to do there. It was very forward-thinking for its time.
Unfortunately, that decision to build that complex structure then now begets the lack of unpainful options to rebuild it today. If Moses had been allowed to just build a trench through Brooklyn Heights this would be a much simpler and more straightforward reconstruction project.
Very well stated Duke87. Good post re: the irony of how a forward thinking project over sixty years ago has resulted in our having to deal with a more complex problem today. If we're lucky maybe the powers that be will come up with a similar forward thinking solution for the 21st Century. But whatever that turns out to be will undoubtedly be extremely expensive and time consuming, much like Boston's BigDig project.
I love this bit
"Chester is the managing director of Rebuild by Design, a lifelong resident of Brooklyn and a proud car owner."
The same crap the new urbanist/pro walkability yet lives in the sprawled our suburbs type try and pull. Always some excuse for their actions. The typical argument "one can own a car and still support mass transit and making cities more walkable" is always fine for them yet for people like me who own multiple cars and still support the expansion of freeways in many of the same ways the new urbanist might, I can't say that. If I say I also support increased transit and walkability, the argument will always revert to me having to defend freeways and why I support them. Please.
Then there is the ages old mantra of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" where the NIMBY's come together to oppose any new infrastructure that might bring the realities of living in a metro area of 10 million plus people more prevalent. Who now is on their side? Gasp, the new urbanist. Even more ironic, are the traditional urbanist crowd who care more about skyscrapers and Uber dense development than a new urbanist might. But for their own reasons, props to them for supporting the removal of a freeway that carries how many hundreds of thousands of cars a day and has directly/indirectly moved how many dollars through the economy?
Hopefully the sensible decision is made and this freeway is rebuilt as a tunnel(preferably a minimum of 8 lanes but that's asking too much).
Any updates on when the HRD reconstruction is due to be complete?
They said in 2014 it was a 3 year project...
Everybody here knows I took a road trip to NYC in April, but what they don't know was that I crossed the Triborough Bridge to get to Queens and back. The thing is, I used the bridge going into Queens from the Major Deegan Expressway, and coming out of Queens from the Grand Central/BQE, but for some reason the transponders only charged me for leaving.
Was this some kind of glitch? Or some special discount I wasn't aware of? I know I shouldn't complain about only paying for one toll, but I since I believe in a fair game, I'm kind of puzzled.
Sounds like a blown read to me.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2019, 12:37:23 PM
Everybody here knows I took a road trip to NYC in April, but what they don't know was that I crossed the Triborough Bridge to get to Queens and back. The thing is, I used the bridge going into Queens from the Major Deegan Expressway, and coming out of Queens from the Grand Central/BQE, but for some reason the transponders only charged me for leaving.
Was this some kind of glitch? Or some special discount I wasn't aware of? I know I shouldn't complain about only paying for one toll, but I since I believe in a fair game, I'm kind of puzzled.
I was only charged for one direction over the winter.
Quote from: bluecountry on April 28, 2019, 06:53:06 PM
Any updates on when the HRD reconstruction is due to be complete?
They said in 2014 it was a 3 year project...
I was going to ask the same thing and did it improve operations?
I noticed the button copy signs on Jewel Ave in Queens between I-678 and the GCP have all been replaced. Are the non-reflective button copy hold overs on the BQE spur still there?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7649539,-73.8948709,3a,75y,192.27h,94.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEezRejYZO0mf1UUXy86-3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
These have escaped replacement.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 13, 2019, 03:02:02 PM
I noticed the button copy signs on Jewel Ave in Queens between I-678 and the GCP have all been replaced. Are the non-reflective button copy hold overs on the BQE spur still there?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7649539,-73.8948709,3a,75y,192.27h,94.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEezRejYZO0mf1UUXy86-3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
These have escaped replacement.
Dang, NOW you tell me about those jewels.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2019, 05:29:26 PM
Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano" is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)
Interesting. Is that reflected on highway signs now?
I just looked up the recommended pronunciations, and they are even more interesting.
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2019, 10:11:25 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 13, 2019, 03:02:02 PM
I noticed the button copy signs on Jewel Ave in Queens between I-678 and the GCP have all been replaced. Are the non-reflective button copy hold overs on the BQE spur still there?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7649539,-73.8948709,3a,75y,192.27h,94.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEezRejYZO0mf1UUXy86-3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
These have escaped replacement.
Dang, NOW you tell me about those jewels.
:-D
Quote from: Beltway on June 13, 2019, 11:51:58 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2019, 05:29:26 PM
Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano" is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)
Interesting. Is that reflected on highway signs now?
I just looked up the recommended pronunciations, and they are even more interesting.
I believe they said signs will be changed as they come to require replacement and that no special efforts will be made. Makes sense to me–it's just a spelling correction that should have no practical effect on the signs' usefulness for guide information.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2019, 12:37:23 PM
Everybody here knows I took a road trip to NYC in April, but what they don't know was that I crossed the Triborough Bridge to get to Queens and back. The thing is, I used the bridge going into Queens from the Major Deegan Expressway, and coming out of Queens from the Grand Central/BQE, but for some reason the transponders only charged me for leaving.
Was this some kind of glitch? Or some special discount I wasn't aware of? I know I shouldn't complain about only paying for one toll, but I since I believe in a fair game, I'm kind of puzzled.
Do you have an EZPass?
I used the Triboro to Queens via the Deegan this week and got charged as usual.
Quote from: RestrictOnTheHanger on June 15, 2019, 03:45:04 PM
Do you have an EZPass?
I used the Triboro to Queens via the Deegan this week and got charged as usual.
Nope. Since I'm only in NYC once or twice a year, and I found out non-New York residents don't get a discount, I decided to go with the toll by plate deal.
In my previous bills I got each toll fair and square.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 17, 2019, 01:16:42 AM
Nope. Since I'm only in NYC once or twice a year, and I found out non-New York residents don't get a discount, I decided to go with the toll by plate deal.
It doesn't have anything to do with residency, only with who issues your tag. So long as you have a New York E-Zpass, you get the discount, and you don't need to live in New York to get one.
Thing is, if you sign up online through the NY Service Center and use an out of state address, they'll stick you with a PANYNJ tag, which carries a $1 monthly fee. To avoid this, you need to either borrow the address of a friend or relative who lives in New York to sign up (you can change the address to your actual address afterwards), or buy a tag in person at one of the retail locations in New York that sell them. Either of these methods will get you an MTA or NYSTA tag which gets you the discount but does not have a monthly fee.
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2019, 08:44:20 PM
Two finds from the maps exhibit currently at the NYC Transit Museum:
1) The westerly part of Conduit Blvd. had a proposed "Southern Pkwy." inside it. Other than adding a NW-E ramp, it had underpasses of a few roads starting at Liberty before merging into Conduit. The map dated to the 1960s, so I couldn't tell if this predated the I-78 proposal, postdated it, or was a mapo. It would kinda make sense for the Southern Pkwy. (now the part of the Belt along JFK) to head up that way though. Only kinda.
2) There were proposed high-speed ramps to/from the northern Bronx River Parkway to E 180th St. just north of the Sheridan Expwy. It didn't look like these would be directly freeway to freeway, but only a couple blocks off, still increasing the utility of I-895.
I've seen Hagstroms maps from as recently as the 1980's (and maybe the 1990's) that include the name "Southern Parkway" along that segment of the Belt Parkway. Also, I want to know if that NYC Transit Museum exhibit is available all year round.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 21, 2019, 11:50:43 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2019, 08:44:20 PM
Two finds from the maps exhibit currently at the NYC Transit Museum:
1) The westerly part of Conduit Blvd. had a proposed "Southern Pkwy." inside it. Other than adding a NW-E ramp, it had underpasses of a few roads starting at Liberty before merging into Conduit. The map dated to the 1960s, so I couldn't tell if this predated the I-78 proposal, postdated it, or was a mapo. It would kinda make sense for the Southern Pkwy. (now the part of the Belt along JFK) to head up that way though. Only kinda.
2) There were proposed high-speed ramps to/from the northern Bronx River Parkway to E 180th St. just north of the Sheridan Expwy. It didn't look like these would be directly freeway to freeway, but only a couple blocks off, still increasing the utility of I-895.
I've seen Hagstroms maps from as recently as the 1980's (and maybe the 1990's) that include the name "Southern Parkway" along that segment of the Belt Parkway. Also, I want to know if that NYC Transit Museum exhibit is available all year round.
No I'm saying Southern Parkway continued along Conduit. That's new. And the maps exhibit may be finite.
I've never driven in New York before, what are the roads like there? Is it too crowded?
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 07:30:03 PM
I've never driven in New York before, what are the roads like there? Is it too crowded?
Please stop spamming all of these topics. This question is... not really conducive to the discussion of roads.
Quote from: Alps on July 28, 2019, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 07:30:03 PM
I've never driven in New York before, what are the roads like there? Is it too crowded?
Please stop spamming all of these topics. This question is... not really conducive to the discussion of roads.
Alright, I've never been to New York really, and I should probably stop posting on here unless it has something to do with the roads.
Was in the Bronx, Queens and Manhattan on Saturday. From what I could see from the Amtrak train in the Bronx (before the Hell Gate Bridge heading south/east), the BGS gantries for the Sheridan Expressway still show as I-895.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 30, 2019, 01:07:08 PM
Was in the Bronx, Queens and Manhattan on Saturday. From what I could see from the Amtrak train in the Bronx (before the Hell Gate Bridge heading south/east), the BGS gantries for the Sheridan Expressway still show as I-895.
Correct. There's next to no NY 895 signage yet anywhere.
Quote from: Alps on July 30, 2019, 08:38:48 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 30, 2019, 01:07:08 PM
Was in the Bronx, Queens and Manhattan on Saturday. From what I could see from the Amtrak train in the Bronx (before the Hell Gate Bridge heading south/east), the BGS gantries for the Sheridan Expressway still show as I-895.
Correct. There's next to no NY 878 signage yet anywhere.
I would hope that there wouldn't be any NY 878 signage on/for the Sheridan.
Quote from: vdeane on July 30, 2019, 08:59:53 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 30, 2019, 08:38:48 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 30, 2019, 01:07:08 PM
Was in the Bronx, Queens and Manhattan on Saturday. From what I could see from the Amtrak train in the Bronx (before the Hell Gate Bridge heading south/east), the BGS gantries for the Sheridan Expressway still show as I-895.
Correct. There's next to no NY 878 signage yet anywhere.
I would hope that there wouldn't be any NY 878 signage on/for the Sheridan.
Blah, good catch.
Enjoy these while you can:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7887/47429015441_7213b91347_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fg96Tx)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4816/39853162653_39ea257f3c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23HFSN2)
and an older I pic I took a couple years ago:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4518/26448219479_ecdb6afd58_c.jpg)
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 11:47:34 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 28, 2019, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 07:30:03 PM
I've never driven in New York before, what are the roads like there? Is it too crowded?
Please stop spamming all of these topics. This question is... not really conducive to the discussion of roads.
Alright, I've never been to New York really, and I should probably stop posting on here unless it has something to do with the roads.
The roads in the New York City part of New York are very congested (yes, "too crowded", IMO). The roads in the non-city part of New York, also known as Upstate, are no different than the roads anywhere else in the US. Maybe even better, once you get north of the 42nd parallel! :)
More button copy disappearing, I noticed on I-678 NB all the button copy is gone at least up until the GCP.
This FDR Drive sign is gone. I just took the pic about a month and half ago.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48122729186_b96ba8fdde_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gjryPm)
Car traffic in Manhattan moving at slowest pace in decades: reportQuoteManhattan's notoriously fast pace is slowing down – at least for drivers.
Data released by the city Department of Transportation Thursday shows the average speed of vehicles in the borough below 60th St. was a paltry 7 mph last year.
- https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-dot-mobility-report-polly-trottenberg-20190815-bulpauf6v5gddczbq4wrm2xtuy-story.html
Record levels of tourism and pedestrians... lol and surely that nothing to do with all of the projects removing car lanes and adding bus and bike lanes. Articles like this are posted likely as an attempt to dupe car drivers into thinking the politicians and planners are aware of this yet don't realize that this is a goal of these people. Classic.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 16, 2019, 03:23:13 PM
Car traffic in Manhattan moving at slowest pace in decades: report
QuoteManhattan's notoriously fast pace is slowing down – at least for drivers.
Data released by the city Department of Transportation Thursday shows the average speed of vehicles in the borough below 60th St. was a paltry 7 mph last year.
- https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-dot-mobility-report-polly-trottenberg-20190815-bulpauf6v5gddczbq4wrm2xtuy-story.html
Record levels of tourism and pedestrians... lol and surely that nothing to do with all of the projects removing car lanes and adding bus and bike lanes. Articles like this are posted likely as an attempt to dupe car drivers into thinking the politicians and planners are aware of this yet don't realize that this is a goal of these people. Classic.
Don't forget Zero Vision!
Right! How can anyone die from car accidents if no one is moving!
The advent of app-based taxi services has certatinly been a contributing factor to increased congestion, and DOT is not wrong to identify this as such.
Though yes, lane reductions, in some cases, are also a contributing factor - but of course they're not going to draw attention to this since it would go against the city's policy agenda to criticize that practice.
Two other things not yet mentioned here or in the article that are worth pointing out:
- 2010 was a recession year. Some of that 23% increase in congestion since then can be attributed to a stronger economy.
- While the city's population is actually now estimated to be trending downward (since 2017), there are still a couple hundred thousand more people living here now than there were in 2010. All else being equal, population growth that is not offset by increasing transportation capacity will naturally beget increased congestion.
The DOT is wrong to acknowledge certain factors like ride sharing and not the results of their own practices. The government works for us, not the other way around.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X05171
A project to allow trucks on the GCP from the Triboro to the BQE. I thought that was already done?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 19, 2019, 07:46:00 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X05171
A project to allow trucks on the GCP from the Triboro to the BQE. I thought that was already done?
Sooo...
QuoteThe current status of the project is Future Development.
The Bid Opening is expected to be in Fall 2018.
Construction is expected to begin in Winter 2018/2019.
Based on the claim of future development but with anticipated dates in the past, I don't think this an actual project. It, like many "projects" that make it onto the website is pure vaporware.
Insofar as trucks on that stretch of the Triborough Bridge Approach go... yes, there once was a complete ban on trucks there, and that was relaxed years ago. However, there are still size limits in place. Trucks with more than 3 axles, more than 10 wheels, or that are greater than 12'6" in height are still required to exit and use the service road. So, this "project" presumably would have involved reconstruction of that segment of road to have thicker pavement to support larger vehicle loads, and possibly a lowering of the roadway to increase clearance under the 31st St overpass.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 21, 2019, 08:21:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 19, 2019, 07:46:00 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X05171
A project to allow trucks on the GCP from the Triboro to the BQE. I thought that was already done?
Sooo...
QuoteThe current status of the project is Future Development.
The Bid Opening is expected to be in Fall 2018.
Construction is expected to begin in Winter 2018/2019.
Based on the claim of future development but with anticipated dates in the past, I don't think this an actual project. It, like many "projects" that make it onto the website is pure vaporware.
Insofar as trucks on that stretch of the Triborough Bridge Approach go... yes, there once was a complete ban on trucks there, and that was relaxed years ago. However, there are still size limits in place. Trucks with more than 3 axles, more than 10 wheels, or that are greater than 12'6" in height are still required to exit and use the service road. So, this "project" presumably would have involved reconstruction of that segment of road to have thicker pavement to support larger vehicle loads, and possibly a lowering of the roadway to increase clearance under the 31st St overpass.
This was what I remember
https://qns.com/story/2017/12/15/trucks-will-permitted-grand-central-parkway-astoria-ending-soul-piercing-noise-local-streets/
Quote from: webny99 on July 31, 2019, 07:55:51 PM
non-city part of New York, also known as Upstate
Ogdensburg and Oyster Bay both might have something to say about that definition–but there's another whole thread for that already. ;-)
Quote from: empirestate on August 30, 2019, 01:31:36 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 31, 2019, 07:55:51 PM
non-city part of New York, also known as Upstate
Ogdensburg and Oyster Bay both might have something to say about that definition–but there's another whole thread for that already. ;-)
He said New York, not Long Island.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 21, 2019, 08:21:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 19, 2019, 07:46:00 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X05171
A project to allow trucks on the GCP from the Triboro to the BQE. I thought that was already done?
Sooo...
QuoteThe current status of the project is Future Development.
The Bid Opening is expected to be in Fall 2018.
Construction is expected to begin in Winter 2018/2019.
Based on the claim of future development but with anticipated dates in the past, I don't think this an actual project. It, like many "projects" that make it onto the website is pure vaporware.
Insofar as trucks on that stretch of the Triborough Bridge Approach go... yes, there once was a complete ban on trucks there, and that was relaxed years ago. However, there are still size limits in place. Trucks with more than 3 axles, more than 10 wheels, or that are greater than 12'6" in height are still required to exit and use the service road. So, this "project" presumably would have involved reconstruction of that segment of road to have thicker pavement to support larger vehicle loads, and possibly a lowering of the roadway to increase clearance under the 31st St overpass.
It's done. If your truck is 13 ft 11 inches or less, you're allowed on it.
https://newyorktruckstop.com/2018/10/04/astoria-queens-brooklyn-queens-expressway/
A minute of 1980's button copy in Queens.
Is the Battery Park Underpass on the FDR Drive below Sea Level? I heard it mentioned that the underpass drops below the Brooklyn- Batter Tunnel Tubes and not over them as one would think, so I would imagine it would be.
Heck, the I-395 tunnel in DC is below Sea Level so it is not really that uncommon I guess for a situation like this.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 07, 2019, 11:14:49 AM
Is the Battery Park Underpass on the FDR Drive below Sea Level? I heard it mentioned that the underpass drops below the Brooklyn- Batter Tunnel Tubes and not over them as one would think, so I would imagine it would be.
Heck, the I-395 tunnel in DC is below Sea Level so it is not really that uncommon I guess for a situation like this.
It probably is, as (almost?) anything below ground in and around Battery Park (with the exception of the land immediately surrounding Castle Clinton, although that probably wasn't even there to begin with!) was filled in via landfill.
The underpass might be below sea level but even if it is, I would assume that it is above the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. The tunnel I think starts downhill right at the portal but the underpass should be level once you enter it.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 07, 2019, 09:16:09 PM
The underpass might be below sea level but even if it is, I would assume that it is above the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. The tunnel I think starts downhill right at the portal but the underpass should be level once you enter it.
No, it's below.
I think sheeting signs are better than button copy, although the button copy ones look kinda cool.
What do you guys think? Is button copy or sheeting better?
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 10:24:25 AM
I think sheeting signs are better than button copy, although the button copy ones look kinda cool.
What do you guys think? Is button copy or sheeting better?
There is already discussion of this in Traffic Control. Let's keep it there.
Quote from: Alps on September 08, 2019, 12:44:49 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 10:24:25 AM
I think sheeting signs are better than button copy, although the button copy ones look kinda cool.
What do you guys think? Is button copy or sheeting better?
There is already discussion of this in Traffic Control. Let's keep it there.
Those threads are old too. Should I really revive one?
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 03:34:17 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 08, 2019, 12:44:49 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 10:24:25 AM
I think sheeting signs are better than button copy, although the button copy ones look kinda cool.
What do you guys think? Is button copy or sheeting better?
There is already discussion of this in Traffic Control. Let's keep it there.
Those threads are old too. Should I really revive one?
If you have something to add. If the discussion has already happened, you will already see people's positions recorded.
Quote from: Alps on September 08, 2019, 05:31:10 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 03:34:17 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 08, 2019, 12:44:49 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 10:24:25 AM
I think sheeting signs are better than button copy, although the button copy ones look kinda cool.
What do you guys think? Is button copy or sheeting better?
There is already discussion of this in Traffic Control. Let's keep it there.
Those threads are old too. Should I really revive one?
If you have something to add. If the discussion has already happened, you will already see people's positions recorded.
Alright then i guess i will do it.
Quote from: Alps on September 07, 2019, 11:51:36 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 07, 2019, 09:16:09 PM
The underpass might be below sea level but even if it is, I would assume that it is above the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. The tunnel I think starts downhill right at the portal but the underpass should be level once you enter it.
No, it's below.
What's below what? The Battery Park Underpass is below sea level, but it most certainly crosses over, not under the Battery Tunnel.
The underpass levels out around its portals (look at street view). The Battery Tunnel keeps sloping down well past its portals (naturally, since it needs to go under the river).
As an aside, I see Google is still showing I-478...
Quote from: Duke87 on September 08, 2019, 07:16:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 07, 2019, 11:51:36 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 07, 2019, 09:16:09 PM
The underpass might be below sea level but even if it is, I would assume that it is above the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. The tunnel I think starts downhill right at the portal but the underpass should be level once you enter it.
No, it's below.
What's below what? The Battery Park Underpass is below sea level, but it most certainly crosses over, not under the Battery Tunnel.
OK, I had heard otherwise. Without seeing construction drawings, I'm not sure how one proves this.
What's the possibility of the BQE being removed entirely?
Quote from: TheDon102 on September 09, 2019, 02:24:34 AM
What's the possibility of the BQE being removed entirely?
Not likely. The BQE servers a vital function and handles a lot of traffic. Those vehicles are not going to disappear should the BQE be removed and the city streets can't handle the additional traffic load. The BQE needs to be expanded, not removed.
Heh. I don't think the BQE is going anywhere. NYCDOT is already considering what to do about the "triple cantilever" section if it and I don't believe getting rid of it is a viable option.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Plus, I think the B.Q.E. isn't nearly as short as I-895 in the Bronx.
Expand the BQE? You can't expand just about any freeway or parkway in New York City without plowing down adjacent streets, homes and businesses. Maybe congestion pricing the freeways and parkways might help. I'd suggest building some tunnels, but due to the expense, as well as possible NIMBYism, that is unlikely to happen (the cancellation of the proposal to replace the Gowanus Expressway into a tunnel comes to mind).
Noticed a very wrong NY 27 shield on the West Side Highway (NY 9A) this weekend. According to Street View, it's been there for at least a year. (https://i.imgur.com/vpFEZne.png)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 09, 2019, 02:22:21 PM
Expand the BQE? You can't expand just about any freeway or parkway in New York City without plowing down adjacent streets, homes and businesses.
I never said that it was feasible or likely to happen. I just said that it was needed more than a removal.
Quote from: crispy93 on September 09, 2019, 02:48:49 PM
Noticed a very wrong NY 27 shield on the West Side Highway (NY 9A) this weekend. According to Street View, it's been there for at least a year. (https://i.imgur.com/vpFEZne.png)
I could see the error near the Battery (way to merge two topics), but up by the Javits that is just silly.
In response to a thread on the TRAFFIC CONTROL page, I'd have to say these signs have held up well for being almost 50 years old. I can't believe they haven't been replaced yet as button copy is disapearing fast.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48572561777_46f41b54f6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h1c5nF)
Quote from: Rothman on September 09, 2019, 01:24:10 PM
Heh. I don't think the BQE is going anywhere. NYCDOT is already considering what to do about the "triple cantilever" section if it and I don't believe getting rid of it is a viable option.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Apparently removing it entirely was something the NYCDOT was looking at. At least according to numerous articles about the triple cantilever in Brooklyn Heights. Is it viable? No. But I wouldn't put it past NYC to completely remove this section.
I wouldn't put it past the current NYC Mayor to suggest removing the entire highway. It's just the kind of idea he would approve of. But realistically, even if such an idea were floated, I think smarter heads in the region would prevail. No way is a section of the BQE just going to disappear. The consequences would be a disaster and most people know that.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 11, 2019, 04:41:20 PM
In response to a thread on the TRAFFIC CONTROL page, I'd have to say these signs have held up well for being almost 50 years old.
Yes, well, reflective sheeting will decay in the sun and lose its effectiveness after a while, but reflective buttons don't have this limitation. The result is that non-reflective button copy is capable of lasting in functional condition basically forever so long as it manages to avoid being crashed into, vandalized, or otherwise damaged. There'd be a lot more 50 year old signs out there still in use and still looking this good if button copy hadn't been deemed an insufficient solution for nighttime legibility of signs.
Quote from: TheDon102 on September 14, 2019, 07:39:54 PM
Apparently removing it entirely was something the NYCDOT was looking at. At least according to numerous articles about the triple cantilever in Brooklyn Heights. Is it viable? No. But I wouldn't put it past NYC to completely remove this section.
With some transportation pundits suggesting the idea, NYCDOT has to "look at" it, if for no other reason to have the results of the analysis showing it is not an acceptable alternative.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2019, 10:16:23 PM
I wouldn't put it past the current NYC Mayor to suggest removing the entire highway. It's just the kind of idea he would approve of. But realistically, even if such an idea were floated, I think smarter heads in the region would prevail. No way is a section of the BQE just going to disappear. The consequences would be a disaster and most people know that.
DOTs often study various alternatives merely for comparative purposes, not because they're under serious consideration or in any way practical. It's often tempting to take it as evidence of misguidedness on the part of public officials (and the public), but the real motivations are usually much more mundane.
WABC News report from 1983 on missing street signs and non-functioning traffic signals hilariously documented by legend Milton Lewis:
Signs on the Bronx River and E. 177 St have the Sheridan as NY 895 now. The relevant portions were patched over, the entire sign was not replaced. (https://i.imgur.com/gBFuhWG.jpg)
These are on E. 177 St. I don't like that "Manhattan/Queens" was greened out with "Sheridan Blvd," unless the goal is to not have 895 used as a route to the Triboro any more. The "Trenton, NJ" greenout is covering just "Trenton."
(https://i.imgur.com/jw4FpC7.jpg)
What's the point of the Trenton green-out? Plus, it's TOO BIG! :banghead:
WOW, the amount of bad looking signage is getting worse every day it seems. The overlay for Trenton is huge. You'd think with computer technology signs would be better today.
Have these been changed?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7887/47429015441_7213b91347_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fg96Tx)
or
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4816/39853162653_39ea257f3c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23HFSN2)
As far as I know, only the signs on E. 177 and the BRP have been changed. Signs on 278 still show it as I-895.
I was going through old pics on my computer and I found these...I didn't know I had.
It was like Christmas.
Non-reflective button copy from Staten Island. These signs were from the days before lowered speed limits and bike lanes.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48876896971_edffd24c71_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ht5SCc)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48876360473_ab0011658d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ht389e)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 10, 2019, 03:11:39 PM
These signs were from the days before lowered speed limits and bike lanes.
If those signs are pre-1973, then 440 and the Richmond Parkway (and maybe the SIE) had 55 MPH speed limits. Today, the city DOT won't raise any limits above 50 (NYCDOT sets speed limits on state roads in NYC).
Those signs are even that old. There used to be an all text NY-440 onramp BGS on Trantor Pl. (here: https://goo.gl/maps/2BFzjJCCYqpvCVBE6 )
Used to say:
NY-440 NORTH
Bayonne Br
I don't think NYC ever had speed limits anywhere over 50mph, even before 1973. Seems to me the limits on NYC parkways and expressways was always 50mph from the 1960's on.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2019, 10:16:23 PM
I wouldn't put it past the current NYC Mayor to suggest removing the entire highway. It's just the kind of idea he would approve of. But realistically, even if such an idea were floated, I think smarter heads in the region would prevail.
We can only hope.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2019, 10:16:23 PM
No way is a section of the BQE just going to disappear. The consequences would be a disaster and most people know that.
Unless they're thoughtless anti-car fanatics who idolize Jane Jacobs, and think that eliminating it will save their neighborhood.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 15, 2019, 08:04:43 PM
I don't think NYC ever had speed limits anywhere over 50mph, even before 1973. Seems to me the limits on NYC parkways and expressways was always 50mph from the 1960's on.
I read that on the NYC Roads site but the page on speed limits no longer loads. I found this article from 1970 showing plans to raise the speed limit on the BRP, BP, and CIP to 55 mph: https://www.nytimes.com/1970/06/17/archives/55-mph-speed-due-on-parkways-in-city.html
Interesting; I do not remember that, or when they were dropped back to 50mph, but I assume it was in the mid-1970's.
When is the Harlem River Drive project going to be done?
Quote from: bluecountry on October 26, 2019, 11:36:01 AM
When is the Harlem River Drive project going to be done?
Isn't it almost done?
At the end of the video there's a long shot of an expressway and a TOLL AHEAD sign. Where is that?
Looks like eastbound coming off the old Goethal's Bridge on Staten Island.
New roads leading from LaGuardia Airport to the Grand Central Pkwy.
(https://instagram.com/p/B4gpYxVhUMp/media/?size=m) (https://www.instagram.com/p/B4gpYxVhUMp/)
New roads in NYC!?!? :spin:
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 11, 2019, 03:04:07 PM
New roads in NYC!?!? :spin:
Major redo of how everything works in LGA.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 09, 2019, 04:57:11 PM
At the end of the video there's a long shot of an expressway and a TOLL AHEAD sign. Where is that?
They must have picked the most unflattering scenes of NYC to film that outro. Highlights include a garbage barge on the Arthur Kill, random NYC street scenes filled with garbage, and random industrial buildings with smoke stacks. The only bright spot was that the bridge tolls were "only" $2!
Drove down the Sheridan again last weekend, the signs on the BRP and 278 now say NY 878895/Sheridan Blvd. 895 southbound has two traffic signals (neither activated yet), a 30 MPH speed limit (thought it was supposed to be 35, might be temporary), and an exit for Westchester Ave. At that exit, the pull through says "278 West, Bruckner Expwy." After the underpass, the 50 MPH limit returns and transitions into 278 west toward the Triboro Bridge.
878 got one hell of an extension. ;)
Quote from: crispy93 on November 13, 2019, 01:03:52 PM
Drove down the Sheridan again last weekend, the signs on the BRP and 278 now say NY 878/Sheridan Blvd. 878 southbound has two traffic signals (neither activated yet), a 30 MPH speed limit (thought it was supposed to be 35, might be temporary), and an exit for Westchester Ave. At that exit, the pull through says "278 West, Bruckner Expwy." After the underpass, the 50 MPH limit returns and transitions into 278 west toward the Triboro Bridge.
Isn't that supposed to be NY-895?
Quote from: storm2k on November 14, 2019, 12:19:28 PM
Quote from: crispy93 on November 13, 2019, 01:03:52 PM
Drove down the Sheridan again last weekend, the signs on the BRP and 278 now say NY 878/Sheridan Blvd. 878 southbound has two traffic signals (neither activated yet), a 30 MPH speed limit (thought it was supposed to be 35, might be temporary), and an exit for Westchester Ave. At that exit, the pull through says "278 West, Bruckner Expwy." After the underpass, the 50 MPH limit returns and transitions into 278 west toward the Triboro Bridge.
Isn't that supposed to be NY-895?
Yes hence Roadgeek Adam's joke.
https://nyctmc.org/
Looking at the traffic cams where NY-895 splits off from I-278, it used to be a two-lane ramp, now it's a one lane ramp. Why??
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 26, 2019, 03:41:11 PM
https://nyctmc.org/
Looking at the traffic cams where NY-895 splits off from I-278, it used to be a two-lane ramp, now it's a one lane ramp. Why??
It is part of the demotion from I-895 to NY 895.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 26, 2019, 04:35:53 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 26, 2019, 03:41:11 PM
https://nyctmc.org/
Looking at the traffic cams where NY-895 splits off from I-278, it used to be a two-lane ramp, now it's a one lane ramp. Why??
It is part of the demotion from I-895 to NY 895.
Given the traffic counts you don't need more than a one-lane exit to 895 anyway. It already was a one-lane entrance going in the other direction and that never caused issues.
Through traffic on 278 needing to squeeze into two lanes and navigate a sharp curve to get through that interchange, on the other hand,
is a problem and remains unresolved.
Can anyone hazard a guess as to why the lane markings coming off the Whitestone Bridge in Queens are super thick? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7945515,-73.8250643,3a,26y,152.1h,83.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snFHO6qlm6lHDbO-KULKGWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Once past the Cross Island, they return to normal.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 09, 2019, 04:56:24 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 26, 2019, 11:36:01 AM
When is the Harlem River Drive project going to be done?
Isn't it almost done?
It's fine to 125th street then still a mess.
Quote from: crispy93 on December 09, 2019, 11:02:16 AM
Can anyone hazard a guess as to why the lane markings coming off the Whitestone Bridge in Queens are super thick? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7945515,-73.8250643,3a,26y,152.1h,83.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snFHO6qlm6lHDbO-KULKGWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
They've been like that since the project to rebuild the approach roadway was completed several years back. So it's a result of that project.
I'd have to figure either the contractor goofed... or the contractor followed some incorrect plans literally and TBTA decided to leave it instead of pay for a changeorder.
See now in addition to federal law mandating the reinstatement of EB Verrazzano Bridge tolling the News has it now we have misspelled Giovanni de Verrazzano's name for decades and tax dollars are now being put into correcting the mistake.
Does it mandate bi-directional tolling, or does it simply repeal the law mandating WB-only tolling? The article I read suggests the latter.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 09, 2019, 09:34:56 PM
Looks like eastbound coming off the old Goethal's Bridge on Staten Island.
That was my first thought, but I couldn't see the railroad overpass that precedes the toll plaza in the shot. I don't know of any PA toll plazas that looked like that, tho.
Question about I-278 exit numbers: How come the numbering skips from 35 to 39 after the interchange with I-495? If you check the exits table on Wikipedia, it shows that the exits had been normal, but they just got changed somewhere along the line. WHY?!?!?!
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 22, 2020, 07:13:45 PM
Question about I-278 exit numbers: How come the numbering skips from 35 to 39 after the interchange with I-495? If you check the exits table on Wikipedia, it shows that the exits had been normal, but they just got changed somewhere along the line. WHY?!?!?!
The plan was to eliminate a lot of the A/B suffixed exits, but at some point the renumbering plan was aborted and I-278 was left only half changed.
Sometimes I think California had it right all those years that they did not number exits on their Freeways.
From reading all the posts on these boards about exit numbering controversies, you could get the idea that numbering causes as many or more problems than it solves. And one could argue that it adds to the information overload that a driver must quickly process at highway speeds.
I often ignore exit numbers myself as I'm more interested in the other more meaningful legend on the signs. And in some cases exit numbers are almost useless as in the dividing point of two major highways, where the route number, direction and destination are the important info that I'm looking for.
Quote from: SignBridge on January 22, 2020, 09:26:03 PM
Sometimes I think California had it right all those years that they did not number exits on their Freeways.
From reading all the posts on these boards about exit numbering controversies, you could get the idea that numbering causes as many or more problems than it solves. And one could argue that it adds to the information overload that a driver must quickly process at highway speeds.
I often ignore exit numbers myself as I'm more interested in the other more meaningful legend on the signs. And in some cases exit numbers are almost useless as in the dividing point of two major highways, where the route number, direction and destination are the important info that I'm looking for.
Dude, California has a boatload of exits. The numbers make it so incredibly much easier to figure out where I need to go and when I need to get over.
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2020, 10:58:19 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 22, 2020, 09:26:03 PM
Sometimes I think California had it right all those years that they did not number exits on their Freeways.
From reading all the posts on these boards about exit numbering controversies, you could get the idea that numbering causes as many or more problems than it solves. And one could argue that it adds to the information overload that a driver must quickly process at highway speeds.
I often ignore exit numbers myself as I'm more interested in the other more meaningful legend on the signs. And in some cases exit numbers are almost useless as in the dividing point of two major highways, where the route number, direction and destination are the important info that I'm looking for.
Dude, California has a boatload of exits. The numbers make it so incredibly much easier to figure out where I need to go and when I need to get over.
Exit Numbers are extremely helpful -- especially when mileage based. And especially in states where mileage signs are rare or non-existant.
Mileage based exits are a two-sided issue. For those of us who understand the concept, they are useful as mileposts. But for the average idiot driver who doesn't know the theory, he passes exit 25 and then the next exit is say 28, and he's shakin' his head wondering what just happened. LOL Plus I personally find it illogical for anything numbered in a series not to be sequential which is more intuitive. And sign systems being intuitive leads to better safety.
Think of them less as a numbered series and more as an expression of geographic coordinates.
Quote from: SignBridge on January 23, 2020, 09:36:31 PM
Mileage based exits are a two-sided issue. For those of us who understand the concept, they are useful as mileposts. But for the average idiot driver who doesn't know the theory, he passes exit 25 and then the next exit is say 28, and he's shakin' his head wondering what just happened. LOL Plus I personally find it illogical for anything numbered in a series not to be sequential which is more intuitive. And sign systems being intuitive leads to better safety.
Unless you were looking for exit 26 or 27, you're ok.
So I read in the news that the GW bridge has transitioned to cashless tolling, similar to the Massachusetts Turnpike, starting from 3 am today. Is this true?
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on February 02, 2020, 02:33:51 PM
So I read in the news that the GW bridge has transitioned to cashless tolling, similar to the Massachusetts Turnpike, starting from 3 am today. Is this true?
This article (https://www.pix11.com/news/local-news/cashless-tolls-coming-to-the-gw-bridge) shows it as only for the Palisades Pkwy access to the GW Bridge at the moment.
Any reason why they never built until now a direct connection between the RFK bridge and the HDR NB?
That's a very common problem in the NYC area with all the public works built by "Robert Moses and Co." There are many such locations where direct connections don't exist but should. And you have to exit one highway, do a little street running, then enter the other highway.
A good example is I-678 (Van Wyck Expwy) and I-495 (L.I. Expwy). No direct ramps for northbound to eastbound or westbound to either north or southbound.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 06, 2020, 06:02:36 PM
That's a very common problem in the NYC area with all the public works built by "Robert Moses and Co." There are many such locations where such direct connections don't exist but should. And you have to exit one highway, do a little street running, then enter the other highway.
A good example is I-678 (Van Wyck Expwy) and I-495 (L.I. Expwy). No direct ramps for northbound to eastbound or westbound to either north or southbound.
Was that due to NIMBYism?
It was because those movements were supposed to be handled by I-295, but I-295 was never completed.
Quote from: bluecountry on February 06, 2020, 11:54:43 AM
Any reason why they never built until now a direct connection between the Triboro bridge and the HDR NB?
When the Triboro opened in 1936, Harlem River Drive was still just the Driveway and ended not too far to the north. Therefore any traffic heading north would just enter the street grid. When they completed HRD, I guess they didn't look at this interchange and just extended north.
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2020, 08:11:21 PM
It was because those movements were supposed to be handled by I-295, but I-295 was never completed.
*I-78, but yes once that was cancelled it was renumbered 295.
That said, this explains the lack of NB-EB and WB-SB ramps, but it doesn't explain the lack of SB-EB and WB-NB ramps.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 07, 2020, 12:57:13 AM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2020, 08:11:21 PM
It was because those movements were supposed to be handled by I-295, but I-295 was never completed.
*I-78, but yes once that was cancelled it was renumbered 295.
That said, this explains the lack of NB-EB and WB-SB ramps, but it doesn't explain the lack of SB-EB and WB-NB ramps.
So I-78 was supposed to handle connections between I-678 and I-495?
Quote from: bluecountry on February 07, 2020, 09:22:58 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 07, 2020, 12:57:13 AM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2020, 08:11:21 PM
It was because those movements were supposed to be handled by I-295, but I-295 was never completed.
*I-78, but yes once that was cancelled it was renumbered 295.
That said, this explains the lack of NB-EB and WB-SB ramps, but it doesn't explain the lack of SB-EB and WB-NB ramps.
So I-78 was supposed to handle connections between I-678 and I-495?
Had everything been fully built, people wouldn't have been taking I-678 for movements to Eastern Long Island - they'd be taking a never-built extension of the Clearview instead. Robert Moses designed the system in such a way that it doesn't work as well as it should with some parts having never been completed. This is basically why FHWA frowns on partial interchanges today.
Quote from: vdeane on February 07, 2020, 01:17:00 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 07, 2020, 09:22:58 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 07, 2020, 12:57:13 AM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2020, 08:11:21 PM
It was because those movements were supposed to be handled by I-295, but I-295 was never completed.
*I-78, but yes once that was cancelled it was renumbered 295.
That said, this explains the lack of NB-EB and WB-SB ramps, but it doesn't explain the lack of SB-EB and WB-NB ramps.
So I-78 was supposed to handle connections between I-678 and I-495?
Had everything been fully built, people wouldn't have been taking I-678 for movements to Eastern Long Island - they'd be taking a never-built extension of the Clearview instead. Robert Moses designed the system in such a way that it doesn't work as well as it should with some parts having never been completed. This is basically why FHWA frowns on partial interchanges today.
This can be useful in some situations, such as with US 209 and PA 33 along I-80 near Stroudsburg, but US 209 is still due to get a full interchange upgrade at the end of the Stroudsburg reconstruction.
Quote from: vdeane on February 07, 2020, 01:17:00 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 07, 2020, 09:22:58 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 07, 2020, 12:57:13 AM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2020, 08:11:21 PM
It was because those movements were supposed to be handled by I-295, but I-295 was never completed.
*I-78, but yes once that was cancelled it was renumbered 295.
That said, this explains the lack of NB-EB and WB-SB ramps, but it doesn't explain the lack of SB-EB and WB-NB ramps.
So I-78 was supposed to handle connections between I-678 and I-495?
Had everything been fully built, people wouldn't have been taking I-678 for movements to Eastern Long Island - they'd be taking a never-built extension of the Clearview instead. Robert Moses designed the system in such a way that it doesn't work as well as it should with some parts having never been completed. This is basically why FHWA frowns on partial interchanges today.
Oh, I hate partial interchanges.
Vdeane, if your theory is correct how do you account for the full interchange having been built at the Clearview Expwy. (I-78/295) and the LIE (I-495) during that same construction era? (Early 1960's) If your theory is right, that should also have been only a partial interchange.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 07, 2020, 08:56:57 PM
Vdeane, if your theory is correct how do you account for the full interchange having been built at the Clearview Expwy. (I-78/295) and the LIE (I-495) during that same construction era? (Early 1960's) If your theory is right, that should also have been only a partial interchange.
I didn't come up with the idea - it's just something I remember reading elsewhere (where, alas, I don't remember). Could be that building a full interchange was easier there for whatever reason.
No way it was easier there. There was actually less space to work with at that Clearview Expwy interchange than there was at the Van Wyck Expwy. Interestingly the Clearview interchange was built first, completed in 1961. The Van Wyck was not until 1964, though it was the same era of expansion, preceding the 1964 World's Fair.
I read an article the MTA put up new signs for the Verrazzano with the correct spelling. Sign looks good excpet for the odd shaped I-278 shield. IDK why this is always such a problem with computer technology that designs signs.
Look at the pic in the article. The I-278 sign and why is WEST soooo close to it?! We use computers now why is it always wrong?
https://www.6sqft.com/after-55-years-the-verrazzano-bridge-gets-a-second-z/
Look at this old sign...it's perfectly done. There was never a bad 3di shield.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4664/40601539142_c957791cf1_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24RPv3W)
Surely you're not implying that people can do things better than computers (in some cases)!
You really don't know why people can grab a 2di shield and stretch it to 3di in computers, but by hand they had to grab the proper template?
Quote from: SignBridge on February 07, 2020, 09:24:17 PM
No way it was easier there. There was actually less space to work with at that Clearview Expwy interchange than there was at the Van Wyck Expwy. Interestingly the Clearview interchange was built first, completed in 1961. The Van Wyck was not until 1964, though it was the same era of expansion, preceding the 1964 World's Fair.
Ehhhh most of the Cleavview/LIE interchange footprint takes up space formerly occupied by Cunningham Park. Van Wyck/LIE has a cemetery in the SE quadrant.
Regardless, It's not just about space. It's about money. Building direct ramps for the missing movements at the Van Wyck/LIE intechange would have, due to the Flushing River and other roadways directly underneath, required they be built as elevated structure. For ramps that would have only served generally local purposes, this could quite reasonably have been deemed not worth the expense when College Point Blvd was right there to handle those movements easily enough.
The Clearview/LIE interchange, meanwhile, only uses bridge structures for where ramps and roadways directly cross, everything else is otherwise at ground level. Thus, the marginal cost of the local ramps was lower there.
N.Y. Times: Fix for a Hated N.Y.C. Highway: How About an $11 Billion Tunnel?
The City Council wants to transform the crumbling Brooklyn-Queens Expressway by building a three-mile tunnel underneath Brooklyn. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/nyregion/bqe-tunnel.html)
QuoteCities like Boston, San Francisco and Seattle have all done it – razed hulking, unsightly highways dividing the heart of their downtowns, pushed a new roadway underground and turned the space above into an urban paradise.
QuoteCould New York be next?
QuoteThe City Council – and a top mayoral candidate – are looking to pull off a similarly ambitious feat with the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, a dilapidated Robert Moses-era eyesore of a highway running along the scenic Brooklyn waterfront.
QuoteThey want to tear down the elevated highway, rather than just patch it, and build a three-mile-long tunnel to replace it. The price tag: As much as $11 billion, according to a new engineering report commissioned by the City Council that is being released on Monday.
I have a feeling this will turn into something where the BQE will be literally falling down before anything gets done. $11 billion is no small chunk of change and there's a maze of other tunnels they will need to deal with to build under Brooklyn Heights.
At least they came to their senses and realized that just ripping out the highway would create more problems than it would solve. The trucks need to go somewhere and lord knows the NIMBYs in Brooklyn Heights who want no trucks on their streets are the same ones who order something on Amazon and expect it the next day.
Oh I hope they do bury it underground or deck it, odds they do?
Quote from: cl94 on February 25, 2020, 11:32:23 AM
At least they came to their senses and realized that just ripping out the highway would create more problems than it would solve. The trucks need to go somewhere and lord knows the NIMBYs in Brooklyn Heights who want no trucks on their streets are the same ones who order something on Amazon and expect it the next day.
In Brooklyn, yes. I wish they'd understand this in The Bronx.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 07, 2020, 10:14:24 PM
....
Look at the pic in the article. The I-278 sign and why is WEST soooo close to it?! We use computers now why is it always wrong?
https://www.6sqft.com/after-55-years-the-verrazzano-bridge-gets-a-second-z/
....
Notwithstanding the spelling issue, I always liked the "classic" sign at that intersection that was posted when I was a kid and that appeared in
Saturday Night Fever:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnorthshore.noizart.com%2Frich_files%2Fbilder%2FSI_278.jpg&hash=6b36b939741ee7845d83340d6861b6e78426ff73)
Quote from: Alps on February 07, 2020, 11:36:09 PMYou really don't know why people can grab a 2di shield and stretch it to 3di in computers, but by hand they had to grab the proper template?
To add, I've seen similar done with numerals for 3di shields as well. Instead of using Series C numerals; a CAD designer will simply select Series D numerals and elongate/stretch them.
Example of such along I-476/PA Turnpike NE Extension (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1433093,-75.2901615,3a,75y,167.1h,80.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKM9rsuB8lGJdfSjYN6yDAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Series D actually looks just fine for 3di shields, if you use normal-sized numbers (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1267655,-77.5537018,3a,25y,99.33h,89.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXp4IN4392MspYZecF5nWMQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) instead of jumbo-sized. I don't like those jumbo-sized number interstate shields no matter what series is used.
Quote from: bluecountry on February 25, 2020, 11:37:29 AM
Oh I hope they do bury it underground or deck it, odds they do?
I kinda hope they don't, the view of Manhattan from that stretch of the BQE is nice.
Quote from: cl94 on February 25, 2020, 11:32:23 AM
I have a feeling this will turn into something where the BQE will be literally falling down before anything gets done. $11 billion is no small chunk of change and there's a maze of other tunnels they will need to deal with to build under Brooklyn Heights.
The Seattle tunnel cost $1.8 billion for the tunnel itself.
The Boston Artery/Tunnel project had a lot more than just putting the artery underground, such as extending I-90 under two harbor sections, and had massive cost overruns.
The $11 billion for the BQE would be a massive amount of funds.
New topic;
Today I was looking at some Wikimedia Commons images of street clock in New York City, when I decided that perhaps I should make a new category for the one on 53rd Street and Sixth Avenue, which happens to be on the corner of the Midtown New York Hilton. I discovered that along 6th Avenue there are a bunch of cosmetics stores and other shops with one big lobby leading to the sidewalk in the middle. What does this have to do with NYC roads, you ask? All those shops used to be the driveway. Just another effort by NYC to make it more difficult for drivers to get around in the city.
BTW, I didn't make that category for the sidewalk clock yet.
I really doubt a tunnel would be the chosen design. NY should learn from the Syracuse experience, where the public made NYSDOT study the tunnel so many times that FHWA is now refusing to reimburse NY for the most recent go-around.
NYCDOT really seems to want to just replace the thing.
Quote from: Rothman on February 25, 2020, 06:36:28 PM
I really doubt a tunnel would be the chosen design. NY should learn from the Syracuse experience, where the public made NYSDOT study the tunnel so many times that FHWA is now refusing to reimburse NY for the most recent go-around.
NYCDOT really seems to want to just replace the thing.
Replace the elevated and cantilevered sections with similar but modern designs?
