AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: Alex on August 18, 2009, 12:34:57 AM

Title: New York
Post by: Alex on August 18, 2009, 12:34:57 AM
Does anyone know what this concrete structure is?

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.153029~-77.607722&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1 (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.153029~-77.607722&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 18, 2009, 12:38:57 AM
It's right next to the train station (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/rochester/lvrr.jpg (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/rochester/lvrr.jpg)) so my guess is the tracks came in on that structure.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mightyace on August 18, 2009, 01:57:22 PM
To me, it looks like the tracks stub-ended underneath and the concrete structure was for pickup and deliveries of passengers including via taxi and trucks with express freight.

But, without an old photo to go by, I can't say whether either Alps or myself is right.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 18, 2009, 07:43:47 PM
http://www.crookedlakereview.com/images/136_150/140summer2006/sheret6.jpg (http://www.crookedlakereview.com/images/136_150/140summer2006/sheret6.jpg)
That's from an old postcard - appears that the left side (where your concrete structure is) was a building foundation and trains came in somewhere else.  A little hard to tell, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 18, 2009, 07:57:00 PM
Is New York similar to Vermont where incorporated villages and cities maintain their own signage? I am wondering if this may explain the difference in these types of state shields:

https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york250/ny-256_sb_end.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york250/ny-256_sb_end.jpg) vs. https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york010/ny-015_nb_at_ny-256_sb.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york010/ny-015_nb_at_ny-256_sb.jpg)

If not, are the differences in shield styles a contractor, issue, a district issue, or something else?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 18, 2009, 09:28:54 PM
I hope it's a contractor issue, but it's definitely a NYSDOT problem, nothing to do with town-maintained routes.  Couldn't tell you if it's regional or not, but I've only seen that first style upstate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 18, 2009, 09:31:18 PM
the 36 and 63 are an older standard, and the 15 and the 256 with it are a newer one.

old standard can be seen here:
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19700281t300280.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19700281t300280.jpg)

the 256 with the 36 and the 63 is non-standard.  must be a contractor flaw.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on August 19, 2009, 06:38:29 AM
That train station is now a Dinosaur BBQ restaurant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ian on August 19, 2009, 08:57:36 AM
Both of those shields I have seen more than just a few times. I am starting to think its not a contractor issue rather than it being the new type of shield. I hope I am wrong at this because its hideous IMHO. The hump in the 63 and 36 shields are too short and the hump in the 256 is too wide.

i
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 19, 2009, 08:59:48 AM
Well, no NYSDOT is testing new shields, and that was one of the designs :|
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 19, 2009, 10:34:30 PM
New York is consistently inconsistent anyways (to quote Doug Kerr).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 20, 2009, 02:44:27 AM
Any idea of what used to be displayed where the empty brackets are in this assembly:

https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york999/bridge_st_nb_at_i-690_eb_02.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york999/bridge_st_nb_at_i-690_eb_02.jpg)

The assembly is on Bridge Street north at Exit 17 of I-690.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: njroadhorse on August 20, 2009, 10:22:24 AM
Perhaps "TO I-81", as I-690 West does go there.  It would make sense, considering I-481 and NY 290 are also mentioned.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 20, 2009, 06:12:13 PM
Deanej: When NYSDOT posts bad signs, they go the extra mile:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3637/3509259368_13136d0866_o.jpg)

edit: Because I forgot how to trim the size of your obnoxiously large photo, I simply replaced it with a link instead. I'm about to go find out how to make it smaller . . .

-your "friendly" moderator, Yanksfan

double edit: add "width=800" inside the img tag. 

triple edit: thank you

-the "friendly" one again
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 20, 2009, 07:47:18 PM
Quote
Perhaps "TO I-81", as I-690 West does go there.  It would make sense, considering I-481 and NY 290 are also mentioned.

Was just looking at my 1965 Rand, and the Syracuse inset shows New York 415 heading north from New York 290 near the intersection with Bridge Street. Could this be the missing shield?

New York 415 (http://www.gribblenation.net/nyroutes/ind/410_419.htm) was assigned to U.S. 15's alignment in 1974, so this answer may be a stretch as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 20, 2009, 08:13:59 PM
Um, shields are a little new for that. NY 415 has been decommissioned for sometime in Syracuse. It is now Onondaga CR 77, so really not much of a chance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 20, 2009, 09:10:25 PM
Quote
Um, shields are a little new for that. NY 415 has been decommissioned for sometime in Syracuse. It is now Onondaga CR 77, so really not much of a chance.

Um, I admitted it was a stretch. Weirder things have happened in NYS, look at the U.S. 15 shields still posted in Rochester...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 24, 2009, 12:20:11 PM
How far was John Glenn Boulevard supposed to extend eastward? I see on aerials that it ends at Buckley Road (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=r5qb7n8ng82g&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=8175282&encType=1), but grading continues a bit further north to Morgan Road. Several printed maps also show it as completed between Buckley and Morgan Roads, but that is certainly not the case in reality.

Also, is Onondaga County 57 the only county route signed within the county?

I read that the original end of Interstate 690 involved turning onto Interstate 90 at a traffic light. I can see the trumpet interchange footprint on this aerial (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.111166~-76.267648&style=h&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1). Was the traffic light at the end of the ramps, or with New York 48, or somewhere else?

The USGS quad shows the original configuration as well:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-690_original_west_end.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 24, 2009, 12:33:00 PM
I can tell you for sure that Onondaga County Route 57 isn't even signed right :P - Its signed so no one got confused with the decommissioning of NY 57. Its internally Onondaga County Route 91-2 or 91B for the layman.

The others I am not so sure on.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on August 24, 2009, 04:15:37 PM
I had always figured that John Glenn Boulevard would have connected with NY 481. I don't have any concrete evidence, but I always guessed it could be the case.

Also, on another 481 note, I believe that the end of the NY 5 expressway in Fairmount(at Wegman's) could have connected to the current end of 481 at 81 south of Syracuse. Again, no concrete evidence. Just a thought.

If those two thoughts of mine are correct(please, someone let me know if I am on to something), those two projects together would have created a full loop of sorts around Syracuse. 481 to 5 to 695 to 690 to John Glenn Boulevard back to 481.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 24, 2009, 06:31:21 PM
Snappyjack is correct on John Glenn Blvd.  A regional transportation plan from 1971 (which I found at the SU library) shows the plan was to extend it north to meet NY 481 midway between the Morgan Rd and Henry Clay Blvd overpasses.  A rough hand-drawn map is on my Fictional NY 348 page (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/fictional/new_york/syracuse/ny348/ny348.htm).

Regarding NY 5, there were actually two proposals for the end of the expressway in Fairmount.  One, as Snappyjack suggests, would have connected to I-81...but near Nedrow instead of at I-481.  The other would have extended an improved NY 5 (either freeway or an improved arterial) east towards downtown Syracuse, with various alternatives considered (upgrading Genessee St, Erie Blvd, new alignment near Grand Ave or Onondaga St, stopping at Geddes St or continuing to West St).

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 26, 2009, 02:36:20 PM
Anyone know what happens to NY 45 south of NY 59 near Spring Valley? The NYSDOT route log and traffic data documents indicate it goes to the NJ line but I can't find evidence of its route from NY 59 to NJ on any online or paper source I have access to.  I'm working on the NYS highway system for the clinched highway mapping project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 26, 2009, 04:14:46 PM
NY 45 follows Chestnut Ridge Rd. straight to the NJ border. Even has a standard NYS Welcome sign. Looks like there are standard reassurance and reference markers posted on the route as well. Sign at border (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Woodcliff+Lake,+NJ&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.421237,65.478516&ie=UTF8&ll=41.070982,-74.067905&spn=0.000709,0.000999&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.071073,-74.067889&panoid=8a_DG6k8JQjl4jGvhnsw4Q&cbp=12,55.88,,0,7.9)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 26, 2009, 04:37:01 PM
Thanks for the NY 45 info.  That seemed like it would be the logical routing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 27, 2009, 12:18:51 AM
I-390 upgrade, in Livingston County, gets funding

GENESEO - Assemblyman Daniel Burling (R,C,I-Warsaw) announced funding for Livingston County transportation improvements. $3.2 million will be directed to pavement replacement on Interstate 390. Burling called the funding critical to the economic stability of Western New York.

“Rough roadways mean longer commutes for work and leisure, increased strain on our automobiles, and a climate that hinders improvements to our local economy,”  said Burling. “A stable transportation infrastructure is essential to keeping families and businesses here in Western New York, as well as to attracting new investment to the region.”

The $3.2 million repaving of I-390 will cover 6.5 miles of roadway between Routes 5 and 20 in Avon to Route 20A in Geneseo. To maintain pavement integrity, deteriorating sections of concrete will be removed and replaced. The project is expected to be complete in June 2011.

Burling cautioned motorists to expect one lane of traffic in each direction, with a speed limit reduction to 55 mph during construction hours.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 27, 2009, 10:14:13 AM
Didn't they just repave that area?  I-390 north of Mount Morris is just fine the way it is now.  Give the funding to the areas south of there that actually need it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 27, 2009, 12:48:26 PM
Heh old 401 hell
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on August 27, 2009, 07:30:10 PM
US 219 freeway expansion delayed:

Quote
Don't expect completion of a superhighway version of Route 219 to make its way down into ski country anytime soon.

The newest section of road construction, landslide and all, has ballooned to $122 million from its original cost of $85.6 million, representing a 42 percent increase.

Cleanup work where the landslide occurred at the Town of Concord's Scoby Hill added $25 million more, and that's on top of an additional $12 million in miscellaneous overruns for the 4.2 miles of roadway that includes a double bridge spanning high above Cattaraugus Creek.

The price tag for the next 3.7-mile section is estimated at about $72 million, but bidding of the project has been delayed for two years because of questions concerning the environmental impact on wetlands.

And it will be at least a year before motorists will be able to bypass Springville at Route 39 on the newest section and drive into Cattaraugus County's Town of Ashford, where they will exit back onto existing 219 at Peters Road.

This latest stretch of north-south, four-lane expressway was supposed to open in December.

http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/772997.html (http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/772997.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on August 28, 2009, 03:27:37 PM
More New York BS. God forbid we actually build a nice road for once without delays and chickens**t studies.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 28, 2009, 04:10:54 PM
Yeah. This state can't accomplish 219, imagine what'll happen if they go ahead with the Northern Tier (Rooftop) Expressway from 81 to 87.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on August 28, 2009, 04:18:00 PM
Yeah, I'm certainly not holding my breath on that one. :-P
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 28, 2009, 04:20:57 PM
Next they'll turn NY 12 into the Chenango Expressway, (which serves a good reason to swap NY 320 to Chenango County), and then 104 into the Ridge Expressway,

it'll be a never ending spree
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on February 07, 2011, 07:16:41 AM
Here's a blog post (http://walkbikejersey.blogspot.com/2011/02/roundabout-video-shows-locals-eating.html) that includes a video of the apparently-new roundabout at US 9/NY 9L/NY 32 in Glens Falls.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on February 16, 2012, 01:24:06 PM
Found a Clearview guide sign along the Whitestone Expressway southbound on GSV today ahead of Exit 15.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.787308,-73.821999&spn=0.000016,0.007113&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.787435,-73.824007&panoid=QbutMwcL0lIMv7r3R9cOCw&cbp=12,188.21,,0,7.16

This a NYC thing, or just a random exception?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on February 16, 2012, 10:25:32 PM
That's an NYCDOT sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 17, 2012, 09:24:41 PM
Found a Clearview guide sign along the Whitestone Expressway southbound on GSV today ahead of Exit 15.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.787308,-73.821999&spn=0.000016,0.007113&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.787435,-73.824007&panoid=QbutMwcL0lIMv7r3R9cOCw&cbp=12,188.21,,0,7.16

This a NYC thing, or just a random exception?

NYSDOT Region 2 (Utica) is starting to put Clearview signs on two-lane roads here and there, mostly down in Madison County.  There's a few along NY Route 8.

I'm anxious to see the new signs for the CR 34 / Marcy-SUNYIT Expressway interchange (formerly Edic Rd) off of Route 49 near Utica to see if they'll be in Clearview or not.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 27, 2012, 10:26:43 PM
Does anyone know what this concrete structure is?

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.153029~-77.607722&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1 (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.153029~-77.607722&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1)

I realize this question is really old, but since I didn't see the answer mentioned: this was the interchange ramp between the Rochester subway and the Lehigh Valley RR. The building on the left, now Dinosaur BBQ, is the ex-Lehigh station (and preserved as such, to a large extent). To the right of the ramp stub is the tunnel portal where the subway descended below grade, running up to the former Erie Canal aqueduct, now the unused lower level of the Broad St. bridge (scroll north to see it).

There is still an old raceway running through the lower levels of the Rundel library building, which is there on the north side of Court St. On the east-facing view you can see the arches where this raceway empties into the Genesee River.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on April 19, 2012, 08:15:38 PM
Does anyone have any idea of why the north-south roads near Henrietta are at an angle?  It's not like there's any mountains to go around.  Here's (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.052207,-77.626648&spn=0.105494,0.222988&t=m&z=13) a map link of the area I'm referring to.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on April 19, 2012, 08:41:46 PM
http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/17132/County+Plan/Monroe+County+1872/New+York/ shows how the land was divided into lots. So blame the original landowners, perhaps these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pulteney_Association
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on April 19, 2012, 09:08:51 PM
Does anyone know why Hylan Boulevard and Stueben Street in Staten Island are the way they are.  Should not Hylan be Stueben and vise versa.  I am guessing that I-278 had something to do with it, but it would seem logical to not have Stueben Street at all and just call it Hylan Boulevard with the original as maybe Old Hylan Boulevard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 20, 2012, 12:57:04 AM
Does anyone have any idea of why the north-south roads near Henrietta are at an angle?  It's not like there's any mountains to go around.  Here's (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.052207,-77.626648&spn=0.105494,0.222988&t=m&z=13) a map link of the area I'm referring to.

Lots of the old land purchases in the Northeast were non-rectangular; the national standard of square township and range lines didn't fully take hold until much later. I would guess that the diagonal line along the eastern margins of Henrietta, Rush, and part of Brighton was located somehow in relation to the Genesee River.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: highwayroads on April 21, 2012, 10:06:52 PM
I like that New York allows you to go through construction sites at 55.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 22, 2012, 12:28:10 PM
It depends on the area.  Most 65mph roads allow work zone speed limits of 55, but not always.  On 55mph roads, work zones are typically 45.  Region 9 often doesn't post work zone speed limits at all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 22, 2012, 07:18:34 PM
Did NYSDOT Region #10 really transform the Northern State Parkway-NYS 110 interchange from a cloverleaf into a diamond? Or was this just a rumor from an anonymous IP on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_State_Route_110&action=history
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 22, 2012, 07:36:19 PM
Not done yet, but they're going to (http://www.gpinet.com/userfiles/file/BAB%20Northern%20State%20and%20LIE%20at%20Rte%20110.pdf).

NYSDOT press release (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2011/2011-05-19)


With respect to the Wiki edit in question, it appears to be correct - Google shows a construction configuration (http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.796154,-73.415076&spn=0.00411,0.010568&hnear=New+York&t=h&z=17) with only one exit ramp each way. The specific configuration is temporary but the presence of only one exit each way is permanent.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 22, 2012, 08:50:33 PM
Ugh! Don't tell me they're eliminating the loop ramps on the L.I.E.!


God DAMMIT!!

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 23, 2012, 11:33:27 AM
NYSDOT did the same thing to the NY 404/NY 47 (now NY 590) interchange.  My understanding is that it was done to take care of some really bad weaving.

At the Rochester road meet we even saw a car use one of the old ramps as a cut-through to his driveway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 23, 2012, 02:11:42 PM
Yes they did, many many years ago. One of the old loop ramps is now an oddly-divided dead-end residential street. I think it was residential even when it was also a ramp!

Somewhat more recently, they also de-looped the Fairport interchange (Exit 25).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 24, 2012, 07:56:22 AM
Quote
Ugh! Don't tell me they're eliminating the loop ramps on the L.I.E.!

Depending on which loops remain, a 6-ramp par-clo will generally operate more efficiently than a full cloverleaf, in part because there is no longer the weaving movements mentioned by deanej.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on May 07, 2012, 07:48:19 AM
I went over to Liverpool yesterday to pick up a computer I won on eBay, and I have a few things to report from the trip:

I saw my first yellow "YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS IN CROSSWALK" in-road sign in Elbridge.  I thought that pedestrian signs in this area weren't even made using yellow anymore.

NY 695 has all new signage north of Gerelock Road.  One thing that stuck out to me was the new I-690 West exit BGS.  The sign is closer to being a square, similar to the one on the left on the old sign bridge (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.075126,-76.229603&spn=0.00435,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.074964,-76.229758&panoid=Id5WHMVOwVBh7S-7RVb3uw&cbp=12,46.76,,0,4.02).  The new 690 West sign is basically identical to the old one.  The "EXIT ONLY" panel on the new sign was the first time I've seen the up/right arrow used in the "EXIT ONLY" area.  It read "EXIT [arrow] ONLY".  The BGS is also on a new sign bridge spanning the entire highway, along with a new "Gerelock Rd./EXIT ½ MILE" sign above the southbound lanes.  The mini overhead "Gerelock Rd." sign before the exit (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.073935,-76.231052&spn=0.004381,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.074053,-76.230932&panoid=NybM9hIV8gw-xhWlV2KnLQ&cbp=12,223.63,,1,-2.15) has been replaced by a ground-mounted sign.  I don't remember if the overhead "EXIT" sign at the gore (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.071059,-76.234174&spn=0.004381,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.071248,-76.233934&panoid=IxUgyFfaT9AQh5cv2XQpqA&cbp=12,237.61,,1,-3.34) was there or not.

The blue mile markers that were installed sometime around 2002 (someone correct me if I'm wrong) on NY 5, NY 695, and I-690 have been replaced with MUTCD-compliant green ones.  Street View imagery from July 2011 shows the old mile markers (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.057404,-76.236953&spn=0.004382,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.05732,-76.236997&panoid=KoqOyr986YhSqtMs6BS7zg&cbp=12,63.12,,2,2.8).

Option lanes at exit ramps and lane splits in the area have been repainted to be dotted, but they didn't remove or black out the old paint.

When we exited I-690 at John Glenn Blvd., I saw my first "sideways" added lane sign (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.11288,-76.2662&spn=0.008756,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.11288,-76.2662&panoid=kYzhRzruEKafSqJ1rRCkfA&cbp=12,315.73,,1,-0.05).  Just after the merge, I noticed that the railroad crossing (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.114611,-76.264515&spn=0.004378,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.114611,-76.264515&panoid=EPt6iE7d_M1V-euWP-g-VA&cbp=12,80.82,,0,-6.58) had 8 inch lenses.

Around the intersection of John Glenn Blvd. and CR 57, there are (imo ugly) non-cutout CR 57 shields, along with directional banners that are probably half as high as they should be.  They look more like street blades than directional banners.  As an aside, I think that the the "JCT CR 57" shield on John Glenn Blvd. eastbound is way too close to the intersection.  I also saw a left turn arrow with a "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" sign.  There may be more, but I only saw one.

On the way home, I saw a VMS advertising the upcoming I-81 Challenge (http://thei81challenge.org) public meeting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 07, 2012, 06:28:45 PM
Does any part of the Long Island Expressway allow for 65 mph since NY adapted the law.  I know that when the 65 mph law was allowed on interstates DE, MD, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, and MA did not allow anything above 55, so this particular interstate never got it then, but since NY implemented the 65 on interstates has at least the Suffolk part of the Expressway allow any part to be 65?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 20, 2012, 08:52:51 PM
I was on Canal St. EB through Ellenville today (Canal and Center are the two-way couplets for NY 52, a unique situation where both roads are signed as 52 in both directions). I noticed that the reference route markers on Canal read "1V01" instead of "1101" - a V instead of a tens digit. That would seem to indicate Center as the main route and Canal as some sort of alternate designation. Also, the eastern end of canal was in the 2V01 range, suggesting a control section reset where the reference markers reappeared. (There were almost none through town that I saw.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: signalman on May 21, 2012, 07:57:31 AM
Does any part of the Long Island Expressway allow for 65 mph since NY adapted the law.  I know that when the 65 mph law was allowed on interstates DE, MD, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, and MA did not allow anything above 55, so this particular interstate never got it then, but since NY implemented the 65 on interstates has at least the Suffolk part of the Expressway allow any part to be 65?

I seem to remember seeing a pic of the LIE with a 65 speed limit sign in the pic.  I don't know where along the highway it was though.  Most likely out in Suffolk County.  Personally, I can't confirm the speed limit on the LIE as I've never been on it.  Hell, I was only out on Long Island once, and I used the Southern State Parkway.  I remember that being posted at 55, but traffic was moving around 70.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 21, 2012, 08:37:09 PM
I was on Canal St. EB through Ellenville today (Canal and Center are the two-way couplets for NY 52, a unique situation where both roads are signed as 52 in both directions). I noticed that the reference route markers on Canal read "1V01" instead of "1101" - a V instead of a tens digit. That would seem to indicate Center as the main route and Canal as some sort of alternate designation. Also, the eastern end of canal was in the 2V01 range, suggesting a control section reset where the reference markers reappeared. (There were almost none through town that I saw.)

Yes, the V is standard for one-way couplets, although Ellenville might be the only place it's actually used. (That might be because couplets are usually found on locally-maintained streets, which don't have reference markers posted.) See http://empirestateroads.com/rm/2.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 21, 2012, 08:40:25 PM
I was on Canal St. EB through Ellenville today (Canal and Center are the two-way couplets for NY 52, a unique situation where both roads are signed as 52 in both directions). I noticed that the reference route markers on Canal read "1V01" instead of "1101" - a V instead of a tens digit. That would seem to indicate Center as the main route and Canal as some sort of alternate designation. Also, the eastern end of canal was in the 2V01 range, suggesting a control section reset where the reference markers reappeared. (There were almost none through town that I saw.)

Yes, the V is standard for one-way couplets, although Ellenville might be the only place it's actually used. (That might be because couplets are usually found on locally-maintained streets, which don't have reference markers posted.) See http://empirestateroads.com/rm/2.html
Well, that would suggest what we've already been saying, that 52 WB officially follows Canal and 52 EB officially follows Center. Even though both directions are signed as the actual route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 22, 2012, 10:51:16 AM
I seem to remember seeing a pic of the LIE with a 65 speed limit sign in the pic.  I don't know where along the highway it was though.  Most likely out in Suffolk County.  Personally, I can't confirm the speed limit on the LIE as I've never been on it.  Hell, I was only out on Long Island once, and I used the Southern State Parkway.  I remember that being posted at 55, but traffic was moving around 70.
I don't know where you saw it, but I imagine it might've been somewhere east of William Floyd Parkway.




Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 22, 2012, 11:23:12 PM
Okay, I mentioned this on this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5411.msg145213#msg145213

But I really need an exact year for the demolition of the US 9W-NY 303 one-way interchange.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 09, 2012, 04:04:17 PM
TOLLROADSnews: NY Thruway's understated debt, stagnant traffic, big health costs, cheap truck tolls pose financial crisis - Navigant Capital Advisors (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5979)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 10, 2012, 01:10:40 PM
I'm not sure how accurate that report is; I-84 was transferred back to NYSDOT, so it can't be a growing burden.  Who knows what other errors could be in the report.

I'm not sure how much raising truck tolls would help.  There are already a lot of shunpiking trucks on NY 5 and NY 31.  Do we really want more of them?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 10, 2012, 04:01:02 PM
I'm not sure how accurate that report is; I-84 was transferred back to NYSDOT, so it can't be a growing burden.  Who knows what other errors could be in the report.

You are absolutely correct about I-84.  And there was no mention of the toll barrier that was removed from I-190 either.

Quote
I'm not sure how much raising truck tolls would help.  There are already a lot of shunpiking trucks on NY 5 and NY 31.  Do we really want more of them?

Though using the non-freeway alternative (I mean freeway in the sense of functional class, not free of tolls) presumably costs those trucks time (and more wear on brakes, engines, clutches and transmissions).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 17, 2012, 12:52:46 AM
Well. One of the last vestiges of the Richmond Parkway extension has met its fate. I passed under the ex-overpasses between Exits 11 and 12, and well, there's nada left of the main overpasses. There are some overpasses left and one ramp, but that's it.


(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8002/7384006968_5384eee5aa_c.jpg)
Not used to seeing this scene on the SIE east.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7216/7384010474_054be771c1_c.jpg)
Even sadder shot, considering that you see where the ramps were.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8154/7384011752_7608e52c43_c.jpg)
This is one of the few remaining structures, SIE west just after Exit 12 ramp.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7232/7384006194_be0a26f95c_c.jpg)
This ramp on the SIE Eastbound is still there....for now...(its the only one left)

Related news article on SILive.com: http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/unused_overpasses_nearly_gone.html


Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 17, 2012, 05:42:32 PM
Well. One of the last vestiges of the Richmond Parkway extension has met its fate. I passed under the ex-overpasses between Exits 11 and 12, and well, there's nada left of the main overpasses. There are some overpasses left and one ramp, but that's it.
Now I'm wishing for a nuclear holocaust. NYSDOT has no credibility left. They've gone from Robert Moses types to John Norquist types.

 :no: :banghead:

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on June 17, 2012, 06:16:00 PM
To be fair, the reason the unused interchange is being removed is because the highway that goes through it is being widened and the extra lanes wouldn't fit under the existing ramps.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 17, 2012, 09:11:22 PM
Okay, but it would be great if they revived the ramps, and the road it was intended for. Of course the fact that they "widened" NY 112 from a two-lane undivided highway to a two-lane divided highway from Coram to Port Jefferson Station doesn't leave me with that much faith in them.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on June 17, 2012, 09:15:53 PM
They've gone from Robert Moses types to John Norquist types.
Scumbags to a different type of scumbags?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 17, 2012, 11:43:05 PM
Okay, but it would be great if they revived the ramps, and the road it was intended for. Of course the fact that they "widened" NY 112 from a two-lane undivided highway to a two-lane divided highway from Coram to Port Jefferson Station doesn't leave me with that much faith in them.


In your dreams Dan. The Richmond Parkway extension is never going to happen, and honestly I don't support it. Call me a NIMBY if you want, but it failed, it ain't ever coming back. If NYSDOT needs to remove the abandoned overpasses for a more important, already existing expressway, then it needs to be.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Lyle on June 18, 2012, 05:37:34 PM
Adam, why don't you support it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 18, 2012, 07:21:25 PM
To be fair, the reason the unused interchange is being removed is because the highway that goes through it is being widened and the extra lanes wouldn't fit under the existing ramps.
Also, at some point even unused overpasses need maintenance, and why spend money on something like that?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on June 18, 2012, 09:27:46 PM
Could have been part of a mountain bike park :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 18, 2012, 10:56:10 PM
Adam, why don't you support it?


It got canned. It isn't coming back. Staten Islanders won't be begging for it either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 19, 2012, 07:27:12 PM
Adam, why don't you support it?


It got canned. It isn't coming back. Staten Islanders won't be begging for it either.
Traffic-wise, it would probably be a net benefit to the state, taking pressure off of I-278, especially coming up Todt Hill. Thing is, without improvements from there into the Verrazano (and I mean more than NYSDOT is currently constructing, at least one more lane each way), you'd still have the bottleneck there. Overall, not really necessary, although would have definitely been nice.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 19, 2012, 07:36:48 PM
Adam, why don't you support it?


It got canned. It isn't coming back. Staten Islanders won't be begging for it either.
Traffic-wise, it would probably be a net benefit to the state, taking pressure off of I-278, especially coming up Todt Hill. Thing is, without improvements from there into the Verrazano (and I mean more than NYSDOT is currently constructing, at least one more lane each way), you'd still have the bottleneck there. Overall, not really necessary, although would have definitely been nice.

I don't question it had net benefits. However, but at least around here, once a proposal is killed, it isn't coming back, as much as people may want it. The Richmond Parkway extension isn't going to be constructed as much as we may dream and hope it might happen. I miss seeing these ramps go, but if its going to get them a net benefit of extra lanes, then so be it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 19, 2012, 07:43:23 PM
Adam, why don't you support it?


It got canned. It isn't coming back. Staten Islanders won't be begging for it either.
Traffic-wise, it would probably be a net benefit to the state, taking pressure off of I-278, especially coming up Todt Hill. Thing is, without improvements from there into the Verrazano (and I mean more than NYSDOT is currently constructing, at least one more lane each way), you'd still have the bottleneck there. Overall, not really necessary, although would have definitely been nice.

I don't question it had net benefits. However, but at least around here, once a proposal is killed, it isn't coming back, as much as people may want it. The Richmond Parkway extension isn't going to be constructed as much as we may dream and hope it might happen. I miss seeing these ramps go, but if its going to get them a net benefit of extra lanes, then so be it.
Next you'll tell me NJ 85 isn't opening next year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on June 23, 2012, 01:16:21 PM
I was noticing that NY 37 is signed E-W instead of N-S like it should be.  It is so odd that leaving Watertown you have NY 37 EB to the left of US 11 NB with US 11 parting ways from its direction to head East at that point. Then at NY 12's northern terminus you have NY 12 NB end with NY 37 EB to the left and NY 37 WB to the right.  In the North Hills Region everything seems counter logical.

What is even more interesting is that US 11 does run more east and west between Watertown and Rouses Point, that is a distance longer than US 4 runs N-S from East Greenbush to the VT Line.   Yet, NYSDOT made the exception for US 4 not to confuse people and not for US 11 where direction shifts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 24, 2012, 01:40:58 PM
NY 37 is an east-west Road between Morristown and Covington.  East of Covington it heads south for 20 miles, so how would you sign it?

US 11 is a diagonal between Fort Drum and Canton; it doesn't fully become east-west until Potsdam.

US 4 is entirely north-south in NY; the only portion that could even receive east-west signs without someone laughing is a 6 mile portion east of Whitehall (until Vermont).  Plus it's in Region 1 and US 11 is in quirky Region 7 (also known as the only region that posts exit numbers on both a route's beginning and ending termini, though this won't be obvious until I-781 is completed).

And NY 12 is north-south until Clayton, and even then, continues to move north until Jaques-Cartier State Park (where it turns south for 1/4 mile to meet NY 37).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 25, 2012, 08:54:02 PM
Plus it's in Region 1 and US 11 is in quirky Region 7 (also known as the only region that posts exit numbers on both a route's beginning and ending termini, though this won't be obvious until I-781 is completed).


I find it funny that you find Region 7 to be quirky because I've always found To Region 2 to be the To Quirky One of NYSDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 26, 2012, 02:32:04 PM
It's certainly the quirkiest, though I'm rarely there, and the exit numbering for I-781 stood out to me... and NY 11B being north/south is a little strange... and they don't seem to do snow plow services, because every county line has a snow plow turnaround.

Not that any NYSDOT region is really normal, for that matter.  They all have some strange quirk.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 07, 2012, 02:18:42 PM
TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6104)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 07, 2012, 07:16:44 PM
TOLLROADSblog: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET[/url]

I've seen raw numbers elsewhere in the system. The market penetration (ha) rate was 76% to 79% depending on time of day and direction, obviously lower overnight when truck traffic rises and highest during commutes. 80% doesn't surprise me as a peak, but it does as an average. Then again, if it's Bayonne going AET, I could believe 87%, because there's no non-local traffic going that way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 07, 2012, 10:15:46 PM
TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET[/url]

I've seen raw numbers elsewhere in the system. The market penetration (ha) rate was 76% to 79% depending on time of day and direction, obviously lower overnight when truck traffic rises and highest during commutes. 80% doesn't surprise me as a peak, but it does as an average. Then again, if it's Bayonne going AET, I could believe 87%, because there's no non-local traffic going that way.

Why would truck traffic result in a lower percentage of toll paid by electronic means?
(I am not questioning your observations, just curious.)

It seems to me that they have a better incentive in terms of money (as compared to four-wheeled vehicles) to pay electronically than by cash.

The E-ZPass discount at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge for a 5-axle combination is almost $23. At the N.Y. MTA B&T "major" crossings it's about half that, at $11.37.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 08, 2012, 08:30:53 PM
TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET[/url]

I've seen raw numbers elsewhere in the system. The market penetration (ha) rate was 76% to 79% depending on time of day and direction, obviously lower overnight when truck traffic rises and highest during commutes. 80% doesn't surprise me as a peak, but it does as an average. Then again, if it's Bayonne going AET, I could believe 87%, because there's no non-local traffic going that way.

Why would truck traffic result in a lower percentage of toll paid by electronic means?
(I am not questioning your observations, just curious.)

It seems to me that they have a better incentive in terms of money (as compared to four-wheeled vehicles) to pay electronically than by cash.

The E-ZPass discount at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge for a 5-axle combination is almost $23. At the N.Y. MTA B&T "major" crossings it's about half that, at $11.37.
They would have an incentive, but they would also have to have the tags. A lot of cross-country trucks won't have tags for every agency, or even any agency - remember that truckers typically pay out of pocket, so it's up to them to get tags. I also live in New Jersey where we have a fair number of trucks that can't get E-ZPass due to illegality of the company, truck, owner, etc....... But basically, I've seen the raw numbers, so whatever the explanation, I know the result.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 10:45:04 AM
TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET[/url]

I've seen raw numbers elsewhere in the system. The market penetration (ha) rate was 76% to 79% depending on time of day and direction, obviously lower overnight when truck traffic rises and highest during commutes. 80% doesn't surprise me as a peak, but it does as an average. Then again, if it's Bayonne going AET, I could believe 87%, because there's no non-local traffic going that way.

Why would truck traffic result in a lower percentage of toll paid by electronic means?
(I am not questioning your observations, just curious.)

It seems to me that they have a better incentive in terms of money (as compared to four-wheeled vehicles) to pay electronically than by cash.

The E-ZPass discount at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge for a 5-axle combination is almost $23. At the N.Y. MTA B&T "major" crossings it's about half that, at $11.37.
They would have an incentive, but they would also have to have the tags. A lot of cross-country trucks won't have tags for every agency, or even any agency - remember that truckers typically pay out of pocket, so it's up to them to get tags. I also live in New Jersey where we have a fair number of trucks that can't get E-ZPass due to illegality of the company, truck, owner, etc....... But basically, I've seen the raw numbers, so whatever the explanation, I know the result.

The out-of-state truck and "illegal" truck explanations would presumably explain some of it (and again, I do not question your findings).

How aggressive are the various police agencies in North Jersey (NJSP) and New York City (NYPD) and the Port Authority's police when  it comes to commercial vehicle (including weight) enforcement?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: elsmere241 on August 09, 2012, 02:22:34 PM
My brother-in-law is a trucker, and he says he has one transponder for EZ-Pass and the weigh stations.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 11, 2012, 12:34:53 PM

How aggressive are the various police agencies in North Jersey (NJSP) and New York City (NYPD) and the Port Authority's police when  it comes to commercial vehicle (including weight) enforcement?


I see a lot of trucks pulled over at the GW Bridge. (Keep in mind the tunnels do not have large trucks going through.) There is enforcement at every tunnel entrance, so it would be difficult to sneak a commercial vehicle in there, but weight wouldn't likely be an issue. I don't know why they get pulled over at the GW, but they do, but it's only EB because of the toll plaza. There's no way to enforce WB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2012, 12:48:16 PM

How aggressive are the various police agencies in North Jersey (NJSP) and New York City (NYPD) and the Port Authority's police when  it comes to commercial vehicle (including weight) enforcement?


I see a lot of trucks pulled over at the GW Bridge. (Keep in mind the tunnels do not have large trucks going through.) There is enforcement at every tunnel entrance, so it would be difficult to sneak a commercial vehicle in there, but weight wouldn't likely be an issue. I don't know why they get pulled over at the GW, but they do, but it's only EB because of the toll plaza. There's no way to enforce WB.

I don't cross the GW Bridge very often, but I have seen the Port Authority's police (I presume) inspecting trucks and checking logbooks there.  And you're correct - it is not really possible for them to do any checks on the westbound side. 

And good point about the dimensional restrictions at the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels.  Someone attending a TRB meeting some years ago told me that his company has special (smaller) semitrailers for delivering freight from a distribution center in North Jersey to places in Manhattan that are legal through the one of the tunnels.  Makes sense to me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 26, 2012, 07:31:52 PM
Updating the Staten Island Expressway construction:

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/315078_313653648733556_552988385_n.jpg)
New exit 15 eastbound, opened July 9, 2012. (http://www.mta.info/mta/news/releases/?en=120706-BT69)

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526985_313654445400143_1025247825_n.jpg)
Old exit 15 eastbound, now barely anything more than an overpass. All signage approaching the old 15 is gone in quite a hurry. Of course there is barely any signage for the new 15.

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/255253_313653225400265_809327198_n.jpg)
The Richmond north to SIE westbound that once flew over Exit 12 is gone, last time I posted photos, it was in the process of being demolished.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2012, 12:19:05 PM
N.Y. Times: Reckless Drivers Who Hit People Face Few Penalties in New York [City] (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/nyregion/reckless-drivers-who-hit-people-face-few-penalties-in-new-york.html)

Quote
Roxana Sorina Buta, dark-eyed and lithe, hurried home from work as a waitress on May 24, scurrying through rain and 1:30 a.m. darkness toward the subway. She got to Broadway and stepped into the crosswalk when the light turned green.

Quote
At the same time a New York City dump truck rumbled eastbound on 14th Street and turned south on Broadway. On the video taken in a Citibank on that corner, you can see the truck making a fast, seamless turn. If you look very closely, you will also see a shadow flicker in front of the truck’s right headlight.

Quote
That was Ms. Buta, and the truck hit her square.

Quote
Ms. Buta, 21, an aspiring actress, the only child of immigrants from Romania, was no more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on March 15, 2013, 11:53:01 PM
The remaining bridges that still stand on Staten Island are located on the other side of the island. Right at the end of Richmond Pkwy.

At one time, they led to nowhere. Although today two of them are now connected to a newly paved road that is located in the general area of where the former Brookfield landfill was.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 03, 2013, 05:31:34 PM
For some reason, NYSDOT has decided to lower the speed limit on I-81 north approaching the Thousand Islands Bridge.  It's now 40 for a whole mile before the toll booths instead of 55 (which is was and still is southbound).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on April 03, 2013, 05:35:19 PM
I noticed the 55 MPH zone starts earlier when approaching Syracuse, as well. Actually, I think they moved it back to where the original zone started, after the upgrade to 65 in the 90s.

Have also noticed new signage in Region 3, specifically new Truck Inspection signs, and new Left exit panels for the 481 diverge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 03, 2013, 06:22:31 PM
So where are those now?  Last I checked, the northbound 55 started north of I-481 (before the next exit), and the southbound 55 ended just south of I-481.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on April 03, 2013, 06:56:41 PM
Southbound, unchanged; at the merge of I-481 into I-81.

Northbound, it is now posted 55 before the I-481 split. If memory serves correctly, this was the original location of the change, which was pushed past I-481, perhaps when 65 was permitted on I-481 (as well as NY-695, and NY-5 bypass in Camillus, etc.) This is also where a new reference segment begins on the Reference Marker system.

Other boundaries did not seem to change (through Binghamton, or around local roads in Syracuse).

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 04, 2013, 09:59:28 AM
It does make more sense to have the speed limit for both directions to be the same.  Never understood why they're different.  Personally, I'd have it 65 until just north of I-481 so traffic going to/from I-481 doesn't have to slow down, but I don't think NYSDOT is allowed to post 65 within city limits.  You also see that in Binghamton with protracted 55 zones that don't make particular sense.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on April 04, 2013, 02:49:51 PM
I thought the "within city limits" restriction was removed, but could be mistaken there... The differences in where zones start/end is odd, but made sense (65 past the split onto a road that is 65, for example).

An odd case of this, on I-81 in PA, 65 is posted northbound after joining from the Turnpike/US 6 interchange, but southbound you are "55 for the next 34 miles" about 2 miles before the exit... Of course, it is not an direct connection, but still...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 04, 2013, 04:49:48 PM
Quote
but southbound you are "55 for the next 34 miles" about 2 miles before the exit... Of course, it is not an direct connection, but still...

You're also on a notable downhill grade going southbound on that stretch...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 04, 2013, 10:51:22 PM
Southbound, unchanged; at the merge of I-481 into I-81.

Northbound, it is now posted 55 before the I-481 split. If memory serves correctly, this was the original location of the change, which was pushed past I-481, perhaps when 65 was permitted on I-481 (as well as NY-695, and NY-5 bypass in Camillus, etc.) This is also where a new reference segment begins on the Reference Marker system.

Other boundaries did not seem to change (through Binghamton, or around local roads in Syracuse).



At least there's 65 MPH stretches leading to Syracuse. For the life of me I can't figure out why NY 5S and NY 12 going into Utica aren't 65 MPH until the city limit. The only possible reason is for revenue generation purposes. The only 65 MPH stretch of highway in R2 is NY Route 49. The freeway portions of 5S and 12 are engineered to be more 65-friendly than NY Route 49 is .
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 05, 2013, 11:44:05 AM
I thought the "within city limits" restriction was removed, but could be mistaken there... The differences in where zones start/end is odd, but made sense (65 past the split onto a road that is 65, for example).
Well, there are a few stretches of 65 in cities, but it's not the norm... mainly, stuff like I-86 skirting through Corning.  I-81's 55 zones in Binghamton follow the city line despite the first exit being a couple of miles down the road.

Southbound, unchanged; at the merge of I-481 into I-81.

Northbound, it is now posted 55 before the I-481 split. If memory serves correctly, this was the original location of the change, which was pushed past I-481, perhaps when 65 was permitted on I-481 (as well as NY-695, and NY-5 bypass in Camillus, etc.) This is also where a new reference segment begins on the Reference Marker system.

Other boundaries did not seem to change (through Binghamton, or around local roads in Syracuse).



At least there's 65 MPH stretches leading to Syracuse. For the life of me I can't figure out why NY 5S and NY 12 going into Utica aren't 65 MPH until the city limit. The only possible reason is for revenue generation purposes. The only 65 MPH stretch of highway in R2 is NY Route 49. The freeway portions of 5S and 12 are engineered to be more 65-friendly than NY Route 49 is .
Or NY 8... I'm not entirely convinced region 2 knows what freeways are.  I think NY 49 only has it because it's future I-790.

Another protracted rural 55 is NY 17 between Hale Eddy and Roscoe.  It slows down for the at-grade intersections in Hale Eddy... and just keeps going and going, for no apparent reason.  Maybe Delaware County needs the ticket revenue.  The road is built to the same standards as the 65 zone to the east, and the exits are further apart.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 05, 2013, 12:07:30 PM
Transportation Nation: Feds Set Uniform Standards For Sandy Rebuilding (http://transportationnation.org/2013/04/04/feds-set-uniform-standards-for-sandy-rebuilding/)

Quote
Build higher. That’s what the federal government is saying to the owners of structures badly damaged by Sandy. Northeast flood zones now have tougher re-building requirements that apply across the board: to houses, businesses and government infrastructure.

Quote
Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stood in front of an Amtrak electrical station in a New Jersey swamp to make their point: any structure more than half destroyed by Sandy that is being rebuilt with federal funds, must be lifted higher than before. The new standards require a building owner to consult an updated FEMA flood map, find the new recommended height for his structure and then lift it a foot above that.

Quote
LaHood explained why: “So that people don’t have to go through the same heartache and headache and backache that it’s taken to rebuild.”

Quote
LaHood says the Amtrak electrical plant, which was knocked out by Sandy, will be lifted several feet at a cost of $25 million. A statement from the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force has details on the new standards:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on April 05, 2013, 01:13:09 PM
I-81's 55 zones in Binghamton follow the city line despite the first exit being a couple of miles down the road.

The 55 Zone was moved northward as well when the zones were extended; it was originally before the NY-17/FI-86 split northbound. However, these boundaries have not changed, save for temporary construction projects, etc.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2013, 05:43:03 PM
Quote
but southbound you are "55 for the next 34 miles" about 2 miles before the exit... Of course, it is not an direct connection, but still...

You're also on a notable downhill grade going southbound on that stretch...

And, finally, heading southbound you have this major exit coming up with traffic (especially trucks) starting to shift into the right lane to get to I-476 or the left lane to avoid all that right lane traffic. No such issue northbound.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on May 04, 2013, 09:05:20 PM
I took a day trip to our church camp (near Rome) with some friends on July 3rd last summer (I meant to post this on July 4th, but I'm just getting to it now, ten months later :banghead:), and I made some observations along the way.  I was only able to get one picture since I was riding in the back seat on the way there (I had a perfect angle at a stoplight), and although I rode back in the front, it was dark.

Thruway:

- Some street name signs on bridges have been replaced with Clearview ones

- Advance signage located across from the Warners Service Area for the Dewitt Service Area has been replaced with Clearview

- I could have sworn just the word "EXIT" on one of the supplemental signs for Exit 39 eastbound was in Clearview

- Signage in both directions at the new Buckley Road bridge near the I-81 interchange has been replaced with Clearview, and the new eastbound I-81 exit sign was moved to the ground.  The new Electronics Parkway sign for westbound traffic is still mounted on the bridge.

- Gore point striping for the westbound Electronics Parkway exit is diagonal, not chevron shaped.  I think the I-481 exit was the same way (I couldn't tell because it was dark).  There may be more, but I didn't pay attention.

- The CR 57 shields on the 1 mile and exit signs for Exit 38 westbound don't reflect at all, and the colors seemed off on the 1 mile sign

- The mileage signs below the "NO U-TURN" signs are mostly in Clearview (black on yellow too, but that's another thread), and some looked to be Arial or Helvetica

Surface Roads:

- In Oneida County, Reference Markers used a different font, and the numbers were smaller than normal.  The ones in the city of Rome looked normal.

- Along the NY 46/NY 49 duplex, all of the Reference Markers were on the north/east side of the road

- Street name signs along Black River Blvd. in Rome are HUGE, and I thought they were Clearview until I compared the picture I took of one with the Roadgeek Fonts.  I'd say it might be Series C or D:
(http://mjr1990.webng.com/AARoads/Black River Blvd Sign In Rome.jpeg)

As for why this intersection is pictured, we missed the turn to stay on NY 26 north, so we were waiting to turn to get back to it.

- I was unable to get a picture, but there was a sign that read "THOMAS st" (in that exact upper/lowercase combination).  If I could have gotten a picture, I'd post it in "Worst of Road Signs".

I also posted in the Incorrect Highways Marked On Google Maps thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2001.msg219497#msg219497) about the horrible directions that sent us literally zigzagging around Oneida County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on May 05, 2013, 07:07:56 AM


- In Oneida County, Reference Markers used a different font, and the numbers were smaller than normal.  The ones in the city of Rome looked normal.

- Along the NY 46/NY 49 duplex, all of the Reference Markers were on the north/east side of the road

- Street name signs along Black River Blvd. in Rome are HUGE, and I thought they were Clearview until I compared the picture I took of one with the Roadgeek Fonts.  I'd say it might be Series C or D:
(http://mjr1990.webng.com/AARoads/Black River Blvd Sign In Rome.jpeg)

As for why this intersection is pictured, we missed the turn to stay on NY 26 north, so we were waiting to turn to get back to it.

- I was unable to get a picture, but there was a sign that read "THOMAS st" (in that exact upper/lowercase combination).  If I could have gotten a picture, I'd post it in "Worst of Road Signs".


I've never noticed the reference markers in Oneida County using different lettering. I've always thought it was region 9 (especially Delaware County) that used the different lettering. I'll have to pay closer attention here in Oneida County, but I've never seen it. Where did you observe this?

The street name signs along Black River Blvd. are very, very big for their application. That's Series D lettering you see there. I love mixed case Series D when it uses the "older" version of the lettering (like shown in the photo). It's the same lettering seen on the freeway signs in Georgia.  The newer version of the lettering has weirdly shaped "s"s and "w"s.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on May 10, 2013, 08:57:53 PM
@upstatenyroads: I can't remember the exact location of the reference markers, but I do remember that they returned to normal when we entered the town of Rome.



If anyone is near the Auburn area, you might want to get pictures of the older signs along the Arterial (US 20/NY 5) and intersecting side streets while you still can.  There's a sign replacement project underway, and they've done from NY 326 to the western end of the NY 38 multiplex.  Signs intended to be replaced are marked with a white X spray painted on either the post or the sign itself.  There's also underground utility markings and/or marker flags near the posts.  Some signs only have the utility markers.  They've split the project into segments between major intersections, and are working eastward.  They've done one segment per week for the last three weeks.  They're probably going to go to NY 34 next week.

I took pictures of most of the route shields from NY 38 to the US 20/NY 5 split in the summer of 2010.  I went out today to get anything I missed, along with the remaining distance signs.  I got pictures of some of the new signs as well.  New destination signs lack distances, and I saw two double-sided street name signs that could only be seen in one direction.

The sign pictured below from Steve's NY 326 page (http://alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ny_326) is now gone.  All of the other signs on the page probably gone now too.
(http://alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ny_326/ewright.jpg)

On a side note, NYSDOT seems to like Series D for new distance, town/city/village, and street name signs, including ones in the project mentioned above.  I hated it at first, but I've grown to like it a bit.  I still prefer Series E(M) over D though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mc78andrew on May 14, 2013, 03:01:15 PM
Just a warning...the ramp onto the GWB from the Henry Hudson pkwy south is an absolute mess!  As I was driving over this mess this morning at 515 I was grateful that I don't have the crazy sports car that I want and thinking just what would happen to such a car over such bad pavement. 

Then what do you know...1/3 of the way across the bridge the TPM says I have a flat.  As I creep across the bridge getting passed by everyone I pull over to see my tire hissing air and a nice chuck ripped out of the sidewall. 

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 01, 2013, 10:13:25 AM
Just northwest of where the widened median on Southern State Parkway near Belmont Lake State Park begins, there's a strip of undeveloped land along Lakeway Drive and Hilltop Avenue running as far as Little East Neck Road. Was this part of some proposed spur to and from Southern State?

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:40.713333,-73.357222&hl=en&ll=40.733308,-73.365111&spn=0.011105,0.026157&t=h&z=16

If not, why does that strip of undeveloped land exist in the first place?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 01, 2013, 11:50:31 AM
Just northwest of where the widened median on Southern State Parkway near Belmont Lake State Park begins, there's a strip of undeveloped land along Lakeway Drive and Hilltop Avenue running as far as Little East Neck Road. Was this part of some proposed spur to and from Southern State?

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:40.713333,-73.357222&hl=en&ll=40.733308,-73.365111&spn=0.011105,0.026157&t=h&z=16

If not, why does that strip of undeveloped land exist in the first place?


I don't know, but I would guess the name Lakeway Drive is a clue, along with the fact that Belmont Lake is the location of the Long Island state parks headquarters. Perhaps Lakeway Drive was originally conceived as a grand-ish entry way to the state park at Belmont Lake?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 01, 2013, 12:17:40 PM
The Northway missing Exit 3.  It is obvious that there is another interchange that is eventually to be added to I-87 in Colonie, NY.  It lies between the Albany Airport exit and NY 5 as the Airport is Exit 4 and Route 5 is Exit 2.  There are no known corridors there, so am I to assume that someday the Albany Airport will have a direct connection? 

Also, will NY 7 ever have a full freeway between I-890 and I-87?  I see a trumpet is at Interchange 7 on I-87 that means it might not ever extend west to Schenectady or else other ramps would have been constructed.  Then again trumpets are easy to convert into almost anything, so NY, for once, might of been proactive and thought about the reality.  As we all know the abandoned Richmond Parkway on Staten Island left behind many ghost ramps and unused bridges and then in other cases you see no ROW left behind or other such ghost ramps around.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on August 01, 2013, 02:07:52 PM
Exit 3 on Interstate 87/Adirondack Northway was for the proposed Interstate 687 that was to connect to Interstate 90 on the northside of Albany.  The Interstate 687 ramps, overpass, even lighting were built in the early 1970's over Interstate 90 at was is now Exit 5A--Corporate Woods Blvd.  There are constant proposals to have a direct connection between Interstate 87 and Albany International Airport.

To my knowledge there was never any plan to expand NY 7 west from the Northway to Schenectady.  Building the current NY 7 from the Collar City Bridge in Troy to the Northway was a huge legal fight by homeowners in its path that lasted 20 years, 1966-1986.  The State of New York won, but highway expansion plans in the Capital District have largely ended since 1989.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 01, 2013, 04:38:31 PM
For those interested, a search on "Northway Exit 3" brings up several news stories from the last year about the plans and progress (or lack thereof) for a direct link from I-87 to ALB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on August 04, 2013, 09:34:09 PM
It is my understanding that one of the early proposals for Interstate 88 was to follow a route close to NY 7 between I-890 and the Northway (I-87) and then out to Troy along the modern day NY 7 Expressway (or Alternate Route 7 to the locals).  This of course was one of a number of proposals for an eastern extension of I-88.  To my knowledge, there was never any proposal to expand NY 7 as an expressway or freeway itself between Latham and Schenectady.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 05, 2013, 09:41:28 PM
Anybody know the history of NY button copy?  For example, CT used non-reflective button copy until 1980 or so and then switched to rivted and then to reflectorized button copy by 1985.  Then phased out all button copy in 1995ish.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 11, 2013, 11:45:13 PM
Anybody know the history of NY button copy?  For example, CT used non-reflective button copy until 1980 or so and then switched to rivted and then to reflectorized button copy by 1985.  Then phased out all button copy in 1995ish.


I believe button copy was phased out around 1990, though I remember some non-button copy signs that said "MacArthur Stadium NEXT RIGHT" on the original alignment of Interstate 81 near now-Carousel Center as early as 1980. The non-button copy signs were first made of wood (replacements for I-81 SB advance exit signs for Exits 31 and 36 were like this).

The rebuilding of Interstate 790 in 1989 used button copy on reflectorized signs, however, the sign rehab project on NY Route 49 expressway in 1991 was non-button copy.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 28, 2013, 10:27:46 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Elmhurst,+Queens,+NY&hl=en&ll=40.735584,-73.925457&spn=0.005593,0.014999&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=24.039383,61.435547&oq=elm&t=h&hnear=Elmhurst,+Queens,+New+York&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.73565,-73.925698&panoid=Paxd5IWK_IaVKs7IkM2hrw&cbp=12,135,,0,0

What is up with the Alternate I-495 designation?  I have never seen that ever in the system for interstates.  I am guessing that its an alternate way to I-495, but no such designation really exists/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on August 28, 2013, 11:25:09 PM
What is up with the Alternate I-495 designation?
It's essentially a C/D road that uses the lower level through the cemeteries.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 29, 2013, 08:52:12 AM
If that is the case, then it is part of I-495 proper as it is a c/d road even though underneath the mainline instead of on the sides.  The Alternate is not a bannered route, but just a secondary alignment that is acting like an alternate.

On another note, I like the way NYCDOT pleases both the feds and themselves at the same time using both "Riverhead" and the traditional "Eastern LI" on the guide signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 29, 2013, 10:19:15 AM
If that is the case, then it is part of I-495 proper as it is a c/d road even though underneath the mainline instead of on the sides.  The Alternate is not a bannered route, but just a secondary alignment that is acting like an alternate.

On another note, I like the way NYCDOT pleases both the feds and themselves at the same time using both "Riverhead" and the traditional "Eastern LI" on the guide signs.

As NE wrote, it is just another way to indicate to traffic that the forthcoming lower level continues through.

Another instance of ALT Interstate signage in NYC is for Astoria Boulevard, which trucks are directed to in place of the GCP to make the connection between I-278 (BQE) and I-678 (Van Wyck) for LaGuardia Airport.

(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york278/i-278_wb_exit_045_05.jpg) (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york278/i-278_wb_exit_045_05.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on August 29, 2013, 11:46:01 AM
If that is the case, then it is part of I-495 proper as it is a c/d road even though underneath the mainline instead of on the sides.  The Alternate is not a bannered route, but just a secondary alignment that is acting like an alternate.

On another note, I like the way NYCDOT pleases both the feds and themselves at the same time using both "Riverhead" and the traditional "Eastern LI" on the guide signs.

As NE wrote, it is just another way to indicate to traffic that the forthcoming lower level continues through.

Another instance of ALT Interstate signage in NYC is for Astoria Boulevard, which trucks are directed to in place of the GCP to make the connection between I-278 (BQE) and I-678 (Van Wyck) for LaGuardia Airport.

(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york278/i-278_wb_exit_045_05.jpg) (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york278/i-278_wb_exit_045_05.jpg)
That one's a little different and more technically correct/accurate because of the word TO being situated between the ALT wording and I-278 shield.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 29, 2013, 06:41:51 PM
Yeah this one is more correct with the TO as it is stating that it is an alternate route to I-278 as it really is.  The other on the LIE is also an alternate to I-495 East, but in reality it actually uses a c/d road that is part of the interstate.  I am sure the engineer who wrote the sign did not do it for that purpose, but like Alex said that it just informs the drivers that they can use the lower level as well to continue on to I-495 EB.  However, you look at it with TO or no TO its still an alternate to the main route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 31, 2013, 08:34:49 PM
NYS DOT screwed up on the left sign. The words NY Airports should be in mixed-case lettering and the arrows are supposed to be over the lanes affected. How can DOT or their contractor be so sloppy?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 03, 2013, 10:18:14 PM
NYS DOT screwed up on the left sign. The words NY Airports should be in mixed-case lettering and the arrows are supposed to be over the lanes affected. How can DOT or their contractor be so sloppy?

Isn't this part of I-278 maintained by NYCDOT, though?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 03, 2013, 10:24:12 PM
The signs in NYC are put up by NY State DOT. Ya' should have been around in the 1960's when the City fought with NYS DOT to put the highways names on the signs along with the route shield. And in the 1970's when the State re-signed all NYC highways with names and numbers on the top line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on September 03, 2013, 10:24:30 PM
Isn't this part of I-278 maintained by NYCDOT, though?
I don't think so: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region11/general-info/built-and-unbuilt-arterial-system
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 03, 2013, 11:36:22 PM
Psst, guys... that pair of signs was installed by MTA Bridges & Tunnels (a.k.a. TBTA), being physically located on the structure of the Triboro Bridge and all.  ;-)

TBTA, like lots of agencies that just maintain bridges and their approaches, has given us plenty of signage monstrosities since it isn't something they have a lot of experience with or pay a lot of attention to. Those signs are pretty much standard expectation for TBTA, there is worse out there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2013, 11:44:48 AM
TBTA, like lots of agencies that just maintain bridges and their approaches, has given us plenty of signage monstrosities since it isn't something they have a lot of experience with or pay a lot of attention to. Those signs are pretty much standard expectation for TBTA, there is worse out there.

It would make far too much sense for the TBTA to just have NYSDOT do the sign work (or hire contractors to do it), right?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 04, 2013, 04:19:59 PM
Okay, so it's MTA B&T's fault, not NYSDOT; my error. Either way the sign is poorly engineered and not in compliance. The Port Authority does signing too and theirs is generally correct, such as in the Geo. Wash. Bridge complex. Anyone remember their signs with slightly tapered sides? Don't even know if they still build them that way. I should take note of that........
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 04, 2013, 09:21:31 PM
I wouldn't say the George Washington Bridge signage is right.  NYSDOT reverted I-95 back to mile-based exits years ago but the Port Authority signs still use the attempted sequential numbering scheme.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 04, 2013, 10:14:04 PM
Vdeane, I'm not sure if you're correct or not. My memory of G.W. Bridge signing goes back to way before you got here; you might be more current than I am. Years ago the Port Authority did not even use exit numbers. I'll take note next time I drive the bridge, though that might not be for a while.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 04, 2013, 10:46:37 PM
Right now the Port Authority uses 1, 2, 3, where the exits are officially 1A, 1B, 1C-D.  NYSDOT had planned to convert I-95 to sequential (seems more confusing to me to have the numbers reset where the Thruway takes over, and they must have seen that too, because the NYSDOT signs that had been converted reverted some time later).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 04, 2013, 11:57:34 PM
Psst, guys... that pair of signs was installed by MTA Bridges & Tunnels (a.k.a. TBTA), being physically located on the structure of the Triboro Bridge and all.  ;-)

TBTA, like lots of agencies that just maintain bridges and their approaches, has given us plenty of signage monstrosities since it isn't something they have a lot of experience with or pay a lot of attention to. Those signs are pretty much standard expectation for TBTA, there is worse out there.
All depends on the engineers designing the signs. Keep an eye out for the next couple of projects on the Verrazano. ;)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 05, 2013, 05:38:12 PM
Right now the Port Authority uses 1, 2, 3, where the exits are officially 1A, 1B, 1C-D.  NYSDOT had planned to convert I-95 to sequential (seems more confusing to me to have the numbers reset where the Thruway takes over, and they must have seen that too, because the NYSDOT signs that had been converted reverted some time later).