Quote from: Beltway on February 25, 2020, 06:43:01 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 25, 2020, 06:36:28 PM
I really doubt a tunnel would be the chosen design. NY should learn from the Syracuse experience, where the public made NYSDOT study the tunnel so many times that FHWA is now refusing to reimburse NY for the most recent go-around.
NYCDOT really seems to want to just replace the thing.
Replace the elevated and cantilevered sections with similar but modern designs?
Yep.
Quote from: Rothman on February 25, 2020, 06:45:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 25, 2020, 06:43:01 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 25, 2020, 06:36:28 PM
I really doubt a tunnel would be the chosen design. NY should learn from the Syracuse experience, where the public made NYSDOT study the tunnel so many times that FHWA is now refusing to reimburse NY for the most recent go-around.
NYCDOT really seems to want to just replace the thing.
Replace the elevated and cantilevered sections with similar but modern designs?
Yep.
This is what I see happening. The NIMBYs might want it gone, but the thing about it being an Interstate Highway is that they can't get rid of it without the feds approving.
The Sheridan is a bit of a special case here. Not only is it redundant, part of the reconstruction involves improving truck access to Hunts Point Market and industrial facilities isolated on the east side of the expressway. It had so little traffic that its demotion has had no impact on the transportation network at this point and, once Phase 2 is complete, it will end up being a net positive. A lot of people on the side of removal are using that as the example, but like the Inner Loop, those are special cases that were near the end of their service lives and did not have nearly enough use to justify replacement.
I agree with cl94. A modern rebuild of the existing highway structure is the most likely and probably the most realistic.
Another point that nobody mentioned is that given the massive cost overruns that afflicted Boston's Big Dig, it's reasonable to assume that the cost of $11 billion for a Brooklyn tunnel would probably double before it was completed.
If it's $22 million, build the tunnel.
Sorry about that typo! I've corrected my post.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 25, 2020, 09:08:55 PM
Another point that nobody mentioned is that given the massive cost overruns that afflicted Boston's Big Dig, it's reasonable to assume that the cost of $11 billion for a Brooklyn tunnel would probably double before it was completed.
No ... the Big Dig should be considered old history.
Agencies have become much better at accurately costing megaprojects in the last 20 years.
How are they going to reconstruct the triple cantilever segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway without tearing anything down? I'd imagine if even one building in the vicinity of the expressway has to be demolished, the locals will go apeshit. Although I would like to see a deep-bored tunnel built, the expense and amount of time to build it would likely be too great and too lengthily. It seems like a no-win situation to me.
I agree it's a no-win situation. Whatever finally gets done is going to be painful.......
Google "gowanus expressway tunnel" and click "Images."
There are plenty of maps of how this might be done, on a conceptual level.
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2020, 09:39:00 PM
Google "gowanus expressway tunnel" and click "Images."
There are plenty of maps of how this might be done, on a conceptual level.
I can draw you any number of conceptual tunnels that are too expensive to build.
Quote from: Alps on February 27, 2020, 11:54:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2020, 09:39:00 PM
Google "gowanus expressway tunnel" and click "Images."
There are plenty of maps of how this might be done, on a conceptual level.
I can draw you any number of conceptual tunnels that are too expensive to build.
Has any actual preliminary design(s) been worked up and with preliminary cost estimates?
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 12:04:17 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 27, 2020, 11:54:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2020, 09:39:00 PM
Google "gowanus expressway tunnel" and click "Images."
There are plenty of maps of how this might be done, on a conceptual level.
I can draw you any number of conceptual tunnels that are too expensive to build.
Has any actual preliminary design(s) been worked up and with preliminary cost estimates?
Read the thread. $11 billion.
Quote from: Alps on February 28, 2020, 12:36:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 12:04:17 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 27, 2020, 11:54:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2020, 09:39:00 PM
Google "gowanus expressway tunnel" and click "Images."
There are plenty of maps of how this might be done, on a conceptual level.
I can draw you any number of conceptual tunnels that are too expensive to build.
Has any actual preliminary design(s) been worked up and with preliminary cost estimates?
Read the thread. $11 billion.
OK, where are the plan and profile views of the preliminary design(s)?
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 25, 2020, 06:15:54 PM
New topic;
Today I was looking at some Wikimedia Commons images of street clock in New York City, when I decided that perhaps I should make a new category for the one on 53rd Street and Sixth Avenue, which happens to be on the corner of the Midtown New York Hilton. I discovered that along 6th Avenue there are a bunch of cosmetics stores and other shops with one big lobby leading to the sidewalk in the middle. What does this have to do with NYC roads, you ask? All those shops used to be the driveway. Just another effort by NYC to make it more difficult for drivers to get around in the city.
BTW, I didn't make that category for the sidewalk clock yet.
You mean 6 Av went on a lane diet? When was that?
ixnay
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 05:37:24 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 28, 2020, 12:36:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 12:04:17 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 27, 2020, 11:54:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2020, 09:39:00 PM
Google "gowanus expressway tunnel" and click "Images."
There are plenty of maps of how this might be done, on a conceptual level.
I can draw you any number of conceptual tunnels that are too expensive to build.
Has any actual preliminary design(s) been worked up and with preliminary cost estimates?
Read the thread. $11 billion.
OK, where are the plan and profile views of the preliminary design(s)?
I didn't design them, don't ask me.
Quote from: Alps on February 28, 2020, 06:24:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 05:37:24 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 28, 2020, 12:36:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 12:04:17 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 27, 2020, 11:54:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2020, 09:39:00 PM
Google "gowanus expressway tunnel" and click "Images."
There are plenty of maps of how this might be done, on a conceptual level.
I can draw you any number of conceptual tunnels that are too expensive to build.
Has any actual preliminary design(s) been worked up and with preliminary cost estimates?
Read the thread. $11 billion.
OK, where are the plan and profile views of the preliminary design(s)?
I didn't design them, don't ask me.
I didn't. The question was directed at D-Day65. But I still believe you, Alps. :)
ixnay
Quote from: Alps on February 28, 2020, 06:24:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 05:37:24 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 28, 2020, 12:36:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 12:04:17 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 27, 2020, 11:54:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2020, 09:39:00 PM
Google "gowanus expressway tunnel" and click "Images."
There are plenty of maps of how this might be done, on a conceptual level.
I can draw you any number of conceptual tunnels that are too expensive to build.
Has any actual preliminary design(s) been worked up and with preliminary cost estimates?
Read the thread. $11 billion.
OK, where are the plan and profile views of the preliminary design(s)?
I didn't design them, don't ask me.
The comment was addressed to anybody who is reading this, and to the article itself.
It is frustrating when these articles estimate a project cost to two decimal places, but don't provide any conceptual plan view of that design.
Quote from: ixnay on February 28, 2020, 08:39:18 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 25, 2020, 06:15:54 PM
New topic;
Today I was looking at some Wikimedia Commons images of street clock in New York City, when I decided that perhaps I should make a new category for the one on 53rd Street and Sixth Avenue, which happens to be on the corner of the Midtown New York Hilton. I discovered that along 6th Avenue there are a bunch of cosmetics stores and other shops with one big lobby leading to the sidewalk in the middle. What does this have to do with NYC roads, you ask? All those shops used to be the driveway. Just another effort by NYC to make it more difficult for drivers to get around in the city.
BTW, I didn't make that category for the sidewalk clock yet.
You mean 6 Av went on a lane diet? When was that?
ixnay
Not Sixth Avenue, but the Hilton (although I wouldn't put it past NYCDOT to cut back some lanes on 6th Avenue either). You can't drive underneath to pick up or drop off hotel guests anymore.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 28, 2020, 11:23:45 PM
Quote from: ixnay on February 28, 2020, 08:39:18 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 25, 2020, 06:15:54 PM
All those shops used to be the driveway. Just another effort by NYC to make it more difficult for drivers to get around in the city.
You mean 6 Av went on a lane diet? When was that?
Not Sixth Avenue, but the Hilton (although I wouldn't put it past NYCDOT to cut back some lanes on 6th Avenue either). You can't drive underneath to pick up or drop off hotel guests anymore.
That's not an effort by NYC to do anything. That's a private property owner deciding to change how their private property is used.
Probably a sound business decision, really. The rent they can collect from having that store there is most likely significantly greater than any revenue loss resulting from not having a dedicated driveway for guest dropoff.
I do note though, that the city has compensated for this by taking the curbside lane on 6th Ave that used to be a taxi stand and turning it into a "hotel loading zone" instead.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 29, 2020, 07:38:50 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 28, 2020, 11:23:45 PM
Quote from: ixnay on February 28, 2020, 08:39:18 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 25, 2020, 06:15:54 PM
All those shops used to be the driveway. Just another effort by NYC to make it more difficult for drivers to get around in the city.
You mean 6 Av went on a lane diet? When was that?
Not Sixth Avenue, but the Hilton (although I wouldn't put it past NYCDOT to cut back some lanes on 6th Avenue either). You can't drive underneath to pick up or drop off hotel guests anymore.
That's not an effort by NYC to do anything. That's a private property owner deciding to change how their private property is used.
Probably a sound business decision, really. The rent they can collect from having that store there is most likely significantly greater than any revenue loss resulting from not having a dedicated driveway for guest dropoff.
I do note though, that the city has compensated for this by taking the curbside lane on 6th Ave that used to be a taxi stand and turning it into a "hotel loading zone" instead.
You're making more sense now. When/if I have the time/energy I'll GSV down 6 Av to see for myself.
ixnay
Private property perhaps. But you've still got the same issues with the removal of a lot of parking lots and parking garages.
This afternoon, I was trying to locate this spot along the Cross Bronx Expressway, when I discovered something interesting.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:I-95NYC.JPG
I'm leaning towards Highbridge, near where the Washington Heights Bridge merges with I-95, but that's not the issue right now. While I was checking out GSV, I noticed an interesting feature along the Undercliff Avenue bridges.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8445145,-73.9244956,341m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8445145,-73.9244956,341m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)
From here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8444687,-73.9250148,3a,75y,221.75h,92.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sv0merkheYAm1K6FoFlh9lw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dv0merkheYAm1K6FoFlh9lw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D120.80981%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) it looks like it may have been a proposed on-ramp that was going to feed into the interchange with the Major Deegan Expressway somehow, but I don't believe that's what it is. I say it's just the south end of the tunnel beneath the intersection of Undercliff Avenue and Boscobel Place for the north and southbound ramps from the Major Deegan to the northbound Cross Bronx.
And hey, since this is my 2400th post, maybe I should throw in a little something to celebrate.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/NY-24.svg/240px-NY-24.svg.png)
That is definitely just the tunnel portal.
Since I have no chance of seeing a revival of any of the old New York State Routes returning to Manhattan, I'd like to know if there are any photographs out there of those old routes.
So, question about the TMX exit to Amsterdam Ave at 175 St. Was the exit ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8442616,-73.9336807,3a,75y,119.02h,86.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG7gBV-JIfzZcHsQUCRSxug!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG7gBV-JIfzZcHsQUCRSxug%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.0292%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) once a divided ramp that also served to move traffic to the bridge before the TMX was built? I looked at Historic Aerials but the oldest one is from 1954 after a lot of that stuff was built over there.
Quote from: storm2k on April 06, 2020, 12:51:01 PM
So, question about the TMX exit to Amsterdam Ave at 175 St. Was the exit ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8442616,-73.9336807,3a,75y,119.02h,86.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG7gBV-JIfzZcHsQUCRSxug!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG7gBV-JIfzZcHsQUCRSxug%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.0292%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) once a divided ramp that also served to move traffic to the bridge before the TMX was built? I looked at Historic Aerials but the oldest one is from 1954 after a lot of that stuff was built over there.
Yup, briefly. I believe the 178th St. tunnel came first, even before 179th, and it dates to then.
Quote from: Alps on April 06, 2020, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 06, 2020, 12:51:01 PM
So, question about the TMX exit to Amsterdam Ave at 175 St. Was the exit ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8442616,-73.9336807,3a,75y,119.02h,86.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG7gBV-JIfzZcHsQUCRSxug!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG7gBV-JIfzZcHsQUCRSxug%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.0292%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) once a divided ramp that also served to move traffic to the bridge before the TMX was built? I looked at Historic Aerials but the oldest one is from 1954 after a lot of that stuff was built over there.
Yup, briefly. I believe the 178th St. tunnel came first, even before 179th, and it dates to then.
I also saw the stub of an on ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C3%82%C2%B050'44.2%22N+73%C3%82%C2%B055'43.3%22W/@40.8443298,-73.9324685,341m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.8456!4d-73.9287?hl=en) leading to the northbound TMX ramp to the Harlem River Drive. I thought that might've had something to do with the 178th Street Tunnels as well, but like storm2K said, Historic Aerials doesn't have anything on that older than 1954.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 06, 2020, 03:24:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 06, 2020, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 06, 2020, 12:51:01 PM
So, question about the TMX exit to Amsterdam Ave at 175 St. Was the exit ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8442616,-73.9336807,3a,75y,119.02h,86.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG7gBV-JIfzZcHsQUCRSxug!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG7gBV-JIfzZcHsQUCRSxug%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.0292%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) once a divided ramp that also served to move traffic to the bridge before the TMX was built? I looked at Historic Aerials but the oldest one is from 1954 after a lot of that stuff was built over there.
Yup, briefly. I believe the 178th St. tunnel came first, even before 179th, and it dates to then.
I also saw the stub of an on ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C3%82%C2%B050'44.2%22N+73%C3%82%C2%B055'43.3%22W/@40.8443298,-73.9324685,341m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.8456!4d-73.9287?hl=en) leading to the northbound TMX ramp to the Harlem River Drive. I thought that might've had something to do with the 178th Street Tunnels as well, but like storm2K said, Historic Aerials doesn't have anything on that older than 1954.
Yup. I explain that on my I-95 page. https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/i-95/0.html (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/i-95/0.html)
Alps, do you happen to know why the Port Authority designs their BGS's with the right and left sides slanted slightly inward? I first noticed that feature back in the 1960's when the current GWB complex was built and I've never known the reason they do that.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 06, 2020, 08:19:11 PM
Alps, do you happen to know why the Port Authority designs their BGS's with the right and left sides slanted slightly inward? I first noticed that feature back in the 1960's when the current GWB complex was built and I've never known the reason they do that.
They did that - I don't think they do that anymore. Just stylistic.
Quote from: Alps on April 06, 2020, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 06, 2020, 12:51:01 PM
So, question about the TMX exit to Amsterdam Ave at 175 St. Was the exit ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8442616,-73.9336807,3a,75y,119.02h,86.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG7gBV-JIfzZcHsQUCRSxug!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG7gBV-JIfzZcHsQUCRSxug%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.0292%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) once a divided ramp that also served to move traffic to the bridge before the TMX was built? I looked at Historic Aerials but the oldest one is from 1954 after a lot of that stuff was built over there.
Yup, briefly. I believe the 178th St. tunnel came first, even before 179th, and it dates to then.
Kind of hard to interpret from the topo maps of the period. The 1947 map shows it as a 2-way ramp leading down to the 178th St. tunnel and/or toward the HRD south, but not to the bridge. By the time of the 1954 topo, the S-curve ramps to the bridge were built and this ramp was one-way feeding into them. In between these two dates, the 1951 aerial at NYC DoITT shows the whole area under construction. So it does look like there was a brief period where it was 2-way, but never to the bridge.
I remember seeing a photo somewhere (probably in this forum) that shows the original configuration, that might shed lots of light on things.
EDIT: Ah, here it is (https://collections.mcny.org/Collection/%5BHarlem%20River%20Speedway%20Course,%20looking%20south.%5D-2F3XC5IXT8GX.html)!
The ramp you're speaking up is at top right. Where it splits in the middle of the picture, one leg goes south toward HRD, the other curves to our right toward the tunnel(s). A bit of that masonry wall is still present in the park and can be seen in Google Maps' 3D view. Off in the distance you can see what fed into the stub ramp. The 3 bits of arched viaduct closest in the foreground are now demolished.
If you watch this video from the late 40's, it shows the original ramps on the NY side
https://youtu.be/g2gWRcqmbrU
Quote from: BamaZeus on April 08, 2020, 06:14:23 PM
If you watch this video from the late 40's, it shows the original ramps on the NY side
https://youtu.be/g2gWRcqmbrU
You see at 0:55 how even back then, some people just couldn't drive :-D
The sign on the toll plaza said you could purchase 40 crossings for $10.00.
Nowadays, $10.00 wont even let you make ONE crossing.
Any news on the BQE? Or has the Coronavirus shattered any plans to resolve the issue this decade?
Quote from: thenetwork on April 09, 2020, 10:35:45 AM
The sign on the toll plaza said you could purchase 40 crossings for $10.00.
Nowadays, $10.00 wont even let you make ONE crossing.
I had no idea you could even purchase crossings, even back in the 40s.
The plan for the kew gardens interchange I think will help to streamline traffic flow a big improvement will be the exit to Jackie Robinson parkway westwill be off the gcp mainline instead of the exit off of the vanwyck expressway connector And for the plans go on YouTube and search up "kew gardens final" and there's a video made by Richard klassen
Quote from: TheDon102 on April 10, 2020, 03:03:43 AM
Any news on the BQE? Or has the Coronavirus shattered any plans to resolve the issue this decade?
I think any real plan to dig tunnels as a replacement if at or above grade freeways HAS to come with more lanes for said road and a gradual capacity expansion of the entire network as having tunnels with traffic jam packed all the time can't be good peoples health.
Excellent video re: the Kew Gardens Interchange. The plans are very impressive. But I'm really sorry to see the ongoing demolition of the westbound Union Turnpike bridge over the GCP with its impressive arches. I've enjoyed that since I first saw it as a kid in the 1950's and I'm really sorry to see it go.
Here is the video: https://youtu.be/pvmGYA-wQj4
I've heard that the state is widening the Van Wyck from the Kew Gardens interchange to JFK Airport... but I think we need to seriously have a discussion about extending the Clearview Expwy. to JFK airport. Only a tunnel would work in today's environment, but it would expand JFK capacity, and provide people with an alternative to the Van Wyck. Maybe this can happen with a new expansive infrastructure bill?
Keep dreaming........... That's not going to happen. And as others have been pointing out this week, after all the government money being spent on the Coronavirus, there might not be much funding available for new public works projects, for the next several years . That is except for projects already underway such as the Kew Gardens Interchange.
Quote from: TheDon102 on April 18, 2020, 09:25:12 PM
I've heard that the state is widening the Van Wyck from the Kew Gardens interchange to JFK Airport... but I think we need to seriously have a discussion about extending the Clearview Expwy. to JFK airport. Only a tunnel would work in today's environment, but it would expand JFK capacity, and provide people with an alternative to the Van Wyck. Maybe this can happen with a new expansive infrastructure bill?
This isn't Fictional Highways.
Quote from: Alps on April 18, 2020, 10:30:36 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on April 18, 2020, 09:25:12 PM
I've heard that the state is widening the Van Wyck from the Kew Gardens interchange to JFK Airport... but I think we need to seriously have a discussion about extending the Clearview Expwy. to JFK airport. Only a tunnel would work in today's environment, but it would expand JFK capacity, and provide people with an alternative to the Van Wyck. Maybe this can happen with a new expansive infrastructure bill?
This isn't Fictional Highways.
I know, just throwing around ideas, but adding another lane to the Van Wyck will not ease congestion in a meaningful way. The State needs to find other alternatives, because if they don't find a solution then we would be wasting the potential of JFK International Airport.
Quote from: TheDon102 on April 19, 2020, 07:44:17 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 18, 2020, 10:30:36 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on April 18, 2020, 09:25:12 PM
I've heard that the state is widening the Van Wyck from the Kew Gardens interchange to JFK Airport... but I think we need to seriously have a discussion about extending the Clearview Expwy. to JFK airport. Only a tunnel would work in today's environment, but it would expand JFK capacity, and provide people with an alternative to the Van Wyck. Maybe this can happen with a new expansive infrastructure bill?
This isn't Fictional Highways.
I know, just throwing around ideas, but adding another lane to the Van Wyck will not ease congestion in a meaningful way. The State needs to find other alternatives, because if they don't find a solution then we would be wasting the potential of JFK International Airport.
The only way to give JFK potential beyond what it's already doing is to add runways. As bad as it is getting there, it's not wanting for traffic.
Was there ever a plan to widen 192nd Street to four lanes in Auburndale? Because the LIRR station-bridge over the road looks like it was intended for a four-lane highway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7614281,-73.7899031,3a,75y,76.65h,97.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU-I1Phzlxqplt3LdE0855A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Anybody know if the I-495 button copy sign on the FDR SB is still there? I remember there was one left. It's the "exit now" sign
And how about the last non-reflective button copy signs on the Bruckner section of I-95? Exit 6B keep left etc
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 08, 2020, 11:03:27 AM
And how about the last non-reflective button copy signs on the Bruckner section of I-95? Exit 6B keep left etc
It was still there as of March/April 2020. Probably still there now.
There's a new traffic pattern coming off the Whitestone Bridge in Queens at the Cross Island. Previously, the left lane was exit only for the CIP and 678 continued through the interchange with two lanes. Now, the CIP is a standard left exit (no exit-only) and the right lane of 678 ends as it continues through the interchange.
Quote from: crispy93 on June 23, 2020, 07:49:32 PM
There's a new traffic pattern coming off the Whitestone Bridge in Queens at the Cross Island. Previously, the left lane was exit only for the CIP and 678 continued through the interchange with two lanes. Now, the CIP is a standard left exit (no exit-only) and the right lane of 678 ends as it continues through the interchange.
Wonder if that will alleviate some congestion from people cutting over to exit at the last second (probably not)
Trying to figure out why these exit numbers were patched over. The same signs were there in 2007 that are still in 2019, so no help there. Old maps don't have exit numbers.
https://goo.gl/maps/2YZf7ZYNFtZxDHfW8
Manhattan, June 2011, near the corner of 10th Ave and 30th St. That is a stub of the High Line bridge.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50109898298_36f60b7b55.jpg)
Three years ago, I wrote to the city and state about the ridiculous 50 mph speed limit on the West Shore Expressway (NY 440 on Staten Island, https://goo.gl/maps/mtNT2coVn3PtFJ198). State said the city has operational jurisdiction of all pavement in the five boroughs (I hate that this is a thing in NY, same with the Palisades Parkway. "It's ours but not really"). For three years, the city has been telling me it's the state's problem no matter how many copies of NYSDOT's letter I provided.
Today, someone less robotic at NYCDOT got back to me:
QuoteWe do believe that the State Department of Transportation has the ultimate call on setting the speed limit, but the City Department of Transportation does not support increasing it from 50 mph to 55 mph.
In our continuing effort to enhance safety, the City Department of Transportation actually has lowered the speed limit on many tributaries in our local network. Indeed, the uniform City speed limit now is 25 mph unless otherwise posted.
What a joke. Can't even explain their opposition to using established engineering practices on a road they don't own and don't seem to want. Turn the freeways back over to the state if you're so unwilling to care about them. And close with the stock line about vision zero, as if the two are somehow related. Very hard eye roll.
They're not the only ones. The state of Washington DOT used Vision Zero as the rationale for not increasing the speed limit on I-90 in the eastern part of the state from 70 to 75.
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2020, 01:46:17 PM
They're not the only ones. The state of Washington DOT used Vision Zero as the rationale for not increasing the speed limit on I-90 in the eastern part of the state from 70 to 75.
Oregon DOT did something similar with keeping I-84 at 65 MPH. Took the state legislature forcing their hand for limits to increase to 70.
Re: 90 in Washington, that could definitely be 75 east of Ellensburg. No traffic, generally flat with good sightlines. I haven't done much of I-82, so would need to defer to others, but that may be a good candidate as well.
If Utah is willing to post every flipping rural Interstate aside from 70 on the east side of the San Rafael Swell at 80, Washington can post 90 across the eastern Washington wasteland at 75.
Quote from: crispy93 on July 14, 2020, 12:57:44 PM
Three years ago, I wrote to the city and state about the ridiculous 50 mph speed limit on the West Shore Expressway (NY 440 on Staten Island, https://goo.gl/maps/mtNT2coVn3PtFJ198). State said the city has operational jurisdiction of all pavement in the five boroughs (I hate that this is a thing in NY, same with the Palisades Parkway. "It's ours but not really"). For three years, the city has been telling me it's the state's problem no matter how many copies of NYSDOT's letter I provided.
Today, someone less robotic at NYCDOT got back to me:
QuoteWe do believe that the State Department of Transportation has the ultimate call on setting the speed limit, but the City Department of Transportation does not support increasing it from 50 mph to 55 mph.
In our continuing effort to enhance safety, the City Department of Transportation actually has lowered the speed limit on many tributaries in our local network. Indeed, the uniform City speed limit now is 25 mph unless otherwise posted.
What a joke. Can't even explain their opposition to using established engineering practices on a road they don't own and don't seem to want. Turn the freeways back over to the state if you're so unwilling to care about them. And close with the stock line about vision zero, as if the two are somehow related. Very hard eye roll.
I think what this may really be about is New York City wanting to reap more fines from speeding tickets. Radar enforcement using unmarked cars by the NY City Police Dept. is common on NYC highways and has been for at least sixty years that I can remember, since I was a kid. Though given the 85th percentile speed of traffic on roads like the West Shore Expwy, I'm not sure how fast you have to be going to actually get a ticket.
Why would you want to go that fast through New York City anyways? It's such a short duration of a freeway that actually is "free flowing," and you aren't saving any time going 55 MPH versus 50 MPH (which no one does either of in light traffic). This seems to be more of a rant about someone wanting to barrel down any stretch of New York City roadway at any unsafe speed.
Not true. 50mph is not a realistic speed limit for many NYC highways.
Quote from: seicer on July 19, 2020, 10:15:43 PM
Why would you want to go that fast through New York City anyways? It's such a short duration of a freeway that actually is "free flowing," and you aren't saving any time going 55 MPH versus 50 MPH (which no one does either of in light traffic). This seems to be more of a rant about someone wanting to barrel down any stretch of New York City roadway at any unsafe speed.
Why would you want to slow people down from the 85th percentile speed that they naturally want to go at? You are wasting time and gas at 50 mph compared to 55 mph (or faster). This seems to be more of a troll about someone who believes in bicycles instead of cars.
On a freeway with long stretches of free-flowing traffic, your argument may hold more merit. But Staten Island freeways aren't all that free-flowing, and the jurisdiction for speed control has long been set. But hey Steve, your call since you seem to callously disregard my comments with obtuse rationales (e.g. troll who believes in bicycles instead of cars which is patently false).
Vision Zero (https://ny.curbed.com/2019/8/19/20812166/new-york-city-vision-zero-bike-street-safety) has merit but that doesn't mean all principles of it need to be applied on every type of roadway, and that's not what I or others have advocated for.
Quote from: seicer on July 19, 2020, 11:05:16 PM
On a freeway with long stretches of free-flowing traffic, your argument may hold more merit. But Staten Island freeways aren't all that free-flowing, and the jurisdiction for speed control has long been set. But hey Steve, your call since you seem to callously disregard my comments with obtuse rationales (e.g. troll who believes in bicycles instead of cars which is patently false).
I don't believe that responding with my own points is callous disregard.
55? Please, the West Shore Expressway could be posted at 65. Pretty modern road by NYC standards, no sharp vertical or horizontal curves, and full-width right shoulders.
But yes, the NYPD Highway Unit does like to hang out there and nab people driving a perfectly normal 65 or more. Which, along with politics about "zomg vision zero" is why they won't raise the limit.
Regarding 50 MPH being the max limit within the five boroughs, this has been the case for a long time. State law does not mandate it, and the city's own written traffic rules only say the speed limit is 25 unless otherwise posted, with no codified maximum.
If you read the state law about this (Article 39, section 1643) it basically says in a very convoluted way that cities have the authority to set speed limits on roads where the state DOT has not explicitly set a limit. So ultimately whether NYCDOT has the authority to raise the limit or whether NYSDOT does depends on who set it in the first place. Administratively, it may be difficult to figure that out since they'd have to go looking through records from half a century ago or more, but we can safely say one of the two has the authority to raise it and no action from the state legislature or the city council would be required.
If they wanted to raise the limit they would figure this out. But they don't want to.
Quote from: seicer on July 19, 2020, 11:05:16 PM
On a freeway with long stretches of free-flowing traffic, your argument may hold more merit. But Staten Island freeways aren't all that free-flowing, and the jurisdiction for speed control has long been set. But hey Steve, your call since you seem to callously disregard my comments with obtuse rationales (e.g. troll who believes in bicycles instead of cars which is patently false).
Vision Zero (https://ny.curbed.com/2019/8/19/20812166/new-york-city-vision-zero-bike-street-safety) has merit but that doesn't mean all principles of it need to be applied on every type of roadway, and that's not what I or others have advocated for.
NY 440 is the closest NYC gets to a rural freeway. Going 50 on it is downright painful, even as a passenger, much less as a driver!
Seriously, try going 50 on this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5664967,-74.1931583,3a,75y,52.01h,89.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5_siTNY-g3BQR0SonnUblg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5_siTNY-g3BQR0SonnUblg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.53044%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). Not "50 plus X", actually 50.
Quote from: seicer on July 19, 2020, 10:15:43 PM
Why would you want to go that fast through New York City anyways? It's such a short duration of a freeway that actually is "free flowing," and you aren't saving any time going 55 MPH versus 50 MPH (which no one does either of in light traffic). This seems to be more of a rant about someone wanting to barrel down any stretch of New York City roadway at any unsafe speed.
I go 10 over the limit on NYCDOT freeways every time I'm there.
I go 10 over the limit on ALL freeways pretty much everywhere. On many, that's still slower than at least half of drivers.
For fifty years I have gone 60mph or a little higher on NYC highways and have never gotten pulled over. I'm guessing that 65 mph might be the threshold so I would stay under that.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 21, 2020, 08:51:59 PM
For fifty years I have gone 60mph or a little higher on NYC highways and have never gotten pulled over. I'm guessing that 65 mph might be the threshold so I would stay under that.
That's funny, because I've gone... a little higher... and never gotten pulled over. I'm guessing NYC cops generally aren't running radar on the freeways.
Quote from: Alps on July 21, 2020, 11:26:10 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 21, 2020, 08:51:59 PM
For fifty years I have gone 60mph or a little higher on NYC highways and have never gotten pulled over. I'm guessing that 65 mph might be the threshold so I would stay under that.
That's funny, because I've gone... a little higher... and never gotten pulled over. I'm guessing NYC cops generally aren't running radar on the freeways.
A lot of them are probably hard to run radar on given the physical constraints, not to mention traffic.
Quote from: Alps on July 21, 2020, 11:26:10 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 21, 2020, 08:51:59 PM
For fifty years I have gone 60mph or a little higher on NYC highways and have never gotten pulled over. I'm guessing that 65 mph might be the threshold so I would stay under that.
That's funny, because I've gone... a little higher... and never gotten pulled over. I'm guessing NYC cops generally aren't running radar on the freeways.
Oh yes they do Steve. I've seen them countless times using unmarked cars sitting on the shoulder or the wide median on certain stretches of road. They include parts of the West Shore Expwy, Grand Central Parkway, Cross Island Parkway and the Throgs Neck Expwy. (I-695) and others too I'm sure. It's done by their Highway Patrol Precincts. Those are primarily an enforcement unit.
Quote from: seicer on July 19, 2020, 10:15:43 PM
Why would you want to go that fast through New York City anyways? It's such a short duration of a freeway that actually is "free flowing," and you aren't saving any time going 55 MPH versus 50 MPH (which no one does either of in light traffic). This seems to be more of a rant about someone wanting to barrel down any stretch of New York City roadway at any unsafe speed.
Yeah, could you believe NYCDOT rejected my proposal for a 65 MPH zone on the FDR????
That's not even remotely true. Have you ever been on the WSE? It's 6.5 miles long. It's not about saving any appreciable amount of time; it's about doing things the right way, stopping unjustified traffic stops, and you're a sitting duck doing 50 when people are whizzing past at 60+. And again, none of the Powers That Be can't explain why 50 mph is appropriate for this road.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 22, 2020, 09:16:57 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 21, 2020, 11:26:10 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 21, 2020, 08:51:59 PM
For fifty years I have gone 60mph or a little higher on NYC highways and have never gotten pulled over. I'm guessing that 65 mph might be the threshold so I would stay under that.
That's funny, because I've gone... a little higher... and never gotten pulled over. I'm guessing NYC cops generally aren't running radar on the freeways.
Oh yes they do Steve. I've seen them countless times using unmarked cars sitting on the shoulder or the wide median on certain stretches of road. They include parts of the West Shore Expwy, Grand Central Parkway, Cross Island Parkway and the Throgs Neck Expwy. (I-695) and others too I'm sure. It's done by their Highway Patrol Precincts. Those are primarily an enforcement unit.
Traffic violations seem to go largely unchecked in NYC. Imagine if they ticketed moving violations with the same gusto as they do with parking tickets! There's usually an NYPD on the Clearview (the other modern freeway I'd be okay with raising to 55 mph) approaching the Throgs Neck Bridge since it promotes faster speeds. Also the northbound FDR under the Brooklyn Bridge because there's only one lane and a very wide striped area to prepare for the added lanes from the bridge. Also lots of TBTA and NYS troopers on the Triboro. They kept the old 40 mph limit even after the toll barrier was demolished, so you end up with this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nERl7Vo.png)
Hate to derail the conversation, but what's the best way to enter NYC on a weekday? More specific: a Friday (August 14th).
I'm thinking of getting a hotel in Manhattan or Queens, then park the car and use the subway to get around (any good parking garages too?); from there the only car usage would be a trip to Upstate.
From what GMaps tells me right now (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.9223116,-74.0241127//@40.676995,-73.9755456,11z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0!5m1!1e1), the Outerbridge Crossing or Goethals Bridge is generally the best way in. The tunnels and GWB are the worst, due to backups on the New York side.
I'm thinking the best way to Manhattan would be Outerbridge/Goethals, over the Verrazano, then use either the Brooklyn Bridge or Battery Tunnel to FDR Drive, or default to one of the avenues (apparently 1st Avenue flows well). As for Queens, I've used the Belt Parkway over the Gowanus/BQE, and that seems to yield better results. The Van Wyck was where I ran into traffic issues; I guess I could use Pennsylvania Avenue (in Brooklyn) to the Interboro Parkway to reach the northern edge of Queens (Flushing, Kew Gardens, etc).
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 27, 2020, 05:40:36 PM
Hate to derail the conversation, but what's the best way to enter NYC on a weekday? More specific: a Friday (August 14th).
I'm thinking of getting a hotel in Manhattan or Queens, then park the car and use the subway to get around (any good parking garages too?); from there the only car usage would be a trip to Upstate.
From what GMaps [url[https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.9223116,-74.0241127//@40.676995,-73.9755456,11z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0!5m1!1e1]tells me right now[/url], the Outerbridge Crossing or Goethals Bridge is generally the best way in. The tunnels and GWB are the worst, due to backups on the New York side.
I'm thinking the best way to Manhattan would be Outerbridge/Goethals, over the Verrazano, then use either the Brooklyn Bridge or Battery Tunnel to FDR Drive, or default to one of the avenues (apparently 1st Avenue flows well). As for Queens, I've used the Belt Parkway over the Gowanus/BQE, and that seems to yield better results. The Van Wyck was where I ran into traffic issues; I guess I could use Pennsylvania Avenue (in Brooklyn) to the Interboro Parkway to reach the northern edge of Queens (Flushing, Kew Gardens, etc).
Any time I've done anything in Manhattan, I've taken the train in.
There is no good way to enter Manhattan by car on a weekday. At least there wasn't before the Coronavirus. No matter what route you choose, it's a gamble. Get a hotel room in New Jersey near a NJ Transit station and take the train. LOL NJ Transit can be a gamble too, but it's a lot more comfortable.
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 27, 2020, 05:40:36 PM
Hate to derail the conversation, but what's the best way to enter NYC on a weekday? More specific: a Friday (August 14th).
I'm thinking of getting a hotel in Manhattan or Queens, then park the car and use the subway to get around (any good parking garages too?); from there the only car usage would be a trip to Upstate.
From what GMaps tells me right now (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.9223116,-74.0241127//@40.676995,-73.9755456,11z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0!5m1!1e1), the Outerbridge Crossing or Goethals Bridge is generally the best way in. The tunnels and GWB are the worst, due to backups on the New York side.
I'm thinking the best way to Manhattan would be Outerbridge/Goethals, over the Verrazano, then use either the Brooklyn Bridge or Battery Tunnel to FDR Drive, or default to one of the avenues (apparently 1st Avenue flows well). As for Queens, I've used the Belt Parkway over the Gowanus/BQE, and that seems to yield better results. The Van Wyck was where I ran into traffic issues; I guess I could use Pennsylvania Avenue (in Brooklyn) to the Interboro Parkway to reach the northern edge of Queens (Flushing, Kew Gardens, etc).
It totally depends on your destination. The advantage of OBX/Goethals is that you can drive the Verrazano for free - two bridges for the price of one. If you don't want to pay for the Battery Tunnel, you can take any of the free bridges north of there into Manhattan. Or, as others have suggested, park at your hotel and use transit to get in.
Over the winter, NYSDOT turned Exit 7 N-S (I-95) from the Deegan into a two-lane exit. The widened exit is simply Exit 7, though the signs on the ramp still say 7N/7S. Hopefully it takes some of the queued traffic off the mainline lanes and eases congestion. During the morning rush, southbound 87 backs up because there's no deceleration lane onto the exits and the lights at the end of the ramps are pretty poorly timed, so you have to wait in the right lane of 87. Pretty terrifying when you're the last one in line because I half-expect to get rear-ended at high speed.
(https://i.imgur.com/gKlgrfN.png)
I just noticed that at some point after summer 2018, the "Best Route to the Bronx" sign was removed from the Cross Island Parkway. It always said Throgs Neck Br though once (and only once) did I see it say Whitestone Br and it was flashing, probably because it was unusual to promote the Whitestone over the Throgs Neck from that direction:
(https://i.imgur.com/TcZHzrU.png)
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 27, 2020, 05:40:36 PM
Hate to derail the conversation, but what's the best way to enter NYC on a weekday?
PATH is always good, then connecting to the subway. Also, don't forget about parking the car in Staten Island and taking the Staten Island Ferry in, then connecting to the subway. It's a very relaxing alternative and the ferry itself is free. I've gone this route for Manhattan destinations many times.
Quote from: qguy on July 29, 2020, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 27, 2020, 05:40:36 PM
Hate to derail the conversation, but what's the best way to enter NYC on a weekday?
PATH is always good, then connecting to the subway. Also, don't forget about parking the car in Staten Island and taking the Staten Island Ferry in, then connecting to the subway. It's a very relaxing alternative and the ferry itself is free. I've gone this route for Manhattan destinations many times.
I'll second the PATH - over the years I've experimented with different ways of entering Manhattan, and my favorite was the most recent time when I parked in Journal Square Transportation Center parking garage (which is directly above the PATH platforms). It's also relatively cheap both for parking and PATH fare.
Quote from: crispy93 on July 29, 2020, 09:53:20 AM
I just noticed that at some point after summer 2018, the "Best Route to the Bronx" sign was removed from the Cross Island Parkway. It always said Throgs Neck Br though once (and only once) did I see it say Whitestone Br and it was flashing, probably because it was unusual to promote the Whitestone over the Throgs Neck from that direction:
(image snipped)
It was there at least as late as December 2018, which is the first (and so far only) time I've driven that stretch of the CIP. Looks like they replaced it with a sign instead showing travel times over both bridges (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7784049,-73.7680705,3a,41.3y,355.43h,90.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5EWZ14EiSYpKWpuUmb2Vlg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en).
At one time, Riverside Park had free parking. Doubt it still does. Drove in and parked there a few times.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on July 29, 2020, 02:05:52 PM
Quote from: qguy on July 29, 2020, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 27, 2020, 05:40:36 PM
Hate to derail the conversation, but what's the best way to enter NYC on a weekday?
PATH is always good, then connecting to the subway. Also, don't forget about parking the car in Staten Island and taking the Staten Island Ferry in, then connecting to the subway. It's a very relaxing alternative and the ferry itself is free. I've gone this route for Manhattan destinations many times.
I'll second the PATH - over the years I've experimented with different ways of entering Manhattan, and my favorite was the most recent time when I parked in Journal Square Transportation Center parking garage (which is directly above the PATH platforms). It's also relatively cheap both for parking and PATH fare.
Sounds like that's the right track, then; get a hotel in Jersey City, park the car there, PATH for NYC activities; if I'm heading upstate use Tonnele Avenue (is it worth using the NJ Turnpike?) to the PIP. Still not sure if the Jersey side is garbage these days, though I'm optimistic in hoping that Jersey City/Hoboken/whatever has changed its image from "NYC rejects".
Unsure however if it's cheaper to pay for 7 days driving the car to and from Jersey City to the hotel, or keeping the car in NYC; knowing NYC's rates it's likely the former is true.
Jersey City and Hoboken have had a HUGE influx of development in recent years, such that Jersey City is about to overtake Newark as the largest city in the state. Overall much nicer than it used to be, but I'm sure there are still some not-so-nice sections.
As far as 1/9 vs the turnpike... depends on time of day, but 1/9 can be very slow.
Quote from: crispy93 on July 28, 2020, 02:24:34 PM
Over the winter, NYSDOT turned Exit 7 N-S (I-95) from the Deegan into a two-lane exit.
That always was a two-lane exit normally. It was only squeezed down to one temporarily due to construction.
Quote from: qguy on July 29, 2020, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 27, 2020, 05:40:36 PM
Hate to derail the conversation, but what's the best way to enter NYC on a weekday?
PATH is always good, then connecting to the subway. Also, don't forget about parking the car in Staten Island and taking the Staten Island Ferry in, then connecting to the subway. It's a very relaxing alternative and the ferry itself is free. I've gone this route for Manhattan destinations many times.
I'll second the Staten Island Ferry suggestion. That might work out well. Also if you can find a decent hotel in a clean part of Jersey City that might work but I don't recommend it. And if you do that, don't take Tonnelle Ave. north from there. Very slow local road. Take the NJ Tpke. It's worth the toll.
Quote from: qguy on July 29, 2020, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 27, 2020, 05:40:36 PM
Hate to derail the conversation, but what's the best way to enter NYC on a weekday?
PATH is always good, then connecting to the subway. Also, don't forget about parking the car in Staten Island and taking the Staten Island Ferry in, then connecting to the subway. It's a very relaxing alternative and the ferry itself is free. I've gone this route for Manhattan destinations many times.
When we go into the city, we usually park at the 70 Columbus parking garage in downtown Jersey City (self park and open 24 hours unlike some others nearby) on Columbus Drive (2nd exit after the toll on 78). It's only a few steps from the garage exit door to the Grove Street PATH entrance at the corner of Columbus and Marin. There you can either take the WTC or 33rd branch.
A lot of people like using NJ Transit from Metropark or Secaucus Junction, but I prefer PATH since it's 24 hours so I can always get back to my car easier, even if it's slightly longer and more of hassle to get to downtown JC. I hated my college days where we had to be careful to get the last NJT train out of NYC for the night, which has carried forth to my preference for PATH now.
Whoever was keeping track, there is still a handful of Button Copy signs on the Harlem River Drive, Southbound by Exit 16 and 15 there is one sign, and Northbound near Exit 17-18 there are a few but given the crazy construction in that area they probably wont last.
Quote from: TheDon102 on April 19, 2020, 07:44:17 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 18, 2020, 10:30:36 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on April 18, 2020, 09:25:12 PM
I've heard that the state is widening the Van Wyck from the Kew Gardens interchange to JFK Airport... but I think we need to seriously have a discussion about extending the Clearview Expwy. to JFK airport. Only a tunnel would work in today's environment, but it would expand JFK capacity, and provide people with an alternative to the Van Wyck. Maybe this can happen with a new expansive infrastructure bill?
This isn't Fictional Highways.
I know, just throwing around ideas, but adding another lane to the Van Wyck will not ease congestion in a meaningful way. The State needs to find other alternatives, because if they don't find a solution then we would be wasting the potential of JFK International Airport.
not really tho one massive improvement will be the short weave between atlantic and liberty avenues will be eliminated and the exit ramps to the belt parkway will be moved a half of mile north and the GUL will be shifted following the present collector/distributer road and and a lane will be added tothe exit to west bound belt parkway and the entrance ramp to belt parkway will be moved to the existing intersection at conduit ave allowing 800ft more of merging distance
So some news on the Bruckner...
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-completion-204-million-project-rehabilitate-section-bruckner (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-completion-204-million-project-rehabilitate-section-bruckner)
4" dip on the West Side Hwy:
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/10/09/commuter-alert-west-side-highway-drop-off/
When is the HDR/FDR interchange work going to be done?
Looks like the freeway removal activists are now coming for the Cross Bronx: https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/infrastructure/blog/21158895/oped-reimagining-the-cross-bronx-expressway-as-a-high-capacity-transit-corridor
Quote from: vdeane on October 22, 2020, 09:28:01 PM
Looks like the freeway removal activists are now coming for the Cross Bronx: https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/infrastructure/blog/21158895/oped-reimagining-the-cross-bronx-expressway-as-a-high-capacity-transit-corridor
Yeah, because there's no traffic on that corridor to maintain.
Wow i hope that concept doesn't see anywhere near the light of day. Man I love mass transit and see the amazing value alternative transportation provides but it seems like the more transit these transit advocates get the more they get extreme and want to remove car based transportation and that makes me want to support rail less and less.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2020, 09:53:56 PM
Wow i hope that concept doesn't see anywhere near the light of day. Man I love mass transit and see the amazing value alternative transportation provides but it seems like the more transit these transit advocates get the more they get extreme and want to remove car based transportation and that makes me want to support rail less and less.
It won't, the cross bronx isn't going anywhere. I can see decking over the cross bronx and making more "green space" and maybe that can include lightrail or BRT, but actually using the trench is a non-starter. I-95 in New York is essential for freight not to mention system contiguity. If anything the Cross Bronx needs to be
widened .
This is just a pipe dream, even the recent RPA plan admits that it would be impossible.
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2020, 11:57:32 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2020, 09:53:56 PM
Wow i hope that concept doesn't see anywhere near the light of day. Man I love mass transit and see the amazing value alternative transportation provides but it seems like the more transit these transit advocates get the more they get extreme and want to remove car based transportation and that makes me want to support rail less and less.
It won't, the cross bronx isn't going anywhere. I can see decking over the cross bronx and making more "green space" and maybe that can include lightrail or BRT, but actually using the trench is a non-starter. I-95 in New York is essential for freight not to mention system contiguity. If anything the Cross Bronx needs to be widened .
This is just a pipe dream, even the recent RPA plan admits that it would be impossible.
Exactly.
My goal would be a completely re-built I-95 in NYC that has wider lanes, real shoulders, better merges, and is decked.
Why are buses exempt from the Left Turn prohibition on Forty Second Street at Fifth Avenue in Midtown? They even get their own turn lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/odsLPk4MUzNm18rW7
Quote from: roadman65 on January 15, 2021, 01:27:11 AM
Why are buses exempt from the Left Turn prohibition on Forty Second Street at Fifth Avenue in Midtown? They even get their own turn lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/odsLPk4MUzNm18rW7
Because that's the bus route
Quote from: Alps on January 15, 2021, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 15, 2021, 01:27:11 AM
Why are buses exempt from the Left Turn prohibition on Forty Second Street at Fifth Avenue in Midtown? They even get their own turn lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/odsLPk4MUzNm18rW7
Yeah it is, so the purpose of preventing turns in the first place is suspended due to a bus has to keep it's route. Yeah that makes sense, allow a bus to continue its route while screwing up traffic.
Anyway, on another subject, I noticed in GSV how the new tunnel doors are in place at the Midtown Tunnel. All brass colored and feature the State Seal on them. Also I see the plaza at the east end is gone for the AET, but the gantries for tolling are on the Manhattan side of the tunnel.
Because that's the bus route
Quote from: Alps on January 15, 2021, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 15, 2021, 01:27:11 AM
Why are buses exempt from the Left Turn prohibition on Forty Second Street at Fifth Avenue in Midtown? They even get their own turn lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/odsLPk4MUzNm18rW7
Because that's the bus route
The real question is why they let people park in the bus lane. (Or are they doing that illegally?)
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 07, 2020, 02:59:52 PM
So some news on the Bruckner...
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-completion-204-million-project-rehabilitate-section-bruckner (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-completion-204-million-project-rehabilitate-section-bruckner)
They better not be trying to pull the same shit they did with the Sheridan! "Building back better" my ass!
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 22, 2020, 11:57:32 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 22, 2020, 09:53:56 PM
Wow i hope that concept doesn't see anywhere near the light of day. Man I love mass transit and see the amazing value alternative transportation provides but it seems like the more transit these transit advocates get the more they get extreme and want to remove car based transportation and that makes me want to support rail less and less.