Yeah, NYSDOT's false start at renumbering the Cross Bronx caused that mess. PANYNJ when they replaced their signs did so with numbers which were correct at the time they were installed, consistent with NYSDOT's new numbers. Then NYSDOT changed their mind and redid the tabs on all the new signs they'd installed. Meanwhile PANYNJ said "we're not spending money to replace brand new exit tabs" and left their signs alone. Give it 20 years for those signs to get to their natural replacement cycle and then they'll be correct.

All depends on the engineers designing the signs. Keep an eye out for the next couple of projects on the Verrazano.  ;-)

There is a beautiful "Entering Staten Island" medallion coming of the upper level that I assume isn't going to be replaced with anything remotely similar. Dunno how much control you have over what happens to the old signs but that one is definitely worth preserving. You should have it added to your collection. ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on September 13, 2013, 01:06:32 PM
Perhaps somebody should introduce PANYNJ to this popular concept called an "overlay".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2013, 12:45:18 PM
Forbes.com: E-ZPasses Get Read All Over New York (Not Just At Toll Booths) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/09/12/e-zpasses-get-read-all-over-new-york-not-just-at-toll-booths/)

Quote
After spotting a police car with two huge boxes on its trunk – that turned out to be license-plate-reading cameras – a man in New Jersey became obsessed with the loss of privacy for vehicles on American roads. (He’s not the only one.) The man, who goes by the Internet handle “Puking Monkey,”  did an analysis of the many ways his car could be tracked and stumbled upon something rather interesting: his E-ZPass, which he obtained for the purpose of paying tolls, was being used to track his car in unexpected places, far away from any toll booths.

Quote
Puking Monkey is an electronics tinkerer, so he hacked his RFID-enabled E-ZPass to set off a light and a “moo cow”  every time it was being read. Then he drove around New York. His tag got milked multiple times on the short drive from Times Square to Madison Square Garden in mid-town Manhattan…
Title: Re: New York
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 16, 2013, 07:00:01 PM
I thought it was common knowledge states used E-ZPasses for things like travel times?

From what I know about MA though, no identifying information is stored when a transponder is read for this purpose, and it's illegal to use E-ZPasses for law enforcement purposes.

In short, sure, yeah, this guy's E-ZPass gets read all the time driving around, but that doesn't mean he's being tracked, or the government is logging whis travels. It just means that E-ZPasses are a convenient source of data for calculating traffic conditions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on September 16, 2013, 09:07:43 PM
I thought it was common knowledge states used E-ZPasses for things like travel times?

From what I know about MA though, no identifying information is stored when a transponder is read for this purpose, and it's illegal to use E-ZPasses for law enforcement purposes.

In short, sure, yeah, this guy's E-ZPass gets read all the time driving around, but that doesn't mean he's being tracked, or the government is logging whis travels. It just means that E-ZPasses are a convenient source of data for calculating traffic conditions.

Did you know that originally it was illegal for any agency or company to use social security numbers, except for the Social Security Administration?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on September 16, 2013, 09:11:01 PM
Did you know that originally it was illegal for any agency or company to use social security numbers, except for the Social Security Administration?
[citation needed]
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on September 16, 2013, 11:03:03 PM
I thought it was common knowledge states used E-ZPasses for things like travel times?

From what I know about MA though, no identifying information is stored when a transponder is read for this purpose, and it's illegal to use E-ZPasses for law enforcement purposes.

The travel-time signs in MA are driven by Bluetooth signals, not toll tags.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 17, 2013, 12:28:58 PM
I was told by people at the traffic operations center that they used both.

Note how nobody is upset about using bluetooth signals though,  only E-ZPass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on September 17, 2013, 02:21:07 PM

Did you know that originally it was illegal for any agency or company to use social security numbers, except for the Social Security Administration?


Nope.  From the Social Security Administration's FAQ:

•Didn't the government promise that SSNs wouldn't be used for ID?
 
For the first few decades that SSN cards were issued, they carried the admonition: "Not to be used for Identification." Unfortunately there was never any law passed instituting this as a policy.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on September 18, 2013, 10:59:09 AM
I was told by people at the traffic operations center that they used both.

I'm pretty sure that PHLBOS explained a while back that they were using Bluetooth only.  But, I could be wrong.  I've been
wrong before.  I'm getting used to it.

There was an article a few days ago in The New York Times which explained that NYCDOT is reading E-ZPass tags for the purpose of traffic monitoring (and, of course, never told the tag holders it would be used for that purpose).  Supposedly, just as in MA, the tag is assigned a random number for tracking purposes which is purged a few minutes after the last valid read on the tag, so no information is being stored permanently and the tags' internal ID numbers are not being used, so they can't be matched to any personal information.

Note how nobody is upset about using bluetooth signals though, only E-ZPass.

Of course.  Bluetooth is used for what they want (handsfree phone usage and, in some cars, audio streaming) and toll tags are used for what they have to have to travel on certain roads (toll payments).  Naturally the one they have to have is the one they'll complain about.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on September 18, 2013, 08:59:03 PM
While I was looking for the law about using a TWLTL as a merge lane when turning onto a road in the Vehicle and Traffic Law of New York a few days ago, I found something interesting:

Quote from:  VAT, Title 7, Article 25, Section 1128, Paragraph B
Upon a roadway which is divided into three lanes and provides for two-way movement of traffic a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction when such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for making a left turn or where such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction that the vehicle is proceeding and such allocation is designated by official traffic-control devices.

The first part seems to indicate that the law still allows for a shared passing lane ("suicide lane").  I was wondering if other people around here would interpret it the same way.

Going back to my original question, it seems that using a TWLTL as a merge lane is illegal in New York, but again, I'd like the opinions of others here.

Here's (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$VAT1128$$@TXVAT01128+&LIST=SEA5+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=03948791+&TARGET=VIEW) a link to the page on the New York law website, and if it doesn't work for some reason, use the table of contents (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/MENUGETF.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS+&TARGET=VIEW) to go the the section in my quote.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on September 19, 2013, 03:16:34 PM

Of course.  Bluetooth is used for what they want (handsfree phone usage and, in some cars, audio streaming) and toll tags are used for what they have to have to travel on certain roads (toll payments).  Naturally the one they have to have is the one they'll complain about.

It's more basic than that:  Bluetooth is recognized as a product of private industry, which is generally believed to do nothing wrong.  The E-ZPass tag is recognized as a product of government, which is generally believed to do nothing right.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on September 19, 2013, 03:24:21 PM
I'm pretty sure that PHLBOS explained a while back that they were using Bluetooth only.  But, I could be wrong.  I've been
wrong before.  I'm getting used to it.
I don't believe that I was ever involved in such of a discussion.  You might be right about the issue at hand but wrong on who explained it. :)
 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 01, 2013, 10:39:03 AM
Aiiieeeee!!!!  X-(

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5456/10038478183_d68b8988d1.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038478183/)
IMG_1631 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038478183/) by NateOMatic (http://www.flickr.com/people/44780657@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5343/10038474143_1675620f25.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038474143/)
IMG_1630 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038474143/) by NateOMatic (http://www.flickr.com/people/44780657@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on October 01, 2013, 10:56:30 AM
Obviously a new standard for reference routes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 01, 2013, 04:19:17 PM
Aiiieeeee!!!!  X-(

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5456/10038478183_d68b8988d1.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038478183/)
IMG_1631 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038478183/) by NateOMatic (http://www.flickr.com/people/44780657@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5343/10038474143_1675620f25.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038474143/)
IMG_1630 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038474143/) by NateOMatic (http://www.flickr.com/people/44780657@N02/), on Flickr

I have to admit that I have NEVER seen an upside down marker (other than NY 69 or NY 96) like that in the Empire State.

Wow.  Just Wow.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 01, 2013, 04:26:26 PM
For those wondering, the Port Authority Exit 1,2,3 signs on I-95/TME went up in late 2002-early 2003.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hubcity on October 01, 2013, 04:57:37 PM
Obviously a new standard for reference routes.

That contractor owes me a new keyboard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 01, 2013, 06:17:36 PM
Of course.  Bluetooth is used for what they want (handsfree phone usage and, in some cars, audio streaming) and toll tags are used for what they have to have to travel on certain roads (toll payments).  Naturally the one they have to have is the one they'll complain about.

Bluetooth is also used as a tool to check and validate other travel time collection technology and systems, in particular Inrix. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on October 01, 2013, 06:39:01 PM

Did you know that originally it was illegal for any agency or company to use social security numbers, except for the Social Security Administration?
Nope.  From the Social Security Administration's FAQ:

-Didn't the government promise that SSNs wouldn't be used for ID?
 
For the first few decades that SSN cards were issued, they carried the admonition: "Not to be used for Identification." Unfortunately there was never any law passed instituting this as a policy.

You're right.  I was intentionally exaggerating, which I intended to signify by writing it as a question, but there's no way you and NE2 could have gotten that.  Sorry for unclear writing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 02, 2013, 01:05:52 AM
I have to admit that I have NEVER seen an upside down marker (other than NY 69 or NY 96) like that in the Empire State.

Wow.  Just Wow.

I mean, "NY" 990V was the original reference route-signed-as-touring route error (?), but since three others have since arisen, it's as if they felt the need to re-emphasize the erroneousness of 990V. Now, it's just so many shades of special...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on October 02, 2013, 07:15:31 AM
I have to admit that I have NEVER seen an upside down marker (other than NY 69 or NY 96) like that in the Empire State.

Wow.  Just Wow.

NY 337 in Rotterdam has a bunch of these upside down shields as well.  I shake my head every time I see that, which is somewhat often.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hubcity on October 02, 2013, 07:23:11 AM
From the Social Security Administration's FAQ:

-Didn't the government promise that SSNs wouldn't be used for ID?
 
For the first few decades that SSN cards were issued, they carried the admonition: "Not to be used for Identification." Unfortunately there was never any law passed instituting this as a policy.

And I since I have a card that says that, I have a new entry for the "You know you're too old when..." thread.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2013, 11:15:14 AM
I noticed on Google Maps that I-99 is labeled up to Corning, NY. Are they jumping the gun here?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2013, 09:49:59 PM
N.Y. Times: City to Fit All Streetlights With Energy-Saving LED Bulbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/city-to-fit-all-streetlights-with-energy-saving-led-bulbs.html)

Quote
The amber glow of the New York City streetlight is going away. In an energy-saving effort, the city plans to replace all of its 250,000 streetlights with brighter, whiter, energy-saving, light-emitting diode fixtures in one of the nation’s largest retrofitting projects, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, said in a news conference on Thursday.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on October 24, 2013, 11:33:42 PM
I noticed on Google Maps that I-99 is labeled up to Corning, NY. Are they jumping the gun here?

Yep. The designation hasn't even been extended to WIlliamsport yet, much less Corning.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr_Northside on October 28, 2013, 05:54:09 PM
N.Y. Times: City to Fit All Streetlights With Energy-Saving LED Bulbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/city-to-fit-all-streetlights-with-energy-saving-led-bulbs.html)

Pittsburgh switched the streetlights on my street to LED either last Thursday or Friday. 
They had switched streetlights in city parks a few years ago, then along important streets in neighborhood business districts the last year or so.
The plan is to switch them all city-wide eventually.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 28, 2013, 07:35:43 PM
How do you like the LED streetlights so far? How do they compare to the previous (high or low pressure sodium vapor?) lights re: the way they illuminate the street? The town next to mine is changing over too and I'm curious as to what others think of the LED lights.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on October 28, 2013, 11:32:48 PM
Don't like ours installed a couple of years ago in Seattle.  They're way brighter than the previous lights.  I'm not sure why a front yard needs to be lit up like home plate at a night game.  Need heavy curtains.

The light is also an ugly greyish blue that makes people look about a week dead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on October 29, 2013, 12:17:58 AM
How do you like the LED streetlights so far? How do they compare to the previous (high or low pressure sodium vapor?) lights re: the way they illuminate the street? The town next to mine is changing over too and I'm curious as to what others think of the LED lights.
They are getting put up throughout Baltimore City and I'm not much of a fan.  They aren't as warm as the old lights and seem to be dimmer.  The orange glow from the old lights helped to see pedestrians and other things along the street.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 29, 2013, 12:30:44 AM
NJ seems to have been spared the glare of LEDs, at least in areas served by PSE&G. They opted for induction street lighting. Apparently its cheaper than LEDs and lasts about the same. It looks like they are targeting all the old mercury vapor cobra heads first. I haven't seen too many areas with HPS or even incandescent fixtures upgraded yet.

http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2009/09/new_energy-efficient_streetlig.html
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110106005773/en/Lighting-Tech-Ships-100000th-Induction-Lighting-Unit

Biggest complaint with them is the sharp cutoff fixtures, but a lot less light pollution compared to HPS fixtures.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on October 29, 2013, 01:35:12 AM
Not that any NYSDOT region is really normal, for that matter.  They all have some strange quirk.
You're definitely right. However,  given that I was raised in it and live in it, I'll never be able to put my finger on what makes NYSDOT Region 9 so Region 9.

What is it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 29, 2013, 11:02:42 AM
N.Y. Times: City to Fit All Streetlights With Energy-Saving LED Bulbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/city-to-fit-all-streetlights-with-energy-saving-led-bulbs.html)

Quote
The amber glow of the New York City streetlight is going away. In an energy-saving effort, the city plans to replace all of its 250,000 streetlights with brighter, whiter, energy-saving, light-emitting diode fixtures in one of the nation’s largest retrofitting projects, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, said in a news conference on Thursday.

I'm actually going to miss those.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on October 29, 2013, 01:00:21 PM
N.Y. Times: City to Fit All Streetlights With Energy-Saving LED Bulbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/city-to-fit-all-streetlights-with-energy-saving-led-bulbs.html)

Quote
The amber glow of the New York City streetlight is going away. In an energy-saving effort, the city plans to replace all of its 250,000 streetlights with brighter, whiter, energy-saving, light-emitting diode fixtures in one of the nation’s largest retrofitting projects, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, said in a news conference on Thursday.

I'm actually going to miss those.
Hellooooooooo light pollution, and hi to circadian rhythm disorders too! I can't wait for the unintended consequences.

Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Henry on October 29, 2013, 02:09:48 PM
Don't like ours installed a couple of years ago in Seattle.  They're way brighter than the previous lights.  I'm not sure why a front yard needs to be lit up like home plate at a night game.  Need heavy curtains.

The light is also an ugly greyish blue that makes people look about a week dead.

Remember, though, that back in 1970, no one liked the yellowish-orange glow of sodium vapor lights either, but in the years since, most, if not all, have been accustomed to seeing them at night.

I may be in the minority here, but I actually favor the LED lights over the sodium, particularly because of that soft blue light compared to the harsh orange of the older ones.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on October 29, 2013, 02:43:14 PM
Remember, though, that back in 1970, no one liked the yellowish-orange glow of sodium vapor lights either, but in the years since, most, if not all, have been accustomed to seeing them at night.

I may be in the minority here, but I actually favor the LED lights over the sodium, particularly because of that soft blue light compared to the harsh orange of the older ones.
Learn your lights. You're referring to low-pressure sodium. The modern lights are high-pressure sodium. There is a huge difference, and yes, LPS lights are awful.

Until recent renovations, the Cross Country Mall in Yonkers, NY, featured old LPS lamps. I know what the hell I'm talking about.

The effects of nocturnal blue light exposure on such a scale will be catastrophic. Go read up on the literature. We don't need the entire Big Apple pounding everyone's melanopsin receptors so hard it starts (subtly) killing people.

Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 29, 2013, 08:08:23 PM
Not that any NYSDOT region is really normal, for that matter.  They all have some strange quirk.
You're definitely right. However,  given that I was raised in it and live in it, I'll never be able to put my finger on what makes NYSDOT Region 9 so Region 9.

What is it?

Work zones without lowered speed limits?  The majority of work zones I've passed through in region 9 just left the posted speed limit intact (the only exceptions I can think of right now are Kamikaze Curve and some work NYSDOT was doing on I-88 near Belden in August 2011), in contrast to, well, anywhere else.

Also: not numbering freeway/freeway interchanges (though this used to be the norm in region 3 as well)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on October 29, 2013, 08:12:27 PM
Work zones without lowered speed limits?  The majority of work zones I've passed through in region 9 just left the posted speed limit intact (the only exceptions I can think of right now are Kamikaze Curve and some work NYSDOT was doing on I-88 near Belden in August 2011), in contrast to, well, anywhere else.

Also: not numbering freeway/freeway interchanges (though this used to be the norm in region 3 as well)

Good point on both accounts. The former is definitely a new innovation that probably is really a reduction from 80 to 65.

The second is a time-honored tradition that always made sense to me.

Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 30, 2013, 09:52:10 PM
I've always hated sodium lights of all forms because they render color so poorly (that orange light you see is pretty much the only wavelength they emit, there is no spectral variety), and because orange is a hot color and it just clashes with the night. It's jarring. I always liked the mercury vapor lamps which were still somewhat common when I was a kid because the cool blue glow of them was soothing.

LEDs can come in all sorts of colors but the best ones should be close to white. Which is great because that means they render color better. And their brightness serves drivers, cyclists and pedestrians well, since it's easier to see stuff. Yeah, you don't want it shining in your face while you're trying to sleep, but it isn't... it's out on the street. And if outside light is bothering you, that's what curtains and blinds are for.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Henry on November 01, 2013, 11:53:19 AM
Remember, though, that back in 1970, no one liked the yellowish-orange glow of sodium vapor lights either, but in the years since, most, if not all, have been accustomed to seeing them at night.

I may be in the minority here, but I actually favor the LED lights over the sodium, particularly because of that soft blue light compared to the harsh orange of the older ones.
Learn your lights. You're referring to low-pressure sodium. The modern lights are high-pressure sodium. There is a huge difference, and yes, LPS lights are awful.

Until recent renovations, the Cross Country Mall in Yonkers, NY, featured old LPS lamps. I know what the hell I'm talking about.

The effects of nocturnal blue light exposure on such a scale will be catastrophic. Go read up on the literature. We don't need the entire Big Apple pounding everyone's melanopsin receptors so hard it starts (subtly) killing people.

Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.

I meant to say high-pressure sodium lights in my original post, but you were right about everything else. Mercury vapor lights were always my favorite, because of the soft blue light they gave off.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 01, 2013, 01:27:11 PM
FWIW, Caltrans had installed LED lighting at Exit 65, I-8, just down the street from me.  It's odd seeing a "cobra head" with a square illumination field.  The lighting seems just slightly blue of an outright white, it illuminated the pavement well, and had a greatly reduced light pollution aspect, which is very beneficial out here being that my area is becoming big into amature astronomy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PColumbus73 on November 04, 2013, 08:42:11 PM
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area? I was looking at I-95 with GSV and the section on 95 through Manhattan looks like the most frightening piece of Interstate in the country. I don't think other freeways (like the BQE) would be any better.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 04, 2013, 08:43:45 PM
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area?
By train.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 04, 2013, 08:59:13 PM
Quote
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area?

Staying well north, if your intent is to just pass through the region.  Unless I have something else going on, I often go all the way up to Troy to cross the Hudson on my trips up to Vermont.

Quote
By train.

As long as there isn't an issue under the Hudson or getting through the Harold Interlock...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 04, 2013, 09:05:11 PM
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area? I was looking at I-95 with GSV and the section on 95 through Manhattan looks like the most frightening piece of Interstate in the country. I don't think other freeways (like the BQE) would be any better.
Eh, it's not TOO bad.  Just make sure to hit it at an odd time, like early Sunday morning, and stay in the left lane at all costs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 04, 2013, 09:10:15 PM
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area? I was looking at I-95 with GSV and the section on 95 through Manhattan looks like the most frightening piece of Interstate in the country. I don't think other freeways (like the BQE) would be any better.

when I lived out east, I'd avoid it by taking I-84 to I-380 to I-81.

(I looked on Google Maps - is it just me or are 84 and 380 now cosigned so that 84 ends at 81?)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on November 04, 2013, 09:14:35 PM

when I lived out east, I'd avoid it by taking I-84 to I-380 to I-81.

(I looked on Google Maps - is it just me or are 84 and 380 now cosigned so that 84 ends at 81?)

Pretty sure they have since I-81S/E was dropped in favor of I-380.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PColumbus73 on November 04, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
I think the I-84/380 topic was discussed over in the Pennsylvania topic
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 04, 2013, 09:29:17 PM
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area? I was looking at I-95 with GSV and the section on 95 through Manhattan looks like the most frightening piece of Interstate in the country. I don't think other freeways (like the BQE) would be any better.

Normally it's the part in the Bronx, not Manhattan, that you have to worry about. But at the moment, yeah, I'd avoid I-95 unless you're really sure about your timing. Even off-hours aren't safe right now, with the GWB subject to nighttime lane closures, and the Alexander Hamilton/Highbridge Interchange reconstruction is a serious drag. The irony is, the best part of your trip might well be the dreaded Cross Bronx Expressway (especially if you're eastbound).

That being said, what's you purpose for going through? To get to the other side, or to see what's in the middle? (I'm asking honestly here.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PColumbus73 on November 04, 2013, 09:38:05 PM
I'm not planning to go through NYC anytime soon, just something I was wondering. If I were to come up to NYC on I-95, it doesn't look like there's an easy way around the metro area, sure there's I-287, but that would go too far out of the way to make sense. Looking at Rand McNally now, maybe the Garden State Parkway to the Tappan Zee Bridge would be a decent alternative if I forgot to plan to avoid NYC.

But like I said, it's more or less a 'what if' for me, just curious  :biggrin:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 04, 2013, 09:39:07 PM
(I looked on Google Maps - is it just me or are 84 and 380 now cosigned so that 84 ends at 81?)
I think it's always been that way, certainly by 1970 (the PA official map says "I-81E junction I-80 to junction I-81 and Scranton" and "I-84 junction I-81 to New York state line").
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on November 04, 2013, 10:17:11 PM
I use I-287 across the Tappan Zee to avoid the city. Quite the detour but it avoids a lot of problems.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on November 04, 2013, 11:09:21 PM
Whenever I make the trip from Connecticut to Baltimore, I use the Saw Mill River Parkway or I-684 (I don't do the Saw Mill at night) to 287 and then take the Tappan Zee to the Garden State Parkway.  The bridge might get backed up but compared to sitting on 95 through the Bronx and the shitshow known as the George Washington Bridge it's nothing. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 04, 2013, 11:26:30 PM
(I looked on Google Maps - is it just me or are 84 and 380 now cosigned so that 84 ends at 81?)
I think it's always been that way, certainly by 1970 (the PA official map says "I-81E junction I-80 to junction I-81 and Scranton" and "I-84 junction I-81 to New York state line").
But poo. The original plan for I-84 would have crossed I-81E (1965 Rand McNally shows halfway between Elmhurst and Moscow) and hit I-81 near Moosic. The 1964 RMcN NJ page (http://web.archive.org/web/20060514222805/http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg377a/58a.jpg) barely shows it.

"In addition, the Anthracite Expressway will extend through the Borough; it will intersect with the proposed Interstate Route 84 in or near Moosic." (http://books.google.com/books?id=iQ_uAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Interstate+Route+84+in+or+near+Moosic%22) (1963)

http://books.google.com/books?id=QQ3uAAAAMAAJ&q=%22There+are+three+major+limited+access+interconnections%22 (1965):
Quote
There are three major limited access interconnections of the proposed Interstate System within Lackawanna County:
1. Interstate 81 and Interstate 81E in Dunmore Borough.
2. Interstate 81 and Interstate 84 in Moosic Borough.
3. Interstate 84 and Interstate 81E in the southeast corner of Roaring Brook Township.

The mountains probably killed this plan.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hbelkins on November 05, 2013, 10:34:08 AM
I drove through NYC on I-95 once, southbound, early (like around 7 a.m.) on a Sunday morning. Had no issues whatsoever.

Given some of the horror stories I've heard about traffic backups northbound trying to get through the toll barrier on the GWB, if I was going north, I'd definitely do something that involved the Tappan Zee Bridge. Coming from my area, it would most likely be I-78 east to I-287 north to I-87 south.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PColumbus73 on November 05, 2013, 10:37:47 AM
Not to mention the tolls on the bridges and tunnels to get into NYC are ridiculous!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 05, 2013, 11:19:15 AM
Given some of the horror stories I've heard about traffic backups northbound trying to get through the toll barrier on the GWB,
If traffic is heavy, you can exit onto local streets and loop around to the separate toll on the Palisades Parkway entrance.

The Tappan Zee is significantly cheaper (for now) though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 05, 2013, 08:09:57 PM
I drove through NYC on I-95 once, southbound, early (like around 7 a.m.) on a Sunday morning. Had no issues whatsoever.

That's the best time to go, and usually works out OK. But things have definitely gotten worse than they likely were when you went through. If you had to do it, that's still the time I'd suggest, but it's not as sure a bet as it always used to be.

Quote
Given some of the horror stories I've heard about traffic backups northbound trying to get through the toll barrier on the GWB, if I was going north, I'd definitely do something that involved the Tappan Zee Bridge. Coming from my area, it would most likely be I-78 east to I-287 north to I-87 south.

It helps to have E-ZPass and not be a truck; more options that way (i.e., the lower deck, which is truck-free and at night is E-ZPass only). And yes, you can also duck the line by going over to the Palisades, or even just cutting through town and sneaking back into the bridge plaza farther down the line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: spmkam on November 05, 2013, 08:20:29 PM
When I travel back to CT, I usually wind up taking I-287 over the Tappan Zee from either the Garden State Parkway or I-80 or I-78.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 05, 2013, 08:23:54 PM
anybody know if these gems are still around?
GCP EB Exit 23 C&D road.  There is another set just beyond these too.

https://www.google.com/maps?q=Grand+Central+Parkway,+Queens,+NY&hl=en&ll=40.741002,-73.736157&spn=0.000004,0.001725&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.903538,56.513672&oq=grand+centra&hnear=Grand+Central+Pkwy,+Queens,+New+York&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.741054,-73.73606&panoid=kX_wpqv5K05C2nPmdCgy9g&cbp=12,65.17,,0,-0.28
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 05, 2013, 08:47:07 PM
NE2, if you exit I-95 onto local streets in Fort Lee, where do you access the Palisades Pkwy. Southbound into the bridge? Looking at a street map it looks like you can only enter the Parkway northbound in Fort Lee.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 05, 2013, 08:52:44 PM
Doofy103, those GCP signs in your photo are the originals from when that GCP/Cross Is. Pkwy. interchange was rebuilt in about 1971. They were still there not long ago, but some resigning has been done in that area, the last couple of years, so I'll try to remember to look whenever I drive that road again. The ones on the C-D road in the westbound direction were replaced, and some legend changed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 05, 2013, 09:45:30 PM
NE2, if you exit I-95 onto local streets in Fort Lee, where do you access the Palisades Pkwy. Southbound into the bridge? Looking at a street map it looks like you can only enter the Parkway northbound in Fort Lee.
There's a southbound entrance from Hudson Terrace between Washington and Myrtle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 05, 2013, 10:05:23 PM
Thanks NE2, you're right. I see it on Google Earth. You'd go east on the service road parallel to the toll plaza, then north on Hudson Terrace to the entrance. Interesting. Have you actually done this, and saved any substantial time?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 05, 2013, 10:39:37 PM
The easiest way to jump the line if there's traffic approaching the GWB is to use US 46. Assuming you're coming from the Turnpike, anyway.

I-287 is a fine way around the city if you're going to/from I-80 or I-78. But if you absolutely must get back to the Turnpike or I-95, it's kind of out of the way. For some trips it may even make sense to use I-84.

What's tricky is getting to Long Island. That there isn't always a good answer to, you kinda have to plan your trip around rush hour. (or better yet, ask yourself, "why am I going to Long Island?")

Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on November 05, 2013, 10:41:28 PM
I think to avoid huge tolls, I-84 would be the best.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 05, 2013, 10:55:43 PM
Thanks NE2, you're right. I see it on Google Earth. You'd go east on the service road parallel to the toll plaza, then north on Hudson Terrace to the entrance. Interesting. Have you actually done this, and saved any substantial time?
I've never driven over the GWB, but I remember this being discussed years ago on m.t.r.
Depending on where traffic begins, it might end up being faster to head north on US 9W to just past NJ 67 and then turn east.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 06, 2013, 12:35:10 AM
Thanks NE2, you're right. I see it on Google Earth. You'd go east on the service road parallel to the toll plaza, then north on Hudson Terrace to the entrance. Interesting. Have you actually done this, and saved any substantial time?

I get off at Broad and go north to Palisade and enter there. Don't know how much time I save, because in doing that, I forgo spending the time in the toll traffic to compare. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 06, 2013, 05:41:05 AM
Quote
I think to avoid huge tolls, I-84 would be the best.

No tolls incurred if you're heading westbound.

Speaking of which (and related to this sub-thread), my "usual" Vermont-back-to-Norfolk route these days involves the following:  I-84 to I-684 to the Saw Mill to Taipan Zee/87 to the GSP to the Turnpike.  Because it's already a 12-hour drive WITHOUT traffic, I'm not doing any roadgeeking and am mostly looking for the quickest route through the region.  I start checking my traffic apps before I hit Hartford and then adjust as needed.  But the route I listed above is usually the route I wind up taking.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hbelkins on November 06, 2013, 10:30:14 AM
What's tricky is getting to Long Island. That there isn't always a good answer to, you kinda have to plan your trip around rush hour. (or better yet, ask yourself, "why am I going to Long Island?")

To visit Suffolk and Nassau counties and thus clinch New York, or at least that's why *I* will be going to Long Island if the opportunity ever presents itself.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 06, 2013, 11:23:40 AM
What's tricky is getting to Long Island. That there isn't always a good answer to, you kinda have to plan your trip around rush hour. (or better yet, ask yourself, "why am I going to Long Island?")

To visit Suffolk and Nassau counties and thus clinch New York, or at least that's why *I* will be going to Long Island if the opportunity ever presents itself.

A fun way to do that is to make it part of a trip to or from New England by using one of the two ferries that connect to the island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 06, 2013, 03:22:49 PM
A little off topic but it's NY.

I ran across this sign today and was shocked to find a date on the back.  November, 1965 it said.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7397/10713772953_f2f9d5d475.jpg)

Also close by is the last known state named I-287 in the wild. 

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3803/10713568206_e77dff2326.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 06, 2013, 03:26:41 PM
Is that a two-digit blank improperly stretched? The curves look flatter than they should.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 06, 2013, 03:30:34 PM
nope.  through no linear manipulation can I get it to conform to a 24x24 interstate shield.  it is just too round.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 07, 2013, 08:35:48 AM
A little off topic but it's NY.

I ran across this sign today and was shocked to find a date on the back.  November, 1965 it said.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7397/10713772953_f2f9d5d475.jpg)

Also close by is the last known state named I-287 in the wild. 

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3803/10713568206_e77dff2326.jpg)

It looks like the interstate shield was added as an afterthought.  Where was this?  NY 22?  NY 100?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 07, 2013, 11:44:47 AM
It looks like the interstate shield was added as an afterthought.  Where was this?  NY 22?  NY 100?

This was US-1 SB in Port Chester.  I think it was an after thought.  Was the I-287 designation even in existance in 1965?  The sign date is 11-65.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on November 07, 2013, 01:30:47 PM
Eh, it's not TOO bad.  Just make sure to hit it at an odd time, like early Sunday morning, and stay in the left lane at all costs.
In this context, "not TOO bad" means "f---ing awesome". It's quite the rush for a first timer and it never gets old. If it's the right time of night, I'll take the Cross Bronx anytime. It sure beats I-84, the Pocono Boreway, or I-84, the New York State Ticketway, or 87/287, which gets old after a while.

I-95 in Manhattan is not the scariest stretch of Interstate by a long shot. I-287 over the Goethals Bridge and on the greatest expressway on earth, the Gowanus, have it beat by a long shot.

If you're in NYC, go clinch the Clearview. It's nice and retro. And do the Sheridan, too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on November 07, 2013, 02:32:52 PM
I drove the Cross Bronx exactly once in late 1990, on an early Sunday morning.  Traffic was moderate but flowing well.  However, what really caught my attention were the signs that read "BREAKDOWN?  STAY IN YOUR LOCKED CAR"(or something to that effect) and the fact that, on this particular morning, one person who failed to heed that advice was being admonished by a officer in a police helicopter (yes) with a very loud bullhorn.

And, although I've always driven mechanically reliable cars, I've not ventured on the Cross Bronx since then.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: signalman on November 07, 2013, 03:54:21 PM
The Cross Bronx does indeed go through a rough area of the Bronx.  I've seen locals scaling down the wall in an attempt to sell their goods during a traffic jam.  Hundreds of potential customers were just sitting in their vehicles waiting for traffic to move again.  I suppose they figured it was a good time to try and make some sales of most likely hot merchandise. 

I've seen the signs about disabled vehicles before that roadman alluded to.  I too try to keep my car in good mechanical order. So far every trip across the Cross Bronx I've been fortunate enough to not break down.  My biggest concern along the Cross Bronx as far as my vehicle's well being is flat tires.  Last time I was through in July it was quite pothole ridden and reminded me of Swiss cheese.  Some holes are quite huge (as large as half a car) and are unavoidable.  That highway is in dire need of rehabilitation, but shutting down lanes at any time of day is next to impossible.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1995hoo on November 07, 2013, 05:56:42 PM
The last time we took I-95 across NYC I hit a pothole under the Apartments. Loud bang. No damage, thankfully, but what a horrible spot that is to hit a pothole and get worried about damage because there's nowhere to stop and because I wasn't about to pull off anywhere in the Bronx. If memory serves, we stopped at the first service area in Connecticut.

I normally never go that way, but traffic was moving nicely and so I had decided to go up I-95 through Connecticut (first time since 1985) and then go up I-395 into Massachusetts (never been that way). But we hit so much traffic near Milford that I bailed onto the Wilbur Cross. I've still never been on Connecticut's I-395. Doubt I'll ever get around to it. The potholes on I-95 in NYC were awful and I was reminded why the Merritt Parkway is a respite from I-95. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 07, 2013, 09:33:29 PM
I will concur that the Cross Bronx is a marvel, albeit one that suffers from notorious traffic problems. The Trans-Manhattan Expressway (aka I-95 in Manhattan) is a nice culmination to it and I feel to see what's scary about it unless driving under buildings unnerves you.

If you want to take the scariest drive in New York City, drive the outer roadway of the Queensboro Bridge:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2013, 10:19:39 PM
But we hit so much traffic near Milford that I bailed onto the Wilbur Cross. I've still never been on Connecticut's I-395. Doubt I'll ever get around to it. The potholes on I-95 in NYC were awful and I was reminded why the Merritt Parkway is a respite from I-95. 

I took I-95 from the New Jersey Turnpike all the way to the Portsmouth (N.H.) meet earlier this year.  The condition of the Cross-Bronx Expressway was terrible, but the Connecticut Turnpike was much worse in terms of delay, with a double lane closure in Fairfield County that delayed traffic by over an hour.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PColumbus73 on November 07, 2013, 10:47:03 PM
After watching a few YouTube videos of driving through Manhattan, I don't think I would stand a chance trying to drive through there  :-P

I-95 through Manhattan looks intimidating because of the narrow lanes and the amount of traffic, tunneling under the apartments isn't scary, but it does give it a claustrophobic feel when you add the other factors.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 07, 2013, 11:49:10 PM
The first time I drove the Cross Bronx was in October of 1988, I was going from DC to Norwalk CT for a Saturday morning liquidation auction of old 19c metalworking tools.  Hit the CB at about 11PM, there was a stripped car on the shoulder with an active fire in a stripped out hood compartment with 6-8 homeless using the fire to get warm.  Disturbing
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on November 08, 2013, 12:09:53 AM
The first time I drove the Cross Bronx was in October of 1988, I was going from DC to Norwalk CT for a Saturday morning liquidation auction of old 19c metalworking tools.  Hit the CB at about 11PM, there was a stripped car on the shoulder with an active fire in a stripped out hood compartment with 6-8 homeless using the fire to get warm.  Disturbing

Noted several stripped cars on cinder blocks during my first ever NYC roadtrip in September 1993 too. Saw some other intimidating things that night as well.

If you want or need to clinch the Cross Bronx Expressway and do not care about taking photos,  just do it at 3 am.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on November 08, 2013, 12:58:23 AM
I remember taking the bus from The City back to Hartford and we took the Cross Bronx and it was flooded…a BMW was stuck in water up to the top of its tires and only one lane was getting through on the shoulder.  After seeing that when I do drive through the area (going to/from Baltimore) I go through Westchester on the Tappan Zee.  The backups on 95 through the City and Fairfield County with the construction in New Haven makes 95 a nightmare.  The Merritt is OK during the day as long as there isn't an accident but the lack of merging space is problematic.  I guess that it's the price you have to pay for a scenic route. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 08, 2013, 02:00:52 AM
An important point being made here is that I-95 through NYC is absolutely worth seeing from its own road-geekly standpoint. Not to be missed.

Another important point is that the road has undergone rehabilitation lately and is not in particularly bad shape at all at the moment. The current jam-ups are at the perpetual work spots: the A.H. and G.W. bridges. The Cross Bronx itself will jam up residually because of these, especially westbound, so that's what you're looking to avoid. Check the lane closure schedule on the gee-dub in particular (the Hamilton bridge is just always iffy).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 08, 2013, 08:40:22 AM
But we hit so much traffic near Milford that I bailed onto the Wilbur Cross. I've still never been on Connecticut's I-395. Doubt I'll ever get around to it. The potholes on I-95 in NYC were awful and I was reminded why the Merritt Parkway is a respite from I-95. 

I took I-95 from the New Jersey Turnpike all the way to the Portsmouth (N.H.) meet earlier this year.  The condition of the Cross-Bronx Expressway was terrible, but the Connecticut Turnpike was much worse in terms of delay, with a double lane closure in Fairfield County that delayed traffic by over an hour.

Then you must have just hit the Connecticut Turnpike at a really bad time.  The Connecticut Turnpike can sometimes get backed up, but if you travel it when it's not rush hour then it's generally fine.  The Cross Bronx is pretty much always backed up, unless it's 3 AM or something like that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1995hoo on November 08, 2013, 09:08:50 AM
Noted several stripped cars on cinder blocks during my first ever NYC roadtrip in September 1993 too. Saw some other intimidating things that night as well.

....

"Cars on cinderblocks" is, of course, a common redneck stereotype. In Virginia, our law provides that all cars are presumed mobile as a matter of law. It matters for reasons of taxation, registration, and insurance. When that came up in the bar review class, the instructor noted "those of you in Southwest Virginia where people put cars up on cinderblocks will better understand this than the folks in Fairfax"!

I had never heard of wheel locks or pull-out radios until my relatives in Brooklyn got them (and they lived in Bay Ridge, which was always a reasonably safe area).

Regarding the Apartments (comment from PColumbus), it's not a true tunnel but rather a case of apartments being constructed over the already-built highway. I wonder how unhealthy that is for residents in terms of air pollution and the like. You get used to road noise quickly (trust me, I lived across from an at-grade railroad crossing for three years), but the bad air is a more insidious thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 08, 2013, 09:16:32 AM
Quote
double lane closure
a really bad time

yep.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on November 08, 2013, 10:41:13 AM
I've driven the Cross Bronx, and while it's roadgeek worthy, I'm glad I got it out of the way. ...but I'm still missing the Bruckner.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 08, 2013, 01:06:10 PM
One thing nobody's mentioned about the Cross Bronx Expwy. are its very interesting construction features, especially towards the west end. The road was blasted thru the solid rock cliffs of the west Bronx in one of the most difficult road construction projects in history in the late 1950's/early 1960's.

As you go east from the Alex. Hamilton Bridge, you're going down a long steep grade thru those cliffs (with huge retaining walls) to a valley where you go thru an underpass deep under another cliff where Grand Concourse runs along the top. Well worth seeing.

My suggestion: Drive it early Sunday morning with the least traffic, but in daylight so you can keep one eye on the road surface and the other on the construction features. BTW, that road is less than 5 miles long, and though it may be the worst 5 miles of highway in any city in America, you're thru it fairly quickly if you don't hit a traffic jam.  And yes, your car should be in top mechanical condition; you don't want to break down in that part of town. I drive that road several times a year, generally without any fear. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 08, 2013, 02:00:39 PM
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.

Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 08, 2013, 02:02:38 PM
but holy crap hep cats
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on November 08, 2013, 02:40:53 PM
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.

Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.
Actually one NYC highway incident a friend of my brother's had back in 1993 occurred along the Henry Hudson Parkway on a Sunday morning.  Two groups of people were coming down from MA to NYC (to attend Times Square Church on W 51st & Broadway) when one of the cars bumped the other car while in traffic.  The front bumper of the the car that rear-ended the other literally fell off.

No joke, while the two drivers were standing alongside the parked cars; a van approaches, stops a few feet ahead, two guys run out of the van, pick up the front bumper, and literally drive off.  It was like something straight out of a sitcom lol.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on November 08, 2013, 03:02:30 PM
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.

Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.

So, have they taken down the "stay in locked car" signs then?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 08, 2013, 06:01:09 PM
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.

Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.

If this were Facebook I'd be pressing Like right here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2013, 06:38:47 PM
But we hit so much traffic near Milford that I bailed onto the Wilbur Cross. I've still never been on Connecticut's I-395. Doubt I'll ever get around to it. The potholes on I-95 in NYC were awful and I was reminded why the Merritt Parkway is a respite from I-95. 

I took I-95 from the New Jersey Turnpike all the way to the Portsmouth (N.H.) meet earlier this year.  The condition of the Cross-Bronx Expressway was terrible, but the Connecticut Turnpike was much worse in terms of delay, with a double lane closure in Fairfield County that delayed traffic by over an hour.

Then you must have just hit the Connecticut Turnpike at a really bad time.  The Connecticut Turnpike can sometimes get backed up, but if you travel it when it's not rush hour then it's generally fine.  The Cross Bronx is pretty much always backed up, unless it's 3 AM or something like that.

Aside from that miserable double lane closure (on a Friday night, no less - taking away 2/3 of the lane capacity), the Connecticut Turnpike was fine northbound.

I came back on Sunday retracing my route north, except that I drove I-93 via the Big Dig through Boston instead of I-95/Mass. 128.

The Connecticut Turnpike southbound (westbound) got busier and busier the closer I got the to the New York border, with several spots where traffic came to a halt.  I did not bother with the Cross Bronx headed south (west), but took I-287 across the Tappan Zee to the Garden State Parkway south to the N.J. Turnpike, which worked out well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 08, 2013, 07:22:07 PM
I remember taking the bus from The City back to Hartford and we took the Cross Bronx and it was flooded…a BMW was stuck in water up to the top of its tires and only one lane was getting through on the shoulder.  After seeing that when I do drive through the area (going to/from Baltimore) I go through Westchester on the Tappan Zee.  The backups on 95 through the City and Fairfield County with the construction in New Haven makes 95 a nightmare.  The Merritt is OK during the day as long as there isn't an accident but the lack of merging space is problematic.  I guess that it's the price you have to pay for a scenic route. 

That's CT for ya closing 2 of 3 lanes during the day.  Problably for street sweeping.  I've seen it before, lane closures for the "Broom Bear" in a full 12 foot shoulder.

Although compared to some NYC parkways, the Merritt is in fine shape.  Most entrances have long merging lanes that have been expanded in recent years.  Also unlike NYC parkways there are places to pull over, although it's grass but how many parkways don't even have that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 08, 2013, 08:14:20 PM
I have to agree with Duke87's earlier post. Though I still wouldn't want to break down on the Cross Bx. Expwy, he is correct that NYC is a generally better/safer place today than it was 20 years ago.

And doofy103 is correct also that the Merritt Pkwy. is a good road to drive nowadays. There has been some modernization and on a weekday, it can be a good alternative to playing tag with the big rigs on I-95 in Connecticut. Personally I prefer I-95 though, 'cause it's more interesting. Being a railroad buff, I like that it parallels Amtrak/Metro-North, and the rivers and bridges are interesting. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: spmkam on November 08, 2013, 09:25:22 PM
The Merritt is a better landscape for sure. I prefer the Merritt during the day and I-95 late at night, but will look at the Metro-North tracks that run near the highway on 95.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 08, 2013, 10:27:24 PM
So, have they taken down the "stay in locked car" signs then?

I don't even remember such signs so they've clearly been gone for a while.
...of course, I was rarely down the Cross Bronx as a kid because my father always avoided it whenever possible (it was just as much a traffic mess then as it is now).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on November 09, 2013, 06:50:31 PM
Last week, NYSDOT launched the I-81 Viaduct project website (https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities) for I-81 through Syracuse.  Here's a link to the press release (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2013/11-01-2013).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 10, 2013, 12:45:58 AM
I just drove the expanded to three lanes section of I-87 between exits 23 and 24.  The southbound roadway is still at 55 MPH with the right-hand lane closed as there is still some work in progress around the Exit 23 interchange, but other than that, signs are in place and it looks complete.

The overhead signs on I-87 SB are really odd looking in that the arrows are abnormally small and the 87 marker is off center with the word "SOUTH" crammed up against the right hand margin of the sign.  I guess someone at the Thruway Authority has no idea how to work GuidSIGN or SignCAD.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 10, 2013, 04:46:26 PM
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.

Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.

If this were Facebook I'd be pressing Like right here.

I was just on I-95 in NYC today, in the Bronx.  SB traffic was very light.  NB was at a stop just past this pic.  I was SB and stopped to take these pics and nobody scaled the walls to sell me anything.   :pan:

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5530/10786162156_a1fc215d34.jpg)

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5496/10786249354_3b43e92471.jpg)

Also I drove Bruckner Blvd and found a couple other goodies but felt safe doing so. 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

I took a pic of a NRBC Hutch sign on Bruckner Blvd and the sign has a "BW3" on the botton.  Did NY use codes to track their signs?

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/10786244594_e331d408a0.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on November 12, 2013, 11:43:33 AM
I just drove the expanded to three lanes section of I-87 between exits 23 and 24.  The southbound roadway is still at 55 MPH with the right-hand lane closed as there is still some work in progress around the Exit 23 interchange, but other than that, signs are in place and it looks complete.

The overhead signs on I-87 SB are really odd looking in that the arrows are abnormally small and the 87 marker is off center with the word "SOUTH" crammed up against the right hand margin of the sign.  I guess someone at the Thruway Authority has no idea how to work GuidSIGN or SignCAD.
This 6-lane expansion has been a long time in coming.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on November 12, 2013, 05:10:04 PM
Also I drove Bruckner Blvd and found a couple other goodies but felt safe doing so.
Exactly. It's not 1989 anymore. If you want to find a neighborhood you'll be too uncomfortable to pull over in, well, the Bronx won't cut it anymore. You'll have to go somewhere far more dangerous, like Syracuse.

Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on November 12, 2013, 05:14:32 PM
I've driven the Cross Bronx, and while it's roadgeek worthy, I'm glad I got it out of the way. ...but I'm still missing the Bruckner.
Correct this IMMEDIATELY. The Bruckner is a glorious road. Old truss bridges on an Interstate! And make sure you drive both the Blvd and the Expwy.

Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 12, 2013, 07:13:25 PM
I just drove the expanded to three lanes section of I-87 between exits 23 and 24.  The southbound roadway is still at 55 MPH with the right-hand lane closed as there is still some work in progress around the Exit 23 interchange, but other than that, signs are in place and it looks complete.

The overhead signs on I-87 SB are really odd looking in that the arrows are abnormally small and the 87 marker is off center with the word "SOUTH" crammed up against the right hand margin of the sign.  I guess someone at the Thruway Authority has no idea how to work GuidSIGN or SignCAD.
This 6-lane expansion has been a long time in coming.

Indeed it has, I just wish they had used the opportunity to introduce a NB interchange (maybe E-ZPass only?) from I-87 north on the Thruway to I-87 north on the Northway. It would help ease the congestion at Exit 24.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 14, 2013, 03:22:39 PM
Drove the Whitestone to the Cross Island, GCP and I-295 & I-495.  Hardly any button copy left.  All replaced with "the worst of road signs" type signs.  Big arrows, off font, bubble interstate shields etc.  I'm really surprised at the shotty sign work that is popping up all over NY and NYC. 

The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so. 

I did find these, Idk if they are reflective or not: If you know, let me know.

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3689/10858999834_4b78a357f6.jpg)

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3747/10858747846_e0a3a815fa.jpg)

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2884/10858047716_f30c902625.jpg)

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7392/10864296374_5c21132674.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 14, 2013, 07:17:39 PM
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so. 

What's NRBC?  They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 14, 2013, 11:03:11 PM
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so. 

What's NRBC?  They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.

Non-reflective button copy.  It's part of what gave NYC highways character.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 15, 2013, 08:39:18 AM
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so. 

What's NRBC?  They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.

Non-reflective button copy.  It's part of what gave NYC highways character.

Yep, they replaced most of the signs, at least from I-495 to I-678, just before the hurricane.  There was also one by the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) going north that had survived that replacement, but I noticed it was replaced more recently when I was on there this past weekend.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 15, 2013, 03:24:43 PM
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so. 

What's NRBC?  They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.

Non-reflective button copy.  It's part of what gave NYC highways character.

Yep, they replaced most of the signs, at least from I-495 to I-678, just before the hurricane.  There was also one by the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) going north that had survived that replacement, but I noticed it was replaced more recently when I was on there this past weekend.

So is there any non-reflective button copy left in the 5 boroughs of NYC?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 15, 2013, 06:16:05 PM
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so. 

What's NRBC?  They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.

Non-reflective button copy.  It's part of what gave NYC highways character.

Yep, they replaced most of the signs, at least from I-495 to I-678, just before the hurricane.  There was also one by the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) going north that had survived that replacement, but I noticed it was replaced more recently when I was on there this past weekend.

So is there any non-reflective button copy left in the 5 boroughs of NYC?

The FDR Drive is still almost all button copy.  The Belt Parkway used to be, but the last time I was on there was back in 2006, so they might have replaced it since then.  I also can't say about the part of the Cross Island Parkway that's south of the expressway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 16, 2013, 01:36:53 AM
Belt and Cross Island both still have some left but a lot of it has been replaced. FDR Drive is the largest surviving collection these days.

Given how active NYSDOT has been with sign replacements in the city I expect most of the button copy will be gone in a few years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 16, 2013, 10:10:46 AM
Given how active NYSDOT has been with sign replacements in the city I expect most of the button copy will be gone in a few years.

Not to mention Long Island and Connecticut as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on November 18, 2013, 11:37:57 AM
Not sure if this is the proper thread to comment regarding recent NYSTA BGS' but I noticed a couple new ones erected near the Palisades Interstate Parkway (PIP) interchange (Exits 13 N-S) along I-87 North/287 West last night.

In addition to overuse of the Clearview font (numerals and all-Caps text), whatever reflectivity materials NYSTA is using on those new BGS'; it absolutely sucks in terms of night visibility

Whatever readability advantages the Clearview font provides is completely negated by the poor reflectivity materials used for the lettering.  In contrast, the lettering on the older (20 to 25-year-old) BGS (most of which are still present) are much more brighter & visable/readable at greater distance at night (when viewed w/low-beam headlights).

Which begs this underlying question: if the older BGS' are still in pristine condition and have the correct/current info. on them; why are these being replaced at all at this point?

A complete waste of money IMHO, especially if the new BGS have some nighttime readability issues from the get-go.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 18, 2013, 02:36:22 PM
I appreciate how you've illustrated the point about readability and the overuse of a type-style in the appearance of your post itself. Nicely done! :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 18, 2013, 05:42:11 PM
PHLBOS, that's incredible that the T'way Authority is replacing those signs in Rockland County when they are only a little over 20 years old and probably in good condition as you say. Especially considering, it took them 35 years to replace the original inadequately designed and deteriorated blue-background signs from the mid-1950's. They go from one extreme to the other!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 18, 2013, 06:23:16 PM
PHLBOS, that's incredible that the T'way Authority is replacing those signs in Rockland County when they are only a little over 20 years old and probably in good condition as you say. Especially considering, it took them 35 years to replace the original inadequately designed and deteriorated blue-background signs from the mid-1950's. They go from one extreme to the other!

Did they change what's written on the signs, or are they just new style?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 18, 2013, 07:36:16 PM
Not sure if this is the proper thread to comment regarding recent NYSTA BGS' but I noticed a couple new ones erected near the Palisades Interstate Parkway (PIP) interchange (Exits 13 N-S) along I-87 North/287 West last night.

In addition to overuse of the Clearview font (numerals and all-Caps text), whatever reflectivity materials NYSTA is using on those new BGS'; it absolutely sucks in terms of night visibility


I've noticed that with some new signs in CT, at night the reflectibility is awful.  When headlights shine on some of the signs with white letters on green background, the whole sign looks white.  It looks bleached out from the headlights. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Interstatefan78 on November 18, 2013, 08:08:29 PM
Drove the Northway in Albany County and there was a clearview sign that has a brown says entering Hudson River Valley National Heritage area and I think this is probably placed by the NYSTA on a NYSDOT freeway. Also clearview use in NY seems to go outside NYSTA roads and used in Suffolk County in Brookhaven area local roads
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 18, 2013, 08:16:59 PM
NYSTA doesn't have anything to do with the Northway, but it might be a locally provided sign.

As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 18, 2013, 09:48:17 PM
As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.

Now that's random. The most obscure county in New York goes and makes itself special.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on November 19, 2013, 08:37:59 AM
Not sure if this is the proper thread to comment regarding recent NYSTA BGS' but I noticed a couple new ones erected near the Palisades Interstate Parkway (PIP) interchange (Exits 13 N-S) along I-87 North/287 West last night.

In addition to overuse of the Clearview font (numerals and all-Caps text), whatever reflectivity materials NYSTA is using on those new BGS'; it absolutely sucks in terms of night visibility


I've noticed that with some new signs in CT, at night the reflectibility is awful.  When headlights shine on some of the signs with white letters on green background, the whole sign looks white.  It looks bleached out from the headlights. 
That wasn't the issue I encountered with my headlights aiming at the new Thruway's BGS.  The issue I had was that the white lettering was that it appears as a dark grey against the green background.  It's as if the white lettering wasn't reflectorized.

Did they change what's written on the signs, or are they just new style?
Other than the listing of Bear Mountain as Bear Mtn. (the older BGS' spell out the word Mountain); the BGS' messages are the same as the old BGS and are the exact same size in terms of height & width.

It's worth noting that a couple of BGS' for Exit 11 (US 9A) for Nyack were changed as well not too long ago and the reflectivity issues (or lack thereof) with the lettering and shields are the same.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on November 19, 2013, 12:43:26 PM
Every clearview sign the NYSTA has put up has been an unreadable ugly mess. They all look the same, and cheaply thrown together. I can't believe they've replaced those signs at the PIP. There was NOTHING wrong with them at all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 19, 2013, 01:09:38 PM
The issue I had was that the white lettering was that it appears as a dark grey against the green background.  It's as if the white lettering wasn't reflectorized.
It IS dark grey lettering; that's the current NYSTA standard, luckily they don't replace signage as often as NYSDOT does.
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i90/100_5431.JPG)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 19, 2013, 06:57:54 PM
As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.

Now that's random. The most obscure county in New York goes and makes itself special.

I would have gone with Lewis County for most obscure, but I'll take Yates too. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 19, 2013, 07:37:56 PM
Now let me get this straight vdeane......... You're telling us that with a national standard (MUTCD Sec. 2E.05) specifying white lettering, the NYSTA goes and uses gray lettering !!! ???? You (or they) have got to be kidding! What planet are those people on????!!!!

I've noticed for the last 20 years that the Thuway's signing always seems to be a little off in various ways. For instance, in some areas they still have road names printed in all upper-case letters, a 1950's practice. It's like they're 50 years behind the times.......... Why don't they just do their signing the same as NYS DOT does, which isn't perfect either, but it is much better than NYSTA's work. Very strange.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 19, 2013, 09:24:32 PM
NYSTA doesn't have anything to do with the Northway, but it might be a locally provided sign.

As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.

There's actually Clearview scattered throughout the Empire State on all NYSDOT maintained roads, mostly because one of the contractors took it upon themselves to use Clearview instead of the FHWA alphabet. They thought they had to.

I believe the Hudson Valley heritage area sign might have been installed by the Thruway Authority as part of the Canal Corporation. All of the Erie Canal Corridor signs are in Clearview, regardless of whether they're on the Thruway or a NYSDOT road. In that instance I believe it's the Canal Corporation/Thruway Authority installing the signs as well.

The Thruway Authority has always been odd with their sign designs but they make a huge mess with Clearview. And if the new overhead signs in the Albany area are any indication, someone doesn't know how to maneuver sign legend around in GuidSIGN because the centering of markers, destinations, etc is all out of whack.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 19, 2013, 09:44:59 PM
I agree, Clearview font looks awful. Another attempt to fix something that wasn't broken.

And re: the Thruway signs, ya' have to wonder who approves this crap. Maybe the bosses just pencil whip their approvals without actually inspecting the plans drawn up by people who are possibly inexperienced and unskilled. Having worked for government, I can appreciate the problem they may have hiring competent people.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on November 19, 2013, 11:27:16 PM
It's not just NYSTA. Region 7 seems to have caught the bug. (x-post "The Worst of Road Signs")

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15727937/Road/DSC05790.JPG)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Interstatefan78 on November 21, 2013, 09:15:08 PM
NYSTA doesn't have anything to do with the Northway, but it might be a locally provided sign.

As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.

There's actually Clearview scattered throughout the Empire State on all NYSDOT maintained roads, mostly because one of the contractors took it upon themselves to use Clearview instead of the FHWA alphabet. They thought they had to.

I believe the Hudson Valley heritage area sign might have been installed by the Thruway Authority as part of the Canal Corporation. All of the Erie Canal Corridor signs are in Clearview, regardless of whether they're on the Thruway or a NYSDOT road. In that instance I believe it's the Canal Corporation/Thruway Authority installing the signs as well.

The Thruway Authority has always been odd with their sign designs but they make a huge mess with Clearview. And if the new overhead signs in the Albany area are any indication, someone doesn't know how to maneuver sign legend around in GuidSIGN because the centering of markers, destinations, etc is all out of whack.
There is a proof of these brown clear view signs it's actually found on the I-87 Northway in Albany county on the southbound side and in some cases clearview distance signs are found in random places from exit 15 to 24 on I-87 NY thruway
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2013, 10:07:26 AM
Now let me get this straight vdeane......... You're telling us that with a national standard (MUTCD Sec. 2E.05) specifying white lettering, the NYSTA goes and uses gray lettering !!! ???? You (or they) have got to be kidding! What planet are those people on????!!!!

I've noticed for the last 20 years that the Thuway's signing always seems to be a little off in various ways. For instance, in some areas they still have road names printed in all upper-case letters, a 1950's practice. It's like they're 50 years behind the times.......... Why don't they just do their signing the same as NYS DOT does, which isn't perfect either, but it is much better than NYSTA's work. Very strange.
Florida's new signing for street names on both I-95 and I-75 are now using upper cases as well.  So the NYSTA is not alone in that practice.  Also, I have seen NYSDOT box their street names on signs like for Taft Road in Syracuse area which is not standard anywhere, or at least anywhere I have traveled to in my years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 22, 2013, 10:36:03 AM
I've noticed for the last 20 years that the Thuway's signing always seems to be a little off in various ways. For instance, in some areas they still have road names printed in all upper-case letters, a 1950's practice. It's like they're 50 years behind the times.......... Why don't they just do their signing the same as NYS DOT does, which isn't perfect either, but it is much better than NYSTA's work. Very strange.

That's not just the Thruway.  It also happens on a whole batch of the highways in Westchester County.  In many places, they also but boxes around the road names as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hbelkins on November 22, 2013, 10:38:51 AM
I actually like NY's practice of putting road/street names in a box. Makes them look like route markers vs. destinations reached by the exit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 22, 2013, 12:22:13 PM
I actually like NY's practice of putting road/street names in a box. Makes them look like route markers vs. destinations reached by the exit.