It won't, the cross bronx isn't going anywhere. I can see decking over the cross bronx and making more "green space" and maybe that can include lightrail or BRT, but actually using the trench is a non-starter. I-95 in New York is essential for freight not to mention system contiguity. If anything the Cross Bronx needs to be widened .
This is just a pipe dream, even the recent RPA plan admits that it would be impossible.
If they would've actually kept the Sheridan and extended it to Pelham like they were supposed to do, they would've had an alternative to the Cross Bronx that might've reduced the need for widening it east of West Farms. In the meantime, whenever I'm there I always look for sections where the decking of the road could be a good start. They can't really do it all at once. Somebody on YouTube mentioned the idea of a new subway line over the Cross Bronx, but I still think that if anything they should just extend the IND Concourse Line east of Norwood.
Any chance they could reconfigure the Interstate 278/NY 895 interchange so traffic does not have to exit to stay on Interstate 278? Or would the right-of-way impacts be too great to justify such a reconfiguration?
Quote from: roadman65 on January 16, 2021, 10:29:38 AM
Yeah it is, so the purpose of preventing turns in the first place is suspended due to a bus has to keep it's route. Yeah that makes sense, allow a bus to continue its route while screwing up traffic.
I don't understand. The bus
is traffic. How does following its route screw it up?
Don't forget that the City's preference is to encourage use of mass transit so yes they might make the bus route more convenient at the expense of other traffic.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 16, 2021, 10:29:38 AM
Yeah it is, so the purpose of preventing turns in the first place is suspended due to a bus has to keep it's route. Yeah that makes sense, allow a bus to continue its route while screwing up traffic.
On average there's probably no more than one bus per light cycle making that turn, and it can just make it after the light turns red. Plus during busy times a lot of these intersections in midtowns have traffic agents to keep things moving along. Not a big deal.
Quote from: empirestate on January 16, 2021, 04:03:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 16, 2021, 10:29:38 AM
Yeah it is, so the purpose of preventing turns in the first place is suspended due to a bus has to keep it's route. Yeah that makes sense, allow a bus to continue its route while screwing up traffic.
I don't understa
nd. The bus is traffic. How does following its route screw it up?
The reason why turns are prohibited for cars is it causes slowdowns. Many cities do this to avoid queues at lights. Plus if the side road is congested as well it dont overflow around the corner.
Newark, NJ has one at Broad and Market Streets and DeLand, FL has one at auS 17 & 92 and SR 44. Plus many urban areas have no left turns to prevent queues or unsafe turning especially when no room for left turn lane.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 16, 2021, 11:30:30 PM
Quote from: empirestate on January 16, 2021, 04:03:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 16, 2021, 10:29:38 AM
Yeah it is, so the purpose of preventing turns in the first place is suspended due to a bus has to keep it's route. Yeah that makes sense, allow a bus to continue its route while screwing up traffic.
I don't understa
nd. The bus is traffic. How does following its route screw it up?
The reason why turns are prohibited for cars is it causes slowdowns. Many cities do this to avoid queues at lights. Plus if the side road is congested as well it dont overflow around the corner.
Newark, NJ has one at Broad and Market Streets and DeLand, FL has one at auS 17 & 92 and SR 44. Plus many urban areas have no left turns to prevent queues or unsafe turning especially when no room for left turn lane.
I'm afraid I still don't follow you. It seems like an exemption for certain traffic would benefit that traffic, not screw it up. Why is that not so?
Quote from: empirestate on January 16, 2021, 04:03:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 16, 2021, 10:29:38 AM
Yeah it is, so the purpose of preventing turns in the first place is suspended due to a bus has to keep it's route. Yeah that makes sense, allow a bus to continue its route while screwing up traffic.
I don't understand. The bus is traffic. How does following its route screw it up?
Buses also can force green light priority. You can see a couple of the transponders on the lights at the intersection. Buses carry the transmitters that can set green light priority so they can make that turn cleanly.
Quote from: storm2k on January 17, 2021, 05:46:24 PM
Quote from: empirestate on January 16, 2021, 04:03:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 16, 2021, 10:29:38 AM
Yeah it is, so the purpose of preventing turns in the first place is suspended due to a bus has to keep it's route. Yeah that makes sense, allow a bus to continue its route while screwing up traffic.
I don't understand. The bus is traffic. How does following its route screw it up?
Buses also can force green light priority. You can see a couple of the transponders on the lights at the intersection. Buses carry the transmitters that can set green light priority so they can make that turn cleanly.
I hadn't heard about that before. But yeah, another thing that sounds more like it helps bus traffic than screws it up.
If the opinions of Streetsblog is a reflection of most of the people in the Bronx, they don't seem as fond of buses either. Does anybody remember when I complained about the new design for Fordham Plaza (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13471.msg2006732#msg2006732)? This still looks like an impediment for bus traffic, and it makes me think the anti-car/anti-bus people knew this. If the Cross Bronx were decked, somehow I doubt they'd accept a busway, and only certain sections could realistically be decked anyhow.
I was always aware of Broadway being severed at Times Square to create a pedestrian mall, but unware of it also being closed at Macy's and Herald Square. GSV shows a barrier at 35th Street right before the area on NBC each Thanksgiving where the parade acts stop to face the cameras and perform for the NBC audience. I am guessing that once the pandemic is over and things get back to normal, that barrier will be removed to allow parade floats and marchers to continue and perform in front of Macy's for the viewing audience. I do not see them relocating and being Macy's is the sponsor of the Parade, they are not going to give up of photo op of their front door on world wide TV.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2021, 02:25:21 PM
Any chance they could reconfigure the Interstate 278/NY 895 interchange so traffic does not have to exit to stay on Interstate 278? Or would the right-of-way impacts be too great to justify such a reconfiguration?
Wasn't that part of the phase 2 plan? To create three-thru lanes for I-278 through that interchange?
I noticed the exit ramp to 895 is now ONE lane when it used to be two, even though it opens up to two later on down the road. I wonder why the chose to take away a lane?! Why should they ever take away a lane!?!
weren't they adding in some onramp from one of Hunts Point for the trucks to get back to the highway from the food market.
Yeah, I believe that other lane is going to come from the Hunts Point ramp that's under construction.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 18, 2021, 10:17:12 AM
I was always aware of Broadway being severed at Times Square to create a pedestrian mall, but unware of it also being closed at Macy's and Herald Square. GSV shows a barrier at 35th Street right before the area on NBC each Thanksgiving where the parade acts stop to face the cameras and perform for the NBC audience. I am guessing that once the pandemic is over and things get back to normal, that barrier will be removed to allow parade floats and marchers to continue and perform in front of Macy's for the viewing audience. I do not see them relocating and being Macy's is the sponsor of the Parade, they are not going to give up of photo op of their front door on world wide TV.
Was closed off at Madison Square a few years ago as well. Helps with weird traffic angles and turns and such.
Also, the Macys Parade route moved to 6th Ave years ago south of Central Park. So it's not an issue. Being on the wider avenue lets them also fly the bigger balloons without worry.
One other interchange that concerns me is the entrance ramp from Borden Avenue (Exit 13) to the Queens-Midtown Expressway and how it mixes with the off-ramp to NY 25A (Exit 14):
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7411469,-73.9518072,3a,75y,60.43h,89.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snbawPpIt44Qr2a34xnnZvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7411469,-73.9518072,3a,75y,60.43h,89.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snbawPpIt44Qr2a34xnnZvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)
I was going to add an aerial shot for this, but I think this is more effective. Perhaps it might be time to reconsider the north-to-east Pulaski Bridge on-ramp, and add a new on-ramp from Borden Avenue to that ramp.
This was fine when toll booths stopped traffic at the tunnel portal. Removing the toll booths changed the dynamics, and further changes to the roadway geometry are required.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 24, 2021, 12:02:39 PM
One other interchange that concerns me is the entrance ramp from Borden Avenue (Exit 13) to the Queens-Midtown Expressway and how it mixes with the off-ramp to NY 25A (Exit 14):
Quote from: paul02474 on January 24, 2021, 01:25:29 PM
This was fine when toll booths stopped traffic at the tunnel portal. Removing the toll booths changed the dynamics, and further changes to the roadway geometry are required.
Well, they should at least change it to something that
doesn't put drivers at risk of a collision.
I can't quite find a concrete answer to this question, but is there any reason that the Bronx has a wacky street grid?
For the other boroughs, there's some justifications:
- Lower Manhattan was because the Dutch settled the area before there was any concept of a street grid. The rest of Manhattan has a uniform street grid, although wackiness occurs in Harlem due to geography
- Brooklyn was an independent city. Wackier streets like Kings Highway or Liberty Avenue exist because these roads were initially trails
- Multiple parks and cemeteries in Queens forced streets to go around these areas; otherwise Queens has a normal grid
- Staten Island has a lot of marshland owned by the state. A lot of the interior of the island is undeveloped, but the developed part of the island (along Newark Bay and New York Bay) have normal street grids
In the case of the Bronx, there isn't many obstacles that roads have to avoid. True, Pelham Bay Park, Van Cortlandt Park, and the Bronx Zoo occupy a lot of space forcing streets to avoid them. Some roads like Broadway or Boston (Post) Road were there first. But there's nonsense like Kingsbridge Avenue, Tremont Avenue, or the streets in Riverdale. Did people just not know how to build in a straight line back in the 1800s?
The Bronx has very hilly, uneven and steep terrain. That leads to streets being winding and curvy instead of straight.
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 27, 2021, 02:26:04 PM
- otherwise Queens has a normal grid
nothing about queens is normal
(it's an amalgamation of so many different towns, each with their own grids)
Hey, has anybody here ever been on the bike paths around the Bronx River Parkway in the vicinity of 233rd Street and Woodlawn Metro-North station? I'm trying to find out if this segment that curves off to the left really goes back underneath 233rd, or just ends at a staircase along the south side of the bridge.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MN_Harlem_Line_over_SB_Bronx_River_Pkwy_on-ramp;_Woodlawn.jpg
I'm only asking because I've been looking to get more pics of the 238th Street Arch Bridge next time I go to NYC.
I was on Broadway in Downtown Manhattan near City hall this week and was surprised to see some new traffic lights. Just south of City Hall at Park Row/Ann St. there is a very fancy installation (by NYC standards) including 12-inch heads facing B'way traffic, protected-only left-turns and bicycle signals for the first time.
I'm sure the latter will do no good whatsoever since most lower Manhattan bicyclists totally ignore traffic laws, and there is virtually no enforcement by police. But still it's good to see NYC making significant progress on traffic lights.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 11, 2021, 08:17:59 PM
I'm sure the latter will do no good whatsoever since most lower Manhattan bicyclists totally ignore traffic laws, and there is virtually no enforcement by police. But still it's good to see NYC making significant progress on traffic lights.
And if they get hit by a car, truck, or bus, the anti-car lobbyists are just going to say it's the driver's fault, and they're always being blamed for accidents. :no:
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 24, 2021, 03:52:20 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on January 24, 2021, 01:25:29 PM
This was fine when toll booths stopped traffic at the tunnel portal. Removing the toll booths changed the dynamics, and further changes to the roadway geometry are required.
Well, they should at least change it to something that doesn't put drivers at risk of a collision.
We live in a retroactive world remember. They won't do anything unless a lamb is sacrificed. Then they act in a usual slow manner.
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 27, 2021, 02:26:04 PM
I can't quite find a concrete answer to this question, but is there any reason that the Bronx has a wacky street grid?
Because no one planned it otherwise.
Where massive continuous street grids exist, they exist because at some point someone sat down and plotted the whole thing out on paper, and then made it officially ruled that development shall adhere to this pattern. The Bronx never had any such master plan, it was developed on an ad hoc basis and developers in different areas each laid things out how they felt like it.
Saw a new sign contract coming up and it included spot improvements for signage around NYC including the FDR Drive. This little beauty is marked for replacement.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4415/36773385672_56a6ed3758_c.jpg)
Plus signage for I-495 NB on the FDR so hopefully the recent bubble shields will go away. Of course now I can't find the link
through some of my own investigation i was looking at how many trucks travel on the Cross Bronx Expressway alone the NYSDOT should make the left lane on the Cross Bronx into a (Truck-trailer) lane from just after the Bruckner interchange and will run express all the way over the Alexander Hamilton Bridge with intermittent entrance and exit points to access the Major Deegan and the Sheridan to some of the congestion from trucks now however this wont solve the weaving problem of trucks accessing the upper level from the major Deegan but it will open up some capacity and will allow for goods to move through the corridor more safely and efficiently. What are your thoughts on this?
I don't know if that would solve any problem.
Ideally, you'd have some sort of express tunnel beneath the existing Cross Bronx out to the Bruckner, or a new crossing north of the GWB and meeting up with the New England Thruway to the east and a northern extension of the NJ Tpke to the west, going north from its present terminus, then curving east. And to handle the trucks coming down from CT, a new crossing to Long Island, extending I-287, would alleviate some traffic as well.
All options.... $$$$$$ and would take some political wrangling to get through.
A relatively cheaper option: expand RR freight. However you'd have to have some sort of way to get across the Hudson/harbor in the NYC area... something closer than Albany!
Quote from: shadyjay on March 03, 2021, 01:41:05 PM
I don't know if that would solve any problem.
Ideally, you'd have some sort of express tunnel beneath the existing Cross Bronx out to the Bruckner, or a new crossing north of the GWB and meeting up with the New England Thruway to the east and a northern extension of the NJ Tpke to the west, going north from its present terminus, then curving east. And to handle the trucks coming down from CT, a new crossing to Long Island, extending I-287, would alleviate some traffic as well.
All options.... $$$$$$ and would take some political wrangling to get through.
A relatively cheaper option: expand RR freight. However you'd have to have some sort of way to get across the Hudson/harbor in the NYC area... something closer than Albany!
Maybe even closer than Poughkeepsie, where the now-Walkway over the Hudson was a key RR bridge until c. 1974 when it was damaged by fire.
ixnay
Quote from: fmendes on March 03, 2021, 11:07:36 AM
through some of my own investigation i was looking at how many trucks travel on the Cross Bronx Expressway alone the NYSDOT should make the left lane on the Cross Bronx into a (Truck-trailer) lane from just after the Bruckner interchange and will run express all the way over the Alexander Hamilton Bridge with intermittent entrance and exit points to access the Major Deegan and the Sheridan to some of the congestion from trucks now however this wont solve the weaving problem of trucks accessing the upper level from the major Deegan but it will open up some capacity and will allow for goods to move through the corridor more safely and efficiently. What are your thoughts on this?
No way can you take capacity away. If you want to talk about adding a lane somehow (tunneling under the frontage roads and cantilevering them) I'm game.
Quote from: Alps on March 03, 2021, 06:54:08 PM
Quote from: fmendes on March 03, 2021, 11:07:36 AM
through some of my own investigation i was looking at how many trucks travel on the Cross Bronx Expressway alone the NYSDOT should make the left lane on the Cross Bronx into a (Truck-trailer) lane from just after the Bruckner interchange and will run express all the way over the Alexander Hamilton Bridge with intermittent entrance and exit points to access the Major Deegan and the Sheridan to some of the congestion from trucks now however this wont solve the weaving problem of trucks accessing the upper level from the major Deegan but it will open up some capacity and will allow for goods to move through the corridor more safely and efficiently. What are your thoughts on this?
No way can you take capacity away. If you want to talk about adding a lane somehow (tunneling under the frontage roads and cantilevering them) I'm game.
what like they did at Grand Central that really would be the only way to widen the cross bronx the only problem is the bridge at grand concourse it has a subway line that runs through it
Quote from: fmendes on March 03, 2021, 11:07:36 AM
through some of my own investigation i was looking at how many trucks travel on the Cross Bronx Expressway alone the NYSDOT should make the left lane on the Cross Bronx into a (Truck-trailer) lane from just after the Bruckner interchange and will run express all the way over the Alexander Hamilton Bridge with intermittent entrance and exit points to access the Major Deegan and the Sheridan to some of the congestion from trucks now however this wont solve the weaving problem of trucks accessing the upper level from the major Deegan but it will open up some capacity and will allow for goods to move through the corridor more safely and efficiently. What are your thoughts on this?
They should just let the trucks use the lower level again
Quote from: roadman65 on January 18, 2021, 10:17:12 AM
I was always aware of Broadway being severed at Times Square to create a pedestrian mall, but unware of it also being closed at Macy's and Herald Square. GSV shows a barrier at 35th Street right before the area on NBC each Thanksgiving where the parade acts stop to face the cameras and perform for the NBC audience. I am guessing that once the pandemic is over and things get back to normal, that barrier will be removed to allow parade floats and marchers to continue and perform in front of Macy's for the viewing audience. I do not see them relocating and being Macy's is the sponsor of the Parade, they are not going to give up of photo op of their front door on world wide TV.
I'd love to see the entirety of Broadway from Columbus Circle to Union Square become a pedestrian walkway, using signals with gates to control movement at intersections.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 02, 2021, 04:20:27 PM
Saw a new sign contract coming up and it included spot improvements for signage around NYC including the FDR Drive. This little beauty is marked for replacement.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4415/36773385672_56a6ed3758_c.jpg)
Plus signage for I-495 NB on the FDR so hopefully the recent bubble shields will go away. Of course now I can't find the link
I believe that would be part of this project (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D264374) and it looks like that particular sign is just being eliminated entirely.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on March 05, 2021, 04:28:50 AM
Quote from: fmendes on March 03, 2021, 11:07:36 AM
through some of my own investigation i was looking at how many trucks travel on the Cross Bronx Expressway alone the NYSDOT should make the left lane on the Cross Bronx into a (Truck-trailer) lane from just after the Bruckner interchange and will run express all the way over the Alexander Hamilton Bridge with intermittent entrance and exit points to access the Major Deegan and the Sheridan to some of the congestion from trucks now however this wont solve the weaving problem of trucks accessing the upper level from the major Deegan but it will open up some capacity and will allow for goods to move through the corridor more safely and efficiently. What are your thoughts on this?
They should just let the trucks use the lower level again
they should do this because of the latest security tech they could use and they could also do it during peak periods kind of like how they do it on the manhatten bridge
Quote from: mariethefoxy on March 05, 2021, 04:28:50 AM
Quote from: fmendes on March 03, 2021, 11:07:36 AM
through some of my own investigation i was looking at how many trucks travel on the Cross Bronx Expressway alone the NYSDOT should make the left lane on the Cross Bronx into a (Truck-trailer) lane from just after the Bruckner interchange and will run express all the way over the Alexander Hamilton Bridge with intermittent entrance and exit points to access the Major Deegan and the Sheridan to some of the congestion from trucks now however this wont solve the weaving problem of trucks accessing the upper level from the major Deegan but it will open up some capacity and will allow for goods to move through the corridor more safely and efficiently. What are your thoughts on this?
They should just let the trucks use the lower level again
You mean once upon a time trucks could use the lower level of the GWB? When were they banned? What incident or study prompted it? I know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Bridge says there was a jackknifing incident in 1977 where two trucks almost went off the lower deck but the article doesn't specifically say when trucks were banned.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on March 08, 2021, 08:18:09 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on March 05, 2021, 04:28:50 AM
Quote from: fmendes on March 03, 2021, 11:07:36 AM
through some of my own investigation i was looking at how many trucks travel on the Cross Bronx Expressway alone the NYSDOT should make the left lane on the Cross Bronx into a (Truck-trailer) lane from just after the Bruckner interchange and will run express all the way over the Alexander Hamilton Bridge with intermittent entrance and exit points to access the Major Deegan and the Sheridan to some of the congestion from trucks now however this wont solve the weaving problem of trucks accessing the upper level from the major Deegan but it will open up some capacity and will allow for goods to move through the corridor more safely and efficiently. What are your thoughts on this?
They should just let the trucks use the lower level again
You mean once upon a time trucks could use the lower level of the GWB? When were they banned? What incident or study prompted it? I know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Bridge says there was a jackknifing incident in 1977 where two trucks almost went off the lower deck but the article doesn't specifically say when trucks were banned.
ixnay
trucks were banned on the Lower level of the GWB after 9/11 due to obvious reasons same with the Verrazano
I recall when I was a kid, trucks were normally required to use the lower level on the Verrazano. Didn't travel over the GW Bridge often enough to recall the rule there.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 08, 2021, 09:51:12 PM
I recall when I was a kid, trucks were normally required to use the lower level on the Verrazano. Didn't travel over the GW Bridge often enough to recall the rule there.
trucks were allowed on all lower decks on NYC bridges until 9/11
Does anybody got any news on the progress on phase 4 of the Kew Gardens interchange there rlly isnt any news coverage any more about it
Quote from: fmendes on March 09, 2021, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 08, 2021, 09:51:12 PM
I recall when I was a kid, trucks were normally required to use the lower level on the Verrazano. Didn't travel over the GW Bridge often enough to recall the rule there.
trucks were allowed on all lower decks on NYC bridges until 9/11
Sure, but what I was referring to was that on the Verrazano they were normally
required to use the lower level, whereas now the rule is precisely the reverse of that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 08, 2021, 09:51:12 PM
I recall when I was a kid, trucks were normally required to use the lower level on the Verrazano.
Not only that, but in the Brooklyn direction, that requirement was used to keep trucks off the Belt Parkway. They enforced it by designating the upper roadway "Cars Only", then coning-off the ramp that led from the lower deck to the giant loop ramp. The lower roadway only read "Trucks"; I wonder how many cars intent on the Belt, though, wound up on the Gowanus by mistake. There was a minimally-sized BGS reading "Belt Pkwy" pointing to the upper deck, but IMHO it was easily missed.
At night, back in the early '70s, ISTR the lower deck was often closed. This and the other designations were communicated by short-but-wide, bulb-based VMS's.
Exactly once I remember the upper roadway being closed, in which case the traffic cones blocking that ramp were removed.
Quote from: lepidopteran on March 09, 2021, 06:54:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 08, 2021, 09:51:12 PM
I recall when I was a kid, trucks were normally required to use the lower level on the Verrazano.
Not only that, but in the Brooklyn direction, that requirement was used to keep trucks off the Belt Parkway. They enforced it by designating the upper roadway "Cars Only", then coning-off the ramp that led from the lower deck to the giant loop ramp. The lower roadway only read "Trucks"; I wonder how many cars intent on the Belt, though, wound up on the Gowanus by mistake. There was a minimally-sized BGS reading "Belt Pkwy" pointing to the upper deck, but IMHO it was easily missed.
At night, back in the early '70s, ISTR the lower deck was often closed. This and the other designations were communicated by short-but-wide, bulb-based VMS's.
Exactly once I remember the upper roadway being closed, in which case the traffic cones blocking that ramp were removed.
ISTR they hadn't even built that connecting ramp from the Lower to the Belt for many years.
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Lack of need.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Probably NIMBYs, not that it makes sense to me either. From a traffic standpoint, I could see difficulties with taking 4 lanes from 135 into 4 lanes of the Wantagh (now 5 with an extra SB lane) and merging that all together at once. But I wouldn't write it off as "lack of need." There has to be a reason that they still have that ROW aside.
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2021, 12:10:36 AM
Quote from: lepidopteran on March 09, 2021, 06:54:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 08, 2021, 09:51:12 PM
I recall when I was a kid, trucks were normally required to use the lower level on the Verrazano.
Not only that, but in the Brooklyn direction, that requirement was used to keep trucks off the Belt Parkway. They enforced it by designating the upper roadway "Cars Only", then coning-off the ramp that led from the lower deck to the giant loop ramp. The lower roadway only read "Trucks"; I wonder how many cars intent on the Belt, though, wound up on the Gowanus by mistake. There was a minimally-sized BGS reading "Belt Pkwy" pointing to the upper deck, but IMHO it was easily missed.
Exactly once I remember the upper roadway being closed, in which case the traffic cones blocking that ramp were removed.
ISTR they hadn't even built that connecting ramp from the Lower to the Belt for many years.
It was no later than 1973 when the upper roadway was closed and thus the connecting ramp was accessible. Still, that's about 9 years after the Verrazano opened. But the lower deck itself didn't open until mid-1969.
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2021, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Probably NIMBYs, not that it makes sense to me either. From a traffic standpoint, I could see difficulties with taking 4 lanes from 135 into 4 lanes of the Wantagh (now 5 with an extra SB lane) and merging that all together at once. But I wouldn't write it off as "lack of need." There has to be a reason that they still have that ROW aside.
I could see it being useful for the trucks, buses, and trailers, which currently must exit at NY 27 east. Such would provide direct freeway access for all vehicle access to Jones Beach.
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2021, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2021, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Probably NIMBYs, not that it makes sense to me either. From a traffic standpoint, I could see difficulties with taking 4 lanes from 135 into 4 lanes of the Wantagh (now 5 with an extra SB lane) and merging that all together at once. But I wouldn't write it off as "lack of need." There has to be a reason that they still have that ROW aside.
I could see it being useful for the trucks, buses, and trailers, which currently must exit at NY 27 east. Such would provide direct freeway access for all vehicle access to Jones Beach.
Trucks and Buses are allowed on the Meadowbrook and Wantagh Parkways South of Merrick Road
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2021, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2021, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Probably NIMBYs, not that it makes sense to me either. From a traffic standpoint, I could see difficulties with taking 4 lanes from 135 into 4 lanes of the Wantagh (now 5 with an extra SB lane) and merging that all together at once. But I wouldn't write it off as "lack of need." There has to be a reason that they still have that ROW aside.
I could see it being useful for the trucks, buses, and trailers, which currently must exit at NY 27 east. Such would provide direct freeway access for all vehicle access to Jones Beach.
It doesn't make sense to me to shoehorn everyone onto Merrick Ave. when you have a potential freeway-to-freeway connection a few thousand feet away.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 11, 2021, 07:42:49 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2021, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2021, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Probably NIMBYs, not that it makes sense to me either. From a traffic standpoint, I could see difficulties with taking 4 lanes from 135 into 4 lanes of the Wantagh (now 5 with an extra SB lane) and merging that all together at once. But I wouldn't write it off as "lack of need." There has to be a reason that they still have that ROW aside.
I could see it being useful for the trucks, buses, and trailers, which currently must exit at NY 27 east. Such would provide direct freeway access for all vehicle access to Jones Beach.
It doesn't make sense to me to shoehorn everyone onto Merrick Ave. when you have a potential freeway-to-freeway connection a few thousand feet away.
the reason they ruled it out because trucks are already allowed on the parkway South of Merrick rd. and and so i think it was a lack of need considering the Wantagh and NY-135 have connections to most major roadways. idk if u can tell I'm a truck driver but I usually take 135 to Merrick rd. or NY-27 mostly sunrise I stick too cause of the cameras but the amount of trucks that I see every day going there isnt rlly insane i mean i have taken 135 to jerusalem and i take Wantagh Ave to the pkwy when sunrise and merrick road is fucked and there are alot of trucks coming from there on a week day
Quote from: mapman1071 on March 10, 2021, 11:55:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2021, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2021, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Probably NIMBYs, not that it makes sense to me either. From a traffic standpoint, I could see difficulties with taking 4 lanes from 135 into 4 lanes of the Wantagh (now 5 with an extra SB lane) and merging that all together at once. But I wouldn't write it off as "lack of need." There has to be a reason that they still have that ROW aside.
I could see it being useful for the trucks, buses, and trailers, which currently must exit at NY 27 east. Such would provide direct freeway access for all vehicle access to Jones Beach.
Trucks and Buses are allowed on the Meadowbrook and Wantagh Parkways South of Merrick Road
Good thing that they are. Those trucks need access to Jones Beach to deliver construction materials, concession merchandise, deploy construction equipment, etc. And group outings all but require buses.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on March 11, 2021, 08:21:22 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on March 10, 2021, 11:55:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2021, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2021, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Probably NIMBYs, not that it makes sense to me either. From a traffic standpoint, I could see difficulties with taking 4 lanes from 135 into 4 lanes of the Wantagh (now 5 with an extra SB lane) and merging that all together at once. But I wouldn't write it off as "lack of need." There has to be a reason that they still have that ROW aside.
I could see it being useful for the trucks, buses, and trailers, which currently must exit at NY 27 east. Such would provide direct freeway access for all vehicle access to Jones Beach.
Trucks and Buses are allowed on the Meadowbrook and Wantagh Parkways South of Merrick Road
Good thing that they are. Those trucks need access to Jones Beach to deliver construction materials, concession merchandise, deploy construction equipment, etc. And group outings all but require buses.
ixnay
yess that is i was delivering concrete to finish up the trail to captree but i would say the most of the trucks rlly come from long beach they take Nassau Expressway to Atlantic beach and go through long beach over there and take the loop thats for the guys that come from the city but when i used to work over in Inwood and sunrise and Conduit Ave was Clogged i would take the Loop and cut through long beach and shoot up nassau expressway to get back to the yard
Quote from: mapman1071 on March 10, 2021, 11:55:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2021, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2021, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Probably NIMBYs, not that it makes sense to me either. From a traffic standpoint, I could see difficulties with taking 4 lanes from 135 into 4 lanes of the Wantagh (now 5 with an extra SB lane) and merging that all together at once. But I wouldn't write it off as "lack of need." There has to be a reason that they still have that ROW aside.
I could see it being useful for the trucks, buses, and trailers, which currently must exit at NY 27 east. Such would provide direct freeway access for all vehicle access to Jones Beach.
Trucks and Buses are allowed on the Meadowbrook and Wantagh Parkways South of Merrick Road
Not on the Wantagh northbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6578759,-73.5099864,3a,37.9y,10.31h,92.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss8iXoHwthKp0DqSWdRF9Pw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Quote from: fmendes on March 11, 2021, 08:04:48 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 11, 2021, 07:42:49 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2021, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2021, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Probably NIMBYs, not that it makes sense to me either. From a traffic standpoint, I could see difficulties with taking 4 lanes from 135 into 4 lanes of the Wantagh (now 5 with an extra SB lane) and merging that all together at once. But I wouldn't write it off as "lack of need." There has to be a reason that they still have that ROW aside.
I could see it being useful for the trucks, buses, and trailers, which currently must exit at NY 27 east. Such would provide direct freeway access for all vehicle access to Jones Beach.
It doesn't make sense to me to shoehorn everyone onto Merrick Ave. when you have a potential freeway-to-freeway connection a few thousand feet away.
the reason they ruled it out because trucks are already allowed on the parkway South of Merrick rd. and and so i think it was a lack of need considering the Wantagh and NY-135 have connections to most major roadways. idk if u can tell I'm a truck driver but I usually take 135 to Merrick rd. or NY-27 mostly sunrise I stick too cause of the cameras but the amount of trucks that I see every day going there isnt rlly insane i mean i have taken 135 to jerusalem and i take Wantagh Ave to the pkwy when sunrise and merrick road is fucked and there are alot of trucks coming from there on a week day
Wouldn't it be more useful to give trucks/trailers (especially trailers) an all-freeway route rather than forcing them to go a roundabout way on Merrick (which isn't even a state route that far west)? Seems like it would make life a lot simpler for many users. Not sure how much buses are affected, but groups from elsewhere or express buses I could see finding that useful as well. Then one could just take I-495/NY 135/Wantagh rather than local streets.
Quote from: vdeane on March 11, 2021, 12:59:57 PM
Quote from: mapman1071 on March 10, 2021, 11:55:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2021, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2021, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Probably NIMBYs, not that it makes sense to me either. From a traffic standpoint, I could see difficulties with taking 4 lanes from 135 into 4 lanes of the Wantagh (now 5 with an extra SB lane) and merging that all together at once. But I wouldn't write it off as "lack of need." There has to be a reason that they still have that ROW aside.
I could see it being useful for the trucks, buses, and trailers, which currently must exit at NY 27 east. Such would provide direct freeway access for all vehicle access to Jones Beach.
Trucks and Buses are allowed on the Meadowbrook and Wantagh Parkways South of Merrick Road
Not on the Wantagh northbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6578759,-73.5099864,3a,37.9y,10.31h,92.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss8iXoHwthKp0DqSWdRF9Pw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Quote from: fmendes on March 11, 2021, 08:04:48 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 11, 2021, 07:42:49 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2021, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2021, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
What exactly is stopping the completion of the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the Wantagh State Parkway?
The ROW is completely clear.
Probably NIMBYs, not that it makes sense to me either. From a traffic standpoint, I could see difficulties with taking 4 lanes from 135 into 4 lanes of the Wantagh (now 5 with an extra SB lane) and merging that all together at once. But I wouldn't write it off as "lack of need." There has to be a reason that they still have that ROW aside.
I could see it being useful for the trucks, buses, and trailers, which currently must exit at NY 27 east. Such would provide direct freeway access for all vehicle access to Jones Beach.
It doesn't make sense to me to shoehorn everyone onto Merrick Ave. when you have a potential freeway-to-freeway connection a few thousand feet away.
the reason they ruled it out because trucks are already allowed on the parkway South of Merrick rd. and and so i think it was a lack of need considering the Wantagh and NY-135 have connections to most major roadways. idk if u can tell I'm a truck driver but I usually take 135 to Merrick rd. or NY-27 mostly sunrise I stick too cause of the cameras but the amount of trucks that I see every day going there isnt rlly insane i mean i have taken 135 to jerusalem and i take Wantagh Ave to the pkwy when sunrise and merrick road is fucked and there are alot of trucks coming from there on a week day
Wouldn't it be more useful to give trucks/trailers (especially trailers) an all-freeway route rather than forcing them to go a roundabout way on Merrick (which isn't even a state route that far west)? Seems like it would make life a lot simpler for many users. Not sure how much buses are affected, but groups from elsewhere or express buses I could see finding that useful as well. Then one could just take I-495/NY 135/Wantagh rather than local streets.
its not considerably bad actually i mean there not rlly cutting through local streets because merrick road and sunrise highway are truck routes alot of trucks do use merrick road but i try to avoid it when i can because of the cameras yk
Completing Rt.135 from Merrick Rd. to the Wantagh Pkwy. would be good as a direct route for trucks and busses but I don't think NYS DOT would be willing to spend the big bucks to build it just for that reason.
In addition, it would be legally difficult to build because the route passes thru wetlands with environmental concerns, which gets complicated. That legal complexity did not yet exist in the 1950's and early 60's when those original plans were made. And there would surely be NIMBY opposition as well.
Route 135 isn't getting extended in either direction due to NIMBYs.
its not terrible, just a few traffic lights on Merrick Road till you get to 135. Its a decent alternative to cars as well coming back from the beach since everyone goes up to the southern state which gets backed up badly in that area.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 12, 2021, 12:23:50 AM
Route 135 isn't getting extended in either direction due to NIMBYs.
I'm not sure they have a leg to stand on at the southern terminus. The ROW is still clear.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 12, 2021, 08:40:35 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 12, 2021, 12:23:50 AM
Route 135 isn't getting extended in either direction due to NIMBYs.
I'm not sure they have a leg to stand on at the southern terminus. The ROW is still clear.
I think there is parkland there. And, if wetlands, the ROW is anything but clear.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 12, 2021, 08:40:35 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 12, 2021, 12:23:50 AM
Route 135 isn't getting extended in either direction due to NIMBYs.
I'm not sure they have a leg to stand on at the southern terminus. The ROW is still clear.
there is ROW but the plan was shot down and not only that as someone said its like a bike trail or some nature trail garbage
and NYS DOT no longer owns the ROW it was sold of to the County in like 1993
Seaford Harbor School being right next to 135 would set off NIMBYs. Cedar Creek Park is just at the ROW and that would set 4F and NIMBYs off.
Once again, why is it important? Route 135 isn't going to be finished on either end ever, and I'm completely ok with that. We don't need to waste money on projects that will go nowhere.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 12, 2021, 11:41:13 AM
Seaford Harbor School being right next to 135 would set off NIMBYs. Cedar Creek Park is just at the ROW and that would set 4F and NIMBYs off.
Once again, why is it important? Route 135 isn't going to be finished on either end ever, and I'm completely ok with that. We don't need to waste money on projects that will go nowhere.
exactly the only thing it will do is cause people to try and bypass going through the Bronx and the LIE the southern and northern states will be a "Parking lot" litterally
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 12, 2021, 12:23:50 AM
Route 135 isn't getting extended in either direction due to NIMBYs.
Certainly not to NYC, in any case. ;-)
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 12, 2021, 11:41:13 AM
Once again, why is it important? Route 135 isn't going to be finished on either end ever, and I'm completely ok with that. We don't need to waste money on projects that will go nowhere.
How is providing a direct connection between Long Island and Westchester/Connecticut without making a big circle through Queens going nowhere? Seems useful to me.
It likely would be useful to propose a route for Long Islanders (or people coming from Connecticut) to utilize a route that bypasses New York City and its congestion. Getting such a route constructed is another story altogether, which is probably why it hasn't happened and may never happen.
NIMBYs.
Lots of 4Fs.
The $20B or more cost it would take to build such a bridge.
The level of EIS that would be needed.
The lawyers and legalese fighting over the bridge.
This bridge's best hope was 70 years ago. NY taxpayers will eventually have to pay for a new Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, which itself is 82 years old. So 135 as far as I am concerned can stay Merrick to 25. If you choose to live on Long Island, especially in the Peconics, you can afford to pay the $9.50 to cross the TNB or BWB. It's a waste of time, even if there are benefits that we likely won't ever see.
Given that I would think a LI sound crossing would be tolled, the savings aren't monetary... it's time. Clinching things in LI is a real PITA because of having to duck all the way down to NYC. I estimate that I lose 20-30 minutes EACH WAY due to that, and this is on Sunday when everything's moving. In more typical conditions, it's probably even longer.
Now, do I think it's at all likely that such a crossing would be built, given the cost and NIMBYs? No. Does that mean I think it's not needed? Definitely not.
Regarding the Whitestone Bridge... why does it seem like older bridges last forever, but newer ones inevitably need to be replaced, like those power plants in SimCity that blow up after 50-100 years no matter how well they're maintained?
I drove the new sections of the Harlem River Dr/FDR Drive combo.
NB, before the new left hand on-ramp, the markings make it seem like it goes t one lane just after the Exit 19 125th St off-ramp. Why? There seems to be enough room to keep the 2-through lanes and the left lane on-ramp addition.
SB: it seems even worse, there's a huge wide lef-hand shoulder after the on-ramp from the 3rd Ave Bridge. It seems the lanes could be extended longer and use up the pavement.
Or has the final lane striping not been done yet?
I-278:
I remember seeing news reports that they will make I-278 3-thru lanes each way through the Hunts Point Market interchange with NY-878. is that still on the table?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 14, 2021, 05:32:36 PM
I-278:
I remember seeing news reports that they will make I-278 3-thru lanes each way through the Hunts Point Market interchange with NY-878. is that still on the table?
Yes, its apart of the Hunts Point Interstate Access Improvement project currently going on. 3 thru lanes for the Bruckner, with new ramps to the Hunts Point Market
https://www.dot.ny.gov/southbronx/hunts-point (https://www.dot.ny.gov/southbronx/hunts-point)
https://www.silive.com/news/2021/03/oops-new-geothals-bridge-sign-goes-up-on-staten-island-expressway-alert-drivers-fume-over-misspelling.html?outputType=amp&fbclid=IwAR2jRndzoxZ-tOotBLX1nVXnHBiwzjGFCTRcTUUoOQzkUdG8wsHxWuJ7hfM
Ooops.
Yesterday, I drove the Jackie Robinson to the Grand Central for a Covid test (it was negative). I see there's still so much construction work to be done on the Kew Gardens Interchange (those highways plus I-678). Anyone know when it's going to be done? Wikipedia is out of date, and I couldn't find an answer in my quick search.
Quote from: hurricanehink on March 23, 2021, 08:09:52 AM
Yesterday, I drove the Jackie Robinson to the Grand Central for a Covid test (it was negative). I see there's still so much construction work to be done on the Kew Gardens Interchange (those highways plus I-678). Anyone know when it's going to be done? Wikipedia is out of date, and I couldn't find an answer in my quick search.
there saying Spring 2023 here is a YT video with the timeline https://youtu.be/pvmGYA-wQj4 (https://youtu.be/pvmGYA-wQj4)
Quote from: fmendes on March 23, 2021, 11:07:50 AM
Quote from: hurricanehink on March 23, 2021, 08:09:52 AM
Yesterday, I drove the Jackie Robinson to the Grand Central for a Covid test (it was negative). I see there's still so much construction work to be done on the Kew Gardens Interchange (those highways plus I-678). Anyone know when it's going to be done? Wikipedia is out of date, and I couldn't find an answer in my quick search.
there saying Spring 2023 here is a YT video with the timeline https://youtu.be/pvmGYA-wQj4 (https://youtu.be/pvmGYA-wQj4)
Thanks! I knew someone on here would know.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2021, 12:00:10 AM
https://www.silive.com/news/2021/03/oops-new-geothals-bridge-sign-goes-up-on-staten-island-expressway-alert-drivers-fume-over-misspelling.html?outputType=amp&fbclid=IwAR2jRndzoxZ-tOotBLX1nVXnHBiwzjGFCTRcTUUoOQzkUdG8wsHxWuJ7hfM
Ooops.
There's another one, on an on-ramp from Victory Boulevard to the SIE, with the misspelling "Goethlas." Wonder if it was the same contractor.
Quote from: vdeane on March 13, 2021, 10:47:54 PM
Regarding the Whitestone Bridge... why does it seem like older bridges last forever, but newer ones inevitably need to be replaced, like those power plants in SimCity that blow up after 50-100 years no matter how well they're maintained?
Survivorship bias.
100 year old bridges that are still standing are not a representative sample of bridges built 100 years ago - by virtue of the fact that they are still standing, they are inherently the ones with the greatest longevity.
Look through records of bridge replacements and you will find that most bridges built in the early 20th century are
not still standing, and indeed many of them have been gone for half a century or more.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 23, 2021, 06:21:15 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 13, 2021, 10:47:54 PM
Regarding the Whitestone Bridge... why does it seem like older bridges last forever, but newer ones inevitably need to be replaced, like those power plants in SimCity that blow up after 50-100 years no matter how well they're maintained?
Survivorship bias.
100 year old bridges that are still standing are not a representative sample of bridges built 100 years ago - by virtue of the fact that they are still standing, they are inherently the ones with the greatest longevity.
Take your pick... Sir Elton...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue4Jx1oBviI
... or Taron Egerton...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLjO4msTk_w
ixnay
anybody know what happened to the BQE from atlantic to sands i remember 2 years ago there was a whole commotion about it now its silent are they waiting until it falls down in great old NYC fashion
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 14, 2021, 05:32:36 PM
I drove the new sections of the Harlem River Dr/FDR Drive combo.
NB, before the new left hand on-ramp, the markings make it seem like it goes t one lane just after the Exit 19 125th St off-ramp. Why? There seems to be enough room to keep the 2-through lanes and the left lane on-ramp addition.
SB: it seems even worse, there's a huge wide lef-hand shoulder after the on-ramp from the 3rd Ave Bridge. It seems the lanes could be extended longer and use up the pavement.
Or has the final lane striping not been done yet?
I-278:
I remember seeing news reports that they will make I-278 3-thru lanes each way through the Hunts Point Market interchange with NY-878. is that still on the table?
HRD/FDR is not done yet....
I personally think the city should experiment with ATM on the BQE because there's no room for widening tons of congestion and lots of secondary accidents and anything could help at this point they could do VMS signs with Lane use control signals variable speed limits and most of all ramp meters because lets all agree most of NYCs highway congestion comes from platoons caused by them installing a traffic signal every 500 ft :-D this is especially true at the LIE interchange at Woodhaven boulevard but that's a completely different story but honestly I thing Active traffic management is the BQEs only alternative and also putting a police officer on the bridge over Hamilton ave to stop the last minute merging... what u guys think?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3darqoaaKzhmJ_5hh-ZM2ay4A0RhrsiNpgmrxDKq2UOTIaTvQiFl-ApVFeQPZWSed74iViP-G8f7zI_QL7IdcR0NWUeWMK8hGTPnz0YjlVRK-kpu0OopdpS7Q8iX3PEE7Rx7jwXi1VxmyeFZGM0RgDG=w616-h446-no?authuser=0)
What bridge is in the intro to "Maude", I dont remember ever seeing any of the NYC area bridges with an inner reversible roadway.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 02, 2021, 11:14:24 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3darqoaaKzhmJ_5hh-ZM2ay4A0RhrsiNpgmrxDKq2UOTIaTvQiFl-ApVFeQPZWSed74iViP-G8f7zI_QL7IdcR0NWUeWMK8hGTPnz0YjlVRK-kpu0OopdpS7Q8iX3PEE7Rx7jwXi1VxmyeFZGM0RgDG=w616-h446-no?authuser=0)
What bridge is in the intro to "Maude", I dont remember ever seeing any of the NYC area bridges with an inner reversible roadway.
The George Washington Bridge had these lanes back in the day.
Quote from: paul02474 on April 03, 2021, 09:22:08 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 02, 2021, 11:14:24 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3darqoaaKzhmJ_5hh-ZM2ay4A0RhrsiNpgmrxDKq2UOTIaTvQiFl-ApVFeQPZWSed74iViP-G8f7zI_QL7IdcR0NWUeWMK8hGTPnz0YjlVRK-kpu0OopdpS7Q8iX3PEE7Rx7jwXi1VxmyeFZGM0RgDG=w616-h446-no?authuser=0)
What bridge is in the intro to "Maude", I dont remember ever seeing any of the NYC area bridges with an inner reversible roadway.
The George Washington Bridge had these lanes back in the day.
It's like the Lincoln Tunnel!
Quote from: paul02474 on April 03, 2021, 09:22:08 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 02, 2021, 11:14:24 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3darqoaaKzhmJ_5hh-ZM2ay4A0RhrsiNpgmrxDKq2UOTIaTvQiFl-ApVFeQPZWSed74iViP-G8f7zI_QL7IdcR0NWUeWMK8hGTPnz0YjlVRK-kpu0OopdpS7Q8iX3PEE7Rx7jwXi1VxmyeFZGM0RgDG=w616-h446-no?authuser=0)
What bridge is in the intro to "Maude", I dont remember ever seeing any of the NYC area bridges with an inner reversible roadway.
The George Washington Bridge had these lanes back in the day.
Yes. And another clue is that this here is a picture of the George Washington Bridge. ;-)
Those reversible lanes were abolished after the lower-level was opened in the mid-1960's.
Is the RFK bridge include the Harlem River Lift Bridge and Bronx Kills Bridges too?
Quote from: roadman65 on April 05, 2021, 12:48:47 AM
Is the RFK bridge include the Harlem River Lift Bridge and Bronx Kills Bridges too?
You mean, as opposed to only the East River span, with the entire complex still referred to as Triborough? That's a good question...turns out it's all three (https://new.mta.info/bridges-and-tunnels/about/rfk-bridge).
I figured it was all the same, but it is also to be unofficial the name of the LIE west of I-678 too. Yet everyone calls all of I-495 the LIE, even though its official designation is the Horace Harding Expressway from the Midtown Tunnel to the Fairgrounds interchange. I always called it the Triboro the whole way, but was wondering if the paperwork also included it or is like the LIE.
Roadman65, Horace Harding Expwy. is the official name of the service roads that parallel the L.I.E. in Queens. That's what's on the street signs. I don't know why they call the service roads an "Expressway" instead of H.H. Boulevard which is the road that was there before the Expressway was built.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 06, 2021, 08:40:00 PM
Roadman65, Horace Harding Expwy. is the official name of the service roads that parallel the L.I.E. in Queens. That's what's on the street signs. I don't know why they call the service roads an "Expressway" instead of H.H. Boulevard which is the road that was there before the Expressway was built.
Because the Horace Harding Expwy is the freeway, so the service roads share its name. Look at the Cross Bronx and others.
Actually not, Texas too signs interstate frontage roads as such. The street blades reference the actual freeway here. Just as people refer to all of NY 9A in Manhattan as The Westside Highway when it's not, ditto for all of I-495 as being the LIE.
Sorry if this isn't really on topic... but why is there, like, no 2008 GSV imagery in New York City?
Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 02, 2021, 11:14:24 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3darqoaaKzhmJ_5hh-ZM2ay4A0RhrsiNpgmrxDKq2UOTIaTvQiFl-ApVFeQPZWSed74iViP-G8f7zI_QL7IdcR0NWUeWMK8hGTPnz0YjlVRK-kpu0OopdpS7Q8iX3PEE7Rx7jwXi1VxmyeFZGM0RgDG=w616-h446-no?authuser=0)
What bridge is in the intro to "Maude", I dont remember ever seeing any of the NYC area bridges with an inner reversible roadway.
As others said, the GWB. That intro sequence also has some very brief shots of the elevated West Side Highway. The show took place in Tuckahoe (Westchester).