Unfortunately, placing a box around the road name legend impedes any hopes of letter recognition from a distance. At night the whole thing turns into a big white blob.

I am very thankful that NYSDOT stopped the practice completely with the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD.

NYSDOT Region 3 patched several signs north of Syracuse (Taft Rd on I-81 and Circle Drive on I-481 being among them), placing mixed case lettering over the boxed road names. They did this while they were doing other work in the area.

NYSDOT Region 2 hasn't patched any of their existing signs, but new signs use mixed case lettering per the MUTCD.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 22, 2013, 08:05:07 PM
Well at least NYS DOT realized what a mistake they made with boxing street names of all upper-case letters. Yet another example of creating a problem where there hadn't been one. Fortunately Region-10 on Long Island did not do any of that. In fact on Long Island, they've had mixed-case street names and destinations on the same signs beginning in about 1964, and we've never had a problem recognizing which was a street name or a destination.

And as you can guess, I disagree with the Federal Manual's recommending not having a street name and destination on the same sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 22, 2013, 10:40:57 PM
Myself, I'm with H.B. on the boxed street names. I might side with J.P. if my observation matched his, but I haven't myself noticed any readability issue with the practice.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: spmkam on November 23, 2013, 03:52:11 PM
The boxed names are odd but if done correctly, there is not an issue. I do think having the street name and destination is not a bad idea.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 23, 2013, 08:23:10 PM
The Thruway has these signs on I-95.  They're essentially a hybrid.
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i95/100_8289.JPG)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 23, 2013, 09:44:08 PM
Vdeane, what do you mean by a hybrid? If memory serves, those signs on the New England Thruway went up in the 1980's replacing the original blue signs from the late 1950's. The legends are almost a carbon copy with no modernization, like maybe changing the street names to mixed-case.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 24, 2013, 12:05:58 AM

And as you can guess, I disagree with the Federal Manual's recommending not having a street name and destination on the same sign.
So do many agencies. NJDOT will mix route numbers and street names on a sign, as well as destinations. We have enough exits that lead to more than one road where that's necessary.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 24, 2013, 12:17:48 PM
Vdeane, what do you mean by a hybrid? If memory serves, those signs on the New England Thruway went up in the 1980's replacing the original blue signs from the late 1950's. The legends are almost a carbon copy with no modernization, like maybe changing the street names to mixed-case.
It's the same font and style as the boxed street name signs; they're just missing the box.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2013, 08:51:34 AM
I actually like NY's practice of putting road/street names in a box. Makes them look like route markers vs. destinations reached by the exit.
Actually, the boxing makes the street name listing resemble a street-sign blade; which may have been the intended effect.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 26, 2013, 03:01:25 AM
I actually like NY's practice of putting road/street names in a box. Makes them look like route markers vs. destinations reached by the exit.
Actually, the boxing makes the street name listing resemble a street-sign blade; which may have been the intended effect.

Yes. The hybrid is almost as good, but not quite.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on January 03, 2014, 09:41:21 AM
I was noticing something when I read Wikipedia's article on Lexington Avenue in NYC.  That not only is the avenue 110 city blocks long, but it exceeds 5 miles in length.  In fact, according to them, it is 5.5 miles in total from 131st Street to 21st Street.

If that is true then, twenty NYC blocks are equivalent to one mile, thus making Penn Station and Times Square one half mile apart.  In addition Pennsylvania Station is one tenth of a mile across the track layout.  You would never know it as a foot pedestrian as I have walked from Radio City all the way down to Herald Square and it really did not seem that far as one mile in my neighborhood seems further.

I am though interested in what the distance is between each numbered avenue?  I know all avenues (excluding Madison and Lexington for they are not part of the original 1811 street grid) are equally spaced apart. The distance between Park and both 3rd and 5th are the same as between 10th and 11th as Park is technically 4th Avenue in the 1811 grid.  Lexington and Madison are half of that away from their parallel avenues and of course Broadway cuts carelessly across the grid so it has no steady point (at least below 68th Street anyway) from numbered avenues.  Does anyone know the distance across town between avenues that is set by the 1811 street plan?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 03, 2014, 06:03:05 PM
I was noticing something when I read Wikipedia's article on Lexington Avenue in NYC.  That not only is the avenue 110 city blocks long, but it exceeds 5 miles in length.  In fact, according to them, it is 5.5 miles in total from 131st Street to 21st Street.

If that is true then, twenty NYC blocks are equivalent to one mile, thus making Penn Station and Times Square one half mile apart.  In addition Pennsylvania Station is one tenth of a mile across the track layout.  You would never know it as a foot pedestrian as I have walked from Radio City all the way down to Herald Square and it really did not seem that far as one mile in my neighborhood seems further.

I am though interested in what the distance is between each numbered avenue?  I know all avenues (excluding Madison and Lexington for they are not part of the original 1811 street grid) are equally spaced apart. The distance between Park and both 3rd and 5th are the same as between 10th and 11th as Park is technically 4th Avenue in the 1811 grid.  Lexington and Madison are half of that away from their parallel avenues and of course Broadway cuts carelessly across the grid so it has no steady point (at least below 68th Street anyway) from numbered avenues.  Does anyone know the distance across town between avenues that is set by the 1811 street plan?
The avenues aren't on a strict spacing apart, unlike the streets. It's more apparent when you play around in Google Maps and really go from Hudson to East, rather than when you focus in on Midtown and notice that 5-6-7-8 all appear the same distance apart.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 03, 2014, 07:00:42 PM
The avenues aren't on a strict spacing apart, unlike the streets. It's more apparent when you play around in Google Maps and really go from Hudson to East, rather than when you focus in on Midtown and notice that 5-6-7-8 all appear the same distance apart.

Actually, if you look really closely, the streets aren't a strict spacing apart, either. The width of private property between streets is constant (210 feet), but since the width of the streets themselves is not, the centerline to centerline distance between blocks varies. Usually it's 260 feet but when you have a major cross street (23rd, 34th, etc.) it goes up to about 280 feet. So, 20 blocks = 1 mile is not precisely true from a surveying perspective, but it's more than close enough for day to day purposes (off by at most 1%).


Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 08, 2014, 12:07:20 PM
Unless there's a thread strictly on NY 22, I'm posting this message here:

Over on the I Ride the Harlem Line website, the webmistress posted some history of the NYCRR Upper Harlem Division and mentioned a proposal by the Harlem Valley Transportation Association to put a bridge under NY 22 and over a creek next to the road for the proposed completion of the Harlem Valley Rail Trail. Aside from the fact that it's a stupid thing to put a bridge under a road next to a waterway, the girl raised a question about the former intersection with Black Grocery Road, which had a bridge over the creek.
http://www.iridetheharlemline.com/2013/03/23/remembering-the-upper-harlem-division-part-2/#comments

She speculates that the bridge might've been washed out in a flood and never replaced. I suspect that residents along Black Grocery Road and vicinity simply didn't want to have traffic coming from NY 22 anymore and demanded that NYSDOT remove the bridge. Who's right about this?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on January 08, 2014, 01:12:40 PM
The bridge was built in 1940 and still exists in the 2003 NBI, but is gone in 2007. Maybe Christie sat on it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on January 08, 2014, 01:30:41 PM
The bridge was built in 1940 and still exists in the 2003 NBI, but is gone in 2007. Maybe Christie sat on it.
Christie wasn't Governor of NJ in 2007.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on January 08, 2014, 02:09:46 PM
No, he was governor of NY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on January 08, 2014, 02:37:07 PM
No, he was governor of NY.
I guess he had to be, since the real Gov. of NY (Spitzer) was too busy being *ahem* Client #9.  :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on January 08, 2014, 02:38:17 PM
And people say we're not a nation of prudes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on January 08, 2014, 02:42:06 PM
NYSDOT's apparently going to study the feasibility of connecting I-81 to I-87:

Quote
.@NYSDOT to undertake feasibility study on connecting I-81 in Watertown to I-87 in Champlain, improving #NorthCountry access #NYSOS14
https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/421002857605648384
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on January 08, 2014, 02:45:26 PM
NYSDOT's apparently going to study the feasibility of connecting I-81 to I-87:
Would the connection be a reroute/extension of I-81 (I-81 north of the connector would be redesignated as I-181) or designated as either I-181 or 187?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on January 08, 2014, 02:57:46 PM
I'd prefer to see it as I-81, or perhaps I-98.  But my guess is that it will be a long time before this feasibility study would lead to anything.  How long has it taken to get I-86 from expressway to what we have so far?  150 or so miles of brand new interstate seems much more expensive.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on January 08, 2014, 03:03:08 PM
I doubt there's enough traffic for a four-lane Rooftop Highway. Maybe a couple bypasses or widenings.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 08, 2014, 03:33:24 PM
While I disagree with the governor and NYSDOT's decision to do this, exactly why reroute I-81 from the Canadian border?

On a similar note, I have to agree with NE2 on this. Is US 11 that bad between Rouses Point and Watertown?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Brandon on January 08, 2014, 05:15:58 PM
While I disagree with the governor and NYSDOT's decision to do this, exactly why reroute I-81 from the Canadian border?

On a similar note, I have to agree with NE2 on this. Is US 11 that bad between Rouses Point and Watertown?

Wouldn't a better connection to ON-401 be a better idea?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on January 08, 2014, 05:18:31 PM

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/HAY/12/340-a

Maybe this is old news, but New York law defines the Interstate highway routing in New York. It's an interesting read if you haven't seen it before. I think the section of "505" from Watertown to Plattsburgh and the connection to Prescott, Ont. are the only sections that haven't already been built. The branches from Watertown to the Canadian border and from Watertown to Plattsburgh are given as the same route. I wonder if they were expecting I-81E and I-81W designations.

(Personally, I'd flop the I-781 designation to the section north of Watertown and extend I-81 from Fort Drum to I-87.)

--
Sam
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on January 08, 2014, 06:14:03 PM
Wouldn't a better connection to ON-401 be a better idea?

So perhaps an interstate connection from the bridge to Cornwall over to I-87 is a more (but probably still not) feasible option?  I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way.  I'm thinking US 11 wouldn't seem all that bad by comparison to 2 border crossings.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 08, 2014, 06:58:56 PM
NYSDOT's apparently going to study the feasibility of connecting I-81 to I-87:

Quote
.@NYSDOT to undertake feasibility study on connecting I-81 in Watertown to I-87 in Champlain, improving #NorthCountry access #NYSOS14
https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/421002857605648384
They're really studying improvements to the US 11 corridor, not a new highway or certainly I-98.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on January 09, 2014, 12:13:06 AM
Wouldn't a better connection to ON-401 be a better idea?

So perhaps an interstate connection from the bridge to Cornwall over to I-87 is a more (but probably still not) feasible option?  I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way.  I'm thinking US 11 wouldn't seem all that bad by comparison to 2 border crossings.


If I were the border guard, I'd probably single anyone out who did that for secondary and searches. If you don't need to cross the border, and you choose to just for the fun of it, that would definitely come across as suspicious, and not really a valid reason for entering Canada.  In otherwords, the border guard would likely think it is odd that you choose to subject yourself to border inspections and pay tolls twice when there is a perfectly good road that avoids that hassle and cost, so they may think you wanted to come in for another reason that you aren't telling them. At any rate, the secondary inspection and interrogations would then negate any Time savings that the freeway would offer.

Only time when crossing through Canada makes sense is when you save lots of miles (Buffalo to Detroit) or have no other option ( Alaska, Point Roberts).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 09, 2014, 09:44:42 AM
So perhaps an interstate connection from the bridge to Cornwall over to I-87 is a more (but probably still not) feasible option?  I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way.  I'm thinking US 11 wouldn't seem all that bad by comparison to 2 border crossings.

If I were the border guard, I'd probably single anyone out who did that for secondary and searches. If you don't need to cross the border, and you choose to just for the fun of it, that would definitely come across as suspicious, and not really a valid reason for entering Canada.  In otherwords, the border guard would likely think it is odd that you choose to subject yourself to border inspections and pay tolls twice when there is a perfectly good road that avoids that hassle and cost, so they may think you wanted to come in for another reason that you aren't telling them. At any rate, the secondary inspection and interrogations would then negate any Time savings that the freeway would offer.

Only time when crossing through Canada makes sense is when you save lots of miles (Buffalo to Detroit) or have no other option ( Alaska, Point Roberts).

Well, it seems to me that's what Jim is suggesting (but then doubting): that the double crossing would be some kind of a time savings. Ultimately, yes, we all seem to agree it wouldn't, but it wasn't put forth as an option merely for its novelty.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 10:53:34 AM
If I were the border guard, I'd probably single anyone out who did that for secondary and searches. If you don't need to cross the border, and you choose to just for the fun of it, that would definitely come across as suspicious, and not really a valid reason for entering Canada.  In otherwords, the border guard would likely think it is odd that you choose to subject yourself to border inspections and pay tolls twice when there is a perfectly good road that avoids that hassle and cost, so they may think you wanted to come in for another reason that you aren't telling them. At any rate, the secondary inspection and interrogations would then negate any Time savings that the freeway would offer.

Only time when crossing through Canada makes sense is when you save lots of miles (Buffalo to Detroit) or have no other option ( Alaska, Point Roberts).

You're coming from the wrong direction anyway (DC).  Those of us in the northern tier of states have a different view of the border.  Many of us would like border patrol to feck off and go away.  Seriously, there's no point to having customs or border patrol between two pretty much equal (in culture and standard of living) countries.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on January 09, 2014, 02:45:16 PM
If I were the border guard, I'd probably single anyone out who did that for secondary and searches. If you don't need to cross the border, and you choose to just for the fun of it, that would definitely come across as suspicious, and not really a valid reason for entering Canada.  In otherwords, the border guard would likely think it is odd that you choose to subject yourself to border inspections and pay tolls twice when there is a perfectly good road that avoids that hassle and cost, so they may think you wanted to come in for another reason that you aren't telling them. At any rate, the secondary inspection and interrogations would then negate any Time savings that the freeway would offer.

Only time when crossing through Canada makes sense is when you save lots of miles (Buffalo to Detroit) or have no other option ( Alaska, Point Roberts).

You're coming from the wrong direction anyway (DC).  Those of us in the northern tier of states have a different view of the border.  Many of us would like border patrol to feck off and go away.  Seriously, there's no point to having customs or border patrol between two pretty much equal (in culture and standard of living) countries.

Oh I agree. I would prefer something similar to a Schengen style agreement between the two countries, although the more liberal taxation and immigration laws in Canada make it more likely that NB smuggling of goods and SB illegal immigration could be a problem. I don't deny that the border is annoying, but for now, it is there, and the border guards will hassle you if they don't think you are crossing for a valid reason, on the most direct route, no matter how much we don't like it.

I cross more often than most people from DC, and even have a Nexus card to save some of the hassle. But I'm always asked purpose of trip, and if I said passing through from Watertown to Cornwall, I would certainly expect to be waved into secondary. Not saying I think I deserve to be sent to secondary, but I think I probably would be.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 02:58:05 PM
^^ That's why the best answer is always "tourism".  Never ever tell the border guards anything more, and never tell them anything more than they ask.  The US customs folks don't need to know every little detail of where you've been in Canada (I find them far more obnoxious than the Canadian ones).  My grandmother made the mistake of opening her mouth at the Ambassador Bridge once (early 1970s) and got a secondary.  It was over dishes bought in Windsor.  The customs official was oblivious up until she opened her mouth.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on January 09, 2014, 03:03:16 PM
^^ That's why the best answer is always "tourism".  Never ever tell the border guards anything more, and never tell them anything more than they ask.  The US customs folks don't need to know every little detail of where you've been in Canada (I find them far more obnoxious than the Canadian ones).  My grandmother made the mistake of opening her mouth at the Ambassador Bridge once (early 1970s) and got a secondary.  It was over dishes bought in Windsor.  The customs official was oblivious up until she opened her mouth.

Oh yes, I know that much.  The only concern is that given the timestamps between entry into Canada and re-entry into the US for a transit trip, it will be obvious that you didn't have any time to "do anything touristy" in the other country. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on January 09, 2014, 04:48:56 PM
Does Canada stamp US passports now?  They didn't used to.  In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time.  Are they?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 05:06:19 PM
Does Canada stamp US passports now?  They didn't used to.  In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time.  Are they?

I think it's the NEXUS card that has the "time stamp".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 09, 2014, 05:12:31 PM
Does Canada stamp US passports now?  They didn't used to.  In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time.  Are they?
They are.  It's part of the Beyond the Border initiative.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on January 09, 2014, 05:15:44 PM
Passport stamping is a random event. Never in primary, randomly in secondary, typically via air. They do have a pilot program to swap data....entry into Canada sent to US as exit from US, and vice versa. Pilot program in effect at Niagara crossings for now, but eventually they will be able to see the time stamp on the records when they scan your ID.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 05:26:36 PM
Does Canada stamp US passports now?  They didn't used to.  In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time.  Are they?
They are.  It's part of the Beyond the Border initiative.

Since when?  I got no stamp crossing at the Blue Water Bridge last year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on January 09, 2014, 05:49:30 PM
They are sharing data in real time. They are not routinely stamping passports.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 09, 2014, 06:00:48 PM
But I'm always asked purpose of trip, and if I said passing through from Watertown to Cornwall, I would certainly expect to be waved into secondary.

Sure, in present-day real life you might expect that. But again, in the hypothetical scenario where some sort of corridor upgrade between Watertown and Plattsburgh happened to pass through this part of Canada, then these crossings would become routine and raise no suspicion, just like the Detroit-to-Buffalo route today. In this fictional world, "passing through from Watertown to Cornwall" would become a very ordinary thing to do.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 09, 2014, 06:29:06 PM
Passport stamping is a random event. Never in primary, randomly in secondary, typically via air. They do have a pilot program to swap data....entry into Canada sent to US as exit from US, and vice versa. Pilot program in effect at Niagara crossings for now, but eventually they will be able to see the time stamp on the records when they scan your ID.

I don't remember ever getting a passport stamped into Canada at a land crossing. 

I once asked for a passport stamp returning to the US, but they did not oblige.  after interrogating me for an hour and a half, it was the least they could have done!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 09, 2014, 07:10:56 PM
Does Canada stamp US passports now?  They didn't used to.  In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time.  Are they?
They are.  It's part of the Beyond the Border initiative.

Since when?  I got no stamp crossing at the Blue Water Bridge last year.
All electronic.  It was that or set up exit booths, since the US wants to track who's leaving the country.  I was under the impression that it was supposed to rollout permanently on Jan 1, but now I can't find anything saying they went past the pilot state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on January 09, 2014, 07:53:24 PM
While I disagree with the governor and NYSDOT's decision to do this, exactly why reroute I-81 from the Canadian border?

On a similar note, I have to agree with NE2 on this. Is US 11 that bad between Rouses Point and Watertown?

I would agree with you on this as well.  US 11 between Rouses Point and Watertown isn't bad, but it could use some upgrades, especially through some of the main towns it traverses.  Yes, an Interstate highway connecting Plattsburgh with Watertown would be nice, but bypasses of some of the towns US 11 goes through would certainly be a reasonable goal (in my opinion).  It would also be more realistic and practical for completion, especially when it comes to the finances involved. 

As it is now, US 11 goes right through the downtowns of places like Gouverneur, Canton, Potsdam and Malone, while NY 37 bypasses downtown Ogdensburg and downtown Massena.  Building bypasses of the towns would be good for through traffic and truck traffic, but on the flip side, it may not be as good for the businesses that are in the towns, which have seen better days economically speaking.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on January 09, 2014, 08:05:26 PM
I'd prefer to see it as I-81, or perhaps I-98.  But my guess is that it will be a long time before this feasibility study would lead to anything.  How long has it taken to get I-86 from expressway to what we have so far?  150 or so miles of brand new interstate seems much more expensive.

I want to say that the I-86 conversion was originally supposed to be completed by 2012, but that was back during the 1990s.  I believe that the last key construction project will be converting NY 17 to Interstate standards between Deposit and Hancock, shoehorning the freeway through Hale Eddy somehow.  This is supposed to be completed by late 2020.  As an aside, construction in Binghamton is scheduled to be completed in 2018, so I think I-86 will be signed from Broome County west at that point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 09, 2014, 08:18:44 PM
There are a few minor projects coming along on the Quickway as well; the ones I know of being the Neversink River Bridge (under construction), "exit 111" (and a few others like it) (not yet designed as far as I know), exit 122 (status unknown), and whatever issue is preventing designation between Windsor and Deposit.  Exit 131 is also on the I-86 upgrade banner, but I suspect that project is pure traffic management since the existing interchange looks fine.

Not sure why the 10 mile segment in Orange County with covered signs isn't designated yet; maybe NYSDOT doesn't want to have three I-86 segments?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on January 09, 2014, 08:42:08 PM
There are a few minor projects coming along on the Quickway as well; the ones I know of being the Neversink River Bridge (under construction), "exit 111" (and a few others like it) (not yet designed as far as I know), exit 122 (status unknown), and whatever issue is preventing designation between Windsor and Deposit.  Exit 131 is also on the I-86 upgrade banner, but I suspect that project is pure traffic management since the existing interchange looks fine.

Not sure why the 10 mile segment in Orange County with covered signs isn't designated yet; maybe NYSDOT doesn't want to have three I-86 segments?

My understanding about why the I-86 designation ends in Windsor instead of Deposit is that the Interstate should end at a highway that serves as part of the National Highway System.  I'm not sure if that is a valid argument, because NY 79 is not part of the National Highway System as it goes through Windsor, but NY 8 in Deposit is part of the National Highway System.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 09, 2014, 08:44:59 PM
I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way.

Even if there were zero time delay to crossing the border, it still wouldn't be worth it. US 11 in the north country is a fairly quick moving road. Going up to ON 401 and then back into the US at Cornwall adds about 35 miles compared to just taking US 11 and, according to Google, also adds about 20 minutes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on January 10, 2014, 12:44:00 AM
The avenues aren't on a strict spacing apart, unlike the streets. It's more apparent when you play around in Google Maps and really go from Hudson to East, rather than when you focus in on Midtown and notice that 5-6-7-8 all appear the same distance apart.

Actually, if you look really closely, the streets aren't a strict spacing apart, either. The width of private property between streets is constant (210 feet), but since the width of the streets themselves is not, the centerline to centerline distance between blocks varies. Usually it's 260 feet but when you have a major cross street (23rd, 34th, etc.) it goes up to about 280 feet. So, 20 blocks = 1 mile is not precisely true from a surveying perspective, but it's more than close enough for day to day purposes (off by at most 1%).

As Duke87 said there are other ways of getting more accurate information, but I generally eyeball the distance to say that between 2 avenues west of 5th Avenue is about the distance of 4 short blocks, or 1/5 of a mile.  The distance between 5-Mad-Park-Lex-3rd is about half of that or 1/10 of a mile.  The distance betwwen avenues east of 3rd Av (3rd-2nd-1st, as well as Aves A,B,C,D) is like 3 short blocks or 3/20 of a mile.  Again, rough estimates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 10, 2014, 01:17:33 AM
I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way.

Even if there were zero time delay to crossing the border, it still wouldn't be worth it. US 11 in the north country is a fairly quick moving road. Going up to ON 401 and then back into the US at Cornwall adds about 35 miles compared to just taking US 11 and, according to Google, also adds about 20 minutes.
US 11 traffic varies by what's going on with the colleges.  Could be either nothing or long lines of cars depending on the day.  Gouverneur and Canton and never fun either (neither is Potsdam, but I never had the experience of driving straight through it).

ON 401 is also less likely be be snow covered due to wind patters.  Lake effect snow goes straight up US 11 but rarely reaches the 1000 Islands.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on January 12, 2014, 07:17:12 AM
NYSDOT's apparently going to study the feasibility of connecting I-81 to I-87:

Quote
.@NYSDOT to undertake feasibility study on connecting I-81 in Watertown to I-87 in Champlain, improving #NorthCountry access #NYSOS14
https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/421002857605648384
They're really studying improvements to the US 11 corridor, not a new highway or certainly I-98.

Apparently at least some "officials in northern New York" believe it's an I-98 study that Cuomo proposed.  This AP blurb was in this morning's Daily Gazette in Schenectady:

Quote
The Associated Press

Rekindled I-98 idea draws cheers from officials
    WATERTOWN – Officials in northern New York say they’re encouraged that the state plans to look into the feasibility of building an interstate highway across the North Country.
    Construction of a so-called “Rooftop Highway”  that would be officially known as Interstate 98 has been discussed for years.
    Gov. Andrew Cuomo mentioned the I-98 idea during his State of the State speech this week. He’s proposing to have state transportation officials re-examine the feasibility of building the Rooftop Highway.
    Supporters say building a 140-mile highway between Watertown and the Canadian border at Champlain would boost the region’s economy.
    Opponents say an interstate would have the opposite effect by diverting traffic away from local communities. They say money should be spent to improve Route 11, the main east-west road spanning the North Country.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 14, 2014, 09:20:20 PM
In other news,

http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/70672/Page+010+++Manhattan++Bronx+++Map+No++2/New+York+City+1949+Five+Boroughs+Street+Atlas/New+York/

I've maintained for years that I saw a map with "Deegan Blvd." on it in the place that I-87 now occupies in NYC. This map finally proves me correct.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on January 14, 2014, 09:53:46 PM
http://www.nycgovparks.org/about/history/historical-signs/listings?id=8762
Quote
On April 30, 1937, Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia renamed the westerly approach to the Triborough Bridge the Major William F. Deegan Boulevard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 15, 2014, 02:42:04 PM
In other news,

http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/70672/Page+010+++Manhattan++Bronx+++Map+No++2/New+York+City+1949+Five+Boroughs+Street+Atlas/New+York/

I've maintained for years that I saw a map with "Deegan Blvd." on it in the place that I-87 now occupies in NYC. This map finally proves me correct.

As do some of the maps in this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11260.0
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on January 15, 2014, 06:43:47 PM
There are several signing projects underway along Route 17 in Broome and Tioga Counties.  I noticed an overhead assembly in this location being removed by crane this morning, so I doubled back after work and managed to snap a quick photo.

(http://i.imgur.com/P5uOSMX.jpg) (http://imgur.com/P5uOSMX)

Two things stand out to me:  first, the "LEFT" flag.  I've never seen that used on a one-off ramp (i.e. where there are no other exits from the segment of highway).  Secondly, the control city for Route 17 west has changed from Elmira to Corning.  The control city is Elmira everywhere else between Binghamton and Elmira.  I'm wondering what the reason is, considering Corning is a solid 20 miles beyond Elmira.  I'm wondering if this ties in to future I-99 ending in Corning?

The timing is interesting too, considering that 17 shield will presumably have to be replaced with an I-86 one in the very near future.

Edit:  Thanks to Steve Alpert's treasure trove, I found a snapshot of the old sign.  I didn't even realize that the control city for Route 17C had changed from Endicott to Endwell.  This is also puzzling, though less so considering Endwell does actually come first.

(http://i.imgur.com/DCnjUqX.jpg) (http://imgur.com/DCnjUqX)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 15, 2014, 08:36:09 PM
Current MUTCD standard requires the "LEFT" tab on all left-hand exit signs regardless of other circumstances. I agree that it's redundant in this case with the arrow also displayed. FHWA seems to have over-engineered this issue of the "LEFT" tabs in an effort to maybe make up for previous inadequacy in this area. For years left exits were not sufficiently indicated in advance in many places.

Re: the destinations shown, I'm not familiar with this location but I note on the map that Elmira seems to be a larger city than Corning, so you might have a point. All through these forums there is controversy about whatever destinations are displayed. There is plenty of lack of consistency and no apparent logic in many locations nationwide.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 15, 2014, 11:31:20 PM
Re: the destinations shown, I'm not familiar with this location but I note on the map that Elmira seems to be a larger city than Corning, so you might have a point. All through these forums there is controversy about whatever destinations are displayed. There is plenty of lack of consistency and no apparent logic in many locations nationwide.

I absolutely assume it has to do with Corning being the junction with I-99 (although that's technically just west of Corning...). Corning also matches the southbound control city for I-390 as it heads towards I-86.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CANALLER on January 15, 2014, 11:47:27 PM
On my current project, the tabs are now being installed, although they say "LEFT EXIT ##".  So far, there has been no consistency to the design, as we have 4 different formats approaching the same interchange.  The design shown in the picture above would be the fifth different version I've seen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: spmkam on January 20, 2014, 01:17:50 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/nyregion/a-colossal-bridge-will-rise-across-the-hudson.html?hp&_r=0


Interesting article in the Times on the New Tappan Zee.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 20, 2014, 05:02:13 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/nyregion/a-colossal-bridge-will-rise-across-the-hudson.html?hp&_r=0

Interesting article in the Times on the New Tappan Zee.

1) Love the before-and-after photos of the South Nyack interchange.

2):
Quote
The bridge will also have all-electronic toll collection, eliminating backups at tollbooths.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 20, 2014, 06:22:17 PM
Something intriguing in photo #5: it appears the bridge was originally tolled in both directions! That I did not know! Looking at Historic Aerials it seems the tolls switched to one way sometime between 1965 and 1974.

Poking around it appears this was the case for all Hudson River crossings back in the day. Huh.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 20, 2014, 06:35:24 PM
Something intriguing in photo #5: it appears the bridge was originally tolled in both directions! That I did not know! Looking at Historic Aerials it seems the tolls switched to one way sometime between 1965 and 1974.

Poking around it appears this was the case for all Hudson River crossings back in the day. Huh.
Surprised you didn't know that. No NJ crossings started out as one-way tolling, on any river.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on January 20, 2014, 07:27:41 PM
Quote
The bridge will also have all-electronic toll collection, eliminating backups at tollbooths.

And those that don't have EZPass?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 20, 2014, 07:50:57 PM
Quote
The bridge will also have all-electronic toll collection, eliminating backups at tollbooths.

And those that don't have EZPass?

Sorry; I've already quoted the entirety of the pertinent text from the article. Bit of a cliffhanger, I agree!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on January 20, 2014, 08:14:53 PM
No NJ crossings started out as one-way tolling, on any river.
The Ellis/Liberty Island ferries :bigass:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 20, 2014, 08:57:27 PM
Quote
The bridge will also have all-electronic toll collection, eliminating backups at tollbooths.

And those that don't have EZPass?
Bill by mail / photo tolling.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 20, 2014, 10:00:28 PM
Something intriguing in photo #5: it appears the bridge was originally tolled in both directions! That I did not know! Looking at Historic Aerials it seems the tolls switched to one way sometime between 1965 and 1974.

Poking around it appears this was the case for all Hudson River crossings back in the day. Huh.
Also the case with all Thruway barriers except the Grand Island bridges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 20, 2014, 11:13:49 PM
Surprised you didn't know that. No NJ crossings started out as one-way tolling, on any river.

Also the case with all Thruway barriers except the Grand Island bridges.

All Maryland toll crossings and its one toll road (at the time) were two-way tolls up to the early 1990's, when then-Gov. William Donald Schaefer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer) ordered the MdTA to convert most of them to one-way tolls (the three crossings of the Baltimore Harbor remained (and remain) two-way tolls because there was concern that one-way tolling would result in excessive shunpiking through downtown Baltimore in the tolled direction).

I understand that Schaefer was especially irritated at the queues crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (U.S. 50/U.S. 301) westbound to pay the toll on his way back from summer weekends spent in Ocean City (Md.).

With cashless/open road tolling, I hope that toll authorities return to two-way toll collection.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1995hoo on January 21, 2014, 08:41:29 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/nyregion/a-colossal-bridge-will-rise-across-the-hudson.html?hp&_r=0


Interesting article in the Times on the New Tappan Zee.

I liked seeing the pictures of the existing bridge's construction. Thanks for posting that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 21, 2014, 07:36:39 PM
Surprised you didn't know that. No NJ crossings started out as one-way tolling, on any river.

Also the case with all Thruway barriers except the Grand Island bridges.

All Maryland toll crossings and its one toll road (at the time) were two-way tolls up to the early 1990's, when then-Gov. William Donald Schaefer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer) ordered the MdTA to convert most of them to one-way tolls (the three crossings of the Baltimore Harbor remained (and remain) two-way tolls because there was concern that one-way tolling would result in excessive shunpiking through downtown Baltimore in the tolled direction).

I understand that Schaefer was especially irritated at the queues crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (U.S. 50/U.S. 301) westbound to pay the toll on his way back from summer weekends spent in Ocean City (Md.).

With cashless/open road tolling, I hope that toll authorities return to two-way toll collection.
I haven't seen any indication of returning to two-way tolling. Then again, there are so many agencies up here that they would all have to agree to do it, all at once in a coordinated effort, to prevent mass shunpiking. So that's why.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 14, 2014, 09:38:42 PM
N.Y. Times: De Blasio’s Vow to End Traffic Deaths vs. Reality of New York Streets (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/nyregion/vow-to-end-traffic-deaths-vs-reality-of-city-streets.html)

Quote
The announcement was bold, if somewhat quixotic: Mayor Bill de Blasio, whose campaign was focused on reforming the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practices, would commit his administration to reducing traffic deaths “literally”  to zero.

Quote
In his administration’s first 40 days, that pledge translated into a series of ticket blitzes against drivers – and, in unusually large numbers, jaywalkers.

Quote
Jaywalking tickets grew nearly eightfold this year, despite the mayor’s insistence that his plan for safer streets did not include singling out pedestrians. Through Feb. 9, there were 215 jaywalking summonses issued, compared with 27 over the same period last year; tickets issued to drivers were down slightly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on March 24, 2014, 02:11:13 PM
Noticed new Welcome to NY signs on I-81 at the PA/NY line this weekend -- was not expecting it, so sorry no pictures. Haven't seen anything online about the switch, and the usual green sign was on the US-15 state line signs a week ago (3/14/14).

The new sign consists of a primary welcome sign, followed by three more I Love NY signs, each with a different message (reminded me a bit of the NJ-style select a toll lane concept), I believe they were "discover" "tour" and "taste" or something like that, followed by another I Love NY Welcome Center sign for the gateway rest area. Just a head's up for anyone in the area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 24, 2014, 07:12:03 PM
Noticed new Welcome to NY signs on I-81 at the PA/NY line this weekend -- was not expecting it, so sorry no pictures. Haven't seen anything online about the switch, and the usual green sign was on the US-15 state line signs a week ago (3/14/14).

The new sign consists of a primary welcome sign, followed by three more I Love NY signs, each with a different message (reminded me a bit of the NJ-style select a toll lane concept), I believe they were "discover" "tour" and "taste" or something like that, followed by another I Love NY Welcome Center sign for the gateway rest area. Just a head's up for anyone in the area.

I saw similar signs coming into New York from Connecticut on Interstate 84 a couple of weeks ago. I noticed them and at the time erroneously considered that they were another Thruway thing. Obviously I was wrong.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: nyratk1 on March 25, 2014, 12:57:23 AM
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 26, 2014, 12:25:00 PM
The North-South Arterial in Utica is getting some new overhead signs this week between the Burrstone Rd and French Rd interchanges.

French Rd. used to be signed as French Rd. / St. Lukes Hosp, but now it's just French Rd.
Burrstone Rd. used to be signed as Burrstone Rd. / Faxton Hosp (covered with green out) / Utica College but now it's signed as Burrstone Rd. / Lincoln Ave.  (Lincoln Ave. was extended as part of the first phase of the North-South Arterial Project that goes full tilt this spring).

The NY 8 South / NY 840 West interchange has a new 1 mile advance sign as well (previously it had only a 1/2 mile advance) and the control cities are now Whitestown and New Hartford. All the other signs are for New York Miles and New Hartford, however, a bid was recently let for "Whitestown" overlays on all the other signs associated with the interchange.

An email exchange with NYSDOT R2 years ago indicated that R2 was going to be concentrating more on "location corridors" with signing in the area, the move of "New York Mills" to "Whitestown" on the 840 seems to indicate this, as "New York Mills" is now signed on the Burrstone Rd. interchange when headed south / westbound on the North-South Arterial.  That change was made last year with the installation of a new overhead exit advance sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 26, 2014, 06:54:05 PM
NY 440 is getting some service road completion. First time in awhile for downstate.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/exclusive_west_shore_expresswa.html
(Thanks to Steve Anderson for finding)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 26, 2014, 11:55:54 PM
While I'm not 100% sure, it looks like the construction at the I-87/I-95 interchange in the Bronx is largely done. I noticed several new signs up near the south (west) end of the Cross Bronx Expressway (I-95/US Route 1) today. Amazingly, the bus I was on didn't experience a single slowdown or backup after 1 pm on that stretch today, from the interchanges of I-278 to I-87. That almost never happens!

(http://i.imgur.com/X6GoELg.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on March 27, 2014, 06:23:53 AM
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.

Town Line Road in Hauppauge was only signed as Suffolk CR 76 on paper for years, then new county route shields started being posted about 10 years ago.  This wouldn't be a first for Suffolk County then.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 27, 2014, 10:21:46 AM
While I'm not 100% sure, it looks like the construction at the I-87/I-95 interchange in the Bronx is largely done. I noticed several new signs up near the south (west) end of the Cross Bronx Expressway (I-95/US Route 1) today. Amazingly, the bus I was on didn't experience a single slowdown or backup after 1 pm on that stretch today, from the interchanges of I-278 to I-87. That almost never happens!

(http://i.imgur.com/X6GoELg.jpg)
New York forgot US 9.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 27, 2014, 11:52:11 AM
They didn't forget it. US Route 9 hasn't joined the road just yet. (US Route 9 south joins the roadway soon afterwards and just before the G.W. Bridge itself.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on March 27, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/X6GoELg.jpg)
Is it me or is something a tad odd regarding the font in that US 1 shield?

It appears unusually heavy/thick or maybe of a non-FHWA font.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 27, 2014, 12:35:29 PM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: nyratk1 on March 27, 2014, 05:42:16 PM
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.

Town Line Road in Hauppauge was only signed as Suffolk CR 76 on paper for years, then new county route shields started being posted about 10 years ago.  This wouldn't be a first for Suffolk County then.

Wonder if they're gonna do it with more routes, particularly CR 29/Ronkonkoma Ave. There's still room for it on the old sign assembly on Lakeland Av. :P
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2014, 10:58:05 PM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system, but on the other hand, no one's really taking that exit to follow US 9. They're either heading into a Manhattan/Bronx neighborhood or taking a freeway like the Deegan or Henry Hudson to another exit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 27, 2014, 11:57:01 PM
An odd question popped into my mind when reading this thread:  Did US 1 exist prior to the GW Bridge and if so what was it's route thru NYC?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 28, 2014, 12:36:53 AM
US Route 1 existed prior to the G.W. Bridge. However, New York City didn't sign US Route 1 within the city until December 1934, soon after the bridge opened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 28, 2014, 07:35:18 AM
The original route was the Holland Tunnel. I do not recall offhand how it got to the Bronx, but since NYC didn't sign it, take any roads you want. Note that originally, US 9 continued up the NJ side to the Edgewater ferry at what's now NJ 5.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 28, 2014, 03:49:14 PM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 28, 2014, 10:59:49 PM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 29, 2014, 03:36:32 AM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.

181st Street, then.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 29, 2014, 06:12:31 PM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.

181st Street, then.
179th (it's even signed, albeit with an erroneous NY 9 shield), though upon further thinking, I think Alps means the southbound I-95 sign for exit 1A, since only the northbound 1A services US 9 (though the northbound 1A signs doesn't mention US 9 either until after the ramp leaves I-95).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 30, 2014, 03:28:51 AM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.

181st Street, then.
179th (it's even signed, albeit with an erroneous NY 9 shield), though upon further thinking, I think Alps means the southbound I-95 sign for exit 1A, since only the northbound 1A services US 9 (though the northbound 1A signs doesn't mention US 9 either until after the ramp leaves I-95).

No, 181st. As you say, we're talking about the southbound exit 1A (or 1); heck, 181st is even mentioned on the signage shown upthread.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 30, 2014, 09:31:43 AM

US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.

181st Street, then.
179th (it's even signed, albeit with an erroneous NY 9 shield), though upon further thinking, I think Alps means the southbound I-95 sign for exit 1A, since only the northbound 1A services US 9 (though the northbound 1A signs doesn't mention US 9 either until after the ramp leaves I-95).

No, 181st. As you say, we're talking about the southbound exit 1A (or 1); heck, 181st is even mentioned on the signage shown upthread.

You can get on from 179th right before the bridge, you just can't get off onto it. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 30, 2014, 12:10:19 PM
Oh dear; my point seems to have gotten lost amongst a nest of quotes...let me see if I can untangle:

1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway.

It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.

I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.

181st Street, then.

Here's an illustration of how that connection is made:
https://goo.gl/maps/mWluM

True, it's not direct to Broadway, or necessarily "convenient", and the exit isn't marked as being for US 9 north. But at least in this direction there is a connection, and it's via 181st Street (and a little stub of Haven Ave.).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 30, 2014, 01:31:33 PM
I think we've all getting confused about whether we're talking about how to get from I-95 to US 9 north or how US 9 is a continuous route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on March 30, 2014, 02:37:27 PM
What I've never understood is while on I-95 NB, the BGS for Exit 1(A) has always had a NY 9A shield but never a US 9 shield.  There is a small secondary sign on the GWB that says US 9 use Exit 1A.  The older version of the sign only had a NY 9A shield as well.  How does a SR get priority billing on a BGS over a US route? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 30, 2014, 04:27:30 PM

What I've never understood is while on I-95 NB, the BGS for Exit 1(A) has always had a NY 9A shield but never a US 9 shield.  There is a small secondary sign on the GWB that says US 9 use Exit 1A.  The older version of the sign only had a NY 9A shield as well.  How does a SR get priority billing on a BGS over a US route?

Maybe because Henry Hudson Parkway (9A)  is a major limited-access major highway.  Broadway (9) is a surface street.  One of the most famous surface streets in the world, but amid this company perhaps lower priority given limited sign space.   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 31, 2014, 03:17:48 PM
Also because NY has historically not cared a whole lot about the US route system.  In fact, most US routes are treated as state routes with a different shield here.  The only exceptions are the three duplicates, each of which is handled differently:
-US 2 is given the U suffix like interstates are given the I suffix
-US 15 used to be marked as a southern extension of NY 15; now the logs consider it to be I-99
-NYSDOT prefers to forget that US 220 technically enters NY
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 31, 2014, 11:19:59 PM
What I've never understood is while on I-95 NB, the BGS for Exit 1(A) has always had a NY 9A shield but never a US 9 shield.  There is a small secondary sign on the GWB that says US 9 use Exit 1A.  The older version of the sign only had a NY 9A shield as well.  How does a SR get priority billing on a BGS over a US route? 

The older version had US-9 on the 178th St. Sign. The new sign that replaced it in late-2002/early-2003 removed US-9.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Interstatefan78 on April 11, 2014, 08:30:07 PM
Another fact about new York is that interstate highways are given designations like 87I (I-87) or 495I (I-495) on their reference markers and I made this observation I when traveled I-87 from Albany to Lake George and I-495 from Queens to Selden or Calverton. This is different from PA's practice of giving it's interstates as State routes an excellent example would be SR0078 (I-78) or SR0081 (I-81)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on April 11, 2014, 09:31:52 PM
What about Interstate 508?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2014, 10:20:10 PM
-NYSDOT prefers to forget that US 220 technically enters NY

the only 220 shield I've ever seen of NY manufacture is this one:

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19602201i1.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 12, 2014, 01:07:54 PM

What about Interstate 508?

I believe all of the interstates in New York have a legislative designation that is separate from designations like SR 781I. They're used to describe each route but for the life of me I don't recall their numbers. I know both 690 and 481 are written into law this way. 

The new references markers along Interstate 84 erroneously list the route number as I-84 instead of 84I. This stepping way from established standards for their own inventory system kind of makes me crazy.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 12, 2014, 01:29:56 PM
Last time I was on I-781 (around a year ago now) it didn't even have reference markers.  No idea what they're using there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on April 12, 2014, 01:49:07 PM
781I.

Reference markers have since been installed, along with mileposts (which are using Series C numbers despite there being plenty of room for Series D!)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 12, 2014, 03:31:04 PM
781I.

Reference markers have since been installed, along with mileposts (which are using Series C numbers despite there being plenty of room for Series D!)

Yes, I noticed that same thing. Interstate 781 is well signed, including town line signs and over/underpass location markers. Region 7 did a really good job with 781.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CANALLER on April 12, 2014, 04:28:46 PM
To answer the thoughts above, the correct layout for reference markers on interstate highways is ###I, so any that say I### are technically wrong.  That said, not all sign inspectors are as anal as I am, and even if the inspector rejected them, one of the suits would overrule him.  Another reason they may be there is that most inspectors bounce around between projects of completely different types of work.  Only a few of us have been able to do multiple sign contracts for long enough to be able to learn the most obscure requirements.

Also, N.Y.S. interstates can't be posted as state routes as in the Penn'a example above.  There are many N.Y.S. state routes that have the same numbers as interstates.  Some (390, 590, 690) are simply extensions of the interstates.  But others (81, 90) are completely separate routes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 20, 2014, 08:12:09 PM
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.
I actually saw those back in November 2013 around Horse Block Road.

On another topic, did anybody notice that on NY 22, there are no signs telling you when you've entered either NYC or Mount Vernon?


Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 21, 2014, 08:40:49 AM
On another topic, did anybody notice that on NY 22, there are no signs telling you when you've entered either NYC or Mount Vernon?

No, but it doesn't surprise me.  There is no signage when you enter Queens on Northern Boulevard (NY 25A), and there's no signage entering either Queens or Nassau on Union Turnpike (NY 25C).  In fact, for a while, there was no signage when you entered Queens on the Long Island Expressway (I-495).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 21, 2014, 12:11:00 PM
Heading east on that road last September, I couldn't even tell when I reached the Nassau county line. I did see the signs at the Nassau/Suffolk county line in both directions, however.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 21, 2014, 08:12:01 PM
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.
I actually saw those back in November 2013 around Horse Block Road.

On another topic, did anybody notice that on NY 22, there are no signs telling you when you've entered either NYC or Mount Vernon?



Makes me wonder if NY 22 is state or city maintained inside the Bronx. The old sign on US 1 was definitely a state job, but that's 1, not 22, and maintenance can change over time. Both NYC and NYS would have reason to put up an "Entering New York" or "Bronx" sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 22, 2014, 10:19:24 PM
Makes me wonder if NY 22 is state or city maintained inside the Bronx.

I know for a fact that it is city maintained in Mount Vernon. Westchester County DPW map (http://planning.westchestergov.com/images/stories/MapPDFS/CountyStateRoadsParks.pdf) confirms this.

As for in The Bronx, I can only assume it is city maintained - NYSDOT's website does not show it on their map of state roads in Bronx County (https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region11/general-info/highways-in-bronx-county). Apparently, however, some of US 1 in The Bronx is secretly actually US 22. :pan:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 24, 2014, 11:55:29 PM
On another topic, did anybody notice that on NY 22, there are no signs telling you when you've entered either NYC or Mount Vernon?

No, but it doesn't surprise me.  There is no signage when you enter Queens on Northern Boulevard (NY 25A), and there's no signage entering either Queens or Nassau on Union Turnpike (NY 25C).  In fact, for a while, there was no signage when you entered Queens on the Long Island Expressway (I-495).
Funny, because I always thought street name signs and "NYC LAW: No Turn On Red" signs were reasonable substitutes. I certainly remember there being no NYC Border signage on the L.I.E. I didn't see those until the mid-1970's and until that time I though the New York City-Nassau County line stretched as far out as the New Hyde Park Road interchange (Hey, I was a little kid back then. Don't judge me).

Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 25, 2014, 08:41:59 AM
Google Maps seems to put the Queens/Nassau County border in the middle of Exit 32 for I-495 (L.I.E.).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 27, 2014, 08:04:05 PM
Google Maps seems to put the Queens/Nassau County border in the middle of Exit 32 for I-495 (L.I.E.).

For good reason, since that is in fact where it is!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 27, 2014, 08:38:47 PM
The county line is slightly east of exit 32. Maybe a quarter-mile east of the Little Neck Pkwy. overpass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 28, 2014, 03:16:59 PM
Yeah, just east of where 260th Street and Hewlett Street end at the service roads, around where the original westbound off-ramp and eastbound on-ramp were before they were set further away from the Little Neck Parkway bridge.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 28, 2014, 11:21:43 PM
Yeah, just east of where 260th Street and Hewlett Street end at the service roads, around where the original westbound off-ramp and eastbound on-ramp were before they were set further away from the Little Neck Parkway bridge.

Hence how the line is now in the middle of exit 32. The westbound offramp and eastbound onramp are squarely in Nassau county. The line matches up with the western edge of the golf course immediately south of the highway there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 08, 2014, 01:20:43 PM
Goethals Bridge replacement and widening to 3-lanes.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/05/08/4-year-goethals-bridge-replacement-project-begins/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 12, 2014, 10:08:32 PM
speaking of....LI & Queens have been replacing glorious old signs with half-baked new ones.  Is this the same on Staten Island?  Any non-reflective button copy left?

I remember one on Glen St and NY-440, also some on I-278 in Brooklyn by Atlantic Ave and Exit 28 BBridge area. GSV has them there in October 2013. Anyone know?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 12, 2014, 11:54:10 PM
speaking of....LI & Queens have been replacing glorious old signs with half-baked new ones.  Is this the same on Staten Island?  Any non-reflective button copy left?

This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.610057,-74.117009,3a,52.5y,106.05h,98.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sy76nyln2Qdaxgy-_U-WOkQ!2e0) ("Todt Hill Rd →") is still standing as of last week. So there's one.

This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.560917,-74.199199,3a,26.4y,208.64h,92.72t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHDzFVRu4QaMWmmqMerZ6Nw!2e0) on the West Shore is also still kicking last I checked.

As for Brooklyn, yep, the BQE still has a bunch through downtown in both directions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 14, 2014, 03:21:02 PM
N.Y. Times: De Blasio Looks Toward Sweden for Road Safety (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/nyregion/de-blasio-looks-toward-sweden-for-road-safety.html)

Quote
STOCKHOLM – Across this Scandinavian capital of graceful cyclists and speed-regulating shrubbery, cabbies who drive Volvos and pedestrians who look over their shoulders before jaywalking, a simple figure rules:

Quote
Zero. It is the number of people permitted to die in Swedish traffic, according to national law.

Quote
For nearly two decades, every rising barrier and reduced speed limit has been tailored to this seemingly impossible goal, of eradicating traffic deaths and serious injuries, and its guiding premise: Every inch of street space must anticipate, and accommodate, human error.

Quote
While roadway deaths have not been eliminated, the country’s rate of fatalities has been whittled down to an international low. Now its approach faces perhaps its stiffest test: the streets of New York City.

Quote
In a bid to reverse generations of roadway unruliness, Mayor Bill de Blasio has put the strategy, known as Vision Zero, at the forefront of his transportation and policing agendas, targeting 2024 as the first year with no traffic deaths.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 14, 2014, 05:22:28 PM
And the reason this works in Sweden but won't in NY: NY pedestrians never look over their shoulders.  And that's really the most important factor.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on May 14, 2014, 05:35:58 PM
Ya look over yer shoulder, the driver knows he can cut ya off...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 15, 2014, 12:05:23 AM
Quote
The result: a hump every 20 meters in some neighborhoods, and some very slow trips home.

A veteran taxi driver, Nabil Bellar, 42, said he had never been asked to speed up.

“They say, ‘I have time, you don’t need to stress,’ ” he said of his typical passenger, as he waited outside Stockholm Central Station.

This right here is why this same concept will not work in New York. New Yorkers are the last people in the world to relax and slow down, and attempts to get people to do so only enrage them. Likewise, New York is a city where everyone acts as though the rules don't apply to them, and does everything they can to beat the system.

Given all this, the concepts proposed are not really compatible with the prevailing local attitude. New York is not Stockholm. De Blasio is a delusional asshole.


I've said this before, I'll say it again: you want to increase traffic safety in New York? Find ways to reduce the frequency of conflicts. Retime traffic signals so drivers don't hit a red light every other block. Use protected left turn phases in pedestrian heavy areas to prevent drivers from making rushed turns into the crosswalk, or prohibit left turns outright. Rethink the concept of alternate side parking, which forces people to move their cars when they have no need to use them. Add curb bumpouts at crosswalks so pedestrians have a shorter crossing distance.

And start slicing off the fingers of people you catch using their phones while driving. Such distractions are a bigger threat to safety than any other behavior out there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on May 15, 2014, 02:37:00 PM
Retime traffic signals so drivers don't hit a red light every other block.

In New York City, the traffic lights are actually timed correctly, at least when I was last there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 15, 2014, 10:24:48 PM
Traffic lights in NYC on main streets are timed in such a way that you either win or lose. If you hit it right, you can get a succession of green lights. I once got 9 greens in a row going 40 mph on Queens Blvd years ago. But if you hit it wrong, you get many reds like the poster said above.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 15, 2014, 11:36:32 PM
Traffic lights in NYC on main streets are timed in such a way that you either win or lose. If you hit it right, you can get a succession of green lights. I once got 9 greens in a row going 40 mph on Queens Blvd years ago. But if you hit it wrong, you get many reds like the poster said above.
That's confusing. NYC = Manhattan. You meant to say "Outer Boroughs."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 16, 2014, 11:29:11 AM
Driving in Harlem I got all the greens and was going faster than the FDR.


speaking of....LI & Queens have been replacing glorious old signs with half-baked new ones.  Is this the same on Staten Island?  Any non-reflective button copy left?

This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.610057,-74.117009,3a,52.5y,106.05h,98.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sy76nyln2Qdaxgy-_U-WOkQ!2e0) ("Todt Hill Rd →") is still standing as of last week. So there's one.

This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.560917,-74.199199,3a,26.4y,208.64h,92.72t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHDzFVRu4QaMWmmqMerZ6Nw!2e0) on the West Shore is also still kicking last I checked.

As for Brooklyn, yep, the BQE still has a bunch through downtown in both directions.

I remember on the BELT EB, exit 19 had old signs that used to have an interstate shield covered with NY-878 shields. Was interstate was it? Still there or gone?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 16, 2014, 04:32:17 PM
Alps, I think the traffic signals in all of NYC's boroughs work similarly on many main streets, whether it's Manhattan or Queens or wherever. Anybody knows different, please correct me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 16, 2014, 04:34:11 PM
Doofy, I think it was I-78 or I-878, but I'm not positive. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 16, 2014, 06:54:20 PM
Driving in Harlem I got all the greens and was going faster than the FDR.

Manhattan avenues have well-timed signals, but they are the exception, not the rule as far as NYC goes. It is easy to coordinate them since they are one-way. Two way avenues (Park Ave, Broadway north of 59th) are not nearly as well coordinated. On these and other thoroughfares throughout the five boroughs, you are likely to hit a lot of red lights.

The problem is that many major roads have a signal at every intersection. If the blocks are short blocks, you can easily end up with a signal every 250 feet. Achieving good two-way progression in this situation is difficult since you cannot rely on resonant cycles. What you have to do is convert the roads to one way, or find a way to reduce the number of signals.

Quote
I remember on the BELT EB, exit 19 had old signs that used to have an interstate shield covered with NY-878 shields. Was interstate was it? Still there or gone?

There is still some button copy in that area but I don't know of any signs still around with an interstate shield greened out. In that spot I suspect it would have been I-78.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on May 16, 2014, 11:23:22 PM
Manhattan avenues have well-timed signals, but they are the exception, not the rule as far as NYC goes. It is easy to coordinate them since they are one-way.

IIRC the one-way avenues are timed for a vehicle traveling 28mph.  (City's default speed limit is 30.)  If you stick to that speed you can literally drive almost the entire length of Manhattan Island without stopping for a red light.  I was once in a cab which drove up Madison Avenue from the 20's to the 90's without stopping once.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2014, 11:39:53 PM

This right here is why this same concept will not work in New York. New Yorkers are the last people in the world to relax and slow down, and attempts to get people to do so only enrage them.

Yeah I don't get that.  In CT, I was looking over the US-6 plans at the start of the 2-mile expresway portion with CT-66 and also the end of I-384 plans as well.

Both stated as a negative with the current configuration:  "high speed ramps" or "high speed turns"

Where I-384 becomes US-6/US-44 they envision the end to be a LOW-SPEED BLVD and CT-66 & US-66, they want to put in a traffic circle to force people to slow.

What is wrong with fast moving traffic?  What is wrong with getting from point A to B as quickly as possible?   Why not have high speed ramps?

Meanwhile on I-678 they are widening by the GCP and I read nothing about slowing people down, or bike lanes etc.  The project is to improve traffic flow plain and simple.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 19, 2014, 12:07:04 AM
You (assuming you approach this logically) want traffic to move both quickly and safely. The problem is, sometimes real world constraints mean you can have fast traffic or safe traffic, but not both. In the modern day, safety is considered more important than speed.

Which is fine, but at the same time it is wrong to assume that slowing traffic down is the key to solving every safety problem. It is also wrong to assume that simply lowering the speed limit will automatically make people drive slower.

In the Connecticut example the problem is that the section of US 6 east of there is a congested 2 lane road with a high accident rate. The proper solution to this problem is to complete the freeway between Manchester and Willmantic that was originally proposed decades ago... unfortunately, the political will to do that simply isn't there, so the state is surrendering to the fact that they will never finish the freeway and working within the constraints of that reality.

Back to New York, you have a similar problem: real solutions are politically untenable because they do not satisfy the emotional need to blame and punish drivers for roads being unsafe. There is a huge turf war in NYC where non-car owners (which in this day and age is a majority of New Yorkers) are fighting vehemently to wrest dominance of streets away from car owners. Any traffic safety campaign is thus inevitably going to end up with that as an ulterior motive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 20, 2014, 07:09:26 PM
I remember on the BELT EB, exit 19 had old signs that used to have an interstate shield covered with NY-878 shields. Was interstate was it? Still there or gone?

There is still some button copy in that area but I don't know of any signs still around with an interstate shield greened out. In that spot I suspect it would have been I-78.
I have seen the Exit 19 signs. No greenout. The NY shield is just slapped right over the old I-78 shield. One hopes for an errant gust of wind.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 20, 2014, 11:52:10 PM
Based on your pictures (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/belt/e.html) it looks like there is a defined shadow where the I-78 shield once was, but that it was removed when the NY 878 shield was put up. So, a gust of wind wouldn't reveal anything other than more of the shadow.

You got me, though - I never noticed that!


At any rate, there should be at least one sign still standing that exhibits this trait (the "right lane" advance sign), but most are gone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 22, 2014, 03:05:03 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/alternatives

I-81 teardown...but not really.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 23, 2014, 08:10:28 PM
I-81 Syracuse has been discussed extensively in the Facebook road groups.  In short, one of the "Viaduct" alternatives (except V-5) is what will likely happen, though there are a number of local officials and neighborhood groups pushing for one of the street-level alternatives.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 27, 2014, 12:44:31 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/alternatives

I-81 teardown...but not really.  Thoughts?
Absolutely NO to the street-level alternatives!!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 27, 2014, 10:01:12 PM
The AADT for I-81 in that area is about 90,000.  That's more than double the most heavily traveled arterial (West St near I-690) and dwarfs I-481.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 27, 2014, 10:51:34 PM
Based on your pictures (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/belt/e.html) it looks like there is a defined shadow where the I-78 shield once was, but that it was removed when the NY 878 shield was put up. So, a gust of wind wouldn't reveal anything other than more of the shadow.

You got me, though - I never noticed that!


At any rate, there should be at least one sign still standing that exhibits this trait (the "right lane" advance sign), but most are gone.

I was on the Belt EB this past weekend and all the NFBC that was there in the latest Google Street View are now gone.  So between Aug or Sept 2013 and now they've been replaced except for the NY-878 trio of signs.

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2925/14022863198_a386b3396d.jpg)


(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5478/14022861089_cffa027020.jpg)


(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5552/14022862158_815ea89f0c.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 31, 2014, 09:06:34 PM
In other news: Cuomo announced plans to have NYSDOT's Main Office, Region 1, and NYSTA to share the same building.

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/213618/dot-and-thruway-authority-to-share-new-albany-building/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on June 01, 2014, 09:12:24 PM
Can Cuomo make NYSDOT and NYSTA share the same sets of exit numbers? :pan:


In other news, I was in Syracuse last week for work and was able to talk with a couple colleagues who live in that area about I-81. The assesment I got from both of them was "most people in this area would rather the highway be left as is, tearing it down would be a disaster for businesses downtown because then people won't be able to get there, and the state doesn't have the money to build a tunnel to replace it". When I pressed about the concept of the downtown environment possibly being improved by removing the freeway, they said "this is Syracuse, the potential for downtown to be some happening cosmopolitan place doesn't exist with or without I-81".