Anyone try out that new ramp from the Triboro's Manhattan leg to the northbound HRD? I took it once or twice last winter. It's definitely easier than taking local streets. https://patch.com/new-york/harlem/new-harlem-river-drive-ramp-opens-easing-neighborhood-traffic
The signs are hard to read and come up on you fast, just like the 278/Manhattan signs when crossing the Bronx span of the bridge
Quote from: crispy93 on April 16, 2021, 11:56:37 AM
Anyone try out that new ramp from the Triboro's Manhattan leg to the northbound HRD? I took it once or twice last winter. It's definitely easier than taking local streets. https://patch.com/new-york/harlem/new-harlem-river-drive-ramp-opens-easing-neighborhood-traffic
The signs are hard to read and come up on you fast, just like the 278/Manhattan signs when crossing the Bronx span of the bridge
Yes, I drove it shortly after it opened last year. It's a huge improvement over what was there before.
I did not know this ramp had even been built. I'll have to try it soon. Surprisingly I did not especially mind the detour on the local street. It was a minor inconvenience, but I'm glad to hear about the ramp.
When is the Harlem River Drive/FDR project going to be done?
Why is the FDR in the UES so congested now during the pandemic on weekdays?
Any chance of speed limit 55 making it into NYC? Even just Staten Island?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2021, 11:36:24 AM
Any chance of speed limit 55 making it into NYC? Even just Staten Island?
same chance as mile based exit numbers
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2021, 06:38:40 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2021, 11:36:24 AM
Any chance of speed limit 55 making it into NYC? Even just Staten Island?
same chance as mile based exit numbers
I swear New York is the most stubborn state in the union...
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2021, 06:39:10 PM
I swear New York is the most stubborn state in the union...
New York abstains, courteously.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2021, 06:39:10 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2021, 06:38:40 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2021, 11:36:24 AM
Any chance of speed limit 55 making it into NYC? Even just Staten Island?
same chance as mile based exit numbers
I swear New York is the most stubborn state in the union...
I think that honor should go to Connecticut. I believe they were the last to finally allow the raising of speed limits from the double-nickel.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 26, 2021, 09:00:23 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2021, 06:39:10 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2021, 06:38:40 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2021, 11:36:24 AM
Any chance of speed limit 55 making it into NYC? Even just Staten Island?
same chance as mile based exit numbers
I swear New York is the most stubborn state in the union...
I think that honor should go to Connecticut. I believe they were the last to finally allow the raising of speed limits from the double-nickel.
Hawaii was the last one.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2021, 11:36:24 AM
Any chance of speed limit 55 making it into NYC? Even just Staten Island?
I posted about this a few pages back on this NYC Roads thread. NYCDOT and NYSDOT insist that the other agency is responsible for raising the speed limit. 50 mph is absurd on SI, especially the West Shore Expwy (meets interstate highway standards as far as I can see and is decidedly suburban). So I then wrote to the SI borough commissioner who just gave me the stock reply about vision zero and the 25 mph speed limit (which was changed like 7 years ago at this point).
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2021, 06:38:40 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2021, 11:36:24 AM
Any chance of speed limit 55 making it into NYC? Even just Staten Island?
same chance as mile based exit numbers
Came here to discuss this actually. I drove up the Hutch last weekend and there are ground-mounted OLD EXIT 5 (and 6 and 7) with the word OLD covered up. Also, the exit tabs seem to be new and reflective, but still have the sequential number and attached to old guide signs:
(https://i.imgur.com/si70b9H.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/QjAraIi.jpg)
I drove in New York for the first time in my life. Which isn't as bad as people say it is - have common sense and you'll be fine. As is tradition, notes:
-Construction on the Kew Gardens interchange is progressing nicely. Definitely loved the new pavement after dealing with potholes and patchwork in Jamaica. From what I can tell, the ramps to the Interboro are being realigned, though signage isn't very good (you have to follow signage for Queens Blvd and slip into a narrow gap between concrete barriers to merge onto the Interboro).
-Old news, but the new Kosciuszko Bridge is neat. I appreciate the four lanes on the BQE WB.
-While I missed out on the Upper Level views on the Queensboro (my route from Jersey to Queens, where my hotel was in, was Lincoln Tunnel -> 42nd -> 3rd Ave -> 59th -> Queensboro -> Northern Blvd), the Manhattan Bridge is always a delight. Best views of the Brooklyn Bridge while in a car.
-Speaking of the Lincoln Tunnel, I'm surprised they don't try to split traffic evenly. West 40th Street is signed to "9th Avenue and South" while West 42nd is the preferred route to FDR Drive. Considering both streets are two lanes, may as well sign both as useable routes.
-So who's responsible for maintenance in the city? It seems NYSDOT Region 11 takes a back seat to NYCDOT, since NYCDOT is in charge of signals and maintenance.
Oh, and my brother experienced a New Yorker's rite of passage: getting their car towed and having to get it back from the impound lot. Probably second behind a parking ticket.
Region 11 only does capital program projects. Everything that would be handled by a maintenance residency/subresidency in the other regions is done by NYCDOT. The expressways are owned by NYSDOT, most surface streets are owned by NYC, and the parkways are complicated. And, of course, many bridges/tunnels are owned by the MTA or Port Authority.
What's the story with the parkways in NYC? Is it the NYC Parks Dept?
Quote from: SignBridge on April 28, 2021, 10:14:51 PM
What's the story with the parkways in NYC? Is it the NYC Parks Dept?
Parkway is just a name for a type of state highway. It follows the same pattern as other state highways.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 28, 2021, 10:14:51 PM
What's the story with the parkways in NYC? Is it the NYC Parks Dept?
No, it's always either the city or state DOT, or both (split jurisdiction). For a rundown, see p. 70 of the touring route manual (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/tour_route.pdf).
Yeah, with the expressways and surface roads, it's easy to say "all are X except for Y" (the NYSDOT surface roads are NY 895 and Rockaway Boulevard - which begs the question of why NY 878 has a gap in the first place). Not so with the parkways!
Quote from: vdeane on April 29, 2021, 12:51:19 PM
Yeah, with the expressways and surface roads, it's easy to say "all are X except for Y" (the NYSDOT surface roads are NY 895 and Rockaway Boulevard - which begs the question of why NY 878 has a gap in the first place). Not so with the parkways!
because they never redefined 878 over the existing roads! it could still be built! <s>
I see in GSV that the toll booths at the Goethals Bridge have been removed. The plaza especially the office bridge over the lanes is still up.
What other PA NYNJ crossings have gone cash less?
Quote from: roadman65 on May 04, 2021, 08:19:47 PM
I see in GSV that the toll booths at the Goethals Bridge have been removed. The plaza especially the office bridge over the lanes is still up.
What other PA NYNJ crossings have gone cash less?
The Lincoln and GWB Upper level have toll booths. Everything else is cashless
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 04, 2021, 09:21:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 04, 2021, 08:19:47 PM
I see in GSV that the toll booths at the Goethals Bridge have been removed. The plaza especially the office bridge over the lanes is still up.
What other PA NYNJ crossings have gone cash less?
The Lincoln and GWB Upper level have toll booths. Everything else is cashless
What about the Holland?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on May 05, 2021, 10:21:18 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 04, 2021, 09:21:45 PM
The Lincoln and GWB Upper level have toll booths. Everything else is cashless
What about the Holland?
ixnay
Holland is cashless. The toll structure has only been partially demolished, but most of the booths are removed so it's free flowing traffic into the tunnel
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 05, 2021, 11:29:10 PM
Quote from: ixnay on May 05, 2021, 10:21:18 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 04, 2021, 09:21:45 PM
The Lincoln and GWB Upper level have toll booths. Everything else is cashless
What about the Holland?
ixnay
Holland is cashless. The toll structure has only been partially demolished, but most of the booths are removed so it's free flowing traffic into the tunnel
I see. The ends of the barrier were gone as of Nov. 2020, although Google Sat shows the barrier as still fully functioning.
How much lag is there usually between capturing Google Sat and GSV views when it comes to updating?
And any idea when the Lincoln and George will become fully cashless?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on May 06, 2021, 08:48:40 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 05, 2021, 11:29:10 PM
Quote from: ixnay on May 05, 2021, 10:21:18 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 04, 2021, 09:21:45 PM
The Lincoln and GWB Upper level have toll booths. Everything else is cashless
What about the Holland?
ixnay
Holland is cashless. The toll structure has only been partially demolished, but most of the booths are removed so it's free flowing traffic into the tunnel
I see. The ends of the barrier were gone as of Nov. 2020, although Google Sat shows the barrier as still fully functioning.
How much lag is there usually between capturing Google Sat and GSV views when it comes to updating?
And any idea when the Lincoln and George will become fully cashless?
ixnay
How are all the lanes on 12th Street now merging without the barrier? Remember the tunnel is only two lanes and 12th Street is super wide.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 06, 2021, 08:53:39 AM
Quote from: ixnay on May 06, 2021, 08:48:40 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 05, 2021, 11:29:10 PM
Quote from: ixnay on May 05, 2021, 10:21:18 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 04, 2021, 09:21:45 PM
The Lincoln and GWB Upper level have toll booths. Everything else is cashless
What about the Holland?
ixnay
Holland is cashless. The toll structure has only been partially demolished, but most of the booths are removed so it's free flowing traffic into the tunnel
I see. The ends of the barrier were gone as of Nov. 2020, although Google Sat shows the barrier as still fully functioning.
How much lag is there usually between capturing Google Sat and GSV views when it comes to updating?
And any idea when the Lincoln and George will become fully cashless?
ixnay
How are all the lanes on 12th Street now merging without the barrier? Remember the tunnel is only two lanes and 12th Street is super wide.
GSV is updated as of November. Looks like they've narrowed 12th St down to around 3 lanes heading into the toll plaza. I haven't seen any plans, but I presume they'll just leave it narrowed down like that and traffic should just funnel through since there's no need to stop at a toll booth now.
Someone in another thread wanted to know what state had the most/least amount of traffic signals.
Here is what Google has to say about NYC.
How many traffic signals are there in New York City? As of June 30, 2011, there were 12,460 intersections with traffic signals citywide, including 2,820 in Manhattan, 1,605 in the Bronx, 4,371 in Brooklyn, 3,119 in Queens and 545 in Staten Island.
If any lights were added I am sure they were on Staten Island as I can't see the other boroughs expanding them in the last ten years.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2021, 08:21:43 AM
Someone in another thread wanted to know what state had the most/least amount of traffic signals.
Here is what Google has to say about NYC.
How many traffic signals are there in New York City? As of June 30, 2011, there were 12,460 intersections with traffic signals citywide, including 2,820 in Manhattan, 1,605 in the Bronx, 4,371 in Brooklyn, 3,119 in Queens and 545 in Staten Island.
If any lights were added I am sure they were on Staten Island as I can't see the other boroughs expanding them in the last ten years.
I asked NYCDOT to allow right-on-red at an intersection with no cross traffic and was told no: https://goo.gl/maps/LATaVfr3DJ7qP8Xv7
When I'm driving to Long Island, the Cross Island between the Throgs Neck Bridge and the LIE is always the worst leg of the trip. It all seems to be volume getting on the LIE. Since the LIE is always backed up, and the exit from the CIP is a tight squeeze, the mainline of the CIP southbound backs up back to the bridge. I feel like extending the short deceleration lane for the queuing cars might help: https://goo.gl/maps/e62rJuEZjHFfBjpq8 Also doesn't help that half the traffic getting off do so at the very last second.
https://goo.gl/maps/LATaVfr3DJ7qP8Xv7
That should be a permitted turn. Considering NY State is a Blue State with both DiBlasio and Cuomo being anti pollution, they both would push for intersections like these to RTOR to cut down on CO2 emissions.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2021, 03:50:26 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/LATaVfr3DJ7qP8Xv7
That should be a permitted turn. Considering NY State is a Blue State with both DiBlasio and Cuomo being anti pollution, they both would push for intersections like these to RTOR to cut down on CO2 emissions.
NTOR is city-wide and that's likely never going to change.
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2021, 04:56:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2021, 03:50:26 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/LATaVfr3DJ7qP8Xv7
That should be a permitted turn. Considering NY State is a Blue State with both DiBlasio and Cuomo being anti pollution, they both would push for intersections like these to RTOR to cut down on CO2 emissions.
NTOR is city-wide and that's likely never going to change.
You will not see NTOR removed if there is a conflicting crosswalk.
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2021, 04:56:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2021, 03:50:26 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/LATaVfr3DJ7qP8Xv7
That should be a permitted turn. Considering NY State is a Blue State with both DiBlasio and Cuomo being anti pollution, they both would push for intersections like these to RTOR to cut down on CO2 emissions.
NTOR is city-wide and that's likely never going to change.
Perhaps, but there are many intersections where the restriction is waived.
Quote from: Alps on May 12, 2021, 06:05:10 PM
You will not see NTOR removed if there is a conflicting crosswalk.
That was my guess as to the reason–although it may be more accurate to say
marked crosswalk, as there is an implicit
unmarked crosswalk at any intersection.
No conflicting crosswalk at that intersection as there is no sidewalk on the left side of the road. Puzzling that NYC would not permit Right-on-red after stop there, or even install a right-turn green arrow.
Mayor DiBlasio is anti-traffic movement. He thinks 25 mph is a reasonable speed-limit for Queens Blvd. So maybe not so surprising at that.
Quote from: SignBridge on May 12, 2021, 08:20:28 PM
No conflicting crosswalk at that intersection as there is no sidewalk on the left side of the road. Puzzling that NYC would not permit Right-on-red after stop there, or even install a right-turn green arrow.
This would be a right turn on red–there is a crosswalk conflicting with that movement.
More pertinent than the crosswalk though, is that this looks to me like a fire station signal. If it's turning red then you probably do want to stop all movements, including right turns.
Quote from: empirestate on May 12, 2021, 09:42:01 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on May 12, 2021, 08:20:28 PM
No conflicting crosswalk at that intersection as there is no sidewalk on the left side of the road. Puzzling that NYC would not permit Right-on-red after stop there, or even install a right-turn green arrow.
This would be a right turn on red–there is a crosswalk conflicting with that movement.
More pertinent than the crosswalk though, is that this looks to me like a fire station signal. If it's turning red then you probably do want to stop all movements, including right turns.
I was wondering why that signal even exists. There are no pedestrian signals in the area, so it clearly wasn't put in to protect that crosswalk, which is marked but uncontrolled.
Quote from: vdeane on May 12, 2021, 09:57:49 PM
I was wondering why that signal even exists. There are no pedestrian signals in the area, so it clearly wasn't put in to protect that crosswalk, which is marked but uncontrolled.
Yeah, and there are no markings for the intersection itself, and no traffic this signal could apply to if not the fire house. In fact, literally the only conflicting movement anywhere in this intersection would be right turns versus pedestrians in the crosswalk. So allowing RTOR wouldn't make sense–if it came to that, you'd just not have the signal and let it work as any other side street.
And, oh, I think we can say with utmost certainty that the political motivations of the various local officials are altogether meaningless here. :-)
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2021, 08:21:43 AM
If any lights were added I am sure they were on Staten Island as I can't see the other boroughs expanding them in the last ten years.
Nah, there has been a fair amount of new signal installation all over the city. NYC is pretty aggressive with installing traffic signals based on pedestrian volume warrants. If you make a request to the commissioner for a signal and it meets a warrant, it's likely to be installed, although the process takes a while.
Quote from: crispy93 on May 12, 2021, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2021, 08:21:43 AM
Someone in another thread wanted to know what state had the most/least amount of traffic signals.
Here is what Google has to say about NYC.
How many traffic signals are there in New York City? As of June 30, 2011, there were 12,460 intersections with traffic signals citywide, including 2,820 in Manhattan, 1,605 in the Bronx, 4,371 in Brooklyn, 3,119 in Queens and 545 in Staten Island.
If any lights were added I am sure they were on Staten Island as I can't see the other boroughs expanding them in the last ten years.
I asked NYCDOT to allow right-on-red at an intersection with no cross traffic and was told no: https://goo.gl/maps/LATaVfr3DJ7qP8Xv7
When I'm driving to Long Island, the Cross Island between the Throgs Neck Bridge and the LIE is always the worst leg of the trip. It all seems to be volume getting on the LIE. Since the LIE is always backed up, and the exit from the CIP is a tight squeeze, the mainline of the CIP southbound backs up back to the bridge. I feel like extending the short deceleration lane for the queuing cars might help: https://goo.gl/maps/e62rJuEZjHFfBjpq8 Also doesn't help that half the traffic getting off do so at the very last second.
what they should do is use the wide left hand shoulder on the ramp and make it so u can exit from the Decell lane and the Right lane making the ramp 2 lanes cause the ramp before it merges with the ramp from NB CIP goes into 2 lanes so it would make sense and would accomadate drivers merging at the very last moment
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2021, 04:56:32 PMNTOR is city-wide and that's likely never going to change.
IIRC it is a state law, worded so as to prohibit right-turn-on-red unless a sign is posted permitting it, in cities of over one million population. It was enacted in the 1930's at the request of the city council and Mayor LaGuardia and is in the state's drivers manual.
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 13, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
IIRC it is a state law, worded so as to prohibit right-turn-on-red unless a sign is posted permitting it, in cities of over one million population. It was enacted in the 1930's at the request of the city council and Mayor LaGuardia and is in the state's drivers manual.
There's even one further nuance, if I'm not mistaken. The state law does't directly prohibit RTOR in cities over one million, but rather empowers such cities to do so.
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 13, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2021, 04:56:32 PMNTOR is city-wide and that's likely never going to change.
IIRC it is a state law, worded so as to prohibit right-turn-on-red unless a sign is posted permitting it, in cities of over one million population. It was enacted in the 1930's at the request of the city council and Mayor LaGuardia and is in the state's drivers manual.
I thought RTOR originated in the 70s oil crisis and before then was banned everywhere. How would the legislation enabling NYC to ban it originate in the 30s?
Vdeane, you might be right. Prior to the mid 1970's RTOR in NYS was allowed only where permitted by RORAS sign.
I saw this side-by-side signal in Queens with the left turn arrows on the right side! Classic janky NYCDOT install.
(https://i.imgur.com/OsR6q3P.jpg)
Quote from: vdeane on May 13, 2021, 09:08:40 PMHow would the legislation enabling NYC to ban it originate in the 30s?
As for how, I can't answer that. I remember reading about it in a biography of LaGuardia.
Quote from: vdeane on May 13, 2021, 09:08:40 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 13, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
IIRC it is a state law, worded so as to prohibit right-turn-on-red unless a sign is posted permitting it, in cities of over one million population. It was enacted in the 1930's at the request of the city council and Mayor LaGuardia and is in the state's drivers manual.
I thought RTOR originated in the 70s oil crisis and before then was banned everywhere. How would the legislation enabling NYC to ban it originate in the 30s?
Because the actual history of RTOR is more complex and nuanced than that. This old USDOT report (https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/1322/dot_1322_DS1.pdf?) corroborates this story about NYC banning it in the 1930s.
From PDF pages 16 and 17:
QuoteAlthough California is credited with the earliest significant experience with RTOR, it is interesting that permissive RTOR was actually adopted much earlier in New York City. Permissive RTOR was part of the City's traffic regulations beginning in 1924 and was practiced "...in the teens when manually operated semaphores were used to direct traffic" (Hochstein, 1981). However, New York abandoned the practice in 1937
It should also be noted that while the oil crises were what motivated RTOR's ubiquity, it was already legal in 13 states at the beginning of 1973. Another helpful citation for this: (https://www.cga.ct.gov/ps99/rpt/olr/htm/99-r-1021.htm)
QuoteRTOR was a well known though not universal practice in the United States before 1973, but received a considerable boost throughout the country during the period from 1973 through 1976 largely due to the Arab oil embargo and a heightened awareness of energy conservation on a national level. California was the first state to enact a generally-permissive RTOR law in 1947. Between 1947 and 1972, another 12 states enacted such RTOR laws. These were Utah and Oregon (1951); Arizona (1953); Nevada and Washington (1957), Alaska, Colorado, and Florida (1969); Minnesota and New Mexico (1971); and Hawaii and Nebraska (1972).
I drove up the Hutch yesterday and the new exit numbers are in place in the Bronx. The Westchester ones haven't been done yet but I see new sign posts. Now R11 needs to put up proper mile markers in order for the new exit numbers to be useful. Well, theoretically; no one really goes by exit number in NYC. I'm baffled at how mile markers just don't exist south of Yonkers, though the short part of the New England Thruway in the Bronx has "NET" mile markers that have nothing to do with I-95's mileage.
(https://i.imgur.com/TazjCQk.jpg)
Quote from: crispy93 on May 16, 2021, 02:53:32 PM
I drove up the Hutch yesterday and the new exit numbers are in place in the Bronx. The Westchester ones haven't been done yet but I see new sign posts. Now R11 needs to put up proper mile markers in order for the new exit numbers to be useful. Well, theoretically; no one really goes by exit number in NYC. I'm baffled at how mile markers just don't exist south of Yonkers, though the short part of the New England Thruway in the Bronx has "NET" mile markers that have nothing to do with I-95's mileage.
(https://i.imgur.com/TazjCQk.jpg)
NYSTA has traditionally been the one agency that is consistent with actual mile markers, but they're entirely for the Thruway system and not related to whatever interstate might be signed on that route. This is why 87's mileage resets three times on its route.
I don't know if we'll ever get universal EMMs from NYSDOT. Some regions are doing them more (saw them pretty consistently on 17 today), but it seems to be on a region by region basis. The only consistent thing will ever likely be NYSDOT's reference markers.
Why is the FDR & HRD so bad now, pretty much southbound is bad until the lower east side all day; northbound bad by 3 PM.
Quote from: bluecountry on May 27, 2021, 08:51:41 PM
Why is the FDR & HRD so bad now, pretty much southbound is bad until the lower east side all day; northbound bad by 3 PM.
1) Work from home people going out in the afternoon to shop and stuff
2) The Subway becoming such a crime nightmare again people are driving more.
Since most New York City roadways are constrained, and the prospect of widening any of them without massive right-of-way impacts is impossible, the city is pretty much screwed. Outside of adding congestion pricing to all expressways and parkways within the city, I'm not sure what else can be done to relieve New York's congestion. Forget trying to get people to ditch their cars; that's been tried nationwide since the freeway revolts, and in my experience, it has been a dismal failure.
^^^^ pricing the poor out of their cars via "congestion pricing" will be an equal failure. The solution is more infrastructure.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2021, 03:18:38 PM
Since most New York City roadways are constrained, and the prospect of widening any of them without massive right-of-way impacts is impossible, the city is pretty much screwed. Outside of adding congestion pricing to all expressways and parkways within the city, I'm not sure what else can be done to relieve New York's congestion. Forget trying to get people to ditch their cars; that's been tried nationwide since the freeway revolts, and in my experience, it has been a dismal failure.
the city should stop putting traffic signals on the ramps that are freeflowing because it bunches cars up and theres no gap in traffic one big improvement they should close the loop ramp on the LIE at Woodhaven Boulavard to foster free flowing traffic because it interferes with the mainline LIE and install a traffic signal to allow cars to make left turns on WB LIE and install a 2 lane ramp meter to break up traffic platoons
Quote from: fmendes on June 01, 2021, 10:58:36 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2021, 03:18:38 PM
Since most New York City roadways are constrained, and the prospect of widening any of them without massive right-of-way impacts is impossible, the city is pretty much screwed. Outside of adding congestion pricing to all expressways and parkways within the city, I'm not sure what else can be done to relieve New York's congestion. Forget trying to get people to ditch their cars; that's been tried nationwide since the freeway revolts, and in my experience, it has been a dismal failure.
the city should stop putting traffic signals on the ramps that are freeflowing because it bunches cars up and theres no gap in traffic one big improvement they should close the loop ramp on the LIE at Woodhaven Boulavard to foster free flowing traffic because it interferes with the mainline LIE and install a traffic signal to allow cars to make left turns on WB LIE and install a 2 lane ramp meter to break up traffic platoons
What're everyone's thoughts on how NYCDOT puts a yield sign on all freeway entrances, even where there is a generous acceleration lane? Does it confuse drivers, who then slow down anticipating a short merge area? NYCDOT tends to put them at the end of the ramp, once you've run out of room. Or is it necessary to remind entering drivers to yield since NYC drivers are awful? Eg: https://goo.gl/maps/bG24zERYhyGLY4776
Quote from: fmendes on June 01, 2021, 10:58:36 AM
What're everyone's thoughts on how NYCDOT puts a yield sign on all freeway entrances, even where there is a generous acceleration lane? Does it confuse drivers, who then slow down anticipating a short merge area? NYCDOT tends to put them at the end of the ramp, once you've run out of room. Or is it necessary to remind entering drivers to yield since NYC drivers are awful? Eg: https://goo.gl/maps/bG24zERYhyGLY4776
Yield signs are just part of the scenery; drivers eyes are trained on the traffic on the highway and not the sign. That said, the sign is exists to sign legal responsibility should a vehicle entering the highway collide with a vehicle on the highway.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2021, 03:18:38 PM
Since most New York City roadways are constrained, and the prospect of widening any of them without massive right-of-way impacts is impossible, the city is pretty much screwed. Outside of adding congestion pricing to all expressways and parkways within the city, I'm not sure what else can be done to relieve New York's congestion. Forget trying to get people to ditch their cars; that's been tried nationwide since the freeway revolts, and in my experience, it has been a dismal failure.
...honestly, I think New York should've continued investing in the subway. The Second System would've made Queens less of a transit nightmare than it is now (you're telling me the farthest subway line (not on the Rockaways) stops four miles short of Nassau in Jamaica?) and also the Bronx. The city was smoking something with the Grand Concourse (B/D) line, because it is a block away from the Jerome Avenue (4) line...especially when you learn that a line was planned along 3rd Avenue.
But alas, history is history and Robert Moses crusaded against the subways. Building new infrastructure that isn't skyscrapers, parks, or museums is probably impossible at this point.
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
The lasting effects of his immense influence and the tremendous costs behind needed corrections are obvious to this day. Therefore, you cannot simply stop blaming him.
Quote from: Rothman on June 02, 2021, 02:13:42 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
The lasting effects of his immense influence and the tremendous costs behind needed corrections are obvious to this day. Therefore, you cannot simply stop blaming him.
Other than his racism Robert Moses did some good with the freeways he planned. I just wish Midtown Freeway would have been built.
NYCs constrained roads and freeways are leading to serious problems and yet we have people wanting to remove them and scoff at any proposal to actually improve the network. Of course more subways should be built as well but we shouldn't have proposals like this: https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2021/06/01/new-york-city-department-of-transportation-truck-routes-brooklyn-third-avenue-bay-ridge-sunset-park/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 02, 2021, 02:21:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 02, 2021, 02:13:42 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
The lasting effects of his immense influence and the tremendous costs behind needed corrections are obvious to this day. Therefore, you cannot simply stop blaming him.
Other than his racism Robert Moses did some good with the freeways he planned. I just wish Midtown Freeway would have been built.
NYCs constrained roads and freeways are leading to serious problems and yet we have people wanting to remove them and scoff at any proposal to actually improve the network. Of course more subways should be built as well but we shouldn't have proposals like this: https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2021/06/01/new-york-city-department-of-transportation-truck-routes-brooklyn-third-avenue-bay-ridge-sunset-park/
a tunnel needs to be built from the midtown tunnel to the lincoln tunnel theres ur midtown expressway
Quote from: fmendes on June 02, 2021, 02:31:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 02, 2021, 02:21:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 02, 2021, 02:13:42 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
The lasting effects of his immense influence and the tremendous costs behind needed corrections are obvious to this day. Therefore, you cannot simply stop blaming him.
Other than his racism Robert Moses did some good with the freeways he planned. I just wish Midtown Freeway would have been built.
NYCs constrained roads and freeways are leading to serious problems and yet we have people wanting to remove them and scoff at any proposal to actually improve the network. Of course more subways should be built as well but we shouldn't have proposals like this: https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2021/06/01/new-york-city-department-of-transportation-truck-routes-brooklyn-third-avenue-bay-ridge-sunset-park/
a tunnel needs to be built from the midtown tunnel to the lincoln tunnel theres ur midtown expressway
Yes tunnels would be ideal. Sydney Australia is embarking on a large scale freeway tunnel network. No reason we can't do it here.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 02, 2021, 02:34:25 PM
Quote from: fmendes on June 02, 2021, 02:31:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 02, 2021, 02:21:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 02, 2021, 02:13:42 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
The lasting effects of his immense influence and the tremendous costs behind needed corrections are obvious to this day. Therefore, you cannot simply stop blaming him.
Other than his racism Robert Moses did some good with the freeways he planned. I just wish Midtown Freeway would have been built.
NYCs constrained roads and freeways are leading to serious problems and yet we have people wanting to remove them and scoff at any proposal to actually improve the network. Of course more subways should be built as well but we shouldn't have proposals like this: https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2021/06/01/new-york-city-department-of-transportation-truck-routes-brooklyn-third-avenue-bay-ridge-sunset-park/
a tunnel needs to be built from the midtown tunnel to the lincoln tunnel theres ur midtown expressway
Yes tunnels would be ideal. Sydney Australia is embarking on a large scale freeway tunnel network. No reason we can't do it here.
Exactly like a floating tunnel or something along those lines for some of these i think it can be done personally i think the BQE could be built with a floating tunnel along the Waterfront
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 02, 2021, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
find me a bridge entirely in Brooklyn
Quote from: Alps on June 03, 2021, 12:26:06 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 02, 2021, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
find me a bridge entirely in Brooklyn
There are several small bridges on the Belt Parkway that are only in Brooklyn.
Quote from: Alps on June 03, 2021, 12:26:06 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 02, 2021, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
find me a bridge entirely in Brooklyn
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6938232,-73.9988344,3a,75y,290.98h,90.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgYvv_h2xWWGQBB7d1DzYWw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: storm2k on May 16, 2021, 05:05:04 PM
Quote from: crispy93 on May 16, 2021, 02:53:32 PM
I drove up the Hutch yesterday and the new exit numbers are in place in the Bronx. The Westchester ones haven't been done yet but I see new sign posts. Now R11 needs to put up proper mile markers in order for the new exit numbers to be useful. Well, theoretically; no one really goes by exit number in NYC. I'm baffled at how mile markers just don't exist south of Yonkers, though the short part of the New England Thruway in the Bronx has "NET" mile markers that have nothing to do with I-95's mileage.
(https://i.imgur.com/TazjCQk.jpg)
NYSTA has traditionally been the one agency that is consistent with actual mile markers, but they're entirely for the Thruway system and not related to whatever interstate might be signed on that route. This is why 87's mileage resets three times on its route.
I don't know if we'll ever get universal EMMs from NYSDOT. Some regions are doing them more (saw them pretty consistently on 17 today), but it seems to be on a region by region basis. The only consistent thing will ever likely be NYSDOT's reference markers.
I emailed the information officer regarding the Hutch's mile markers, and she said they will be installed in the Bronx. Let's see what happens. I drove down to the city last weekend and the Hutch at the Cross-County was totally closed, so I was wondering if they were doing the overhead signs through that stretch.
There's a STATE SPEED LIMIT 35 sign with the STATE covered up on this service road in Queens, which is interesting because there are no 55 mph zones in NYC. Zoom in closely and you can make out the word STATE: https://goo.gl/maps/Cgbd21dctEkD1kjh8 and there's another one a short distance after
Quote from: crispy93 on June 10, 2021, 03:08:53 PM
There's a STATE SPEED LIMIT 35 sign with the STATE covered up on this service road in Queens, which is interesting because there are no 55 mph zones in NYC. Zoom in closely and you can make out the word STATE: https://goo.gl/maps/Cgbd21dctEkD1kjh8 and there's another one a short distance after
Guessing that was a contractor error when that stretch of the LIE and the interchange were redone. Those are certainly not NYCDOT installs (which have the Speed Checked by Radar (https://goo.gl/maps/E7dDKukVV1KJP3zs5) legend at the bottom.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 02, 2021, 12:43:54 PM
The city was smoking something with the Grand Concourse (B/D) line, because it is a block away from the Jerome Avenue (4) line...especially when you learn that a line was planned along 3rd Avenue.
They weren't smoking anything, they built subway lines right next to existing elevated lines quite deliberately, for two reasons:
1) The IRT and BMT at the time were still separate private companies, and the city was trying to compete with them in order to drive them into insolvency so they could take them over. This plan worked and is why we have one subway system today rather than three.
2) In the 1930s people looked at elevated subway lines the way a lot of people now look at elevated freeways: as hideous ugly things that needed to be torn down. So a lot of IND subways were intended to replace nearby els. This played out in many places elsewhere: the 6th and 8th Ave subways in Manhattan replaced the 6th and 9th Ave els, the Fulton St Subway in Brooklyn replaced the Fulton el. The Concourse subway was likewise potentially intended to
replace the Jerome el, however unlike in other such cases the el was never removed because there was enough ridership to support both existing in parallel.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2021, 10:31:10 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 03, 2021, 12:26:06 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 02, 2021, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
find me a bridge entirely in Brooklyn
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6938232,-73.9988344,3a,75y,290.98h,90.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgYvv_h2xWWGQBB7d1DzYWw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Looks like it's just south of the Brooklyn Heights Promenade (notice the northbound [higher] BQE deck preparing to go above the southbound deck).
ixnay
Quote from: Alps on June 03, 2021, 12:26:06 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 02, 2021, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
find me a bridge entirely in Brooklyn
https://goo.gl/maps/U9VDJM27Urh9BWcx7
Not a road bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/jkaGGtbuvhZqDEAz8
https://goo.gl/maps/TLE4rer5mUETT5JH8
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6760309,-73.9019538,3a,90y,252.39h,105.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so3cEyZ_yAP8Qq_2qqN63XQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6760309,-73.9019538,3a,90y,252.39h,105.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so3cEyZ_yAP8Qq_2qqN63XQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0)
Atlantic Ave @ East NY Ave
Someone posted this very faded sign in Brooklyn to Reddit, anyone know what it said? Some guesses were SOUTH BROOKLYN, THURS- ???
https://old.reddit.com/r/nycHistory/comments/o9t096/spotted_this_old_sign_on_flatbush_avenue_just/
Saw this pic of the Brooklyn Bridge car lane being turned into a bike lane: https://i.imgur.com/dGQxtVS.jpeg
Sounds like a congestion nightmare
ohh yes, but the people running NYC are virulently anti-car that doesn't matter to them.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 29, 2021, 12:43:26 PM
ohh yes, but the people running NYC are virulently anti-car that doesn't matter to them.
"Anti-car", perhaps, in the same way that airplane pilots and engine mechanics are "anti-bird". Probably not a precise enough term to use without further context, however. (Also, there are a lot of people running NYC, and without even checking, it is almost certainly incorrect to ascribe any single viewpoint to all of them!)
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 29, 2021, 12:43:26 PM
ohh yes, but the people running NYC are virulently anti-car that doesn't matter to them.
I can't even take the anti-car people seriously because they're so extreme. I said to reduce the toll at the battery tunnel to take the pressure off the BQE and the BB and I'm getting everything should be tolled and prohibitively expensive, all parking should be eliminated, all driver's license applicants must be flogged at the DMV (ok maybe not that)... I don't need a car so neither do you (well, I don't either but they have no way of knowing that lol)
New York City is one of the rare places in America that you probably shouldn't be taking a car into downtown.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 02, 2021, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
I can do the same if you tell me how Moses stopped the IND Culver Line and IND Fulton Street Line from connecting to the BMT Culver Line and BMT Fulton Street Line. Oh wait. That never happened.
Since Robert Moses died in 1981, only two highways have been built. The JFK Expressway. and the still unfinished Nassau Expressway. And that's not even a real expressway southeast of Farmers Boulevard. Since then, traffic has just gone from bad to worse, and the city has gone anti-car. Now the congestions is considered worse than Los Angeles. To make matters worse, you've got the demolition of the Sheridan Expressway and some people are even talking about doing the same thing to the BQE!
Also, Moses endorsed the northern extension of the IND Rockaway Line north towards Rego Park.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 30, 2021, 04:19:28 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 02, 2021, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
I can do the same if you tell me how Moses stopped the IND Culver Line and IND Fulton Street Line from connecting to the BMT Culver Line and BMT Fulton Street Line. Oh wait. That never happened.
Since Robert Moses died in 1981, only two highways have been built. The JFK Expressway. and the still unfinished Nassau Expressway. And that's not even a real expressway southeast of Farmers Boulevard. Since then, traffic has just gone from bad to worse, and the city has gone anti-car. Now the congestions is considered worse than Los Angeles. To make matters worse, you've got the demolition of the Sheridan Expressway and some people are even talking about doing the same thing to the BQE!
Also, Moses endorsed the northern extension of the IND Rockaway Line north towards Rego Park.
Plenty of wealthier NYC residents have gotten very good at weaponizing laws such as the NEPA to torpedo both road and transit projects that they don't like and don't feel like are in their best interests. Moses got most of his work done before laws like this existed so he could just have them drive roads wherever he and his benefactors thought they would not disrupt. Also, the city's fiscal crisis in the early 1970s torpedoed their major plans for transit expansion that would have been very helpful all across the board. And yes, the city is fairly anti-car, for good reason. Congestion sucks, and everyone's grand plans here to magically get massive freeways built will never go anywhere, and even if they avoid legal scrutiny, would cost too much money to build. The city is better off working towards figuring out how to build better transit infra without it costing as much as it does, but that's not much more likely than roads becoming affordable.
Storm2k, I think you pretty much nailed it.
Of course, congestion sucks. But being anti-car and anti-road makes things worse, not better.
I'm old enough to remember the financial crisis of the 1970's, but other factors screw up transit expansion too. Back in the 1970's the MTA tried to build the 2nd Avenue Subway, but too many activists claimed it was only going to be for rich white people, which was total BS. Even in the 1950's there was talk of eliminating the curve on the BMT Jamaica Line (J/Z) between Cypress Hills and Crescent Street stations. One plan involved a new alignment east of Crescent Street which required tearing down houses, while the other involved another alignment along Jamaica Avenue west of Cypress Hills station. Both were shot down by public opposition, and to this day, trains still have to slow down to go around that curve.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 10, 2021, 09:45:39 PM
In the 1930s people looked at elevated subway lines the way a lot of people now look at elevated freeways: as hideous ugly things that needed to be torn down. So a lot of IND subways were intended to replace nearby els. This played out in many places elsewhere: the 6th and 8th Ave subways in Manhattan replaced the 6th and 9th Ave els, the Fulton St Subway in Brooklyn replaced the Fulton el. The Concourse subway was likewise potentially intended to replace the Jerome el, however unlike in other such cases the el was never removed because there was enough ridership to support both existing in parallel.
There's a guy on YouTube who insists that the demolition of the el was only done to benefit big business and real estate. I know that the MTA wanted to replace the last segment of the 3rd Avenue El with a subway, but the financial crisis of the 1970's killed that.
Regarding the new Brooklyn Bridge bike lane, this is very much a question of pick your poison.
Bikes and peds were previously confined to a shared walkway which... was very crowded and could not be navigated efficiently because of this. Adding a separate bike lane so that peds can have the formerly shared walkway is, from the perspective of a bicyclist or a pedestrian, some much needed congestion relief.
Ideally, this would have been done by simply constructing a wider walkway, which there is certainly room to do. But that would have taken longer, been more expensive, and involved some structural modifications which when you're dealing with a 140-year-old bridge is a little tricky/touchy. So they went the quick, cheap, easy route and just took out a traffic lane for it.
And yes, there are definitely some groups who see the fact that this takes a lane away from cars as a feature rather than a downside, but it's not gratuitous - the demand for more bike/ped space on the bridge is quite real.
The thing I really don't like about it is the asymmetry. There isn't much of a directional split in the AADT; certainly not anything that warrants one side having one more lane than the other. If they really wanted to take lanes rather than widen the walkway, they should have taking one from each side, with one direction of bike traffic on each direction and the rest of the space used for wider lanes and/or a shoulder. They way they did it is half-assed at best.
How joyful it is to see that the city is changing for the better. However, there is still a lot of work to do. It is a pity that now it all stops because of the global pandemic. I know that some projects are being postponed, and some are being closed altogether because all funds are being allocated to combat the consequences of the virus.
But it's nice to see that some entrepreneurs in the service sector are strenuously supporting their business. For example, a new branch of the Westgate network has recently opened in New York https://www.westgateresorts.com/hotels/new-york/midtown-manhattan/westgate-new-york-grand-central/ . I was always surprised how they adjust the design of the hotel to the architecture of the city.
I hope that the city continues to change for the better.
What's everyone's opinion on signing I-695 (Throgs Neck Expressway) in the Bronx? It's only a mile long and has one unnumbered exit along it. Since every 695 shield seems to be paired with a TO 295 SOUTH or TO 95 NORTH assembly, I almost don't see the point of signing it.
The Exit 10 sign from 295 North in particular always seemed like it could just say "TO 95 NORTH" since 695 is a glorified exit ramp: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8200539,-73.8117227,3a,75y,294.61h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7B_qcvDiiiRtCHB0tfz91A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: Duke87 on July 03, 2021, 02:02:46 AM
Regarding the new Brooklyn Bridge bike lane, this is very much a question of pick your poison.
Bikes and peds were previously confined to a shared walkway which... was very crowded and could not be navigated efficiently because of this. Adding a separate bike lane so that peds can have the formerly shared walkway is, from the perspective of a bicyclist or a pedestrian, some much needed congestion relief.
Ideally, this would have been done by simply constructing a wider walkway, which there is certainly room to do. But that would have taken longer, been more expensive, and involved some structural modifications which when you're dealing with a 140-year-old bridge is a little tricky/touchy. So they went the quick, cheap, easy route and just took out a traffic lane for it.
And yes, there are definitely some groups who see the fact that this takes a lane away from cars as a feature rather than a downside, but it's not gratuitous - the demand for more bike/ped space on the bridge is quite real.
The demand for the car lane is equal to if not greater than that of the ped/bike demand. A separate bridge needs to be built for cyclists and pedestrians. Give the lane back to cars once it's completed.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 05, 2021, 05:35:09 PM
The demand for the car lane is equal to if not greater than that of the ped/bike demand. A separate bridge needs to be built for cyclists and pedestrians. Give the lane back to cars once it's completed.
I was curious about this assertion so I looked it up. Turns out NYC has automated bicycle traffic counters on the east river bridges so there's actually some really solid data for this available. Here's May 2021. (https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/east-river-bridge-24hr-cyclist-count-may2021.pdf) The maximum number of cyclists per day crossing the Brooklyn Bridge is just over 3000, though the average is only a bit over 2000 (it varies with the day of the week and the weather). But this is all with the constrained path that's miserable to have to use in place - the nearby Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges, with proper dedicated cycle lanes, commonly see counts in the range of 7000-9000 cyclists per day (also varying), which may be some indicator of what the potential for a proper dedicated cycle lane on the Brooklyn Bridge is.
That said, the AADT for the Brooklyn Bridge (2016) was 105k (see page 9 / PDF page 23) (https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-bridge-traffic-report-2016.pdf). 1/6 of that is about 17,600.
So no matter how you slice it, the assertion is accurate: there is, currently, more demand for that lane as a vehicular traffic lane than as a bicycle lane. The theoretical maximum carrying capacity is greater as a bicycle lane, but indication is that that capacity will likely be highly underutilized - at least in the near term. The hope, of course, is that the principle of "induced demand" will apply here.
Quote from: crispy93 on July 05, 2021, 05:12:52 PM
What's everyone's opinion on signing I-695 (Throgs Neck Expressway) in the Bronx? It's only a mile long and has one unnumbered exit along it. Since every 695 shield seems to be paired with a TO 295 SOUTH or TO 95 NORTH assembly, I almost don't see the point of signing it.
The Exit 10 sign from 295 North in particular always seemed like it could just say "TO 95 NORTH" since 695 is a glorified exit ramp: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8200539,-73.8117227,3a,75y,294.61h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7B_qcvDiiiRtCHB0tfz91A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I agree with you. DOT should just eliminate the 695 and 295 signage. It just makes the signs confusing. Interestingly, the original signs back in the 1960's were signed as just 95-North and 95-South with GW Bridge and New England as the destinations. Confusing technicalities have replaced common sense.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 05, 2021, 08:38:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 05, 2021, 05:35:09 PM
The demand for the car lane is equal to if not greater than that of the ped/bike demand. A separate bridge needs to be built for cyclists and pedestrians. Give the lane back to cars once it's completed.
I was curious about this assertion so I looked it up. Turns out NYC has automated bicycle traffic counters on the east river bridges so there's actually some really solid data for this available. Here's May 2021. (https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/east-river-bridge-24hr-cyclist-count-may2021.pdf) The maximum number of cyclists per day crossing the Brooklyn Bridge is just over 3000, though the average is only a bit over 2000 (it varies with the day of the week and the weather). But this is all with the constrained path that's miserable to have to use in place - the nearby Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges, with proper dedicated cycle lanes, commonly see counts in the range of 7000-9000 cyclists per day (also varying), which may be some indicator of what the potential for a proper dedicated cycle lane on the Brooklyn Bridge is.
That said, the AADT for the Brooklyn Bridge (2016) was 105k (see page 9 / PDF page 23) (https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-bridge-traffic-report-2016.pdf). 1/6 of that is about 17,600.
So no matter how you slice it, the assertion is accurate: there is, currently, more demand for that lane as a vehicular traffic lane than as a bicycle lane. The theoretical maximum carrying capacity is greater as a bicycle lane, but indication is that that capacity will likely be highly underutilized - at least in the near term. The hope, of course, is that the principle of "induced demand" will apply here.
I will also note that the bridge is probably not a bottleneck at 2 lanes vs. 3. The EB bottleneck is the ramp to I-278, where everyone tries to bunch up into that single lane. The WB side is constrained by the traffic signals on the roads feeding the bridge.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 30, 2021, 04:19:28 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 02, 2021, 02:13:25 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 02, 2021, 01:07:40 PM
"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"
It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.
Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
I can do the same if you tell me how Moses stopped the IND Culver Line and IND Fulton Street Line from connecting to the BMT Culver Line and BMT Fulton Street Line. Oh wait. That never happened.
Since Robert Moses died in 1981, only two highways have been built. The JFK Expressway. and the still unfinished Nassau Expressway. And that's not even a real expressway southeast of Farmers Boulevard. Since then, traffic has just gone from bad to worse, and the city has gone anti-car. Now the congestions is considered worse than Los Angeles. To make matters worse, you've got the demolition of the Sheridan Expressway and some people are even talking about doing the same thing to the BQE!
Also, Moses endorsed the northern extension of the IND Rockaway Line north towards Rego Park.
u cant take down the BQE its to heavily traveled to even deblasio said its a crucial route if it wasnt as bad i would say ok maybe we can but its not feasible being theres no strong truck route or expressway options in brooklyn they should redo the promanade and realign the BQE section along hicks street through Red hook marine terminal and fix that merge by the battery tunnel
Few questions:
1. I heard that 2nd Avenue is the most congested/traveled avenue in Manhattan, why?
2. FDR/Tri Boro interchange project, when is that done?
3. Why is it the FDR/HRD during weekdays seems to be so congested well beyond peak periods in both directions?
4. Exit 13 on the GCP - the Kew Garden Interchange, is that all supposed to be done this year, and if not when?
Quote from: bluecountry on July 18, 2021, 10:52:31 AM
Few questions:
1. I heard that 2nd Avenue is the most congested/traveled avenue in Manhattan, why?
2. FDR/Tri Boro interchange project, when is that done?
1. I'd guess it's the easiest way to get downtown if you're coming in on one of the Harlem or East River Bridges and can't use the FDR Drive
2. Do you mean the one where they built a direct ramp from the Harlem branch onto the northbound HRD? That was done maybe late last year. But that area is a bottleneck in both directions and always under construction so maybe something else is going on there
Widening is planned on Belt Pkwy in Brooklyn near Verrazzano Bridge. There's typical opposition, but I actually am in favor of it because this area is known for tons of congestion. Some say this will add more vehicles on the road, while they could be adding a pedestrian walkway across that bridge which has been under discussion for a while.
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2021/07/15/mayor-de-blasio-mta-congestion-pricing/
I'm sure in a city like NYC there is so much latent demand widening a road for simply two miles won't help at all. There needs to be a massive initiative which includes new lanes on every single highway along with removing bus and parking lanes and building new subways all at once. Only that will truly help mobility and even then won't solve the issue of traffic congestion but it'll definitely make it more bearable and help with off peak hours.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 18, 2021, 04:09:31 PM
I'm sure in a city like NYC there is so much latent demand widening a road for simply two miles won't help at all. There needs to be a massive initiative which includes new lanes on every single highway along with removing bus and parking lanes and building new subways all at once. Only that will truly help mobility and even then won't solve the issue of traffic congestion but it'll definitely make it more bearable and help with off peak hours.
Put simply, wealthy and motivated NIMBYs who care far more about their cars will never allow parking lanes to be removed. Easiest thing they could ever do is convert all parking lanes to separated bus lanes so buses could move effectively even with traffic and that would be a boon. But it will never happen.
Quote from: storm2k on July 18, 2021, 11:34:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 18, 2021, 04:09:31 PM
I'm sure in a city like NYC there is so much latent demand widening a road for simply two miles won't help at all. There needs to be a massive initiative which includes new lanes on every single highway along with removing bus and parking lanes and building new subways all at once. Only that will truly help mobility and even then won't solve the issue of traffic congestion but it'll definitely make it more bearable and help with off peak hours.
Put simply, wealthy and motivated NIMBYs who care far more about their cars will never allow parking lanes to be removed. Easiest thing they could ever do is convert all parking lanes to separated bus lanes so buses could move effectively even with traffic and that would be a boon. But it will never happen.
Put rather too simply, probably. There are a great many New Yorkers with no cars at all who would have no interest in seeing parking lanes replaced with travel lanes; if anything, the appetite would be to replace them with more transit or bicycle lanes (the "wealthy and motivated NIMBYs" already don't have to worry about on-street parking). NYC just isn't that type of city, for better or worse.
Another incident where a biker thinks they're better than the cars, trucks and buses:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/okk8ds/just_a_regular_drive_in_nyc_beware_of_cyclists/
I should show this to Streetsblog I'll bet that'll create a uproar there.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 20, 2021, 10:24:01 AM
Another incident where a biker thinks they're better than the cars, trucks and buses:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/okk8ds/just_a_regular_drive_in_nyc_beware_of_cyclists/
I should show this to Streetsblog I'll bet that'll create a uproar there.
Isn't that the site that thinks an auxiliary lane is EVIL DANGEROUS CAR CENTRIC CITY PLANNING 1!!1!
Quote from: TheDon102 on July 20, 2021, 02:20:39 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 20, 2021, 10:24:01 AM
Another incident where a biker thinks they're better than the cars, trucks and buses:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/okk8ds/just_a_regular_drive_in_nyc_beware_of_cyclists/
I should show this to Streetsblog I'll bet that'll create a uproar there.
Isn't that the site that thinks an auxiliary lane is EVIL DANGEROUS CAR CENTRIC CITY PLANNING 1!!1!
Streetsblog is awful. I was banned by Joe Linton for absolutely no reason other than he didn't like the fact I supported freeways and widenings.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 20, 2021, 02:39:13 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on July 20, 2021, 02:20:39 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 20, 2021, 10:24:01 AM
Another incident where a biker thinks they're better than the cars, trucks and buses:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/okk8ds/just_a_regular_drive_in_nyc_beware_of_cyclists/
I should show this to Streetsblog I'll bet that'll create a uproar there.
Isn't that the site that thinks an auxiliary lane is EVIL DANGEROUS CAR CENTRIC CITY PLANNING 1!!1!
Streetsblog is awful. I was banned by Joe Linton for absolutely no reason other than he didn't like the fact I supported freeways and widenings.
I've been doing the same, but under another screen name. I haven't been banned yet.
Quote from: crispy93 on July 18, 2021, 12:10:03 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 18, 2021, 10:52:31 AM
Few questions:
1. I heard that 2nd Avenue is the most congested/traveled avenue in Manhattan, why?
2. FDR/Tri Boro interchange project, when is that done?
1. I'd guess it's the easiest way to get downtown if you're coming in on one of the Harlem or East River Bridges and can't use the FDR Drive
2. Do you mean the one where they built a direct ramp from the Harlem branch onto the northbound HRD? That was done maybe late last year. But that area is a bottleneck in both directions and always under construction so maybe something else is going on there
Yea the FDR/HRD/125th street area is still under construction...
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 20, 2021, 10:24:01 AM
Another incident where a biker thinks they're better than the cars, trucks and buses:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/okk8ds/just_a_regular_drive_in_nyc_beware_of_cyclists/
I should show this to Streetsblog I'll bet that'll create a uproar there.
Sadly this happens all the time.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 20, 2021, 10:24:01 AM
Another incident where a biker thinks they're better than the cars, trucks and buses:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/okk8ds/just_a_regular_drive_in_nyc_beware_of_cyclists/
I mean...it's true that NYC bicyclists are a chaotic lot, but it's not as if there aren't motorists out there who seem to know just as few of the rules of the roads as many bikes do! :-D
Is there a reason why they can't ticket cyclists for this kind of behavior?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 26, 2021, 11:12:56 AM
Is there a reason why they can't ticket cyclists for this kind of behavior?
No reason they
can't, but since bicycles aren't registered nor bicyclists licensed, it's rather less practical to pin down a citation and make it stick.
Also, there seem to be unwritten rules for what sorts of transgressions warrant a consequence and which don't. Take for example the alternate side parking regulations for street cleaning: few people would knowingly flout those rules, but the same people will very happily double-park their cars during the street cleaning period, despite it being equally unlawful and actually carrying a stiffer penalty.
Welp, looks like the City is punting on the BQE full rebuild because it's easier than dealing with Brooklyn NIMBYs.
Officials Announce Plan To Preserve Crumbling BQE For Another 20 Years (https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2021/08/04/officials-announce-plan-to-preserve-crumbling-bqe-for-another-20-years/)
QuoteThe mayor said the overarching plan involves limiting oversize trucks, using waterways to transport freight, and more.
Officials say they will reduce the lanes from three to two, which will reduce the weight load and make driving safer. Traffic volume would be lessened by 11%, officials said.
I don't think there's any great way to fix all of this without creating a major ton of pain, but also guessing that the possibility of an Adams Administration whose power base is downtown Brooklyn means that making the lives of his biggest supporters (who are likely near the area of the BQE) difficult at all.
Quote from: storm2k on August 04, 2021, 02:27:08 PM
Welp, looks like the City is punting on the BQE full rebuild because it's easier than dealing with Brooklyn NIMBYs.
Officials Announce Plan To Preserve Crumbling BQE For Another 20 Years (https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2021/08/04/officials-announce-plan-to-preserve-crumbling-bqe-for-another-20-years/)
QuoteThe mayor said the overarching plan involves limiting oversize trucks, using waterways to transport freight, and more.
Officials say they will reduce the lanes from three to two, which will reduce the weight load and make driving safer. Traffic volume would be lessened by 11%, officials said.
I don't think there's any great way to fix all of this without creating a major ton of pain, but also guessing that the possibility of an Adams Administration whose power base is downtown Brooklyn means that making the lives of his biggest supporters (who are likely near the area of the BQE) difficult at all.
Quote"We should create intermodal distribution centers in all five boroughs, where things can be off loaded into electric carts, and small electric vehicles for the last mile delivery," he said.
who hired this guy
Well what about big trucks that are not making deliveries in NYC but going straight thru from New Jersey to Long Island? Does Mayor DiBlasio think NYC is the whole world?
Quote from: SignBridge on August 04, 2021, 08:32:59 PM
Well what about big trucks that are not making deliveries in NYC but going straight thru from New Jersey to Long Island? Does Mayor DiBlasio think NYC is the whole world?
Those aren't supposed to be on the BQE as it is. Full-length 18-wheelers are blanket prohibited on all NYC roads
except the following:
- I-95
- I-295 north of I-495
- I-495 east of I-295
- I-678
- I-695
So essentially, there is a single prescribed route through the city from New Jersey to Long Island, from New Jersey to Westchester, and from Westchester to Long Island. And then I-678 is on there in order to allow full-size trucks to get to JFK.
Note this map. (https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2015-06-08-truck-map-combined.pdf)
I am guessing that by "limiting oversize trucks" what they are actually aiming at is
enforcing the rules against 53' trailers on the BQE. This rule is not currently subject to much enforcement.
Well this is certainly welcoming news:
https://www.amny.com/transit/city-rolls-back-fifth-ave-busway/
It's a breath of fresh air in cloud of ridiculously anti car bullshit.
Another site that won't let you read their articles unless you sign in.
I see the HRD/FDR is now in it's final configuration southbound by the Triboro Bridge finally. Looks nice. Hope to get a pic soon.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 04, 2021, 08:54:01 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 04, 2021, 08:32:59 PM
Well what about big trucks that are not making deliveries in NYC but going straight thru from New Jersey to Long Island? Does Mayor DiBlasio think NYC is the whole world?
Those aren't supposed to be on the BQE as it is. Full-length 18-wheelers are blanket prohibited on all NYC roads except the following:
- I-95
- I-295 north of I-495
- I-495 east of I-295
- I-678
- I-695
So essentially, there is a single prescribed route through the city from New Jersey to Long Island, from New Jersey to Westchester, and from Westchester to Long Island. And then I-678 is on there in order to allow full-size trucks to get to JFK.
Note this map. (https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2015-06-08-truck-map-combined.pdf)
I am guessing that by "limiting oversize trucks" what they are actually aiming at is enforcing the rules against 53' trailers on the BQE. This rule is not currently subject to much enforcement.
Wasn't the clearance on the Grand Central west of the BQE raised?
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 04, 2021, 10:54:38 PM
Wasn't the clearance on the Grand Central west of the BQE raised?
That's a separate issue, and overhead clearance isn't even it - the posted clearance of the 31st St overpass on the highway is 12'6". The posted clearance under the N/W trains on the service road? Also 12'6". Which, since NY posts legal clearances that are a foot less than actual, any truck that is under the usual 13'6" height limit will slip under either.
But yes, 3-axle box trucks are allowed to use that section of the Grand Central now. Larger trucks are still legally required to use the service road to get from the bridge to the BQE. Not because of overhead clearance but because of lingering drama over "it's technicallyyyyy a parkway, sooooo....."
All of this is distinct from the issue of maximum truck
length. Standard US-spec big rigs have 53' trailers. Except for the through routes outlined previously, NYC limits trucks to 55' overall length including the cab, which generally translates to a trailer no longer than 48'.
The signs saying trucks over a certain height need to exit onto Astoria appear to have been removed. Is that still there in some regulation even if it's not signed? Believe it or not, allowing commercial vehicles on select sections of parkways is not completely unprecedented. The Lake Ontario State Parkway used to allow them in Orleans County, for example, at least until the pavement deteriorated.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 05, 2021, 04:31:48 PM
Well this is certainly welcoming news:
https://www.amny.com/transit/city-rolls-back-fifth-ave-busway/
It's a breath of fresh air in cloud of ridiculously anti car bullshit.
No it's not, that was a good proposal.
Quote from: vdeane on October 05, 2021, 02:48:06 PM
The signs saying trucks over a certain height need to exit onto Astoria appear to have been removed. Is that still there in some regulation even if it's not signed? Believe it or not, allowing commercial vehicles on select sections of parkways is not completely unprecedented. The Lake Ontario State Parkway used to allow them in Orleans County, for example, at least until the pavement deteriorated.
I used to go over the Triboro a few times a week both before and after. There is no longer any reference to the parkway's max height until it's too late to exit, though the old pull-throughs had the clearances listed: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7716522,-73.9190935,3a,24.9y,131.07h,86.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBimcf42zrb2dZwfMv4wQSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There's also a VMS on the bridge that says simply, "TRUCKS ALLOWED RFK TO I278/BQE"
One thing to keep in mind is that there was a project a couple of years ago to increase the clearances under those bridges - hence why they aren't signed anymore. I'm not sure exactly how they did it, though.
It doesn't look like they did anything except take down the height limit signs. Streetview comparisons doesn't so any obvious structural changes to the bridges or roadway itself.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 10, 2021, 10:31:47 PM
It doesn't look like they did anything except take down the height limit signs. Streetview comparisons doesn't so any obvious structural changes to the bridges or roadway itself.
Roadway was dug out more.
Happy Thanksgiving, American roadgeeks!
Looking at Google Maps traffic, I-278 is closed this morning from the Brooklyn end of the VNB to 7 Av both ways and again from Industry City to the Carey BBT. Why?
Quote from: ixnay on November 25, 2021, 11:15:07 AM
Happy Thanksgiving, American roadgeeks!
Looking at Google Maps traffic, I-278 is closed this morning from the Brooklyn end of the VNB to 7 Av both ways and again from Industry City to the Carey BBT. Why?
That appears to be the HOV lane, not the I-278 mainline.
Quote from: vdeane on November 25, 2021, 01:06:14 PM
Quote from: ixnay on November 25, 2021, 11:15:07 AM
Happy Thanksgiving, American roadgeeks!
Looking at Google Maps traffic, I-278 is closed this morning from the Brooklyn end of the VNB to 7 Av both ways and again from Industry City to the Carey BBT. Why?
That appears to be the HOV lane, not the I-278 mainline.
I should've zoomed in with my mouse roller. [blush]
A logical closure.
Why does the MTA have coverings on all suspender cables for bridges like the Verrazano, the Whitestone, Throgs Neck, and even the RFK? Yet the Verrazano has some suspenders without them.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 27, 2021, 11:45:04 AM
Why does the MTA have coverings on all suspender cables for bridges like the Verrazano, the Whitestone, Throgs Neck, and even the RFK? Yet the Verrazano has some suspenders without them.
Ice protection.
Haven't been on the BQE since the narrowing. It's on GSV in places.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6937898,-73.9992358,3a,75y,356.78h,88.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sO2Umm2anJUVswuvR1s630Q!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Hopefully it's kept and rebuilt.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 28, 2021, 05:52:23 PM
Haven't been on the BQE since the narrowing. It's on GSV in places.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6937898,-73.9992358,3a,75y,356.78h,88.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sO2Umm2anJUVswuvR1s630Q!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192
It's so bizarre seeing proper areas and standard lane widths on this section. I wonder what the before/after crash rate will be
Has anyone noticed an increase in congestion since the right lane on the BQE has been converted into a shoulder lane? I would expect a freeway being narrowed from six to four lanes would see a significant increase in congestion, especially in a place like New York City.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 29, 2021, 02:57:11 PM
Has anyone noticed an increase in congestion since the right lane on the BQE has been converted into a shoulder lane? I would expect a freeway being narrowed from six to four lanes would see a significant increase in congestion, especially in a place like New York City.
From what I've heard, that area is quite congested, and Google Maps certainly shows this. Stop and go at all hours of the day. I went through there at 9 AM on a Sunday morning (on a holiday weekend, so probably even less traffic than normal) and it was already stop and go, just from congestion. It's basically an area to avoid at all times, even when the rest of the city (yes, including the Cross-Bronx) is at free flow.
Honestly, as much as I don't want to see the freeway removed, it might actually move better if it were, if only because that might convince people to not go there.
Quote from: vdeane on December 29, 2021, 09:20:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 29, 2021, 02:57:11 PM
Has anyone noticed an increase in congestion since the right lane on the BQE has been converted into a shoulder lane? I would expect a freeway being narrowed from six to four lanes would see a significant increase in congestion, especially in a place like New York City.
From what I've heard, that area is quite congested, and Google Maps certainly shows this. Stop and go at all hours of the day. I went through there at 9 AM on a Sunday morning (on a holiday weekend, so probably even less traffic than normal) and it was already stop and go, just from congestion. It's basically an area to avoid at all times, even when the rest of the city (yes, including the Cross-Bronx) is at free flow.
Honestly, as much as I don't want to see the freeway removed, it might actually move better if it were, if only because that might convince people to not go there.
Remove an already super congested freeway? I'll counter that nonsense with the same saying we should widen the thing to ten lanes each way.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 29, 2021, 02:57:11 PM
Has anyone noticed an increase in congestion since the right lane on the BQE has been converted into a shoulder lane? I would expect a freeway being narrowed from six to four lanes would see a significant increase in congestion, especially in a place like New York City.
Yeah, it's really bad, and the traffic impact goes back as far as the Staten Island Expressway. People are also clogging up local streets like Smith Street.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 29, 2021, 10:02:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 29, 2021, 09:20:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 29, 2021, 02:57:11 PM
Has anyone noticed an increase in congestion since the right lane on the BQE has been converted into a shoulder lane? I would expect a freeway being narrowed from six to four lanes would see a significant increase in congestion, especially in a place like New York City.
From what I've heard, that area is quite congested, and Google Maps certainly shows this. Stop and go at all hours of the day. I went through there at 9 AM on a Sunday morning (on a holiday weekend, so probably even less traffic than normal) and it was already stop and go, just from congestion. It's basically an area to avoid at all times, even when the rest of the city (yes, including the Cross-Bronx) is at free flow.
Honestly, as much as I don't want to see the freeway removed, it might actually move better if it were, if only because that might convince people to not go there.
Remove an already super congested freeway? I'll counter that nonsense with the same saying we should widen the thing to ten lanes each way.
Realistically, that corridor isn't going to be solved without convincing at least half the cars on it to either shift to other modes, drive to different destinations or via a significantly different route, or to stay home entirely, especially given the NIMBYs and BANANAs in the area. I think the only option retaining anything resembling a freeway that the locals and the Vision Zero/climate activists were happy with was the one where it would be a four-lane (total), truck-only tunnel with passenger cars forced on a boulevard.
I don't support a removal of the BQE myself, but clearly what's there is horrifically congested, and I put the chances of a new or expanded facility as iffy at best. It would be very expensive and it the political support would seem to not be there.
Quote from: vdeane on December 30, 2021, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 29, 2021, 10:02:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 29, 2021, 09:20:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 29, 2021, 02:57:11 PM
Has anyone noticed an increase in congestion since the right lane on the BQE has been converted into a shoulder lane? I would expect a freeway being narrowed from six to four lanes would see a significant increase in congestion, especially in a place like New York City.
From what I've heard, that area is quite congested, and Google Maps certainly shows this. Stop and go at all hours of the day. I went through there at 9 AM on a Sunday morning (on a holiday weekend, so probably even less traffic than normal) and it was already stop and go, just from congestion. It's basically an area to avoid at all times, even when the rest of the city (yes, including the Cross-Bronx) is at free flow.
Honestly, as much as I don't want to see the freeway removed, it might actually move better if it were, if only because that might convince people to not go there.
Remove an already super congested freeway? I'll counter that nonsense with the same saying we should widen the thing to ten lanes each way.
Realistically, that corridor isn't going to be solved without convincing at least half the cars on it to either shift to other modes, drive to different destinations or via a significantly different route, or to stay home entirely, especially given the NIMBYs and BANANAs in the area. I think the only option retaining anything resembling a freeway that the locals and the Vision Zero/climate activists were happy with was the one where it would be a four-lane (total), truck-only tunnel with passenger cars forced on a boulevard.
I don't support a removal of the BQE myself, but clearly what's there is horrifically congested, and I put the chances of a new or expanded facility as iffy at best. It would be very expensive and it the political support would seem to not be there.
I would support an expansion but yeah I doubt that happens in the current political climate if ever. I'd like to see a study if this made the freeway safer. If it didn't do much than re-stripe it back to 3 lanes each way. Removing the freeway seems like an awful idea.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 30, 2021, 12:55:31 PM
I would support an expansion but yeah I doubt that happens in the current political climate if ever. I'd like to see a study if this made the freeway safer. If it didn't do much than re-stripe it back to 3 lanes each way. Removing the freeway seems like an awful idea.
It's worth noting that the re-striping wasn't about crashes on the freeway. It was about the weight of traffic making it so it was due to collapse within five years if they didn't do the re-striping. The re-striping, combined with better enforcement on overweight trucks, should allow it to last for 20. That road isn't going back to three lanes each way without a complete rebuild.
Quote from: vdeane on December 30, 2021, 09:23:27 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 30, 2021, 12:55:31 PM
I would support an expansion but yeah I doubt that happens in the current political climate if ever. I'd like to see a study if this made the freeway safer. If it didn't do much than re-stripe it back to 3 lanes each way. Removing the freeway seems like an awful idea.
It's worth noting that the re-striping wasn't about crashes on the freeway. It was about the weight of traffic making it so it was due to collapse within five years if they didn't do the re-striping. The re-striping, combined with better enforcement on overweight trucks, should allow it to last for 20. That road isn't going back to three lanes each way without a complete rebuild.
Oh, good to know. I don't know much about transit patterns in NYC so if there isn't already a transit line that would alleviate traffic off of this freeway it could be done in 20 years. Hopefully the road gets rebuilt. It would be nice to see 8 lanes but at least six is preferable.
PlutonicPanda, there are plenty of criss-crossing NYC subway train lines in that area, but that doesn't alleviate traffic on this Expwy. Much of it is heavy-truck traffic and through traffic traveling from Long Island, Queens, Brooklyn to/from Staten Island and New Jersey. Not the kind of commuting served by local subway lines.
I'm sure that in 20 years' time, if they ever come up with a plan to reconstruct the BQE in any shape or form, the neighborhoods will be screaming "bloody murder" against anything that is proposed. I'm sure that's why they deferred doing anything about the BQE for two decades.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 31, 2021, 08:40:44 PM
I'm sure that in 20 years' time, if they ever come up with a plan to reconstruct the BQE in any shape or form, the neighborhoods will be screaming "bloody murder" against anything that is proposed. I'm sure that's why they deferred doing anything about the BQE for two decades.
It's more about the ridiculous price, from what I heard in meetings.
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2022, 01:30:59 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 31, 2021, 08:40:44 PM
I'm sure that in 20 years' time, if they ever come up with a plan to reconstruct the BQE in any shape or form, the neighborhoods will be screaming "bloody murder" against anything that is proposed. I'm sure that's why they deferred doing anything about the BQE for two decades.
It's more about the ridiculous price, from what I heard in meetings.
Basically, any plan that will make Brooklyn Heights residents happy at this point is going to cost a small fortune. And this is on top of what it would cost for just a more straightforward reconstruction of this area. Same kinds of battles that plagued the Gowanus construction plans some time ago.
All of the above are contributing factors. This reconstruction whenever it happens will be hugely expensive, politically unpopular, and horribly disruptive to both traffic and the local community. There is just no easy solution.
Oh No! Not those poor Brooklyn Heights Residents!!!
Quote from: vdeane on December 30, 2021, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 29, 2021, 10:02:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 29, 2021, 09:20:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 29, 2021, 02:57:11 PM
Has anyone noticed an increase in congestion since the right lane on the BQE has been converted into a shoulder lane? I would expect a freeway being narrowed from six to four lanes would see a significant increase in congestion, especially in a place like New York City.
From what I've heard, that area is quite congested, and Google Maps certainly shows this. Stop and go at all hours of the day. I went through there at 9 AM on a Sunday morning (on a holiday weekend, so probably even less traffic than normal) and it was already stop and go, just from congestion. It's basically an area to avoid at all times, even when the rest of the city (yes, including the Cross-Bronx) is at free flow.
Honestly, as much as I don't want to see the freeway removed, it might actually move better if it were, if only because that might convince people to not go there.
Remove an already super congested freeway? I'll counter that nonsense with the same saying we should widen the thing to ten lanes each way.
Realistically, that corridor isn't going to be solved without convincing at least half the cars on it to either shift to other modes, drive to different destinations or via a significantly different route, or to stay home entirely, especially given the NIMBYs and BANANAs in the area. I think the only option retaining anything resembling a freeway that the locals and the Vision Zero/climate activists were happy with was the one where it would be a four-lane (total), truck-only tunnel with passenger cars forced on a boulevard.
I don't support a removal of the BQE myself, but clearly what's there is horrifically congested, and I put the chances of a new or expanded facility as iffy at best. It would be very expensive and it the political support would seem to not be there.
I wonder to what extent congestion pricing will have on some of this.
A good percentage of the traffic on the BQE is headed to Manhattan. Yes, this is north of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, but there is a significant amount of traffic that would be headed to Manhattan via the currently free bridges that are on this stretch. If the congestion pricing comes in to effectively charge drivers the same to reach Manhattan if they take the Battery Tunnel or if they take the bridges, then I can assume that some of that traffic will head for the Battery Tunnel, leaving more room for the rest of traffic.
I do understand that most of the traffic here is not going to Manhattan but probably just heading to northern Brooklyn or Queens or towards the I-87 and I-95 corridors to Upstate and New England, but perhaps enough of the Manhattan traffic can be diverted to make the BQE tolerable for the rest of the traffic.
Quote from: mrsman on January 11, 2022, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 30, 2021, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 29, 2021, 10:02:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 29, 2021, 09:20:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 29, 2021, 02:57:11 PM
Has anyone noticed an increase in congestion since the right lane on the BQE has been converted into a shoulder lane? I would expect a freeway being narrowed from six to four lanes would see a significant increase in congestion, especially in a place like New York City.
From what I've heard, that area is quite congested, and Google Maps certainly shows this. Stop and go at all hours of the day. I went through there at 9 AM on a Sunday morning (on a holiday weekend, so probably even less traffic than normal) and it was already stop and go, just from congestion. It's basically an area to avoid at all times, even when the rest of the city (yes, including the Cross-Bronx) is at free flow.
Honestly, as much as I don't want to see the freeway removed, it might actually move better if it were, if only because that might convince people to not go there.
Remove an already super congested freeway? I'll counter that nonsense with the same saying we should widen the thing to ten lanes each way.
Realistically, that corridor isn't going to be solved without convincing at least half the cars on it to either shift to other modes, drive to different destinations or via a significantly different route, or to stay home entirely, especially given the NIMBYs and BANANAs in the area. I think the only option retaining anything resembling a freeway that the locals and the Vision Zero/climate activists were happy with was the one where it would be a four-lane (total), truck-only tunnel with passenger cars forced on a boulevard.
I don't support a removal of the BQE myself, but clearly what's there is horrifically congested, and I put the chances of a new or expanded facility as iffy at best. It would be very expensive and it the political support would seem to not be there.
I wonder to what extent congestion pricing will have on some of this.
A good percentage of the traffic on the BQE is headed to Manhattan. Yes, this is north of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, but there is a significant amount of traffic that would be headed to Manhattan via the currently free bridges that are on this stretch. If the congestion pricing comes in to effectively charge drivers the same to reach Manhattan if they take the Battery Tunnel or if they take the bridges, then I can assume that some of that traffic will head for the Battery Tunnel, leaving more room for the rest of traffic.
I do understand that most of the traffic here is not going to Manhattan but probably just heading to northern Brooklyn or Queens or towards the I-87 and I-95 corridors to Upstate and New England, but perhaps enough of the Manhattan traffic can be diverted to make the BQE tolerable for the rest of the traffic.
Not enough. As it is, an absurdly high percentage of traffic on the road is commercial, whether it be trucks/busses or smaller vehicles (vans, taxis, etc.). You might get some rerouting, but the bridges will remain a better option for east side traffic.
It's worth noting that FDR Drive and I believe NY 9A as well will both be exempt from congestion pricing, so the free bridges will still be free for all trips that don't have an destination in Manhattan below 59th Street. That will further limit the impact congestion pricing has on the BQE.
I wonder if congestion pricing will later expand to the other four boroughs if it is successful in Manhattan? I know Manhattan is the densest, but I would imagine the rest of the city might benefit from congestion pricing as well.
I keep a small glimmer of hope the congestion pricing crap will be canceled at the last minute. Really stupid idea.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 11, 2022, 04:13:22 PM
I wonder if congestion pricing will later expand to the other four boroughs if it is successful in Manhattan? I know Manhattan is the densest, but I would imagine the rest of the city might benefit from congestion pricing as well.
Wouldn't that make things worse? Unless you assume all the traffic comes for Long Island or New Jersey? If the zone covered all of NYC, intra-NYC trips wouldn't be tolled, and trips passing through NYC to get to/from Long Island from elsewhere (or between NJ and CT, for those crazy enough to take I-95 straight through) would (on top of the tolls such trips already pay). The whole thing would fall apart.
Quote from: vdeane on January 11, 2022, 02:27:13 PM
It's worth noting that FDR Drive and I believe NY 9A as well will both be exempt from congestion pricing,
Per https://www.thecity.nyc/2021/9/15/22674371/how-does-congestion-pricing-work-toll-system-in-manhattan , you're right. So will the tunnel under Battery Park be exempt.
The HRD at 95 is a pothole mess that needs a complete repaving. Any plans?
Quote from: bluecountry on February 24, 2022, 10:04:37 PM
The HRD at 95 is a pothole mess that needs a complete repaving. Any plans?
A search on the NYSDOT projects page only shows some generic paving contracts, nothing specific to the HRD.
Quote from: bluecountry on February 24, 2022, 10:04:37 PM
The HRD at 95 is a pothole mess that needs a complete repaving. Any plans?
Are you taking about that long ancient ramp from the HRD up to the GW Bridge approach? If so yeah, that roadway is a mess, an absolute disgrace.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 25, 2022, 08:04:05 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 24, 2022, 10:04:37 PM
The HRD at 95 is a pothole mess that needs a complete repaving. Any plans?
Are you taking about that long ancient ramp from the HRD up to the GW Bridge approach? If so yeah, that roadway is a mess, an absolute disgrace.
I believe those ramps are actually under Port Authority jurisdiction so it would be up to them to repave them. Probably need deeper repairs and that project is going to be a traffic nightmare when it happens.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 25, 2022, 08:04:05 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 24, 2022, 10:04:37 PM
The HRD at 95 is a pothole mess that needs a complete repaving. Any plans?
Are you taking about that long ancient ramp from the HRD up to the GW Bridge approach? If so yeah, that roadway is a mess, an absolute disgrace.
Yes, it's awful. I drive super slow before speeding up off the ramp and drivers get mad but I am tired of those potholes messing with my steering.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 25, 2022, 08:04:05 PM
I believe those ramps are actually under Port Authority jurisdiction so it would be up to them to repave them. Probably need deeper repairs and that project is going to be a traffic nightmare when it happens.
As is, when ISN'T it traffic nightmare?
That entire structure probably should be closed and torn down and replaced with a new one. I assume it was built circa 1930 with the construction of the GW Bridge. The lanes are too narrow and they'd have to close it down to repave or rebuild it anyway. Given the condition it's in, I'm surprised it hasn't already fallen down on its own.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 28, 2022, 07:48:56 PM
That entire structure probably should be closed and torn down and replaced with a new one. I assume it was built circa 1930 with the construction of the GW Bridge. The lanes are too narrow and they'd have to close it down to repave or rebuild it anyway. Given the condition it's in, I'm surprised it hasn't already fallen down on its own.
They should redesign the whole thing, approaches, exits, and on-ramps honestly. A lot of the traffic is because the left lane gets blocked by people getting off at Amsterdam Ave (W179th St), which backs up easily because of how short it is. Then everyone gets into the right lane, which is not any better since 2 seconds later you have people
merging making a right turn from the Washington Bridge, (and Amsterdam Ave).
And lets not forget the people who still can't decide whether it's upper or lower until the last second. I have a feeling if anything is ever done, they'll just redo the road bed like the Hamilton bridge.
Quote from: Dannny on February 28, 2022, 11:58:09 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 28, 2022, 07:48:56 PM
That entire structure probably should be closed and torn down and replaced with a new one. I assume it was built circa 1930 with the construction of the GW Bridge. The lanes are too narrow and they'd have to close it down to repave or rebuild it anyway. Given the condition it's in, I'm surprised it hasn't already fallen down on its own.
They should redesign the whole thing, approaches, exits, and on-ramps honestly. A lot of the traffic is because the left lane gets blocked by people getting off at Amsterdam Ave (W179th St), which backs up easily because of how short it is. Then everyone gets into the right lane, which is not any better since 2 seconds later you have people merging making a right turn from the Washington Bridge, (and Amsterdam Ave). And lets not forget the people who still can't decide whether it's upper or lower until the last second. I have a feeling if anything is ever done, they'll just redo the road bed like the Hamilton bridge.
They shouldn't have given every street in the vicinity access to the GWB.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2022, 11:28:06 AM
Quote from: Dannny on February 28, 2022, 11:58:09 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 28, 2022, 07:48:56 PM
That entire structure probably should be closed and torn down and replaced with a new one. I assume it was built circa 1930 with the construction of the GW Bridge. The lanes are too narrow and they'd have to close it down to repave or rebuild it anyway. Given the condition it's in, I'm surprised it hasn't already fallen down on its own.
They should redesign the whole thing, approaches, exits, and on-ramps honestly. A lot of the traffic is because the left lane gets blocked by people getting off at Amsterdam Ave (W179th St), which backs up easily because of how short it is. Then everyone gets into the right lane, which is not any better since 2 seconds later you have people merging making a right turn from the Washington Bridge, (and Amsterdam Ave). And lets not forget the people who still can't decide whether it's upper or lower until the last second. I have a feeling if anything is ever done, they'll just redo the road bed like the Hamilton bridge.
They shouldn't have given every street in the vicinity access to the GWB.
But, all the traffic wants to get onto the GWB from those streets.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 28, 2022, 07:48:56 PM
That entire structure probably should be closed and torn down and replaced with a new one. I assume it was built circa 1930 with the construction of the GW Bridge. The lanes are too narrow and they'd have to close it down to repave or rebuild it anyway. Given the condition it's in, I'm surprised it hasn't already fallen down on its own.
It's from an era where things were so over-engineered that they can stand up to being in this kind of terrible condition and still be safe. This is how the Pulaski Skyway in NJ was still standing when they started rebuilding it and found that in some areas, the iron was literally crumbling.
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2022, 01:08:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2022, 11:28:06 AM
Quote from: Dannny on February 28, 2022, 11:58:09 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 28, 2022, 07:48:56 PM
That entire structure probably should be closed and torn down and replaced with a new one. I assume it was built circa 1930 with the construction of the GW Bridge. The lanes are too narrow and they'd have to close it down to repave or rebuild it anyway. Given the condition it's in, I'm surprised it hasn't already fallen down on its own.
They should redesign the whole thing, approaches, exits, and on-ramps honestly. A lot of the traffic is because the left lane gets blocked by people getting off at Amsterdam Ave (W179th St), which backs up easily because of how short it is. Then everyone gets into the right lane, which is not any better since 2 seconds later you have people merging making a right turn from the Washington Bridge, (and Amsterdam Ave). And lets not forget the people who still can't decide whether it's upper or lower until the last second. I have a feeling if anything is ever done, they'll just redo the road bed like the Hamilton bridge.
They shouldn't have given every street in the vicinity access to the GWB.
But, all the traffic wants to get onto the GWB from those streets.
My problem is that they put the access right at the start of the crossing. I would close the ramps to/from the west ends 178/179th Sts. and have everyone enter from Amsterdam Ave.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2022, 11:28:06 AM
Quote
My problem is that they put the access right at the start of the crossing. I would close the ramps to/from the west ends 178/179th Sts. and have everyone enter from Amsterdam Ave.
I hope exiting is included as well. The problem is that, the exit before on northbound HRD is Exit 23 (W155th), and the next one (where HRD officially ends), is Dyckman St. By getting rid the the 179th ramps, there's no real way to get the the center of the heights, or say GWB bus terminal, if arriving by Taxi/Uber. They'd have to get off early, (or stay on, go past 179th, then come back), and navigate the local streets to get to such place. This way seems less direct and more complicated.
I'm not familiar with the Hamilton Bridge redo, I guess any type of redo is a pipe dream?
Interesting article In the NY Times today about the disappearance of bilingual street signs in Manhattan's Chinatown due to inevitable change. There's even a mention about the MUTCD.
Quote from: storm2k on February 26, 2022, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 25, 2022, 08:04:05 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 24, 2022, 10:04:37 PM
The HRD at 95 is a pothole mess that needs a complete repaving. Any plans?
Are you taking about that long ancient ramp from the HRD up to the GW Bridge approach? If so yeah, that roadway is a mess, an absolute disgrace.
I believe those ramps are actually under Port Authority jurisdiction so it would be up to them to repave them. Probably need deeper repairs and that project is going to be a traffic nightmare when it happens.
And there's NO plans to fix this?
Why is the Van Wick ALWAYS a mess?
Quote from: bluecountry on April 10, 2022, 11:28:17 PM
Why is the Van Wick ALWAYS a mess?
I'm guessing because it's due to JFK traffic and because it's one of the relatively few highways in NYC allowing trucks.
Quote from: bluecountry on April 10, 2022, 11:28:17 PM
Why is the Van Wick ALWAYS a mess?
Name a freeway in NYC that isn't.
Quote from: bluecountry on April 10, 2022, 11:28:17 PM
Why is the Van Wick ALWAYS a mess?
because I-295 was never completed south
As the Interstate 295 in New York page on the nycroads.com website states [http://www.nycroads.com/roads/clearview/]: "From both political and geological standpoints, any southward extension of the Clearview Expressway would be difficult to construct." A little later, the only possible way to extend the Clearview southward would be as follows: "any depressed or cut-and-cover expressway proposal would still require widespread condemnation. A deep-bored tunnel would be a solution, albeit an expensive one." The "Interstate 295 in New York" Wikipedia has said that "there have been proposals during the 21st century to extend the Clearview south to feed into the JFK Expressway via a tunnel." Although there are two footnotes included, I don't know how accurate it is that such proposals have been contemplated. I do know that the odds of a Clearview Expressway Tunnel being constructed are nil. Face it, if New York couldn't replace the elevated Interstate 278 Gowanus Expressway with a tunnel, nor connect Interstate 287 with the NY 135 Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway with a tunnel, then an Interstate 295 Clearview Expressway tunnel has no chance of coming into fruition. I doubt even an Interstate 278 bypass tunnel to replace the existing Brooklyn-Queens Expressway through Brooklyn Heights will ever be constructed.
I pretty much agree. The Clearview Expwy is not likely to be extended, but if it was, it would not be a tunnel which would be way too expensive.
And my whole life I've been wishing for the Cross Sound Bridge (not a tunnel) from Rye to Oyster Bay, but as I am now a senior citizen, I'm sure it will not happen in my lifetime if ever at all.
The most likely candidate for such a large scale tunnel or other type project is the Gowanus Expwy which will absolutely have to be replaced in some form, sooner not later no matter what the cost.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 12, 2022, 08:12:53 PM
I pretty much agree. The Clearview Expwy is not likely to be extended, but if it was, it would not be a tunnel which would be way too expensive.
And my whole life I've been wishing for the Cross Sound Bridge (not a tunnel) from Rye to Oyster Bay, but as I am now a senior citizen, I'm sure it will not happen in my lifetime if ever at all.
The most likely candidate for such a large scale tunnel or other type project is the Gowanus Expwy which will absolutely have to be replaced in some form, sooner not later no matter what the cost.
We really do need to have the tunnel from Rye to Oyster Bay built, as unlikely as it is. It's too bad the US doesn't build tunnels like it used to.
I think a Rye - Oyster Bay Bridge is much more likely then a clearview expwy. extension. As sad as that might sound.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 12, 2022, 08:12:53 PM
I pretty much agree. The Clearview Expwy is not likely to be extended, but if it was, it would not be a tunnel which would be way too expensive.
And my whole life I've been wishing for the Cross Sound Bridge (not a tunnel) from Rye to Oyster Bay, but as I am now a senior citizen, I'm sure it will not happen in my lifetime if ever at all.
The most likely candidate for such a large scale tunnel or other type project is the Gowanus Expwy which will absolutely have to be replaced in some form, sooner not later no matter what the cost.
Sorry I made an error in this previous post. What I should have said was not the
Gowanus Expwy, but the cantiliever section of the
Brooklyn Queens Expwy. in Brooklyn Heights that is now reduced to two lanes each way because of its current structural deficiencies. That's the location most likely to be a tunnel or other innovative construction project in the near future.
I expect the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway to collapse (just like the West Side Highway did in 1973), before any tunnel or expressway replacement even gets approved. That's how screwed I think the situation is, even though I've never been to New York City.
You might be right, Ghostbuster. New York City is pretty screwed up that way, though a little less now I hope with the new mayor, compared to the previous one who would have had us all riding bicycles instead of driving. LOL
Quote from: SignBridge on April 18, 2022, 05:02:19 PM
You might be right, Ghostbuster. New York City is pretty screwed up that way, though a little less now I hope with the new mayor, compared to the previous one who would have had us all riding bicycles instead of driving. LOL
That is pretty stupid, no wonder it's not done anywhere else either. ;-)
Why has the Manhattan Bridge Lower Level been permanently fixed as Manhattan Bound? I see no Brooklyn Bound traffic is allowed to use it at all given at all times 5 WB lanes and only 2 lanes EB.
What goes up must come down or better yet, what goes into the city must eventually come out.
The Wikipedia article stating that the lower roadway is permanently Manhattan bound doesn't have any cite backing it. The link provided states it's reversed during closures of the upper roadway for construction.
https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/manhattan-bridge.shtml
QuoteThe lower roadway travel direction reversed during closures of the south upper roadway
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 08, 2022, 11:18:47 AM
The Wikipedia article stating that the lower roadway is permanently Manhattan bound doesn't have any cite backing it. The link provided states it's reversed during closures of the upper roadway for construction.
https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/manhattan-bridge.shtml
QuoteThe lower roadway travel direction reversed during closures of the south upper roadway
Didn't go by Wiki as GSV shows the traffic pattern going Manhattan Bound.
Anyone have any updates on the van wyck widening project?
Quote from: empirestate on April 11, 2022, 02:45:41 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on April 11, 2022, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 10, 2022, 11:28:17 PM
Why is the Van Wick ALWAYS a mess?
Name a freeway in NYC that isn't.
Rockaway Freeway. :-D
Oh trust me, it can be a mess around 7:30 AM. Right down the block from me is a major intersection for students from several different schools across 2 campuses to cross after getting off the bus. takes 1-3 minutes just to get past on a good morning...
Quote from: empirestate on May 09, 2022, 08:45:12 PM
Quote from: Declan127 on May 09, 2022, 08:07:48 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 10, 2022, 11:28:17 PM
[...]ALWAYS[...]
[...]around 7:30 AM[...]
So...Rockaway Freeway, then? :-D
Thanks, I didn't read the ALWAYS, yes, Rockaway Freeway.
Quote from: cockroachking on April 11, 2022, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 10, 2022, 11:28:17 PM
Why is the Van Wick ALWAYS a mess?
Name a freeway in NYC that isn't.
Nothing is like the Van Wick at all hours of the week. I don't get it.
Quote from: bluecountry on May 20, 2022, 02:38:12 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on April 11, 2022, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 10, 2022, 11:28:17 PM
Why is the Van Wick ALWAYS a mess?
Name a freeway in NYC that isn't.
Nothing is like the Van Wick at all hours of the week. I don't get it.
simple. Van wyck is too narrow to handle the amount of traffic it gets from the Belt to the Grand Central.
What's the stated logic for the Port Authority running one-way tolls now that there's no impact on traffic to bidirectional open-road tolling? Is the PA really too parsimonious to put up a second gantry at its crossings, or is there more to it?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 03, 2022, 11:49:57 PM
What's the stated logic for the Port Authority running one-way tolls now that there's no impact on traffic to bidirectional open-road tolling? Is the PA really too parsimonious to put up a second gantry at its crossings, or is there more to it?
I mean... their existing tolls are one way. So they are replacing existing tolls in kind. They can choose whether and when to go to two-way tolling and perhaps there are political issues there, perhaps not - but it's up to them not you.
Quote from: Alps on June 03, 2022, 11:54:04 PM
I mean... their existing tolls are one way. So they are replacing existing tolls in kind. They can choose whether and when to go to two-way tolling and perhaps there are political issues there, perhaps not - but it's up to them not you.
I'm aware that they have the ability to make that call (and not me) but my question was about whether folks are aware of why they have stayed this particular course. The TBTA went to two-way tolling when it became practical, I'm curious if anyone has insight into why the two agencies have taken different approaches.
Every crossing on the Hudson River up to Catskill is tolled going eastbound. It's not like you can avoid paying the toll. The situation with TBTA is different because there are untolled crossings going into Manhattan and there is some potential for shunpiking.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on June 04, 2022, 07:32:51 PM
Every crossing on the Hudson River up to Catskill is tolled going eastbound. It's not like you can avoid paying the toll. The situation with TBTA is different because there are untolled crossings going into Manhattan and there is some potential for shunpiking.
Yeah, the Verrazzano went back to two-way because traffic was shunpiking it through Manhattan. The other MTA crossings never were one-way so there was nothing to change.
The VNB went bidirectional to match the other TBTA crossings. As mentioned previously, people were shunpiking through Manhattan WB and across Staten Island EB to avoid paying TBTA tolls. This will theoretically balance traffic and make it so the only way to shunpike in either direction is via surface roads.
The Hudson River crossings won't go bidirectional unless every crossing north to Catskill goes bidirectional (Castleton is already bidirectional, but this is tacked onto the Thruway toll structure). Even then, it would be dumb to go bidirectional because it would just encourage WB traffic to detour up to Tappan Zee or Bear Mountain where the toll is less. As it is, a lot of EB traffic uses one of those bridges to avoid Port Authority tolls.
Quote from: cl94 on June 05, 2022, 12:16:00 PM
The VNB went bidirectional to match the other TBTA crossings. As mentioned previously, people were shunpiking through Manhattan WB and across Staten Island EB to avoid paying TBTA tolls. This will theoretically balance traffic and make it so the only way to shunpike in either direction is via surface roads.
The Hudson River crossings won't go bidirectional unless every crossing north to Catskill goes bidirectional (Castleton is already bidirectional, but this is tacked onto the Thruway toll structure). Even then, it would be dumb to go bidirectional because it would just encourage WB traffic to detour up to Tappan Zee or Bear Mountain where the toll is less. As it is, a lot of EB traffic uses one of those bridges to avoid Port Authority tolls.
Given how congested the Cross-Bronx always is in that direction, such might actually be desirable, but two things would need to happen to prevent other roads from becoming more congested as a result: the Thruway would need to be widened between exits 11 and 14A (maybe even all the way to 15 depending on how many trucks divert), and the Bridge Authority would need to permit three lanes of travel at all times on the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge westbound.
Frankly, it should be illegal for NYS to toll every Hudson River bridge south of Rensselaer.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 05, 2022, 07:33:49 PM
Frankly, it should be illegal for NYS to toll every Hudson River bridge south of Rensselaer.
please file a lawsuit and let us know how it goes
1. Was I-78 supposed to use the Williamsburg Bridge originally, and spur to the Brooklyn bridge? Those could have been used by the interstate system?
2. Given the way NYC interstates ultimately were built, wouldn't it be more accurate for the numbers to be:
A. I-278 = I-395 to I-478 which...
B. I-478 = I-395
C. I-278 from I-478 to the GCP = I-487
D. I-278 from the GCP to the Deegan Interchange = I-87
E. I-278 from the Deegan to Bruckner = I-687
F. I-295 = I-795
G. I-678= I-595
Yes, Interstate 78 was supposed to use the Williamsburg Bridge to exit Manhattan, and Interstate 478 was to have been the designation for the spur to The Manhattan Bridge, not the Brooklyn Bridge.
With the cancelation of Interstate 78 through New York City in 1971, the 478 designation was moved to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (now the Hugh L. Carey Tunnel). The 478 designation was to have gone further north as part of the "Westway" proposal, which would have reconstructed the pre-existing West Side Highway to Interstate Standards. When this proposal died in 1985 due to intense opposition and lawsuits, the 478 designation was truncated to its present northern terminus.
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2022, 07:50:35 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 05, 2022, 07:33:49 PM
Frankly, it should be illegal for NYS to toll every Hudson River bridge south of Rensselaer.
please file a lawsuit and let us know how it goes
Hey Robbie...
... *including* the GWB, Lincoln, Holland, and VNB (which spans the Narrows)?
How about the Staten Island crossings to NJ?
Please let us know how you plan to fund maintenance for those bridges then.
https://nj1015.com/major-toll-changes-for-george-washington-bridge-drivers-coming-from-nj/
Cashless tolling on the George Washington Bridge (GWB) from NJ to NY will begin on July 10th (Sunday).
The Lincoln Tunnel from NJ to NY will switch to cashless tolling at the end of 2022.
There was a story in Newsweek about crumbling infrastructure in New York City: https://www.newsweek.com/crumbling-infrastructure-new-york-city-will-cost-lives-if-gone-unfixed-opinion-1714094. Let me know what you all think. Personally, I am surprised they did not mention the deteriorating double-decked section of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in Brooklyn Heights.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 10, 2022, 01:23:21 PM
There was a story in Newsweek about crumbling infrastructure in New York City: https://www.newsweek.com/crumbling-infrastructure-new-york-city-will-cost-lives-if-gone-unfixed-opinion-1714094. Let me know what you all think. Personally, I am surprised they did not mention the deteriorating double-decked section of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in Brooklyn Heights.
This could be about Brooklyn Heights being an upscale, mostly white neighborhood, which doesn't fit the prevailing media narrative. (To be fair, the problems there are caused by NIMBYism on the part of residents in the neighborhood, not neglect by the city.)
New York Times : The B.Q.E. Is Crumbling. There's Still No Plan to Fix It. (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/nyregion/brooklyn-queens-expressway-construction-plan.html)
Within the next couple of months we will hopefully be hearing a lot about the BQE's triple cantilever structure.
I believe the plan is to let it collapse, then maybe something will be done (doubtful). Personally, I'd put the BQE underground in a tunnel between the Prospect Expressway and the Tillary Street interchange, and then remove the existing BQE between those two points. Yes, I know how expensive building tunnels are, among other factors, but I see that as preferable to letting it collapse, and potentially injuring and/or killing people.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2022, 11:47:21 AM
I believe the plan is to let it collapse, then maybe something will be done (doubtful). Personally, I'd put the BQE underground in a tunnel between the Prospect Expressway and the Tillary Street interchange, and then remove the existing BQE between those two points. Yes, I know how expensive building tunnels are, among other factors, but I see that as preferable to letting it collapse, and potentially injuring and/or killing people.