I think this conversation revealed an interesting point: the vast majority of people clamoring for I-81 in Syracuse to be torn down are armchair urbanists who don't live anywhere near Syracuse and have probably never been there. The opinion you get from reading blogs and stuff on the matter is completely out of touch with the opinions of locals in the area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 01, 2014, 09:52:40 PM
Duke:  while that may be true, some of the loudest voices in support of the teardown are those that live south of downtown or near SU…presumably people more familiar with the city than an "armchair urbanist".

I disagree with the assertion that it'd be a disaster because 'people won't be able to get there'.  For starters, even the teardown options streamline and improve access to downtown to/from the north.  Second, given where the on/off ramps to/from 81 south are to get to downtown, the teardown option is no different in terms of the number of traffic signals going to/from the south.  Drivers coming up 81 from the south exit at Adams St today to get to downtown.  And it'll be the exact same scenario under the teardown option.

From a traffic perspective, the teardown/no-teardown question is really more about the 50-some-thousand vehicles a day that are passing through downtown on I-81 but not stopping downtown.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on June 01, 2014, 11:19:39 PM
You are basically echoing, with a different connotation, what my coworkers told me, i.e. "the only people around here who want it torn down are people at SU".

As for downtown access, yes, the number of traffic signals those cars have to pass through wouldn't change, but the number of cars passing through them would. The argument that "people wouldn't be able to get there" claims that people would want to avoid downtown because it would be a mess of traffic congestion without I-81, not that there would be a physical lack of access.

And yes, I will concede that the people I was talking to are ordinary locals, not people who have any particular expertise on traffic engineering or urban planning. I am not trying to use them as supporting witnesses to the keep the freeway cause. My point is that counter to the impression you get reading blogs about it that smother the idea with praise, tearing down the freeway is NOT what a majority of the people of Syracuse want.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on June 02, 2014, 07:30:07 AM
I don't know enough to have a strong opinion about the I-81 teardown option.  But, wouldn't I-81 be rerouted onto current I-481 in such a case, hopefully causing a majority of the traffic that passes through downtown but does not stop would to bypass downtown completely?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 02, 2014, 01:50:34 PM
Quote
You are basically echoing, with a different connotation, what my coworkers told me, i.e. "the only people around here who want it torn down are people at SU".

Not just SU.  The neighborhoods immediately south of downtown (NOT at SU) are also very vocal in their support of a teardown.

Your colleagues are under the opinion that the majority of local folks want the viaduct to remain, but what I'm hearing from many city officials is the opposite.  I've also noted that a lot of the support for retaining the viaduct is coming from adjacent towns.  Whether a majority of the residents of Syracuse itself want the teardown or not is a reality that is hard to pinpoint.

Quote
As for downtown access, yes, the number of traffic signals those cars have to pass through wouldn't change, but the number of cars passing through them would.

There would also be more lanes passing through those signals under a teardown scenario, so it balances out at least partially.

Quote
I don't know enough to have a strong opinion about the I-81 teardown option.  But, wouldn't I-81 be rerouted onto current I-481 in such a case, hopefully causing a majority of the traffic that passes through downtown but does not stop would to bypass downtown completely?

Yes, I-81 would be rerouted onto the existing I-481, with the interchanges on each end modified to accommodate the change.  The issue here is that there's relatively little I-81 traffic that is actually passing through the entire area (roughly 5400 vpd).  The concern (echoed in Duke's comments) is that traffic passing through downtown (the majority of I-81 traffic on the viaduct) wouldn't detour over to 481/690 but instead would clog up the proposed boulevard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 02, 2014, 08:59:25 PM
The trouble is, parts of I-481 are congested now.  The traffic that would be carried on the portion between NY 5 and the Thruway would rival the recently-widened section of the Thruway between exits 23 and 24.

Plus, who's gonna get all the trucks heading to western NY to divert a few miles?  The ones coming from I-390 already cut across NY 63 despite all the DOT signs telling them not to.

Also, for those wondering where my traffic info comes from: http://gis.dot.ny.gov/tdv/

By this time on Thursday, I'll be able to tell you in way too many words where those numbers come from.

Can Cuomo make NYSDOT and NYSTA share the same sets of exit numbers? :pan:
He may be the most powerful man in the state, but he's still a mere mortal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on June 03, 2014, 12:12:40 AM
Your colleagues are under the opinion that the majority of local folks want the viaduct to remain, but what I'm hearing from many city officials is the opposite.  I've also noted that a lot of the support for retaining the viaduct is coming from adjacent towns.  Whether a majority of the residents of Syracuse itself want the teardown or not is a reality that is hard to pinpoint.

Yes, but don't the opinions of people in adjacent towns also matter here? They are essentially part of the same community. The sphere of people impacted does not end at the arbitrary location of the city line. I mean, it's the state's highway, not Syracuse's.

Of course, the way this breaks down is plenty predictable: people who live near the viaduct see it as a blight and want it gone. People who live in the area but not near the viaduct see it as a useful road and want it to stay.

In other words, it's good ol' NIMBYism at work. Fancy that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on July 04, 2014, 01:26:50 AM
Onondaga County ends "Parkway Sundays" (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/parkway_sundays_cancelled_this_year.html) - similar to Memorial Drive in Boston and many other jurisdictions that close off a road every Sunday to let people enjoy it on foot.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: connroadgeek on July 04, 2014, 09:27:04 PM
Sorry if this is a dumb question or doesn't belong in this thread, but why is there a NYSDOT, NYCDOT, and NYSTA? Living in CT government and administrative divisions are relatively simple because we're a small state, so I'm curious how a big state like our neighbor to the west has these different entities and how/why they came to be. Thanks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on July 04, 2014, 10:25:33 PM
Sorry if this is a dumb question or doesn't belong in this thread, but why is there a NYSDOT, NYCDOT, and NYSTA? Living in CT government and administrative divisions are relatively simple because we're a small state, so I'm curious how a big state like our neighbor to the west has these different entities and how/why they came to be. Thanks.

NYSTA operates and maintains the Thruway, which pre-dated the interstate system.  I believe they also operate the Canal system.  NYSDOT operates and maintains non-thruway roads within New York State (everything outside of the 5 boroughs).  NYCDOT takes care of all roads in the boroughs, outside of the New England Thruway portion of I-95 (mainline Thruway "ends" at the Bronx/Westchester line. 

I don't believe there was ever a "Connecticut Turnpike Authority", back when it was a toll road.  Perhaps if it had, it would be a much different road than it is today, especially if tolls collected went into the turnpike and not into a general fund.  In NY, Thruway tolls are kept in the Thruway system.  Not to mention same with other agencies/tolls, including the MTA, the NYSBA, PA, etc. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 04, 2014, 10:29:51 PM

Sorry if this is a dumb question or doesn't belong in this thread, but why is there a NYSDOT, NYCDOT, and NYSTA? Living in CT government and administrative divisions are relatively simple because we're a small state, so I'm curious how a big state like our neighbor to the west has these different entities and how/why they came to be. Thanks.

Without touching the NYCDOT question, the Thruway was probably created, like a lot of toll agencies, as an Independent Authority so it could control its own finances (issue its own bonds, maintain its own credit rating, and so forth), and presumably act independently in other ways.  In Massachusetts the Turnpike Authority was finally folded into the state highway department, but most states seem to keep them independent.  New York, for one, has used the NYSTA's firm revenue stream to "sell" ancillary highways to it, helping to balance the comparably shakier state budget.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on July 05, 2014, 02:24:15 AM
*NYSDOT: State highways
*NYSTA: NY Thruway system and occasional free roads (I-84, I-287)
*NYSBA: Hudson River toll bridges in-state
*NYCDOT: City highways, including state routes in city limits
*MTA: City toll bridges
*PANYNJ: NY-NJ crossings (toll)
*NYPAJIBC: NY-PA crossings (free)
*NFBC: Niagara Falls crossings (toll)
*Other random bridge agencies (Peace Bridge, each of the St. Lawrence bridges)

I'm sure there are more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 05, 2014, 02:26:36 AM

*NYSDOT: State highways
*NYSTA: NY Thruway system and occasional free roads (I-84, I-287)
*NYSBA: Hudson River toll bridges in-state
*NYCDOT: City highways, including state routes in city limits
*MTA: City toll bridges
*PANYNJ: NY-NJ crossings (toll)
*NYPAJIBC: NY-PA crossings (free)
*NFBC: Niagara Falls crossings (toll)
*Other random bridge agencies (Peace Bridge, each of the St. Lawrence bridges)

I'm sure there are more.

I once read during the era of Robert Moses he was either in charge or created many state government corporations. The problem with consolidation though is employees of these groups can be put out of work right?


Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2014, 03:38:41 PM
N.Y. Times: Falling for the Photo in Staten Island (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/photo-verrazano-bridge-staten-island-brooklyn/)

Quote
“O.K. You sure you want to do this? Can you use this? Let me give you some background. You follow?”

Quote
Actually, given the tale that Barton Silverman was about to tell, I most definitely would not follow.

Quote
He is best known as a sports photographer whose images have long graced the pages of The New York Times. But in 1962, he was a Brooklyn kid working his way through college as a lab assistant at the paper. It was the kind of job in which an ambitious would-be photographer had to find his own assignments and make his own breaks.

Quote
And almost fall off the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge in the process.

Quote
He was 19 and living in Bensonhurst with his mother, Stella. An employment agency’s classified ad for a lab assistant caught his attention.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 10, 2014, 03:14:55 PM
*NYSDOT: State highways
*NYSTA: NY Thruway system and occasional free roads (I-84, I-287)
*NYSBA: Hudson River toll bridges in-state
*NYCDOT: City highways, including state routes in city limits
*MTA: City toll bridges
*PANYNJ: NY-NJ crossings (toll)
*NYPAJIBC: NY-PA crossings (free)
*NFBC: Niagara Falls crossings (toll)
*Other random bridge agencies (Peace Bridge, each of the St. Lawrence bridges)

I'm sure there are more.

I-84 went back to NYSDOT when the Niagara Thruway went toll-free, as the tolls in Buffalo paid for maintenance. I'll add the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), which maintains routes in state parks and NY 431, among other roads.

That being said, there are too many authorities. Buffalo and the Niagara Region have two separate international bridge authorities for a total of 4 bridges spaced less than 50 miles apart that should probably merge. I'd be for merging NYSDOT and NYSTA, similar to how MassHighway and the Turnpike Authority merged a few years back. Cut out the upper-level people, reduce/remove tolls at key points (i.e. traffic between Buffalo and Rochester) to reduce loads on the state highway system, and you'd probably still save money. Plus, a NYSDOT takeover might stop the Clearview. Everybody wins, both ordinary citizens and roadgeeks alike!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 10, 2014, 10:52:16 PM
I-84, I-287, and the canal system were transferred to the Thruway in the 90s to continue taking tolls.  I-84 was transferred back when the downtown Buffalo barriers went away.  Region 8 still isn't happy about that one.  They close I-84 every time it snows because they don't want to do more snow removal.

Adding the Peace Bridge to the other Niagara bridges feels weird to me, especially since the other three are clustered near the falls and it's a ways upriver.

If NYSDOT and NYSTA actually merged, I suspect you'd have more lower-level people cut than upper.  When the soft merge between Region 1 and Main Office happened (moved into the same building and share many administrative functions, but retaining a separate agency code and layoff unit and authoritative relationship between the two, basically giving Main Office all the benefits of a merger but none of the drawbacks), there was a LOT of attrition of titles.  Region 1 is now the smallest region and in many ways short staffed.  Planning, for example, is three full time people and one part timer.  The other regions all have in excess of 7.  What used to be Region 1's IT and HR staff is now gone and we have to deal with the Kingdoms in Main Office that are difficult to contact and never get anything done on time.  All the higher-ups continue on as usual, though.  Did I mention that the state built a brand-new building for Region 1 just two years before?

There's now talk of putting the Thruway in the same building as DOT.  That's going to be very, very interesting, as the Thruway people are better paid than DOT for the exact same job (better union).  Of course, this would all be housed in a new building at Thruway headquarters in the middle of nowhere, rather than in the wonderfully-located DOT building or the vacant state campus.

Pretty sure the tolls would continue as always.  As far as I know, the Thruway doesn't even have plans to expand the use of E-ZPass on the ticket system.

Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 10, 2014, 11:14:58 PM
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on July 11, 2014, 02:16:59 PM
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.

I actually had trouble reading some of the newer Clearview signs on the Thruway near Buffalo. There is something majorly wrong with them. It was dark, and the signs were not illuminated, just lit by headlights. The retroreflection made the signs just appear like one bright green blur, and you couldn't read the lettering on them. It wasn't until you were practically below them that the angle was such that you could make out the legend for a split second before driving under it. Luckily I knew exactly where I was going and didn't actually need to read the signs, but still, that was very disconcerting to say the least.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 11, 2014, 03:16:37 PM
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.

I actually had trouble reading some of the newer Clearview signs on the Thruway near Buffalo. There is something majorly wrong with them. It was dark, and the signs were not illuminated, just lit by headlights. The retroreflection made the signs just appear like one bright green blur, and you couldn't read the lettering on them. It wasn't until you were practically below them that the angle was such that you could make out the legend for a split second before driving under it. Luckily I knew exactly where I was going and didn't actually need to read the signs, but still, that was very disconcerting to say the least.

It's as if they made them too reflective. The newest batch, between Exits 50 and 52A, is probably the worst. Not only are they illegible at night or when the sun is shining on them, but they're between the stretch of road connecting the airport to the mall and Niagara Falls. Ever since they went up, the amount of accidents on that accident-prone stretch has increased significantly,  especially at night, as people can't read the signs, even though the old signage was non-reflective. I-190's newer signage at I-290 isn't much better.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 11, 2014, 03:35:20 PM

I-84, I-287, and the canal system were transferred to the Thruway in the 90s to continue taking tolls.  I-84 was transferred back when the downtown Buffalo barriers went away.  Region 8 still isn't happy about that one.  They close I-84 every time it snows because they don't want to do more snow removal.

Adding the Peace Bridge to the other Niagara bridges feels weird to me, especially since the other three are clustered near the falls and it's a ways upriver.

If NYSDOT and NYSTA actually merged, I suspect you'd have more lower-level people cut than upper.  When the soft merge between Region 1 and Main Office happened (moved into the same building and share many administrative functions, but retaining a separate agency code and layoff unit and authoritative relationship between the two, basically giving Main Office all the benefits of a merger but none of the drawbacks), there was a LOT of attrition of titles.  Region 1 is now the smallest region and in many ways short staffed.  Planning, for example, is three full time people and one part timer.  The other regions all have in excess of 7.  What used to be Region 1's IT and HR staff is now gone and we have to deal with the Kingdoms in Main Office that are difficult to contact and never get anything done on time.  All the higher-ups continue on as usual, though.  Did I mention that the state built a brand-new building for Region 1 just two years before?

There's now talk of putting the Thruway in the same building as DOT.  That's going to be very, very interesting, as the Thruway people are better paid than DOT for the exact same job (better union).  Of course, this would all be housed in a new building at Thruway headquarters in the middle of nowhere, rather than in the wonderfully-located DOT building or the vacant state campus.

Pretty sure the tolls would continue as always.  As far as I know, the Thruway doesn't even have plans to expand the use of E-ZPass on the ticket system.

Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Why on earth doesn't the Thruway go to AET?  The one-time buyout of contract people would cost much less than perpetually adding future pension/health care obligations to its books.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 11, 2014, 03:41:14 PM
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.

I actually had trouble reading some of the newer Clearview signs on the Thruway near Buffalo. There is something majorly wrong with them. It was dark, and the signs were not illuminated, just lit by headlights. The retroreflection made the signs just appear like one bright green blur, and you couldn't read the lettering on them. It wasn't until you were practically below them that the angle was such that you could make out the legend for a split second before driving under it. Luckily I knew exactly where I was going and didn't actually need to read the signs, but still, that was very disconcerting to say the least.

I've noticed the same thing with a few of the new Clearview signs on the Thruway around Utica and the Mohawk Valley. It's like the background reflectivity is much higher than the lettering reflectivity and even in the daytime it can be hard to read the lettering on the sign. I mentioned this to the Thruway Authority a few months ago but they never responded. They hardly ever respond to my emails.

As far as the numerals on the new route markers around Buffalo, I believe they're actually correct to the new New York standard, NYSDOT is now using Series D for route numerals instead of Series F and I think NYSTA is doing the same thing. It's part of an effort to standardize the NY Route marker on both standalone and guide signs because there was a LOT of variation in how the NY Route marker was presented up until about a year ago (stretched out shields, compressed shields, no uniformity to the black space around the shield, wild variations in lettering, etc.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 11, 2014, 03:48:13 PM

I-84, I-287, and the canal system were transferred to the Thruway in the 90s to continue taking tolls.  I-84 was transferred back when the downtown Buffalo barriers went away.  Region 8 still isn't happy about that one.  They close I-84 every time it snows because they don't want to do more snow removal.

Adding the Peace Bridge to the other Niagara bridges feels weird to me, especially since the other three are clustered near the falls and it's a ways upriver.

If NYSDOT and NYSTA actually merged, I suspect you'd have more lower-level people cut than upper.  When the soft merge between Region 1 and Main Office happened (moved into the same building and share many administrative functions, but retaining a separate agency code and layoff unit and authoritative relationship between the two, basically giving Main Office all the benefits of a merger but none of the drawbacks), there was a LOT of attrition of titles.  Region 1 is now the smallest region and in many ways short staffed.  Planning, for example, is three full time people and one part timer.  The other regions all have in excess of 7.  What used to be Region 1's IT and HR staff is now gone and we have to deal with the Kingdoms in Main Office that are difficult to contact and never get anything done on time.  All the higher-ups continue on as usual, though.  Did I mention that the state built a brand-new building for Region 1 just two years before?

There's now talk of putting the Thruway in the same building as DOT.  That's going to be very, very interesting, as the Thruway people are better paid than DOT for the exact same job (better union).  Of course, this would all be housed in a new building at Thruway headquarters in the middle of nowhere, rather than in the wonderfully-located DOT building or the vacant state campus.

Pretty sure the tolls would continue as always.  As far as I know, the Thruway doesn't even have plans to expand the use of E-ZPass on the ticket system.

Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Why on earth doesn't the Thruway go to AET?  The one-time buyout of contract people would cost much less than perpetually adding future pension/health care obligations to its books.

Civil servant unions in New York run the state. It's almost to the point where the main destination of toll revenue is the salaries of those involved in toll collection. The minute a politician suggests AET, the CSEA will make sure they don't serve another term. It's also part of the reason why there are so many redundant authorities, not just in transportation.

As with the numbers, a couple of the shields have numbers overlapping the outline. Still legible, but adds to the overall sloppiness of the signs. But if it's the new standard, I'll certainly take it over what we previously had. It doesn't help that they replaced the 1/4 mile advance sign for Exit 50A on the other end of that sign's gantry with one identical to the original (and just as wrong).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 11, 2014, 04:29:15 PM

Civil servant unions in New York run the state. It's almost to the point where the main destination of toll revenue is the salaries of those involved in toll collection. The minute a politician suggests AET, the CSEA will make sure they don't serve another term. It's also part of the reason why there are so many redundant authorities, not just in transportation.

Time for Occupy Albany.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 11, 2014, 05:11:54 PM
Not gonna happen in the (Union) Empire State...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 11, 2014, 05:44:44 PM
Not gonna happen in the (Union) Empire State...

Nope. There is one AET facility in the state (Henry Hudson Bridge), so they might be waiting to see how that fares/ how badly the unions react. Difference is that there were ~6-8 people on at a time max, compared to at least 2 at every exit on the Thruway plus significantly more at the major exits, mainline barriers, and bridges. The MTA can make up for one bridge by not replacing those who leave/retire. Not the Thruway and its several hundred toll takers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on July 11, 2014, 06:14:44 PM
I actually had trouble reading some of the newer Clearview signs on the Thruway near Buffalo. ... The retroreflection made the signs just appear like one bright green blur, and you couldn't read the lettering on them.

It could very well be that the NYSTA used brighter retro-reflective materials for the background and the legends - say a high intensity (Type III or IV) legend on a high intensity prismatic - HIP-  (Type VIII or better) background.  Combined with the fact that Clearview letters are narrower and taller than Highway Gothic, this could likely cause the problem you're describing.

If somebody out there in AARoads land has access to the spec sheets for these sign panels, I'd be interested in seeing them.  It might solve the mystery.

As a sidebar, when FHWA first issued their current guidance for fabricating overhead signs (i.e. using HIP for legends) in 2004, MassHighway made the decision to require use of HIP for both legend and background for all extruded guide signs (both overhead and ground-mounted), with the caveat that the legend and background both be the same grade of material (i.e. no Type VIII legend on Type XI background).  For most recent sign installations made according to these specs, it's interesting to note that, at night under headlight illumination, the signs not only get brighter as you approach them, but get more legible as well.  Legends on overhead signs do not become illegible until just as the front of your vehicle passes under the sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on July 11, 2014, 06:27:35 PM
If I remember correctly, the Teamsters is the representative bargaining unit for the Thruway's toll collectors.  The union has been historically known for its power.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on July 11, 2014, 06:28:11 PM
Not gonna happen in the (Union) Empire State...
They said the same thing for over a decade about the Massachusetts Turnpike - no AET ever.  However, that has since changed with the November 2009 MassDOT "merger".  At present, the MassPike and Boston Harbor tunnels are now scheduled to convert to AET sometime in 2016.  Of course, that doesn't mean that the toll taker unions won't try to block AET at the last minute.  However, so far, there's been no indications they plan to seriously fight AET implementation.

Admittedly, it took legislation filed by the Governor to eliminate the Turnpike Authority and create the present MassDOT, but the Legislature went along with it.  If the Union Commonwealth of Massachusetts can manage that, I'd say there's hope for New York State.
Title: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 11, 2014, 06:37:58 PM
Not gonna happen in the (Union) Empire State...
They said the same thing for over a decade about the Massachusetts Turnpike - no AET ever.  However, that has since changed with the November 2009 MassDOT "merger".  At present, the MassPike and Boston Harbor tunnels are now scheduled to convert to AET sometime in 2016.  Of course, that doesn't mean that the toll taker unions won't try to block AET at the last minute.  However, so far, there's been no indications they plan to seriously fight AET implementation.

Admittedly, it took legislation filed by the Governor to eliminate the Turnpike Authority and create the present MassDOT, but the Legislature went along with it.  If the Union Commonwealth of Massachusetts can manage that, I'd say there's hope for New York State.

I was going to bring that up but didn't want to start a pissing contest about which state is the most corrupt/intractable/etc.  There was also the typical resistance to outside thinking here, something which hopefully is eroding.  In 2008 the Turnpike's then-chairman Bernard Cohen went on at length about the unsuitability of AET for the Mass Pike, finally desperately joking, "Why would we want to do what they do in New Jersey?"

As roadman says, unions are big and vocal here.  And a bunch of their toll-taking members are going to soon be out of jobs. 

I'm sure elevator operators claimed public safety demanded them, much as the tolltakers will.  Maybe they'll end up next to each other in the same museum.  Or if people want to see living examples, I guess they'll have to go to New York.  Maybe they'll even become a tourist attraction when they're the only ones left.

I just hope it doesn't take the kind of crash that gave Connecticut a distaste for toll booths for New York to wake up and join the 21st century.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on July 11, 2014, 07:37:02 PM
I just hope it doesn't take the kind of crash that gave Connecticut a distaste for toll booths for New York to wake up and join the 21st century.

As vocal as the anti-toll lobby in Connecticut was following the 1983 Stratford toll plaza crash, the reason the tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike were eliminated was far simpler.  IIRC, the State used Federal funds to rebuild the Mianis River Bridge that had collapsed earlier that year.  Part of the Federal legislation authorizing that funding required Connecticut to permanently remove tolls from the Turnpike.

Of course, stating "We're going to remove tolls as the result of a fatal crash" makes the pols look much better, and also makes it more likely the media will actually cover the story, then "The Feds are making us remove tolls" does.

Sidebar -  I've always had an interest in the Stratford crash since it first happened - I recall seeing the TV new reports at the time.  However, I've never been able to find a copy of, or a link, to any NTSB report, brief, or recommendation letter on it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on July 12, 2014, 02:29:01 AM
As vocal as the anti-toll lobby in Connecticut was following the 1983 Stratford toll plaza crash, the reason the tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike were eliminated was far simpler.  IIRC, the State used Federal funds to rebuild the Mianis River Bridge that had collapsed earlier that year.  Part of the Federal legislation authorizing that funding required Connecticut to permanently remove tolls from the Turnpike.

Of course, stating "We're going to remove tolls as the result of a fatal crash" makes the pols look much better, and also makes it more likely the media will actually cover the story, then "The Feds are making us remove tolls" does.

That can't be the only reason. Tolls were also removed from the Merritt and from a few bridges near Hartford at about the same time.

Here's a page that seems to logically explain it. (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0122.htm)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on July 12, 2014, 08:20:12 AM
As vocal as the anti-toll lobby in Connecticut was following the 1983 Stratford toll plaza crash, the reason the tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike were eliminated was far simpler.  IIRC, the State used Federal funds to rebuild the Mianis River Bridge that had collapsed earlier that year.  Part of the Federal legislation authorizing that funding required Connecticut to permanently remove tolls from the Turnpike.

Of course, stating "We're going to remove tolls as the result of a fatal crash" makes the pols look much better, and also makes it more likely the media will actually cover the story, then "The Feds are making us remove tolls" does.

That can't be the only reason. Tolls were also removed from the Merritt and from a few bridges near Hartford at about the same time.

Here's a page that seems to logically explain it. (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0122.htm)

My experience of Nutmeg State toll booth backup (expletive) came on my summer 1980 trip to Nova Scotia.  My return route was the 495-290-Masspike-(then)86-84-91-Wilbur Cross-Merritt combo.  I don't remember if there were toll booth backups on the Wilbur Cross or the Merritt on that trip.

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 12, 2014, 08:51:22 AM
Getting slightly back on topic, were any of the downstate New York parkways ever tolled? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 12, 2014, 10:53:06 AM
Getting slightly back on topic, were any of the downstate New York parkways ever tolled?

Yes. Hutchison River, Southern State, and the Robert Moses Causeway were tolled at one point. I think the Saw Mill may have been, but I'm not certain.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on July 12, 2014, 11:53:13 AM
Getting slightly back on topic, were any of the downstate New York parkways ever tolled?

Yes. Hutchison River, Southern State, and the Robert Moses Causeway were tolled at one point. I think the Saw Mill may have been, but I'm not certain.

The Hutch had a toll plaza between exits 7 (Boston Post Rd) and 8 (Sandford Blvd) which charged 25 cents each way. It was removed in 1995. I remember it well.

The Saw Mill had a toll plaza directly south of exit 3 (McLean Ave) which was removed at the same time, but I was never on the Saw Mill in those days so I don't personally remember it. I assume the toll was also 25 cents.

The toll on the Southern State was between exits 13 and 14, but likewise, I do not remember it personally. And could not, since unlike the other two it was removed in 1978, which was before I was born.

The theme seems to be you payed a toll when entering or leaving the five boroughs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 12, 2014, 12:12:55 PM
That's right -- I now remember the Hutch toll, though I didn't use that part of the Hutch before the removal. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 12, 2014, 12:15:30 PM
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.
I don't know much about the Buffalo signs.  Of course, both NYSDOT and NYSTA have been known to erect old-standard signs that simply had their contract/project delayed.  When I think of their modern clearview, I typically think of this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.090804,-73.928697,3a,75y,315.59h,85.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDdgTgrbvDm5ypiHHPszAZg!2e0
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 12, 2014, 01:35:47 PM
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.
I don't know much about the Buffalo signs.  Of course, both NYSDOT and NYSTA have been known to erect old-standard signs that simply had their contract/project delayed.  When I think of their modern clearview, I typically think of this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.090804,-73.928697,3a,75y,315.59h,85.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDdgTgrbvDm5ypiHHPszAZg!2e0

That's how most of the signs installed 2013 or earlier are, along with many on I-190. It's the 2014 batch that's the problem. Probably 30 new signs and they're all bad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hbelkins on July 12, 2014, 04:53:51 PM
Seeing some of the discussions about unions and toll employees causes me to chime in.

I've said before that I'm glad Kentucky's state employees aren't unionized. I don't think a union would have too much success in getting much accomplished, since budget decisions such as pay increases are proposed by the governor and enacted by the legislature. Even if a union negotiated a raise, the legislature could refuse to fund it.

As Kentucky dropped tolls from its turnpike and parkways, the toll collectors who were displaced were absorbed into the state employee pool and found other jobs. Two of the last toll roads to go free were the Hal Rogers (f/k/a Daniel Boone) and Cumberland. That happened before I started with KYTC. There wasn't a toll booth on the Hal Rogers in our district, but we took a few of the employees. One didn't work out so well. She landed as a custodian in our building and was a few fries short of a Happy Meal. I think the final straw was when she went to one of the local dollar stores on her break and got caught shoplifting. Another was placed in our accounts office and she did really well. She was the sweetest lady, everyone loved her, and when she retired a couple of years ago, everyone was sad.

One of the displaced Cumberland Parkway toll collectors went to work in the Somerset office and handled a variety of programs, including Highway Safety (f/k/a Drive Smart). A number of us PIOs got to know and like her through our involvement with Drive Smart. When the PIO in District 8 retired, she got the job. Despite not having a journalism background, she does a really good job.

Having a union would have made no difference for these people. They were taken care of despite Kentucky state workers not being unionized.

The point is, the state agencies in the states with active unions and toll roads would probably take care of any workers displaced if they went to all-electronic collection.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 12, 2014, 05:51:50 PM
I think taking care of toll collectors is an easier pill to swallow than paying their successors indefinitely. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 12, 2014, 09:38:45 PM
In other news, two of Erie County's remaining county route shields are no longer with us. The shields on Clark Street in Hamburg and Armor Road in Orchard Park have disappeared at some point before I passed through there an hour ago. The CR 30 shield on NY 240 north of Springville remains and I obtained a mediocre cell phone picture of it. It is not in good shape. As of March, the two CR 580 shields in Tonawanda were still in place. Unless I'm missing something, those are the only three shields that remain standing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 13, 2014, 05:40:07 PM
I've said before that I'm glad Kentucky's state employees aren't unionized. I don't think a union would have too much success in getting much accomplished, since budget decisions such as pay increases are proposed by the governor and enacted by the legislature. Even if a union negotiated a raise, the legislature could refuse to fund it.
That's definitely different than how it works in NY.  Here, pay is a contract item negotiated between the union and the governor.  If the budget from the legislature/governor can't be met with the existing pay rate, a mass layoff happens (or a new contract, but there are enough senior people who would sooner vote themselves a pay raise than keep less senior workers employed, so a new contract is not likely to happen again like it did in 2011).

If someone loses a state job in NY due to layoffs/job elimination, their given priority over someone outside of the civil service system for open-competitive positions, but that's it.  And open-competitive positions only open up when the governor is up for election (though many have been vacant for years).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on July 13, 2014, 10:13:18 PM
I've said before that I'm glad Kentucky's state employees aren't unionized. I don't think a union would have too much success in getting much accomplished, since budget decisions such as pay increases are proposed by the governor and enacted by the legislature. Even if a union negotiated a raise, the legislature could refuse to fund it.
That's definitely different than how it works in NY.  Here, pay is a contract item negotiated between the union and the governor.  If the budget from the legislature/governor can't be met with the existing pay rate, a mass layoff happens (or a new contract, but there are enough senior people who would sooner vote themselves a pay raise than keep less senior workers employed, so a new contract is not likely to happen again like it did in 2011).

I dunno. Just because pay is defined by legislative action doesn't make the union useless. You can still endorse candidates based on their support of the interests of state employees. You can still threaten to go on strike if the legislature doesn't grant you raises.

Nonetheless, state politics are also an important factor. The state employee unions in New York can be effective because the people of New York will be sympathetic to them if their demands are realistic, and in the event of a labor dispute a lot of people will blame their elected officials for it. But Kentucky is a far less union-friendly state. If there is a reason a state employees union would be ineffective, it is because the court of public opinion is unlikely to be in their favor, and elected officials will be more likely to gain popularity by fighting the union than by negotiating with them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CANALLER on July 27, 2014, 12:59:25 AM
To clarify a few misconceptions:

C.L.:   The days of civil service unions running N.Y.S. are long gone, unless you consider having a choice of accepting 0%-0%-0% + 9 days' furlough + a 20% increase in health insurance contributions + yearly increases in taxes or losing your job a good deal.  When you have a governor that has no competition as far as the eye can see, he can dictate his terms.

Val:  There aren't any mass layoffs when contracts expire.  You just continue under the existing terms, and then back-date any adjustments whenever it's settled.  (usually 12-18 months)     You'll find out first hand next April.

Duke:  The public doesn't support us one bit, in part fuelled by the ignorance of the paper and other peoples' comments.  The perception amongst anyone who isn't a state employee is that we're underworked, overpaid and have golden benefits, all at their expense, while they have much less themselves.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 27, 2014, 01:15:56 AM
To clarify a few misconceptions:

C.L.:   The days of civil service unions running N.Y.S. are long gone, unless you consider having a choice of accepting 0%-0%-0% + 9 days' furlough + a 20% increase in health insurance contributions + yearly increases in taxes or losing your job a good deal.  When you have a governor that has no competition as far as the eye can see, he can dictate his terms.

Val:  There aren't any mass layoffs when contracts expire.  You just continue under the existing terms, and then back-date any adjustments whenever it's settled.  (usually 12-18 months)     You'll find out first hand next April.

Duke:  The public doesn't support us one bit, in part fuelled by the ignorance of the paper and other peoples' comments.  The perception amongst anyone who isn't a state employee is that we're underworked, overpaid and have golden benefits, all at their expense, while they have much less themselves.

Of course the civil service unions run the state. The teachers' unions get whatever they want. Why do you think the teachers here are among the highest paid in the nation? The LIRR almost-strike resulted in the unions getting most of what they wanted, with a significant raise even though they were already the highest-paid railroad workers in the country. We know that the City is run by unions and I'm pretty convinced that the Buffalo and Albany areas are as well, having lived in both.

As to public support of unions, Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse are more than supportive due to their blue collar environment. Right to work will never happen here. Just suggesting that I don't want to work for a union shop gets people up in arms.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CANALLER on July 27, 2014, 01:35:27 AM
C.L.:  The vast majority of teachers are NOT state employees.  They're employees of their local districts, and each districts' residents have the opportunity to vote down the school's budget each and every year.  The railroad employees are in a better position because if there's an impasse, the feds can step in and impose a settlement.  The downstate area can't function without a rail system,as there's no room for a million more vehicles on the expressways, nor are there a million extra parking spaces.  Before you think the railroad's employees are overpaid, take a look at the M.T.A. brass's compensation packages and ask yourself what value those political hacks add to the organization for the huge sums of cash they're given.   

You are correct; N.Y.S. is nowhere near becoming a right-to-work state.  But that doesn't means state employees must join a union, because they don't have to.  Civil Service is NOT a union shop, but rather an agency shop.

And if you don't think the public hates us, come out on my crew for a summer and listen to the B.S. we hear every single night.  The public wants perfectly smooth, snow free, toll free autobahns 24-365 that cost them nothing.

Val:  If you take a Throughway job, you're still a P.E.F. employee.  You're just in a different bargaining unit with a different contract.  It doesn't really matter anyway, as negotiations with multiple unions are a lowest common denominator game.  Whatever the first group settles for, no one else gets a penny more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 27, 2014, 08:10:28 PM
And dictate the governor does.  My boss is worried that the current PEF president will do something stupid, like trying to push through a contract that includes large raises and big benefits, provoking Cuomo into demanding large cuts from agencies that can only be fulfilled by mass layoffs (of course, he won't use that word, he'll pass the blame to the agencies).  The union has no problem with this because the majority of its members care only for themselves and their agencies and don't care about less senior employees (also massive corruption and cut-throat workplace politics; the current PEF president was elected only because she essentially bribed people).  This happened in 2011 and was only averted because the people affected picketed the union and forced a second contract vote, but the current president would never allow such a thing.

Teachers have a pretty crappy job all around; if the union controlled everything, don't you think they'd have better conditions and better pay?  Many teachers have to work a second job in the summers just to live, essentially work overtime every day, and have difficult working conditions, including dealing with parental harassment when their "little angel" gets a grade that isn't an A or gets reprimanded in class.  Teachers in private charter schools have it even worse and make even less, and many of the best teachers are leaving in droves, lowering the education quality for our kids.

People in private industry are being exploited left and right, and rather than fight for decent working conditions, they would rather drag us down too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on July 28, 2014, 10:41:39 AM
And here I was, thinking "PEF" stood for "private engineering firm" . . .
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on July 28, 2014, 06:27:57 PM
http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/crossing-info/e-zpass

Niagara Falls Bridge Commission to accept E-ZPass starting August 11, 2014. At Lewiston-Queenston and Rainbow Bridges, E-ZPass will read first, only if no E-ZPass is read will it look for a Nexus Toll account or Express Pass. On the Whirlpool Bridge, Nexus Toll accounts will be debited first (since it is required to scan the card to get onto the bridge), and if the Nexus card doesn't have a NFBC toll account established, or if there is a toll account without sufficient fare, then E-ZPass will be charged.

In other big NFBC news, the Canada-bound Whirlpool Bridge will be completely closed for several weeks in September and October, while they expand the Canadian Plaza to 2 lanes. Posted detour is via the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, which will have its Nexus hours changed to match those of the closed Whirlpool Bridge. They already successfully reconfigured the lanes to allow those with Nexus cards to bypass the regular lane queues by using the truck lane.

More info: http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/news-links2/news-links/389-auto-generate-from-title
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 28, 2014, 06:51:50 PM
http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/crossing-info/e-zpass

Niagara Falls Bridge Commission to accept E-ZPass starting August 11, 2014. At Lewiston-Queenston and Rainbow Bridges, E-ZPass will read first, only if no E-ZPass is read will it look for a Nexus Toll account or Express Pass. On the Whirlpool Bridge, Nexus Toll accounts will be debited first (since it is required to scan the card to get onto the bridge), and if the Nexus card doesn't have a NFBC toll account established, or if there is a toll account without sufficient fare, then E-ZPass will be charged.

In other big NFBC news, the Canada-bound Whirlpool Bridge will be completely closed for several weeks in September and October, while they expand the Canadian Plaza to 2 lanes. Posted detour is via the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, which will have its Nexus hours changed to match those of the closed Whirlpool Bridge. They already successfully reconfigured the lanes to allow those with Nexus cards to bypass the regular lane queues by using the truck lane.

More info: http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/news-links2/news-links/389-auto-generate-from-title

About time. Won't stop me from detouring to the Peace Bridge to avoid the waits, but it'll certainly be nice for my weekend jaunts to Niagara Falls, as we could use the Rainbow Bridge without cash.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on July 29, 2014, 12:22:04 PM
http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/crossing-info/e-zpass

Niagara Falls Bridge Commission to accept E-ZPass starting August 11, 2014. At Lewiston-Queenston and Rainbow Bridges, E-ZPass will read first, only if no E-ZPass is read will it look for a Nexus Toll account or Express Pass. On the Whirlpool Bridge, Nexus Toll accounts will be debited first (since it is required to scan the card to get onto the bridge), and if the Nexus card doesn't have a NFBC toll account established, or if there is a toll account without sufficient fare, then E-ZPass will be charged.

In other big NFBC news, the Canada-bound Whirlpool Bridge will be completely closed for several weeks in September and October, while they expand the Canadian Plaza to 2 lanes. Posted detour is via the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, which will have its Nexus hours changed to match those of the closed Whirlpool Bridge. They already successfully reconfigured the lanes to allow those with Nexus cards to bypass the regular lane queues by using the truck lane.

More info: http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/news-links2/news-links/389-auto-generate-from-title

About time. Won't stop me from detouring to the Peace Bridge to avoid the waits, but it'll certainly be nice for my weekend jaunts to Niagara Falls, as we could use the Rainbow Bridge without cash.

Before I had Nexus, I would usually do the Peace Bridge into Canada because it was annoying to have to pay cash at the other crossings. Coming back, I would take whatever was convenient. NFBC website has wait times for all bridges, so if you have a Smartphone (with a data plan for the other country), you can check wait times as you approach.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 29, 2014, 02:22:11 PM
http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/crossing-info/e-zpass

Niagara Falls Bridge Commission to accept E-ZPass starting August 11, 2014. At Lewiston-Queenston and Rainbow Bridges, E-ZPass will read first, only if no E-ZPass is read will it look for a Nexus Toll account or Express Pass. On the Whirlpool Bridge, Nexus Toll accounts will be debited first (since it is required to scan the card to get onto the bridge), and if the Nexus card doesn't have a NFBC toll account established, or if there is a toll account without sufficient fare, then E-ZPass will be charged.

In other big NFBC news, the Canada-bound Whirlpool Bridge will be completely closed for several weeks in September and October, while they expand the Canadian Plaza to 2 lanes. Posted detour is via the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, which will have its Nexus hours changed to match those of the closed Whirlpool Bridge. They already successfully reconfigured the lanes to allow those with Nexus cards to bypass the regular lane queues by using the truck lane.

More info: http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/news-links2/news-links/389-auto-generate-from-title

About time. Won't stop me from detouring to the Peace Bridge to avoid the waits, but it'll certainly be nice for my weekend jaunts to Niagara Falls, as we could use the Rainbow Bridge without cash.

Before I had Nexus, I would usually do the Peace Bridge into Canada because it was annoying to have to pay cash at the other crossings. Coming back, I would take whatever was convenient. NFBC website has wait times for all bridges, so if you have a Smartphone (with a data plan for the other country), you can check wait times as you approach.

I use the bridge app all the time to check times. Greatest thing. Spending time in Buffalo, I've discovered that the wait in Lewiston is usually twice that of elsewhere, mainly because there are fewer customs lanes. Even going from UB to Toronto, it's often quicker to go down to the Peace Bridge and fly through customs than pop up to Lewiston and wait at both toll booths and customs for a combined 1-2 hours. During Bills games, the opposite is true and I avoid the Peace Bridge like the plague.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on July 31, 2014, 05:57:11 PM
I discovered earlier today that the Thruway has now joined NYSDOT in putting contract documents (including construction plans and proposals) online:

http://www.thruway.ny.gov/business/contractors/documents/index.shtml

Materials are currently available back to the letting of March 12, 2014.  Despite that, however, I think this page has been set up only very recently, in the last month or so, and the older material has been uploaded in arrears to fulfil a promise to keep older contracts available free of charge until six months after letting.

Edit:  It is as I suspected (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/business/contractors/plansales/index.shtml); online plans debuted on July 16, 2014.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 31, 2014, 06:39:19 PM
Is it just me, or are the signs in the top plans in FHWA font?  I guess I was right about the Thruway dropping Clearview.

There's some good stuff in there.  Looks like a new rest area and a new parking area on I-90.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on July 31, 2014, 08:41:55 PM
Is it just me, or are the signs in the top plans in FHWA font?  I guess I was right about the Thruway dropping Clearview.

This contract is D214331.  Looking at the plans, here is what I see:

*  Sheets 4-6 have sign sketches, all of which show the signs with Clearview.  Note 2 (all sheets) says that the new sign panels will be furnished by the Thruway Authority.  (Are the originals already Clearview?)

*  Sheet 12 has a schedule table for signs that are to be relocated.  The signs shown in the accompanying sketches all use Series E Modified.

The Thruway may very well be getting ready to dump Clearview, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached solely on the basis of this plans set.  Could they be treading water until FHWA actually pulls the trigger on revocation of the Clearview interim approval?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 31, 2014, 09:02:47 PM
Is it just me, or are the signs in the top plans in FHWA font?  I guess I was right about the Thruway dropping Clearview.

This contract is D214331.  Looking at the plans, here is what I see:

*  Sheets 4-6 have sign sketches, all of which show the signs with Clearview.  Note 2 (all sheets) says that the new sign panels will be furnished by the Thruway Authority.  (Are the originals already Clearview?)

*  Sheet 12 has a schedule table for signs that are to be relocated.  The signs shown in the accompanying sketches all use Series E Modified.

The Thruway may very well be getting ready to dump Clearview, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached solely on the basis of this plans set.  Could they be treading water until FHWA actually pulls the trigger on revocation of the Clearview interim approval?

NYSTA has been pretty interesting with their use of Clearview. One of the first signs in Buffalo using the font was replaced at the same time as another, located 1/4 mile west and part of the same contract, that uses Series EM. Since they did the full shift over, everything but numbers within shields has been Clearview. The rest area plans are pretty interesting in that regard. "Text Stop" (formerly known as service/parking area) signs installed within the past couple years are all-Clearview. The signs specified in the contract are E Modified. Again, it doesn't mean anything, but it certainly raises an eyebrow.

On another somewhat-related note, NYSDOT has joined every other state in using Series C for 3di shields. The new BGSes on NY 33 at I-90 have this style for I-290 shields. Regarding these installations, they new signs only feature route numbers, East/West, and control city. Thruway is not mentioned.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on August 05, 2014, 08:32:51 AM
The rest area plans are pretty interesting in that regard. "Text Stop" (formerly known as service/parking area) signs installed within the past couple years are all-Clearview. The signs specified in the contract are E Modified. Again, it doesn't mean anything, but it certainly raises an eyebrow.
If those signs are similar to ones I've seen along I-684; clearly the fabricator screwed up in using Clearview.  Since the lettering for those signs are in ALL CAPS; Clearview is not supposed to be used at all.  Yes, I'm aware that many agencies ignore that FHWA tid-bit; but such restrictions still exist nonetheless.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 05, 2014, 09:28:30 AM
The rest area plans are pretty interesting in that regard. "Text Stop" (formerly known as service/parking area) signs installed within the past couple years are all-Clearview. The signs specified in the contract are E Modified. Again, it doesn't mean anything, but it certainly raises an eyebrow.
If those signs are similar to ones I've seen along I-684; clearly the fabricator screwed up in using Clearview.  Since the lettering for those signs are in ALL CAPS; Clearview is not supposed to be used at all.  Yes, I'm aware that many agencies ignore that FHWA tid-bit; but such restrictions still exist nonetheless.

They are the exact same as those NYSDOT installed on I-86 and I-684, in addition to other highways. Only difference is the Clearview. Slightly more compliant than the Clearview "exit only" tabs on I-90.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on August 06, 2014, 03:28:29 AM
Is it just me, or are the signs in the top plans in FHWA font?  I guess I was right about the Thruway dropping Clearview.

This contract is D214331.  Looking at the plans, here is what I see:

*  Sheets 4-6 have sign sketches, all of which show the signs with Clearview.  Note 2 (all sheets) says that the new sign panels will be furnished by the Thruway Authority.  (Are the originals already Clearview?)

*  Sheet 12 has a schedule table for signs that are to be relocated.  The signs shown in the accompanying sketches all use Series E Modified.

The Thruway may very well be getting ready to dump Clearview, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached solely on the basis of this plans set.  Could they be treading water until FHWA actually pulls the trigger on revocation of the Clearview interim approval?

If I read these plans correctly, they want to move two existing signs back a ways. I don't think they're fabricating new signs for the ones being moved. Those signs are already Series E(M) so that's why they show that way.

Also interesting is that they're including a '09 MUTCD compliant left tab on the exit 12 panel for the NET, but NOT the exit 10 one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 06, 2014, 08:05:44 AM
Speaking of plans...

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262671

D262671 will replace a section of the Robert Moses Parkway with a new "Riverway"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 06, 2014, 08:13:30 AM
Speaking of plans...

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262671

D262671 will replace a section of the Robert Moses Parkway with a new "Riverway"

From the plans, it looks like they're mainly taking out the grade separation and replacing it with a roundabout. Knowing how people in Buffalo treat roundabouts, that might create some problems. They still haven't stopped complaining about the ones on NY 240.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 06, 2014, 08:19:41 AM
Uh oh. Given NYSDOT's pure love of roundabouts, there are many more coming I'm sure.   :no:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 06, 2014, 09:17:39 AM
Uh oh. Given NYSDOT's pure love of roundabouts, there are many more coming I'm sure.   :no:

I think they're great, but people in Buffalo are...different. I can't imagine how negative the reaction would be if a much-needed SPUI was installed. Really depends on the neighborhood. Those in the southern part of Erie County are fine with them, but move north of there and it's a mess. The double roundabout that replaced a nasty intersection on NY 240 continues to confuse people, even though the signage is clear and abundant. I've seen strange things at the ones in Niagara Falls and on the UB campus.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 06, 2014, 12:54:09 PM
Very good point. I have family in WNY (in Olean) and those types of intersections are not as prolific as in eastern NY around Albany - where they seem to be a dime a dozen  :-D - the NY 67 corridor with something like 5 or 6 in a row comes to mind ;)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 06, 2014, 01:50:49 PM
Very good point. I have family in WNY (in Olean) and those types of intersections are not as prolific as in eastern NY around Albany - where they seem to be a dime a dozen  :-D - the NY 67 corridor with something like 5 or 6 in a row comes to mind ;)

NY 67 has 8 in/around Malta. 5 of those are in ~3/4 mile. Leave one and you're queueing for the next. 2 in southern Warren County, a few more in Malta and Round Lake, and seemingly more in Albany County than I can count.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 06, 2014, 06:28:55 PM
Malta loves roundabouts.  There are 11 in the town.  I think they're even getting more.

The northern part of the Robert Moses State Parkway is also being ripped up entirely south of NY 104/NY 18/NY 18F: http://www.niagara-gazette.com/local/x1927887621/Parkway-design-posted
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on August 07, 2014, 01:16:00 AM
Ehm... that article is talking about the southern section, above the falls.

And even then they're not changing much: the western end will be one way westbound (as it already is), traffic calmed a bit compared to it current state, with the disused eastbound roadway removed in favor of a permanent pike/ped path.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 07, 2014, 09:12:28 AM
Ehm... that article is talking about the southern section, above the falls.

There are some documents in there pertaining to the northern section too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 08, 2014, 09:49:05 PM
Ehm... that article is talking about the southern section, above the falls.

There are some documents in there pertaining to the northern section too.

They just did semi-major realignment work and turn lane installation on the northern section, completely removing traffic from the former southbound carriageway. I don't picture them taking out the super two that currently exists any time soon.

That being said, only alternatives 5 and 6 take out any significant amount of the parkway. I think they'd be stupid to take out the section north of the Whirlpool Bridge and retaining the road south of there, while parallel to residential Whirlpool Street, would keep traffic moving at a decent pace through the residential area.

I'm not particularly fond of the ideas put forth in Region 5 lately (NY 198, anyone?), but one would think that they'd want to keep park traffic off of the residential streets.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 10, 2014, 03:12:37 PM
Oddly enough, it seems that only alternative 2 uses that work; all the others would rip it up.

I've long been a proponent of if they're gonna do the super-2, they should do it right.  I liked it when they did the realignment work because it made it a permanent configuration rather than an indefinite work zone configuration (as the rest of it still is).  I favor alternative 2 with a modification to allow Parkway traffic to get to I-190 (ideally both directions, I never understood why the interchange never had the RMSP south to I-190 movement or how they consider it OK to have removed the RMSP north to I-190 movement).  I don't see the RMSP south of I-190 having enough traffic for four lanes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 10, 2014, 03:50:14 PM
Completely agree. As there is no Rochester connection as planned, none of it needs to be more than a super two. Even the section up north rarely has more than a few cars. As it currently exists, the local streets really can't handle any more traffic south of the power plant and it takes twice as long as the parkway. NY 104 is basically a residential street in this area. I wouldn't have a problem with fixing the parking lots and pedestrian crossings, as they could be at grade with button-operated signals.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on August 11, 2014, 07:39:21 PM
I've used the Parkway to get from downtown up to the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge, which requires overshooting the bridge and coming to the bridge on Whirlpool Street from the north. I've determined that the detour there means it is essentially faster to just use Whirlpool/Third from downtown.

My guess as to why they eliminated I-190 access...there is an alternative: the exit to NY 104 south of the power plant. From I-190 to the parkway south, there is no alternate.

I was up there this weekend, and there was a fair amount of traffic on the Parkway north of I-190 going up to Fort Niagara. But not enough to need 4 lanes. The interchange leading into Fort Niagara State Park was probably one of the most overbuilt interchanges I've ever seen. Really, we need a 55 MPH flyunder to connect a barely used road to a state park?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 11, 2014, 09:38:20 PM
I've used the Parkway to get from downtown up to the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge, which requires overshooting the bridge and coming to the bridge on Whirlpool Street from the north. I've determined that the detour there means it is essentially faster to just use Whirlpool/Third from downtown.

My guess as to why they eliminated I-190 access...there is an alternative: the exit to NY 104 south of the power plant. From I-190 to the parkway south, there is no alternate.

I was up there this weekend, and there was a fair amount of traffic on the Parkway north of I-190 going up to Fort Niagara. But not enough to need 4 lanes. The interchange leading into Fort Niagara State Park was probably one of the most overbuilt interchanges I've ever seen. Really, we need a 55 MPH flyunder to connect a barely used road to a state park?

The only movement at the I-190 interchange not provided within half a mile is RM south to I-190. I-190 to south still exists. I used it within the past couple months. The NY 104 interchange south of the power plant provides the movement removed when it became a super two.

That being said, most people using tbe parkway to access the park stuff wouldn't be able to use the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge because it requires a NEXUS membership, which most people up here do not have due to the cost. That movement is primarily locals who would just go up Whirlpool St anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 05:46:32 PM
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update (http://www.gbnrtc.org/planning/metropolitan-transportation-plan/). Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including:


Any thoughts?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on August 12, 2014, 06:15:56 PM
I've used the Parkway to get from downtown up to the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge, which requires overshooting the bridge and coming to the bridge on Whirlpool Street from the north. I've determined that the detour there means it is essentially faster to just use Whirlpool/Third from downtown.

My guess as to why they eliminated I-190 access...there is an alternative: the exit to NY 104 south of the power plant. From I-190 to the parkway south, there is no alternate.

I was up there this weekend, and there was a fair amount of traffic on the Parkway north of I-190 going up to Fort Niagara. But not enough to need 4 lanes. The interchange leading into Fort Niagara State Park was probably one of the most overbuilt interchanges I've ever seen. Really, we need a 55 MPH flyunder to connect a barely used road to a state park?

The only movement at the I-190 interchange not provided within half a mile is RM south to I-190. I-190 to south still exists. I used it within the past couple months. The NY 104 interchange south of the power plant provides the movement removed when it became a super two.

That being said, most people using tbe parkway to access the park stuff wouldn't be able to use the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge because it requires a NEXUS membership, which most people up here do not have due to the cost. That movement is primarily locals who would just go up Whirlpool St anyway.

The Parkway south to I-190 movement might be more than half a mile away, but it is on very high quality 4 lane road with only a couple of signals, connected to the parkway by a flyover. Definitely well served.

Very good point about different user bases for the park attractions and the Whirlpool Bridge. My point was basically that Whirlpool Street is a good fast road, as good (if not better because most of it is 4 lane and you can pass) as the parkway in that general stretch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NYhwyfan on August 12, 2014, 06:20:14 PM
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update (http://www.gbnrtc.org/planning/metropolitan-transportation-plan/). Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including:

  • I-90 widening between I-290 and I-190 to 8-10 lanes
  • Replacing I-90/I-290 interchange (Exit 50)
  • Widening and/or reconstructing the entire length of I-290 to improve LOS
  • Replacing South Grand Island Bridge on I-190

Any thoughts?

Thanks for posting!
I-290 could definitely use widening especially from I-990 to I-90 as well as widening between exits 50 and 53.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 12, 2014, 07:03:35 PM
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update (http://www.gbnrtc.org/planning/metropolitan-transportation-plan/). Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including:

  • I-90 widening between I-290 and I-190 to 8-10 lanes
  • Replacing I-90/I-290 interchange (Exit 50)
  • Widening and/or reconstructing the entire length of I-290 to improve LOS
  • Replacing South Grand Island Bridge on I-190

Any thoughts?
I think I've heard about the I-290/I-90 interchange and South Grand Island Bridge projects before.  I wonder if the Thruway widening is related to their Buffalo Corridor Study that's been on their site since forever.

Of course, simply being on a metropolitan master plan doesn't mean much with NYSDOT in preservation mode.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 07:42:41 PM
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update (http://www.gbnrtc.org/planning/metropolitan-transportation-plan/). Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including:

  • I-90 widening between I-290 and I-190 to 8-10 lanes
  • Replacing I-90/I-290 interchange (Exit 50)
  • Widening and/or reconstructing the entire length of I-290 to improve LOS
  • Replacing South Grand Island Bridge on I-190

Any thoughts?
I think I've heard about the I-290/I-90 interchange and South Grand Island Bridge projects before.  I wonder if the Thruway widening is related to their Buffalo Corridor Study that's been on their site since forever.

Of course, simply being on a metropolitan master plan doesn't mean much with NYSDOT in preservation mode.

Certainly not. Thruway widening and I-90/I-290 interchange are related to the study that was due out a couple months ago, now expected later this year. Thruway Authority seems committed to these projects (as they should be, as both areas are at LOS E or worse).

With I-290, Region 5 is completely replacing a couple bridges around Exit 1, complete with temporary bridges. If someone can find the plans, we could see if there's anything more with that. I'll note that they did some preservation work this summer at the Maple Road bridge without widening, possibly the worst spot on the highway not counting the eastern terminus.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 12, 2014, 09:40:39 PM
FWIW, from what I read at City Data, Buffalo city has started to have small uptics in population.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 28, 2014, 10:39:49 PM
I found something interesting this week that is not on GSV. On Webster Road in Amherst, just west of NY 263, there is a reference marker for NY 952T (I think) in the median if one is heading east. From what I can tell, neither this section of road nor NY 263 was ever NY 952T, which is located over a mile away with no direct connection. While every road on the SUNY Buffalo campus is state-maintained, none are controlled by NYSDOT (with the exception of I-990 Exit 1, NY 263, and NY 952T) and thus none carry a route number. I'll try and get a picture this weekend.

Unlike the rest of Region 5, NY 263 in this area does have ramp reference markers, but this one was certainly for a reference route in the 952 series.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 28, 2014, 11:12:17 PM
That's interesting!

Speaking of Region 5 and reference routes, I found TWO NY950A's

One is at I-86 Exit 17 from interchange to PA state line.
The other is in Niagara Falls - First Street

I will post photos in my Flickr page shortly..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 28, 2014, 11:29:16 PM
NY 950A - the Buffalo edition. Just look far bottom.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/17152429@N03/14882497160/in/photostream/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 28, 2014, 11:47:36 PM
NY 950A - the Buffalo edition. Just look far bottom.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/17152429@N03/14882497160/in/photostream/

Interesting. Except the real NY 950A is a hundred miles south of there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 29, 2014, 09:48:11 AM
Are there any plans to fix the bottleneck on I-95 by the Hutch and Pelham Pkwy?
It's a huge backup for a seemingly small issue. Ie: the on-ramps in the area
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 29, 2014, 05:11:26 PM
Here is the phantom RM for NY 952T. (https://flic.kr/p/oFLfJE) The one way sign is in the median of NY 263.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 29, 2014, 09:20:47 PM
WOW! Excellent find!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 29, 2014, 09:27:09 PM
WOW! Excellent find!

Had to have been installed since September 2007. That's the GSV date. Standard RM post with a spec reflector (of the wrong color). Given that said RM is missing from the northbound side of NY 952T (at least on GSV from 2011), it's very possible that someone grabbed it and moved it over.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on August 29, 2014, 11:01:06 PM
Are there any plans to fix the bottleneck on I-95 by the Hutch and Pelham Pkwy?
It's a huge backup for a seemingly small issue. Ie: the on-ramps in the area

Not to my knowledge. Seemingly small issue, yes, but any fixing it in a way that isn't expensive and highly objected to by members of the community might be rather difficult.