I agree, send the tunnel down 3rd Ave, except I would have it end further east at the bend to Park Ave.
I hope it's rebuilt as it's current form. It's such a cool structure. I hope to drive it before it collapses or is closed.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 15, 2022, 04:24:13 PM
I hope it's rebuilt as it's current form. It's such a cool structure. I hope to drive it before it collapses or is closed.
It's already restricted by a lane in each direction. I find it fascinating too. I drove it Sunday morning and by 9am it was congested.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51728829080_2c4eacdfed.jpg)
Can anybody copy and paste the NYT article? It asks to create an account and I don't read it that much to create one. lol
^^^^
QuoteThe Brooklyn-Queens Expressway is slowly crumbling from the road salt and moisture that has weakened its concrete-and-steel foundation, and from all the overweight trucks that it was never designed to carry.
But six years after New York City officials sounded the alarm over the B.Q.E., there is still no consensus about what to do with this vital but outdated highway from the 1940s, which carries 129,000 vehicles a day.
At least a half-dozen plans have been floated, fractious public meetings and rallies have been held and a mayoral panel of experts worked for more than a year to come up with more options.
"It's been a lot of effort just trying not to make things worse, but we haven't been able to make it better," said Jake Brooks, 47, a law professor, whose apartment building sits beside the B.Q.E. and shakes from the vibrations of cars and trucks hitting potholes and bumps.
Now, the saga of the B.Q.E. is taking another turn as Mayor Eric Adams aims to start construction within five years on a yet-to-be-developed plan to fix the highway. That upends a proposal made in 2021 by Mr. Adams's predecessor, Bill de Blasio, to temporarily shore up the highway for 20 years at a cost of more than $500 million to give the city more time to work out a permanent solution.
"Our moment is right now," Mr. Adams said in a statement. "I will not wait decades and needlessly spend hundreds of millions of additional taxpayer dollars when we can and must start rebuilding this vital transportation artery today."
Fast-tracking the project, the mayor added, will allow the city to potentially tap into billions in new federal infrastructure funds that were unlocked by the Biden administration and use them to help pay for one of the city's most expensive transportation projects. Under federal legislation passed last year, cities can apply for grants each year until 2026.
"We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to access the federal funding necessary to reimagine and rebuild the B.Q.E. that a post-pandemic economy and city demand, and we are seizing it," Mr. Adams said.
The mayor – who has a closer working relationship with Gov. Kathy Hochul than Mr. de Blasio did with former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo – is also in "active discussions" with state officials about overhauling the entire highway, which runs about 18 miles, instead of focusing on just the 1.5-mile section that the city controls, city officials said.
But some elected officials, community leaders and residents have questioned whether the city really can implement a new plan in just five years and have expressed concerns about cutting back on extensive repairs to shore up the existing structure in the meantime.
"There are no easy solutions; if there were, we would have done it many years ago," said Brooklyn city councilman Lincoln Restler, who has criticized the Adams administration for not aggressively carrying out repairs. "This has been kicked down the road because it is so hard."
Hank Gutman, a former transportation commissioner under Mr. de Blasio who was a member of the B.Q.E. panel, said it was "wishful thinking" to believe a new plan could be adopted, approved and built before the structure becomes unsafe. "They have run out of time and options without employing the measures that we announced and adopted last year," he said.
The B.Q.E. was built in sections between 1944 and 1948 during the era of Robert Moses, the influential planner who expanded the city's roadways. Long known for narrow lanes and potholes, the highway also has a cherished feature: a pedestrian promenade in Brooklyn Heights with sweeping views of the Manhattan skyline that is suspended over traffic by an unusual triple cantilever structure.
The roadway is supported by steel rebars inside concrete. They are corroding from road salt that seeped in through cracks, which have widened from freezing and thawing and moisture.
Sign up for the New York Today Newsletter Each morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining, style and more.
In 2016, city officials announced they would rehabilitate the 1.5-mile section between Atlantic Avenue and Sands Street in Brooklyn, warning that if nothing was done, they would have to restrict trucks by 2026 to reduce the weight on the highway.
The B.Q.E. panel later concluded the highway was deteriorating even faster, in part because of all the trucks exceeding the 40-ton federal weight limit. At the panel's urging, two of the six lanes were eliminated last August, which has reduced vehicle traffic.
In 2018, city officials presented two options to rebuild the highway, which were rejected by critics, including Mr. Adams, then the Brooklyn borough president. One plan called for closing the Brooklyn Heights promenade for up to six years and erecting a temporary highway over it to redirect traffic while work occurred below.
Many of these critics envisioned a city with fewer cars and saw the B.Q.E. overhaul as an opportunity to do something about the worsening traffic that has choked neighborhoods with gridlock and pollution and made streets more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
Counterproposals were floated. The City Council weighed in with an $11 billion plan to tear down the highway and replace it with a three-mile-long tunnel. Scott Stringer, the former city comptroller, proposed limiting part of the highway to trucks and converting another part into a two-mile-long park.
There will be no consensus on the B.Q.E., said Samuel I. Schwartz, a transportation engineer who has worked on the highway. He recommended that Mr. Adams and Ms. Hochul just set a deadline to come up with a new plan – and then move ahead with it over almost certain opposition.
"The city and state have to be together on this," he said. "If they're willing to commit to a decision one year from now, then it's a good plan."
Hazel Crampton-Hays, a spokeswoman for the governor, said, "The state is ready to support the city on the rehabilitation project, including by securing federal infrastructure funding."
City officials said they will continue making necessary highway repairs, including some laid out in Mr. de Blasio's 20-year plan. They have set aside $100 million for a dedicated contractor to make repairs identified by regular inspections. Sensors were also installed on the cantilever last year to monitor its vibrations and movements.
Next year, the city will begin rebuilding parts of two deteriorating bridge sections near Grace Court and Clark Street in Brooklyn, which will allow restrictions on trucks to be delayed until 2028. An automated ticketing system to enforce truck weight limits is to go into operation early next year.
Because Mr. Adams wants to initiate a more permanent fix to the B.Q.E. within five years and is committed to current expressway repairs, city officials said that longer-term repairs, like extensive work on bridge decks and joints, will no longer be necessary.
But in recent months, many community leaders and residents have grown increasingly frustrated and concerned over what they see as the city's lack of transparency and urgency about the expressway.
Pia Scala-Zankel, a writer whose family's brownstone in Brooklyn Heights overlooks a section of the expressway, said that she has not seen any repairs being made below her home over the past year. She has repeatedly asked the city transportation agency for an update on the repairs, but has heard nothing. "It's like a slap in the face," she said.
Mr. Restler, the city councilman, said that any B.Q.E. plan would require "a meaningful degree of community consensus," given the complex governmental approvals and environmental reviews required. "No plan can be shoved down our throats by City Hall or anyone else," he said.
Administration officials said they have been taking time to review the B.Q.E. project and will commence public meetings this month to work with the community on a new expedited plan.
Lara Birnback, the executive director of the Brooklyn Heights Association, a leading neighborhood voice, said that local residents and drivers would welcome a plan sooner rather than later, though she noted, "There are so many caveats and ifs there – all of the pieces would have to line up in the right way for that to be feasible."
She added that many in the community hope the city will do more than simply patch up the aging highway.
"We've moved beyond that," she said. "People would be upset not to see something more transformative, more green and more 21st century."
- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/nyregion/brooklyn-queens-expressway-construction-plan.html
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 15, 2022, 06:27:51 PM
^^^^
QuoteThe Brooklyn-Queens Expressway is slowly crumbling from the road salt and moisture that has weakened its concrete-and-steel foundation, and from all the overweight trucks that it was never designed to carry.
But six years after New York City officials sounded the alarm over the B.Q.E., there is still no consensus about what to do with this vital but outdated highway from the 1940s, which carries 129,000 vehicles a day.
At least a half-dozen plans have been floated, fractious public meetings and rallies have been held and a mayoral panel of experts worked for more than a year to come up with more options.
"It's been a lot of effort just trying not to make things worse, but we haven't been able to make it better," said Jake Brooks, 47, a law professor, whose apartment building sits beside the B.Q.E. and shakes from the vibrations of cars and trucks hitting potholes and bumps.
Now, the saga of the B.Q.E. is taking another turn as Mayor Eric Adams aims to start construction within five years on a yet-to-be-developed plan to fix the highway. That upends a proposal made in 2021 by Mr. Adams's predecessor, Bill de Blasio, to temporarily shore up the highway for 20 years at a cost of more than $500 million to give the city more time to work out a permanent solution.
"Our moment is right now," Mr. Adams said in a statement. "I will not wait decades and needlessly spend hundreds of millions of additional taxpayer dollars when we can and must start rebuilding this vital transportation artery today."
Fast-tracking the project, the mayor added, will allow the city to potentially tap into billions in new federal infrastructure funds that were unlocked by the Biden administration and use them to help pay for one of the city's most expensive transportation projects. Under federal legislation passed last year, cities can apply for grants each year until 2026.
"We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to access the federal funding necessary to reimagine and rebuild the B.Q.E. that a post-pandemic economy and city demand, and we are seizing it," Mr. Adams said.
The mayor – who has a closer working relationship with Gov. Kathy Hochul than Mr. de Blasio did with former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo – is also in "active discussions" with state officials about overhauling the entire highway, which runs about 18 miles, instead of focusing on just the 1.5-mile section that the city controls, city officials said.
But some elected officials, community leaders and residents have questioned whether the city really can implement a new plan in just five years and have expressed concerns about cutting back on extensive repairs to shore up the existing structure in the meantime.
"There are no easy solutions; if there were, we would have done it many years ago," said Brooklyn city councilman Lincoln Restler, who has criticized the Adams administration for not aggressively carrying out repairs. "This has been kicked down the road because it is so hard."
Hank Gutman, a former transportation commissioner under Mr. de Blasio who was a member of the B.Q.E. panel, said it was "wishful thinking" to believe a new plan could be adopted, approved and built before the structure becomes unsafe. "They have run out of time and options without employing the measures that we announced and adopted last year," he said.
The B.Q.E. was built in sections between 1944 and 1948 during the era of Robert Moses, the influential planner who expanded the city's roadways. Long known for narrow lanes and potholes, the highway also has a cherished feature: a pedestrian promenade in Brooklyn Heights with sweeping views of the Manhattan skyline that is suspended over traffic by an unusual triple cantilever structure.
The roadway is supported by steel rebars inside concrete. They are corroding from road salt that seeped in through cracks, which have widened from freezing and thawing and moisture.
Sign up for the New York Today Newsletter Each morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining, style and more.
In 2016, city officials announced they would rehabilitate the 1.5-mile section between Atlantic Avenue and Sands Street in Brooklyn, warning that if nothing was done, they would have to restrict trucks by 2026 to reduce the weight on the highway.
The B.Q.E. panel later concluded the highway was deteriorating even faster, in part because of all the trucks exceeding the 40-ton federal weight limit. At the panel's urging, two of the six lanes were eliminated last August, which has reduced vehicle traffic.
In 2018, city officials presented two options to rebuild the highway, which were rejected by critics, including Mr. Adams, then the Brooklyn borough president. One plan called for closing the Brooklyn Heights promenade for up to six years and erecting a temporary highway over it to redirect traffic while work occurred below.
Many of these critics envisioned a city with fewer cars and saw the B.Q.E. overhaul as an opportunity to do something about the worsening traffic that has choked neighborhoods with gridlock and pollution and made streets more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
Counterproposals were floated. The City Council weighed in with an $11 billion plan to tear down the highway and replace it with a three-mile-long tunnel. Scott Stringer, the former city comptroller, proposed limiting part of the highway to trucks and converting another part into a two-mile-long park.
There will be no consensus on the B.Q.E., said Samuel I. Schwartz, a transportation engineer who has worked on the highway. He recommended that Mr. Adams and Ms. Hochul just set a deadline to come up with a new plan – and then move ahead with it over almost certain opposition.
"The city and state have to be together on this," he said. "If they're willing to commit to a decision one year from now, then it's a good plan."
Hazel Crampton-Hays, a spokeswoman for the governor, said, "The state is ready to support the city on the rehabilitation project, including by securing federal infrastructure funding."
City officials said they will continue making necessary highway repairs, including some laid out in Mr. de Blasio's 20-year plan. They have set aside $100 million for a dedicated contractor to make repairs identified by regular inspections. Sensors were also installed on the cantilever last year to monitor its vibrations and movements.
Next year, the city will begin rebuilding parts of two deteriorating bridge sections near Grace Court and Clark Street in Brooklyn, which will allow restrictions on trucks to be delayed until 2028. An automated ticketing system to enforce truck weight limits is to go into operation early next year.
Because Mr. Adams wants to initiate a more permanent fix to the B.Q.E. within five years and is committed to current expressway repairs, city officials said that longer-term repairs, like extensive work on bridge decks and joints, will no longer be necessary.
But in recent months, many community leaders and residents have grown increasingly frustrated and concerned over what they see as the city's lack of transparency and urgency about the expressway.
Pia Scala-Zankel, a writer whose family's brownstone in Brooklyn Heights overlooks a section of the expressway, said that she has not seen any repairs being made below her home over the past year. She has repeatedly asked the city transportation agency for an update on the repairs, but has heard nothing. "It's like a slap in the face," she said.
Mr. Restler, the city councilman, said that any B.Q.E. plan would require "a meaningful degree of community consensus," given the complex governmental approvals and environmental reviews required. "No plan can be shoved down our throats by City Hall or anyone else," he said.
Administration officials said they have been taking time to review the B.Q.E. project and will commence public meetings this month to work with the community on a new expedited plan.
Lara Birnback, the executive director of the Brooklyn Heights Association, a leading neighborhood voice, said that local residents and drivers would welcome a plan sooner rather than later, though she noted, "There are so many caveats and ifs there – all of the pieces would have to line up in the right way for that to be feasible."
She added that many in the community hope the city will do more than simply patch up the aging highway.
"We've moved beyond that," she said. "People would be upset not to see something more transformative, more green and more 21st century."
- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/nyregion/brooklyn-queens-expressway-construction-plan.html
Danged if they do, danged if they don't.
Likely (and sadly), a BQE rebuild aint gonna have any serious consideration until it becomes another West Side Highway problem child -‐ either comdemnation/closure of a section of roadway due to inspection, or a serious failure of part of the road.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 06, 2022, 05:55:48 PM
Yes, Interstate 78 was supposed to use the Williamsburg Bridge to exit Manhattan, and Interstate 478 was to have been the designation for the spur to The Manhattan Bridge, not the Brooklyn Bridge.
With the cancelation of Interstate 78 through New York City in 1971, the 478 designation was moved to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (now the Hugh L. Carey Tunnel). The 478 designation was to have gone further north as part of the "Westway" proposal, which would have reconstructed the pre-existing West Side Highway to Interstate Standards. When this proposal died in 1985 due to intense opposition and lawsuits, the 478 designation was truncated to its present northern terminus.
If I-478 was on the Manhattan Bridge then what was the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel originally going to be named?
The designation was NY 27A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn%E2%80%93Battery_Tunnel.
Quote from: bluecountry on June 23, 2022, 06:48:56 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 06, 2022, 05:55:48 PM
Yes, Interstate 78 was supposed to use the Williamsburg Bridge to exit Manhattan, and Interstate 478 was to have been the designation for the spur to The Manhattan Bridge, not the Brooklyn Bridge.
With the cancelation of Interstate 78 through New York City in 1971, the 478 designation was moved to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (now the Hugh L. Carey Tunnel). The 478 designation was to have gone further north as part of the "Westway" proposal, which would have reconstructed the pre-existing West Side Highway to Interstate Standards. When this proposal died in 1985 due to intense opposition and lawsuits, the 478 designation was truncated to its present northern terminus.
If I-478 was on the Manhattan Bridge then what was the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel originally going to be named?
It became an Interstate late in the game, though still when West Side Highway was open all the way down. There was no Interstate designation before then.
That ramp from 95 to the HRD south, any plans to actually pave it? Condition is awful.
Quote from: bluecountry on July 05, 2022, 01:49:16 PM
That ramp from 95 to the HRD south, any plans to actually pave it? Condition is awful.
From my experience, the DOT takes quite a while to pave roads, no matter how important. There was quite a while where the Broad Channel approach to the Cross Bay Bridge and North Conduit Avenue and the Exit 1W ramp from the Van Wyck were both unpaved, and then equally as long unstriped.
Quote from: bluecountry on July 05, 2022, 01:49:16 PM
That ramp from 95 to the HRD south, any plans to actually pave it? Condition is awful.
Nothing has changed since February.
With today's announcement of the death of James Caan, I'm curious, does anyone know if the details of the toll booth are based in any late-1940s Greater New York reality? Like these "˜toll paid' lights, for example.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220708/5c781240c1e78d37654f7bac73de12ed.jpg)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 07, 2022, 08:10:57 PM
With today's announcement of the death of James Caan, I'm curious, does anyone know if the details of the toll booth are based in any late-1940s Greater New York reality? Like these "˜toll paid' lights, for example.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220708/5c781240c1e78d37654f7bac73de12ed.jpg)
This may provide some context:
https://godfather.fandom.com/wiki/Jones_Beach_Causeway
Quote from: cockroachking on July 06, 2022, 12:03:50 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 05, 2022, 01:49:16 PM
That ramp from 95 to the HRD south, any plans to actually pave it? Condition is awful.
Nothing has changed since February.
I do not understand WHY they do not make this a priority...
Quote from: bluecountry on July 19, 2022, 12:26:55 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on July 06, 2022, 12:03:50 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 05, 2022, 01:49:16 PM
That ramp from 95 to the HRD south, any plans to actually pave it? Condition is awful.
Nothing has changed since February.
I do not understand WHY they do not make this a priority...
It costs money, and they are busy with other projects I'm sure, besides the obvious GWB cashless tolling conversion. PANYNJ, like most toll agencies, is not made of money, contrary to popular belief.
Not to mention the traffic ramifications that would result from even a partial closure for work...
Quote from: cockroachking on July 19, 2022, 09:47:56 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 19, 2022, 12:26:55 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on July 06, 2022, 12:03:50 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 05, 2022, 01:49:16 PM
That ramp from 95 to the HRD south, any plans to actually pave it? Condition is awful.
Nothing has changed since February.
I do not understand WHY they do not make this a priority...
It costs money, and they are busy with other projects I'm sure, besides the obvious GWB cashless tolling conversion. PANYNJ, like most toll agencies, is not made of money, contrary to popular belief.
Not to mention the traffic ramifications that would result from even a partial closure for work...
This needs to be a priority, it really sucks.
https://goo.gl/maps/nUDUUbQbgJSQSYDP7
Why does Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn prohibit Trucks?
Considering NY Parkways don't allow semis or delivery trucks due to height of the vehicle not able to fit under bridges, Ocean Parkway is not applicable in this rationale. It has no low height bridges.
It's not even a freeway.
Also is this for real? https://goo.gl/maps/RZQ31HafcX98DCo78
A subway that gives a very short headroom on a freeway.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 12, 2022, 11:22:31 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/nUDUUbQbgJSQSYDP7
Why does Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn prohibit Trucks?
Considering NY Parkways don't allow semis or delivery trucks due to height of the vehicle not able to fit under bridges, Ocean Parkway is not applicable in this rationale. It has no low height bridges.
It's not even a freeway.
Also is this for real? https://goo.gl/maps/RZQ31HafcX98DCo78
A subway that gives a very short headroom on a freeway.
The second thing is for real. Belt Pkwy doesn't allow trucks for a reason. That was also done that way to fit the roadway into that spot without having to get the bridge rebuilt.
Also, in NYC, a Parkway is a Parkway and is restricted to passenger cars only, even if it's not limited access and doesn't have overpasses that are too low. Eastern Parkway (https://goo.gl/maps/X1j46zjiZEo6DdWU9) also has a truck restriction like this, even though there are no overpasses along its length.
I've heard that the parkways (or at least the LOSP upstate) were constructed with thinner pavement since trucks wouldn't be using them, though I'm not sure if that's the case downstate or with the Ocean Parkway in particular.
I like that the ramp from the GCP to the JRP has been separated from the Van Wyck ramp, but why is Union Tpke. also listed as a destination when it could be on a separate sign (similar to Main Street at the same interchange)? "Brooklyn" is definitely more useful here, especially for traffic coming from the airport. Union can be put on a supplementary sign because most traffic going to either of it's endpoints is going to be using the parkways and local traffic can follow that sign.
A conclusion I've reached over the years is no matter how the engineers choose to sign a given location, there are always several other ways it could have been done.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 12, 2022, 11:22:31 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/nUDUUbQbgJSQSYDP7
Why does Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn prohibit Trucks?
Considering NY Parkways don't allow semis or delivery trucks due to height of the vehicle not able to fit under bridges, Ocean Parkway is not applicable in this rationale. It has no low height bridges.
It's not even a freeway.
This is something that quite a lot of people get backwards (understandably): Parkways don't prohibit trucks because they have low bridges; parkways have low bridges because they prohibit trucks.
Also, the parkways were constructed before the expressways were. I doubt there is much that can be done to raise parkway overpasses and underpasses to Interstate Standard heights, in order to allow trucks to safely pass through.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 25, 2022, 02:58:09 PM
Also, the parkways were constructed before the expressways were. I doubt there is much that can be done to raise parkway overpasses and underpasses to Interstate Standard heights, in order to allow trucks to safely pass through.
The "easiest" way for most of them would be to lower the parkway, but they flood enough already, not to mention the cost of regrading the entire cross section of a parkway.
Quote from: empirestate on August 25, 2022, 11:33:06 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 12, 2022, 11:22:31 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/nUDUUbQbgJSQSYDP7
Why does Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn prohibit Trucks?
Considering NY Parkways don't allow semis or delivery trucks due to height of the vehicle not able to fit under bridges, Ocean Parkway is not applicable in this rationale. It has no low height bridges.
It's not even a freeway.
This is something that quite a lot of people get backwards (understandably): Parkways don't prohibit trucks because they have low bridges; parkways have low bridges because they prohibit trucks.
That's the way the legendary Robert Moses and his engineers deliberately planned it. Built the bridges too low so that large trucks could
never use the
recreational Parkways. The only way that will ever change is if all the bridges were torn down and replaced with modern ones with 14 ft. clearance. But it could happen some day........
https://goo.gl/maps/fPmvCUyvz6PBFApVA
I was noticing that at the transition point of the Henry Hudson Parkway to 12th Avenue, the city has a pull through for SB NY 9A, stating the legislative name for 12th Avenue, named after the famous Yankee Clipper.
I though it was odd. considering that his name on paper (and some maps) was not that important enough to warrant the signs to feature it. Not that I have anything against it, but in a way glad that they did that. After all the man is a legend in the MLB and is dead, but remembered solely for. his playing ball and such.
However, not to praise NYCDOT or NYSDOT here, just to state that its really there. Being from the south, I only get to learn about road things from here or GSV, so this is new news for many of you who have seen it for a long time.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 25, 2022, 08:13:14 PM
Quote from: empirestate on August 25, 2022, 11:33:06 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 12, 2022, 11:22:31 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/nUDUUbQbgJSQSYDP7
Why does Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn prohibit Trucks?
Considering NY Parkways don't allow semis or delivery trucks due to height of the vehicle not able to fit under bridges, Ocean Parkway is not applicable in this rationale. It has no low height bridges.
It's not even a freeway.
This is something that quite a lot of people get backwards (understandably): Parkways don't prohibit trucks because they have low bridges; parkways have low bridges because they prohibit trucks.
That's the way the legendary Robert Moses and his engineers deliberately planned it. Built the bridges too low so that large trucks could never use the recreational Parkways. The only way that will ever change is if all the bridges were torn down and replaced with modern ones with 14 ft. clearance. But it could happen some day........
At the rate thing are going in NY, we will probably see 14ft clearance on every parkway bridge around the year 2080 or so if I had to guess. Every parkway bridge replacement the past 10 years (off the top of my head) has had ample clearance, and those old stone bridges last a long time, but not forever.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 30, 2022, 02:10:40 PM
I though it was odd. considering that his name on paper (and some maps) was not that important enough to warrant the signs to feature it. Not that I have anything against it, but in a way glad that they did that. After all the man is a legend in the MLB and is dead, but remembered solely for. his playing ball and such.
However, not to praise NYCDOT or NYSDOT here, just to state that its really there. Being from the south, I only get to learn about road things from here or GSV, so this is new news for many of you who have seen it for a long time.
It's been there since at least 2001, maybe earlier.
I see per GSV a new ramp is being built from the Upper Level GWB to loop around to somewhere departing from the 178th Street exit. Plus the North Sidewalk is being redone over the Palisades Parkway on the NJ side to eliminate ( I'm guessing here) the stairs over the NB parkway as the new crossing seems to zig and zag. I guess the PANYNJ is finally conforming to the ADA.
I hope the stairs on the NY side are being replaced as I walked the bridge in 03 and climbed the stairs on both ends.
One thing I will tell you, NYC expressways, interstates, and parkways SUCK.
Man, I wish they could upgrade.
If the Interstates and Parkways in New York City could be upgraded, I think they would. However, with all the constraints (physical, political, as well as local), any improvements to NYC's road system would be a pipe dream. About the only change you might see is the exit numbers being renumbered from sequential-to-mileage-based, and even that seems far fetched at this point.
Quote from: bluecountry on September 05, 2022, 09:00:55 PM
One thing I will tell you, NYC expressways, interstates, and parkways SUCK.
Man, I wish they could upgrade.
your attitude does
Alps, I think blue country's statement was accurate. LOL
What's with your attitude today?
Quote from: SignBridge on September 06, 2022, 08:12:15 PM
Alps, I think blue country's statement was accurate. LOL
What's with your attitude today?
we have wonderful highways around these parts
I agree! LOL The Brooklyn-Queens Expwy. is my favorite one to drive. Even more than the Cross Bronx Expwy, which is actually a very interesting road re: its construction history and features.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 12, 2022, 11:22:31 PM
Also is this for real? https://goo.gl/maps/RZQ31HafcX98DCo78
A subway that gives a very short headroom on a freeway.
Further east on the Belt, the overpass from the Cross-Island to the SSP is 8 ft 6 in https://goo.gl/maps/mvEzdpYer12LjnE77
That's ridiculous. 8'6" barely clears my Subaru Outback with accessories.
Quote from: seicer on September 07, 2022, 03:37:31 PM
That's ridiculous. 8'6" barely clears my Subaru Outback with accessories.
Passenger cars only.
I believe those posted clearances are at the right-hand edge of the roadway. So at those arch shaped underpasses, the clearance is actually better than what's posted.
It really sucks that NYC highways were built PRE interstate, one wonders how much better the road system would be if it were built 30 years later.
Quote from: bluecountry on September 07, 2022, 09:00:23 PM
It really sucks that NYC highways were built PRE interstate, one wonders how much better the road system would be if it were built 30 years later.
One wonders how much could've been built 30 years later when community opposition and environmental regulation mounted.
Its probably a small miracle as much got built as it did. Well, that and Robert Moses.
For better or worse most of the parkway and expressway network in and around NYC was the product of Robert Moses and his planners right into the 1960's.
SO let me ask, we all know the CBX and other roads were awful for many reasons, most cited is how it destroyed neighborhoods.
I agree, the freeway was a disaster and unfair what it did to people.
That said, in an ideal world, what would have been the solution?
Destroying a neighborhood is bad, the road itself is bad, so instead of doing it the way it was down, what other solutions were there besides no build?
How could the region have added the necessary freeways to connect NJ to NYC to LI to the Hudson Valley to NE?
Just route everything on the Tappan Zee???
Then how do people get to LI?
In an ideal world, what should have been done where an obvious build had to occur but not like this mess?
Quote from: bluecountry on September 21, 2022, 07:09:08 AM
SO let me ask, we all know the CBX and other roads were awful for many reasons, most cited is how it destroyed neighborhoods.
I agree, the freeway was a disaster and unfair what it did to people.
That said, in an ideal world, what would have been the solution?
Destroying a neighborhood is bad, the road itself is bad, so instead of doing it the way it was down, what other solutions were there besides no build?
How could the region have added the necessary freeways to connect NJ to NYC to LI to the Hudson Valley to NE?
Just route everything on the Tappan Zee???
Then how do people get to LI?
In an ideal world, what should have been done where an obvious build had to occur but not like this mess?
tunnels
Tunnels were not a new concept when the CBX came through. It would have to probably be an express tunnel and a lot of exits probably could not occur, but you absolutely could tunnel through the Bronx there. Unfortunately we can't really fix this mess now and have to live with what we got.
Quote from: Alps on September 21, 2022, 08:02:19 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 21, 2022, 07:09:08 AM
SO let me ask, we all know the CBX and other roads were awful for many reasons, most cited is how it destroyed neighborhoods.
I agree, the freeway was a disaster and unfair what it did to people.
That said, in an ideal world, what would have been the solution?
Destroying a neighborhood is bad, the road itself is bad, so instead of doing it the way it was down, what other solutions were there besides no build?
How could the region have added the necessary freeways to connect NJ to NYC to LI to the Hudson Valley to NE?
Just route everything on the Tappan Zee???
Then how do people get to LI?
In an ideal world, what should have been done where an obvious build had to occur but not like this mess?
tunnels
Like the big dig in Boston?
You really think they would have done that, really?
The problem was not so much that the CBX was built, but the cut-throat way it was designed and executed. The route could have been slightly different to have spared at least one neighborhood but that wasn't done because of politics. And the residents who were displaced by the road could and should have been treated much better than they were.
Had those things been done, the CBX might not have the bad reputation that it does today.
Some design features might have been a little different as well, but remember this was almost seventy years ago and the highway was typical of 1950's era design and six-lane highways in the NYC area were the norm at that time. Building it any wider was probably not possible anyway due to space constraints.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 01, 2022, 08:27:06 PM
The problem was not so much that the CBX was built, but the cut-throat way it was designed and executed. The route could have been slightly different to have spared at least one neighborhood but that wasn't done because of politics. And the residents who were displaced by the road could and should have been treated much better than they were.
Had those things been done, the CBX might not have the bad reputation that it does today.
Some design features might have been a little different as well, but remember this was almost seventy years ago and the highway was typical of 1950's era design and six-lane highways in the NYC area were the norm at that time. Building it any wider was probably not possible anyway due to space constraints.
Moses easily could have shifted it south with less destruction but I believe his business associates/friends wanted it where it was placed.
Quote from: bluecountry on October 08, 2022, 07:25:31 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 01, 2022, 08:27:06 PM
The problem was not so much that the CBX was built, but the cut-throat way it was designed and executed. The route could have been slightly different to have spared at least one neighborhood but that wasn't done because of politics. And the residents who were displaced by the road could and should have been treated much better than they were.
Had those things been done, the CBX might not have the bad reputation that it does today.
Some design features might have been a little different as well, but remember this was almost seventy years ago and the highway was typical of 1950's era design and six-lane highways in the NYC area were the norm at that time. Building it any wider was probably not possible anyway due to space constraints.
Moses easily could have shifted it south with less destruction but I believe his business associates/friends wanted it where it was placed.
*citation needed*
Quote from: SignBridge on October 01, 2022, 08:27:06 PM
The problem was not so much that the CBX was built, but the cut-throat way it was designed and executed. The route could have been slightly different to have spared at least one neighborhood but that wasn't done because of politics. And the residents who were displaced by the road could and should have been treated much better than they were.
Had those things been done, the CBX might not have the bad reputation that it does today.
Some design features might have been a little different as well, but remember this was almost seventy years ago and the highway was typical of 1950's era design and six-lane highways in the NYC area were the norm at that time. Building it any wider was probably not possible anyway due to space constraints.
Interesting. I never realized it. NYC has no expressways wider than six lanes. Despite it being the largest city in the US, it don't have the capacity like other cities smaller than it has for roads. Even Atlanta has the super wide I-75 going through it.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 08, 2022, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 01, 2022, 08:27:06 PM
The problem was not so much that the CBX was built, but the cut-throat way it was designed and executed. The route could have been slightly different to have spared at least one neighborhood but that wasn't done because of politics. And the residents who were displaced by the road could and should have been treated much better than they were.
Had those things been done, the CBX might not have the bad reputation that it does today.
Some design features might have been a little different as well, but remember this was almost seventy years ago and the highway was typical of 1950's era design and six-lane highways in the NYC area were the norm at that time. Building it any wider was probably not possible anyway due to space constraints.
Interesting. I never realized it. NYC has no expressways wider than six lanes. Despite it being the largest city in the US, it don't have the capacity like other cities smaller than it has for roads. Even Atlanta has the super wide I-75 going through it.
NYC hasn't ever widened... well, anything, at least nothing that I can think of. The culture is too anti-highway and pro-transit there.
Quote from: famartin on October 08, 2022, 08:56:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 08, 2022, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 01, 2022, 08:27:06 PM
The problem was not so much that the CBX was built, but the cut-throat way it was designed and executed. The route could have been slightly different to have spared at least one neighborhood but that wasn't done because of politics. And the residents who were displaced by the road could and should have been treated much better than they were.
Had those things been done, the CBX might not have the bad reputation that it does today.
Some design features might have been a little different as well, but remember this was almost seventy years ago and the highway was typical of 1950's era design and six-lane highways in the NYC area were the norm at that time. Building it any wider was probably not possible anyway due to space constraints.
Interesting. I never realized it. NYC has no expressways wider than six lanes. Despite it being the largest city in the US, it don't have the capacity like other cities smaller than it has for roads. Even Atlanta has the super wide I-75 going through it.
NYC hasn't ever widened... well, anything, at least nothing that I can think of. The culture is too anti-highway and pro-transit there.
I don't think that's the reason. The ROW takings to widen would be catastrophic.
Quote from: Rothman on October 08, 2022, 09:15:07 PM
Quote from: famartin on October 08, 2022, 08:56:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 08, 2022, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 01, 2022, 08:27:06 PM
The problem was not so much that the CBX was built, but the cut-throat way it was designed and executed. The route could have been slightly different to have spared at least one neighborhood but that wasn't done because of politics. And the residents who were displaced by the road could and should have been treated much better than they were.
Had those things been done, the CBX might not have the bad reputation that it does today.
Some design features might have been a little different as well, but remember this was almost seventy years ago and the highway was typical of 1950's era design and six-lane highways in the NYC area were the norm at that time. Building it any wider was probably not possible anyway due to space constraints.
Interesting. I never realized it. NYC has no expressways wider than six lanes. Despite it being the largest city in the US, it don't have the capacity like other cities smaller than it has for roads. Even Atlanta has the super wide I-75 going through it.
NYC hasn't ever widened... well, anything, at least nothing that I can think of. The culture is too anti-highway and pro-transit there.
I don't think that's the reason. The ROW takings to widen would be catastrophic.
Not catastrophic, but expensive.
There are a few highways in NYC that are wider. Grand Central Parkway in Queens was widened to eight lanes in 1963 from the Brooklyn-Queens Expwy (I-278) to the Kew Gardens Interchange.
And more recently the Staten Island Expwy was widened to include an HOV/Bus Lane in each direction in addition to the original six lanes. This was done by converting the wide median into additional lanes. Not sure if it was originally built in 1964 with that intent, but some NYC area roads were built that way in the Robert Moses era so it's possible.
Also, part of the Bruckner Expwy (I-95) in The Bronx is eight lanes between the Hutchinson River Pkwy and I-695.
NJ is the same with NJ 495. It's at six lanes with hour long waits into the Lincoln Tunnel and could use the removal of the two frontage roads to do it. However, you're not only talking about destroying neighborhoods but blasting through solid rock there too. Very costly on that.
Quote from: bluecountry on October 08, 2022, 07:25:31 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 01, 2022, 08:27:06 PM
The problem was not so much that the CBX was built, but the cut-throat way it was designed and executed. The route could have been slightly different to have spared at least one neighborhood but that wasn't done because of politics. And the residents who were displaced by the road could and should have been treated much better than they were.
Had those things been done, the CBX might not have the bad reputation that it does today.
Some design features might have been a little different as well, but remember this was almost seventy years ago and the highway was typical of 1950's era design and six-lane highways in the NYC area were the norm at that time. Building it any wider was probably not possible anyway due to space constraints.
Moses easily could have shifted it south with less destruction but I believe his business associates/friends wanted it where it was placed.
No, he did. He said "my way or the highway".
Quote from: Rothman on October 08, 2022, 08:23:09 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 08, 2022, 07:25:31 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 01, 2022, 08:27:06 PM
The problem was not so much that the CBX was built, but the cut-throat way it was designed and executed. The route could have been slightly different to have spared at least one neighborhood but that wasn't done because of politics. And the residents who were displaced by the road could and should have been treated much better than they were.
Had those things been done, the CBX might not have the bad reputation that it does today.
Some design features might have been a little different as well, but remember this was almost seventy years ago and the highway was typical of 1950's era design and six-lane highways in the NYC area were the norm at that time. Building it any wider was probably not possible anyway due to space constraints.
Moses easily could have shifted it south with less destruction but I believe his business associates/friends wanted it where it was placed.
*citation needed*
The chapter "One Mile" in The Power Broker. The old Third Avenue Bus Company, which had its depot where Robert Moses originally wanted to place the CBX, had lots of political clout and successfully pressured him to move it north of their depot into the midst of the apartment buildings of East Tremont, inhabited by people with no political clout.
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 12, 2022, 01:35:53 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 08, 2022, 08:23:09 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 08, 2022, 07:25:31 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 01, 2022, 08:27:06 PM
The problem was not so much that the CBX was built, but the cut-throat way it was designed and executed. The route could have been slightly different to have spared at least one neighborhood but that wasn't done because of politics. And the residents who were displaced by the road could and should have been treated much better than they were.
Had those things been done, the CBX might not have the bad reputation that it does today.
Some design features might have been a little different as well, but remember this was almost seventy years ago and the highway was typical of 1950's era design and six-lane highways in the NYC area were the norm at that time. Building it any wider was probably not possible anyway due to space constraints.
Moses easily could have shifted it south with less destruction but I believe his business associates/friends wanted it where it was placed.
*citation needed*
The chapter "One Mile" in The Power Broker. The old Third Avenue Bus Company, which had its depot where Robert Moses originally wanted to place the CBX, had lots of political clout and successfully pressured him to move it north of their depot into the midst of the apartment buildings of East Tremont, inhabited by people with no political clout.
I agree with The Power Broker's account, which is not what was described by bluecountry.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 08, 2022, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 01, 2022, 08:27:06 PM
The problem was not so much that the CBX was built, but the cut-throat way it was designed and executed. The route could have been slightly different to have spared at least one neighborhood but that wasn't done because of politics. And the residents who were displaced by the road could and should have been treated much better than they were.
Had those things been done, the CBX might not have the bad reputation that it does today.
Some design features might have been a little different as well, but remember this was almost seventy years ago and the highway was typical of 1950's era design and six-lane highways in the NYC area were the norm at that time. Building it any wider was probably not possible anyway due to space constraints.
Interesting. I never realized it. NYC has no expressways wider than six lanes. Despite it being the largest city in the US, it don't have the capacity like other cities smaller than it has for roads. Even Atlanta has the super wide I-75 going through it.
the Grand Central has 8 in some sections, the Triboro bridge is 8, Trans-Manhattan Expressway I-95 from the GWB to the Washington Heights bridge is 8, so is the Whitestone Expressway part of I-678 from the Cross Island to the really long Exit 13 ramps. Bruckner is 8 from 695 to Pelham Parkway.
Atlanta also has no commuter rail to speak of and a metro system that barely covers the city. They were lucky that they had a lot of land to add in so many lanes. New York City is constrained due to a majority of it being on islands.
https://goo.gl/maps/hJA6G5QEzcAQqXM66
I noticed here that over Dyckman Street, that both carriageways of NY 9A use different designed bridges to cross it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/nyregion/car-ban-14th-street-manhattan.html
This is crazy. Closing a 21,000 a day ADT roadway.
Yes it's been two years, but still a bad move on NYCDOTs part.
https://goo.gl/maps/PT9VcxNQwiCurFny5 Nassau County style mast arms in the middle of Queens by LaGuardia, (I know there's the sets on Jericho Tpke in Floral Park where there's NYCDOT streetlights but Nassau style mast arms since its on the border.)
Quote from: mariethefoxy on December 11, 2022, 03:19:24 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/PT9VcxNQwiCurFny5 Nassau County style mast arms in the middle of Queens by LaGuardia, (I know there's the sets on Jericho Tpke in Floral Park where there's NYCDOT streetlights but Nassau style mast arms since its on the border.)
Is that a
new installation? Is NYC maybe using those mast arms for new signals where they didn't exist before? And in the photo, is that the old Bulova Watch Co. building on the right?
Looks to be 2017-18 from the google street view. New installs have popped up elsewhere in the city and they use the regular nyc style mastarms. It's extremely strange, out there with the span wire lights in Staten Island by the end of Korea vets parkway
Quote from: mariethefoxy on December 11, 2022, 03:19:24 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/PT9VcxNQwiCurFny5 Nassau County style mast arms in the middle of Queens by LaGuardia, (I know there's the sets on Jericho Tpke in Floral Park where there's NYCDOT streetlights but Nassau style mast arms since its on the border.)
Would not be opposed to NYC finally retiring the guy-wire mast arms in favor of something like this and also finally moving to full on 12 inch signal heads for every signal. It's wild to me that they're still using 8 inch ones in a lot of installs even in 2022.
NYC's not the only ones still using 8-inch signals. Outside the City on Long Island, Nassau County DPW is still installing a mix of 8 and 12 inch signals.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 08, 2022, 08:33:33 PM
Interesting. I never realized it. NYC has no expressways wider than six lanes. Despite it being the largest city in the US, it don't have the capacity like other cities smaller than it has for roads. Even Atlanta has the super wide I-75 going through it.
What the NYC metro does have in many cases though is a lot of freeways spaced relatively close together, even if they aren't that wide individually. If you look at lane miles per capita (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hm72.cfm) across the metro area, there are quite a few places with fewer than NYC does (0.396) including notably Miami (0.388), Tampa-St. Pete (0.380), New Orleans (0.371), Chicago (0.332), and Indio/Other Desert Cities (0.203).
Cities at the top of the list meanwhile tend to be either relatively small cities that happen to be located at major freeway junctions (e.g.Cheyenne at 1.873) or cities that have lost population since the 1950s and have a freeway network that was built for more people than are there now (e.g. St Louis at 1.070).
Philly to me seems like it's got very few freeways and lanes for the size of the city, how does it compare to NYC in that metric?
Does anyone have any detailed plans/drawings for Westway? Im curious to see how it would have connected to the brooklyn battery tunnel.
How close is Manhattan south of Central Park to the activation of congestion pricing? (Reading another article [about the decline of transit ridership] that mentioned NYC congestion pricing spurred me to ask)
Drove the Bruckner West to the Deegan North. The lane drops are atrocious. The ramp connector starts as two and drops mid curve.
I was hoping they'd make it a full two lane ramp.
Then they're doing road work just before the Cross Bronx Expwy exit. One of the lanes detours to the service road. It's brutal. I know they have to replace it but my god.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 19, 2023, 10:52:21 PM
Drove the Bruckner West to the Deegan North. The lane drops are atrocious. The ramp connector starts as two and drops mid curve.
I was hoping they'd make it a full two lane ramp.
Then they're doing road work just before the Cross Bronx Expwy exit. One of the lanes detours to the service road. It's brutal. I know they have to replace it but my god.
Tell me about it, and the drop down to 2 lanes on I-278 in Brooklyn, that just ruined the traffic. It's taken me over a half hour to traverse that stretch, thankfully I don't have to drive that stretch too often.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 19, 2023, 10:52:21 PM
Drove the Bruckner West to the Deegan North. The lane drops are atrocious. The ramp connector starts as two and drops mid curve.
I was hoping they'd make it a full two lane ramp.
Then they're doing road work just before the Cross Bronx Expwy exit. One of the lanes detours to the service road. It's brutal. I know they have to replace it but my god.
Do you mean Sedgwick Ave.?
I guess it was only a matter of time before this came up.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/26/highways-to-hell-now-mayor-adams-needs-to-advocate-for-speed-cameras-on-expressways/
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2023, 09:47:51 PM
I guess it was only a matter of time before this came up.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/26/highways-to-hell-now-mayor-adams-needs-to-advocate-for-speed-cameras-on-expressways/
Well there are some benefits to that. Camera tickets are cheaper and don't carry points on your license. The negative is that you could never get away with low level speeding, ever, if they were always on, or the fact that you would always get a ticket for 11 or 12 over whereas a cop may decide conditions are good and not give you a ticket until 70+ (or 20 over on NYC highways). So whereas the fine might be the same whether you were going 12 over or 40 over, you would also always be guaranteed to get a ticket in the mail for 12 over. I never had any speeding tickets yet but did get a warning once for going 73 mph on the belt parkway near the Nassau County line, doubt you could get lucky with a speed camera that way.
I obviously am very against the speeding cameras, but NYC is bringing it upon themselves by the lack of reckless driving enforcement. Roads like the Belt Parkway are terrifying with cars speeding and weaving between lanes. People going a few miles over shouldn't be punished but people don't see anything being done about the serious reckless driving problem so this is one of the ways to counter it.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on January 27, 2023, 10:40:52 PM
I obviously am very against the speeding cameras, but NYC is bringing it upon themselves by the lack of reckless driving enforcement. Roads like the Belt Parkway are terrifying with cars speeding and weaving between lanes. People going a few miles over shouldn't be punished but people don't see anything being done about the serious reckless driving problem so this is one of the ways to counter it.
Most of the time it would be a miracle if you could actually go the speed limit on that road. If it's open I'll usually just go 60-70 mph, but never weave between lanes. The real issue with that road is the potholes that will eat your car regardless of how fast you're going. West side highway speed cameras are a revenue scam though. I never got a camera ticket of any sort in my life, but when they lowered the limit from 35 to 30, within the same year I got a fine in the mail for hitting 43 mph, if it was still 35 it probably wouldn't have triggered at 40 LOL
NYC freeway speed limits are also quite low. While there are a lot of busy/dense sections where 50 or even lower is appropriate, there's also stuff like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5612114,-74.1985037,3a,31.6y,43.23h,87.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smy7YUPr9LdnwNCIF0u1svA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), which looks like a typical rural freeway aside from the lights and the NYC-spec speed limit sign. The bridges are also stuck at 40, which feels like crawling.
Honestly, I'd love to be able to go exactly the speed limit, but there are way too many freeways in this part of the country (and adjacent parts of Canada) with artificially low limits to do so.
I think there's some city statute that forbids speed limits higher than 50 mph. That's why on roads like I-495, which is mostly straight in queens, goes up to 55 mph at exit 33 right where it becomes curvier, because you left NYC! That's why they should base speed limits off of road design and not geographical location. I don't even agree with setting based on traffic levels, because then you are punishing people for going faster in lighter traffic, which makes no sense. During the peak of the pandemic in 2020, NYC roads were just as empty as eastern Long Island, and one could easily go 75-80 mph just like in long island.
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2023, 03:52:24 PM
NYC freeway speed limits are also quite low. While there are a lot of busy/dense sections where 50 or even lower is appropriate, there's also stuff like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5612114,-74.1985037,3a,31.6y,43.23h,87.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smy7YUPr9LdnwNCIF0u1svA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), which looks like a typical rural freeway aside from the lights and the NYC-spec speed limit sign. The bridges are also stuck at 40, which feels like crawling.
Honestly, I'd love to be able to go exactly the speed limit, but there are way too many freeways in this part of the country (and adjacent parts of Canada) with artificially low limits to do so.
In that photo of Staten Island's West Shore Expwy, notice the one good thing about all NYC highways: excellent street lighting.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on January 28, 2023, 06:07:05 PM
I think there's some city statute that forbids speed limits higher than 50 mph. That's why on roads like I-495, which is mostly straight in queens, goes up to 55 mph at exit 33 right where it becomes curvier, because you left NYC! That's why they should base speed limits off of road design and not geographical location. I don't even agree with setting based on traffic levels, because then you are punishing people for going faster in lighter traffic, which makes no sense. During the peak of the pandemic in 2020, NYC roads were just as empty as eastern Long Island, and one could easily go 75-80 mph just like in long island.
Most traffic engineers will tell you the correct way to design speed limits is to do a study of actual traffic speeds on the road and set the limit at what is called the
Eighty-fifth percentile speed. That's the average speed of 85% of the traffic on the road. This is the way to do it; an engineering approach, not local government politics or neighborhood hysteria.
Quote from: SignBridge on January 28, 2023, 09:50:35 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on January 28, 2023, 06:07:05 PM
I think there's some city statute that forbids speed limits higher than 50 mph. That's why on roads like I-495, which is mostly straight in queens, goes up to 55 mph at exit 33 right where it becomes curvier, because you left NYC! That's why they should base speed limits off of road design and not geographical location. I don't even agree with setting based on traffic levels, because then you are punishing people for going faster in lighter traffic, which makes no sense. During the peak of the pandemic in 2020, NYC roads were just as empty as eastern Long Island, and one could easily go 75-80 mph just like in long island.
Most traffic engineers will tell you the correct way to design speed limits is to do a study of actual traffic speeds on the road and set the limit at what is called the Eighty-fifth percentile speed. That's the average speed of 85% of the traffic on the road. This is the way to do it; an engineering approach, not local government politics or neighborhood hysteria.
That's only applicable in free flowing conditions. If everyone is already clustering around a certain speed because a speed limit is already in place, that wouldn't be accurate, it's almost circular reasoning. You'd have to have a no speed limit trial on a road and measure the 80th percentile or whatever then. Also in areas where there is already moderate traffic, that would taint the results as well. Free flowing conditions on a road with a temporary no-speed-limit in light traffic conditions would be required for that to work.
In addition to wanting to reduce the speed limit in NYC to 20 (10 for designated school zones, which can be placed most anywhere), Hochul now wants speed cameras on the MTA bridges and tunnels as well.
https://www.silive.com/news/2023/02/budget-proposal-would-allow-speed-cameras-on-mta-crossings-including-verrazzano-narrows-bridge.html
Quote from: ixnay on January 20, 2023, 05:04:30 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 19, 2023, 10:52:21 PM
Drove the Bruckner West to the Deegan North. The lane drops are atrocious. The ramp connector starts as two and drops mid curve.
I was hoping they'd make it a full two lane ramp.
Then they're doing road work just before the Cross Bronx Expwy exit. One of the lanes detours to the service road. It's brutal. I know they have to replace it but my god.
Do you mean Sedgwick Ave.?
Yes, I found this, and an addition of an aux lane which is helpful but the current construction setup is brutal.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2019/2019-07-18
Btw, how are the going to make I-278 3-lanes through the NY-895 interchange? I don't see how it can be done without major disruptions.
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2023, 12:49:48 PM
In addition to wanting to reduce the speed limit in NYC to 20 (10 for designated school zones, which can be placed most anywhere), Hochul now wants speed cameras on the MTA bridges and tunnels as well.
https://www.silive.com/news/2023/02/budget-proposal-would-allow-speed-cameras-on-mta-crossings-including-verrazzano-narrows-bridge.html
I actually don't usually exceed 20 mph while driving on NYC streets, but 10 mph in school zones???
That would be fucking hilarious if I managed to get a ticket because my car's idle speed can exceed that after just turning it on. Speeding without even hitting the gas!
My dad's car hit 17 mph on idle speed once, and it would have kept accelerating if I didn't have to stop for a light. Imagine having to ride the brakes to not get a ticket LOL
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on February 02, 2023, 02:45:06 PM
My dad's car hit 17 mph on idle speed once, and it would have kept accelerating if I didn't have to stop for a light. Imagine having to ride the brakes to not get a ticket LOL
The law in NY does still require you be going 10 over to get a ticket from a camera, so if you have a school zone posted at 10 anything under 20 you're good.
The bridges and tunnels thing is more the obnoxious bit here, since those are quite underposted (the Whitestone Bridge is 40. 40!) and the normal flow of traffic is more than 10 over. Any cameras on those bridges will make bank.
Which is of course exactly the intent - NY is bleeding money thanks to permanent remote work, and throwing more cameras up is a more politically acceptable means of plugging the holes in the budget than raising taxes, at least in NYC. This flies in NYC because the majority of local residents do not own a car and thus are not negatively affected by it in any direct way. It is telling that cameras exist in comparatively few places upstate, where most people drive.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 02, 2023, 11:55:48 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on February 02, 2023, 02:45:06 PM
My dad's car hit 17 mph on idle speed once, and it would have kept accelerating if I didn't have to stop for a light. Imagine having to ride the brakes to not get a ticket LOL
The law in NY does still require you be going 10 over to get a ticket from a camera, so if you have a school zone posted at 10 anything under 20 you're good.
I'm curious if there are any states more strict than this? In Maryland, for example, the grace speed is 12 mph, I believe. I guess we're getting a little OT here, so my apologies.
The idea that speeding fines would fill a hole in NYC's budget caused by people no longer commuting seems unfounded to me, given the size of that hole compared to the paltry size of the expected fines.
Quote from: Rothman on February 03, 2023, 07:19:51 AM
The idea that speeding fines would fill a hole in NYC's budget caused by people no longer commuting seems unfounded to me, given the size of that hole compared to the paltry size of the expected fines.
I think it's more about having an easy "hey look we're doing something" approach to all the people who complain about speeders, red light runners, etc. Which is definitely a problem, don't get me wrong. The main problem is that so many of the scofflaws tend to be the same people who get a parking placard and just park with impunity in bus lanes, in front of hydrants, in parks, etc.
Quote from: Rothman on February 03, 2023, 07:19:51 AM
The idea that speeding fines would fill a hole in NYC's budget caused by people no longer commuting seems unfounded to me, given the size of that hole compared to the paltry size of the expected fines.
I haven't read the budget book verbatim, but I imagine it's just one source for money, not the end all be all holy grail of closing the hole. Kinda like how the state police were just about everywhere looking for speeders when NY's budget was in the toilet during the Great Recession.
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2023, 12:49:48 PM
In addition to wanting to reduce the speed limit in NYC to 20 (10 for designated school zones, which can be placed most anywhere), Hochul now wants speed cameras on the MTA bridges and tunnels as well.
https://www.silive.com/news/2023/02/budget-proposal-would-allow-speed-cameras-on-mta-crossings-including-verrazzano-narrows-bridge.html
Are school zone speed limits in NY enforceable outside school days and times?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 03, 2023, 05:25:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2023, 12:49:48 PM
In addition to wanting to reduce the speed limit in NYC to 20 (10 for designated school zones, which can be placed most anywhere), Hochul now wants speed cameras on the MTA bridges and tunnels as well.
https://www.silive.com/news/2023/02/budget-proposal-would-allow-speed-cameras-on-mta-crossings-including-verrazzano-narrows-bridge.html
Are school zone speed limits in NY enforceable outside school days and times?
Speed cameras run 24/7 and on weekends in NYC now.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on February 03, 2023, 05:41:31 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 03, 2023, 05:25:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2023, 12:49:48 PM
In addition to wanting to reduce the speed limit in NYC to 20 (10 for designated school zones, which can be placed most anywhere), Hochul now wants speed cameras on the MTA bridges and tunnels as well.
https://www.silive.com/news/2023/02/budget-proposal-would-allow-speed-cameras-on-mta-crossings-including-verrazzano-narrows-bridge.html
Are school zone speed limits in NY enforceable outside school days and times?
Speed cameras run 24/7 and on weekends in NYC now.
Right, but are school zone
speed limits in NY enforceable at all times of the day, not just when school is in session?
And I'm confused. If the cameras are in school zones shouldn't they be enforcing only the school zone speed limit?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 03, 2023, 08:28:45 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on February 03, 2023, 05:41:31 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 03, 2023, 05:25:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2023, 12:49:48 PM
In addition to wanting to reduce the speed limit in NYC to 20 (10 for designated school zones, which can be placed most anywhere), Hochul now wants speed cameras on the MTA bridges and tunnels as well.
https://www.silive.com/news/2023/02/budget-proposal-would-allow-speed-cameras-on-mta-crossings-including-verrazzano-narrows-bridge.html
Are school zone speed limits in NY enforceable outside school days and times?
Speed cameras run 24/7 and on weekends in NYC now.
Right, but are school zone speed limits in NY enforceable at all times of the day, not just when school is in session?
And I'm confused. If the cameras are in school zones shouldn't they be enforcing only the school zone speed limit?
Chapter 71, Title 7, Article 30, Section 1180 of the Consolidated Laws of New York states the following:
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (g) of this section, whenever
maximum school speed limits have been established on a highway adjacent
to a school as authorized in section sixteen hundred twenty, sixteen
hundred twenty-two, sixteen hundred thirty, sixteen hundred forty-three
or sixteen hundred sixty-two-a, no person shall drive in excess of such
maximum school speed limits during:
(1) school days at times indicated on the school zone speed limit
sign, provided, however, that such times shall be between the hours of
seven o'clock A.M. and six o'clock P.M. or alternative times within such
hours;
Now New York City often gets carve outs and whatnot, so that might not apply, but it's a start.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 03, 2023, 08:28:45 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on February 03, 2023, 05:41:31 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 03, 2023, 05:25:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2023, 12:49:48 PM
In addition to wanting to reduce the speed limit in NYC to 20 (10 for designated school zones, which can be placed most anywhere), Hochul now wants speed cameras on the MTA bridges and tunnels as well.
https://www.silive.com/news/2023/02/budget-proposal-would-allow-speed-cameras-on-mta-crossings-including-verrazzano-narrows-bridge.html
Are school zone speed limits in NY enforceable outside school days and times?
Speed cameras run 24/7 and on weekends in NYC now.
Right, but are school zone speed limits in NY enforceable at all times of the day, not just when school is in session?
And I'm confused. If the cameras are in school zones shouldn't they be enforcing only the school zone speed limit?
New York City is weird when it comes to school zones. Unlike the rest of the country where a school zone is a special limit for a specific section of roadway, in NYC a "school zone" simply means anywhere within a certain distance of a school... a distance that covers something like 75% of the roadway mileage in the city. And yes, they recently got permission to run the cameras 24/7/365.
The ghost of I-895!
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52670869432_898dd34ce7_o.jpg)
I see construction at I-95 NB/Pelham Pkwy. Are they finally adding a lane to I-95 in that section Northbound?
And amazingly it still reads as 895!
Article with a few links about future projects: https://www.worldhighways.com/wh9/news/new-york-road-repairs-planned
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 05, 2023, 06:23:23 PM
I see construction at I-95 NB/Pelham Pkwy. Are they finally adding a lane to I-95 in that section Northbound?
They're closing exit 8C and extending the exit only lane that now leads to exit 8B so that it will go to exit 9 for the Hutchinson Parkway. Pelham Parkway will still be accessible through exit 8B. So, technically yes, they are adding a lane, but only for a very short distance. That section has already been a bottleneck, though, so it will be interesting to see how much this improves things.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 24, 2023, 10:26:59 PM
Article with a few links about future projects: https://www.worldhighways.com/wh9/news/new-york-road-repairs-planned
Looks like this is entirely for routine resurfacing: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-100-million-repave-roads-impacted-extreme-weather
So, don't get excited about any new interchanges or anything like that.
Quote from: vdeane on February 03, 2023, 09:51:39 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 03, 2023, 08:28:45 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on February 03, 2023, 05:41:31 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 03, 2023, 05:25:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2023, 12:49:48 PM
In addition to wanting to reduce the speed limit in NYC to 20 (10 for designated school zones, which can be placed most anywhere), Hochul now wants speed cameras on the MTA bridges and tunnels as well.
https://www.silive.com/news/2023/02/budget-proposal-would-allow-speed-cameras-on-mta-crossings-including-verrazzano-narrows-bridge.html
Are school zone speed limits in NY enforceable outside school days and times?
Speed cameras run 24/7 and on weekends in NYC now.
Right, but are school zone speed limits in NY enforceable at all times of the day, not just when school is in session?
And I'm confused. If the cameras are in school zones shouldn't they be enforcing only the school zone speed limit?
New York City is weird when it comes to school zones. Unlike the rest of the country where a school zone is a special limit for a specific section of roadway, in NYC a "school zone" simply means anywhere within a certain distance of a school... a distance that covers something like 75% of the roadway mileage in the city. And yes, they recently got permission to run the cameras 24/7/365.
But what he means is not whether the camera runs at all times–he means whether the reduced speed limit is in force at all times such that if you pass the school on, for example, Saturday, do you still risk a speed camera ticket if you don't obey the 10-mph speed limit (assuming that goes into effect).
I have to say when it comes to school zone signage I still think the best approach is the signs I'm used to from here in Fairfax County–the school zone speed limit is in effect when the yellow lights flash. Much easier than expecting people to be able to read a tiny sign with hours posted, or (worse) to know what a given school's hours are (not all schools have the same hours here even on the same day of the week), and much better than just making it a blanket 24/7 thing. I suppose I could see an argument for having the school zone limit continue for some time after regular "instructional" hours if the school has after-school activities that would cause a significant number of kids to be heading out at a later time, though.
Quote from: dgolub on February 25, 2023, 08:18:02 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 05, 2023, 06:23:23 PM
I see construction at I-95 NB/Pelham Pkwy. Are they finally adding a lane to I-95 in that section Northbound?
They're closing exit 8C and extending the exit only lane that now leads to exit 8B so that it will go to exit 9 for the Hutchinson Parkway. Pelham Parkway will still be accessible through exit 8B. So, technically yes, they are adding a lane, but only for a very short distance. That section has already been a bottleneck, though, so it will be interesting to see how much this improves things.
Anything will help I'd hope. Funny thing is technically I-95 drops a lane through the Bruckner Interchange but it doesn't really affect traffic much.
Still can't believe there's quite a bit of non-reflective button copy near the Brooklyn Bridge.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52714125133_e9fe507725_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ojaESr)
Anybody see this misspelled sign?
https://nypost.com/2023/02/26/nyc-dot-strikes-out-with-jakie-robinson-parkway-sign/
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/02/jackie-robinson-parkway-botched-0010.jpg?resize=1536,1024&quality=75&strip=all)
At least they didn't accidentally sign it as the Interboro Parkway, which of course, was the road's pre-1997 designation.
Page 13 has possible new bridge connections to the BQE to the bridges.
https://9670f26306f0aa722eb1-bf8a0720b767c6949515361a19a9737f.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploads/website_attachment/attachment/217/BQE_Community_Presentation_videosadded2.pdf
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 01, 2023, 03:05:41 PM
Page 13 has possible new bridge connections to the BQE to the bridges.
https://9670f26306f0aa722eb1-bf8a0720b767c6949515361a19a9737f.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploads/website_attachment/attachment/217/BQE_Community_Presentation_videosadded2.pdf
I'm pretty sure this is from 2018, this was vehemently opposed by the community.
Quote from: ixnay on February 28, 2023, 07:39:09 PM
Anybody see this misspelled sign?
https://nypost.com/2023/02/26/nyc-dot-strikes-out-with-jakie-robinson-parkway-sign/
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/02/jackie-robinson-parkway-botched-0010.jpg?resize=1536,1024&quality=75&strip=all)
This is probably a typo made by somebody while they helped with the sign. It seems like something they could just fix after they make a new one.
Quote from: Dellbeam on March 05, 2023, 04:13:44 PM
This is probably a typo made by somebody while they helped with the sign. It seems like something they could just fix after they make a new one.
I mean have any AARoadsters seen the Jackie typo in person?
Hey, I don't know whether or not this question was asked before, but there seems to be a stub leading to Amboy Road in the Richmond Valley section of Staten Island near the Staten Island Railway station. What's that for? An unbuilt south-to-west ramp between Richmond Valley Road and Amboy? A connecting ramp from the never built southern extension of the West Shore Expressway? An old segment of Amboy Road itself?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5192157,-74.2280019,220m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Judging by topos and the utility poles, it was part of Amboy Rd. before the Richmond Valley Rd. overpass over the SIRR was built.
I'm amazed at how some recent sign replacements have replaced signs that have only been up for 20 years yet, some are still forgotten. I'm not really complaining but it just amazes me.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984462469_f72f9a8534_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984449439_9573e5cbb7_c.jpg)
Does anyone know why Woodrow Road under NY 440 is built so wide?
https://goo.gl/maps/uPEs2PFsKEDDzvjj6
It’s only a turn around for the freeway service roads and is a one way street. Was there a plan at one time to connect the two segments of Woodrow Road and also extend it west to Arthur Kill Road?
That would explain only the need to have a NB slip ramp from NY 440 to its service road at Exit 3 that really needs to be an on ramp to be opposite Exit 3A for Englewood Avenue on the SB side. As if that scenario were true more ramps at Woodrow Road would have been added as part of whatever was planned.
Undoubtedly built that way for some form of future expansion possibly not finalized at the time of construction. In my area on Long Island we have a similar situation with an underpass built in 1956 on a narrow state road, wide enough to accommodate a divided highway if the road was ever widened which it never was. And a similar one on the intersecting state parkway that was built circa 1973 for future widening also which was never done, but might still be some day.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2023, 08:19:02 PM
Undoubtedly built that way for some form of future expansion possibly not finalized at the time of construction. In my area on Long Island we have a similar situation with an underpass built in 1956 on a narrow state road, wide enough to accommodate a divided highway if the road was ever widened which it never was. And a similar one on the intersecting state parkway that was built circa 1973 for future widening also which was never done, but might still be some day.
do plz point us to this
Quote from: Alps on June 20, 2023, 09:22:15 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2023, 08:19:02 PM
Undoubtedly built that way for some form of future expansion possibly not finalized at the time of construction. In my area on Long Island we have a similar situation with an underpass built in 1956 on a narrow state road, wide enough to accommodate a divided highway if the road was ever widened which it never was. And a similar one on the intersecting state parkway that was built circa 1973 for future widening also which was never done, but might still be some day.
do plz point us to this
Both locations are on the Uniondale/East Meadow border. NY 102 (Front St) under the Meadowbrook State Pkwy bridge. And just north of there, Meadowbrook Pkwy. northbound side at the Glenn Curtiss Blvd. bridge. (First bridge south of NY 24, Hempstead Tpk) That one was built possibly to accommodate a collector-distributor road which was built north of NY 24) but not south of it.
NYT Metro Columnist on the BQE:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjBmL_tyN__AhUzkokEHVlZB6wQwoQHKAB6BAgkEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F06%2F23%2Fnyregion%2Fbrooklyn-queens-expressway-repair.html&usg=AOvVaw34QEJQA0zBh-pBpez_liBY&opi=89978449
I wonder if anything will ever be done to fully reconstruct the BQE. I have the feeling a repeat of what happened to Manhattan's West Side Highway in 1973 will occur before anything serious comes to fruition.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 25, 2023, 09:37:12 PM
I wonder if anything will ever be done to fully reconstruct the BQE. I have the feeling a repeat of what happened to Manhattan's West Side Highway in 1973 will occur before anything serious comes to fruition.
Any deaths as a result of a collapse are due to the leaders who knew about this and decided to do nothing. That blood will be on their hands and its murder. They should be tried for it god forbid anything bad happens.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 25, 2023, 09:40:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 25, 2023, 09:37:12 PM
I wonder if anything will ever be done to fully reconstruct the BQE. I have the feeling a repeat of what happened to Manhattan's West Side Highway in 1973 will occur before anything serious comes to fruition.
Any deaths as a result of a collapse are due to the leaders who knew about this and decided to do nothing. That blood will be on their hands and its murder. They should be tried for it god forbid anything bad happens.
Can someone refresh me on what happened to the West Side Hwy. in 1973? I should remember but for some reason I don't.
Here is Wikipedia's article on the West Side Highway's collapse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Side_Highway#1973_collapse. Here is another article from NYCROADS: http://www.nycroads.com/roads/west-side/.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 25, 2023, 09:53:12 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 25, 2023, 09:40:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 25, 2023, 09:37:12 PM
I wonder if anything will ever be done to fully reconstruct the BQE. I have the feeling a repeat of what happened to Manhattan's West Side Highway in 1973 will occur before anything serious comes to fruition.
Any deaths as a result of a collapse are due to the leaders who knew about this and decided to do nothing. That blood will be on their hands and its murder. They should be tried for it god forbid anything bad happens.
Can someone refresh me on what happened to the West Side Hwy. in 1973? I should remember but for some reason I don't.
To summarize, the roadway was from the late 20s and not maintained very well at all, one day a pavement truck was driving on the roadway to make repairs and a portion of the roadway collapsed with the truck driving on it.
You know what I've never seen? And I-78 stand alone shield or trailblazer in NYC. Of course it's The Holland Tunnel but still you'd think there'd be some. I see I-87 shields even tho everyone says the Deegan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9TIO0LAaoU
This is totally absurd.
In the meantime, NJ has announced a lawsuit in regard to the congestion pricing plan. (https://abc7ny.com/amp/new-jersey-congestion-pricing-lawsuit-federal-highway-administration/13529620/)
Quote from: roadman65 on July 23, 2023, 03:11:40 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9TIO0LAaoU
This is totally absurd.
Staten Island is following NJ I believe.
The reporter was named Robert Moses. Lol
I’m surprised I haven’t seen Chuck Schumer talk about this. He’s on cam for everything else.
Where’s the opposition from Manhattan residents or Bronx residents, the EIS said Bronx would get more traffic.
The MTA should look inward as they will never have enough money. I’d pay a toll if it’ll reshape some of NYCs expressway interchanges but not the “always broke” MTA
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 23, 2023, 11:57:28 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 23, 2023, 03:11:40 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9TIO0LAaoU
This is totally absurd.
Staten Island is following NJ I believe.
The reporter was named Robert Moses. Lol
I'm surprised I haven't seen Chuck Schumer talk about this. He's on cam for everything else.
Where's the opposition from Manhattan residents or Bronx residents, the EIS said Bronx would get more traffic.
The MTA should look inward as they will never have enough money. I'd pay a toll if it'll reshape some of NYCs expressway interchanges but not the "always broke" MTA
The media is only going to cover what they want as they are a business to please advertisers who pay their salaries. I'm sure Chuck has talked, but Faux and CNN both just don't want to air it so that they both can indirectly support this nonsense the MTA is trying to push.
Personally, I would have preferred that the congestion pricing plan would have had the tolls collected go to maintaining New York City's roads, rather than have funding transit.
First gantry: West End Ave heading south from 61st St. There's gonna have to be a gantry on every single avenue at 61st... and what the HECK are they gonna do south of there with all the interchanges along FDR and all the side streets along West St?
Funny about the reporter actually having the name Robert Moses.
I'm puzzled why there seem to be cameras over both halves of the divided roadway. I assumed drivers would only have to pay the toll when entering the congestion zone. Will they actually be tolled when leaving the area too?
Also: what about those who live in the congestion zone? Will they have to pay to drive into the neighborhood where they live?
That sucks. I hope this project is stopped but I'm not holding my breath. It'd be nice. Be even nicer to see congestion pricing federally banned unless 100% of revenue goes to improving streets. I could at least get on board if the money went to streets and not mass transit.
Cringe.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 24, 2023, 07:36:35 PM
....
Also: what about those who live in the congestion zone? Will they have to pay to drive into the neighborhood where they live?
From what I've read, they would charge the fee, but if the household earns $60,000 or less per year, the fees paid will be refunded at income tax time via a tax credit.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 09:49:21 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 09:35:21 PM
Cringe.
Care to elaborate?
I mean, it's pretty simple: taking the money from people who drive to send it to mass transit is cringe.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 10:36:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 09:49:21 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 09:35:21 PM
Cringe.
Care to elaborate?
I mean, it's pretty simple: taking the money from people who drive to send it to mass transit is cringe.
Ah my bad I thought you were saying my comment was cringe.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 11:50:01 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 10:36:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 09:49:21 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 09:35:21 PM
Cringe.
Care to elaborate?
I mean, it's pretty simple: taking the money from people who drive to send it to mass transit is cringe.
Ah my bad I thought you were saying my comment was cringe.
Well NY has other cities like Buffalo and Rochester help finance the busses and the subways on the other end of the state as its NY State that subsidizes the city's transit and not the city. So every taxpayer in NYS funds the failing transit system.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2023, 12:04:58 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 11:50:01 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 10:36:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 09:49:21 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 09:35:21 PM
Cringe.
Care to elaborate?
I mean, it's pretty simple: taking the money from people who drive to send it to mass transit is cringe.
Ah my bad I thought you were saying my comment was cringe.
Well NY has other cities like Buffalo and Rochester help finance the busses and the subways on the other end of the state as its NY State that subsidizes the city's transit and not the city. So every taxpayer in NYS funds the failing transit system.
There's no shortage of rich people in New York City. Tell them to pony up the money or start shutting lines down. I'm sure a solution other than taxing the bejeezus out of every car that enters the city on a street can be found.
New York City has the highest real estate tax in the world, but to hypothesize on how to get that into the MTA will open a can of worms as that's been the age old debate between the Hatfields and the McCoys who blame the other party for the money diversions.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2023, 01:38:13 AMThere's no shortage of rich people in New York City. Tell them to pony up the money or start shutting lines down.
Only one problem with that solution: Rich people don't take the subway or bus. They can afford the congestion charge, whatever it turns out to be, and they couldn't care less if subway or bus routes are eliminated, even if those trips in their Lincoln Town Cars are longer than before.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2023, 01:38:13 AMI'm sure a solution other than taxing the bejeezus out of every car that enters the city on a street can be found.
If you've got one, we're all ears...er, eyes.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2023, 07:10:56 AMNew York City has the highest real estate tax in the world...
Maybe in actual dollars, but as a percentage of assessed value: not even close. NYC's real estate tax averages 0.98%. The US national average is 1.07%. As for the rest of the world, Belgium's is the highest...11.3%.
https://nypost.com/2023/07/22/staten-island-eyes-joining-new-jersey-in-legal-fight-to-block-congestion-pricing/
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2023, 12:04:58 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 11:50:01 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 10:36:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 09:49:21 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 09:35:21 PM
Cringe.
Care to elaborate?
I mean, it's pretty simple: taking the money from people who drive to send it to mass transit is cringe.
Ah my bad I thought you were saying my comment was cringe.
Well NY has other cities like Buffalo and Rochester help finance the busses and the subways on the other end of the state as its NY State that subsidizes the city's transit and not the city. So every taxpayer in NYS funds the failing transit system.
Roadman65, why do you say the failing transit system? It seemed quite functional to me the last time I rode it a few weeks ago.
Quote from: Alps on July 24, 2023, 07:24:33 PM
First gantry: West End Ave heading south from 61st St. There's gonna have to be a gantry on every single avenue at 61st... and what the HECK are they gonna do south of there with all the interchanges along FDR and all the side streets along West St?
The Final EA for the program, Chapter 2, (https://new.mta.info/document/110771) has detailed diagrams showing where all the tolling equipment is going to be located.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 24, 2023, 10:05:36 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 24, 2023, 07:36:35 PM
....
Also: what about those who live in the congestion zone? Will they have to pay to drive into the neighborhood where they live?
From what I've read, they would charge the fee, but if the household earns $60,000 or less per year, the fees paid will be refunded at income tax time via a tax credit.
How many people live in the congestion zone and earn less than $60k? That's not livable in NYC.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 25, 2023, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2023, 12:04:58 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 11:50:01 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 10:36:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 09:49:21 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 09:35:21 PM
Cringe.
Care to elaborate?
I mean, it's pretty simple: taking the money from people who drive to send it to mass transit is cringe.
Ah my bad I thought you were saying my comment was cringe.
Well NY has other cities like Buffalo and Rochester help finance the busses and the subways on the other end of the state as its NY State that subsidizes the city's transit and not the city. So every taxpayer in NYS funds the failing transit system.
Roadman65, why do you say the failing transit system? It seemed quite functional to me the last time I rode it a few weeks ago.
Perhaps failing is wrong word to use as it indicates in terms of service and maintenance. I mean financially failing as the fares can't support itself and the city can't subsidize it so the entire state flips the balance to keep it running.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 26, 2023, 04:23:26 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 25, 2023, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2023, 12:04:58 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 11:50:01 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 10:36:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 09:49:21 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 24, 2023, 09:35:21 PM
Cringe.
Care to elaborate?
I mean, it's pretty simple: taking the money from people who drive to send it to mass transit is cringe.
Ah my bad I thought you were saying my comment was cringe.
Well NY has other cities like Buffalo and Rochester help finance the busses and the subways on the other end of the state as its NY State that subsidizes the city's transit and not the city. So every taxpayer in NYS funds the failing transit system.
Roadman65, why do you say the failing transit system? It seemed quite functional to me the last time I rode it a few weeks ago.
Perhaps failing is wrong word to use as it indicates in terms of service and maintenance. I mean financially failing as the fares can't support itself and the city can't subsidize it so the entire state flips the balance to keep it running.
What transportation system (transit, rail, highway...) in the U.S.A. operates without any sort of public subsidy?
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on July 25, 2023, 11:04:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 24, 2023, 07:24:33 PM
First gantry: West End Ave heading south from 61st St. There's gonna have to be a gantry on every single avenue at 61st... and what the HECK are they gonna do south of there with all the interchanges along FDR and all the side streets along West St?
The Final EA for the program, Chapter 2, (https://new.mta.info/document/110771) has detailed diagrams showing where all the tolling equipment is going to be located.
That doesn't seem to be nearly as many tolling points as one would think. Are they no longer exempting West Street and FDR Drive from the tolling like they said? Or are they creating a loophole where if someone directly enters one of those roads, but then exits in the tolled area, they don't have to pay?
Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2023, 12:49:28 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on July 25, 2023, 11:04:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 24, 2023, 07:24:33 PM
First gantry: West End Ave heading south from 61st St. There's gonna have to be a gantry on every single avenue at 61st... and what the HECK are they gonna do south of there with all the interchanges along FDR and all the side streets along West St?
The Final EA for the program, Chapter 2, (https://new.mta.info/document/110771) has detailed diagrams showing where all the tolling equipment is going to be located.
That doesn't seem to be nearly as many tolling points as one would think. Are they no longer exempting West Street and FDR Drive from the tolling like they said? Or are they creating a loophole where if someone directly enters one of those roads, but then exits in the tolled area, they don't have to pay?
I mean, it makes sense to toll it at those relatively fewer points, but then I don't know how they are going to arrange a toll-free routing. Because you can't really put a time limit - traffic in NYC could easily back you up an hour trying to go around if everyone else is going around, and you're "not allowed to leave the outer roadways". This strikes me that they've given up and just will toll everyone.
I'll be the guy driving the wrong way on a one-way for a block...
Quote from: SignBridge on July 24, 2023, 07:36:35 PM
I'm puzzled why there seem to be cameras over both halves of the divided roadway. I assumed drivers would only have to pay the toll when entering the congestion zone. Will they actually be tolled when leaving the area too?
The idea is you get assessed the congestion fee for every calendar day you operate a vehicle in the designated area. The gantry on the outbound side is to catch anyone who stayed parked in the CBD overnight (or leaves after midnight), because they will need to pay the fee both for the day they entered and the day they exited. If you enter and exit on the same day you will not be charged twice. Indeed, you can enter and exit as many times as you want in one day and only get charged once - so get your money's worth :)
Quote from: Alps on July 27, 2023, 12:11:42 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2023, 12:49:28 PM
That doesn't seem to be nearly as many tolling points as one would think. Are they no longer exempting West Street and FDR Drive from the tolling like they said? Or are they creating a loophole where if someone directly enters one of those roads, but then exits in the tolled area, they don't have to pay?
I mean, it makes sense to toll it at those relatively fewer points, but then I don't know how they are going to arrange a toll-free routing. Because you can't really put a time limit - traffic in NYC could easily back you up an hour trying to go around if everyone else is going around, and you're "not allowed to leave the outer roadways". This strikes me that they've given up and just will toll everyone.
The problem is, the EIS does otherwise talk about traffic on the West Side Highway and FDR drive being exempt, and the enabling state statute requires it to be.
So, they probably are going to attempt to pair up tag reads to detect someone being exempt thru traffic, and will simply accept that someone making a quick dropoff en route might get away with not paying. And of course they'll still publicly state "you become subject to the congestion fee once you exit the West Side Highway or FDR Drive".
The EIS does also mention deployment of portable detectors, so it will never be possible to guarantee you won't get caught leaving the exempt roads briefly.
I saw an article in the Sun that brings up the faulty management of the MTA. I'd share but it's one of those links that forces you to subscribe to their media like The NY Times when you try to read their webpage.
If you Google the NY Sun, you can find it and hopefully someone here knows how to circumvent those news websites tactics to get $$ from the readers.
Has the new improved Kew Gardens Interchange helped at all?
I noticed bad traffic on I-678 NB by NY-25A past the Kew, I just wondered if it pushed the backup further north?
Speaking of tolls, are the toll booths approaching the GW being demolished?
Curiosity brought up this beast: Is there a log somewhere of which NYC Interstates are state maintained, state owned, city maintained, city owned?
Quote from: bluecountry on August 03, 2023, 09:31:02 PM
Speaking of tolls, are the toll booths approaching the GW being demolished?
yes.
Quote from: Alps on August 05, 2023, 09:09:20 PM
Curiosity brought up this beast: Is there a log somewhere of which NYC Interstates are state maintained, state owned, city maintained, city owned?
All I've found is this from who knows how long ago showing ownership: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region11/general-info/built-and-unbuilt-arterial-system
^ The RIS GIS Viewer has a maintenance jurisdiction layer.
https://gis.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=risviewer
Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2023, 09:22:25 PM
^ The RIS GIS Viewer has a maintenance jurisdiction layer.
https://gis.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=risviewer
Which looks to be full of shit, given that it shows the FDR and Henry Hudson as city maintained but the ramps as state maintained.
Quote from: NE2 on August 05, 2023, 09:32:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2023, 09:22:25 PM
^ The RIS GIS Viewer has a maintenance jurisdiction layer.
https://gis.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=risviewer
Which looks to be full of shit, given that it shows the FDR and Henry Hudson as city maintained but the ramps as state maintained.
Unless the contract where the State gave maintenance jurisdiction to the City only defines the freeway as the mainline. Which is awkward but not impossible. But I'd love another source to confirm.
Quote from: Alps on August 05, 2023, 09:12:04 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 03, 2023, 09:31:02 PM
Speaking of tolls, are the toll booths approaching the GW being demolished?
yes.
The Fort Lee Police Department used to have a camera on YT trained on the GWB toll plaza. Apparently they took it off YT (budget cuts?) right after the conversion to all-AET but before the demolition of the toll booths commenced. Our loss. Great view head on view of the bridge itself too.
Quote from: ixnay on August 07, 2023, 07:46:46 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 05, 2023, 09:12:04 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 03, 2023, 09:31:02 PM
Speaking of tolls, are the toll booths approaching the GW being demolished?
yes.
The Fort Lee Police Department used to have a camera on YT trained on the GWB toll plaza. Apparently they took it off YT (budget cuts?) right after the conversion to all-AET but before the demolition of the toll booths commenced. Our loss. Great view head on view of the bridge itself too.
"
YT" ??
This is why the BQE is doomed.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/07/31/dot-back-to-drawing-board-bqe-atlantic-av
Trucks, which carry everything you own, they want them to vanish
Quote from: Alps on August 05, 2023, 09:41:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 05, 2023, 09:32:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2023, 09:22:25 PM
^ The RIS GIS Viewer has a maintenance jurisdiction layer.
https://gis.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=risviewer
Which looks to be full of shit, given that it shows the FDR and Henry Hudson as city maintained but the ramps as state maintained.
Unless the contract where the State gave maintenance jurisdiction to the City only defines the freeway as the mainline. Which is awkward but not impossible. But I'd love another source to confirm.
Heh. Wonder what else vdeane can come up with that would conflict with RIS. :D
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 07, 2023, 11:54:10 PM
This is why the BQE is doomed.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/07/31/dot-back-to-drawing-board-bqe-atlantic-av
Trucks, which carry everything you own, they want them to vanish
Consider the source.
I will note that the freeways and major arterials around NYC have some of the highest commercial vehicle % you'll see in the United States, partially because that's the only way to get goods in/out of the city. We gentrified away the ports, so that environmentally-friendly option is no longer one. It's not like NYC ever had great freight rail service, but it wasn't necessary if you could just barge everything in. Moving all of the docks to NJ did more to increase truck traffic in NYC than anything else, but people don't like the solution to that.
(personal opinion emphasized)
The problem with rail service to Brooklyn is all must access it from the Hell Gate Bridge as the Amtrak Tunnels can’t tolerate diesel power due to confinement and also as we know the current North River Tunnels couldn’t handle more than the commuter and long distance passenger trains it has now.
Even if Electric Power Freight Locomotives were put into service again, the current two tunnel NE Corridor would not handle it due to over capacity. In addition no cross Hudson crossings are available for rail south of Selkirk near Albany. That’s why Lehigh Valley used barges from Jersey City to Brooklyn in its hey days.
Trucking is the only commerce to Brooklyn and is no other means available unless the ole barge ferries return and a new dock be erected somewhere else in Brooklyn.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 07, 2023, 07:28:56 PM
Quote from: ixnay on August 07, 2023, 07:46:46 AM
The Fort Lee Police Department used to have a camera on YT trained on the GWB toll plaza. Apparently they took it off YT (budget cuts?) right after the conversion to all-AET but before the demolition of the toll booths commenced. Our loss. Great view head on view of the bridge itself too.
"YT" ??
YouTube.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2023, 02:04:06 AM
The problem with rail service to Brooklyn is all must access it from the Hell Gate Bridge as the Amtrak Tunnels can't tolerate diesel power due to confinement and also as we know the current North River Tunnels couldn't handle more than the commuter and long distance passenger trains it has now.
Even if Electric Power Freight Locomotives were put into service again, the current two tunnel NE Corridor would not handle it due to over capacity. In addition no cross Hudson crossings are available for rail south of Selkirk near Albany. That's why Lehigh Valley used barges from Jersey City to Brooklyn in its hey days.
Trucking is the only commerce to Brooklyn and is no other means available unless the ole barge ferries return and a new dock be erected somewhere else in Brooklyn.
Old barge ferries? There is still carfloat service available in Brooklyn, at the 65th Street Yard.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on August 09, 2023, 02:58:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2023, 02:04:06 AM
The problem with rail service to Brooklyn is all must access it from the Hell Gate Bridge as the Amtrak Tunnels can't tolerate diesel power due to confinement and also as we know the current North River Tunnels couldn't handle more than the commuter and long distance passenger trains it has now.
Old barge ferries? There is still carfloat service available in Brooklyn, at the 65th Street Yard.
A dedicated freight-rail tunnel under NY Harbor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-Harbor_Rail_Tunnel) has been planned for decades.
In order to be useful at getting trucks off the highway, though, an intermodal/transload facility would need to be built somewhere in Queens, since freight rail access to Long Island would be limited due to the LIRR third rail.
Such a tunnel could also help get freight to New England, but that too would require use of the Hell Gate Bridge.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 27, 2023, 02:25:40 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 24, 2023, 07:36:35 PM
I'm puzzled why there seem to be cameras over both halves of the divided roadway. I assumed drivers would only have to pay the toll when entering the congestion zone. Will they actually be tolled when leaving the area too?
The idea is you get assessed the congestion fee for every calendar day you operate a vehicle in the designated area. The gantry on the outbound side is to catch anyone who stayed parked in the CBD overnight (or leaves after midnight), because they will need to pay the fee both for the day they entered and the day they exited. If you enter and exit on the same day you will not be charged twice. Indeed, you can enter and exit as many times as you want in one day and only get charged once - so get your money's worth :)
So how does it work if, hypothetically, you drive in on Monday, park at the office garage, don't move your car for several days, and then drive out on, say, Thursday? Do you get charged for just those two days (Monday and Thursday)?
https://goo.gl/maps/ikQ2PfBA11AutQraA
I see the Lincoln Tunnel expressway is now a tunnel crossing over the Amtrak NE Corridor. I'm not surprised to see the air rights given to a developer. Though makes me wonder why the long defunct Pennsylvania Railroad didn't give up that space along that particular block west of 9th Avenue a long time ago.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 13, 2023, 02:23:45 PM
So how does it work if, hypothetically, you drive in on Monday, park at the office garage, don't move your car for several days, and then drive out on, say, Thursday? Do you get charged for just those two days (Monday and Thursday)?
Unless NY is pulling some unusual shit (never put anything past them when it comes to cash grabs), yes, you'd only get charged for the two days you actually drove the car.
Quote from: cl94 on August 08, 2023, 12:30:45 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 07, 2023, 11:54:10 PM
This is why the BQE is doomed.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/07/31/dot-back-to-drawing-board-bqe-atlantic-av
Trucks, which carry everything you own, they want them to vanish
Consider the source.
I will note that the freeways and major arterials around NYC have some of the highest commercial vehicle % you'll see in the United States, partially because that's the only way to get goods in/out of the city. We gentrified away the ports, so that environmentally-friendly option is no longer one. It's not like NYC ever had great freight rail service, but it wasn't necessary if you could just barge everything in. Moving all of the docks to NJ did more to increase truck traffic in NYC than anything else, but people don't like the solution to that.
The source of course has an axe to grind, but it's not as though they're making up concerns people don't actually have, and with NY being how it is... only takes a few loud people having a concern to completely derail a project.
Ultimately this is just more of the same of what we've been seeing with the triple cantilever itself: the state knows it needs to do something, but its own regulatory framework effectively blocks it from doing anything since with how densely populated the area is any reconstruction project of any kind will be massively disruptive no matter what, and massive disruptions are not allowed in New York (unless in response to an emergency).
And, well, there are some major practical problems in the area with no good solutions. Atlantic Ave is a major thoroughfare east of Flatbush Ave. West of Flatbush Ave it's an older narrower street through a very dense otherwise not car-oriented area that's shoehorned into being a major vehicular thoroughfare because it's where the BQE interchange is. It's understandable you've got some people calling for the interchange to simply be eliminated, and this would substantially improve the quality of life for local residents who rarely if ever drive anywhere and thus don't really directly benefit from the interchange's presence.
Buuut right on the other side of the highway are port facilities which trucks use that interchange to access. So you can't just get rid of it. And you start to see then where the proposals that the Brooklyn Heights section of the BQE should be restricted to commercial traffic only come from, though it should be noted this is not legally possible under current NY State Law.
And of course none of this fixes that all the people who live there even if they don't drive still need everything they order online delivered and still need their garbage hauled away.
Ultimately, New York City is just too dense to properly function. It'd be a nicer place with a couple million fewer people. Where's Thanos when you need him?
I don't see how the Triple Cantilever project is prevented by NY's own "regulatory framework." As noted, most challenges are just a result of being in the middle of the largest urban area in the country...
It's not just regulatory framework at stake for the BQE. The NIMBY's are likely just as powerful, and could gum up the works until the triple cantilever segment has a West Side Highway-like collapse. From what I have read, there probably isn't anything that can be proposed that the neighbors will accept; except for a total demolition of the triple cantilever segment (save the Brooklyn Heights Promenade itself).
Quote from: Rothman on August 20, 2023, 08:55:30 AM
I don't see how the Triple Cantilever project is prevented by NY's own "regulatory framework."
You say that and yet, the state tried several alternatives for a rebuild but found none that were deemed tolerable to the adjacent community. A functional state would have picked the least evil of the (all disruptive in some way) options considered and it'd currently be under construction. New York threw their hands in the air and restriped the road to four lanes from six in a pathetic attempt to try to stretch the existing structure's life out. At some point, we'll be down the road from where the can was kicked and the state will have to start talking about what to do again, but they're only going to run into the same problem that you physically cannot rebuild the road without causing massive disruption to the neighborhood in some way.
If the City and State even tried to implement the most viable alternative, they would get bogged down in the Environmental Review process. And the Brooklyn Heights community could probably bring political pressure to bear and get a court injunction to stop the plan or stop construction.
Barring an unplanned serious event such as a West Side Hwy. type collapse, you probably won't see any construction here for ten years.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 20, 2023, 08:05:32 PM
If the City and State even tried to implement the most viable alternative, they would get bogged down in the Environmental Review process. And the Brooklyn Heights community could probably bring political pressure to bear and get a court injunction to stop the plan or stop construction.
Barring an unplanned serious event such as a West Side Hwy. type collapse, you probably won't see any construction here for ten years.
Right, but that's the federal process, not state.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 20, 2023, 07:15:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 20, 2023, 08:55:30 AM
I don't see how the Triple Cantilever project is prevented by NY's own "regulatory framework."
You say that and yet, the state tried several alternatives for a rebuild but found none that were deemed tolerable to the adjacent community. A functional state would have picked the least evil of the (all disruptive in some way) options considered and it'd currently be under construction. New York threw their hands in the air and restriped the road to four lanes from six in a pathetic attempt to try to stretch the existing structure's life out. At some point, we'll be down the road from where the can was kicked and the state will have to start talking about what to do again, but they're only going to run into the same problem that you physically cannot rebuild the road without causing massive disruption to the neighborhood in some way.
But it's a NYCDOT administered project, not NYSDOT.
Do tolls from the NYC MTA bridges and tunnels go into the MTA's general fund for stuff like transit and upkeep of existing free roads and bridges (not to mention labor and tools/equipment to that end), or are they dedicated sources of funding towards maintaining the toll crossings?
I ask this because it was mentioned on the Delaware thread that tolls from I-95 and Delaware Route 1 go towards not only those roads but Delaware's free roads and bridges.
Quote from: ixnay on August 20, 2023, 09:04:40 PM
Do tolls from the NYC MTA bridges and tunnels go into the MTA's general fund for stuff like transit and upkeep of existing free roads and bridges (not to mention labor and tools/equipment to that end), or are they dedicated sources of funding towards maintaining the toll crossings?
I ask this because it was mentioned on the Delaware thread that tolls from I-95 and Delaware Route 1 go towards not only those roads but Delaware's free roads and bridges.
The MTA's revenues go toward all MTA properties, not strictly roads and bridges, but does not fund anything outside that agency.
I am going to repeat again, the ramp from the HRD to the GWB/Trans-Manhattan EXWP NEEDS repaved immediately.
The condition is absolutely terrible right now, I cannot believe this is if not being done at least getting more press.
I checked Google Maps Street View. Not only is the pavement deteriorated, so are the lane markings: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8429445,-73.9314731,3a,75y,2.65h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s5OvUGrR1-uJJ1ZUa03r8VA!2e0!5s20230701T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5OvUGrR1-uJJ1ZUa03r8VA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D2.0066538%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Unfortunately, the closest I've ever been to New York City is Niagara Falls, so I don't have an inside scoop on what roads will get repaved in NYC or when. Somehow, I have a feeling it won't be anytime soon.
Trees over growing onto the highway, lane markings almost faded away, pavement in shitty condition. Absolutely fucking deplorable. These people aren't even trying. I hope it's being documented and god forbid when someone dies because of their neglect I hope they people responsible for these are held account and imprisoned.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 28, 2023, 07:10:02 PM
I checked Google Maps Street View. Not only is the pavement deteriorated, so are the lane markings: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8429445,-73.9314731,3a,75y,2.65h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s5OvUGrR1-uJJ1ZUa03r8VA!2e0!5s20230701T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5OvUGrR1-uJJ1ZUa03r8VA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D2.0066538%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Unfortunately, the closest I've ever been to New York City is Niagara Falls, so I don't have an inside scoop on what roads will get repaved in NYC or when. Somehow, I have a feeling it won't be anytime soon.
It is horrendous, this is not a hard fix, nor that costly or complex vs other projects.
Why is there not more of an outcry from drivers, the media?
I found this site about capped options for the BQE.
What is wrong with these options? Nothing, the BQE is 3-lanes each way and people get their parks and open space.
I'd even say put in AUX lanes on the BQE if it's going to be capped.
https://worldlandscapearchitect.com/big-reimagine-the-brooklyn-queens-expressway-as-bq-park/?v=7516fd43adaa
While I think the proposal is a good one, I doubt the locals will allow anything to be constructed. I expect the triple-cantilever segment to collapse before any long-term fix is implemented, as I have stated before. Personally, I would prefer building a tunnel (despite the expense and possible impracticability of constructing one) to bypass the existing BQE between Exits 26 and 31, and remove the existing BQE between those two points. I realize this is a pie-in-the sky Fictional Highways proposal that is as likely to be built as the Gowanus Tunnel would have been built, but it could have helped undo the damage to the existing neighborhoods that the BQE racked.
Why would the locals object to the proposal? It looks like a win/win to me, except for the years of horrendous construction that would be required, or is that the reason they would object?
Quote from: SignBridge on September 19, 2023, 08:37:14 PM
Why would the locals object to the proposal? It looks like a win/win to me, except for the years of horrendous construction that would be required, or is that the reason they would object?
One acronym: BANANA. Locals don't drive on it, so their interest is its disappearance.
BQE lane reduction was a disaster. Going from Hamilton Ave to Atlantic Avenue can take 35-40 minutes. I've seen people just drive on the shoulder right in front of cops and they don't care, even they agree it was ridiculous. Re-open the 3rd lane!
I think it was due to a weight restriction. Hell I'd advocate for a widening to 4 lanes each way if it goes underground. If it's rebuilt as it is they should at least restore it to 3 lanes.
Yes, the previous mayor said it had to do with trucks wearing out one side of it. 4 lanes each way would be nice, but doubt it would matter. The trenches used to be a decent speed segment of the BQE, now it's a 4 mph nightmare. Sometimes it backs up to the belt parkway split (it used to only back up to Hamilton Avenue/Prospect expressway at worst, and usually not that slow) Also this is probably just being nit picky but that exit 23 for 38-39th street sometimes slows things down and is kinda pointless.
It's not even specifically trucks. 4 lanes of traffic weighs less than 6 lanes of traffic regardless of the vehicle mix - it's about reducing load on the structure to try and buy time.