Here's one thing I could see as a reasonable solution:
- remove both of the ramps in the northeast quadrant of the I-95/Pelham Pkwy interchange and the current EB-NB loop
- make the NB to WB movement happen by taking the NB to EB ramp and using what's now just a park access point to turn left onto Pelham Parkway. This turn is already legal but would be beefed up to allow for it becoming the primary means of doing things.
- have the WB to NB movement happen by modifying the same park access to allow WB traffic to get into it. Then restripe the NB-EB ramp (there's a lot of spare space) to allow a lane of traffic going the other way, and build a connection off the back of it to curve that traffic onto I-95 NB
- have the EB to NB movement use this same extended loop.

So now you have something like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/QbGCAgc.jpg)

For extra effectiveness but also extra expense and disruption (probably requires eminent domain), add a C/D road to I-95 north.



I suppose you could also do something more boring and just make the interchange an ordinary parclo with the two ramps for 95 NB in the southeast quadrant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 30, 2014, 09:02:55 AM
Had to have been installed since September 2007. That's the GSV date. Standard RM post with a spec reflector (of the wrong color). Given that said RM is missing from the northbound side of NY 952T (at least on GSV from 2011), it's very possible that someone grabbed it and moved it over.
[/quote]

I had not thought of that - very possible
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 30, 2014, 09:02:52 PM
Spotted this gem en route to a party (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48110267@N04/15062525986/). Erie CR 11 shield, East River Road in Grand Island. Northbound at Ransom Road. This one is pretty out of the way and I don't know of other pictures. Was pretty shocked to see one. I don't know where the other CR 11 sign is/was (the southbound one on Gribblenation), but I know of fewer than half a dozen that remain even if that one is included.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on September 01, 2014, 01:18:46 PM
Spotted this gem en route to a party (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48110267@N04/15062525986/). Erie CR 11 shield, East River Road in Grand Island. Northbound at Ransom Road. This one is pretty out of the way and I don't know of other pictures. Was pretty shocked to see one. I don't know where the other CR 11 sign is/was (the southbound one on Gribblenation), but I know of fewer than half a dozen that remain even if that one is included.
Good find, and that raises a topic: Erie County has too many designated County Roads (mostly unsigned, and only lasting a few miles at best), a situation that truly needs to be rectified/streamlined (no idea how offhand); also, go to the standard CR pentagon, like most everywhere else.   

And while I'm venting, whose bright idea was it for the "Ramp" signs that popped up about 6-7 years ago? (ex.: RAMP Harlem Rd. to NY33 West) Do NYS drivers really need that kind of nannying, or are we truly that stupid not to read the route markers already there? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 01, 2014, 01:29:14 PM
Spotted this gem en route to a party (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48110267@N04/15062525986/). Erie CR 11 shield, East River Road in Grand Island. Northbound at Ransom Road. This one is pretty out of the way and I don't know of other pictures. Was pretty shocked to see one. I don't know where the other CR 11 sign is/was (the southbound one on Gribblenation), but I know of fewer than half a dozen that remain even if that one is included.
Good find, and that raises a topic: Erie County has too many designated County Roads (mostly unsigned, and only lasting a few miles at best), a situation that truly needs to be rectified/streamlined (no idea how offhand); also, go to the standard CR pentagon, like most everywhere else.   

And while I'm venting, whose bright idea was it for the "Ramp" signs that popped up about 6-7 years ago? (ex.: RAMP Harlem Rd. to NY33 West) Do NYS drivers really need that kind of nannying, or are we truly that stupid not to read the route markers already there?

I've been thinking the same thing. The county maintains everything outside of subdivisions, cities, and Amherst (who maintains almost everything in the town). That's probably why everything is in such bad shape. I have a reduced system planned out in my head. If I get around to it today, I'll start a thread with my system and open it to comments/suggestions.

The ramp signs are pretty common in Ohio, but many parts of New York uses ramp reference markers instead of those signs. Interestingly, R1, which is run out of the home office, uses them pretty sparingly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on September 01, 2014, 01:45:00 PM
Ramp signs are becoming norm in Niagara Region of Ontario as well.  It seems NYSDOT is wearing off on the MTO.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 02, 2014, 10:10:52 PM
NY 950A - the Buffalo edition. Just look far bottom.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/17152429@N03/14882497160/in/photostream/


Curious; this should be 952B or perhaps 951A.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 03, 2014, 09:46:39 AM
I was wondering if that was mismarked. (is that even a word?  :-D)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 03, 2014, 02:41:38 PM
Some streets in downtown Rochester that were converted to one-way in the 60s are about to be converted back: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/09/02/st-paul-north-clinton-become-two-way/14993773/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 03, 2014, 09:46:08 PM
Some streets in downtown Rochester that were converted to one-way in the 60s are about to be converted back: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/09/02/st-paul-north-clinton-become-two-way/14993773/

They recently did this to a short section of Main Street in Buffalo (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.895513,-78.871134,3a,49.2y,189.16h,85.5t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sG7rjjzE7PSzHzQ9x5yoINQ!2e0). As you can tell by the signage, it was one way northbound for a block from the mid-80s to a couple years ago and all SB traffic was forced to turn right. There's probably an article on it somewhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 03, 2014, 10:12:47 PM
Some streets in downtown Rochester that were converted to one-way in the 60s are about to be converted back: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/09/02/st-paul-north-clinton-become-two-way/14993773/

No shit? I've been out of town for a long time…
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 07, 2014, 11:29:21 AM
Staten Island NY-440 work:

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/exclusive_west_shore_expresswa.html

Not sure if this was discussed earlier. 

Also, this swath of cleared land in NJ, and the stub (Park and ride) at the south end of NY-44, are these connected to an expressway that was never built??

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4805791,-74.2903531,2613m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 07, 2014, 12:27:15 PM
 I believe that swath is the right-of-way of the Camden and Amboy, New Jersey's first railroad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on September 07, 2014, 12:35:08 PM
Blast from the past:  as-builts for early NYC freeways (Bronx River Parkway extension, Major Deegan, Bruckner, Sheridan, Cross-Bronx, etc.) under "Supplemental Information" here:

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_DIGITAL_DOCS.show?p_arg_names=p_d_id&p_arg_values=D262631

Thank Santa Claus or, if you prefer, the uneasy ghost of Bob Moses, whose signature is on the title sheet of about half of these plans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 07, 2014, 01:15:08 PM
To quote Jackie Gleason on The Honeymooners: "hummmmina-hummmmmina-abbabababaybababbb"
 :-D :clap:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 07, 2014, 02:59:02 PM
I think it's interesting that Cuomo is talking about reducing congestion on NY 440 being critical to NYC and yet the West Shore Expressway was the least congested road I have ever seen in NYC.  It actually felt rural when I was on it on the way to the NYC meet.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 07, 2014, 04:39:41 PM
If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 07, 2014, 05:30:02 PM
If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.
I've been saying that for years. He should also extend the West Shore Expressway northeast to the Willowbrook Expressway, the Willowbrook Expressway to the Great Kills Park, and revive the Wolfe's Pond Parkway, and possibly even the Shore Front Drive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 07, 2014, 06:47:21 PM
If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.
I've been saying that for years. He should also extend the West Shore Expressway northeast to the Willowbrook Expressway, the Willowbrook Expressway to the Great Kills Park, and revive the Wolfe's Pond Parkway, and possibly even the Shore Front Drive.

He can't do that, at least not during an election year. His environmentalist friends would get everyone to vote for Teachout instead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on September 07, 2014, 08:02:05 PM

I think it's interesting that Cuomo is talking about reducing congestion on NY 440 being critical to NYC and yet the West Shore Expressway was the least congested road I have ever seen in NYC.  It actually felt rural when I was on it on the way to the NYC meet.
440 is awesome. Newly paved and low volume. As for 278... While they are replacing the Goethals just blow up the whole damn road and start over. The condition of that road... I don't think anyone would notice if it was blown up. Maybe even make it smoother


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 07, 2014, 10:12:20 PM

If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.

What should he do if he wants to support a politically realistic proposal instead?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2014, 10:56:55 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=4989&p_is_digital=Y

the ramp to I-84 from I-684 NB is being fixed.  The sharp curve and the mid-1980s reflecotized button copy are going away.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 01, 2014, 01:59:41 PM
Is something up with NY 279 in Waterport?  The 511 site doesn't show any closures, but Google Maps shows the bridge as not existing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 01, 2014, 02:49:17 PM

If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.

What should he do if he wants to support a politically realistic proposal instead?
It's pathetic that we've gotten to a point where converting limited-access highways into dead end streets is considered "realistic."


the ramp to I-84 from I-684 NB is being fixed.  The sharp curve and the mid-1980s reflecotized button copy are going away.
NYSDOT Region 10 should get rid of the sharp curve on the ramp between westbound Northern State Parkway and Sunken Meadow State Parkway. The last time I checked, there was still enough room to put a bridge for the ramp under Harned Road. While they're at it, they should do the same with the east to southbound ramp between the Southern State Parkway and NY 135 with a bridge under Seaman's Neck Road.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 01, 2014, 02:52:40 PM

If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.

What should he do if he wants to support a politically realistic proposal instead?
It's pathetic that we've gotten to a point where converting limited-access highways into dead end streets is considered "realistic."

Welcome to New York. Politics rule everything. Have to appease the special interest groups.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 01, 2014, 05:15:09 PM
Any attempt to revive the Korean War Veterans Parkway extension (or any NYC freeway project) would likely be met with stiff opposition, and the budget is tight anyways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 01, 2014, 10:18:17 PM
Blast from the past:  as-builts for early NYC freeways (Bronx River Parkway extension, Major Deegan, Bruckner, Sheridan, Cross-Bronx, etc.) under "Supplemental Information" here:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_DIGITAL_DOCS.show?p_arg_names=p_d_id&p_arg_values=D262631

Excellent find J N! 
Now my OCD is settling in:

These two signs....

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3931/15411683011_2c33dd93e8_z.jpg)
and
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2949/15414500612_fc71a72124_z.jpg)

I have been able to find out based on J N Winkler's link is that the KEEP LEFT and KEEP RIGHT overlays and EXIT 6B exit tab were added on between 1975-1978.  The signs predate 1971 as the plans were first checked off as reviewed in 1971 and they say those signs are already existing. The contract was awarded in 1974 for the overlays and completed by June 1978.

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2943/15414834585_b570f15a21.jpg)

So my question is this, how far back do these signs go?  I ask because wasn't I-278 originally signed as I-878 in this area?  So if the sign is original did they replace the I-878 with a button copy I-278 shield?

These signs were taken down in August of this year sadly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 03, 2014, 08:55:49 PM
Doofy, I think you might be mistaken about I-878 from the old days. The Bruckner Expwy. to the Triboro Br. I believe was always I-278, going all the way back to the first BGS's in the 1960's.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 04, 2014, 11:17:29 AM
I have a 1967 Hagstrom that shows I-878 on the Bruckner east of the Sheridan.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 04, 2014, 11:29:28 AM
I have a 1967 Hagstrom that shows I-878 on the Bruckner east of the Sheridan.
This is correct.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 06, 2014, 09:25:12 PM
Thanks guys; I stand corrected. But do those old maps show the Bruckner Expwy. as I-278 west of the Sheridan Expwy. to the Triboro Br?

And wasn't the Nassau Expwy. in Queens also signed as I-878 originally? Today it's signed as NY-878.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 06, 2014, 10:33:44 PM
What was the Sheridan Expressway shown as?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 07, 2014, 12:10:11 AM
The map I have has 278 on the Bruckner west of the Sheridan. It has no shield on the Sheridan itself, leaving it somewhat ambiguous.

Can't comment on what the current 878 was since it's only a map of The Bronx.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 07, 2014, 12:22:43 AM
I think at the time of Duke's 1967 map and at the time (mid-1970s) of the contract plans I posted earlier, the Nassau was signed as I-78.  Actually I think it was signed that way up until the mid-1980s.  The I-878 designation didn't come into play until the late 80s.  I'm not sure when NY-878 shields went up.

This photo shows a ghost I-78 shield....look closely.

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2924/14022861829_f2fdb10a94_z.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 07, 2014, 09:23:43 AM
New New York topic; Was the Suffolk County Department of Public Works ever planning to extend Nicolls Road (SCR 97) southeast of Montauk Highway into Blue Point itself? That widened median looks like an incomplete diamond interchange, and moreso when it was originally built.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on October 07, 2014, 11:51:30 AM
Drove the Cross Bronx from the GWB to the Whitestone Expy the other day. It looks like NYSDOT replaced all of the signage past from the PA's jurisdiction through to the Bruckner interchange. I think there were some pictures scattered in this thread earlier this year. I'm most impressed that they acutally acknowledge US1 on the BGS's at the Jerome Ave exit now. Also, it looks like they've fixed all the exit numbering back to mileage based and not sequential (if I'm not mistaken, the exits on the PA part under the apartments is still wrong, though).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 07, 2014, 01:00:55 PM
Some PA signs have been fixed back to mile-based due to the Alexander Hamilton Bridge project.  Most are still wrong.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 07, 2014, 07:40:07 PM
The map I have has 278 on the Bruckner west of the Sheridan. It has no shield on the Sheridan itself, leaving it somewhat ambiguous.

Can't comment on what the current 878 was since it's only a map of The Bronx.
278 used the Sheridan, Nassau was 78, as was the Clearview.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J Route Z on October 11, 2014, 08:33:04 PM
Not sure if this was mentioned before, but how come there is a "Dept. of Transportation" decal on every single traffic sign in NYC? (strangely except street signs attached to poles) Actually there are a few "one way" signs that don't have it. But a lot do. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 11, 2014, 09:00:08 PM
Not sure if this was mentioned before, but how come there is a "Dept. of Transportation" decal on every single traffic sign in NYC? (strangely except street signs attached to poles) Actually there are a few "one way" signs that don't have it. But a lot do.

Indicates ownership. If a sign is stolen, it will be recognized as a stolen sign if someone tries to sell it. Far from the only jurisdiction with an identifying mark. In New York, the Town of Hempstead puts "TOH" in the same location, NYSTA puts it's acronym at the bottom of (at least newer) signs, and Erie County puts "EC" on new signs.

TL;DR: It's a branding mark so it can't be stolen and resold as a generic sign
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 26, 2014, 02:11:44 PM
Another question;

Before the Throgs Neck Bridge was built, there used to be this bi-directional southbound off-ramp leading to Bell Boulevard. Should that ramp be revived, but only for traffic coming off the Throgs Neck Bridge?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on October 27, 2014, 12:48:17 PM
I think at the time of Duke's 1967 map and at the time (mid-1970s) of the contract plans I posted earlier, the Nassau was signed as I-78.  Actually I think it was signed that way up until the mid-1980s.  The I-878 designation didn't come into play until the late 80s.  I'm not sure when NY-878 shields went up.

This photo shows a ghost I-78 shield....look closely.

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2924/14022861829_f2fdb10a94_z.jpg)
Can BARELY see it - won't spoil it for other searchers...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 27, 2014, 08:09:14 PM
Another question;

Before the Throgs Neck Bridge was built, there used to be this bi-directional southbound off-ramp leading to Bell Boulevard. Should that ramp be revived, but only for traffic coming off the Throgs Neck Bridge?

No. It's a RIRO and it would be really hard to add a deceleration lane. I see it causing more problems than if one just got off the Clearview at the next exit and took local streets or immediately got back on, exiting at Willets Point Boulevard. I picture a bunch of rear-end accidents if the ramp is reopened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: AMLNet49 on October 27, 2014, 10:20:00 PM
I don't know if anyone else is like me, but in New York/New Jersey, I see the state route versions of 3DIs as just part of the 3DI because most of the 3DIs don't even meet Interstate standards anyway so it really doesn't make a difference in my eyes if it says NY 878 or I-878, NJ-495 or I-495, because it's the interstate number in practice and in the eyes of everyone who drives it
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 27, 2014, 10:37:55 PM
It's likely that only a tiny minority thinks of New Jersey's I-495 anymore at all, and about as many think of NJ 495 in the same context as New York's present I-495. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on October 27, 2014, 10:40:33 PM
Is not NJ 495 still called Route 3?

Also is the section of I-495 that is technically NY 495 regarded as it because of the RIRO under the Pulaski Bridge near the Tunnel Plaza?  Even though it is signed as I-495, the maps still show it as NY 495 and that quick turn after the toll really would not qualify as interstate standards I would imagine.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 27, 2014, 10:46:25 PM
Is not NJ 495 still called Route 3?

Never heard it referred to as such. NJ 3 ends at US 1-9. I've always heard "495" or "Lincoln Tunnel approach".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 27, 2014, 10:48:35 PM
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 27, 2014, 10:49:26 PM
(With "the Helix" referred to separately, of course.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 28, 2014, 12:13:53 AM
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 
I always say "take Route 3 to the tunnel." Picked it up from my parents, who predate 1980, but I still catch myself using it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 28, 2014, 12:55:08 PM
I don't know if anyone else is like me, but in New York/New Jersey, I see the state route versions of 3DIs as just part of the 3DI because most of the 3DIs don't even meet Interstate standards anyway so it really doesn't make a difference in my eyes if it says NY 878 or I-878, NJ-495 or I-495, because it's the interstate number in practice and in the eyes of everyone who drives it
That's how it works in NY, especially since everything is "route X".  Most people from Rochester don't consider I-590 and NY 590 to be separate roads but rather one continuous road (and the mileposts reflect that).  Ditto for 390, 690, 890, and 787.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 28, 2014, 08:17:52 PM
I don't know if anyone else is like me, but in New York/New Jersey, I see the state route versions of 3DIs as just part of the 3DI because most of the 3DIs don't even meet Interstate standards anyway so it really doesn't make a difference in my eyes if it says NY 878 or I-878, NJ-495 or I-495, because it's the interstate number in practice and in the eyes of everyone who drives it
That's how it works in NY, especially since everything is "route X".  Most people from Rochester don't consider I-590 and NY 590 to be separate roads but rather one continuous road (and the mileposts reflect that).  Ditto for 390, 690, 890, and 787.

Add I-481/NY 481 to that list, though it's only NY 481 that has mileposts and not I-481 at the moment.    I-690 and NY 690 both recently received new mileposts combining both routes into one milepost scheme.

I-790 and (future) NY 790 could probably be added to that list someday if the plan to extend NY 790 over NY 49 and NY 365 ever comes to fruition. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 29, 2014, 12:38:10 AM
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 
I always say "take Route 3 to the tunnel." Picked it up from my parents, who predate 1980, but I still catch myself using it.

I don't see this phrasing as meaning to imply that 495 is part of 3 so much as it is just shorthand. "Take route 3 to route 495 to the tunnel" is more technically correct but also more wordy. "Take route 3 to the tunnel" ignores the 495 designation but sufficiently conveys the necessary information, because drivers will clearly see signs saying "Lincoln Tunnel" when they get to the 3/495 junction.

Hell, when I write down or describe my routes, I often omit and leave implied little steps. I've stated "I-80 to the George Washington Bridge" plenty of times. This neglects to explicitly state that one technically must get on I-95 first, but it isn't necessary to say that since there isn't another logical route to get from 80 to the GWB.

Indeed, this is something I find annoying about the "step by step" directions generated by computers. They relay the most obvious steps with equal prominence to the most counterintuitive ones. It's as if they are written for mindless idiots who have no clue how to navigate and are just blindly following instructions or something.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 29, 2014, 01:01:11 AM
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 
I always say "take Route 3 to the tunnel." Picked it up from my parents, who predate 1980, but I still catch myself using it.

I don't see this phrasing as meaning to imply that 495 is part of 3 so much as it is just shorthand. "Take route 3 to route 495 to the tunnel" is more technically correct but also more wordy. "Take route 3 to the tunnel" ignores the 495 designation but sufficiently conveys the necessary information, because drivers will clearly see signs saying "Lincoln Tunnel" when they get to the 3/495 junction.

Hell, when I write down or describe my routes, I often omit and leave implied little steps. I've stated "I-80 to the George Washington Bridge" plenty of times. This neglects to explicitly state that one technically must get on I-95 first, but it isn't necessary to say that since there isn't another logical route to get from 80 to the GWB.

Indeed, this is something I find annoying about the "step by step" directions generated by computers. They relay the most obvious steps with equal prominence to the most counterintuitive ones. It's as if they are written for mindless idiots who have no clue how to navigate and are just blindly following instructions or something.
No dude, I say "take Route 3 to Hoboken" too. Trust me, 495 never enters my consciousness. I've heard it as "I-495" more often than "Route 3", but nonzero times.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on October 29, 2014, 08:24:45 AM
Indeed, this is something I find annoying about the "step by step" directions generated by computers. They relay the most obvious steps with equal prominence to the most counterintuitive ones. It's as if they are written for mindless idiots who have no clue how to navigate and are just blindly following instructions or something.
They are and GPS navigational systems have further compounded the situation IMHO.

Then again, one needs to realize that not every driver out there is a road geek/enthusiast/historian nor a civil/transportation engineer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on October 29, 2014, 08:36:10 AM
On to something else speaking of the LIE.  I noticed that on Google maps that both the Queens- Midtown Tunnel and the LIRR East River Tunnels criss cross under the east shore of the East River.  Both the highway tubes and the rail tunnels cross paths with each other similar to the FDR Drive and the Brooklyn- Battery Tunnels do under the Staten Island Ferry Terminal in Manhattan.

I was wondering if anyone knows for sure which tunnels are on top and which ones are on the bottom?  I am guessing that the Railroad is on top because of the grade factor and that it was built first.  The Queens- Midtown was built in the late 40's decades after PRR built the rail under the river.  Trains as you know have to have a shallow grade over road vehicles so given where the portals of the rail tunnels located just to the north of the LIE just east of the Pulaski Bridge shows me that there is not enough distance for the LIRR to drop below the I-495 tunnels as well.

However, I cannot find any information on building designs for the underground tunnels and, of course, Google makes it all in one D so you cannot see which is higher and which is lower.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 29, 2014, 09:10:21 AM
On to something else speaking of the LIE.  I noticed that on Google maps that both the Queens- Midtown Tunnel and the LIRR East River Tunnels criss cross under the east shore of the East River.  Both the highway tubes and the rail tunnels cross paths with each other similar to the FDR Drive and the Brooklyn- Battery Tunnels do under the Staten Island Ferry Terminal in Manhattan.

I was wondering if anyone knows for sure which tunnels are on top and which ones are on the bottom?  I am guessing that the Railroad is on top because of the grade factor and that it was built first.  The Queens- Midtown was built in the late 40's decades after PRR built the rail under the river.  Trains as you know have to have a shallow grade over road vehicles so given where the portals of the rail tunnels located just to the north of the LIE just east of the Pulaski Bridge shows me that there is not enough distance for the LIRR to drop below the I-495 tunnels as well.

However, I cannot find any information on building designs for the underground tunnels and, of course, Google makes it all in one D so you cannot see which is higher and which is lower.

Not necessarily. Closest rail portal is ~1/4 mile east of the Midtown Tunnel portal. Google doesn't show the exact location, either. I can tell you that the tunnels don't line up with the actual location on the Manhattan end, as the rail tunnels are directly under 32nd and 33rd Streets. Having been through the rail tunnels, I'm pretty sure that they actually run under the toll plaza and/or elevated section, mainly because they have to align with the Manhattan street grid (and I can tell you from construction pictures that they do).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 29, 2014, 11:36:54 PM
Indeed, this is just fuzzy map data on Google's part. The tunnels in real life do not cross. The Queens Midtown tunnel is rendered correctly. The rail tunnels, however, continue under 32nd and 33rd Streets to the East River, proceed diagonally under the river towards Long Island City terminal, and then more or less follow the route of the above ground tracks to the tunnel portals in Sunnyside yard. As you say, they cross under the toll plaza.

The 11th Street cut on the R train isn't shown correctly either. It joins the N/Q west of Silvercup Studios, not east.

Google often doesn't render the location of rail tunnels quite right since they can't determine it from their satellite imagery and don't have access or rights to detailed drawings that would show it better. They really only know where the stations are and have to guess as to what's in between. Sometimes they guess wrong.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on November 01, 2014, 12:27:21 AM
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 

I've always heard it called 495 (i.e., there's a 30 minute delay at the outbound Lincoln because of an accident on 495). The helix is the helix though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 01, 2014, 07:21:28 PM
Sad news from Niagara Falls: only one button copy sign remains on the North Grand Island Bridge (NB immediately after the toll booths). All button copy advance signs for Exit 21 have been replaced with Clearview.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on November 02, 2014, 01:46:44 AM
Is the Welcome to CITY OF Niagara Falls button copy sign still there or has that been replaced too?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 05, 2014, 01:02:29 PM
There was a MASSIVE accident on the Northway this morning, so bad that it closed all but one lane and backed traffic up all the way to Clifton Park.  This just highlights the need for an alternate route that can be used in the event of an incident that stops traffic on the Northway, because right now there really isn't one.  I've tried two possible ones and can't think of a third.  The first I tried is to get off at exit 5 (6-5 is rarely bad due to the exit only lane, and I rarely know about congestion in advance of there since that's where I get on; it can be bypassed with Wade Rd, but this is not practical if you don't already live there due to the exit only lane and the fact that a left from NY 7 to Wade requires sitting at a three minute long traffic light), continue straight down the c/d road to 4, and meander to Wolf Rd.  Problem: clearing the Albany-Shaker Rd interchange requires sitting through no less than 4 traffic lights, potentially sitting through multiple cycles for each one.  The only other possible detour that doesn't go way out of the way is Old Niskayuna Rd (accessible from exit 5) to Maxwell Rd to Wolf Rd via Albany-Shaker Rd.  Problem: this morning it took me two cycles to get through the light at Old Niskayuna and Maxwell, and at least FIVE to make the left onto Wolf Rd.  Clearly, some detours need to be signed/built, with the traffic lights dynamically controlled to prioritize Northway traffic in the event of an incident.

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Crash-plugs-the-Northway-5872484.php#photo-7101536
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 06, 2014, 08:40:39 AM
This situation certainly speaks to the need for adaptive traffic signals.  IMO, New York is among the worst states for signal timing/progression.  But aside from that, alternatives are limited and not really cost-effective given that these situations remain (thankfully) fairly rare, all things considered.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:43:28 PM
Thankfully much of those issues will be resolved in the next decade with the Maxwell Rd extension (allowing traffic to bypass most of Wolf Rd) and the Exit 3/4 redesign that's coming up.  I've ended up attempting to bypass the Northway at least three other times in the morning this past six months and also a couple times in the evening; none of them nearly this bad, though.

Some election news: Elise Stefanic (R) beat out Aaron Wolfe (D) in the North Country's congressional race, which could have implications for any road improvements up there; Wolfe supported building I-98 but Stefanic wants traffic to stay on US 11.  Not that anything's likely to be done in the near term, but now it's even less likely.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 06, 2014, 04:45:14 PM
Thankfully much of those issues will be resolved in the next decade with the Maxwell Rd extension (allowing traffic to bypass most of Wolf Rd) and the Exit 3/4 redesign that's coming up.  I've ended up attempting to bypass the Northway at least three other times in the morning this past six months and also a couple times in the evening; none of them nearly this bad, though.

Some election news: Elise Stefanic (R) beat out Aaron Wolfe (D) in the North Country's congressional race, which could have implications for any road improvements up there; Wolfe supported building I-98 but Stefanic wants traffic to stay on US 11.  Not that anything's likely to be done in the near term, but now it's even less likely.
How often do you have a (D) pro-highway and an (R) anti-highway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 06, 2014, 10:06:42 PM
Would the I-98 go as far east as the I-89 in Vermont?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 06, 2014, 10:39:01 PM
Would the I-98 go as far east as the I-89 in Vermont?

Doubtful. Everything I've seen has it staying in New York. Northern New England could certainly use an Interstate to parallel US 2, though. Same thing with cancelled I-92 and US 4.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 07, 2014, 08:44:07 AM
Quote
Northern New England could certainly use an Interstate to parallel US 2, though.  Same thing with cancelled I-92 and US 4.

Living here, I'd disagree.  There just isn't the population, traffic, or growth potential to justify the cost.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 07, 2014, 05:15:02 PM
Quote
Northern New England could certainly use an Interstate to parallel US 2, though.  Same thing with cancelled I-92 and US 4.

Living here, I'd disagree.  There just isn't the population, traffic, or growth potential to justify the cost.

I-92/US 4, yes. It would also pull traffic off VT-NH 9. I-98/US 2, no.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 07, 2014, 11:09:02 PM
How often do you have a (D) pro-highway and an (R) anti-highway?
I know. It's usually the opposite.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 07, 2014, 11:42:33 PM
Does Stefanic think that ON 401 is adequate for the needs of the area?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on November 08, 2014, 12:42:07 AM
Stefanik is a relative outsider bought by special interests; she knows very little about this district.

Of course, Mr. Woolf is an outsider as well, so...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 08, 2014, 10:37:37 AM
Quote
I-92/US 4, yes. It would also pull traffic off VT-NH 9. I-98/US 2, no.

US 4 could use some improvement, yes...but there isn't enough here to justify a full-fledged Interstate.  Not for the cost required to plow over the Whites and adjacent ridges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 08, 2014, 10:44:44 AM
The I-98 debate has been going on in some form for decades. I'm assuming Stefanic was brought in by the small business owners in the towns along US 11, who believe that an expressway would reduce business [as if people don't already try and get around US 11...]. My counterargument is that I-98 would draw people from NY 37, ON 401, and A-20, actually increasing the amount of potential customers. If the Plattsburgh AFB was still open, you could use national defense as a reason to build it (fast route between Fort Drum and Plattsburgh). On paper, US 11 has relatively low traffic counts, but the small towns can't handle the through traffic. If you're really  lucky, it'll take under 3.5 hours to get between I-781 and I-87 and an hour and a half to travel the ~60 miles separating I-781 and Potsdam. That's too long, especially with the number of colleges up there and its status as the most direct route across the North Country.

Quote
I-92/US 4, yes. It would also pull traffic off VT-NH 9. I-98/US 2, no.

US 4 could use some improvement, yes...but there isn't enough here to justify a full-fledged Interstate.  Not for the cost required to plow over the Whites and adjacent ridges.

At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 08, 2014, 10:49:49 AM
Quote
On paper, US 11 has relatively low traffic counts, but the small towns can't handle the through traffic.

I did not see this as an issue when I traveled the corridor this past spring.

Quote
At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.

Connecting 87 to Rutland is probably justified, but Rutland to WRJ while busy is not enough to warrant a full freeway, nevermind that the topography would make it exhorbantly expensive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 08, 2014, 10:57:09 AM
Quote
On paper, US 11 has relatively low traffic counts, but the small towns can't handle the through traffic.

I did not see this as an issue when I traveled the corridor this past spring.

Quote
At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.

Connecting 87 to Rutland is probably justified, but Rutland to WRJ while busy is not enough to warrant a full freeway, nevermind that the topography would make it exhorbantly expensive.

Try going through there during the summer or when there's something at any one of the colleges. There have been times where it's taken me half an hour to travel less than 2 miles.

I know that part of Vermont pretty well. Terrain isn't nice, traffic is high enough to make it rough at times but not high enough for an Interstate, and it can be hell during summer or winter weekends. Ideally, I'd want it to be at least 3 lanes for as much of it as possible (the Quechee Gorge bridge could remain as-is due to cost) just so there's a chance to pass slow vehicles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 08, 2014, 12:29:07 PM
Stefanic has been campaigning on the small business crowd that thinks the sky will fall if their towns are bypassed.  The Yes 11 group even wants to prohibit all vehicles except trucks from using the planned Canton/Potsdam bypass.  North Country politics is interesting because everyone in the area is either a farmer, small business owner, student, or professor.  Other professions are VERY rare compared to anywhere else in the state.  As such, most of the people who need to travel are somehow affiliated with the colleges.  There's some opposition from people who think there will be sprawl, but it's dwarfed by the small businesses who don't realize that the remoteness of the area has left it as depressed as the towns they claim are suffering due to the interstates and people who don't want the area connected to the rest of NY.

Honestly, the sprawl is there now.  Gouverneur, Potsdam, Malone, Massena, and Ogdensburg all have a bit of it (the former three because they're the largest towns on US 11 and the latter two because of traffic with Canada).  It would also provide the bypass Malone needs to ban trucks on US 11 like they've been wanting to do.  Traffic, while good much of the time, can get REALLY bad if all the colleges let out at once, as happens during Thanksgiving.  It used to take me an hour and a half to get from Clarkson to I-81 (I saw a decrease in 10-20 minutes of travel time when I-781 was finally finished), with most of the delays coming from Canton and Gouverneur.  US 11 can be very trying if you're stuck behind a slowpoke and don't have a gap in the traffic at a place where you can pass, and that happens nearly every time you leave the previously mentioned towns (as well as between I-781 and Philadelphia).

I think the idea of extending the US 4 freeway was to bypass Rutland.

Does Stefanic think that ON 401 is adequate for the needs of the area?
Believe it or not, the area is effectively a part of Canada every time there's a snowstorm, and it's very common for people who need to fly in or out to use Montreal's airport year round.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 08, 2014, 03:54:39 PM
Quote
I-92/US 4, yes. It would also pull traffic off VT-NH 9. I-98/US 2, no.

US 4 could use some improvement, yes...but there isn't enough here to justify a full-fledged Interstate.  Not for the cost required to plow over the Whites and adjacent ridges.
I think there is enough. There's more than many other places (I-91 in northern VT) that have justified Interstates. The terrain can't be any worse than I-89. Feds ought to contribute 80% and put it on the NHS.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 08, 2014, 04:33:47 PM
US 4 is on the NHS.

PS: it's debatable whether I-91 in northern VT, I-95 in northern Maine, etc. are justified.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 08, 2014, 05:10:47 PM
This debate happens over and over here, and somehow this is the first time I've seen it happen where no one has mentioned the biggest likely obstacle — community opposition. I do realize that not everyone in Vermont is a hippie, but there sure are enough people dedicated to environmental preservation there that this has about as much chance of being built as Killington has of moving to Iowa.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 08, 2014, 05:52:26 PM
In a way I have to admire Vermont in their preservation of their environment.  They were the only one to take a stand against the retail giant that many people hate as much as shop at when they first expanded to Vermont.

I have seen what development can do as Orlando and especially Clermont in Florida have had on the region. 

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 08, 2014, 06:22:54 PM
In a way I have to admire Vermont in their preservation of their environment.

Certainly isn't a bad thing. That's why New York made Adirondack and Catskill Parks- protect the natural environment for generations to come. You only have to look at Pennsylvania and West Virginia with their many abandoned mines to see that it certainly paid off for New York and Vermont. Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks. If the environment went down the drain, so would the economies of Vermont and New York north of I-90.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2014, 09:44:38 AM
In a way I have to admire Vermont in their preservation of their environment.

Certainly isn't a bad thing. That's why New York made Adirondack and Catskill Parks- protect the natural environment for generations to come. You only have to look at Pennsylvania and West Virginia with their many abandoned mines to see that it certainly paid off for New York and Vermont. Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks. If the environment went down the drain, so would the economies of Vermont and New York north of I-90.
Absolutely, that is why Vermont did not want WalMart to come in as it would have killed the Downtown Shopping that is a big part of the state's economy. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on November 09, 2014, 03:56:57 PM
At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.

Agree there should be a connector between the end of the US 4 expressway on the VT/NY border and the Northway.  As far as extending it east of Rutland, I don't really see that need.  Rutland is a good stopping point for an expressway.  It would serve Rutland and during winter, ski traffic tends to split in the Rutland area, with some going south towards Okemo and others going east or north. 

A north/south bypass of Rutland would be nice, perhaps starting at the end of the present US 4 expressway, and heading east then north.  That would be enough for now. 

As far as extending the expressway into New York, how would it go?  A straight shot west towards the Northway, or a route roughly following US 4/NY 149 down to Glens Falls? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 09, 2014, 04:14:36 PM
Following US 4 and NY 149 would be easier due to the Adirondack Park boundaries and Lake George.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 09, 2014, 04:15:37 PM
At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.

Agree there should be a connector between the end of the US 4 expressway on the VT/NY border and the Northway.  As far as extending it east of Rutland, I don't really see that need.  Rutland is a good stopping point for an expressway.  It would serve Rutland and during winter, ski traffic tends to split in the Rutland area, with some going south towards Okemo and others going east or north. 

A north/south bypass of Rutland would be nice, perhaps starting at the end of the present US 4 expressway, and heading east then north.  That would be enough for now. 

As far as extending the expressway into New York, how would it go?  A straight shot west towards the Northway, or a route roughly following US 4/NY 149 down to Glens Falls?

Given what the Town of Queensbury and Warren County want, it would probably be best if it paralleled NY 149 to the Northway. Run it on the south side and there could be very little impact to residences or protected land. Being from the town, I'd have it break off just south of current Exit 20, parallel Glen Lake Road on undeveloped land up to NY 149, and stay far enough away from NY 149 to avoid entering Adirondack Park. Once it hits Washington County, it's a pretty straight shot up US 4 to Vermont. Exits at US 9 (to/from east), Warren CR 7 or 63, NY 9L, current US 4 just north of Fort Ann, NY 22, Washington CR 12 or
18, and VT 4A

You'd never be able to build it straight over. Not only would the expressway run straight into the Adirondacks and Lake George, but it would avoid population centers entirely. Part of the reason for a bypass is to get some of the medium-distance traffic off of NY 149, which is at/above capacity west of US 4, in addition to bypassing US 4 north of Fort Ann.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on November 09, 2014, 08:06:57 PM
Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.

Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 09, 2014, 08:31:39 PM
Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.

Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?

That's an ongoing issue. The original purpose of the Adirondack Park Agency was to prevent large-scale housing development that nearly occurred after I-87 was built. Their main concern is land outside of already-developed areas, but everything has to go through them. Controversial? Yes. Has it stopped a LOT of large housing projects and golf courses? Yes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 09, 2014, 11:19:01 PM
What is the process for getting an improvement approved? Is it a rubber stamp (as long as it's something like a shed) or is it common for the government to not allow you to build a shed in your backyard?

And for my money, I'd say that the stretch from the Adirondacks in New York across to the White Mountains in New Hampshire is the most beautiful area in the country.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 09, 2014, 11:39:18 PM
What is the process for getting an improvement approved? Is it a rubber stamp (as long as it's something like a shed) or is it common for the government to not allow you to build a shed in your backyard?

And for my money, I'd say that the stretch from the Adirondacks in New York across to the White Mountains in New Hampshire is the most beautiful area in the country.

Stuff like that is usually approved, but it still has to go through APA. A property owner actually has to submit plans to the APA's office near Saranac Lake for approval. They don't care much about what happens in the incorporated villages or built-up areas, but once you get away from civilization, they'll pretty much decline new construction unless it's replacing something else or there's a darn good reason to build it (read: recreation and tourist facilities).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 03:53:26 AM
Hey here in Florida we have homeowners groups that you need permission from just to paint your house a different color.  Also sheds are forbidden and even satellite dishes were originally banned from being set up on the side of your house until the technology war won out.  Then there are some where you cannot even fly a large flag of the US on your own property and in one case a guy, who was a proud veteran, received a notice from his association to kindly not fly it or face a fine.

If homeowners groups down here can do it, I would bet they can do it in New York as well.  Even more so being that its at a state level that the bans are made.  With homeowner groups its not and yet they managed to stop a man with his own flag which is your First Amendment right to do so and, of course, the flag is one of the most important freedom emblems around and has been respected by our law since George Washington's time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2014, 07:42:54 AM

Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.

Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?

How is this any different from zoning?  Just because you own your house, you should be able to knock it down and put up a 24-hour gas station/strip club/liquor store right in the middle of your residential street?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 10, 2014, 07:49:46 AM
Quote
As far as extending the expressway into New York, how would it go?  A straight shot west towards the Northway, or a route roughly following US 4/NY 149 down to Glens Falls?

Personally, I'd take a different approach.  Continue south from Fort Ann along or near the canal, then cut west near Fort Edward parallel to NY 197, meeting I-87 in the vicinity of Exit 17.  More direct for Rutland-bound traffic and it's easier terrain.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 09:07:22 AM

Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.

Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?

How is this any different from zoning?  Just because you own your house, you should be able to knock it down and put up a 24-hour gas station/strip club/liquor store right in the middle of your residential street?
  This is not a free nation as many of us want it to be.  Even our founding fathers realized that we have to give up some of our own personal liberties for the overall good of our fellow man.

True our nation got more controlled over time as at one time you could build anything on your own land without applying for a building permit and have the building department (which never existed in the 18th and 19th centuries) tell you when, how, and if you could build it like now.  If you owned land and wanted to put up a log cabin on it you could do it and build it yourself.  Now you have to apply for permits.  Be subject to inspection along the way.  Even have them tell you when you can occupy it when completed.

However, this is all for control for not just to be a communist nation as some would say, but for safety and to protect our resources at the same time.  Just like the FCC only gives out X amount of radio station licenses per area.  This is to control frequencies not to put caps on the amount of radio stations, but so each one has its own frequency that no one else can take and it controls the amount of stuff on the dial to keep things sort of uniform.

Freedom comes with a price tag.  There is no such thing as FREE remember. We are a free nation, but not completely.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2014, 10:02:54 AM


Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.

Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?

How is this any different from zoning?  Just because you own your house, you should be able to knock it down and put up a 24-hour gas station/strip club/liquor store right in the middle of your residential street?
  This is not a free nation as many of us want it to be.  Even our founding fathers realized that we have to give up some of our own personal liberties for the overall good of our fellow man.

True our nation got more controlled over time as at one time you could build anything on your own land without applying for a building permit and have the building department (which never existed in the 18th and 19th centuries) tell you when, how, and if you could build it like now.  If you owned land and wanted to put up a log cabin on it you could do it and build it yourself.  Now you have to apply for permits.  Be subject to inspection along the way.  Even have them tell you when you can occupy it when completed.

However, this is all for control for not just to be a communist nation as some would say, but for safety and to protect our resources at the same time.  Just like the FCC only gives out X amount of radio station licenses per area.  This is to control frequencies not to put caps on the amount of radio stations, but so each one has its own frequency that no one else can take and it controls the amount of stuff on the dial to keep things sort of uniform.

Freedom comes with a price tag.  There is no such thing as FREE remember. We are a free nation, but not completely.

Well yes, you can have 100% freedom, or any amount of government.  The thing is, this is only theoretical, because it implies "freedom" is only freedom from the state.  As history bears out well, your neighbors can use their freedom to limit or eliminate yours. 

Funny thing is, one of the impetuses for the creation of Adirondack Park was the protection of commercial shipping in the Erie Canal from sediment runoff from denuded slopes in the Adirondacks.  You might say it was the constraint on some private interests for the protection of others.  However, there are other places to get timber, and not another place to transship via water across the Appalachians.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 10, 2014, 11:43:49 AM
Quote
As far as extending the expressway into New York, how would it go?  A straight shot west towards the Northway, or a route roughly following US 4/NY 149 down to Glens Falls?

Personally, I'd take a different approach.  Continue south from Fort Ann along or near the canal, then cut west near Fort Edward parallel to NY 197, meeting I-87 in the vicinity of Exit 17.  More direct for Rutland-bound traffic and it's easier terrain.

Easier terrain, but the business area along US 9 between Exits 19 and 20 is a big draw for Vermont-bound travelers. You'd still have to upgrade US 9 and NY 149 quite a bit. The NY 149 route would kill 2 birds with one stone and it's relatively undeveloped as well. Buy the area between the Great Escape and Glen Lake Rd from Six Flags and that pretty much bypasses the development. *Might* have to take away 10 homes and rebuild a small amount of wetlands.

A southerly route would have to break away from the Northway south of Exit 17, head due east to avoid Fort Edward and Hudson Falls, and make a sharp turn north to avoid running into Vermont. There's a Hudson River bridge you'd have to build in there (current one on I-87 has more than enough capacity) and you'd have to do major upgrades to the roads for exits (unless you limit them to only existing state routes, which would leave the Fort Ann issue unsolved). Hudson Falls and Fort Edward don't want a bypass. Queensbury does and they have the congestion to warrant it. Fort Ann-Northway section is twice as long, which might outweigh the cost of building through 3 miles of mountains (only rough part you'd have to build through is between I-87 and NY 9L).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 10:47:09 PM
Is not the Pine Barrens in South Jersey sort of like the Parks in New York?  Is not development limited there to preserve what is left of rural New Jersey that is the state with the most people per square mile.

If it is how is Ocean County growing at an astronomical rate as it is one of New Jersey's fastest growing counties?  Separate question here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 10, 2014, 11:13:14 PM
Is not the Pine Barrens in South Jersey sort of like the Parks in New York?  Is not development limited there to preserve what is left of rural New Jersey that is the state with the most people per square mile.

If it is how is Ocean County growing at an astronomical rate as it is one of New Jersey's fastest growing counties?  Separate question here.

Eh, kind of. The Pine Barrens Preserve is not being developed, but other areas of Ocean County are, even if they reside in the colloquial "pine barrens" area.

For example, in the Adirondacks, Warren County is mostly within Adirondack Park. The city of Glens Falls and most of the Town of Queensbury are not, the latter housing many commuters working in Albany or southern Saratoga Counties. The entire county is in the Adirondacks and the terrain is uneven, yet the two municipalities with territory outside of Adirondack Park are fully developed in said areas, except for state- or town-owned protected land within Queensbury. Lake George, Lake Placid, and Saranac Lake, in particular, were vacation towns long before the park came into existence and were allowed to continue expansion and redevelopment within the village borders.

The main purpose of Adirondack Park was to limit mining and lumber operations in the mountain range, effectively preventing what happened to Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Such operations already in existence were allowed to continue (especially for defense purposes).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 10, 2014, 11:18:20 PM
Would it be impossible to just upgrade US 7 to interstate standards south of Rutland and run that south to Bennington and then construct a connector that runs from Bennington to Albany?

Not as direct and you'd be skirting to the outside of the Green Mountain National Forest so it wouldn't likely happen but it would serve a dual purpose, providing a decent north-south highway in Vermont and connecting Rutland to Albany via what I assume would be a 3di for I-87.

It would probably also help the Manchester, VT outlet mall as well as it'll make it more accessible to NYC traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 11, 2014, 08:47:19 AM
In short, yes it would be impossible.  The economics aren't there.  The traffic isn't there (enough to warrant improvements but not enough to justify a freeway).  The local/political support isn't there, especially in Vermont.  Plus, 7 runs just fine as-is between Bennington and Rutland, though signal timing through Clarendon and south Rutland leaves something to be desired.

An improved NY 7 would be nice, but a freeway-grade facility is probably asking too much.  Plus it would be very difficult to tie it into I-87 or I-90 due to city/suburban development in and around Troy and Rennselaer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 11, 2014, 12:13:17 PM
Yeah, Super 7 ends right in downtown Troy and there's no good way to extend it.  The only way you'd get a freeway anywhere near that corridor is to bypass it a few miles to the north.  Granted, that would have a nice side effect of significantly lowering the amount of traffic at the Twin Bridges and separate the two largest merges onto the Northway if it were tied into an extension of 787, but it's pretty much not happening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on November 11, 2014, 01:15:11 PM
The possibility of making NY 7/VT 9 a 37-mile expressway has been debated intermittently since 1966.  The only section ever built is the current NY 7 from Interstate 87 to the Collar City Bridge into Troy.  It took 20 years to finally build and open after years of lawsuits by homeowners in the Maplewood section of the Town of Colonie, Albany County, when they were finally persuaded to give up and take the offers from the State of New York.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 11, 2014, 01:57:36 PM
The possibility of making NY 7/VT 9 a 37-mile expressway has been debated intermittently since 1966.  The only section ever built is the current NY 7 from Interstate 87 to the Collar City Bridge into Troy.  It took 20 years to finally build and open after years of lawsuits by homeowners in the Maplewood section of the Town of Colonie, Albany County, when they were finally persuaded to give up and take the offers from the State of New York.

Yeah. Entire thing was supposed to be I-88. Glad it exists, though, as it provides a nice bypass of the Exit 1/24 clusterf***. I *think* the NY 7 surface expressway in Schenectady is part of the routing, as well, but it was not built to Interstate standards.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2014, 12:09:12 PM
I was just recently looking at Arkansastravelguy's FB photos of his NYC road trip, and saw that NYCDOT now conforms to MUTCD standards on Park Avenue between 57th and 45th Streets where in the past one four way tower signal existed at all intersections without even pedestrian signals.

I guess that story about the fact the MTA Metro North Tunnels are beneath Park Avenue preventing normal installations was hogwash as his photos show regular NYC assemblies on mast arms.  The usual double guy but painted green both the poles and the signal heads now grace Park Avenue in that 12 block section.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 12, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
I was just recently looking at Arkansastravelguy's FB photos of his NYC road trip, and saw that NYCDOT now conforms to MUTCD standards on Park Avenue between 57th and 45th Streets where in the past one four way tower signal existed at all intersections without even pedestrian signals.

I guess that story about the fact the MTA Metro North Tunnels are beneath Park Avenue preventing normal installations was hogwash as his photos show regular NYC assemblies on mast arms.  The usual double guy but painted green both the poles and the signal heads now grace Park Avenue in that 12 block section.

It's not hogwash (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/nyregion/22walkdontwalk.html).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 12, 2014, 07:41:15 PM
Well that only took about 50 years for all the agencies involved to work out. That's about how long the city has had pedestrian signals.........
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 12, 2014, 08:46:05 PM
Yeah, but not shocking. You have Metro North (under both FRA and state jurisdiction) and the city, all of whom have to be in agreement before anything gets done. They probably had to go through Washington to get the FRA approval for any modifications to the tunnel.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 09:24:55 AM
I am surprised that originally they did not adopt the rest of NY's signaling practice like they did on Staten Island at the end of the Korean War Vets Parkway by using NYS span wire there.

The poles could have been placed on the sidewalk of the side street off of the tunnel roof deck and strung across Park Avenue to the other opposing corner.  It would not be the first time span wire used in urban areas as Baltimore has had them even after MD went mast arms outside the city limits there.  Even in the Business District Baltimore had the span wiring where most cities usually do not like the clutter of overhead wiring.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 13, 2014, 11:16:37 AM
I am surprised that originally they did not adopt the rest of NY's signaling practice like they did on Staten Island at the end of the Korean War Vets Parkway by using NYS span wire there.

The poles could have been placed on the sidewalk of the side street off of the tunnel roof deck and strung across Park Avenue to the other opposing corner.  It would not be the first time span wire used in urban areas as Baltimore has had them even after MD went mast arms outside the city limits there.  Even in the Business District Baltimore had the span wiring where most cities usually do not like the clutter of overhead wiring.

New York has had a pretty strict "no overhead wiring" policy in densely-settled areas for over a century. This included trolley wires and electrical lines.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 11:31:11 AM
Than how did Westchester, Rockland,  and even Nassau fit all into this with their many populated areas?  Also Staten Island uses span wires on Richmond Avenue at the Korean War Vets Parkway terminus and that is part of NYC, even though some want to secede and someday we may have that vote to become their own city independent of the other 4 boroughs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 13, 2014, 12:16:32 PM
Than how did Westchester, Rockland,  and even Nassau fit all into this with their many populated areas?  Also Staten Island uses span wires on Richmond Avenue at the Korean War Vets Parkway terminus and that is part of NYC, even though some want to secede and someday we may have that vote to become their own city independent of the other 4 boroughs.

New York City doesn't use overhead wires for anything in the densest areas. Never said anything about the state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 14, 2014, 08:46:26 PM
I am surprised that originally they did not adopt the rest of NY's signaling practice like they did on Staten Island at the end of the Korean War Vets Parkway by using NYS span wire there.

The poles could have been placed on the sidewalk of the side street off of the tunnel roof deck and strung across Park Avenue to the other opposing corner.

Wouldn't have been that simple. The tunnel runs under Park Ave all the way up to Harlem. The rest of the way up, there already were signals mounted on the sidewalks, off the edge of the tunnel, and yes, it wasn't a problem. South of 57th street, though, the tunneling fans out as the tracks lead into Grand Central. From GCT itself to 57th street, the yard occupies the entire two blocks between Lexington and Vanderbilt Avenues. In this area, Park Avenue and all of the buildings on either side of it are built on air rights over the Metro-North (ex-NY Central) trackage. There is no place to stick a pole without hitting tunnel along that stretch of Park Ave, period.

For some perspective here, this is a picture of the yard north of Grand Central from shortly after it opened:
(http://i.imgur.com/uksWUiW.jpg)
All of those tracks are still there, buried under everything else later built above it. Park Ave runs smack down the middle of all that. Off to the side of the tunnel? Hah!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 15, 2014, 12:30:02 PM
Interesting, I did not know that the yard goes for 14 blocks.  That explain why from 57th north the signals were never a problem.

However, if memory serves me correct, before the tower poles were erected was there not the original Red and Green signal heads hanging from a mast arm on two corners?  You know the one's that did not have yellow, but both a simultaneous red and green to denote the orientation change from green to red.  Those tower lights were only erected in the mid or early 80's and before that my memory is vague on what was there previously.

Also at 46th Street the mast arms were still there even in the late 80's housing the red-yellow-green, but nonetheless over the deck that houses the street and buildings beside it.  That was not vague, but vivid to me as I remember it was not typical NYC double guy arms, but classic arms you see on some street poles.  Sorry I am not that familiar with art or design terms.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 15, 2014, 11:22:26 PM
For some perspective here, this is a picture of the yard north of Grand Central from shortly after it opened:
(http://i.imgur.com/uksWUiW.jpg)
All of those tracks are still there, buried under everything else later built above it. Park Ave runs smack down the middle of all that. Off to the side of the tunnel? Hah!

I wonder if you can trace the yard footprint at all from aerial photos today?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2014, 11:52:17 PM
N.Y. Times: M.T.A. Expected to Raise Fares and Tolls (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/nyregion/mta-expected-to-raise-fares-and-tolls.html)

Quote
Subway and bus fares will rise again in March. The only questions are by how much and for which riders.

Quote
When the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s board members meet this week, they are expected to discuss proposals for a 4 percent increase in fares and tolls across the system’s trains, buses, tunnels and bridges. The fares are scheduled to rise every two years as part of the authority’s long-term revenue plans, but details of the upcoming increase are still being worked out. Riders will have a chance to weigh in at public hearings next month.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2014, 11:44:43 AM
Per wgrz.com :

US 219 closed north of NY 242
NY 400 closed in its entirety
NY 5 closed between Tifft St and I-190
I-290 closed east of Exit 6, ramps to/from south at WT closed

You know it's bad when Buffalo closes every road
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2014, 09:23:05 AM
Interesting question about cross traffic during the Macy's Parade on Thanksgiving Day.  As many of us know that the route of the Parade is over 3 miles from Uptown to Midtown which is well over 30 blocks, thus preventing cross traffic where the parade goes.

Isn't there places every so many blocks that stop the parade for a few moments to allow traffic to cross the route which I imagine is what gives NBC the chance to have dance routines in Herald Square every so many parade acts that you see aired on TV?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 27, 2014, 09:34:42 AM
Given how huge of an attraction the parade is, I can't imagine there's a lot of cross-traffic during that time.  The parade has also been an institution for over 80 years so it's not like folks don't know it's happening and can't plan around it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 28, 2014, 05:18:56 PM
Whenever NYC hosts parades they close off all the minor the cross streets but keep the major ones open for cross traffic. Basically when the light turns red the parade stops and bikes/peds/cars get to cross. The parade resumes forward progress when the light turns green again. Although in practice there will be cops to assist in directing traffic so the phases of the signal are not necessarily strictly followed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 28, 2014, 07:57:07 PM
Whenever NYC hosts parades they close off all the minor the cross streets but keep the major ones open for cross traffic. Basically when the light turns red the parade stops and bikes/peds/cars get to cross. The parade resumes forward progress when the light turns green again. Although in practice there will be cops to assist in directing traffic so the phases of the signal are not necessarily strictly followed.

It's not like the parade is constantly moving. Each float/band/act stops in front of Macy's to do their thing for NBC viewers at home. They can get stuff across when everything is stopped for the performances, as long as floats don't block the box.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 29, 2014, 08:01:36 PM
Clearview alert: One of the Exit 1 advances on I-490 EB was replaced with a new Clearview sign at some point within the past year or two. Don't know how recently, as I'm rarely on that stretch of highway, especially going EB, but I figured I'd mention it as I saw it today on my way to drive the Inner Loop one last time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 29, 2014, 11:30:08 PM
Has to have been no later than 10/2012, it's on Street View: http://goo.gl/maps/ME3yC (and considering it's right after the Thruway Exit 47 toll plaza, it's almost certainly NYSTA's doing).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 29, 2014, 11:34:55 PM
Has to have been no later than 10/2012, it's on Street View: http://goo.gl/maps/ME3yC (and considering it's right after the Thruway Exit 47 toll plaza, it's almost certainly NYSTA's doing).

As I said, I'm never on that side of Rochester, so "new" means "within past 3 years". I do know that there's a bunch of relatively-new signage between I-390 and I-590, inclusive. Some of that has gone up within the past year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on November 30, 2014, 12:17:56 AM
Most certainly a NYSTA job. The obnoxiously-huge lettering (and the super-tiny "1/4 MILE" text underneath) disproportionate to the rest of the sign gives it away.

NYSTA has always had letter sizing issues, it just wasn't as obvious until they started using Clearview.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on November 30, 2014, 12:40:25 AM
I have a picture of the sign going back to August, 2008. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 30, 2014, 12:43:52 AM
Clearview alert: One of the Exit 1 advances on I-490 EB was replaced with a new Clearview sign at some point within the past year or two. Don't know how recently, as I'm rarely on that stretch of highway, especially going EB, but I figured I'd mention it as I saw it today on my way to drive the Inner Loop one last time.

I'm pretty sure that sign is around six to eight years or so old. It's one of the first Clearview signs I ever saw in New York State and it turned up right when the Thruway Authority just started using Clearview.  I'm certain it's an NYSTA sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 30, 2014, 12:46:46 AM
Has to have been no later than 10/2012, it's on Street View: http://goo.gl/maps/ME3yC (and considering it's right after the Thruway Exit 47 toll plaza, it's almost certainly NYSTA's doing).

As I said, I'm never on that side of Rochester, so "new" means "within past 3 years". I do know that there's a bunch of relatively-new signage between I-390 and I-590, inclusive. Some of that has gone up within the past year.

I just drove through Rochester this evening and I noticed that Region 4 has put up a lot of new signs on NY 390, I-490, NY 590 and NY 104 over the past couple of years and they are really well done. The habit of left justifying the route shield on the sign at the exit ramp seems to have been dropped and they're using control destinations where they hadn't before (for example, "Greece" on NY 104 WB at NY 590).

I also like the larger Series D post interchange mileage signs on Interstate 490.

While I was out there I drove the entire Inner Loop for the last time. :)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on November 30, 2014, 12:48:29 AM
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on November 30, 2014, 07:28:23 AM
Whenever NYC hosts parades they close off all the minor the cross streets but keep the major ones open for cross traffic. Basically when the light turns red the parade stops and bikes/peds/cars get to cross. The parade resumes forward progress when the light turns green again. Although in practice there will be cops to assist in directing traffic so the phases of the signal are not necessarily strictly followed.

It's not like the parade is constantly moving. Each float/band/act stops in front of Macy's to do their thing for NBC viewers at home. They can get stuff across when everything is stopped for the performances, as long as floats don't block the box.

I can't find the article now, but I believe that 57th Street and 49/50 Street are kept open for this purpose.  Intermittent openings so traffic can cross through.

Before the pedestrianization of Broadway, 42nd Street was also opened, but now part of the parade uses 42nd between 7th and 6th.

Even with the openings, it'll probably be easier to make a wide detour far away from the parade area, if you need to go from east to west in the city.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 30, 2014, 06:40:34 PM
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?

Did we ever?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 30, 2014, 08:09:57 PM
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?

Did we ever?

None of my Rochester friends knew of anyone calling it that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 30, 2014, 09:39:34 PM
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?

Did we ever?

None of my Rochester friends knew of anyone calling it that.

The term did tend to appear in the press to illustrate a negative perception of the road, but I don't recall ever hearing it referred to colloquially that way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on December 01, 2014, 04:23:30 PM
Gotcha - just curious.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on December 01, 2014, 04:27:21 PM
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?

Did we ever?

None of my Rochester friends knew of anyone calling it that.

Now I'm wondering where I heard the term or where I got it?  :-D My apologies to all
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J Route Z on December 02, 2014, 07:32:28 PM
Does the NYSDOT have a page on their website to report a maintenance issue on a state highway? I could not locate it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 02, 2014, 11:06:33 PM
I have a quick question about the I-95/I-87 junction in the Bronx: How long has Exit 1D been there? I don't remember seeing that before!

(http://i.imgur.com/ruWz12e.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 02, 2014, 11:18:22 PM
Pretty sure it always has been. Bridge the ramp uses is certainly old enough.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 02, 2014, 11:33:01 PM
I have a quick question about the I-95/I-87 junction in the Bronx: How long has Exit 1D been there? I don't remember seeing that before!

I think that's brand-new. Always used to just be 1C for the whole exit. But, ya know, every ramp gets a number. GSP southbound 130 is now 130A/B because two ramps. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that you should number diverges from the mainline, not splits downwind from there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 03, 2014, 12:37:12 AM
There was a ton of construction on this interchange in the last few years. Those ramps were completely (or very nearly) reconstructed. The age of that gantry is fairly obvious.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 03, 2014, 01:40:27 PM
Looks like one of the "temporarily closed" rest areas is re-opening: https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2014/2014-12-24

Does the NYSDOT have a page on their website to report a maintenance issue on a state highway? I could not locate it.
Best I can think of is the contact page for the residencies: https://www.dot.ny.gov/about-nysdot/faq/residencies

I could have sworn there was a way to contact them with a web form or email and have it forwarded to the appropriate person, but that was a site redesign or two ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on December 03, 2014, 04:02:36 PM
I have a quick question about the I-95/I-87 junction in the Bronx: How long has Exit 1D been there? I don't remember seeing that before!

(http://i.imgur.com/ruWz12e.jpg)

That's within the past year. For a while it was 3N-S because NYSDOT (or the PA, I never remember which) was going to switch the numbering to sequential exits, with 9A being Exit 1, the HRD being 2, and the Deegan being 3. They since reversed on that call and went back. The PA part of the roadway (under the apartments on the Trans Manhattan Expwy) still has the sequential numbers on their signs, so that's a little confusing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on December 03, 2014, 04:14:38 PM
From today's NY Times: For New Tappan Zee, Questions Persist Over How High the Tolls Will Climb (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/nyregion/for-new-tappan-zee-questions-persist-over-how-high-the-tolls-will-climb.html)

Quote
By one rough calculation – dividing the $3.9 billion amortized at 4 percent interest by the 24,539,849 vehicle round trips taken in 2012 – paying off construction bonds could add more than $6 to the amount paid for each trip through the tollbooths. That is why state officials are trying hard to find alternative financing.

One transportation consultant, who asked not to be identified because of a potential role in helping the state set the new toll, said a ballpark estimate was that for every $1 billion in outside financing, the per-car price could be reduced by $2.50.

Either way, it's going to hurt a lot more to cross the new Tappan Zee.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 03, 2014, 04:52:56 PM
I have a quick question about the I-95/I-87 junction in the Bronx: How long has Exit 1D been there? I don't remember seeing that before!

(http://i.imgur.com/ruWz12e.jpg)

That's within the past year. For a while it was 3N-S because NYSDOT (or the PA, I never remember which) was going to switch the numbering to sequential exits, with 9A being Exit 1, the HRD being 2, and the Deegan being 3. They since reversed on that call and went back. The PA part of the roadway (under the apartments on the Trans Manhattan Expwy) still has the sequential numbers on their signs, so that's a little confusing.

The sign's probably from the past year, but the numbering's been there a little longer. At least as long as I've lived in the borough (3 1/2 years).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 04, 2014, 08:21:00 PM
I don't have any (original) pictures yet, but the new Exit 72 on NY 17 westbound opened today.  According to the Facebook page for the Prospect Mountain project, phase one of the project is now 80 percent complete.  Remaining for next season is the opening of the Exit 72 onramp, two new bridges (one for I-81 NB and another for I-81 SB.

Here is the new signage for the exit, courtesy of the Prospect Mountain contractors:

(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on December 05, 2014, 09:25:44 AM
Here is the new signage for the exit, courtesy of the Prospect Mountain contractors:

(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)
Why is that cantilevered gantry so unusually thick?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on December 05, 2014, 09:47:52 AM
Here is the new signage for the exit, courtesy of the Prospect Mountain contractors:

(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)
Why is that cantilevered gantry so unusually thick?
Likely designed to AASHTO 2009 (with 2010 and 2011 addenda) wind speed and fatigue requirements.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on December 05, 2014, 10:53:42 AM
Here is the new signage for the exit, courtesy of the Prospect Mountain contractors:

(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)
Why is that cantilevered gantry so unusually thick?
Likely designed to AASHTO 2009 (with 2010 and 2011 addenda) wind speed and fatigue requirements.
Assuming that other new or recently-erected gantries and structures (examples: the new BGS gantries along I-95 & 93 in MA and along I-95 & US 202 in PA) are designed for such requirements; I still think that the above-gantry is grossly overdesigned.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2014, 11:37:30 AM
That has been the standard in New York for 15 years. Nothing recent. At this point, a significant amount of gantries have changed to that style. Everything new since the turn of the century has been that style, both NYSDOT and NYSTA. The latter might be changing to monotubes based on a set of plans I saw, but that's another story altogether.

I'm more concerned by the mile marker. Given that I've seen nearly-identical ones in Region 5, I (unfortunately) believe that those boxy things are the new standard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on December 05, 2014, 12:28:12 PM
The milemarker is a new FHWA standard enhanced location marker. R7's been using them for ten years now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2014, 01:18:43 PM
The milemarker is a new FHWA standard enhanced location marker. R7's been using them for ten years now.

Good to know. I thought they were just typical R5 crappy signage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 05, 2014, 01:34:26 PM
There are a few enhanced location tenth mile markers in R3.  R1 uses the regular MUTCD tenth mile markers for new installs and enhanced location markers on the Northway.  R4 also uses the enhanced location markers, as do R8 and R9.  R6 uses regular MUTCD mile markers.

Honestly, I prefer the old R1 green/white tenth mile markers better.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2014, 02:57:18 PM
R1s are what I grew up with. Numbers appear larger. Maybe it's the different look that I don't like.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 05, 2014, 03:50:38 PM
The mile marker is temporary.  Similar permanent ones have gone up on I-81 just south of this location, but they look less cheap and better overall.

Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months.  Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies.  In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 05, 2014, 11:08:06 PM
The mile marker is temporary.  Similar permanent ones have gone up on I-81 just south of this location, but they look less cheap and better overall.

Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months.  Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies.  In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.

Are there any going up like these?

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcms.esi.info%2FMedia%2FproductImages%2F42984_1315302566451_PF.jpg&f=1)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2014, 11:23:38 PM
The mile marker is temporary.  Similar permanent ones have gone up on I-81 just south of this location, but they look less cheap and better overall.

Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months.  Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies.  In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.

Are there any going up like these?

[Pic snipped]


Please tell me that's in Pennsylvania
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 05, 2014, 11:35:50 PM

The mile marker is temporary.  Similar permanent ones have gone up on I-81 just south of this location, but they look less cheap and better overall.

Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months.  Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies.  In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.

Are there any going up like these?

[Pic snipped]


Please tell me that's in Pennsylvania

Actually it's in the UK, I found it on Google.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Zeffy on December 06, 2014, 12:37:40 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone here know if NYSDOT / NYSTA used to use Series E for their state route shields on overhead guide signs, or Series F? I've been toying around with some NYSDOT-style signs, and looking at pictures of older signs, part of me wants to think they used F, but it seems more likely that they would've used E. I can't find anything in the state supplement of the MUTCD either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on December 06, 2014, 12:45:52 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone here know if NYSDOT / NYSTA used to use Series E for their state route shields on overhead guide signs, or Series F? I've been toying around with some NYSDOT-style signs, and looking at pictures of older signs, part of me wants to think they used F, but it seems more likely that they would've used E. I can't find anything in the state supplement of the MUTCD either.

NYSDOT used straight Series F in the past.  I don't think you would find anything in the state supplement because New York stopped being an own-manual state around the time it changed to Series D for guide-sign state route marker digits and stopped putting street names in boxed all-uppercase Series D.  You would have to go to the NYSMUTCD (last full revision in 1984, with updates available by subscription until the supplement was introduced) for illustrations showing that New York-specific stuff.

NYSDOT should also have had a companion volume similar to Standard Highway Signs, but I do not remember ever seeing it advertised for sale or anyone on any of the roadgeek forums bragging about having a copy.  My guess is that it is either a "secret" manual, like Missouri DOT's, or a collection of drawings kept in an office somewhere, like Nebraska DOR's.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 06, 2014, 05:34:42 PM
Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months.  Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies.  In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.
Did they finally fix the missing gantries on I-88 between exits 1 and 2?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 06, 2014, 06:36:06 PM
Did they finally fix the missing gantries on I-88 between exits 1 and 2?

Nope, I was very surprised to see that they didn't, and didn't even build mounting brackets to possibly put them up next year.  The gantries have been missing for nearly ten years, since they were taken out by a couple of trucks.  A gantry on the expressway portion of NY-26 in Vestal had been missing just as long for the same reason, but was replaced this summer.

The gantries at exit 2 westbound and exit 1 westbound were both replaced, with some good and some bad signs.  Again, if I can ever get my girlfriend to agree to drive me around, I'll snag some pictures.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 07, 2014, 05:25:26 PM
Did they finally fix the missing gantries on I-88 between exits 1 and 2?

Nope, I was very surprised to see that they didn't, and didn't even build mounting brackets to possibly put them up next year.  The gantries have been missing for nearly ten years, since they were taken out by a couple of trucks.  A gantry on the expressway portion of NY-26 in Vestal had been missing just as long for the same reason, but was replaced this summer.

The gantries at exit 2 westbound and exit 1 westbound were both replaced, with some good and some bad signs.  Again, if I can ever get my girlfriend to agree to drive me around, I'll snag some pictures.

I just drove under the new gantries today and while I couldn't snap any photos, I didn't see anything alarming with the design of the sign panels.  I did notice that the up arrow on the Exit 1 panel was in the upper right hand corner of the sign (like Connecticut does) over the word "Binghamton". I always appreciate that because it reduces the size of the panel without really compromising legibility.

As mentioned before the two other overhead signs are still missing but the nifty temporary signs are still there.

I did notice that the Exit 2 WB overhead sign at the gore now has markers for both NY 12 A and To NY 12.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 07, 2014, 07:18:26 PM
I just drove under the new gantries today and while I couldn't snap any photos, I didn't see anything alarming with the design of the sign panels.  I did notice that the up arrow on the Exit 1 panel was in the upper right hand corner of the sign (like Connecticut does) over the word "Binghamton". I always appreciate that because it reduces the size of the panel without really compromising legibility.

As mentioned before the two other overhead signs are still missing but the nifty temporary signs are still there.

I did notice that the Exit 2 WB overhead sign at the gore now has markers for both NY 12 A and To NY 12.

Nothing horribly off-putting, just strange alignment of shields and weird use of space.  The sign that says "To 81/To 17" is tiny compared to the one it replaced, and the shields are at the farthest edges with a large space in between.  Something was strange about the Exit 2 sign but I haven't been to Oneonta lately so I can't remember exactly what.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 08, 2014, 12:58:00 PM
That sign is probably meant to say "To 81/To 86/To 17" in the near future ;)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 09, 2014, 06:52:46 AM
I foolishly hadn't considered that, but the custom in this area so far has been to have it on the sign and green it out, or just put a 17 shield and worry about it later.  Hopefully that's indeed the case because another shield would make it look much better.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 09, 2014, 03:43:49 PM
I foolishly hadn't considered that, but the custom in this area so far has been to have it on the sign and green it out, or just put a 17 shield and worry about it later.  Hopefully that's indeed the case because another shield would make it look much better.

There's quite a few signs in R2 with that awful spacing. I firmly believe that there are some in NYSDOT who have no idea how to use GuidSIGN, but in this case I agree that it's probably extra space for To 86. On the bright side, at least the space for 86 is in the right place, because R9 seems uneven with deciding of it's going to be 86-17 or 17-86, the former being correct, of course.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 10, 2014, 07:21:07 AM
In Tioga County it appears that Region 9 has decided on I-86 as a lone wolf.  All of the NY-17 shields, by ramps and on the road itself, have been removed and then replaced directly on top of I-86 shields to be popped off once the extension is approved.  It's an interesting approach, instead of having I-86 mounted on a separate assembly à la Region 6.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 10, 2014, 12:59:10 PM
Makes one wonder if there are plans to officially decommission NY 17 on the Southern Tier Expressway once we get a Grand Unified I-86 all the way from I-90 through Binghamton to NY 79.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 10, 2014, 03:03:02 PM
Wouldn't shock me if they're planning to decommission. No reason for the duplication and it's more signs to maintain. The newer BGSes in Regions 5 and 6 don't show NY 17, either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on December 10, 2014, 06:38:47 PM
The elimination of NY 17 everywhere west of Harriman is a known plan. It is simply a question of waiting for the I-86 designation to be extended enough that you no longer need the NY 17 designation to maintain continuity.

I don't expect any truncation to be reflected in the logbook until after I-86 is 100% complete, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 10, 2014, 06:56:58 PM
The logbook is different from signage. While it isn't typical practice for a non-reference route to be unsigned, US 11's north end, I-478 and I-878 tell us that it can happen here in the Empire State. I-86 won't be complete until they get rid of the at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock, which hasn't even started construction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 10, 2014, 07:27:48 PM
In Tioga County it appears that Region 9 has decided on I-86 as a lone wolf.  All of the NY-17 shields, by ramps and on the road itself, have been removed and then replaced directly on top of I-86 shields to be popped off once the extension is approved.  It's an interesting approach, instead of having I-86 mounted on a separate assembly à la Region 6.
Paging CapHwys (though he apparently hasn't posted here).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on December 10, 2014, 08:47:58 PM
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet?  Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 10, 2014, 09:33:00 PM
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet?  Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)

ixnay

Not gonna happen until NYSDOT adopts Clearview, which probably won't happen (if it ever does) before interim approval is rescinded.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 10, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet?  Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)

ixnay

Not gonna happen until NYSDOT adopts Clearview, which probably won't happen (if it ever does) before interim approval is rescinded.

I've had some conversations over the years with some of the folks that maintained the NYSMUTCD and the current NYS supplement to the National MUTCD and they said there are no plans to ever adopt Clearview (other than the CorCraft signs that CorCraft went out and switched themselves).  The only reason NYS requested interim approval for Clearview was to accommodate the Thruway signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 10, 2014, 11:06:17 PM
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet?  Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)

ixnay

Not gonna happen until NYSDOT adopts Clearview, which probably won't happen (if it ever does) before interim approval is rescinded.

I've had some conversations over the years with some of the folks that maintained the NYSMUTCD and the current NYS supplement to the National MUTCD and they said there are no plans to ever adopt Clearview (other than the CorCraft signs that CorCraft went out and switched themselves).  The only reason NYS requested interim approval for Clearview was to accommodate the Thruway signs.

Doesn't shock me. Of course, because the interim approval is for the entire state, New York City and Westchester County decided to adopt it because it's the new hip thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 11, 2014, 01:19:48 PM
The logbook is different from signage. While it isn't typical practice for a non-reference route to be unsigned, US 11's north end, I-478 and I-878 tell us that it can happen here in the Empire State. I-86 won't be complete until they get rid of the at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock, which hasn't even started construction.
Plus there's the numerous routes where NYSDOT internal documents and signage disagree on what path they take, such as the southern end of NY 12E.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on December 11, 2014, 06:45:14 PM
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet?  Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)

ixnay

Not gonna happen until NYSDOT adopts Clearview, which probably won't happen (if it ever does) before interim approval is rescinded.

I've had some conversations over the years with some of the folks that maintained the NYSMUTCD and the current NYS supplement to the National MUTCD and they said there are no plans to ever adopt Clearview (other than the CorCraft signs that CorCraft went out and switched themselves).  The only reason NYS requested interim approval for Clearview was to accommodate the Thruway signs.


For whatever odd reason, FHWA only seems to like to deal with state DOT's, and no one else. So the toll authorities have to go through the state DOT for FHWA matters, even though the state DOTs have no authority over the toll authorities (in NY anyway). FHWA even goes so far as to threaten to revoke the state DOT's Federal highway funding for toll roads' non-compliance with the MUTCD and other federal requirements, as if the state DOT has any control over what the toll authorities do.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 11, 2014, 08:31:18 PM
Yeah well, the reason the NJ Turnpike Authority is finally changing to MUTCD signage had something to do with what you're talking about, though I don't know the exact details. But apparently some sort of pressure was brought to force compliance by a toll authority. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on December 11, 2014, 08:50:43 PM
They probably threatened NJDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 12, 2014, 12:38:50 AM
Yeah well, the reason the NJ Turnpike Authority is finally changing to MUTCD signage had something to do with what you're talking about, though I don't know the exact details. But apparently some sort of pressure was brought to force compliance by a toll authority. 
They probably threatened NJDOT.
No to both. The agency wanted to do this to stay ahead of the game before the FHWA comes knocking.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 14, 2014, 10:08:25 PM
At some point in the past couple of months, NY 954L in Buffalo (Broadway) between Fillmore Ave and US 62/NY 130 got a road diet. Knew this was going to happen, but thought it was a year or two out. As part of a resurfacing project, 4-lane road with extra-wide curb lanes was restriped as 2 with a center turn lane, plus dedicated parking and bike lanes. Unlike most signs on this stretch of NYSDOT-maintained road, new signage as part of this project is NYSDOT-standard, complete with U-poles and Z-bars.

Road diets are becoming pretty common in Buffalo (a city-maintained stretch of NY 384 is another example), but this is the first I know of by NYSDOT in the area other than the Robert Moses Parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 15, 2014, 04:02:26 PM
At some point in the past couple of months, NY 954L in Buffalo (Broadway) between Fillmore Ave and US 62/NY 130 got a road diet. Knew this was going to happen, but thought it was a year or two out. As part of a resurfacing project, 4-lane road with extra-wide curb lanes was restriped as 2 with a center turn lane, plus dedicated parking and bike lanes. Unlike most signs on this stretch of NYSDOT-maintained road, new signage as part of this project is NYSDOT-standard, complete with U-poles and Z-bars.

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

Are roads in the area being shrinked because of the declining population, or something else, because I'm sure bike lanes could still be incorporated into regular road sizes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 16, 2014, 01:00:11 PM
Traffic calming is a likely explanation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on December 16, 2014, 01:35:54 PM
Traffic calming is one possibility.  Another is simply right-sizing the road to the traffic (Rochester Inner Loop being one example of this).  As a general rule, you don't need 4 lanes for an urban street with ADT less than 15K (and especially less than 10K).  2 lanes with a center left turn lane will work just fine, especially if there is an appreciable volume of left-turning traffic...studies have found that the 3-lane is more efficient than a 4-lane in this scenario.

The Broadway example that cl94 cited earlier appears to have an ADT level just under 15K.  Barring other potential factors/issues, it's an appropriate candidate for downsizing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 16, 2014, 02:30:26 PM
None of NY 954L needs four lanes. Most of the day, it's empty, and it's not like there's much along it. Its main use is an alternate to I-190 and NY 33, as the area west of Fillmore is burned-out with several empty lots. Speeds were quite high, as people would pass those going remotely close to the speed limit. Turn volumes were an issue, especially in the blocks surrounding the Broadway Market. Granted, I was there on a Sunday, but I don't forsee any problems. If anything, it might help balance traffic counts on major East Side streets.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 16, 2014, 11:21:31 PM
Traffic calming is one possibility.  Another is simply right-sizing the road to the traffic (Rochester Inner Loop being one example of this).  As a general rule, you don't need 4 lanes for an urban street with ADT less than 15K (and especially less than 10K).  2 lanes with a center left turn lane will work just fine, especially if there is an appreciable volume of left-turning traffic...studies have found that the 3-lane is more efficient than a 4-lane in this scenario.

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


15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 16, 2014, 11:47:49 PM
Traffic calming is one possibility.  Another is simply right-sizing the road to the traffic (Rochester Inner Loop being one example of this).  As a general rule, you don't need 4 lanes for an urban street with ADT less than 15K (and especially less than 10K).  2 lanes with a center left turn lane will work just fine, especially if there is an appreciable volume of left-turning traffic...studies have found that the 3-lane is more efficient than a 4-lane in this scenario.

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


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

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

There's probably a newer set of counts that isn't on the data viewer and, given the depopulation of the neighborhood and the closing of the largest office building in Buffalo and the outsourcing of its jobs, it's very possible that volumes are much lower. Just look at an aerial of the area to see how many empty lots there are (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8935825,-78.8424874,2217m/data=!3m1!1e3), and that's 2+ years ago.

Long story short, half of the road (the part not yet converted) doesn't get much traffic and the other half was in dire need of turn lanes. As the on-street parking is used quite often, the sidewalks can't be easily narrowed, and bike traffic is high, it's probably the best solution, especially with the high speeds of vehicles on the street. At a signal, if two lanes are occupied, one is/was almost certainly blocked by someone turning left.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on December 17, 2014, 07:42:25 AM
Quote
15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.

FHWA mentions that 4-to-3s are doable up to about 20K, though the particulars will depend on the specific scenario.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 17, 2014, 01:24:32 PM
There's probably a newer set of counts that isn't on the data viewer and, given the depopulation of the neighborhood and the closing of the largest office building in Buffalo and the outsourcing of its jobs, it's very possible that volumes are much lower. Just look at an aerial of the area to see how many empty lots there are (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8935825,-78.8424874,2217m/data=!3m1!1e3), and that's 2+ years ago.
Latest count on Broadway from Fillmore to US 62, taken 100' E of Mohr St in April 2014, has a total AADT of 16,310 (8029 EB, 8217 WB) with peak hour volumes of 761 EB and 721 WB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 17, 2014, 02:23:11 PM
Which means the PHV is still acceptable with one lane. Vehicles are spaced 4.73 seconds apart on average, which would be well under jam density, even at 30 mph.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 17, 2014, 11:06:10 PM
Quote
15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.

FHWA mentions that 4-to-3s are doable up to about 20K, though the particulars will depend on the specific scenario.
You're right about the latter, but FHWA are not traffic engineers per se. Will traffic get through there? Yes, but a lot more unhappily. I don't buy the new-age hippy-dippy BS.
Which means the PHV is still acceptable with one lane. Vehicles are spaced 4.73 seconds apart on average, which would be well under jam density, even at 30 mph.
I'm looking at traffic lights in a suburban to semiurban area. If not, you get US 30 in PA, which is an absolutely dreadful road with all the trucks (or just one slow driver) and no passing zones. 800/hr is a LOT to get through a traffic light in one lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 17, 2014, 11:35:10 PM
I'm not saying I think there shouldn't be two travel lanes, but the left lane was rarely usable at intersections due to people turning left and the lack of PPLT phasing. I've rarely seen an intersection along that street that didn't have someone turning left and forcing everyone else into one lane. Also, I think the expectation/hope was that people coming from Walden Avenue would use parallel (and underutilized) Sycamore Street instead of Broadway, as the latter would no longer be a speedway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 18, 2014, 01:17:02 AM
I'm not saying I think there shouldn't be two travel lanes, but the left lane was rarely usable at intersections due to people turning left and the lack of PPLT phasing. I've rarely seen an intersection along that street that didn't have someone turning left and forcing everyone else into one lane. Also, I think the expectation/hope was that people coming from Walden Avenue would use parallel (and underutilized) Sycamore Street instead of Broadway, as the latter would no longer be a speedway.

Will they do it to Exchange St.? I know they've been using it as a drag strip and it's probably part of the "revitalization plan."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 18, 2014, 08:08:47 PM
It looks like the aging button copy near Rome, N.Y. in NYSDOT region 2 is finally getting replaced. The signs being replaced as part of D262792 have been up since the original building of the NY 49/365 interchange in the mid-late 1970s.

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

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

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=6704&p_is_digital=Y
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on December 21, 2014, 11:08:12 AM
NYSDOT's "striping shields" get a mention on Slate's "What's That Thing?" recurring feature:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/12/18/what_s_that_thing_demystifying_new_york_road_signs.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 22, 2014, 01:03:38 AM
NYSDOT's "striping shields" get a mention on Slate's "What's That Thing?" recurring feature:

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

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

(A similar system is that of single and double delineators in different colors–white, yellow, green–showing snowplows where the edge of the roadway and of guide rails is.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 30, 2014, 04:49:19 PM
Plans posted for NY 400 bridge reconstruction over NY 240 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=6929&p_is_digital=Y). Being widened to include shoulders and standard-width travel lanes. No added lanes, but it appears that the curve radius for the NB-EB movement may be increased slightly. Plans include the first Region 5 APL sign I've seen for NB 400 at I-90, as the left lane is an option lane. Will require some weekend closures with lengthy detours. Work supposed to begin this summer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 07, 2015, 09:26:18 PM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)

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

Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 03:43:42 PM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)

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

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

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

There probably are relatively few Connecticut plates at the Verrazano Bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 10, 2015, 08:09:23 PM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)

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

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

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

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

They did it on Henry Hudson because it's only passenger cars and nearly 90% of cars crossing have E-ZPass. Easier to implement if you don't have to worry about different vehicle classes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on January 18, 2015, 08:07:58 AM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)

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

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

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

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

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

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

THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 18, 2015, 02:20:02 PM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm just giving the MTA's logic. Certainly does make more sense from their perspective to do it somewhere with very few cash users in case they discover issues with the license plate system that result in free crossings or overcharging.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 18, 2015, 09:05:55 PM
Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse.  There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.

THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.
Keep in mind that the AET system at the Henry Hudson was, in fact, a TRIAL.  It makes sense to try things where the impact is minimized if something goes wrong.  I'd say that the MTA considers the trial a success given that they plan to demolish the booths soon.  They don't yet have plans to expand it, though, because of difficulties collecting tolls/fees from NY and CT residents who don't pay.  I'm sure it will expand once they can get the NY legislature to pass a bill suspending the registrations of people with unpaid tolls and a revised agreement with CT allowing them to bill CT cars by licence plate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 19, 2015, 06:52:42 PM
Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse.  There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.

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

Also note that NYSTA will begin adopting AET this year and has been pushing the related legislation in Albany with the assistance of downstate lawmakers. If that bill does go through and NYSTA makes the switch south of Harriman as is planned, I fully expect every TBTA crossing to go AET within the next decade.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 20, 2015, 01:03:11 PM
Yeah, the MTA definitely wants to make the switch at this point; they're just waiting on the legal issues being resolved.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 30, 2015, 03:06:54 PM
I saw a VMS yesterday stating new traffic pattern at the Major Deegan interchange with Monsholu Parkway. I didn't drive up that far anybody know what it is?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 30, 2015, 04:13:01 PM
I saw a VMS yesterday stating new traffic pattern at the Major Deegan interchange with Monsholu Parkway. I didn't drive up that far anybody know what it is?

The Deegan bridges over the Mosholu are being re-decked, so there are lane shifts on both roads along with some re-striping. Three lanes each way are maintained on the Deegan. Actually, the acceleration lane from Mosholu SB to I-87 SB has been made longer as a result; I hope that stays.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 02, 2015, 03:33:59 PM
I just read that Kew Gardens Interchange project is halfway done.  Do you think it will actually help on the Van Wyck? 

http://www.timesledger.com/stories/2014/50/interchange_tl_2014_12_12_q.html

Granted the article goes back to December.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 04, 2015, 11:10:15 PM
Also noticed, there is a lane drop SB on the Bronx River Pkwy at Exit 5, E. 177th St/I-895.  3-lanes used to go through now the 3rd drops to an exit only for the Sheridan Expy.

However, the old BGSs for Exit 5 are still there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on February 07, 2015, 07:29:12 PM
(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)

Hmm, "Mygatt St". 

Is there a Mynafta Street somewhere in this fair land?  Get it?  My GATT?  My NAFTA?  (Trade agreement pun)

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on February 07, 2015, 07:34:04 PM
And speaking of silly Empire State toponyms, negotiating this flyover from NB NY 14 onto NB NY 14A sends you on your way to Penn Yan.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Watkins+Glen,+NY/@42.421858,-76.904351,3a,72.3y,126.17h,61.24t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-tpxa4DyqWDdpHf_mGVRzg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89d0590a7bd9618f:0xd42cbd119e511709

Point of this post:  When was this flyover built?  Early or mid-60s, I imagine.  (Too bad NY doesn't put years of completion on overpasses a la NJDOT, MassDOT, or Maryland's SHA or MdTA).

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 07:49:07 PM
Point of this post:  When was this flyover built?  Early or mid-60s, I imagine.  (Too bad NY doesn't put years of completion on overpasses a la NJDOT, MassDOT, or Maryland's SHA or MdTA).
http://uglybridges.com/1376885
Thanks, Feds!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on February 07, 2015, 08:09:38 PM
^^  That flyover was replaced either last year or the year before...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on February 07, 2015, 09:12:48 PM
^^  That flyover was replaced either last year or the year before...

It was still there in early October 2012 when I vacationed in Watkins Glen (4 years after the Google Street View pic I linked).  It was flimsy by 2008.   I just looked at Google Satellite and it showed the replacement (which was no doubt needed) in an early phase of construction.

I guess the dualization of NY 14 also took place in 1964...

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J Route Z on February 09, 2015, 12:12:35 AM
It's strange that the Street View made a u-turn at the Lakeside Resort and didn't continue south on Route 14. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 15, 2015, 10:14:54 PM
Any updates with I-86 and NY-17 and when it'll be complete? I noticed bridge work over I-84. Plus there are future I-86 END signs at I-84 but the DOT site says I-86 ends at I-87.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 15, 2015, 11:04:58 PM
Any updates with I-86 and NY-17 and when it'll be complete? I noticed bridge work over I-84. Plus there are future I-86 END signs at I-84 but the DOT site says I-86 ends at I-87.

That end sign has been there for several years. When the work in the area finishes, a segment in western Orange County will be signed as I-86. As to when it'll all be done, they haven't even started construction on the last bypass segment just east of the current ET. I'm thinking 10 years, minimum.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 16, 2015, 03:33:33 PM
Wasn't the reconstruction project from NY 17K to I-84 finished years ago?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on February 16, 2015, 03:57:14 PM
I would like to know what is so sub standard about NY 17 in Orange County anyway that the feds will not let be signed as such?

Considering that PA has many interstates that are no wheres near interstate standards (ie Interstate 70 from I-79 to the PA Turnpike, I-78 from PA 61 to PA 100,  I-68 in Cumberland, and how about I-278 in the very same state) that have been signed for over 50 plus years.

NY 17 is more to standard between Monticello and Harriman then I-70 is from Washington, PA and New Stanton.  Plus the former is built for freeway when the latter was built for expressway grade poorly upgraded later on for interstate use.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 16, 2015, 04:02:17 PM
I know there are issues with exit 122 that Region 8 is working to rectify.  There's also a reconstruction project for exit 131 under the I-86 upgrade banner.  Other than that, it's just the upcoming Hale Eddy upgrades, the ongoing reconstruction in Binghamton, the spot upgrades in Tioga County, and miscellaneous spot upgrades in Region 9 (including the Neversink River bridge replacement that is likely done).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 16, 2015, 05:52:49 PM
As seen elsewhere, the feds won't let anything else be grandfathered into the system. While everything except the Deposit-Hancock (Hale Eddy) stretch meets old Interstate standards, they're not going to let it in without upgrades (which are needed or in progress at a couple of key locations).

Supposedly, the 17K-84 stretch will be in after the Exits 121-122 reconstruction is done. That whole area is a mess right now and they appear to be improving the cloverleaf.

There's also the Exit 111 RIRO that local businesses and residents are giving a stink about because NYSDOT wants to close it and send all traffic to Exit 110 a mile away.

There are a lot of covered I-86 shields east of NY 30, possibly giving an indication that Region 9 intends to sign it in the near future. I fully expect the 55 sections in Delaware County and near Wurtsboro to remain in place due to geographical constraints, so there's nothing else I can think of.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 16, 2015, 08:30:31 PM
What's the end of the designation east of Elmira? My understanding is that it's the Tioga County line, but in forum discussions a segment of I-86 is regularly cited in Bradford County, PA. Has it been extended to US 220?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 16, 2015, 08:46:00 PM
What's the end of the designation east of Elmira? My understanding is that it's the Tioga County line, but in forum discussions a segment of I-86 is regularly cited in Bradford County, PA. Has it been extended to US 220?

Tioga County line at the east end of the stretch in PA. It spends a very short amount of time in Tioga County before it dips into PA. Effectively ends at NY 34, which is very close to US 220.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on February 17, 2015, 02:16:23 PM
NYSDOT replaces sign on route 104 in Webster due to spelling error.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/01/23/phillips-road-sign-webster-mistake/22232375/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on February 17, 2015, 04:36:49 PM
NYSDOT replaces sign on route 104 in Webster due to spelling error.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/01/23/phillips-road-sign-webster-mistake/22232375/
Can we get a cleaner link without all the pop-up/survey mumbo-jumbo?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on February 17, 2015, 04:46:58 PM
NYSDOT replaces sign on route 104 in Webster due to spelling error.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/01/23/phillips-road-sign-webster-mistake/22232375/
Can we get a cleaner link without all the pop-up/survey mumbo-jumbo?
http://www.13wham.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/misspelled-exit-sign-replaced-rt-104-19517.shtml

The newspaper one is a real pain.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on February 17, 2015, 06:21:48 PM
Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 17, 2015, 06:52:41 PM
What's the end of the designation east of Elmira? My understanding is that it's the Tioga County line, but in forum discussions a segment of I-86 is regularly cited in Bradford County, PA. Has it been extended to US 220?

Tioga County line at the east end of the stretch in PA. It spends a very short amount of time in Tioga County before it dips into PA. Effectively ends at NY 34, which is very close to US 220.

OK. I had read (here (http://www.tiogacountyny.com/whats-new/business/interstate-86.html)) that the designation was due to be extended to US 220, but I never heard that it actually took place. Wikipedia still shows the end at the Chemung/Tioga County line—but of course, it also says elsewhere that it still ends at NY 352 in Elmira, whereas the exit listing shows the Bradford/Tioga terminus.

Can you give a source for the new terminus? It would be nice to have Wikipedia up to date on this. (FWIW, this link (http://www.the-leader.com/article/20150110/News/150119991) still says that the route is "awaiting designation" in Tioga County.)

EDIT: Another source (http://www.stargazette.com/story/news/local/2015/01/09/push-interstate-completion-cuomo/21518607/) corroborates that it isn't I-86 east of Chemung County yet, according to the chariman of the I-86 coalition.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 17, 2015, 07:38:49 PM
What's the end of the designation east of Elmira? My understanding is that it's the Tioga County line, but in forum discussions a segment of I-86 is regularly cited in Bradford County, PA. Has it been extended to US 220?

Tioga County line at the east end of the stretch in PA. It spends a very short amount of time in Tioga County before it dips into PA. Effectively ends at NY 34, which is very close to US 220.

OK. I had read (here (http://www.tiogacountyny.com/whats-new/business/interstate-86.html)) that the designation was due to be extended to US 220, but I never heard that it actually took place. Wikipedia still shows the end at the Chemung/Tioga County line–but of course, it also says elsewhere that it still ends at NY 352 in Elmira, whereas the exit listing shows the Bradford/Tioga terminus.

Can you give a source for the new terminus? It would be nice to have Wikipedia up to date on this. (FWIW, this link (http://www.the-leader.com/article/20150110/News/150119991) still says that the route is "awaiting designation" in Tioga County.)

EDIT: Another source (http://www.stargazette.com/story/news/local/2015/01/09/push-interstate-completion-cuomo/21518607/) corroborates that it isn't I-86 east of Chemung County yet, according to the chariman of the I-86 coalition.

I was going by the signage, which is uncovered west of US 220. AASHTO has not posted any records stating that an extension has been improved. As with much of the rest of the corridor, the current status is unclear.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 17, 2015, 07:43:00 PM
In NYC, there is the Kew Gardens untanglement project, Goethals replacement which will add a lane and the Kosusco Bridge expansion/replacement, which will help congestion and add capacity.  Any other big scale road projects coming down the pike in NYC?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 17, 2015, 08:39:59 PM
In NYC, there is the Kew Gardens untanglement project, Goethals replacement which will add a lane and the Kosusco Bridge expansion/replacement, which will help congestion and add capacity.  Any other big scale road projects coming down the pike in NYC?
Verrazano Bridge redecking, removal of median barrier and addition of reversible lane on the Upper Level, and construction of a Bus/HOV ramp on the east side
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 24, 2015, 07:57:40 PM
What is it about NY that they can't make good looking interstate shields?!
I've seen many on all interstates where the numbers are too low, too big, a large space in between them etc etc.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.537221,-73.781158,3a,75y,267.96h,84.81t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s90SXtjMQMpcA6TrDcaH2kg!2e0
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 24, 2015, 08:07:00 PM
What is it about NY that they can't make good looking interstate shields?!
I've seen many on all interstates where the numbers are too low, too big, a large space in between them etc etc.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.537221,-73.781158,3a,75y,267.96h,84.81t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s90SXtjMQMpcA6TrDcaH2kg!2e0

Most are fine, even in the same region (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.382937,-73.601514,3a,19.4y,226.73h,85t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1saJC1lioYSjBY2kR-fkDjvQ!2e0)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on February 25, 2015, 07:23:00 PM
I see those same issues on state shields, too. Also there are 4 or 5 different state shield shape variations of there. Height vs. width, depth of curve, border width, etc.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 25, 2015, 08:21:08 PM
I see those same issues on state shields, too. Also there are 4 or 5 different state shield shape variations of there. Height vs. width, depth of curve, border width, etc.

NYSDOT has tried to reel the varying state route marker designs since they adopted the 2009 MUTCD. While there used to be a wild assortment of shapes and sizes, there's probably less than a half-dozen variations now on new installs. Plus, the marker used on guide signs more closely resembles the standalone markers, complete with series D numerals (instead of series F).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 25, 2015, 09:53:56 PM
I wish they'd keep the series D 3di shield numerals.  IMO they look better than series C.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on February 26, 2015, 11:56:30 AM
www.aaroads.com/shields/thumbs.php?state=NY (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/thumbs.php?state=NY) Too lazy to document it myself.

28 and 17 show the most variation, 7 shows the most contrast (Don't count the cutouts, obviously.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2015, 06:46:35 PM
www.aaroads.com/shields/thumbs.php?state=NY (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/thumbs.php?state=NY) Too lazy to document it myself.

28 and 17 show the most variation, 7 shows the most contrast (Don't count the cutouts, obviously.)

Part of 17's and 28's variation is that they pass through many regions and have signs dating back 50 years. Both pass through 4 NYSDOT regions (only NY 5, US 9, US 20, and NY 22 have more and the variation is as great on them). NY 17 in particular was built in many sections, with each contractor putting up their own style of shield.

The differences have been disappearing in recent years as NYSDOT has actually decided to standardize the shield.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 25, 2015, 06:13:16 PM
WKTV (http://www.wktv.com/news/5-8-12_arterial_construction_is_right_on_schedule.html): Arterial construction (Utica) right on schedule. Working at a breakneck speed crews are plugging away on a complete reconstruction of Utica's arterial system.

If anyone has pictures, do share!!! I can't go down there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 25, 2015, 08:32:43 PM
WKTV (http://www.wktv.com/news/5-8-12_arterial_construction_is_right_on_schedule.html): Arterial construction (Utica) right on schedule. Working at a breakneck speed crews are plugging away on a complete reconstruction of Utica's arterial system.

If anyone has pictures, do share!!! I can't go down there.


I'll try to grab a GoPro video of the area this week.  I must admit that I like the way they're handling traffic and I'm surprised at how quickly they're coming along. The only disappointing aspect of this project to me is that when it's done there will still be two traffic lights on the Arterial, which are suppose to be addressed in the next phase, which has absolutely no funding or timeline at the moment. Other than that, I think this will be a great boost to the area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 27, 2015, 05:27:41 PM
WKTV (http://www.wktv.com/news/5-8-12_arterial_construction_is_right_on_schedule.html): Arterial construction (Utica) right on schedule. Working at a breakneck speed crews are plugging away on a complete reconstruction of Utica's arterial system.

If anyone has pictures, do share!!! I can't go down there.


I'll try to grab a GoPro video of the area this week.  I must admit that I like the way they're handling traffic and I'm surprised at how quickly they're coming along. The only disappointing aspect of this project to me is that when it's done there will still be two traffic lights on the Arterial, which are suppose to be addressed in the next phase, which has absolutely no funding or timeline at the moment. Other than that, I think this will be a great boost to the area.

Great!

Quote
In a dramatic makeover, the Peace Bridge will be redecked, adding a fourth traffic lane as vehicles approach the Canadian inspection plaza and a revamped sidewalk/bike path that includes an overlook at the international line where the U.S. and Canada meet over the Niagara River.

The first phase of the $80 million project will begin this year and be stretched over the next few years to limit impacts on traffic flows between Buffalo and Fort Erie. The work is part of an ongoing $167 million capital improvement plan that the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority has undertaken in recent years.

http://m.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/03/27/80m-peace-bridge-work-to-feature-new-deck-added.html

Peace Bridge to be re decked with half of a fourth-lane to be added. Pretty pointless IMo without constructing a twin. It's polishing a turd.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2015, 05:42:17 PM
Quote
In a dramatic makeover, the Peace Bridge will be redecked, adding a fourth traffic lane as vehicles approach the Canadian inspection plaza and a revamped sidewalk/bike path that includes an overlook at the international line where the U.S. and Canada meet over the Niagara River.

The first phase of the $80 million project will begin this year and be stretched over the next few years to limit impacts on traffic flows between Buffalo and Fort Erie. The work is part of an ongoing $167 million capital improvement plan that the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority has undertaken in recent years.

http://m.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/03/27/80m-peace-bridge-work-to-feature-new-deck-added.html

Peace Bridge to be re decked with half of a fourth-lane to be added. Pretty pointless IMo without constructing a twin. It's polishing a turd.
What are you twinning here? Peace Bridge isn't the constraint, Customs is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 27, 2015, 07:48:13 PM
Quote
In a dramatic makeover, the Peace Bridge will be redecked, adding a fourth traffic lane as vehicles approach the Canadian inspection plaza and a revamped sidewalk/bike path that includes an overlook at the international line where the U.S. and Canada meet over the Niagara River.

The first phase of the $80 million project will begin this year and be stretched over the next few years to limit impacts on traffic flows between Buffalo and Fort Erie. The work is part of an ongoing $167 million capital improvement plan that the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority has undertaken in recent years.

http://m.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/03/27/80m-peace-bridge-work-to-feature-new-deck-added.html

Peace Bridge to be re decked with half of a fourth-lane to be added. Pretty pointless IMo without constructing a twin. It's polishing a turd.
What are you twinning here? Peace Bridge isn't the constraint, Customs is.

From talking with the Peace Bridge Authority's engineering firm, I agree. The plan is to eventually twin it, but that's 15-20 years out. Right now it's building queuing capacity for the American side because of how hard local residents are pushing back. They just finished widening the American approach until just before the through truss span to accommodate trucks queuing (pretty amazing, considering that they were only putting girders up when I was on the site 6 months ago). By widening the Canadian approach, they can make it 2 lanes into the US at all times to prevent traffic from backing up into Fort Erie.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 27, 2015, 07:50:23 PM
Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
I believe the overpasses are original from 1962 and are they narrow.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 27, 2015, 07:57:42 PM
Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
I believe the overpasses are original from 1962 and are they narrow.

They are. They're one of only 4 sets south of Exit 17 that are original (including the Twin Bridges and NY 146, which I think are). As with every other replacement project south of Saratoga, they're building in capacity for 8 lanes if they every decide to widen. I don't know about NY 146, but I know the bridge over NY 29 is likely on the list because it only has a 14 foot actual clearance (if not also in bad shape).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 27, 2015, 08:13:25 PM
Quote
In a dramatic makeover, the Peace Bridge will be redecked, adding a fourth traffic lane as vehicles approach the Canadian inspection plaza and a revamped sidewalk/bike path that includes an overlook at the international line where the U.S. and Canada meet over the Niagara River.

The first phase of the $80 million project will begin this year and be stretched over the next few years to limit impacts on traffic flows between Buffalo and Fort Erie. The work is part of an ongoing $167 million capital improvement plan that the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority has undertaken in recent years.

http://m.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/03/27/80m-peace-bridge-work-to-feature-new-deck-added.html

Peace Bridge to be re decked with half of a fourth-lane to be added. Pretty pointless IMo without constructing a twin. It's polishing a turd.
What are you twinning here? Peace Bridge isn't the constraint, Customs is.

From talking with the Peace Bridge Authority's engineering firm, I agree. The plan is to eventually twin it, but that's 15-20 years out. Right now it's building queuing capacity for the American side because of how hard local residents are pushing back. They just finished widening the American approach until just before the through truss span to accommodate trucks queuing (pretty amazing, considering that they were only putting girders up when I was on the site 6 months ago). By widening the Canadian approach, they can make it 2 lanes into the US at all times to prevent traffic from backing up into Fort Erie.

Yeah, they really pushed back against the truck plaza because of exhaust fumes I believe. But these intermittent improvements would really help for Bills and to a lesser extent Sabres games.

P.S. I just now realized that Alps is the Alps from Alpsroads. Funny, because I learned about your photo galleries quite a while before I learned about this site! It's like the Wikipedia of highways.

P.P.S. By any chance, does anyone know who Roadwaywiz is?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 27, 2015, 08:48:27 PM
Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
I believe the overpasses are original from 1962 and are they narrow.

They are. They're one of only 4 sets south of Exit 17 that are original (including the Twin Bridges and NY 146, which I think are). As with every other replacement project south of Saratoga, they're building in capacity for 8 lanes if they every decide to widen. I don't know about NY 146, but I know the bridge over NY 29 is likely on the list because it only has a 14 foot actual clearance (if not also in bad shape).
I thought so.  If I remember correctly, the concrete pillars are also the round type, which I do not think are placed any longer.  These were also placed in the days when the concrete was painted white.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 27, 2015, 09:44:37 PM
Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
I believe the overpasses are original from 1962 and are they narrow.

They are. They're one of only 4 sets south of Exit 17 that are original (including the Twin Bridges and NY 146, which I think are). As with every other replacement project south of Saratoga, they're building in capacity for 8 lanes if they every decide to widen. I don't know about NY 146, but I know the bridge over NY 29 is likely on the list because it only has a 14 foot actual clearance (if not also in bad shape).
I thought so.  If I remember correctly, the concrete pillars are also the round type, which I do not think are placed any longer.  These were also placed in the days when the concrete was painted white.

They didn't stop placing the round pillars until 15 or so years ago, so that really says nothing. The bridge at Exit 19 has them and that was built in the late 90s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 27, 2015, 10:34:22 PM
Oh, OK.  You learn something new every day!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on March 28, 2015, 09:35:11 AM
P.P.S. By any chance, does anyone know who Roadwaywiz is?

Roadwaywiz is Dan Murphy.

He has a facebook page for his road videos as well: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Roadwaywiz/257582354410961?fref=ts
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 28, 2015, 04:39:01 PM
He's also active in the Facebook groups.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J Route Z on March 31, 2015, 07:10:18 PM
P.P.S. By any chance, does anyone know who Roadwaywiz is?

Roadwaywiz is Dan Murphy.

He has a facebook page for his road videos as well: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Roadwaywiz/257582354410961?fref=ts

He has the best videos up and down the east coast. He is venturing into Florida pretty soon, going down I-95.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 01, 2015, 11:41:43 AM
Heard somewhere that a study will be conducted in the near future to determine if a beltway will be needed to serve the developing suburbs around Buffalo. The study was triggered due to the fact that Erie County's population is on the rise...

So... if this were to happen, it wouldn't be the "Mile Strip Expressway" from the '70s. They'd have to start it in a more undeveloped, southernly point and continue around the county. It would have to pass through Elma and straddle the Lancaster border. Then you talk about how many lanes will it have? 8? 10 including an HOV/ 4 express lanes? Maybe 12?

I'm sure it wouldn't go past the 90 going north for now, OR they would start in the north towns and connect to the 90.

Either way this project and study is long overdue and I can't wait till funding for the EFIS is earmarked into the budget!!!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 01, 2015, 12:49:31 PM
Hold it with the foaming. Way too early for that and, if anything ever gets built, a southern bypass that serves the dual purpose of rerouting through traffic and getting trucks off of US 20 is more likely. There also isn't an available number unless they renumber I-690.

At this point, anything to the south would have to begin west of Hamburg and run in the remaining undeveloped, relatively flat area between there and Pembroke. Might be too far east for most people. A northern bypass could use the LaSalle Expressway,  but it'd have to stay in Niagara County until around NY 78 to avoid Amherst and Clarence and not merge into I-90 until near Pembroke. Again, it might be too far out to do anything and you'd be committing everyone to one river crossing that has no expansion plans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 01, 2015, 12:58:26 PM
Hold it with the foaming. Way too early for that and, if anything ever gets built, a southern bypass that serves the dual purpose of rerouting through traffic and getting trucks off of US 20 is more likely. There also isn't an available number unless they renumber I-690.

At this point, anything to the south would have to begin west of Hamburg and run in the remaining undeveloped, relatively flat area between there and Pembroke. Might be too far east for most people. A northern bypass could use the LaSalle Expressway,  but it'd have to stay in Niagara County until around NY 78 to avoid Amherst and Clarence and not merge into I-90 until near Pembroke. Again, it might be too far out to do anything and you'd be committing everyone to one river crossing that has no expansion plans.

 :pan: Have you checked your calendar? It's April 1st!

Seriously however, your idea makes the most sense, a bypass (maybe 400 extension) could get traffic to the 390 and NYC faster via 86/17.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 01, 2015, 08:20:21 PM
Similarly, Rochester intends to complete its highway plan and build an intermodal freeway to finish I-390.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2015/04/southern-communities-active-transportation-plan-rochester-to-henrietta/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: DeaconG on April 02, 2015, 05:47:25 PM
Similarly, Rochester intends to complete its highway plan and build an intermodal freeway to finish I-390.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2015/04/southern-communities-active-transportation-plan-rochester-to-henrietta/

Well played.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 02, 2015, 06:45:01 PM
Similarly, Rochester intends to complete its highway plan and build an intermodal freeway to finish I-390.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2015/04/southern-communities-active-transportation-plan-rochester-to-henrietta/

Haha wow! This is funny!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on April 02, 2015, 11:22:52 PM
Similarly, Rochester intends to complete its highway plan and build an intermodal freeway to finish I-390.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2015/04/southern-communities-active-transportation-plan-rochester-to-henrietta/

Excellent!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 03, 2015, 07:15:22 PM
Some permanent-looking emergency detour signs went up along I-290 at Exit 3 pretty recently. I'm assuming yesterday, as that's the date on the back of them. Detour A turns onto US 62 NB from the WB exit ramp and a Detour B sign is posted at the SB-WB entrance ramp. Anyone know what's up with these signs or if they're being posted elsewhere?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 04, 2015, 12:00:28 AM
Some permanent-looking emergency detour signs went up along I-290 at Exit 3 pretty recently. I'm assuming yesterday, as that's the date on the back of them. Detour A turns onto US 62 NB from the WB exit ramp and a Detour B sign is posted at the SB-WB entrance ramp. Anyone know what's up with these signs or if they're being posted elsewhere?

Could it be highway widening? Bridge work? I'm just throwing out guesses.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 04, 2015, 08:58:05 PM
Those wouldn't be permanent.  It's probably something like the "emergency detour E" signage in Utica.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 10, 2015, 09:17:53 AM
For those interested in the progress of the Utica North-South Arterial project, I did a dash cam video last night.  Here's part 1, heading north/east to south/west with a little bit extra.  It's in real time and there's no groovy music but you'll get an idea of what's going on.

https://youtu.be/D_h0M4gCk50 (https://youtu.be/D_h0M4gCk50)

I'll post part 2 later today or tomorrow, which has the other direction and some of the side streets around the project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 13, 2015, 04:39:30 PM
For those interested in the progress of the Utica North-South Arterial project, I did a dash cam video last night.  Here's part 1, heading north/east to south/west with a little bit extra.  It's in real time and there's no groovy music but you'll get an idea of what's going on.

https://youtu.be/D_h0M4gCk50 (https://youtu.be/D_h0M4gCk50)

I'll post part 2 later today or tomorrow, which has the other direction and some of the side streets around the project.

It definitely captures the work being done and having driven by it yesterday it seems they are moving at a good clip.

Will the bridges themselves be asphalt bridges or concrete?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 13, 2015, 08:25:57 PM
Probably concrete.  I don't know if NY has any pure asphalt bridges, at least on state roadways.  They're pretty much all concrete or overlays.  The new Arterial lanes are concrete, so the bridges should be as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 13, 2015, 10:23:16 PM
Probably concrete.  I don't know if NY has any pure asphalt bridges, at least on state roadways.  They're pretty much all concrete or overlays.  The new Arterial lanes are concrete, so the bridges should be as well.

"Asphalt" bridges have an overlay because the deck slab is a structural element. Typically, concrete is underneath the asphalt, but it could be steel. Flexible pavement (asphalt) can't carry a load by itself. Most of the asphalt-decked bridges out there are simple overlays over concrete.

New York traditionally uses a concrete wearing surface for new construction or major reconstruction of high-volume roads, but this isn't always the case. I-781 and NY 17 around Exit 98 opened with asphalt lanes and I'm pretty sure that the Northway through the Adirondacks opened with asphalt. It's actually more of a shock to see something big that isn't concrete.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: qguy on April 14, 2015, 09:10:04 AM
Like the word "never," "always" is a strong word, disproved by just one example, but it would be exceedingly difficult to find a modern highway bridge that doesn't have a concrete deck. The configuration is steel or concrete beams mounted on piers and/or abutments, with a concrete deck mounted on the beams (typically poured onto pan forms which lay atop the beams). Sometimes the concrete deck directly serves as the wearing surface; sometimes the concrete deck is topped with an asphalt wearing surface.

An asphalt surface is never laid directly on the beams (be they steel or concrete).

This all may be obvious already (if so, feel free to eye-roll to your heart's content), but having worked for a state transportation agency and observed bridge construction many times, I just wanted to clarify.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 14, 2015, 10:07:46 PM
Probably concrete.  I don't know if NY has any pure asphalt bridges, at least on state roadways.  They're pretty much all concrete or overlays.  The new Arterial lanes are concrete, so the bridges should be as well.

After reading this I think I mean overlay now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Big John on April 14, 2015, 10:25:40 PM
^^ There are no pure asphalt bridges.  Asphalt is a "flexible" pavement and a bridge made of that would not hold up.  You can place an asphalt overlay over a concrete or timber deck, but as a non-structural component.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 15, 2015, 12:25:49 AM
^^ There are no pure asphalt bridges.  Asphalt is a "flexible" pavement and a bridge made of that would not hold up.  You can place an asphalt overlay over a concrete or timber deck, but as a non-structural component.
There are also steel grate decks, and I've seen those with a coat of asphalt (it sinks in and you end up with a composite steel-asphalt surface). Finally, you have "plastic timber" decks starting to pop up, and composites will form an ever-increasing component of future structures. Between steel, concrete, wood, and composites, every bridge has at least one of the four. (And concrete for bridges always has steel inside.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 16, 2015, 11:15:01 PM
has anybody asked for signing plans from the NY DOT that are currently under construction?  I'm talking about plans where the documents are no longer available on the letting page. 

There are some "spot sign" replacements at 70 locations around the NYC and am curious to see where.

It seems new signs are popping up on the FDR Drive weekly. 

I use the contact us page at the bottom of the specific project page, but never get a response.  I think it's a public information officer anyway.  Does anyone ever contact specific engineers?  (That's a good thing about CTDOT, they always seem willing to share their knowledge and documents.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 17, 2015, 03:55:11 AM
^^ There are no pure asphalt bridges.  Asphalt is a "flexible" pavement and a bridge made of that would not hold up.  You can place an asphalt overlay over a concrete or timber deck, but as a non-structural component.
There are also steel grate decks, and I've seen those with a coat of asphalt (it sinks in and you end up with a composite steel-asphalt surface). Finally, you have "plastic timber" decks starting to pop up, and composites will form an ever-increasing component of future structures. Between steel, concrete, wood, and composites, every bridge has at least one of the four. (And concrete for bridges always has steel inside.)

That's interesting. New materials like nanotubes are being implemented in a lot of different structures for strength, and because of the way snow corrodes bridges maybe that can be modified into a solution.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 17, 2015, 02:51:25 PM
I'm down in Orange County right now and Region 8's highways are in miserable shape, as is the Palisades. 9W north of Highland Falls and the Parkway have some potholes that could swallow a small car. Any timeline as to when they'll get around to patching or a mill and fill?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on April 20, 2015, 05:16:22 PM
Also, any update on what the designation is or will be for the old US 219 alignment from NY 39-Springville to Peters Road?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 20, 2015, 05:43:36 PM
Also, any update on what the designation is or will be for the old US 219 alignment from NY 39-Springville to Peters Road?

It has a CH designation on both sides, but no signed designation as of now (unless I'm missing something). Probably isn't worth even making a CR designation. Erie County doesn't post CRs and the Cattaraugus County segment is quite short.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on April 20, 2015, 07:08:21 PM
gotcha - makes sense - I was just curious. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 20, 2015, 09:16:21 PM
Plus the counties do NOT want that bridge.  They are fighting Region 5 at ever turn on that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 20, 2015, 09:52:57 PM
Plus the counties do NOT want that bridge.  They are fighting Region 5 at ever turn on that.

Erie County might have the money to maintain it if they didn't maintain every flipping road south of US 20A or in the eastern border towns
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 21, 2015, 07:15:50 PM
Does anyone know why the ramp from the HRD NB to E. 125th st (Exit 19) is closed? 

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7616/17228646011_d97754d4a7_c.jpg)

and what are they doing on the Deegan Expwy up by Yankee Stadium?  Looks like there's room for another lane there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 21, 2015, 10:47:43 PM
Does anyone know why the ramp from the HRD NB to E. 125th st (Exit 19) is closed?

Construction is ongoing in that area, related to the Willis Avenue Bridge project. I don't know if this closure is related to that work, or a separate but adjacent project.

…And now I do: Article (http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141110/east-harlem/125th-street-headed-for-3-years-of-detours-amid-harlem-river-drive-repairs)

Quote
and what are they doing on the Deegan Expwy up by Yankee Stadium?  Looks like there's room for another lane there.

Another construction project, upgrading the viaduct that the highway sits on alongside Bronx Terminal Market.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 23, 2015, 02:11:35 AM
Plus the counties do NOT want that bridge.  They are fighting Region 5 at ever turn on that.

Erie County might have the money to maintain it if they didn't maintain every flipping road south of US 20A or in the eastern border towns

I can't wait for the day when we see EC highway shields dotted around the county.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on April 23, 2015, 09:40:02 AM
The Deegan should be 4 lanes northbound from the Stadium to the GWB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 23, 2015, 09:40:52 AM
That brings up an interesting question:  disregarding the 5 boroughs, which New York counties lack county route signage?  The only one I know of offhand is Onondaga (CR 57/Old NY 57 doesn't count since it's officially a different county route number).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 23, 2015, 11:48:48 AM
The Deegan should be 4 lanes northbound from the Stadium to the GWB.

I believe there is room, some of the side streets could be narrowed in spots.  They may have to blast some rock, land and fix grading but it could be done.  At the very least expand some of the off-ramps so traffic doesn't stack up into the mainline.  Exit 9 SB comes into mind. 

I'm surprised the DOT is fixing the HRD E 125th Street ramps, I mean, there's lots of other spots that could use a quick fix other than that spot. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 23, 2015, 12:14:46 PM
Also, I found this future project:

A 4th lane on I-95 NB just before the HRP.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X73127

Hopefully this will help the bottleneck there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 23, 2015, 12:27:35 PM
That brings up an interesting question:  disregarding the 5 boroughs, which New York counties lack county route signage?  The only one I know of offhand is Onondaga (CR 57/Old NY 57 doesn't count since it's officially a different county route number).

-Nassau
-Westchester
-Niagara
-Orleans
-Monroe
-Wayne
-Ontario
-Cayuga
-Oneida
-Cortland
-Seneca
-Genesee
-Wyoming
-Erie (if you disregard the 4-5 remaining shields)

Nassau used to post and, while Erie County once had more shields, I do not know if they were present in more than a few locations.