Meanwhile you'd think if reconstructed there'd be no reason to not restore 6 lanes, except of course that numtots have become rather influential in New York and they see anything that forces people to drive less as a positive feature. Ergo, expect a fight about this, and I wouldn't count on ever getting the extra pair of lanes back. 4 lanes is now the status quo; 6 will be spun as "widening the highway".
I've taken countless virtual drives on YT on NYC's expressway system and am intrigued by the paint scheme on the overpasses (similar to the borders on AARoads or the uniforms on the Saskatchewan Roughriders Canadian football team). What is that shade called? Robert Moses green? :)
I had a feeling part of the reason they did that was to get people to drive less. I-278 however, is usually a key road you start with. No matter what direction you are going. Especially from Western Brooklyn. Heading South? Well of course you take I-278 to the Jersey Turnpike. Going North? Head the other way to the Triborough bridge or Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. Long Island? You'll need to take it to I-495. West? People will still tend to go toward Staten Island or take I-278 to an East- River Bridge. There are no other expressways that cut across or up and down through Brooklyn, so I-278 was a ridiculous choice of a highway to worsen.
Quote from: ixnay on September 22, 2023, 08:58:00 AM
I've taken countless virtual drives on YT on NYC's expressway system and am intrigued by the paint scheme on the overpasses (similar to the borders on AARoads or the uniforms on the Saskatchewan Roughriders Canadian football team). What is that shade called? Robert Moses green? :)
Ugly IMO :D (though not quite as bad as that putrid mustard yellow (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6957009,-73.9693066,3a,90y,360.06h,92.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgI50wGP_PrX9F8R4E1cLPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu))
I much prefer the powder blue (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7161121,-73.8272883,3a,75y,92.65h,90.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOiy98c8E7j8Hoia5sRdLEw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) that has been used on most/all of the construction projects in the last 20 years or so.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 22, 2023, 12:52:56 AM
It's not even specifically trucks. 4 lanes of traffic weighs less than 6 lanes of traffic regardless of the vehicle mix - it's about reducing load on the structure to try and buy time.
Meanwhile you'd think if reconstructed there'd be no reason to not restore 6 lanes, except of course that numtots have become rather influential in New York and they see anything that forces people to drive less as a positive feature. Ergo, expect a fight about this, and I wouldn't count on ever getting the extra pair of lanes back. 4 lanes is now the status quo; 6 will be spun as "widening the highway".
They already are. I've seen numerous pieces denouncing NYCDOT's plan to "widen the highway". Granted, they're technically right in terms of absolute width... six lanes meeting modern design standards would be a wider pavement width than the existing design.
Almost 1:30 am here, and that BQE stretch where they reduced the lanes is still black. The only stretch of black road in the city (the ones on the van Wyck were construction/closures and the one on the FDR Drive is an accident). Was never that bad before the lane reduction. That section is black 20 hours a day now essentially.
Although even accidents causing it doesn't make sense. The volume is so heavy at 1:30 am that having only 1 lane instead of 2 or 3 grinds traffic to a halt for miles?
Does the Lincoln Tunnel Expressway between 30th Street and the Lincoln Tunnel ( the only access to the center tube from Manhattan during Outbound Operations) have a NYS reference number or does NYSDOT inventory it as NY 495?
Also WTF on 9th Avenue is NYCDOT defaulting the two right lanes at 37th Street into the Lincoln Tunnel Expressway without large overhead signs warning the motorists of the lanes defaulting? Plus they installed those pegs between 36th and 35th Streets from weaving at the the last minute. So if you're not paying attention you could end up in those two lanes for the tunnel expressway ramp at 35th Street. Unless you're familiar with that last ditch exit before the north tube to 39th Street from the Lincoln Tunnel Expressway, you can be on you're way to New Jersey with an expensive return back to New York.
Also 11 Avenue ain't no better as NB traffic is now ends flow at 40th Street where 11th Avenue is SB only one way. Again, if you're not familiar with the area, you can find yourself on your way to Jersey with an expensive return. Drivers at 40th Street are forced to turn right and then defaulted into the Lincoln Tunnel entrance as no access to continue EB on 40th due to traffic control.
In both cases on 9th and 11th Avenues, piss poor signage exists and lacks proper BGS warnings.
Here is what Wikipedia says about the NY 495 designation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Tunnel#Route_numbering. Personally, I think the NY 495 designation should be the official number of the New York stretch of the Lincoln Tunnel.
Does the Lincoln Tunnel Expressway tunnel under 39th Street have a name? The one that enters under the SE Corner of Dyer Avenue & 39th Street and exits at the NW Corner of 10th Avenue & 39th Street with the raised ceiling in the tunnel that is a problematic single lane allowing access from the south to the north tube long underpass?
It's been a while since I took the Lincoln tunnel, but there may be something labeled "_______underpass" that connects to it. Forgot.
Nevermind, looked it up on googlemaps and the sign just says "expressway to 9A"
You're right roadman65, the signage for those lane-drops into the tunnel entrances is woefully inadequate even for slow moving city streets. Amazing that NYC gets away with that. My best guess is that most of the drivers in the area know the territory. Maybe there are not many strangers from out-of-town on those streets.
NYC was always big on BGS signing especially around expressway entrances and the PANYNJ Crossings. This is so unlike them.
Quote from: RoadRage2023 on September 22, 2023, 12:40:30 PM
I had a feeling part of the reason they did that was to get people to drive less. I-278 however, is usually a key road you start with. No matter what direction you are going. Especially from Western Brooklyn. Heading South? Well of course you take I-278 to the Jersey Turnpike. Going North? Head the other way to the Triborough bridge or Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. Long Island? You'll need to take it to I-495. West? People will still tend to go toward Staten Island or take I-278 to an East- River Bridge. There are no other expressways that cut across or up and down through Brooklyn, so I-278 was a ridiculous choice of a highway to worsen.
Remember what I said about how those idiots at Streetsblog think narrowing the road works, and how they've banned anyone who tries to tell them otherwise?
Quote from: roadman65 on September 26, 2023, 10:35:25 AM
NYC was always big on BGS signing especially around expressway entrances and the PANYNJ Crossings. This is so unlike them.
Sounds to me like the anti-highway lobbyists are exerting more of their power and influence. They must be conning the government against the need for BGS signage.
Some future work on I-95 by HRP and Bartow this time going south:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X73178
and the extension of the 4th lane NB going to Exit 11.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X73179
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 09, 2023, 12:05:00 AM
Some future work on I-95 by HRP and Bartow this time going south:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X73178
and the extension of the 4th lane NB going to Exit 11.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X73179
Where are the designs for these future projects?
BTW, I still say it would've made more sense to extend Bruckner Boulevard frontage roads across the Pelham and Hutchison Parkways separate from the three interchanges with I-95.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 09, 2023, 04:29:17 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 09, 2023, 12:05:00 AM
Some future work on I-95 by HRP and Bartow this time going south:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X73178
and the extension of the 4th lane NB going to Exit 11.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X73179
Where are the designs for these future projects?
Non-existent, since they are still "In Development" or "Future Development." Don't expect anything more than what is included in the project description until the public information meetings occur (2025 for the first project and 2027 for the second if I had to guess).
Ugh! I don't know whether to retch over what I won't like or just fear what I don't know they're planning. I just saw the GSV of the reconstruction of the Pelham Parkway interchange with the Bruckner Expressway, and despite the safety measures for I-95, it looks like a downgrade for the Pelham.
And this is my 3,500th post on the forum. I could celebrate it by adding a NYS 35 shield, but I've never had any personal relationship with NY 35.
NY 45 on the other hand I'll do if and when I get to that point.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 10, 2023, 06:27:00 AM
Ugh! I don't know whether to retch over what I won't like or just fear what I don't know they're planning. I just saw the GSV of the reconstruction of the Pelham Parkway interchange with the Bruckner Expressway, and despite the safety measures for I-95, it looks like a downgrade for the Pelham.
I mean it's getting rid of a cloverleaf, but do the volumes there really need one? Pelham is not really limited access so I don't think it's that bad a deal.
Quote from: Alps on October 10, 2023, 09:11:36 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 10, 2023, 06:27:00 AM
Ugh! I don't know whether to retch over what I won't like or just fear what I don't know they're planning. I just saw the GSV of the reconstruction of the Pelham Parkway interchange with the Bruckner Expressway, and despite the safety measures for I-95, it looks like a downgrade for the Pelham.
I mean it's getting rid of a cloverleaf, but do the volumes there really need one? Pelham is not really limited access so I don't think it's that bad a deal.
Well, that portion of Pelham Parkway was. I still think the rest of it should be.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Gpyjhigqkg3Bo9TP8
Found this old toll booth under the GWB.
BTW, I tried to find that thread on strange findings in GSV and the search engine here couldn't locate it. I was hoping to post it there.
So it looks like the PA is replacing signs on the Trans-Manhattan Expwy, and the signs for the HH Pkwy/178 St now show Exit 1A (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bksfrXgdLprCgSCc9) instead of Exit 1. Are they finally getting with the change to mileage based exits that NYSDOT did years ago? Will the HRD exit finally become 1B? This was discussed on the NJ thread a bit, but really should be discussed here.
Quote from: storm2k on October 18, 2023, 11:42:28 AM
So it looks like the PA is replacing signs on the Trans-Manhattan Expwy, and the signs for the HH Pkwy/178 St now show Exit 1A (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bksfrXgdLprCgSCc9) instead of Exit 1. Are they finally getting with the change to mileage based exits that NYSDOT did years ago? Will the HRD exit finally become 1B? This was discussed on the NJ thread a bit, but really should be discussed here.
Hopefully PANYNJ finally got the message. Those new signs are kinda ugly though...
Quote from: storm2k on October 18, 2023, 11:42:28 AM
So it looks like the PA is replacing signs on the Trans-Manhattan Expwy, and the signs for the HH Pkwy/178 St now show Exit 1A (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bksfrXgdLprCgSCc9) instead of Exit 1. Are they finally getting with the change to mileage based exits that NYSDOT did years ago? Will the HRD exit finally become 1B? This was discussed on the NJ thread a bit, but really should be discussed here.
That section was always mile based exits. PANYNJ jumped the gun in 2002-03 when they replaced the signs since NY wanted to move I-95 to sequential exits.... and later backtracked. There were photos of all the old Trans-Manhattan signs somewhere on the Internet. I don't remember whose site it was (David Greenberger perhaps?). I don't recall if HRD had an exit number. W 178 St/Henry Hudson Parkway did not have a posted exit number northbound prior to 2002.
This has created the interesting situation that the non-Thruway portions of I-95 in NY are now entirely mile-based southbound but not northbound (exit 1 has reverted to 1A both directions, while 1C/D is signed by NYSDOT SB but PANYNJ NB).
So much confusion with exit numbering. Now I know why California got along fine without them all those years. :-D
Hopefully, more exit sequences around the city and the state will eventually be converted to mileage-based exit numbers (abet at a snail's pace).
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 18, 2023, 09:26:20 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 18, 2023, 11:42:28 AM
So it looks like the PA is replacing signs on the Trans-Manhattan Expwy, and the signs for the HH Pkwy/178 St now show Exit 1A (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bksfrXgdLprCgSCc9) instead of Exit 1. Are they finally getting with the change to mileage based exits that NYSDOT did years ago? Will the HRD exit finally become 1B? This was discussed on the NJ thread a bit, but really should be discussed here.
That section was always mile based exits. PANYNJ jumped the gun in 2002-03 when they replaced the signs since NY wanted to move I-95 to sequential exits.... and later backtracked. There were photos of all the old Trans-Manhattan signs somewhere on the Internet. I don't remember whose site it was (David Greenberger perhaps?). I don't recall if HRD had an exit number. W 178 St/Henry Hudson Parkway did not have a posted exit number northbound prior to 2002.
NYSDOT had some of them for a while. When signs for the Major Deegan interchange were replaced in the early aughts, they were signed as 3N-S for a while in older NYSDOT fashion. They've since reverted them to 1C-D.
Quote from: storm2k on October 18, 2023, 11:42:28 AM
So it looks like the PA is replacing signs on the Trans-Manhattan Expwy, and the signs for the HH Pkwy/178 St now show Exit 1A (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bksfrXgdLprCgSCc9) instead of Exit 1. Are they finally getting with the change to mileage based exits that NYSDOT did years ago? Will the HRD exit finally become 1B? This was discussed on the NJ thread a bit, but really should be discussed here.
In an unrelated question prompted by the wording of that sign, when did New York City switch from saying "No Commercial Traffic" to saying "Passenger Cars Only" on the signs for parkways? When I was growing up, the signs all said "No Commercial Traffic." They later augmented those with the occasional sign telling truckers that it's the law for them to use expressways, not parkways. But I don't recall when the change to "Passenger Cars Only" occurred, and I don't drive to New York City very often anymore anyway (to get to Breezy Point last summer, we took the ferry from Wall Street to Rockaway and then used Uber, and my cousin gave us a ride back to the ferry later that day).
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 19, 2023, 12:07:39 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 18, 2023, 11:42:28 AM
So it looks like the PA is replacing signs on the Trans-Manhattan Expwy, and the signs for the HH Pkwy/178 St now show Exit 1A (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bksfrXgdLprCgSCc9) instead of Exit 1. Are they finally getting with the change to mileage based exits that NYSDOT did years ago? Will the HRD exit finally become 1B? This was discussed on the NJ thread a bit, but really should be discussed here.
In an unrelated question prompted by the wording of that sign, when did New York City switch from saying "No Commercial Traffic" to saying "Passenger Cars Only" on the signs for parkways? When I was growing up, the signs all said "No Commercial Traffic." They later augmented those with the occasional sign telling truckers that it's the law for them to use expressways, not parkways. But I don't recall when the change to "Passenger Cars Only" occurred, and I don't drive to New York City very often anymore anyway (to get to Breezy Point last summer, we took the ferry from Wall Street to Rockaway and then used Uber, and my cousin gave us a ride back to the ferry later that day).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53181498289_9011e52a2b_k.jpg)
Also of note: the truck restriction on the Exit 29A Manhattan Bridge BGS in the background has been removed
That doesn't answer my question, as the bridge is not a parkway. If I look at, say, Flatbush Avenue between the Marine Parkway Bridge and the Belt Parkway, the BGSs for the Belt Parkway have "Passenger Cars Only" underneath, not "No Commercial Traffic." Same for the signs for the Belt Parkway on the Verrazzano, the signs for the Interboro Parkway on the Van Wyck, or the signs for Grand Central Parkway coming off the Triboro Bridge.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 19, 2023, 05:13:58 PM
That doesn't answer my question, as the bridge is not a parkway. If I look at, say, Flatbush Avenue between the Marine Parkway Bridge and the Belt Parkway, the BGSs for the Belt Parkway have "Passenger Cars Only" underneath, not "No Commercial Traffic." Same for the signs for the Belt Parkway on the Verrazzano, the signs for the Interboro Parkway on the Van Wyck, or the signs for Grand Central Parkway coming off the Triboro Bridge.
IDK, but CT has switched too, as they now say Passenger Cars Only for the Merritt Pkwy
Quote from: cockroachking on October 18, 2023, 08:51:46 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 18, 2023, 11:42:28 AM
So it looks like the PA is replacing signs on the Trans-Manhattan Expwy, and the signs for the HH Pkwy/178 St now show Exit 1A (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bksfrXgdLprCgSCc9) instead of Exit 1. Are they finally getting with the change to mileage based exits that NYSDOT did years ago? Will the HRD exit finally become 1B? This was discussed on the NJ thread a bit, but really should be discussed here.
Hopefully PANYNJ finally got the message. Those new signs are kinda ugly though...
Looks like they took down that beautiful US-9 BGS as well. For the tolls they charge, the signs should be beautifiul and well designed.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8494766,-73.9422666,3a,75y,118.48h,90t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sZPdxIeHRrqt4EqK_exHKmw!2e0!5s20111001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i48?entry=ttu
I thought NY had laws that restricted the use of parkways to non-commercial use only. Instead of a height and weight limit (like most every other state), the roadways were limited to "pleasure use". I've heard stories of things like contractor's vans being pulled over and issued citations on parkways since they were "commercial vehicles", despite not being a "truck". It gets more absurd when you realize that some states, like NJ, will issue commercial ("X") tags to any type of vehicle, including sedans.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 19, 2023, 09:00:20 PM
I thought NY had laws that restricted the use of parkways to non-commercial use only. Instead of a height and weight limit (like most every other state), the roadways were limited to "pleasure use". I've heard stories of things like contractor's vans being pulled over and issued citations on parkways since they were "commercial vehicles", despite not being a "truck". It gets more absurd when you realize that some states, like NJ, will issue commercial ("X") tags to any type of vehicle, including sedans.
The specific language used is "Passenger Cars Only". A lot of time it is due to height and weight restrictions that large trucks would not handle, but yes, technically any vehicle with commercial plates could be pulled over and cited for using the Parkway network in contravention of the rules.
Quote from: storm2k on October 19, 2023, 11:30:03 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 19, 2023, 09:00:20 PM
I thought NY had laws that restricted the use of parkways to non-commercial use only. Instead of a height and weight limit (like most every other state), the roadways were limited to "pleasure use". I've heard stories of things like contractor's vans being pulled over and issued citations on parkways since they were "commercial vehicles", despite not being a "truck". It gets more absurd when you realize that some states, like NJ, will issue commercial ("X") tags to any type of vehicle, including sedans.
The specific language used is "Passenger Cars Only". A lot of time it is due to height and weight restrictions that large trucks would not handle, but yes, technically any vehicle with commercial plates could be pulled over and cited for using the Parkway network in contravention of the rules.
Also the Domino Pizza Delivery vehicle can ( if he has the lit sign on the roof.) get pulled as any vehicle ( car, van, truck) with any mention of a company or business on the vehicle is automatically considered to be commercial and not private.
A State Trooper on Long Island once told me that yes, any vehicle including a sedan with business lettering or graphics on it is technically a commercial vehicle. However this particular Trooper said he might not ticket such a vehicle because the intent of the law was to keep big trucks off the Parkways, and a car with a business name on it doesn't really cause a problem regarding the low bridges.
He cautioned however that some Troopers he worked with would ticket a sedan with a business name because it is technically a commercial vehicle and a violation of law.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 20, 2023, 08:21:40 PM
A State Trooper on Long Island once told me that yes, any vehicle including a sedan with business lettering or graphics on it is technically a commercial vehicle. However this particular Trooper said he might not ticket such a vehicle because the intent of the law was to keep big trucks off the Parkways, and a car with a business name on it doesn't really cause a problem regarding the low bridges.
He cautioned however that some Troopers he worked with would ticket a sedan with a business name because it is technically a commercial vehicle and a violation of law.
I've seen my share of occasional passenger cars that use commercial plates. I even know of one captured in a movie:
https://onthesetofnewyork.com/onetrickpony.html
Scroll down onto the yellow Toyota Celica.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 18, 2023, 09:26:20 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 18, 2023, 11:42:28 AM
So it looks like the PA is replacing signs on the Trans-Manhattan Expwy, and the signs for the HH Pkwy/178 St now show Exit 1A (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bksfrXgdLprCgSCc9) instead of Exit 1. Are they finally getting with the change to mileage based exits that NYSDOT did years ago? Will the HRD exit finally become 1B? This was discussed on the NJ thread a bit, but really should be discussed here.
That section was always mile based exits. PANYNJ jumped the gun in 2002-03 when they replaced the signs since NY wanted to move I-95 to sequential exits.... and later backtracked. There were photos of all the old Trans-Manhattan signs somewhere on the Internet. I don't remember whose site it was (David Greenberger perhaps?). I don't recall if HRD had an exit number. W 178 St/Henry Hudson Parkway did not have a posted exit number northbound prior to 2002.
Yeah what you see here is the result of a turf war plus one agency unexpectedly flip flopping.
NYSDOT was very actively changing all the exit numbers on the Cross Bronx to sequential around 2009 (there were for example signs up marking I-295 as exit 12 at one point). The Port Authority changed their old signs for 1A/1B/1C to 1/2/3 in coordination on this effort.
But then NYSDOT changed their mind and put all the old mile-based numbers back. The Port Authority then was like "screw you we're not spending extra money to change our signs again because you can't make up your mind".
It is good to see that as those signs come up for normally due replacement that the mile-based numbers are actually returning instead of the Port Authority just blindly carbon copying what exists.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 24, 2023, 10:47:41 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 18, 2023, 09:26:20 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 18, 2023, 11:42:28 AM
So it looks like the PA is replacing signs on the Trans-Manhattan Expwy, and the signs for the HH Pkwy/178 St now show Exit 1A (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bksfrXgdLprCgSCc9) instead of Exit 1. Are they finally getting with the change to mileage based exits that NYSDOT did years ago? Will the HRD exit finally become 1B? This was discussed on the NJ thread a bit, but really should be discussed here.
That section was always mile based exits. PANYNJ jumped the gun in 2002-03 when they replaced the signs since NY wanted to move I-95 to sequential exits.... and later backtracked. There were photos of all the old Trans-Manhattan signs somewhere on the Internet. I don't remember whose site it was (David Greenberger perhaps?). I don't recall if HRD had an exit number. W 178 St/Henry Hudson Parkway did not have a posted exit number northbound prior to 2002.
Yeah what you see here is the result of a turf war plus one agency unexpectedly flip flopping.
NYSDOT was very actively changing all the exit numbers on the Cross Bronx to sequential around 2009 (there were for example signs up marking I-295 as exit 12 at one point). The Port Authority changed their old signs for 1A/1B/1C to 1/2/3 in coordination on this effort.
But then NYSDOT changed their mind and put all the old mile-based numbers back. The Port Authority then was like "screw you we're not spending extra money to change our signs again because you can't make up your mind".
It is good to see that as those signs come up for normally due replacement that the mile-based numbers are actually returning instead of the Port Authority just blindly carbon copying what exists.
Didn't they recently do a replace in kind of an "exit 2" sign?
Quote from: vdeane on October 25, 2023, 12:41:57 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 24, 2023, 10:47:41 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 18, 2023, 09:26:20 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 18, 2023, 11:42:28 AM
So it looks like the PA is replacing signs on the Trans-Manhattan Expwy, and the signs for the HH Pkwy/178 St now show Exit 1A (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bksfrXgdLprCgSCc9) instead of Exit 1. Are they finally getting with the change to mileage based exits that NYSDOT did years ago? Will the HRD exit finally become 1B? This was discussed on the NJ thread a bit, but really should be discussed here.
That section was always mile based exits. PANYNJ jumped the gun in 2002-03 when they replaced the signs since NY wanted to move I-95 to sequential exits.... and later backtracked. There were photos of all the old Trans-Manhattan signs somewhere on the Internet. I don't remember whose site it was (David Greenberger perhaps?). I don't recall if HRD had an exit number. W 178 St/Henry Hudson Parkway did not have a posted exit number northbound prior to 2002.
Yeah what you see here is the result of a turf war plus one agency unexpectedly flip flopping.
NYSDOT was very actively changing all the exit numbers on the Cross Bronx to sequential around 2009 (there were for example signs up marking I-295 as exit 12 at one point). The Port Authority changed their old signs for 1A/1B/1C to 1/2/3 in coordination on this effort.
But then NYSDOT changed their mind and put all the old mile-based numbers back. The Port Authority then was like "screw you we're not spending extra money to change our signs again because you can't make up your mind".
It is good to see that as those signs come up for normally due replacement that the mile-based numbers are actually returning instead of the Port Authority just blindly carbon copying what exists.
Didn't they recently do a replace in kind of an "exit 2" sign?
I went through there on the way back from Cumberland on Monday. Exits 2-3 remain unchanged. Exit 1 is now inconsistent. It's signed as exit 1A in Manhattan but still signed as exit 1 on the bridge itself.
Looks like the PANYNJ changed the Exit tab to Exit 1A. For the tolls we pay them you'd think the tab could be straighter and the shield could be better looking.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53347557546_cef2f2b08b_k.jpg)
Here's a pic from a couple years ago:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52180596139_5da46cc564_k.jpg)
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 19, 2023, 09:00:20 PM
I thought NY had laws that restricted the use of parkways to non-commercial use only. Instead of a height and weight limit (like most every other state), the roadways were limited to "pleasure use". I've heard stories of things like contractor's vans being pulled over and issued citations on parkways since they were "commercial vehicles", despite not being a "truck". It gets more absurd when you realize that some states, like NJ, will issue commercial ("X") tags to any type of vehicle, including sedans.
Would that also include Official NYC Taxi, Uber and lyft also MTA/NYC transit buses and paratransit vans?
Christ the people that run NYC are loons.
https://gothamist.com/news/mayor-adams-vows-to-remove-parking-spots-from-1000-nyc-intersections-every-year
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
Christ the people that run NYC are loons.
https://gothamist.com/news/mayor-adams-vows-to-remove-parking-spots-from-1000-nyc-intersections-every-year
They need to get someone in there to throw out all that vision zero crap thats been making traffic worse
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
Christ the people that run NYC are loons.
https://gothamist.com/news/mayor-adams-vows-to-remove-parking-spots-from-1000-nyc-intersections-every-year
Ya' gotta understand that New York City traffic and parking conditions are far more dense than you have in Los Angeles. Much as I'd hate to see NYC lose much needed street parking spaces, improving visibility at intersections is a good idea, especially on narrow streets in many densely packed neighborhoods.
Does this even affect legal parking? That area looks too close to an intersection to park legally anyways. I know this is NYC where illegal parking is an art form and widely tolerated as long as certain cultural norms are followed, but that doesn't make it right.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2023, 08:37:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
Christ the people that run NYC are loons.
https://gothamist.com/news/mayor-adams-vows-to-remove-parking-spots-from-1000-nyc-intersections-every-year
Ya' gotta understand that New York City traffic and parking conditions are far more dense than you have in Los Angeles. Much as I'd hate to see NYC lose much needed street parking spaces, improving visibility at intersections is a good idea, especially on narrow streets in many densely packed neighborhoods.
This seems a little bit to the extreme though. Maybe in some areas this is warranted. But just having a program that arbitrarily says we're going to remove x amount of parking spaces near each intersection every so often?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 11:12:24 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2023, 08:37:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
Christ the people that run NYC are loons.
https://gothamist.com/news/mayor-adams-vows-to-remove-parking-spots-from-1000-nyc-intersections-every-year
Ya' gotta understand that New York City traffic and parking conditions are far more dense than you have in Los Angeles. Much as I'd hate to see NYC lose much needed street parking spaces, improving visibility at intersections is a good idea, especially on narrow streets in many densely packed neighborhoods.
This seems a little bit to the extreme though. Maybe in some areas this is warranted. But just having a program that arbitrarily says we're going to remove x amount of parking spaces near each intersection every so often?
Personally, I would rather sacrifice parking over human lives...
Quote from: cockroachking on December 05, 2023, 12:29:02 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 11:12:24 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2023, 08:37:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
Christ the people that run NYC are loons.
https://gothamist.com/news/mayor-adams-vows-to-remove-parking-spots-from-1000-nyc-intersections-every-year
Ya' gotta understand that New York City traffic and parking conditions are far more dense than you have in Los Angeles. Much as I'd hate to see NYC lose much needed street parking spaces, improving visibility at intersections is a good idea, especially on narrow streets in many densely packed neighborhoods.
This seems a little bit to the extreme though. Maybe in some areas this is warranted. But just having a program that arbitrarily says we're going to remove x amount of parking spaces near each intersection every so often?
Personally, I would rather sacrifice parking over human lives...
How radical.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 11:12:24 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2023, 08:37:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
Christ the people that run NYC are loons.
https://gothamist.com/news/mayor-adams-vows-to-remove-parking-spots-from-1000-nyc-intersections-every-year
Ya' gotta understand that New York City traffic and parking conditions are far more dense than you have in Los Angeles. Much as I'd hate to see NYC lose much needed street parking spaces, improving visibility at intersections is a good idea, especially on narrow streets in many densely packed neighborhoods.
This seems a little bit to the extreme though. Maybe in some areas this is warranted. But just having a program that arbitrarily says we're going to remove x amount of parking spaces near each intersection every so often?
The aim is actually improving intersection visibility. The article is focusing on the parking to sensationalize it since they're against it.
It's like the articles that came out before Thanksgiving with headlines along the lines of "speed cameras coming to I-84" making it look like there was some new program to ticket everyone on that road, when in actuality one of the work zones on it was getting the work zone speed limit cameras (a program that's been operating all year) that week.
Quote from: Rothman on December 05, 2023, 10:47:44 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on December 05, 2023, 12:29:02 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 11:12:24 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2023, 08:37:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
Christ the people that run NYC are loons.
https://gothamist.com/news/mayor-adams-vows-to-remove-parking-spots-from-1000-nyc-intersections-every-year
Ya' gotta understand that New York City traffic and parking conditions are far more dense than you have in Los Angeles. Much as I'd hate to see NYC lose much needed street parking spaces, improving visibility at intersections is a good idea, especially on narrow streets in many densely packed neighborhoods.
This seems a little bit to the extreme though. Maybe in some areas this is warranted. But just having a program that arbitrarily says we're going to remove x amount of parking spaces near each intersection every so often?
Personally, I would rather sacrifice parking over human lives...
How radical.
Let's ban every car in the US. It'll stop all traffic deaths. Anyone who dares question that we respond with a snarky "how radical."
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2023, 12:57:42 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 11:12:24 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2023, 08:37:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
Christ the people that run NYC are loons.
https://gothamist.com/news/mayor-adams-vows-to-remove-parking-spots-from-1000-nyc-intersections-every-year
Ya' gotta understand that New York City traffic and parking conditions are far more dense than you have in Los Angeles. Much as I'd hate to see NYC lose much needed street parking spaces, improving visibility at intersections is a good idea, especially on narrow streets in many densely packed neighborhoods.
This seems a little bit to the extreme though. Maybe in some areas this is warranted. But just having a program that arbitrarily says we're going to remove x amount of parking spaces near each intersection every so often?
The aim is actually improving intersection visibility. The article is focusing on the parking to sensationalize it since they're against it.
It's like the articles that came out before Thanksgiving with headlines along the lines of "speed cameras coming to I-84" making it look like there was some new program to ticket everyone on that road, when in actuality one of the work zones on it was getting the work zone speed limit cameras (a program that's been operating all year) that week.
I'm against all automated traffic enforcement with the exception of school and work zones.
Everything else you're saying can be done without removing some arbitrary number of cars per month from intersections. That just reeks as a political talking point pandering to the anti car crowd and doesn't come off as simply improving intersection visibility. From the rendering in the article goes way too far back from the intersection.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 11:12:24 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2023, 08:37:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
Christ the people that run NYC are loons.
https://gothamist.com/news/mayor-adams-vows-to-remove-parking-spots-from-1000-nyc-intersections-every-year
Ya' gotta understand that New York City traffic and parking conditions are far more dense than you have in Los Angeles. Much as I'd hate to see NYC lose much needed street parking spaces, improving visibility at intersections is a good idea, especially on narrow streets in many densely packed neighborhoods.
This seems a little bit to the extreme though. Maybe in some areas this is warranted. But just having a program that arbitrarily says we're going to remove x amount of parking spaces near each intersection every so often?
I'm in full agreement. This is NYC. People routinely cross for the entire green and you must wedge your way through to turn. Pedestrians are everywhere and very visible. There is absolutely NO cause to do what NYC is proposing except make it harder for cars to exist. So, fine, I'll take my money elsewhere where I'm allowed to drive.
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2023, 09:18:19 PM
Does this even affect legal parking? That area looks too close to an intersection to park legally anyways. I know this is NYC where illegal parking is an art form and widely tolerated as long as certain cultural norms are followed, but that doesn't make it right.
Parking immediately up to a crosswalk/intersection is legal in NYC, The Vehicle and Traffic Law allows NYCDOT to overrule certain state traffic laws by regulation, and the crosswalk/intersection parking distances are one of them.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on December 05, 2023, 08:23:19 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2023, 09:18:19 PM
Does this even affect legal parking? That area looks too close to an intersection to park legally anyways. I know this is NYC where illegal parking is an art form and widely tolerated as long as certain cultural norms are followed, but that doesn't make it right.
Parking immediately up to a crosswalk/intersection is legal in NYC, The Vehicle and Traffic Law allows NYCDOT to overrule certain state traffic laws by regulation, and the crosswalk/intersection parking distances are one of them.
That's right. It seems that NY (and many other states) generally prohibit parking within 20 feet from a corner (about 1.3 average car lengths). In order to maximize parking, that rule does not apply in NYC. It seems that they are reincorporating the rule for NYC to improve intersection visibility, but the only way to make it legally enforceable will be with a change in the parking signage.
And the only way to make it practically enforceable (i.e. prevent illegal parking at the corner) is to adjust the curbs to prevent cars from staying there. This can be a neckdown by increasing the cement, or putting in bike racks, planters, bollards, or other light infrastructure that prevents a car from sitting there, but still allows for visibility.
So yes, while it seems like a large amount of parking to be lost at any one time, in reality, this is just making NYC conform to rules that apply in much of the nation for visibility purposes. As a percentage, losing one spot for every corner should not be a big deal.
Yeah, in NYC losing those spaces is a big deal.Conditions are so dense that every parking space counts, but I agree that visibility is more important.
A lot of the Midtown avenues are slowly but surely being killed off by NYCDOT. I'm shocked that 8th avenue is down to 2 lanes between 31st and 51st street.
Quote from: TheDon102 on December 16, 2023, 11:11:15 PM
A lot of the Midtown avenues are slowly but surely being killed off by NYCDOT. I'm shocked that 8th avenue is down to 2 lanes between 31st and 51st street.
I guess you are talking about this...
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/08/04/eighth-ave-road-diet-marches-north-but-community-wants-concrete-plan
I'd say that plan goes a little too far. They should maintain 3 lanes for traffic.
Quote from: ixnay on December 17, 2023, 06:52:45 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on December 16, 2023, 11:11:15 PM
A lot of the Midtown avenues are slowly but surely being killed off by NYCDOT. I'm shocked that 8th avenue is down to 2 lanes between 31st and 51st street.
I guess you are talking about this...
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/08/04/eighth-ave-road-diet-marches-north-but-community-wants-concrete-plan
Yes. 8th avenue in 2011 had ~5 lanes of through traffic with two parking lanes, 8th avenue is now down to 2 lanes...crazy. I agree with expanding sidewalks given how narrow they originally were, but 2 lanes for traffic? That's insane.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 19, 2023, 05:13:58 PM
That doesn't answer my question, as the bridge is not a parkway. If I look at, say, Flatbush Avenue between the Marine Parkway Bridge and the Belt Parkway, the BGSs for the Belt Parkway have "Passenger Cars Only" underneath, not "No Commercial Traffic." Same for the signs for the Belt Parkway on the Verrazzano, the signs for the Interboro Parkway on the Van Wyck, or the signs for Grand Central Parkway coming off the Triboro Bridge.
Mostly during the 1970's.
Hey all - a gift from NYCDOT. Street Sign Work Orders. It seems to be organized by sign identifier (in lower left corner of the sign) but I can not figure out how to display the work order to see the sign face itself. Link: https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Transportation/Street-Sign-Work-Orders/qt6m-xctn/data
A classic black on white road sign in NYC. NY-9A HHP just past I-95.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53438743294_7f2023dcdd_k.jpg)
The only other one I know is ATLANTIC BEACH NEW YORK in Far Rockaway
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 10, 2024, 12:53:05 PM
A classic black on white road sign in NYC. NY-9A HHP just past I-95.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53438743294_7f2023dcdd_k.jpg)
The only other one I know is ATLANTIC BEACH NEW YORK in Far Rockaway
beg pardon, WHEN WAS THIS TAKEN?!?!
and exactly where do I need to walk tomorrow (edit:
FOUND IT https://maps.app.goo.gl/5e94MdgKsa9Rb7sQA)
Quote from: Alps on January 10, 2024, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 10, 2024, 12:53:05 PM
A classic black on white road sign in NYC. NY-9A HHP just past I-95.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53438743294_7f2023dcdd_k.jpg)
The only other one I know is ATLANTIC BEACH NEW YORK in Far Rockaway
beg pardon, WHEN WAS THIS TAKEN?!?!
and exactly where do I need to walk tomorrow (edit: FOUND IT https://maps.app.goo.gl/5e94MdgKsa9Rb7sQA)
HA! Good Eye! I took it on New Years Eve Morning. The bottom says KEEP LEFT. I wonder if the road was closer to that rock wall years ago?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 10, 2024, 09:19:25 PM
HA! Good Eye! I took it on New Years Eve Morning. The bottom says KEEP LEFT. I wonder if the road was closer to that rock wall years ago?
I've got a Historic Aerials image of the vicinity from 1954.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=12&lat=40.84&lon=-73.94
Is the PANYNJ or NYCDOT responsible for the sunken approach road from 30th St. up to the Lincoln Tunnel?
Quote from: ixnay on January 21, 2024, 05:43:55 PM
Is the PANYNJ or NYCDOT responsible for the sunken approach road from 30th St. up to the Lincoln Tunnel?
I will make an educated guess that it's the Port Authority's road the same as the helix on the New Jersey side.
Quote from: SignBridge on January 21, 2024, 07:52:37 PM
Quote from: ixnay on January 21, 2024, 05:43:55 PM
Is the PANYNJ or NYCDOT responsible for the sunken approach road from 30th St. up to the Lincoln Tunnel?
I will make an educated guess that it's the Port Authority's road the same as the helix on the New Jersey side.
After posting, I imagined it is the PA's.
It doesn't show up in the RIS Viewer (https://gis.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=risviewer), so it's Port Authority. It and the MTA don't show up in the maintenance jurisdiction view for some reason.
Any sign replacements with the Queensboro Bridge deck replacement? It's mostly button copy on the bridge.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NqfCib4Qv2WHELKG9
A normal mast arm in New York City?
What's up with breaking tradition in front of the Javitz Convention and not using the infamous NYC double guy mast arm.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/h4dymLoZbKkGm8Gw8
Also is the building here at 491 11th Avenue part of the Lincoln Tunnel? Considering it resembles the three tall buildings on 12th Avenue one block away that are the real ventilation buildings for each tunnel tube, I would say yes and no. The design being the same says yes, but only one building here and redundant to the other buildings say no.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 06, 2024, 06:55:26 AMthe infamous NYC double guy mast arm.
Why is it infamous?
NYC loves their guy wired mast arms so much they even use them to mount the tolling equipment for their "infamous" congestion pricing scheme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKmzIq5DmY0
Quote from: roadman65 on February 06, 2024, 06:55:26 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NqfCib4Qv2WHELKG9
A normal mast arm in New York City?
What's up with breaking tradition in front of the Javitz Convention and not using the infamous NYC double guy mast arm.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/h4dymLoZbKkGm8Gw8
Also is the building here at 491 11th Avenue part of the Lincoln Tunnel? Considering it resembles the three tall buildings on 12th Avenue one block away that are the real ventilation buildings for each tunnel tube, I would say yes and no. The design being the same says yes, but only one building here and redundant to the other buildings say no.
There's a solid chance that the Port Authority erected those and not NYCDOT. There's also these (https://maps.app.goo.gl/kBYytBqFjgpDoGvZ7) over on 94th St at LGA and the ramps to the Grand Central. Pretty sure the PA had these erected as part of the roadway reconstruction that happened with the airport modernization project. There's also the nice GCP shields and not just the standard BGS's that you usually see near expressway/parkway entrances with just the parkway name and no shield.
How will the congestion pricing work? I don't see any gantries off the FDR Drive. If I get into the Brooklyn bridge from the FDR will I be tolled?
I hear there are license plate readers on the FDR to confirm a car didn't get off and go into the grid. So what if I get off at southbound Exit 5 or 7 and make a U turn to get right back on going north?
Not all traffic patterns are typical. So it'll be like a guessing game for them? "Well the car made it under gantry 1 but not gantry 3 so therefore he must've gotten off?"
The congestion pricing plan might never happen, despite the construction of all that overhead apparatus. There is a lot of public pressure against it and lawsuits being filed. The legal process could drag out for years. This whole thing is turning into a boondoggle before it even goes into operation. The City and the MTA may eventually just have to give up on it.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 07, 2024, 10:41:59 PM
The congestion pricing plan might never happen, despite the construction of all that overhead apparatus. There is a lot of public pressure against it and lawsuits being filed. The legal process could drag out for years. This whole thing is turning into a boondoggle before it even goes into operation. The City and the MTA may eventually just have to give up on it.
Pfft. Yeah, no. It's happening.
Quote from: Rothman on February 07, 2024, 10:53:07 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 07, 2024, 10:41:59 PM
The congestion pricing plan might never happen, despite the construction of all that overhead apparatus. There is a lot of public pressure against it and lawsuits being filed. The legal process could drag out for years. This whole thing is turning into a boondoggle before it even goes into operation. The City and the MTA may eventually just have to give up on it.
Pfft. Yeah, no. It's happening.
You sure love to reinforce the notion of projects that will make it harder to drive are going forward.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 07, 2024, 11:39:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 07, 2024, 10:53:07 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 07, 2024, 10:41:59 PM
The congestion pricing plan might never happen, despite the construction of all that overhead apparatus. There is a lot of public pressure against it and lawsuits being filed. The legal process could drag out for years. This whole thing is turning into a boondoggle before it even goes into operation. The City and the MTA may eventually just have to give up on it.
Pfft. Yeah, no. It's happening.
You sure love to reinforce the notion of projects that will make it harder to drive are going forward.
Only when there's quite a lot of evidence that this particular project will indeed be implemented.
What is going on, on the Long Island Expressway from Exit 27 to 29? There's a lot of construction there, my guess its to do with the on and offramps to and from the Clearview but im not sure.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 07, 2024, 10:17:15 PM
How will the congestion pricing work? I don't see any gantries off the FDR Drive. If I get into the Brooklyn bridge from the FDR will I be tolled?
I hear there are license plate readers on the FDR to confirm a car didn't get off and go into the grid. So what if I get off at southbound Exit 5 or 7 and make a U turn to get right back on going north?
Not all traffic patterns are typical. So it'll be like a guessing game for them? "Well the car made it under gantry 1 but not gantry 3 so therefore he must've gotten off?"
I wouldn't be surprised if they're just guessing, much like the Thruway does for traffic around exit 25A.
A few days ago, there was a story about the feds rejecting an $800 million grant to redesign the crumbling triple-cantilever segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway: https://www.amny.com/transit/feds-reject-grants-crumbling-bqe-cantilever/. Either they're waiting for it to collapse like the West Side Highway in 1973, or the only alternative the surrounding neighborhoods will accept is the freeway's complete demolition.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 09, 2024, 12:19:38 PM
A few days ago, there was a story about the feds rejecting an $800 million grant to redesign the crumbling triple-cantilever segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway: https://www.amny.com/transit/feds-reject-grants-crumbling-bqe-cantilever/. Either they're waiting for it to collapse like the West Side Highway in 1973, or the only alternative the surrounding neighborhoods will accept is the freeway's complete demolition.
Or, the project just wasn't competitive compared to other applicants.
These discretionary grants from the BIL were a ridiculous boondoggle in of themselves. Main purpose seems to be to line consultants' pockets in application preparation costs.
I'm surprised the Feds rejected that application. The BQE is designated an Interstate highway despite its inferior obsolete design. You'd think they'd consider it reasonable to help fund a plan to rehab that section of it which is in everyone's best interest to do. If that road ever has to be shut down completely it will be very detrimental to regional commerce and I would think the Feds would want to avoid that.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 09, 2024, 08:46:31 PM
I'm surprised the Feds rejected that application. The BQE is designated an Interstate highway despite its inferior obsolete design. You'd think they'd consider it reasonable to help fund a plan to rehab that section of it which is in everyone's best interest to do. If that road ever has to be shut down completely it will be very detrimental to regional commerce and I would think the Feds would want to avoid that.
I'm not as surprised. Feds want the money spent and the City is quite slow at progressing projects and spending the money. So, deliverability scores would be low and other applicants would get the money. Also, the $800m ask was probably scoffed at for being way too low given expected costs. Only partially funding a project can make them last in limbo forever.
Yeah, I see your point about them wanting to disburse the funds for shovel ready projects, so the money will be used promptly and effectively. And yes, NYC will take forever to get the project underway........
Quote from: SignBridge on February 07, 2024, 10:41:59 PM
The congestion pricing plan might never happen, despite the construction of all that overhead apparatus. There is a lot of public pressure against it and lawsuits being filed. The legal process could drag out for years. This whole thing is turning into a boondoggle before it even goes into operation. The City and the MTA may eventually just have to give up on it.
Wishful thinking. It will happen. It should happen. I said what I said even knowing the forum in which I said it.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 07, 2024, 10:17:15 PM
How will the congestion pricing work? I don't see any gantries off the FDR Drive. If I get into the Brooklyn bridge from the FDR will I be tolled?
I hear there are license plate readers on the FDR to confirm a car didn't get off and go into the grid. So what if I get off at southbound Exit 5 or 7 and make a U turn to get right back on going north?
Not all traffic patterns are typical. So it'll be like a guessing game for them? "Well the car made it under gantry 1 but not gantry 3 so therefore he must've gotten off?"
The FDR/HRD and the West Side Hwy/HHP are exempted from tolling. You can drive on those without paying the CC. The readers are supposed to account for all of this.
What the hell happened to the US 1 Bridge over the Hutchinson River in the Northeast Bronx?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8875159,-73.8242904,3a,75y,61.13h,93.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOexfLCVTQDH1uarWalqGGw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DOexfLCVTQDH1uarWalqGGw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D223.28076%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu
And I thought neglecting Southern Boulevard near Clermont Park was bad enough.
The MTA voted to approve congestion pricing.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/traffic/transit-traffic/congestion-pricing-nyc-mta-vote/5264500/
Looks like NYC will soon be able to lower its default speed limit (again) to 20 mph this time: https://archive.is/v6Gax
Quote from: crispy93 on April 19, 2024, 08:55:26 AMLooks like NYC will soon be able to lower its default speed limit (again) to 20 mph this time: https://archive.is/v6Gax
Meh. 25 mph was a good one. If enforcement isn't cutting it now, it certainly won't at 20.
Quote from: Rothman on April 19, 2024, 09:14:45 AMQuote from: crispy93 on April 19, 2024, 08:55:26 AMLooks like NYC will soon be able to lower its default speed limit (again) to 20 mph this time: https://archive.is/v6Gax
Meh. 25 mph was a good one. If enforcement isn't cutting it now, it certainly won't at 20.
Is there even an objective, factual basis for this?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 19, 2024, 01:09:31 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 19, 2024, 09:14:45 AMQuote from: crispy93 on April 19, 2024, 08:55:26 AMLooks like NYC will soon be able to lower its default speed limit (again) to 20 mph this time: https://archive.is/v6Gax
Meh. 25 mph was a good one. If enforcement isn't cutting it now, it certainly won't at 20.
Is there even an objective, factual basis for this?
For lowering the speed limit?
Let's just say requests for speed limit reductions on State-owned roads come in regularly to NYSDOT and are regularly rejected for not being warranted...
Whether the City has an engineering-based check on people who just think lower speed limits are a panacea...I don't know...
Quote from: Rothman on April 19, 2024, 09:14:45 AMQuote from: crispy93 on April 19, 2024, 08:55:26 AMLooks like NYC will soon be able to lower its default speed limit (again) to 20 mph this time: https://archive.is/v6Gax
Meh. 25 mph was a good one. If enforcement isn't cutting it now, it certainly won't at 20.
I guess the people calling for this are forgetting that we have cars so we can go faster than horses and buggies. That and not having to leave horse or other animal shit on the streets. Are they seriously trying to bring us back to 19th Century speed limits?
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 19, 2024, 09:16:30 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 19, 2024, 09:14:45 AMQuote from: crispy93 on April 19, 2024, 08:55:26 AMLooks like NYC will soon be able to lower its default speed limit (again) to 20 mph this time: https://archive.is/v6Gax
Meh. 25 mph was a good one. If enforcement isn't cutting it now, it certainly won't at 20.
I guess the people calling for this are forgetting that we have cars so we can go faster than horses and buggies. That and not having to leave horse or other animal shit on the streets. Are they seriously trying to bring us back to 19th Century speed limits?
I don't know. I know some people floor it and then smash their brakes when lights turn on Manhattan -- and then subsequently must get brake work done every six months -- but, 25 mph is a good NY speed limit in my experience. Sure, you can hit 35 or so, but any faster than that, you become one of those bad drivers that never misses a turn, which ticks everyone off, locals and whoever else alike.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 19, 2024, 09:16:30 PMI guess the people calling for this are forgetting that we have cars so we can go faster than horses and buggies. That and not having to leave horse or other animal shit on the streets. Are they seriously trying to bring us back to 19th Century speed limits?
It's not so much as they forgot as they view the proliferation of cars as a mistake which they seek to undo.
NYC has speed cameras that go off when you go 10 mph over, now they can get money from people doing 30.