Shields are more common in the Southern Tier, northern, and eastern parts of the state, being rare in Western New York.
Title: New York
Post by: Sam on April 23, 2015, 02:59:34 PM
Ontario renamed all the county roads to County Road XX. I guess that makes them self-signing :) Wayne and Seneca include CR XX in a corner of the blades,  but no shields.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on April 23, 2015, 06:47:33 PM
Clinton County doesn't sign them either, with one exception.

Franklin County doesn't use the pentagon, but rather, a green square, to sign county routes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 25, 2015, 04:59:16 PM
Oneida actually started using the pentagon a couple years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 26, 2015, 09:18:31 AM
Montgomery County doesn't use the standard marker but if you look closely, there's little tenth-type markers at an interval I have yet to determine with county route numbers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 26, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
Montgomery County doesn't use the standard marker but if you look closely, there's little tenth-type markers at an interval I have yet to determine with county route numbers.

Speaking of markers, I just saw this interesting video today about how to interpret the NYS markers (I've only known how to interpret the simple Interstate ones)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 26, 2015, 10:25:31 PM
WOW! Awesome! Are we going to get quizzed on that later on? :)

I wonder how Connecticut would do that with a mere 8 counties? I don't know how we do the districts here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 26, 2015, 10:51:42 PM
Montgomery County doesn't use the standard marker but if you look closely, there's little tenth-type markers at an interval I have yet to determine with county route numbers.

Speaking of markers, I just saw this interesting video today about how to interpret the NYS markers (I've only known how to interpret the simple Interstate ones)


You know there's a website for that, doncha? ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 27, 2015, 03:47:59 PM
Montgomery County doesn't use the standard marker but if you look closely, there's little tenth-type markers at an interval I have yet to determine with county route numbers.

Speaking of markers, I just saw this interesting video today about how to interpret the NYS markers (I've only known how to interpret the simple Interstate ones)


You know there's a website for that, doncha? ;-)

Right here?

WOW! Awesome! Are we going to get quizzed on that later on? :)

I wonder how Connecticut would do that with a mere 8 counties? I don't know how we do the districts here.

Hah, I hope not...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 28, 2015, 08:52:08 PM
I may be late to the party here, but only last month did I notice that at the southbound Cross Bronx/Bruckner split the Cross Bronx control city is now "Newark NJ." 

It's about $&@£ing time.

I'm just going to remember my MTR rants of about fifteen years ago, and graciously tell NYSDOT "you're welcome."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on April 28, 2015, 09:13:52 PM
Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 28, 2015, 09:26:45 PM
Those are the state highway ones.  I actually have my own page on them too: http://nysroads.com/ref-markers.php

Here's the official manual: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/rmm
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 28, 2015, 09:31:12 PM

Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?

ixnay

Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 28, 2015, 09:33:16 PM


Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?

ixnay

Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)

Holy crap, I used to eagerly look forward to the Interchange of the Week.  Belated thanks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 28, 2015, 09:56:23 PM


Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?

ixnay

Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)

Holy crap, I used to eagerly look forward to the Interchange of the Week.  Belated thanks.

Ah yes, when aerial imagery had to be manually downloaded and mosaicked. That site today would basically a collection of Google Maps links. ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 28, 2015, 11:04:47 PM


Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?

ixnay

Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)

Holy crap, I used to eagerly look forward to the Interchange of the Week.  Belated thanks.

Ah yes, when aerial imagery had to be manually downloaded and mosaicked. That site today would basically a collection of Google Maps links. ;-)

I love your site. Still the best New York-oriented page out there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 29, 2015, 09:27:02 AM
Those are the state highway ones.  I actually have my own page on them too: http://nysroads.com/ref-markers.php

Here's the official manual: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/rmm

Same basic source I used; although I had to order a hard copy of it.

My write-up on the Monroe County markers is here: http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/monroemark.html

And a complete official list of these markers is here: https://www.monroecounty.gov/Image/MCBIBookWebVersion2013.pdf

I love your site. Still the best New York-oriented page out there.

*blush* :-)

I am glad people still find it informative. I turned down an offer once to sell the domain name, so at least that's not for nothing. Unfortunately I really don't work on it anymore, except that I did finally compile the Nassau County highway listing a few years ago, thus filling probably the biggest outstanding informational hole on the site (I still haven't found a county highway map of any validity, so I made my own (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html) out of NYSDOT topo quads):
http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 29, 2015, 03:53:51 PM


Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?

ixnay

Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)

Holy crap, I used to eagerly look forward to the Interchange of the Week.  Belated thanks.

Ah yes, when aerial imagery had to be manually downloaded and mosaicked. That site today would basically a collection of Google Maps links. ;-)

I love your site. Still the best New York-oriented page out there.

Well!  :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 29, 2015, 09:04:08 PM
I am glad people still find it informative. I turned down an offer once to sell the domain name, so at least that's not for nothing. Unfortunately I really don't work on it anymore, except that I did finally compile the Nassau County highway listing a few years ago, thus filling probably the biggest outstanding informational hole on the site (I still haven't found a county highway map of any validity, so I made my own (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html) out of NYSDOT topo quads):
http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html
Hmm... makes me wonder if I should create county/reference route lists after all.  Where did you go for county route data?  I imagine most of it can be found on the NYSDOT highway inventory.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 29, 2015, 11:11:59 PM
I am glad people still find it informative. I turned down an offer once to sell the domain name, so at least that's not for nothing. Unfortunately I really don't work on it anymore, except that I did finally compile the Nassau County highway listing a few years ago, thus filling probably the biggest outstanding informational hole on the site (I still haven't found a county highway map of any validity, so I made my own (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html) out of NYSDOT topo quads):
http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html
Hmm... makes me wonder if I should create county/reference route lists after all.  Where did you go for county route data?  I imagine most of it can be found on the NYSDOT highway inventory.

That's where I've gotten it recently. But it used to all come, primarily, from the counties' own highway maps (which I had an ongoing, partially-completed goal to collect in person at the county highway office), and I find I miss the sense of authority that comes with using the info straight from the source instead of filtered through the state's databases. On the other hand, not all counties used to record their data with that much precision, so it's a balancing act.

(If you're interested in particulars, each county's sources are listed at the bottom of its page on my site.)

And I should probably add that I was always partial to J.P.'s site myself. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 29, 2015, 11:18:01 PM
I am glad people still find it informative. I turned down an offer once to sell the domain name, so at least that's not for nothing. Unfortunately I really don't work on it anymore, except that I did finally compile the Nassau County highway listing a few years ago, thus filling probably the biggest outstanding informational hole on the site (I still haven't found a county highway map of any validity, so I made my own (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html) out of NYSDOT topo quads):
http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html
Hmm... makes me wonder if I should create county/reference route lists after all.  Where did you go for county route data?  I imagine most of it can be found on the NYSDOT highway inventory.

That's where I've gotten it recently. But it used to all come, primarily, from the counties' own highway maps (which I had an ongoing, partially-completed goal to collect in person at the county highway office), and I find I miss the sense of authority that comes with using the info straight from the source instead of filtered through the state's databases. On the other hand, not all counties used to record their data with that much precision, so it's a balancing act.

(If you're interested in particulars, each county's sources are listed at the bottom of its page on my site.)

And I should probably add that I was always partial to J.P.'s site myself. :-)

The University at Buffalo actually has both your site and J.P.'s linked on a library page ( http://library.buffalo.edu/maps/buffalo-wnymaps/location/wny-maps.html#reg )
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 30, 2015, 08:19:55 PM
But not mine?  Someone needs to get them to update the list!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 07, 2015, 11:17:38 AM
Downtown Utica to undergo a road diet. Thoughts?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on May 07, 2015, 06:08:08 PM
Downtown Utica to undergo a road diet. Thoughts?

I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Zeffy on May 08, 2015, 10:33:41 AM
Feds tell New York City to remove iconic Times Square billboards or face funding cuts (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/05/05/times-square-billboards-highway-beautification-act/)

Quote
You can call it a bureaucratic blunder … or a Washington blooper.

But any way you slice it a move by the federal government to make the city remove Times Square’s iconic billboards falls in the category of “whose bright idea is this?”

Quote
The feds say many of Times Square’s huge and neon-lit billboards must come down or the city will lose about $90 million in federal highway money.

Quote
The edict comes from a 2012 law that makes Times Square an arterial route to the national highway system. And that puts it under the 1965 Highway Beautification Act, which limits signs to 1,200 square feet. It took the feds until now to realize that Times Square was included, Kramer reported.



My thoughts on this, are pretty plain and simple: bullshit. I would be disgusted if the federal government forced New York City to remove those billboards in Times Square. That's what practically makes it Times Square. I hope the City doesn't play ball with the feds. Sometimes the feds aren't in the right.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 08, 2015, 12:07:29 PM
Feds tell New York City to remove iconic Times Square billboards or face funding cuts (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/05/05/times-square-billboards-highway-beautification-act/)

My thoughts on this, are pretty plain and simple: bullshit. I would be disgusted if the federal government forced New York City to remove those billboards in Times Square. That's what practically makes it Times Square. I hope the City doesn't play ball with the feds. Sometimes the feds aren't in the right.

Of more concrete relevance than simple aversion to Federal involvement in the city's affairs is going to be the fact that city zoning ordinances actually establish minimum standards of size and illumination for advertising signs in Times Square. While Federal law would presumably trump city zoning, you can bet there are many millions of dollars' worth of private contracts and covenants in place among the "local" landowners that are based on these regulations. It would make a thorny thicket indeed for the Feds to untangle if they really want to pursue this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: DeaconG on May 08, 2015, 12:48:44 PM
How long have those billboards been there...since the late 1910s, early 20s? They want to remove nearly one hundred years of precedent just because?

Tell the feds to piss off.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on May 08, 2015, 01:01:25 PM
I'm fairly certain that the city will get a quick exemption for this and this nonsense will be forgotten. Love it or hate it, Times Square is a part of Americana at this point. I'm sure that they'll move on from this and the bonehead at the DOT will be a nice stern lecture about splitting hairs a bit too closely.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 08, 2015, 01:03:35 PM
I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!

Having only recently seen Utica with my own eyes (and sometimes skeptical of plans for road "diets"), I think this might be a good idea for the core area of Utica.  Struck me as peculiar that N.Y. 5S goes pretty quickly from being a freeway-class road east of town to an urban street, with relatively little in the way of warning to drivers.

Wonder why there was apparently no consideration given to a direct, high speed connection between 5S and the Thruway in Utica?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 08, 2015, 01:13:57 PM
I'm fairly certain that the city will get a quick exemption for this and this nonsense will be forgotten. Love it or hate it, Times Square is a part of Americana at this point. I'm sure that they'll move on from this and the bonehead at the DOT will be a nice stern lecture about splitting hairs a bit too closely.

Well yeah, the other thing is, it's a pretty enormous question from this report as to how much of a thing this actually is. There's only the briefest reference to an "edict" stemming from a 2012 law, but the source, content or motivation of that edict don't bear the slightest mention.

EDIT: Here's another, earlier article (http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/05/8567170/federal-act-pressures-city-remove-oversize-times-square-billboards); again, there's vague mention of Federal "pressure" to remove billboards, but pretty much all the article goes into is how the recent inclusion of certain streets in the NHS happens to have the effect of making Times Square non-compliant with the Beautification Act, but it doesn't refer to any specific Federal action actually intended to bring it into compliance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on May 08, 2015, 01:27:06 PM
I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!

Having only recently seen Utica with my own eyes (and sometimes skeptical of plans for road "diets"), I think this might be a good idea for the core area of Utica.  Struck me as peculiar that N.Y. 5S goes pretty quickly from being a freeway-class road east of town to an urban street, with relatively little in the way of warning to drivers.

Wonder why there was apparently no consideration given to a direct, high speed connection between 5S and the Thruway in Utica?

There was a "phase 3" of the late 1980s MUD project (the project that reconfigured I-790) to connect the freeway end at Leland Ave to either Routes 5 or 5S near Dyke Rd. (sources differ as to whether it was 5 or 5S) but that phase of the project never came to fruition.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 08, 2015, 05:47:30 PM
Downtown Utica to undergo a road diet. Thoughts?

I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!

Well I will tell you my experiences with the Bagg's Sq. area from October.

Coming from Union Station, I wanted to walk to the bus terminal to go to my university. There are bushes that create a blind spot from cars rushing westward on Oriskany St, so if I wasn't careful I could've been roadkill. Fortunately I timed things right to cross across. Plus, the Genesee St bridge bypasses that area where there are businesses coming out of the ground (Utica Roasters, Tailor and Cook). The city should look to Buffalo to see how to redo that area.

If the Utica planners wanted to put NY 5S through Utica as a highway, it should've been submerged like the Inner Loop. Not at grade!!!

Also I was on the Thruway today coming home for the summer. I'll post later with thoughts, questions and notes about things I saw.

Edit: and quickly, I know people love to disagree with this but I still think there should be an exit at Judd Rd.


I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!

Having only recently seen Utica with my own eyes (and sometimes skeptical of plans for road "diets"), I think this might be a good idea for the core area of Utica.  Struck me as peculiar that N.Y. 5S goes pretty quickly from being a freeway-class road east of town to an urban street, with relatively little in the way of warning to drivers.

Wonder why there was apparently no consideration given to a direct, high speed connection between 5S and the Thruway in Utica?

There was a "phase 3" of the late 1980s MUD project (the project that reconfigured I-790) to connect the freeway end at Leland Ave to either Routes 5 or 5S near Dyke Rd. (sources differ as to whether it was 5 or 5S) but that phase of the project never came to fruition.

Edit 2: I made a post a few pages back either here or on the NYST thread with my vision for how to reconfigure the NY5S thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 08, 2015, 05:55:53 PM
I'm fairly certain that the city will get a quick exemption for this and this nonsense will be forgotten. Love it or hate it, Times Square is a part of Americana at this point. I'm sure that they'll move on from this and the bonehead at the DOT will be a nice stern lecture about splitting hairs a bit too closely.

CityLab.com: No, the Feds Are Not Requiring Times Square to Remove Its Billboards - But why are Broadway and 7th Avenue now classified as national highways? (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/05/no-the-feds-are-not-requiring-times-square-to-remove-its-billboards/392657/)
Title: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 09, 2015, 08:43:43 AM
I'm fairly certain that the city will get a quick exemption for this and this nonsense will be forgotten. Love it or hate it, Times Square is a part of Americana at this point. I'm sure that they'll move on from this and the bonehead at the DOT will be a nice stern lecture about splitting hairs a bit too closely.

CityLab.com: No, the Feds Are Not Requiring Times Square to Remove Its Billboards - But why are Broadway and 7th Avenue now classified as national highways? (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/05/no-the-feds-are-not-requiring-times-square-to-remove-its-billboards/392657/)

As I suspected.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 09, 2015, 11:40:26 PM
In other news, the 3rd Ave exit right before the Whitestone Bridge has just reopened at some point within the last 24 hours. I was by there at about 1:30 AM last night and it was closed. A couple hours ago I was tipped off by Roadgeek_Adam that it had reopened and my girlfriend and I just went on a quick excursion to see for ourselves. It's open!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 21, 2015, 01:19:38 PM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 21, 2015, 08:51:59 PM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!

Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.

On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 21, 2015, 10:01:56 PM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!

Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.

On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.

Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.

While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 21, 2015, 10:38:21 PM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!

Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.

On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.

Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.

While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.

I'm talking about human counters with Jamar TDCs. Only way to get counts at intersections. NY 75 is not getting a diet.

Erie County DPW is really bad about keeping PSIs/PCIs at a reasonable level. They're just getting to some stuff up north that has been a mess since I moved here in 2007. Bowen Road has gotten little more than a couple crappy overlays and much of the surface consists of cold-mix pothole fill. Tonawanda Creek Road has been closed because it's been falling into the creek for a decade with a reopening not occurring until at least 2018. Goodrich Road will supposedly be redone this year, but I'm not holding my breath. Hell, even their reconstruction projects have had crappy results. The surface of the reconstructed North French and Robinson Roads corridor is already seeing distress and that was completed last fall. William Street in Lancaster, reconstructed top-down 5 years ago, is in similar shape to parallel US 20, which hasn't been resurfaced in 15 years (IINM).

Basically, Erie County maintains too much mileage, so nothing gets done when it should be done and a highway has to have devolved to gravel before they'll even touch it. McKinley Parkway, while not nice, is a hell of a lot better than most county-maintained roads here. We probably have quite a while before that'll be redone. To give you an idea, they just redid Losson Road in Cheektowaga last year. The bumps could destroy your suspension and some of the cracks and holes could swallow a small child. It was significantly worse than McKinley Parkway is now. Of course, I could be wrong, but this is Erie County we're talking about and road maintenance is not a top priority.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 21, 2015, 11:33:36 PM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!

Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.

On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.

Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.

While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.

I'm talking about human counters with Jamar TDCs. Only way to get counts at intersections. NY 75 is not getting a diet.

Erie County DPW is really bad about keeping PSIs/PCIs at a reasonable level. They're just getting to some stuff up north that has been a mess since I moved here in 2007. Bowen Road has gotten little more than a couple crappy overlays and much of the surface consists of cold-mix pothole fill. Tonawanda Creek Road has been closed because it's been falling into the creek for a decade with a reopening not occurring until at least 2018. Goodrich Road will supposedly be redone this year, but I'm not holding my breath. Hell, even their reconstruction projects have had crappy results. The surface of the reconstructed North French and Robinson Roads corridor is already seeing distress and that was completed last fall. William Street in Lancaster, reconstructed top-down 5 years ago, is in similar shape to parallel US 20, which hasn't been resurfaced in 15 years (IINM).

Basically, Erie County maintains too much mileage, so nothing gets done when it should be done and a highway has to have devolved to gravel before they'll even touch it. McKinley Parkway, while not nice, is a hell of a lot better than most county-maintained roads here. We probably have quite a while before that'll be redone. To give you an idea, they just redid Losson Road in Cheektowaga last year. The bumps could destroy your suspension and some of the cracks and holes could swallow a small child. It was significantly worse than McKinley Parkway is now. Of course, I could be wrong, but this is Erie County we're talking about and road maintenance is not a top priority.

It sounds like the county has a bias against the northtowns :D

But in all seriousness, between the snow that pummels the roads every winter, a federal government tied in a knot with every big county in the country begging for money and a state that is trying to balance between a renaissance and bankruptcy, it doesn't add up well for the county. Then you have TIGER grants which aren't put to good use as well. I'm not studying to be a politician though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 22, 2015, 12:25:40 AM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!

Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.

On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.

Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.

While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.

I'm talking about human counters with Jamar TDCs. Only way to get counts at intersections. NY 75 is not getting a diet.

False. Camera technology can track vehicle paths.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 22, 2015, 08:33:05 AM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!

Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.

On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.

Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.

While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.

I'm talking about human counters with Jamar TDCs. Only way to get counts at intersections. NY 75 is not getting a diet.

False. Camera technology can track vehicle paths.

I probably should have phrased it differently. It's not cost-effective to install the cameras is most cases.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 22, 2015, 10:09:00 AM
The camera installations that I'm aware of are temporary, not permanent....and used for origin-destination studies.  That's probably along the lines of what Alps was alluding to.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 22, 2015, 05:56:33 PM
The camera installations that I'm aware of are temporary, not permanent....and used for origin-destination studies.  That's probably along the lines of what Alps was alluding to.

True. I don't want to give the MPO any ideas, though. Traffic counting is the only thing remotely related to transportation in Buffalo that hires student interns and doesn't involve bridge design and the University has enough trouble as it is trying to expand the transportation program.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 23, 2015, 01:28:00 PM
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.

Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 24, 2015, 12:55:47 AM
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.

Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.

Sounds pretty busy. How is the Cleveland Dr. project going?

Also, question that just jumped into my head: could the Buffalo area implement HOV lanes on highways, and if it could, where and if not, why?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 24, 2015, 11:04:22 AM
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.

Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.

Sounds pretty busy. How is the Cleveland Dr. project going?

Also, question that just jumped into my head: could the Buffalo area implement HOV lanes on highways, and if it could, where and if not, why?

Bridge is down. I have a picture of the monotube that I've yet to post. It'll be done by the end of the summer.

Region 5 won't implement HOV lanes. I can almost guarantee it. There aren't enough HOVs and, due to ROW constraints, construction would be prohibitively expensive, especially given how little they'd be used. Heck, there are only a few places where another general purpose lane is needed (and many of those are currently 4 lanes). Main issues around here are related directly to interchange geometry. I-90 Exit 51's auxiliary lanes are very substandard and Exit 50 doesn't have enough lanes to accommodate the main movement.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 24, 2015, 02:39:12 PM
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.

Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.

Sounds pretty busy. How is the Cleveland Dr. project going?

Also, question that just jumped into my head: could the Buffalo area implement HOV lanes on highways, and if it could, where and if not, why?

Bridge is down. I have a picture of the monotube that I've yet to post. It'll be done by the end of the summer.

Region 5 won't implement HOV lanes. I can almost guarantee it. There aren't enough HOVs and, due to ROW constraints, construction would be prohibitively expensive, especially given how little they'd be used. Heck, there are only a few places where another general purpose lane is needed (and many of those are currently 4 lanes). Main issues around here are related directly to interchange geometry. I-90 Exit 51's auxiliary lanes are very substandard and Exit 50 doesn't have enough lanes to accommodate the main movement.

I saw your concept for Exit 51 awhile ago in the Fantasy forum, it's definitely appropriate for the 21st century. Great? Yes. Feasible? Probably no time soon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on May 28, 2015, 11:25:57 AM
I came across the history of the Adirondack Northway (I-87), including a number of different ways that it could have been routed, plus the story of the missing  Exit 3.

http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/05/27/northway-history (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/05/27/northway-history)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 28, 2015, 07:35:16 PM
I came across the history of the Adirondack Northway (I-87), including a number of different ways that it could have been routed, plus the story of the missing  Exit 3.

http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/05/27/northway-history (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/05/27/northway-history)

What it doesn't mention is the reason for the odd design of Exits 4-5 on the SB side. Per the plans I've seen (can't remember where), I-687 was to branch off of or weave around the C/D road between Exits 5 and 4. The Exit 1 reconstruction removed the necessity of the freeway, but things would have been interesting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 28, 2015, 09:01:12 PM
It would be interesting to see how commuting patterns would change if I-687 had been built.  On the one hand, the merges at I-90 and NY 7 would be less intense; on the other, there would be yet another big merge added in right on top of the exit 4 big merge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 28, 2015, 09:40:08 PM
And there would still be a bottleneck at the bridges, except the backup would extend onto another expressway. Really, not much would be different unless there was another major Mohawk River crossing which, from what I can tell, was never in the plans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 29, 2015, 03:30:59 PM
From the times I've had to go north of the Twin Bridges during rush hour, it seems like the bridges themselves don't actually cause the backup, and that reporting backups as such is more an anomaly of traffic reporters than anything else.  The evening backups start as isolated backups at I-90, NY 5, Albany-Shaker Rd, NY 2/NY 7, and NY 7, and eventually merge into one big backup, with traffic picking up north of NY 7 and remaining slow through exit 9.  The morning backups are at exits 9, 8A, and 8, with slow traffic all the way down to NY 7.

NY 7 currently backs up to Troy.  I-90 can back up all the way to Everett Rd depending on the number of tourists.  I-90's issues seem to be caused more by the Thruway having toll booths than anything else.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 29, 2015, 03:41:47 PM
From the times I've had to go north of the Twin Bridges during rush hour, it seems like the bridges themselves don't actually cause the backup, and that reporting backups as such is more an anomaly of traffic reporters than anything else.  The evening backups start as isolated backups at I-90, NY 5, Albany-Shaker Rd, NY 2/NY 7, and NY 7, and eventually merge into one big backup, with traffic picking up north of NY 7 and remaining slow through exit 9.  The morning backups are at exits 9, 8A, and 8, with slow traffic all the way down to NY 7.

NY 7 currently backs up to Troy.  I-90 can back up all the way to Everett Rd depending on the number of tourists.  I-90's issues seem to be caused more by the Thruway having toll booths than anything else.

Yeah, I know. The Northway needs 8+ general purpose lanes south of Malta regardless of what Region 1 is willing to admit. I don't have the peak hour volumes to run the calculations myself, but I'm pretty certain that, to ensure LOS D or better, more lanes are needed. I know the Twin Bridges are the main thing preventing that from happening, but it's been a cluster for decades. It was a cluster when my mom was growing up in the area back in the 70s and 80s. Daily backups were happening for as long as I can remember. One of my earliest memories is being stuck in rush hour traffic in the mid-late 90s near the bridges when going home from Crossgates. The Exits 24/1 project in the late 80s helped a bit, but the surge in population made things worse than they were before.

The bridges might not be what's causing the issue, per se, but they're a bottleneck, even if it's only virtual.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 29, 2015, 03:46:51 PM
One thing I thought of was the idea of setting up movable barriers on the Northway to create a reversible 4/2 lane situation rather than the current 3/3.  During non-peak times it would remain 3/3 just as it is now, but in rush hour an "express" lane could be carved out from the opposite direction carriageway.

There's probably a million reasons not to do that, but it's something I thought of when commuting one day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 29, 2015, 04:14:08 PM
One thing I thought of was the idea of setting up movable barriers on the Northway to create a reversible 4/2 lane situation rather than the current 3/3.  During non-peak times it would remain 3/3 just as it is now, but in rush hour an "express" lane could be carved out from the opposite direction carriageway.

There's probably a million reasons not to do that, but it's something I thought of when commuting one day.

I had another idea that would allow them to only build one new Mohawk River bridge while keeping the capacity. Build a new 4 lane arch bridge with full shoulders and the capacity for an additional lane for SB traffic and split the northbound carriageway into two 2-lane sections for the bridge. Might be weird, but it would certainly be cheaper and faster than replacing both spans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 29, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
A little off topic, but in my fantasyland, I imagine I-90 running from St. Johnsville, through Gloversville and Saratoga Springs to connect with MA 2 in Erving, MA. Why? I don't have a practical reason other that the fact that it seems "complete."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 29, 2015, 08:06:45 PM
How many hours of congestion does the Northway have in each direction?  Unless it's more than 2-3 hours a day, probably not worth the expense of widening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on May 31, 2015, 01:26:33 PM
During normal rush hour times, heavy traffic usually doesn't last more than 3 hours. However the summer months cause bottlenecks on the weekends. Friday and Sunday evenings can be pretty rough, and if there's an accident then you can expect to be stuck awhile.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 31, 2015, 02:03:01 PM
And, while you might not get more than 3 hours, the traffic caused on the few parallel bridges would likely be alleviated if the Northway had more capacity. US 9 is quite bad if the Northway is bad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 31, 2015, 03:05:11 PM
Parallel roadways too.  Wolf Rd, Maxwell Rd, and Old Niskayuna Rd can all be BRUTAL if people are trying to bypass the Northway on them.  It's so bad that it's faster to take the Northway even when it's a parking lot.  Heck, it's so bad that it even has me considering a move to downtown Albany after a life spent in the suburbs!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 31, 2015, 04:04:43 PM
Quote
Heck, it's so bad that it even has me considering a move to downtown Albany after a life spent in the suburbs!

To be fair, if you're going to be Region 1's Bike/Ped Coordinator (as you'd mentioned on Facebook), this might not be a bad thing...
Title: BREAKING: NY 198 (Scajaquada Expressway) speed limit lowered to 30 MPH!!!
Post by: Buffaboy on May 31, 2015, 05:17:46 PM
In a perfect world, I think that Delaware Park should be lidded across the 198, like that highway in San Fransisco, or the lid on St. Louis. Unfortunately, Buffalo is not SFO and NY is not Texas, so there likely will be no money for such a thing. But in the interim, what do you make of this?

Quote
The speed limit on the section of the Scajaquada Expressway where a car jumped a curb, crossed a grassy median and killed a 3-year-old boy on Saturday was lowered to 30 mph Sunday on orders of the governor.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo directed state Transportation Commissioner Joan McDonald to immediately lower the speed limit from the current 50 mph and install “park-appropriate” guard rails where the expressway passes through Delaware Park.

In his letter, sent late Sunday, Cuomo also directed the department to install speed messaging boards to alert drivers of the change, which is effective immediately.

“I am deeply saddened to learn of the tragic car crash in Buffalo on Saturday that claimed the life of a young child and severely injured another,” Cuomo wrote in his letter. “While law enforcement agencies are still investigating the circumstances surrounding this terrible crash, it is clear that immediate action needs to be taken to improve safety for motorists and pedestrians on the portion of the Scajaquada Expressway that passes through Delaware Park.”

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/police-courts/speed-limit-lowered-to-30-after-deadly-delaware-park-accident-20150531

I like thinking about things from a practical standpoint. Does it make sense to tear it up, or would it be better to submerge it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 31, 2015, 07:40:27 PM
Yeesh.  More politicians just pulling numbers out of their rears.  When will Cuomo start letting the agencies do their jobs instead of doing it for them?

Any idea of the specific limits of where it will be 30?  The limits of the park appear to be rather ambiguous on Google Maps, the western side in particular, and the location of the eastern end leaves me wondering if it will be before or after the intersection.

Quote
Heck, it's so bad that it even has me considering a move to downtown Albany after a life spent in the suburbs!

To be fair, if you're going to be Region 1's Bike/Ped Coordinator (as you'd mentioned on Facebook), this might not be a bad thing...

Well, it will be a bit of time before I move if I do anyways.  My current lease goes through next April.  Next year isn't looking like an opportune time to move, which will push it out another year.  That's probably a good thing; the rent at the place I'm looking at is a couple hundred more a month for the cheapest unit (compensated with included internet, however) than what I have now and I'm not sure how utility costs will pan out (especially since my current apartment includes heat in the rest and the one I'm looking at comes with a washer and dryer in the unit; my salary increases a bit each year until I reach top of grade).  Between the off street parking (some of which is indoors), the in-unit washer/dryer (which has been on my wish list for a year now), and the wonderful location (right on top of both I-787 and the bus line that goes to NYSDOT, and right in the heart of Albany) makes it seem too good to be true.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 31, 2015, 08:57:17 PM
Yeesh.  More politicians just pulling numbers out of their rears.  When will Cuomo start letting the agencies do their jobs instead of doing it for them?

Any idea of the specific limits of where it will be 30?  The limits of the park appear to be rather ambiguous on Google Maps, the western side in particular, and the location of the eastern end leaves me wondering if it will be before or after the intersection.

I'll check it out when I drive into work tomorrow. The MPO has me on Elmwood all week, so I may as well drive through the area instead of taking 190. Personally, I think it's BS. Install the Jersey barriers that should have been there all along and that would stop it. Problem is that people in Buffalo don't know how to stay in their lanes or control their vehicles. Someone drives into a building at least 1-2 times a week around here.

Oh, and the GBNRTC did a study on what would happen if the speed limit was lowered to 30 on NY 198. LOS F during weekday rush hour. Things are going to be pretty bad come 8:00 tomorrow morning.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 31, 2015, 09:23:10 PM
Yeesh.  More politicians just pulling numbers out of their rears.  When will Cuomo start letting the agencies do their jobs instead of doing it for them?

Any idea of the specific limits of where it will be 30?  The limits of the park appear to be rather ambiguous on Google Maps, the western side in particular, and the location of the eastern end leaves me wondering if it will be before or after the intersection.

I'll check it out when I drive into work tomorrow. The MPO has me on Elmwood all week, so I may as well drive through the area instead of taking 190. Personally, I think it's BS. Install the Jersey barriers that should have been there all along and that would stop it. Problem is that people in Buffalo don't know how to stay in their lanes or control their vehicles. Someone drives into a building at least 1-2 times a week around here.

Oh, and the GBNRTC did a study on what would happen if the speed limit was lowered to 30 on NY 198. LOS F during weekday rush hour. Things are going to be pretty bad come 8:00 tomorrow morning.

I can only imagine how bad the commute tomorrow will be. The good news is that it appears the limit doesn't go past Elmwood. While its certainly a tragic accident, knee jerk reactions from deadly accidents can have long term impacts. A portion of US 20 in Hamburg was lowered from 50 to 45 due to an accident. This happened about 10 years ago and it's still the same.

At the same time, is it feasible to submerge the 198 to Elmwood, which would include going under a creek?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 31, 2015, 09:28:57 PM
Off topic again, but I was on Lakeview Road in Lakeview the other day, and noticed a quarter mile of it was signed as a 55 MPH road. It's pretty cool, it almost felt like I went on a test track after I came off some railroad tracks. But why is such a short stretch of road signed so high?

(http://gyazo.com/82ec90181b0d884375640d721326cf37.png)
(http://gyazo.com/c16340103d6ce2b6dfe0324387970031.png)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 31, 2015, 09:40:08 PM
It was never lowered and there's no reason for it to be higher. Seriously. Same reason there are a bunch of short default speed zones all over the country.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 01, 2015, 07:44:51 AM
NY 198 is 30 east of Grant St. Basically the entire thing. Some people are going 30, others 60, so it's very unsafe. Nowhere for a cop to sit, either, so it's the wild west out there. I expect accidents to skyrocket.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 01, 2015, 12:29:29 PM
NY 198 is 30 east of Grant St. Basically the entire thing. Some people are going 30, others 60, so it's very unsafe. Nowhere for a cop to sit, either, so it's the wild west out there. I expect accidents to skyrocket.

Pardon the expression, but do you know what's even more retarded? There are people who insist that they have a DOT planner in their head, saying "the 198 just serves to shave a couple of minutes off of the crosstown commute. They should just rip it up." Where are the traffic counts to back up such a bold statement?

My heart aches for both the boy that was killed and his family. His sister will be scarred for life and we can't imagine the pain they will have to go through. Nobody wants their child to go before them.

At the same time, we have to protect the interests of both pedestrians and commuters, or should I just say law-abiding motor vehicle operators.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 01, 2015, 02:18:48 PM
If anything, just read the study. Bad things will happen. My bosses don't like how it was done and neither do I. I fully expect the parallel roadways to be much worse and accidents to increase. Part of me is actually hoping for a bunch of accidents caused by the speed differentials to shut people up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 01, 2015, 03:10:09 PM
In my late teens I was hanging out in that part of Buffalo and used to ask why 198 was not at least below grade through the park?  Locals always told me that had been the plan but they ran into a high water table aquifer that would have required continuous pumping.  Is that true?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 01, 2015, 04:14:28 PM
In my late teens I was hanging out in that part of Buffalo and used to ask why 198 was not at least below grade through the park?  Locals always told me that had been the plan but they ran into a high water table aquifer that would have required continuous pumping.  Is that true?

Wouldn't shock me. Light rail has major water problems in the area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on June 01, 2015, 05:58:42 PM
Meanwhile, when a road is dangerously over capacity for the amount of space there is(geographic/physical limitations not withstanding), and major accidents are a common occurrence(US 4/NY 149 to VT come to mind), nothing is done. Not to take away from this tragedy, it is a sad thing that happened for sure. You have to look at the flip side as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 01, 2015, 08:33:28 PM
Meanwhile, when a road is dangerously over capacity for the amount of space there is(geographic/physical limitations not withstanding), and major accidents are a common occurrence(US 4/NY 149 to VT come to mind), nothing is done. Not to take away from this tragedy, it is a sad thing that happened for sure. You have to look at the flip side as well.

I found the news on the 198 last night on WKBW (ABC 7) in Buffalo because I am staying with my parents. Unfortunately, I argue a guard rail could've prevented this accident. There's absolutely no need to reduce the 198 to 30 mph and while this might sound outrageous, I wouldn't mind numerous accidents just to prove to the state that a guard rail was sufficient years ago!

I've biked on the ring road these kids were killed on in Delaware Park. A guard rail would've saved their lives.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 01, 2015, 08:55:00 PM
There have been rumors that King Cuomo II is just as interested in low speed limits as his father was.  In fact, after his election there were even conspiracy theories that the speed limit on ALL roads in the state (including rural interstates) would be reduced to 50.

In any case, guiderail isn't sexy, and Cuomo loves publicity.  Why else would he require his office to announce EVERYTHING, even the most mundane, day to day things?  I'm surprised we haven't seen things like "Governor Cuomo announces that your lunch break begins right now".

It's possible that he's trying to make some kind of point about freeway teardowns.  Our new commissioner is the former mayor of Syracuse, and there's been some speculation that this might affect any urban freeway that is under study for removal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 02, 2015, 08:35:15 AM
As mentioned in the Speed Limit thread regarding Maryland's recent gubernatorial election (which had a completely different outcome and result than for NYS); elections do have consequences.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on June 02, 2015, 12:11:58 PM
Billu Joel is getting part of NY 107 in Nassau County named after him.

http://m.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/pols-vote-rename-part-n-y-highway-billy-joel-article-1.2242177 (http://m.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/pols-vote-rename-part-n-y-highway-billy-joel-article-1.2242177)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 02, 2015, 12:19:40 PM

Billu Joel is getting part of NY 107 in Nassau County named after him.

http://m.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/pols-vote-rename-part-n-y-highway-billy-joel-article-1.2242177 (http://m.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/pols-vote-rename-part-n-y-highway-billy-joel-article-1.2242177)

He is in a New York State of Mind... haha.

Also, could you imagine this being the new NY 198? People actually like this idea, but they just don't get it.


Quote
What I want:

30 mph posted speed limit.
One lane in each direction.
Bike lanes in each direction.
Parallel parking on the street, to alleviate parking pressure in the park itself and the frequent illegal parking on the grass along Nottingham.
Sidewalks and pedestrian-scaled streetlights (not highway standards) to really drive home that this is a slow parkway through the park, and NOT meant as a through road connecting 33 and 190.
Build the park right up to the new road so it really feels like the park surrounds the street, rather than being divided by it.

I can take or leave the roundabouts and medians.




iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on June 02, 2015, 03:20:48 PM


Quote
What I want:

30 mph posted speed limit.

One lane in each direction.
Bike lanes in each direction.

Parallel parking on the street, to alleviate parking pressure in the park itself and the frequent illegal parking on the grass along Nottingham.
Sidewalks and pedestrian-scaled streetlights (not highway standards) to really drive home that this is a slow parkway through the park, and NOT meant as a through road connecting 33 and 190.
Build the park right up to the new road so it really feels like the park surrounds the street, rather than being divided by it.

I can take or leave the roundabouts and medians.

Therefore, no car lanes in either direction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 02, 2015, 08:55:59 PM
Where do those people want the traffic to go?  I doubt they're interested in the state demolishing homes and spending a ton of money it doesn't have to built another freeway around the park.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 02, 2015, 10:10:07 PM
I don't know, but I think it's unfortunate that it takes a deadly accident to act as the match that lights the tinderbox for a road diet.

One thing I do know is that the 198 will look weird transitioning from Main St. and east of Grant St., from a 4 lane elevated expressway interchange to a 2 lane street.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 02, 2015, 10:20:06 PM
Region 5 has eliminated any alternative containing fewer than four lanes. Less than 4 and the model shows that most of the surrounding streets are at LOS F. I saw the model myself. It isn't pretty. Imagine the George Washington Bridge on a weekday morning if a deck was closed and that's kind of what it looked like. Traffic much worse than anything you'd ever see in Buffalo.

These people might want 2 lanes, but I'd expect hell to freeze over before Region 5 builds it and the money has to come from somewhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 02, 2015, 10:42:10 PM

Region 5 has eliminated any alternative containing fewer than four lanes. Less than 4 and the model shows that most of the surrounding streets are at LOS F. I saw the model myself. It isn't pretty. Imagine the George Washington Bridge on a weekday morning if a deck was closed and that's kind of what it looked like. Traffic much worse than anything you'd ever see in Buffalo.

These people might want 2 lanes, but I'd expect hell to freeze over before Region 5 builds it and the money has to come from somewhere.

I haven't studied highway capacity yet, but I can imagine that if the 198 looks jammed have the time at 50 MPH and 4 lanes, it would be backed up to Fillmore during rush hour with 2 lanes at 30 MPH.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 02, 2015, 11:00:20 PM
How much of a traffic reduction are they modeling with the reduction to 2 lanes?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 03, 2015, 12:53:31 AM
N.Y. Post: Suit calls out car service pocketing E-ZPass discounts (http://nypost.com/2015/06/01/suit-calls-out-car-service-pocketing-e-zpass-discounts/)

Quote
A city resident wants to slam the brakes on car services that charge passengers the full toll for bridges and tunnels – even though their drivers get E-ZPass discounts.

Quote
Ralph Gemelli, a retired criminal investigator for the state Department of Taxation and Finance, says in a Manhattan lawsuit that he hired Carmel Car and Limousine Service four times between October and March.

Quote
On each trip, the Queens man noticed his driver using a windshield-mounted E-ZPass device to pay the toll, the suit says.

Quote
But when Gemelli received an itemized bill for the trips, he discovered that he had been charged the full toll price.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 03, 2015, 09:18:44 PM
It looks like the Utica area is getting the "Highway Info" signs along some of the expressways over the next couple of weeks.  I noticed that NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd, NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 and a couple of other places now have empty sign posts near some ground work that looks like electrical work was done. The mounts are definitely not for VMSes but they look to be the right size for the Highway Info signs, like as found on the Thruway. I haven't found any plans online but when the installations are complete I'll snap a photo.

I'm curious if they'll be "Highway Info" / "Traffic Advisory When Flashing" or "Urgent Message When Flashing", as I've seen both variations in the Empire State.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 03, 2015, 09:44:05 PM
It looks like the Utica area is getting the "Highway Info" signs along some of the expressways over the next couple of weeks.  I noticed that NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd, NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 and a couple of other places now have empty sign posts near some ground work that looks like electrical work was done. The mounts are definitely not for VMSes but they look to be the right size for the Highway Info signs, like as found on the Thruway. I haven't found any plans online but when the installations are complete I'll snap a photo.

I'm curious if they'll be "Highway Info" / "Traffic Advisory When Flashing" or "Urgent Message When Flashing", as I've seen both variations in the Empire State.

Do you mean electronic billboards or flashers (e.g. Tune to 1610 AM)?

Also, how is the Arterial doing?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 03, 2015, 09:59:20 PM
It looks like the Utica area is getting the "Highway Info" signs along some of the expressways over the next couple of weeks.  I noticed that NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd, NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 and a couple of other places now have empty sign posts near some ground work that looks like electrical work was done. The mounts are definitely not for VMSes but they look to be the right size for the Highway Info signs, like as found on the Thruway. I haven't found any plans online but when the installations are complete I'll snap a photo.

I'm curious if they'll be "Highway Info" / "Traffic Advisory When Flashing" or "Urgent Message When Flashing", as I've seen both variations in the Empire State.

Do you mean electronic billboards or flashers (e.g. Tune to 1610 AM)?

Also, how is the Arterial doing?

I believe they'll be the flasher type (tune to 540 AM) and probably be in conjunction with the Thruway system, if my suspicions are right.

Work continues on the Court Street bridge approaches on the Arterial. Cement has been poured on the span over NY 5A/5S (Oriskany St).  The northbound lanes leading up to the Court Street bridge are being poured as well, with current traffic NB reduced to one lane between Noyes and the old Warren Street intersection.

NYSDOT originally required the Court Street/Arterial at-grade intersection to be re-opened during the July 4th and Boilermaker Road race weekends, but they have since changed their minds and they no longer require the contractor to do that.  There was also an article in the newspaper (http://www.uticaod.com/article/20150524/NEWS/150529643/11669/NEWS) about the fact that the City of Utica is going to have a hard time maintaining the pedestrian bridge landscaping and snow removal when the state turns it over at the end of the construction project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 03, 2015, 11:34:36 PM
I read about the inability of the City to pay for the landscaping, I thought they just had their credit rating improved? Certainly you would think that could attract businesses to the city.


iPhone
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 04, 2015, 01:53:09 PM
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.

Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.

I wasted a shytton of gas today taking care of some errands up north and came across this construction. Is the bridge slated to be 8 lanes or still 6?
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 04, 2015, 02:08:19 PM
More 198 stuff...

Quote
Traffic lights, crosswalks and speed bumps will be installed along the Scajaquada Expressway/Route 198 in the next few months, with the ultimate goal of turning its full length into a parkway.

Assemblyman Sean Ryan outlined those plans during a news conference Thursday near the pedestrian overpass of Route 198.

Since the death of three-year-old Maksym Sugorovskiy Saturday when he was hit by a car that veered off the expressway and into Delaware Park, Ryan has led the charge to implement long-talked-about changes along the road.

“One thing we know for sure: 30 miles an hour will be the speed limit,”  Ryan said.

The day after the fatal incident, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo directed state Transportation Commissioner Joan McDonald to immediately lower the speed limit, from 50 to 30 mph, and install “park-appropriate”  guard rails where the expressway passes through the park.

Though numerous signs and message boards alerting motorists to the new speed limit also were installed, many vehicles still exceed that limit, according to roadside signs that record oncoming vehicle speed.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/scajaquada-to-become-parkway-with-crosswalks-and-speed-bumps-ryan-says-20150604
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 04, 2015, 02:41:48 PM
More 198 stuff...

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/scajaquada-to-become-parkway-with-crosswalks-and-speed-bumps-ryan-says-20150604

I know it's tragic when someone gets killed but why is there so much "action" to reduce the express of the expressway?!  Or are they using this incident to finally get what they want?  Politicians are jumping in and if they don't revolt the highway they'd be considered not politically correct. 

So if a train or bicyclist ran off and struck somebody would they want to reduce the bike lane or train track?!

Usually it's driver error that causes this and not the road itself.  In CT, a passing zone was removed b/c somebody was drunk and weaving in/out of traffic and killed a child.  It was tragic but it's the driver and not the passing zone that was the problem.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 04, 2015, 04:22:52 PM
They're trying to buy votes. District is very wealthy and they want the traffic to be routed through poor neighborhoods. That's what it boils down to. people in that neighborhood want it gone and everyone else wants it to stay, but money talks.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 04, 2015, 05:05:05 PM
I'm disappointed in the Governor and Ryan. They are making an embarrassment to anyone who knows anything about highway capacity and transport engineering. It's no wonder that the DOT hasn't talked to the media.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 04, 2015, 08:37:56 PM
NYSDOT is keeping mum because the media is ready to pounce on them. They're doing another study to see what happens (read: 30 was never in the plans and the models they spent 2 years building have to be redone). This afternoon a little after 6, the westernmost mile or two was at LOS E from my educated estimation after driving on it. Normally at that time, it's C (maybe D). We're already seeing the effects. From some of the reports I've heard, it's already at F during the peak hour. I-190 and I-290 have been much worse than normal this week, possibly because people are avoiding NY 198. Keep in mind that I-290 is down to 4 lanes, so it was getting to LOS E-F on a daily basis at the construction zone before this nonsense started.

Basically, people who live in the neighborhood want the thing gone and have wanted it gone since it was built. The politicians, relying on their donations, will do anything required to appease them. Just about everybody who actually uses the thing wants it to stay because removing/altering it will probably add 15+ minutes to crosstown travel while congesting everything and making traffic a nightmare everywhere but the one neighborhood the expressway runs through. I'll also mention that the people who want the expressway gone also want the (much-used) light rail system to be removed because "nobody rides it".

As I/we predicted, the speed limit change isn't doing much more than making it more dangerous. People still go 60, but now we have a very small amount willingly going 20-30 (no exaggeration). I think there's already been at least one accident and I expect more. That's what happens when you have people who don't understand traffic flow theory pulling the strings. Even Robert Moses was better than most of these people.

New York politics are corrupt and always have been. Buffalo has long been one of the most crooked towns in the country. I'm not shocked one bit and I'm quite glad that I'll likely be leaving this state in 7 months for grad school so I don't have to see any of this nonsense actually happen before my eyes.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 04, 2015, 09:00:32 PM
It looks like you've done your research on all of this. I am not a fan of the local political scene on either side of the aisle either. On a personal note I'm from the area but attend college in the Mohawk Valley. Did you complete concentration-specific courses in your sophomore or junior year if I may ask?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 04, 2015, 09:24:51 PM
And the decision to lower the speed limit by not 5 but a whole 20mph....how do they know that'll solve the problem? The decision was made within hours and those signs were made quickly. Amazing. Idk why the gov chose this accident over others. Plus stoplight sand speed bumps too. Definitely not thinking of the region as a whole
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 04, 2015, 09:54:24 PM
It looks like you've done your research on all of this. I am not a fan of the local political scene on either side of the aisle either. On a personal note I'm from the area but attend college in the Mohawk Valley. Did you complete concentration-specific courses in your sophomore or junior year if I may ask?

I took stuff early and I'm graduating a semester early. I've already taken just about every transportation course UB offers. Concentration-specific stuff is mainly taken senior year thanks to the wonderful SUNY gen ed requirements that ABET happens to hate. Taking the last one in the fall.

What's funny is that, not one month ago, someone from the MPO did a presentation in my traffic operations class. Spent 20 minutes showing us the NY 198 model and what would happen if any one of the things these people want were implemented. Heck, the old (2005) study posted online has it being bad and traffic in the area has only gotten worse as Elmwood Village has become more hip.

Do any of the NYSDOT people here know if there's a gag order over there? My agency is keeping quite the low profile during all of this and I haven't heard anything from the normally attention-seeking Region 5.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 04, 2015, 10:00:39 PM
And the decision to lower the speed limit by not 5 but a whole 20mph....how do they know that'll solve the problem? The decision was made within hours and those signs were made quickly. Amazing. Idk why the gov chose this accident over others. Plus stoplight sand speed bumps too. Definitely not thinking of the region as a whole

Buying votes. Expressway runs in the middle of the only wealthy and predominantly-white neighborhood in the city. Full of political donors. Politicians have been drooling at this opportunity for years to get their hands on donor money.

Do note that, for the past few years, there has been a car going off the road almost daily in the vicinity of Buffalo that hits a person or building. This is not an isolated incident by any means. The day after this happened, a kid was hit in a small town in southern Erie County. Certainly isn't anybody jumping on the bandwagon to do traffic calming or modifications NY 16 (which really needs them, especially in that area).
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 04, 2015, 10:03:45 PM
It looks like you've done your research on all of this. I am not a fan of the local political scene on either side of the aisle either. On a personal note I'm from the area but attend college in the Mohawk Valley. Did you complete concentration-specific courses in your sophomore or junior year if I may ask?

I took stuff early and I'm graduating a semester early. I've already taken just about every transportation course UB offers. Concentration-specific stuff is mainly taken senior year thanks to the wonderful SUNY gen ed requirements that ABET happens to hate. Taking the last one in the fall.

What's funny is that, not one month ago, someone from the MPO did a presentation in my traffic operations class. Spent 20 minutes showing us the NY 198 model and what would happen if any one of the things these people want were implemented. Heck, the old (2005) study posted online has it being bad and traffic in the area has only gotten worse as Elmwood Village has become more hip.

Do any of the NYSDOT people here know if there's a gag order over there? My agency is keeping quite the low profile during all of this and I haven't heard anything from the normally attention-seeking Region 5.

I wonder if it would look good if I took other courses at UB not offered at my school just to "add to my resume," or actually learn more skills that employers would look for.

With regards to what I bolded, we may be witnessing political corruption right before our eyes.


And the decision to lower the speed limit by not 5 but a whole 20mph....how do they know that'll solve the problem? The decision was made within hours and those signs were made quickly. Amazing. Idk why the gov chose this accident over others. Plus stoplight sand speed bumps too. Definitely not thinking of the region as a whole

Buying votes. Expressway runs in the middle of the only wealthy and predominantly-white neighborhood in the city. Full of political donors. Politicians have been drooling at this opportunity for years to get their hands on donor money.

Do note that, for the past few years, there has been a car going off the road almost daily in the vicinity of Buffalo that hits a person or building. This is not an isolated incident by any means. The day after this happened, a kid was hit in a small town in southern Erie County. Certainly isn't anybody jumping on the bandwagon to do traffic calming or modifications NY 16 (which really needs them, especially in that area).

It would be like the complete opposite of the 33 dig of the 1960s, in a way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 04, 2015, 10:24:23 PM
I've been keeping mum publicly for two reasons: can't fix stupid and I don't want to lose my job. The Buffalo News just posted a story about how the 2005 study recommended a "tree-lined parkway". There were a couple key details they left out or minimized:

*Old study recommended 4 lanes, not 2
*Article was critical of importance NYSDOT placed on traffic flow. Believe it or not, that is the main concern.
*Stuff has changed for the most recent model

The most recent model shows the facility failing if the current grade separations are eliminated. As the surface roads already fail at each crossing due to surrounding intersections, this is quite true. The best model I saw, IMHO, gave the three middle interchanges quadrant roadways on the south side. Roundabouts at NY 198, signals at the surface road. Easily had the best flow. In doing this, there was an uninterrupted pathway along the creek and north side of the roadway. I think there was an unsignalized superstreet or something similar at Lincoln Parkway, as well. Kept through traffic moving while slowing things down. Interchanges at each end were unchanged.

Honestly, nobody will suggest this, but I'd be in favor of capping it east of Delaware Avenue and keeping the expressway at a decent speed, with quadrant roadway intersections from there west. They're already looking at capping NY 33 and this would allow them to really rebuild Humboldt Parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 05, 2015, 01:55:37 AM
I've been keeping mum publicly for two reasons: can't fix stupid and I don't want to lose my job. The Buffalo News just posted a story about how the 2005 study recommended a "tree-lined parkway". There were a couple key details they left out or minimized:

*Old study recommended 4 lanes, not 2
*Article was critical of importance NYSDOT placed on traffic flow. Believe it or not, that is the main concern.
*Stuff has changed for the most recent model

The most recent model shows the facility failing if the current grade separations are eliminated. As the surface roads already fail at each crossing due to surrounding intersections, this is quite true. The best model I saw, IMHO, gave the three middle interchanges quadrant roadways on the south side. Roundabouts at NY 198, signals at the surface road. Easily had the best flow. In doing this, there was an uninterrupted pathway along the creek and north side of the roadway. I think there was an unsignalized superstreet or something similar at Lincoln Parkway, as well. Kept through traffic moving while slowing things down. Interchanges at each end were unchanged.

Honestly, nobody will suggest this, but I'd be in favor of capping it east of Delaware Avenue and keeping the expressway at a decent speed, with quadrant roadway intersections from there west. They're already looking at capping NY 33 and this would allow them to really rebuild Humboldt Parkway.

I don't blame you for being reticent; it's a tough position to be in (in more ways than one).

Capping is a great idea, but it seems the state is tied up for funding ATM...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 05, 2015, 07:29:23 PM
I saw some "road porn" on the 90 today. They were widening it between exit 50 and 51, something I never really expected to see.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 05, 2015, 11:26:12 PM
I saw some "road porn" on the 90 today. They were widening it between exit 50 and 51, something I never really expected to see.

If by "widening", you mean reconfiguring an entrance ramp. They're just adding a short auxillary lane for entering traffic at 50A and removing the striping forcing entering traffic at Exit 50 to merge over. Far less than what needs to be done, but it'll get the area to no worse than LOS E for the entire day. Now, there are a couple hours it's at F. They know very well what needs to be done, but we're probably a good 15-20 years away from that. Do note that the new Cleveland Drive bridge can probably just fit 10 lanes underneath it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 06, 2015, 12:54:35 AM
I biked along the 198 today from Delaware Park. A little late after rush hour to get the right shots, but:

(https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11392949_806968799402036_216040283702630201_n.jpg?oh=34df9f5c98bdfd4f76c818759866fb24&oe=55F9D732)
New 30 mph signage.

(https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10462454_806968742735375_1985845418103735413_n.jpg?oh=e94afe9b0d94cc66fb5f7aefe59069d6&oe=55F22E1B)
One of those not cordoned off sections.

(https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11407316_806968299402086_2434110642377391144_n.jpg?oh=a2ed83eb65f57fa6dd23098260079029&oe=55EED80B)
VMS noting about the 30 mph speed limit at Parkside Drive.

(https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/11377084_806968552735394_6568001665263869691_n.jpg?oh=be2ec93457d3b4edf517231c2e97283d&oe=55FBA54E)
The very small memorial for Maksym S. on the Jersey barrier of all things.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 08, 2015, 07:21:13 PM
Found another Erie County CR shield this morning. Along NY 5 in the Town of Evans (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.691825,-79.000556,3a,43.5y,217.28h,76.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_0jkp0ZGRueVpSEhNWBG_w!2e0). Only one I know of in the 400s and the road is quite minor.

Until now, most of the shields I knew of are/were on relatively major roads. This changes the whole game. You never know where you could find one of these things and there's no way in hell one person could drive every mile of Erie County's immense system.

Which raises another question: did Erie County once sign every county route? I understand the shields in Tonawanda (former state route) and what was once in Hamburg (major connector highway), but this road goes nowhere.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 08, 2015, 11:21:18 PM
Found another Erie County CR shield this morning. Along NY 5 in the Town of Evans (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.691825,-79.000556,3a,43.5y,217.28h,76.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_0jkp0ZGRueVpSEhNWBG_w!2e0). Only one I know of in the 400s and the road is quite minor.

Until now, most of the shields I knew of are/were on relatively major roads. This changes the whole game. You never know where you could find one of these things and there's no way in hell one person could drive every mile of Erie County's immense system.

Which raises another question: did Erie County once sign every county route? I understand the shields in Tonawanda (former state route) and what was once in Hamburg (major connector highway), but this road goes nowhere.

That's pretty crazy. The only time I have seen a county shield is somewhere around Springville or East Otto, which may actually fall in this category of "unaccounted" shields, if that's what you're implying.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2015, 05:52:21 AM
Found another Erie County CR shield this morning. Along NY 5 in the Town of Evans (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.691825,-79.000556,3a,43.5y,217.28h,76.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_0jkp0ZGRueVpSEhNWBG_w!2e0). Only one I know of in the 400s and the road is quite minor.

Until now, most of the shields I knew of are/were on relatively major roads. This changes the whole game. You never know where you could find one of these things and there's no way in hell one person could drive every mile of Erie County's immense system.

Which raises another question: did Erie County once sign every county route? I understand the shields in Tonawanda (former state route) and what was once in Hamburg (major connector highway), but this road goes nowhere.

That's pretty crazy. The only time I have seen a county shield is somewhere around Springville or East Otto, which may actually fall in this category of "unaccounted" shields, if that's what you're implying.

The one on NY 240 north of Springville is well-known
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 09, 2015, 12:08:56 PM
Found another Erie County CR shield this morning. Along NY 5 in the Town of Evans (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.691825,-79.000556,3a,43.5y,217.28h,76.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_0jkp0ZGRueVpSEhNWBG_w!2e0). Only one I know of in the 400s and the road is quite minor.

Until now, most of the shields I knew of are/were on relatively major roads. This changes the whole game. You never know where you could find one of these things and there's no way in hell one person could drive every mile of Erie County's immense system.

Which raises another question: did Erie County once sign every county route? I understand the shields in Tonawanda (former state route) and what was once in Hamburg (major connector highway), but this road goes nowhere.

CR 512 (Electric Avenue) in Blasdell is still signed, which heads to Ridge Road in Lackawanna.

(https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10415556_724128531019397_5339760656968550587_n.jpg?oh=beee7c08b81a7e11ce33829e60312cbc&oe=55E742D4)

Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 09, 2015, 12:10:21 PM
Wow. I've driven by Electric many times in my life but have never been down it. I'll have to head over there sometime this week.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 09, 2015, 12:22:40 PM
Wow. I've driven by Electric many times in my life but have never been down it. I'll have to head over there sometime this week.

That's where it's fun, you search around, you never know where you find them. Right now I have:

CR 30 (NY 240) in Glenwood
CR 41 (Versailles Plank Road) in Evans
CR 51 (McKinley Parkway) in Hamburg
CR 118 (Colvin Boulevard) in Tonawanda (<500 feet from my place)
CR 307 (Kenmore Avenue) in Buffalo
CR 477 (Delamater Road) in Derby
CR 512 (Electric Avenue) in Blasdell
CR 580 (Ellicott Creek Road) in Tonawanda (Two of them; as well as a remnant NY 356 reference marker at the west end)

CR 11 (East River Road) in Grand Island (status unknown - when I was on CR 11 in 2008, there was no sign of it.)
CR 370 (Powers Avenue) in Armor is gone.

Those are the statuses I know.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2015, 12:39:03 PM
CR 51 is gone and has been for a while.

There's at least one on East River Road in Grand Island as of last August.

Unless there's one hiding somewhere on a road I missed, there are NONE in the towns bordering Genesee and Wyoming Counties, Clarence, Lancaster, Cheektowaga, Elma, or Aurora.

Forgot about the Colvin one-I know I've seen it before. I'm rarely south of Buffalo, so I knew nothing about most of the other ones
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 09, 2015, 12:43:27 PM
CR 51 is gone and has been for a while.

There's at least one on East River Road in Grand Island as of last August.

Forgot about the Colvin one-I know I've seen it before. I'm rarely south of Buffalo, so I knew nothing about most of the other ones

I suspected the CR 51 shield might have been gone. It was standing in 2008, but was not in Street View. I was in Hamburg on Friday and forgot to go check for it while doing other things.

Yeah, I meant East River Road. For some reason, I put West River Road, which isn't even correct. When Alps and I were on it in 2008, we couldn't find it, far as I remember.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2015, 12:52:15 PM
Ransom Rd. My Flickr has a picture https://flic.kr/p/oX2ocU
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2015, 02:21:40 PM
Where is the one on Kenmore Avenue? I've certainly been on it enough to have likely seen it
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 09, 2015, 03:27:37 PM
Where is the one on Kenmore Avenue? I've certainly been on it enough to have likely seen it

Just after NY 5. In front of 71 Kenmore.

(https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11008436_802913116474271_3151659998341286125_n.jpg?oh=cc2c39e0f5d135a16b17da0ed707e242&oe=5603CEAE)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2015, 03:59:03 PM
Still, it raises a question: was stuff once posted regularly? If I were the DPW, I'd just make a new set of public numbers and post those with the pentagon, but certain areas at least seem to have a concentration of the shields that makes me wonder  (Tonawanda/Grand Island, Hamburg/Evans)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 09, 2015, 05:08:22 PM
Still, it raises a question: was stuff once posted regularly? If I were the DPW, I'd just make a new set of public numbers and post those with the pentagon, but certain areas at least seem to have a concentration of the shields that makes me wonder  (Tonawanda/Grand Island, Hamburg/Evans)

I don't know if our generation is really going to know. I will note, Erie County still uses the current number system, even if unsigned for the most part.

As you pointed out this morning, it would take forever to drive every CR in the county. What I've found I've done by bicycle for the most part (except CR 41).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2015, 07:12:12 PM
Oh, I know the number system is still in use and NYSDOT recognizes it. Former US 219 south of Springville does not have a number (at least not in NYSDOT's database). Their network might even be larger than Suffolk County's network
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 09, 2015, 10:49:23 PM
Oh, I know the number system is still in use and NYSDOT recognizes it. Former US 219 south of Springville does not have a number (at least not in NYSDOT's database). Their network might even be larger than Suffolk County's network

Onondaga would give them a run for their money.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 10, 2015, 09:27:44 AM
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close. Hell, my home county (Warren County) only maintains 245 miles, but most of that mileage meets or comes close to NYSDOT standards and pavement conditions tend to be very good to excellent.

Most of the state follows the New England system, where towns maintain almost everything, but Erie County is like the midwest and west, with the counties controlling everything outside of developed areas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 10, 2015, 10:16:19 AM
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.

Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 10, 2015, 03:12:14 PM
Quote
but Erie County is like the midwest and west, with the counties controlling everything outside of developed areas.

More like the West and the South/Southeast.  Most Midwestern states have townships where jurisdiction and road maintenance responsibility begins.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 10, 2015, 05:27:11 PM
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.

Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.

Onondaga might come close, again, but I don't have the details in front of me. It would be nice if Nassau kept their old system to make it easier to compare and contrast, and if both counties would sign them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 10, 2015, 06:17:44 PM
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.

Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.
Nassau changes route numbers when street names change. That system is crazy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 10, 2015, 06:49:21 PM
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.

Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.
Nassau changes route numbers when street names change. That system is crazy.

I completely agree that Nassau probably has the highest number of "numbered routes" with its crazy alphanumeric numbering system. Seemingly no pattern or anything (most counties with a lot of routes seem to have some sort of pattern). Has anyone bothered to count how many they actually have (including the reference routes they maintain)? I know Erie is in the neighborhood of 400, but Nassau is probably closer to 500
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 11, 2015, 12:31:41 AM
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.

Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.
Nassau changes route numbers when street names change. That system is crazy.

I completely agree that Nassau probably has the highest number of "numbered routes" with its crazy alphanumeric numbering system. Seemingly no pattern or anything (most counties with a lot of routes seem to have some sort of pattern). Has anyone bothered to count how many they actually have (including the reference routes they maintain)? I know Erie is in the neighborhood of 400, but Nassau is probably closer to 500

Count away (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html)…though it would probably be easier just to download the inventory file into Excel and see what the row number goes up to.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 11, 2015, 11:11:31 AM
When I get home from work. Need to make a set of pivot tables to get an accurate count, as some routes have multiple lines.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 11, 2015, 11:20:04 PM
Nassau County has 263 different CR designations, plus 2 reference routes under county jurisdiction. Erie County has 380 numerical designations plus 2 unnumbered CRs. Since it was mentioned earlier, Onondaga is around 290. Most other counties (including Suffolk, which has a seemingly-large system) have under 100 route numbers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 12, 2015, 12:36:06 AM
I completely agree that Nassau probably has the highest number of "numbered routes" with its crazy alphanumeric numbering system. Seemingly no pattern or anything (most counties with a lot of routes seem to have some sort of pattern).
The pattern is street names. If a street name does not alphabetically match up to its alpha number, that means the name was changed more recently. Of course, the regular-numbered routes are much less patterned...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 12, 2015, 01:00:58 AM
Nassau County has 263 different CR designations, plus 2 reference routes under county jurisdiction. Erie County has 380 numerical designations plus 2 unnumbered CRs. Since it was mentioned earlier, Onondaga is around 290. Most other counties (including Suffolk, which has a seemingly-large system) have under 100 route numbers.

Of Nassau County's 263 different designations, how many are applied separately to two or more entirely different roads? A quick scan suggests something like 20% of them do (somewhat less as the numbers go higher, though).
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 12, 2015, 10:36:45 AM
Any dollars lying around to fix Tonawanda Creek Rd? It looks like an expensive but important project.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 12, 2015, 01:59:44 PM
Nassau County has 263 different CR designations, plus 2 reference routes under county jurisdiction. Erie County has 380 numerical designations plus 2 unnumbered CRs. Since it was mentioned earlier, Onondaga is around 290. Most other counties (including Suffolk, which has a seemingly-large system) have under 100 route numbers.

Of Nassau County's 263 different designations, how many are applied separately to two or more entirely different roads? A quick scan suggests something like 20% of them do (somewhat less as the numbers go higher, though).

I'll cross-reference the ID numbers later to find out how many different names there are. Not as east because some physical roads change nanes while retaining the same alignment and CR number.

Any dollars lying around to fix Tonawanda Creek Rd? It looks like an expensive but important project.

Funny that you ask. Erie County is trying to download it to Clarence, so they're dragging their heels. Not that much money exists, anyway. Everything is falling apart. they're finally replacing some bridges in Elma that have needed it for decades, to give you an idea.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 12, 2015, 04:20:51 PM
Alright, have a couple of project updates for Region 5:

* Niagara Street complete streets project  ( http://www.gbnrtc.org/blog/niagara-street-upgrade-bus-priority-technology/ ). Redoing everything south of Ontario Street (near north city line) and installing new signals. Bus preemption will be installed. I'll likely be doing work with this project, so I'll keep you updated as I learn more

* I-290 Bridge Replacements: Piers for new EB bridges are up, as are abutments. Steel erection will likely begin shortly.

* Irving Bridge Replacements: Bridge over Silver Creek project is wrapping up. NY 438 bridge is up with railings. Milestrip Road bridge has steel up.

*As far as signal coordination goes, a big project will be going on along US 62 and NY 265 in Niagara Falls to improve flow. I'll be there starting next week to get counts for the new timing scheme.

*Peace Bridge access project is progressing nicely. There is a Canadian-style single lane APL before the ramp splits. I'll grab a picture if I'm not driving through there. I have a friend who's a structural intern with the firm in charge of the project, so I'll pass on what I learn.

*Robert Moses Parkway SB back open south of the Falls. Partial Y replaced with a roundabout near the casino.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 13, 2015, 02:08:03 AM
There doesn't seem to be a shortage of projects happening in the area, that's good to see.

How widespread are these style of lights in NY? I saw this at Union and Main in West Seneca:

(http://gyazo.com/a567e962b2e7d0c9fdb0a15dac83e0a4.png)

A wider variant can be found at the Sheridan Walmart entrance in Amherst:

(http://gyazo.com/27609b1a430087403eba897397190fee.png)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on June 13, 2015, 06:17:47 AM
There doesn't seem to be a shortage of projects happening in the area, that's good to see.

How widespread are these style of lights in NY? I saw this at Union and Main in West Seneca:

Image Snipped
Those have been showing up in the Rochester area in recent years although still rare. The new signals they just installed on NY 33 in Gates have back plates with the yellow surround. The signals they installed at the diverging diamond at I 590 Exit 1 may be the first ones with back plates in the Rochester area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on June 13, 2015, 09:34:38 AM
They've been showing up in the North Country, too. Wonder if it's a new NYSDOT standard...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 13, 2015, 10:01:55 AM
From what I can tell, the reflective backplate is the new standard. Ohio has adopted it as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 13, 2015, 10:31:56 AM

I'll cross-reference the ID numbers later to find out how many different names there are. Not as east because some physical roads change nanes while retaining the same alignment and CR number.

In my listing I have it separated into numbered sub-entries where they are actually different streets, vs. continuous alignments which are grouped together.

In other words, you'd just need to count all the (2)s and (3)s and add them to what you've counted so far. :-)


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 13, 2015, 11:55:41 AM
Buffaboy:  when you said " these style of lights" earlier, are you referring to the doghouse signals or the mast arms?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 13, 2015, 02:35:39 PM

I'll cross-reference the ID numbers later to find out how many different names there are. Not as east because some physical roads change nanes while retaining the same alignment and CR number.

In my listing I have it separated into numbered sub-entries where they are actually different streets, vs. continuous alignments which are grouped together.

In other words, you'd just need to count all the (2)s and (3)s and add them to what you've counted so far. :-)


iPhone

Approximately 45 of those, which makes ~308 total CRs in Nassau County
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 13, 2015, 05:07:34 PM
Buffaboy:  when you said " these style of lights" earlier, are you referring to the doghouse signals or the mast arms?

I meant both the signals and arms. From my experience there aren't many in Region 5 nor are there many in Region 2 and 3. Most are string lights. I know Cleveland has switched many of their lights over, but I can't tell if there's an advantage over the standard.

This website (http://trafficsignals.net/east.htm) has an interesting overview of lights by state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on June 13, 2015, 05:22:11 PM
Buffaboy:  when you said " these style of lights" earlier, are you referring to the doghouse signals or the mast arms?

I meant both the signals and arms. From my experience there aren't many in Region 5 nor are there many in Region 3. Most are string lights. I know Cleveland has switched many of their lights over, but I can't tell if there's an advantage over the standard.

This website (http://trafficsignals.net/east.htm) has an interesting overview of lights by state.
I really thought you were talking about the use of back plates on the lights. Those are rather uncommon in NY.

Mast arms are very common here in the Rochester area mainly because that is the standard for signals owned by Monroe County since the '90's. County owned signals on span wire are over 20 years old. However, NYSDOT signals are still mostly span wire for new signals but plenty of mast arms here too for their signals.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 13, 2015, 06:38:51 PM
Buffaboy:  when you said " these style of lights" earlier, are you referring to the doghouse signals or the mast arms?

I meant both the signals and arms. From my experience there aren't many in Region 5 nor are there many in Region 3. Most are string lights. I know Cleveland has switched many of their lights over, but I can't tell if there's an advantage over the standard.

This website (http://trafficsignals.net/east.htm) has an interesting overview of lights by state.
I really thought you were talking about the use of back plates on the lights. Those are rather uncommon in NY.

Mast arms are very common here in the Rochester area mainly because that is the standard for signals owned by Monroe County since the '90's. County owned signals on span wire are over 20 years old. However, NYSDOT signals are still mostly span wire for new signals but plenty of mast arms here too for their signals.

I also thought backplates. Mast arms are not uncommon in several NYSDOT regions. Northern parts of Region 1 (Warren, Washington, Essex Counties) have had several for some time. They are quite common in Nassau County. Buffalo has a lot of mast arm NYSDOT signals in the downtown area.

If we're talking about local municipalities, Buffalo, New York, Nassau County, and Glens Falls, among many others, use mostly mast arms. New NYSDOT assemblies in Region 5 are mast arms and have been since at least 2012. From what I can tell by plans, this is the case in several other regions. Additionally, reflective backplates are now standard for NYSDOT assemblies (including beacons), at least in R4 and R5.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 13, 2015, 06:50:01 PM
After thinking about it, I actually did mean back plates. The mast arms aren't common but they aren't uncommon AFAIK. Especially in villages or at busy off-ramps.

Back plates on the other hand, the two I posted on the previous page and at Milestrip Road and the 219 are the only ones I can come up with off the top of my head.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on June 13, 2015, 06:59:23 PM
R7 seems to have adopted them as the current standard as well. Lots more mast arms in the area...though they're still fairly uncommon, since R7 is notoriously slow at replacing things.

On the topic of R7, a few other notes of interest:

-Franklin County, after only posting little green signs on its county routes for years, is now using the standard blue pentagon...very few of the old green signs remain. This appears to have been done within the past month...

-On a similar note, NY374 is no longer signed north of Chateaugay...it is now signed only as CR52. That section has been maintained by Franklin County since 1980. I'd imagine the change was made at the same time the pentagon was adopted for county routes. Of course, NY374 is the same road that runs through Dannemora, which has been all over the news lately...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 13, 2015, 07:22:09 PM
After thinking about it, I actually did mean back plates. The mast arms aren't common but they aren't uncommon AFAIK. Especially in villages or at busy off-ramps.

Back plates on the other hand, the two I posted on the previous page and at Milestrip Road and the 219 are the only ones I can come up with off the top of my head.

There are a decent amount of backplates in the region. Partial list follows:

*US 20 at Townline Rd, Lancaster/Alden
*US 20 at Three Rod Rd/Sandridge Rd, Alden
*NY 325 at DuPont plant, Tonawanda
*NY 325 at Kenmore Ave, Tonawanda
*NY 384 at I-190, Niagara Falls
*US 62 at Melody Ln, North Tonawanda
*NY 263 at Crosspoint Pkwy, Amherst
*NY 78 at Olmsted Ave, Depew

I know I've seen others elsewhere, but that's all I can immediately think of.

Genesee County (in R4) also has a few installations with backplates, including 2 along US 20. One of these (a beacon in Bethany) has reflective backplates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 13, 2015, 07:38:05 PM
The new intersection lights at Fries Road & Parkhurst on Brighton Road (Erie CR 196) in Tonawanda, are backplated.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on June 13, 2015, 10:29:35 PM
After thinking about it, I actually did mean back plates. The mast arms aren't common but they aren't uncommon AFAIK. Especially in villages or at busy off-ramps.

Back plates on the other hand, the two I posted on the previous page and at Milestrip Road and the 219 are the only ones I can come up with off the top of my head.

There are a decent amount of backplates in the region. Partial list follows:

*US 20 at Townline Rd, Lancaster/Alden
*US 20 at Three Rod Rd/Sandridge Rd, Alden
*NY 325 at DuPont plant, Tonawanda
*NY 325 at Kenmore Ave, Tonawanda
*NY 384 at I-190, Niagara Falls
*US 62 at Melody Ln, North Tonawanda
*NY 263 at Crosspoint Pkwy, Amherst
*NY 78 at Olmsted Ave, Depew

I know I've seen others elsewhere, but that's all I can immediately think of.

Genesee County (in R4) also has a few installations with backplates, including 2 along US 20. One of these (a beacon in Bethany) has reflective backplates.
Signals with backplates in Monroe Co. that I know of.

I 590 at Winton Rd. diverging diamond interchange.
Winton Rd at French Rd. (owned by Monroe County but was installed along with the diverging diamond signals).
Winton Rd at Cambridge Place. (another county owned signal that was installed as part of the diverging diamond project.)
NY 441 at Five Mile Line Rd. (this is a box span installation.)
I 590 at NY 31 (These were installed a few months ago. Also, the signal for WB 31 at 590 has a FYA left turn signal.)
NY 33 at Rellim Blvd./Gates Town Hall.
NY 33 at Wegman Rd. (Installed within the past few weeks.)
NY 33 at the Home Depot/Movie Theatre Entrance. (Also installed within the past few weeks.)
NY 33 at Pixley Rd. (This one is being installed as part of the same project as the other two new signals on 33. This looks like it will be a diagonal span wire set up though but will most likely have backplates as well. Temporary signals are currently in place installed on new permanent strain poles.)

There are probably others.

Also, in Ontario County:

NY 96 at the I 490/NYS Thruway offramp.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 14, 2015, 12:18:23 AM
NY 33 at Wegman Rd.

Ah, you mean right there in front of Tops.  :spin:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 14, 2015, 12:20:21 AM
NY 33 at Wegman Rd.

Ah, you mean right there in front of Tops.  :spin:

"Tops never mops, look at their floors..."  :awesomeface:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 14, 2015, 12:20:57 AM
NY 33 at Wegman Rd.

Ah, you mean right there in front of Tops.  :spin:

Just checked the map, that's pretty hilarious.

NY 33 at Wegman Rd.

Ah, you mean right there in front of Tops.  :spin:

"Tops never mops, look at their floors..."  :awesomeface:

Wegmans: Every day you get depressed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on June 14, 2015, 06:36:31 AM
NY 33 at Wegman Rd.

Ah, you mean right there in front of Tops.  :spin:

Just checked the map, that's pretty hilarious.

NY 33 at Wegman Rd.

Ah, you mean right there in front of Tops.  :spin:

"Tops never mops, look at their floors..."  :awesomeface:

Wegmans: Every day you get depressed.
Good ones guys!  :)

UPDATE: Just went by there this morning. That intersection has temporary signals on the mast arms mixed with permanent ones with reflective backplates. NY 33/Buffalo Rd. is being widened in this area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Scott5114 on June 18, 2015, 09:32:00 PM
Wegman's discussion now at: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15806.0
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 18, 2015, 10:14:55 PM
A few things:

* US 62 has been dieted in Hamburg. Except for a short section around US 20, US 62 is now 3 lanes with parking between the Village of Hamburg and NY 179

* Lots of work going on in Lewiston. NY 265 remains closed across the dam and the new bridges at the dam for I-190 and NY 265 are nearing completion. Approach to the Lewiston-Queenston bridge is being rebuilt and, as of now, it appears to have a concrete wearing surface.

* North Grand Island Bridge SB span is being redecked overnight. Starting at the south end and moving north. Quite the bumpy ride right now.

* All button copy advance signage for I-190 Exit 21 has been replaced. This is within the past couple of months. Only 2 button copy signs remain on I-190 and they are both on the NB side immediately before the North Grand Island Bridge.

* Region 5 has been replacing shields quite aggressively. Many reassurance shields on DOT-maintained portions of I-190 and I-290 have been replaced with Series C, as have some trailblazers at interchanges, notably around I-190 Exit 23 in Niagara Falls.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 18, 2015, 11:48:26 PM
I have yet to file my small claims form for the crack in my window caused by the 62 diet. Is there a deadline for those?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 19, 2015, 01:55:51 PM
Quote
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) will host public information meetings to discuss plans for a future safety improvement project on Route 5S in the City of Utica, Oneida County.

Two sessions will be held on Thursday, June 25, 2015 at the Utica State Office Building, 1st floor conference room, located at 207 Genesee Street, Utica, New York. The first session will be from 2 p.m. — 4 p.m. and the second session will be from 6 p.m — 8 p.m.

The project is located on Route 5S from Broad Street to Cornelia Street and is currently in the early stages of development. The purpose of the meetings is to provide the public, local businesses and elected officials with information regarding the project and to give everyone an opportunity to comment on the proposed project.

http://www.wktv.com/news/DOT_to_host_public_information_meetings_to_discuss_Route_5s_project.html

My Utica people, this needs to happen...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 19, 2015, 02:59:22 PM


My Utica people, this needs to happen...

There are people in Utica?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 19, 2015, 04:31:58 PM



My Utica people, this needs to happen...

There are people in Utica?

Having spent a year there, they are some of the friendliest I've met...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 19, 2015, 05:27:24 PM
 



My Utica people, this needs to happen...

There are people in Utica?

Having spent a year there, they are some of the friendliest I've met...

I have a friend from there.  He said recently the best ticket in town was watching buildings get demolished. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 19, 2015, 06:46:04 PM



My Utica people, this needs to happen...

There are people in Utica?

Having spent a year there, they are some of the friendliest I've met...

I have a friend from there.  He said recently the best ticket in town was watching buildings get demolished. :D

Sounds like Niagara Falls (the American side, of course). Canadian side is awesome, but the American side is New York's Detroit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on June 19, 2015, 10:11:49 PM
Is there a Wegman's in Niagra Falls?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 19, 2015, 10:24:50 PM
Is there a Wegman's in Niagra Falls?

Closest is on Military Road (NY 265)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 19, 2015, 10:59:56 PM
Is there a Wegman's in Niagra Falls?

Closest is on Military Road (NY 265)

And it's a dump. Walmart across the street is actually nicer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Scott5114 on June 23, 2015, 01:22:23 AM
Wegman's discussion now at: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15806.0
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on June 23, 2015, 09:26:52 PM
More scenic byways coming up on the docket, this time in the Catskills. Portions of NY 28 in Ulster and Delaware Counties and NY 42 and NY 212 in Ulster County will make up the Catskill Mountains Scenic Byway, as approved by the NYS Legislature today.

http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/legislature-approves-catskill-mountains-scenic-byway (http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/legislature-approves-catskill-mountains-scenic-byway)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on June 25, 2015, 02:25:48 PM
A glimpse into the possible future of I-787...

http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/06/25/four-takeaways-from-the-kickoff-for-the-study-abou (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/06/25/four-takeaways-from-the-kickoff-for-the-study-abou)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 25, 2015, 04:16:06 PM
A glimpse into the possible future of I-787...

http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/06/25/four-takeaways-from-the-kickoff-for-the-study-abou (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/06/25/four-takeaways-from-the-kickoff-for-the-study-abou)

It won't go away unless there's a replacement, whether it be a tunnel, major widening/upgrades to existing facilities, and/or a new route on a new alignment. We're talking about a road with an AADT nearing 100,000 and much of that volume is concentrated into a couple of peak times. The MPO knows that. I'm convinced the main purpose of the study is to show the public what would happen if it came down.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 25, 2015, 04:22:25 PM
It reminds me of the select few people who want to turn the 190 (not necessarily 198) into a parkway throughout downtown Buffalo.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on June 25, 2015, 04:59:37 PM
A glimpse into the possible future of I-787...

http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/06/25/four-takeaways-from-the-kickoff-for-the-study-abou (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/06/25/four-takeaways-from-the-kickoff-for-the-study-abou)

It won't go away unless there's a replacement, whether it be a tunnel, major widening/upgrades to existing facilities, and/or a new route on a new alignment. We're talking about a road with an AADT nearing 100,000 and much of that volume is concentrated into a couple of peak times. The MPO knows that. I'm convinced the main purpose of the study is to show the public what would happen if it came down.
I think that it was pointed out by someone the last time I brought up this topic was that the I-787 study should have taken place some 10-15 years ago. Based on how I-787 is used (along with I-81 in Syracuse and I-190 in Buffalo), I don't see any reason why the highways should be kiboshed for something more aesthetically pleasing or urban friendly, as these highways have a useful utility.

SCH-I545

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 25, 2015, 05:29:52 PM
Heh.  I wonder when someone will actually ask what "fiscally constrained" actually means.  Means all sorts of things in all sorts of contexts (i.e., state first instance funding, STIP, NYSDOT regional planning targets, etc., etc.).  Then again, I suppose it does just come down to: "We ain't got no money!"

Anyway, anyone in the Capital District knows that all sorts of money has just been and is currently being invested in I-787 (those construction zones...).  This isn't past investment that Sam Zhou is talking about -- this is current and ongoing investment.

Some municipal officials suggested the tunnel idea (I don't think it was Albany Mayor Jennings at the time...might have been someone from up the river somewhere).  I can't believe that it's seriously being considered given that every conversation I've ever been in -- either at work or outside of work -- where the tunnel's brought up has resulted in nothing but hearty chuckles.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on June 25, 2015, 06:53:53 PM
When I was little, the section of Albany along the Hudson River where Interstate 787 stands today was a huge area of rundown, gritty  buildings, both industrial and residential on Belgian block streets.

Along came urban renewal ideas in the 1960's.  One of these ideas was to clear away all the old buildings, build a grand plaza of State buildings, a new Dunn Memorial Bridge and an Interstate highway along the derelict riverfront.  Governor Nelson Rockefeller wanted to project the grandeur of New York as the economic and political powerhouse of the nation and Albany as its capital.  Money seemed like no object.  New York had plenty of money and people.

Now, New York is "the Cadillac of welfare," in the words of former Governor Mario Cuomo, and the best and brightest flee the welfare capital of America.  New York is a shadow of its former self.

Interstate 787 was a solution in the late 1960's and 1970's.  It is now reviled by certain groups.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 25, 2015, 08:16:38 PM

When I was little, the section of Albany along the Hudson River where Interstate 787 stands today was a huge area of rundown, gritty  buildings, both industrial and residential on Belgian block streets.

Along came urban renewal ideas in the 1960's.  One of these ideas was to clear away all the old buildings, build a grand plaza of State buildings, a new Dunn Memorial Bridge and an Interstate highway along the derelict riverfront.  Governor Nelson Rockefeller wanted to project the grandeur of New York as the economic and political powerhouse of the nation and Albany as its capital.  Money seemed like no object.  New York had plenty of money and people.

Now, New York is "the Cadillac of welfare," in the words of former Governor Mario Cuomo, and the best and brightest flee the welfare capital of America.  New York is a shadow of its former self.

Interstate 787 was a solution in the late 1960's and 1970's.  It is now reviled by certain groups.

I have read a bit on Rockefeller and his projects in Albany.  It comes as no surprise that he was enamored with himself Brasilia, the modernist, sweeping-scale Brazilian capital built from the ground up.  To me his legacies there are more monuments than places.  Empire State Plaza feels like a place only Darth Vader could feel at home.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 25, 2015, 08:41:52 PM
I was at one of the presentations at the public workshop yesterday.  It seemed the main purpose of the presentations was to introduce the study and outline the limitations (funding, the nearby rail line, etc.).  I was at the 6:30 presentation, but I heard today that at the 4:30 presentation there were a lot of people clamoring for the boulevard and the long timeline for the project (the MPO is only talking about smaller solutions in the short term, so I-787 isn't going anywhere any time soon).  There were boards outline the current land uses, vacant properties, zoning, etc. on the corridor, as well as large tables with maps where people could place where they lived/worked or write down their thoughts/ideas.  A friend of mine spent time asking about the break in the Mohawk Hudson bike trail in Watervliet and Green Island as well as access to Corning Preserve (and the Amtrak station on the other side of the river).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 25, 2015, 09:25:28 PM
The thing is that, no matter what happens to I-787, the tracks will still be in place, with the elevated routing blocking clear access to the water. For most of it, we're talking less than 100 feet that would be gained by taking out the expressway. And then there's this: traffic still has to get to downtown Albany. Could they do a "hybrid" option to remove the maze of ramps providing access to the surface streets and using a boulevard as a glorified C-D road?
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 25, 2015, 09:55:55 PM
Why aren't there more of these types of stacked solutions like what's in St. Louis (I-64):

(http://gyazo.com/59313e73a12e3cb007ea93f5ae73ef94.png)
 
The eastbound and westbound lanes converge into this double-decker viaduct.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on June 25, 2015, 11:29:04 PM
Why aren't there more of these types of stacked solutions like what's in St. Louis (I-64):

The eastbound and westbound lanes converge into this double-decker viaduct.

Doing this reduces the horizontal footprint of the highway but increases the vertical footprint of it. Saves a smidge of land area but in terms of being an aesthetic barrier it's arguably worse. It's also more expensive to construct than a single decker viaduct.

If you have to build a whole new road because the old one is at the end of its life, a surface boulevard is the cheapest alternative. It is, after all, the difference between building a freeway and not building a freeway.


Of course you also will always have some very vocal groups who will clamor for these things, and make a point of showing up at public meetings to push as hard as they can for them. So I'm not surprised that happened. But I do find the specific suggestion about "boulevard this 0.2 mile section" hilarious because it clearly shows someone just wanted to say something about making a boulevard and didn't think it all the way through. Having what is otherwise a through freeway drop to grade and pass through maybe a few lights before continuing on as a freeway? You're basically recreating CT 9 in Middletown, except trying to also make it a road pedestrians want to cross. That'd be a disaster waiting to happen. If any of 787 is to be boulevarded, it'd have to be a longer stretch, so that traffic actually is forced to slow down.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on June 26, 2015, 10:09:15 AM
I am going to try to make the workshop in Watervliet on Tuesday 6/30 for the I-787 study. For a road like I-787 through Albany, I don't see where converting the freeway to a boulevard makes sense, considering the volume of traffic, the fact that a railroad also runs within the median for a portion of I-787 through downtown Albany and its common usefulness as a primary corridor between Albany and Troy. There's also the matter of the Port of Albany to consider as well. Given those factors, I think that I-787 will remain as a freeway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on June 26, 2015, 10:10:52 AM

If any of 787 is to be boulevarded, it'd have to be a longer stretch, so that traffic actually is forced to slow down.

Like 787 being a boulevard south of I-90. But that is actually a very important route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 26, 2015, 10:47:50 AM
I am going to try to make the workshop in Watervliet on Tuesday 6/30 for the I-787 study. For a road like I-787 through Albany, I don't see where converting the freeway to a boulevard makes sense, considering the volume of traffic, the fact that a railroad also runs within the median for a portion of I-787 through downtown Albany and its common usefulness as a primary corridor between Albany and Troy. There's also the matter of the Port of Albany to consider as well. Given those factors, I think that I-787 will remain as a freeway.

I really don't see how it could be torn down at this point.  At least for the I-81 viaduct, people are pointing to I-481.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on June 26, 2015, 11:06:22 AM
I am going to try to make the workshop in Watervliet on Tuesday 6/30 for the I-787 study. For a road like I-787 through Albany, I don't see where converting the freeway to a boulevard makes sense, considering the volume of traffic, the fact that a railroad also runs within the median for a portion of I-787 through downtown Albany and its common usefulness as a primary corridor between Albany and Troy. There's also the matter of the Port of Albany to consider as well. Given those factors, I think that I-787 will remain as a freeway.

I really don't see how it could be torn down at this point.  At least for the I-81 viaduct, people are pointing to I-481.
Agreed. I don't think that there's an adequate alternative if I-787 was torn down, as it is a critical piece of the local highway network. The Northway, Thruway and I-90 would then become overburdened at times, in my opinion. Plus, there's the question of funding.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on June 26, 2015, 12:02:53 PM
I am going to try to make the workshop in Watervliet on Tuesday 6/30 for the I-787 study. For a road like I-787 through Albany, I don't see where converting the freeway to a boulevard makes sense, considering the volume of traffic, the fact that a railroad also runs within the median for a portion of I-787 through downtown Albany and its common usefulness as a primary corridor between Albany and Troy. There's also the matter of the Port of Albany to consider as well. Given those factors, I think that I-787 will remain as a freeway.

I really don't see how it could be torn down at this point.  At least for the I-81 viaduct, people are pointing to I-481.
Agreed. I don't think that there's an adequate alternative if I-787 was torn down, as it is a critical piece of the local highway network. The Northway, Thruway and I-90 would then become overburdened at times, in my opinion. Plus, there's the question of funding.

After having been a resident of the Albany area for 7 years, I too agree with the above sentiments. Making it a boulevard is (to me) not a wise decision.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 26, 2015, 12:03:34 PM
What COULD eventually be torn down is the massive tangle of ramps at and near the Dunn Bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 26, 2015, 12:06:56 PM
What COULD eventually be torn down is the massive tangle of ramps at and near the Dunn Bridge.

Yes. Hell, I'd say replace the Dunn Memorial Bridge and redo the ramps. That would do more than tearing out I-787.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 26, 2015, 12:19:14 PM
What COULD eventually be torn down is the massive tangle of ramps at and near the Dunn Bridge.

Yes. Hell, I'd say replace the Dunn Memorial Bridge and redo the ramps. That would do more than tearing out I-787.

This, plus I think many of these stubs like the "highway" that runs under the Empire State Plaza need to be reconfigured for the current usage, it just looks odd on a map and is really just a glorified entrance to a parking garage.

In a perfect world, the highway would've been good for aesthetics, but the concept just doesn't hold water today.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on June 26, 2015, 12:45:18 PM
I-787 may have to try out one of I-278's construction techniques if it wanted a redo. For example, I-278 between exit 23-29. It gives off killer views of Manhattan, yet looks very interesting.

When I-787 was constructed, I feel like it could be a mix of parkway/viaduct. That's something new there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 26, 2015, 05:56:41 PM
The only change I'd make to Interstate 787 is eliminate the need to exit the mainline to access the Thruway. The mainline lanes should go to the Thruway, not to US 9W/McCarty Avenue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 26, 2015, 08:15:20 PM
What COULD eventually be torn down is the massive tangle of ramps at and near the Dunn Bridge.

Yes. Hell, I'd say replace the Dunn Memorial Bridge and redo the ramps. That would do more than tearing out I-787.

This, plus I think many of these stubs like the "highway" that runs under the Empire State Plaza need to be reconfigured for the current usage, it just looks odd on a map and is really just a glorified entrance to a parking garage.


I use it to get to State Street all the time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on June 26, 2015, 09:05:31 PM
Mall Arterial is a really cool road to drive down. I've never seen anything quite like it anywhere else. That said, with it a given that it will never be anything more than a stub to not much of anywhere, it is certainly a ripe candidate for some reconfiguring. Indeed, traffic may well be better served if it were to be removed and the end of the bridge tied directly into Madison Ave, since then that movement could just go straight rather than having to make two turns in rapid succession.

The question is, what's the traffic split between Empire Plaza and the Pearl St exit? If the latter dominates then it's definitely better off reconfigured.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 26, 2015, 09:18:33 PM
It would appear to be 14k for Pearl St and 21k for Empire State Plaza using Traffic Data Viewer, but those counts are forecasted from 13-15 year old data.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 26, 2015, 09:19:39 PM
Does Albany have more vehicular traffic than Buffalo (by AADT)?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 26, 2015, 09:21:54 PM
Does Albany have more vehicular traffic than Buffalo (by AADT)?

Don't know about more, but on a fun visit to Region 5 I had some time ago, they showed how in Buffalo they don't have the rush hour "bumps" on a daily traffic volume graph.  It peaks around lunch time. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 26, 2015, 09:23:37 PM

Does Albany have more vehicular traffic than Buffalo (by AADT)?

Don't know about more, but on a fun visit to Region 5 I had some time ago, they showed how in Buffalo they don't have the rush hour "bumps" on a daily traffic volume graph.  It peaks around lunch time. :D

That's interesting and seems to corroborate what I noticed a few weekdays ago when I was out during lunch time and ran into a ton of traffic on an arterial street.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 26, 2015, 10:12:48 PM
Does Albany have more vehicular traffic than Buffalo (by AADT)?

Don't know about more, but on a fun visit to Region 5 I had some time ago, they showed how in Buffalo they don't have the rush hour "bumps" on a daily traffic volume graph.  It peaks around lunch time. :D

Working for the Buffalo MPO in the field, I can confirm that. In most parts of Buffalo, traffic is pretty sustained throughout the day. Peak hours do have higher counts during the rush hours than the lunch period, but there's not as much of a variation as is present elsewhere. Most of Niagara Falls does have its daily peak hour from 12-1 PM (tourists, Canadians, shoppers).

Albany's terrain funnels traffic onto a few highways, while flat Buffalo has a lot of parallel routings that spread traffic out over a large area. You don't have the dense network of 4+ lane highways crisscrossing the region because the central business districts of Albany, Schenectady, and Troy are in deep valleys and river crossings are limited, with the bridges being major choke points. The foothills for each of the surrounding mountain ranges go right up to the valley. Complicating matters, many of the major surface highways are on routings dating back to the 1600s.

AADTs on the expressways tend to be higher in Albany due to the lack of good surface routings (and the lack of river crossings altogether), with only the stretches between Exits 50-51 and 53-54 (adjacent exits between freeways) on I-90 east of Buffalo being higher. In terms of sustained volume over a long distance, the Northway has the highest AADT upstate, with counts over 100,000 up into Saratoga County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 26, 2015, 10:27:04 PM

Does Albany have more vehicular traffic than Buffalo (by AADT)?

Don't know about more, but on a fun visit to Region 5 I had some time ago, they showed how in Buffalo they don't have the rush hour "bumps" on a daily traffic volume graph.  It peaks around lunch time. :D

Working for the Buffalo MPO in the field, I can confirm that. In most parts of Buffalo, traffic is pretty sustained throughout the day. Peak hours do have higher counts during the rush hours than the lunch period, but there's not as much of a variation as is present elsewhere. Most of Niagara Falls does have its daily peak hour from 12-1 PM (tourists, Canadians, shoppers).

Albany's terrain funnels traffic onto a few highways, while flat Buffalo has a lot of parallel routings that spread traffic out over a large area. You don't have the dense network of 4+ lane highways crisscrossing the region because the central business districts of Albany, Schenectady, and Troy are in deep valleys and river crossings are limited, with the bridges being major choke points. The foothills for each of the surrounding mountain ranges go right up to the valley. Complicating matters, many of the major surface highways are on routings dating back to the 1600s.

AADTs on the expressways tend to be higher in Albany due to the lack of good surface routings (and the lack of river crossings altogether), with only the stretches between Exits 50-51 and 53-54 (adjacent exits between freeways) on I-90 east of Buffalo being higher. In terms of sustained volume over a long distance, the Northway has the highest AADT upstate, with counts over 100,000 up into Saratoga County.

The Northway traffic counts, I bet they are so high as a result of most Albany suburbs located north (Clifton Park) and the presence of tech offices along the corridor.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 27, 2015, 08:18:01 AM
Well I'm traveling, and on 90WB I noticed there was bridge replacement in the Seneca nation portion of the Thruway. I gotta say I do like how the one bridge pays homage to that area (it says Seneca Nation on one side and a Native American phrase on the other).

My question is that how is the DOT paying for this when I thought they don't do highway projects in that area? Plus, if that's true, does that mean they couldn't do the Thruway reconstruction down there?

Also what bridges are being replaced along the Thruway and why?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on June 27, 2015, 09:19:22 AM
Thruway project D214317 (link has been taken down by NYSTA)

As to the why? - I can only assume is to upgrade the bridge. I looked through the plans and they seemed to just focus on replacing old guardrails and replace (presumably) rusted I-beams under the deck.

I didn't know the DOT had any involvement in the project - I thought it was solely Thruway. While it does go through Seneca land, I can only assume that the Thruway would be responsible for the maintenance. That's a gray area of which I know little - anyone know?  :paranoid:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 27, 2015, 09:35:34 AM
Yeah no, I mix the two's duties up all the time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on June 27, 2015, 10:20:12 AM
Correction - they're replacing the whole bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on June 27, 2015, 01:35:27 PM
Since I've just gotten back from New York City...

my route to get back home included some sidetracking. The route between I-495 and the NJ Turnpike was different.

What my parents took: I-495 WB through the Queens-Midtown (told them to take exit 17W), I-95 south thru the GWB, NJ Turnpike north to exit 14

My suggested routing: I-495 WB to exit 17W (I-278 WB), then take exit 26 on I-278 to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, continue on NY 9A north to exit 10, take I-95 southbound to exit 6 on the NJ Turnpike.

What roadgeek delights were there on my suggested routing and my parents routing?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 27, 2015, 03:36:22 PM
Since I've just gotten back from New York City...

my route to get back home included some sidetracking. The route between I-495 and the NJ Turnpike was different.

What my parents took: I-495 WB through the Queens-Midtown (told them to take exit 17W), I-95 south thru the GWB, NJ Turnpike north to exit 14

My suggested routing: I-495 WB to exit 17W (I-278 WB), then take exit 26 on I-278 to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, continue on NY 9A north to exit 10, take I-95 southbound to exit 6 on the NJ Turnpike.

What roadgeek delights were there on my suggested routing and my parents routing?

Well, that depends on a couple things:

—From Exit 10 on NY 9A, how would your routing have gotten up to I-95? The direct connection is at Exit 14, and that's pretty darn roadgeek-delightful.

—How did your parents' routing get you from I-495 to the GWB? Everything on I-95 between the bridge and I-87 at the Highbridge Interchange is fascinating.

Either way, you got the bridge itself and the crazy interchange on the NJ side, so that's pretty cool. However, your routing would have given you the cool cantilevered section of I-278 through Brooklyn Heights, but perhaps at the expense of the more interesting bits of FDR Drive, depending on whether that was on your parents' route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 27, 2015, 04:33:10 PM

Does Albany have more vehicular traffic than Buffalo (by AADT)?

Don't know about more, but on a fun visit to Region 5 I had some time ago, they showed how in Buffalo they don't have the rush hour "bumps" on a daily traffic volume graph.  It peaks around lunch time. :D

Working for the Buffalo MPO in the field, I can confirm that. In most parts of Buffalo, traffic is pretty sustained throughout the day. Peak hours do have higher counts during the rush hours than the lunch period, but there's not as much of a variation as is present elsewhere. Most of Niagara Falls does have its daily peak hour from 12-1 PM (tourists, Canadians, shoppers).

Albany's terrain funnels traffic onto a few highways, while flat Buffalo has a lot of parallel routings that spread traffic out over a large area. You don't have the dense network of 4+ lane highways crisscrossing the region because the central business districts of Albany, Schenectady, and Troy are in deep valleys and river crossings are limited, with the bridges being major choke points. The foothills for each of the surrounding mountain ranges go right up to the valley. Complicating matters, many of the major surface highways are on routings dating back to the 1600s.

AADTs on the expressways tend to be higher in Albany due to the lack of good surface routings (and the lack of river crossings altogether), with only the stretches between Exits 50-51 and 53-54 (adjacent exits between freeways) on I-90 east of Buffalo being higher. In terms of sustained volume over a long distance, the Northway has the highest AADT upstate, with counts over 100,000 up into Saratoga County.

The Northway traffic counts, I bet they are so high as a result of most Albany suburbs located north (Clifton Park) and the presence of tech offices along the corridor.
That's a part of it.  Of course, all the development goes that way because it's the only direction one can go without running into tolls and/or mountains within a few miles.  During the summer and fall, there's also a ton of tourist traffic going up that way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on June 27, 2015, 05:04:56 PM
Since I've just gotten back from New York City...

my route to get back home included some sidetracking. The route between I-495 and the NJ Turnpike was different.

What my parents took: I-495 WB through the Queens-Midtown (told them to take exit 17W), I-95 south thru the GWB, NJ Turnpike north to exit 14

My suggested routing: I-495 WB to exit 17W (I-278 WB), then take exit 26 on I-278 to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, continue on NY 9A north to exit 10, take I-95 southbound to exit 6 on the NJ Turnpike.

What roadgeek delights were there on my suggested routing and my parents routing?

Well, that depends on a couple things:

—From Exit 10 on NY 9A, how would your routing have gotten up to I-95? The direct connection is at Exit 14, and that's pretty darn roadgeek-delightful.

—How did your parents' routing get you from I-495 to the GWB? Everything on I-95 between the bridge and I-87 at the Highbridge Interchange is fascinating.

Either way, you got the bridge itself and the crazy interchange on the NJ side, so that's pretty cool. However, your routing would have given you the cool cantilevered section of I-278 through Brooklyn Heights, but perhaps at the expense of the more interesting bits of FDR Drive, depending on whether that was on your parents' route.
I made a mistake; my parents took the Midtown Tunnel, went north (no idea which avenue) to 41st Street (my dad says 39th, which is wrong), took the Lincoln Tunnel to the NJ Turnpike.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 27, 2015, 05:10:55 PM
More road trip stuff:

In VA my dad commented on the I-77 shield painted on the road. Earlier I saw numbers painted on the road. What is the prevalence of that in NY?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 27, 2015, 08:55:38 PM
I made a mistake; my parents took the Midtown Tunnel, went north (no idea which avenue) to 41st Street (my dad says 39th, which is wrong), took the Lincoln Tunnel to the NJ Turnpike.

Well, also a lot of cool stuff to see that way. The Lincoln Tunnel approach expressway is interesting, though you probably didn't take that. The mass of ramps, viaduct and tunnels connecting the tunnel with Port Authority Bus Terminal is also a fun mental challenge to sort out, especially looking at a map (and not knowing what's inside the terminal, exactly). Contra-flow bus lanes on NJ 495, and on some streets around the NY side too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 28, 2015, 05:42:06 PM
The Utica area has a bunch of new VMSes as of Friday. 
* NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd interchanges
* NY 8 NB between Washington Mills and New Hartford interchanges
* NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 interchanges
* NY 8/12 SB between Mulaney Rd and River Rd interchanges

These panels are smaller than those found elsewhere in the state and are really thin panels mounted on extruded metal.  I was surprised to see that VMSes were installed, I was sure they'd be "Traveler Advisory" signs with a radio frequency and flashing lights indication "Urgent Message When Flashing".

I don't know that the Utica area has enough traffic to warrant all of these signs (there were already three along NY 5/8/12), but only time will tell.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 28, 2015, 05:51:02 PM
The Utica area has a bunch of new VMSes as of Friday. 
* NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd interchanges
* NY 8 NB between Washington Mills and New Hartford interchanges
* NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 interchanges
* NY 8/12 SB between Mulaney Rd and River Rd interchanges

These panels are smaller than those found elsewhere in the state and are really thin panels mounted on extruded metal.  I was surprised to see that VMSes were installed, I was sure they'd be "Traveler Advisory" signs with a radio frequency and flashing lights indication "Urgent Message When Flashing".

I don't know that the Utica area has enough traffic to warrant all of these signs (there were already three along NY 5/8/12), but only time will tell.

Those are all logical places to have signs. Notifies traffic entering Utica from most of the major approaches about any issues. Honestly, I think every highway of importance should have VMSes at regular intervals to inform drivers about conditions. Just makes sense to do so.

Speaking of electronic signs, the travel time signs along I-990 north of Buffalo went online about a month and a half ago after being installed and inactive for over 2 years. After speaking with a higher-up at NITTEC, I am able to confirm that other dedicated travel time signs are planned for Erie and Niagara Counties and along the 400-series highways in the Niagara Region.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 28, 2015, 06:42:41 PM
With all of the new students going to the burgeoning SUNY Poly campus near Mulaney Road, it will be critical to have additional VMSes. /s
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 28, 2015, 07:57:50 PM
The Utica area has a bunch of new VMSes as of Friday. 
* NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd interchanges
* NY 8 NB between Washington Mills and New Hartford interchanges
* NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 interchanges
* NY 8/12 SB between Mulaney Rd and River Rd interchanges

These panels are smaller than those found elsewhere in the state and are really thin panels mounted on extruded metal.  I was surprised to see that VMSes were installed, I was sure they'd be "Traveler Advisory" signs with a radio frequency and flashing lights indication "Urgent Message When Flashing".

I don't know that the Utica area has enough traffic to warrant all of these signs (there were already three along NY 5/8/12), but only time will tell.

Those are all logical places to have signs. Notifies traffic entering Utica from most of the major approaches about any issues. Honestly, I think every highway of importance should have VMSes at regular intervals to inform drivers about conditions. Just makes sense to do so.

Speaking of electronic signs, the travel time signs along I-990 north of Buffalo went online about a month and a half ago after being installed and inactive for over 2 years. After speaking with a higher-up at NITTEC, I am able to confirm that other dedicated travel time signs are planned for Erie and Niagara Counties and along the 400-series highways in the Niagara Region.

Where?

Edit: here is a picture of the VMS sign:

(http://gyazo.com/db2e61caa25fd0ae233c5f2b3721f675.png)
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 02, 2015, 11:47:23 PM
This is about as borderline off-topic as you can get, but in this NBC News article about the lack of new IP addresses, it mentions I-95 as part of the New York State Thruway. Well that's not the case...right? I can't seem to find an answer.

It's an interesting article as well though.

Quote
IP addresses are the four-number strings like 74.125.224.72 that you'll sometimes see in your browser's address bar, in the guts of your smartphone's system settings, or that you might be asked to type in to your cable modem or WiFi router. That address, 74.125.224.72, is one of many that should take you to Google.com.

It's like the highway system. If you're driving through New York, you might take Interstate 95 or I-190 or I-287. But in plain English, it's all the New York State Thruway.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/internet-now-officially-too-big-ip-addresses-run-out-n386081?cid=sm_fb
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on July 03, 2015, 01:22:28 AM
I-95 is part of the Thruway north of Pelham Parkway...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on July 03, 2015, 07:12:48 AM
This is about as borderline off-topic as you can get, but in this NBC News article about the lack of new IP addresses, it mentions I-95 as part of the New York State Thruway. Well that's not the case...right? I can't seem to find an answer.

It's an interesting article as well though.

Quote
IP addresses are the four-number strings like 74.125.224.72 that you'll sometimes see in your browser's address bar, in the guts of your smartphone's system settings, or that you might be asked to type in to your cable modem or WiFi router. That address, 74.125.224.72, is one of many that should take you to Google.com.

It's like the highway system. If you're driving through New York, you might take Interstate 95 or I-190 or I-287. But in plain English, it's all the New York State Thruway.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/internet-now-officially-too-big-ip-addresses-run-out-n386081?cid=sm_fb
The best part of that quote is that they managed to name all of the highways that are owned by the Thruway Authority but are not part of the Thruway. (Yes, part of 287 is, but part isn't.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 03, 2015, 03:30:24 PM
This is about as borderline off-topic as you can get, but in this NBC News article about the lack of new IP addresses, it mentions I-95 as part of the New York State Thruway. Well that's not the case...right? I can't seem to find an answer.

It's an interesting article as well though.

Quote
IP addresses are the four-number strings like 74.125.224.72 that you'll sometimes see in your browser's address bar, in the guts of your smartphone's system settings, or that you might be asked to type in to your cable modem or WiFi router. That address, 74.125.224.72, is one of many that should take you to Google.com.

It's like the highway system. If you're driving through New York, you might take Interstate 95 or I-190 or I-287. But in plain English, it's all the New York State Thruway.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/internet-now-officially-too-big-ip-addresses-run-out-n386081?cid=sm_fb
The best part of that quote is that they managed to name all of the highways that are owned by the Thruway Authority but are not part of the Thruway. (Yes, part of 287 is, but part isn't.)
Garden State Parkway Extension?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on July 05, 2015, 01:33:25 PM
Quote
It's like the highway system. If you're driving through New York, you might take Interstate 95 or I-190 or I-287. But in plain English, it's all the New York State Thruway.
The best part of that quote is that they managed to name all of the highways that are owned by the Thruway Authority but are not part of the Thruway. (Yes, part of 287 is, but part isn't.)
Garden State Parkway Extension?

Also, if we're counting roads that are partly on the mainline and partly not, then logically 90 must count as well (Berkishire Section).

Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on July 06, 2015, 12:15:57 PM
Quote
It's like the highway system. If you're driving through New York, you might take Interstate 95 or I-190 or I-287. But in plain English, it's all the New York State Thruway.
The best part of that quote is that they managed to name all of the highways that are owned by the Thruway Authority but are not part of the Thruway. (Yes, part of 287 is, but part isn't.)
Garden State Parkway Extension?

Also, if we're counting roads that are partly on the mainline and partly not, then logically 90 must count as well (Berkishire Section).

For some people, it's just easier to remember names than numbers.  Think back to the time when telephone prefixes had names for the first two digits.  Or whether it's easier to remember the street you are exiting or the exit number.

In NYC, highways are much better known by their name than by their number.  So for the Thruway, it's generally easier to say take the Thruway, rather than take I-87 to I-90.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 06, 2015, 04:03:27 PM
Quote
It's like the highway system. If you're driving through New York, you might take Interstate 95 or I-190 or I-287. But in plain English, it's all the New York State Thruway.
The best part of that quote is that they managed to name all of the highways that are owned by the Thruway Authority but are not part of the Thruway. (Yes, part of 287 is, but part isn't.)
Garden State Parkway Extension?

Also, if we're counting roads that are partly on the mainline and partly not, then logically 90 must count as well (Berkishire Section).


The entire Berkshire Spur is on the ticket system, so I'm inclined to consider it differently from the other spurs (Niagara Thruway, Garden State Parkway, Cross-Westchester Expressway, and New England Thruway; formerly I-84)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on July 06, 2015, 10:20:50 PM
The entire Berkshire Spur is on the ticket system

No it isn't. The ticket system ends between B2 and B3. One can enter at B3 and head to Massachussets without giving NYSTA a cent of their money.

Although it is true that all of the other non-mainline sections are entirely outside of the ticket system, while the Berkshire Section is mostly within it.

Still, this distinction is arbitrary considering two significant chunks of the mainline are also outside of the ticket system. Niagara is just as much of a Thruway spur as Berkshire is, although it may feel less so to the driver since the City Line and Black Rock toll barriers were axed. (amusingly, the NY EZpass website still has them in their list of toll plaza codes) (https://www.e-zpassny.com/en/about/plazas.shtml).

I would argue the Cross Westchester Expressway is really the only stepchild section of "Thruway", since it is a road that was built by the state DOT and is still owned by the state DOT, but has had its maintenance responsibilities dumped on the Thruway Authority for quite some time. Everything else was built by NYSTA for NYSTA and is pure-bred Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 06, 2015, 11:32:04 PM
The entire Berkshire Spur is on the ticket system

No it isn't. The ticket system ends between B2 and B3. One can enter at B3 and head to Massachussets without giving NYSTA a cent of their money.

Well, but on the other hand, if you get on at B3 and head westbound, you get a ticket at the Canaan barrier that says "B3". And if you get on anywhere else in the ticket system (save for the Erie Section), your ticket lists the toll for Exit B3, which you pay at the Canaan barrier.

I suppose if you really wanted to press it, you could say the ticket system ends at Exit B3, such that it and points west are in the system, whereas it and points east are not. But points east are on the MassPike's ticket system, and you can't help but enter that system going eastbound from B3 since there's no exit at West Stockbridge. So based on that, I'd say the entire Berkshire Spur is on one ticket system or another.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 07, 2015, 11:54:12 AM
Time for a thread split, perhaps, for the Scajaquada discussion?


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 07, 2015, 12:00:02 PM
Time for a thread split, perhaps, for the Scajaquada discussion?


iPhone

Agree completely. Definitely deserves its own thread.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 07, 2015, 12:06:21 PM

Time for a thread split, perhaps, for the Scajaquada discussion?


iPhone

Same here, this issue is only going to grow bigger and get uglier IMO.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Zeffy on July 07, 2015, 12:42:52 PM
Time for a thread split, perhaps, for the Scajaquada discussion?


iPhone

Done! Discussion split to https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15925.0 . Please continue discussion on the Scajaquada Expressway in that thread. (And please ignore the spelling errors on the title in most of the split posts, I typed it wrong when splitting  :ded: )

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 09, 2015, 09:47:18 PM
Housekeeping note, Google Maps now has updated imagery of the Utica area. I was surprised as I was rolling over it when I saw the new arterial bridges. The area is looking good and decrepit at the same time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on July 11, 2015, 09:38:26 PM
How the street names of Albany, NY came to be...

http://m.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Uncovering-backstory-of-Albany-s-800-street-names-6378756.php?cmpid=fb (http://m.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Uncovering-backstory-of-Albany-s-800-street-names-6378756.php?cmpid=fb)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 11, 2015, 11:14:39 PM
How the street names of Albany, NY came to be...

http://m.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Uncovering-backstory-of-Albany-s-800-street-names-6378756.php?cmpid=fb (http://m.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Uncovering-backstory-of-Albany-s-800-street-names-6378756.php?cmpid=fb)

Pfft.  Birds. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2015, 09:46:40 AM
N.Y. Times editorial: Limiting Uber Won’t End Congestion (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/opinion/limiting-uber-wont-end-congestion.html)

Quote
Anybody who spends time in a car or bus in Manhattan knows that traffic congestion isn’t getting better and, indeed, may be getting worse. The average daytime speed of cars in Manhattan’s business districts has fallen to just under 8 miles per hour this year, from about 9.15 miles per hour in 2009.

Quote
City officials say that car services like Uber and Lyft are partly to blame. So Mayor Bill de Blasio is proposing to cap their growth, at least temporarily. It’s a bad idea. There are smarter ways to reduce congestion.

Quote
The New York City Council could soon take up Mr. de Blasio’s solution, which is to cap the number of cars that companies like Uber can add for up to a year while the city studies the issue. Uber is pushing back forcefully, accusing the mayor of catering to the entrenched taxi interests that supported his campaign for mayor. The company’s smaller competitors like Lyft are worried the proposal would simply entrench Uber’s dominance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 22, 2015, 09:07:06 AM
Oneida County Route 34 / Marcy-SUNYIT Parkway has apparently been renamed Marcy-SUNY Parkway. Crews have been covering up the "IT" on signs all along the route with tape that matches the green background of the sign really well.

The guide panels for the interchange with NY Route 49 have not been updated yet. I'm curious to see if the new overhead signs going up in the area will include the "IT" or not, requiring modification after installation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 22, 2015, 09:07:57 AM

Oneida County Route 34 / Marcy-SUNYIT Parkway has apparently been renamed Marcy-SUNY Parkway. Crews have been covering up the "IT" on signs all along the route with tape that matches the green background of the sign really well.

The guide panels for the interchange with NY Route 49 have not been updated yet. I'm curious to see if the new overhead signs going up in the area will include the "IT" or not, requiring modification after installation.

Why not Poly? Too long I guess.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 22, 2015, 11:16:51 AM
Region 5 is changing reference markers again. NY 263 got new reference markers this week. Formerly, the section that bypassed UB was marked as the mileage plus 10, with RMs containing the mileage via the original aligment picking up again at North Forest Road. Mileage was redone for the entire section north of Flint Road, with all RMs north of there showing actual mileage via the current alignment. As we all know, reference markers are never supposed to change, even if a new alignment is opened or the route number changes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 22, 2015, 12:00:55 PM
Region 5 is changing reference markers again. NY 263 got new reference markers this week. Formerly, the section that bypassed UB was marked as the mileage plus 10, with RMs containing the mileage via the original aligment picking up again at North Forest Road. Mileage was redone for the entire section north of Flint Road, with all RMs north of there showing actual mileage via the current alignment. As we all know, reference markers are never supposed to change, even if a new alignment is opened or the route number changes.

Well, at least this is still there for pre-re-alignment NY 263:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3746/19483571608_302ebd14a8_c.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on July 23, 2015, 04:11:27 PM
The new I-81 southbound bridge as part of the Prospect Mountain Interchange reconstruction project in Binghamton is now open. This is part of the NY 17 (future I-86) construction.

Related press release: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-opening-i-81-southbound-bridge-over-chenango-river (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-opening-i-81-southbound-bridge-over-chenango-river)

SCH-I545

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 23, 2015, 04:46:15 PM
Region 5 is changing reference markers again. NY 263 got new reference markers this week. Formerly, the section that bypassed UB was marked as the mileage plus 10, with RMs containing the mileage via the original aligment picking up again at North Forest Road. Mileage was redone for the entire section north of Flint Road, with all RMs north of there showing actual mileage via the current alignment. As we all know, reference markers are never supposed to change, even if a new alignment is opened or the route number changes.

Well, at least this is still there for pre-re-alignment NY 263:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3746/19483571608_302ebd14a8_c.jpg)
First question; What's that sign underneath the "Do Not Enter" sign there? And another OT one; Did NYSDOT get rid of the westernmost gas station along the Belt Parkway? Because I was looking for that and with or without the misdirection of Google Maps, I couldn't find it.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 23, 2015, 04:49:19 PM
SERVICE ROAD ONLY
NO EXIT

Lot of old and weird stuff in that area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 23, 2015, 05:11:36 PM
The new I-81 southbound bridge as part of the Prospect Mountain Interchange reconstruction project in Binghamton is now open. This is part of the NY 17 (future I-86) construction.

Related press release: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-opening-i-81-southbound-bridge-over-chenango-river (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-opening-i-81-southbound-bridge-over-chenango-river)

SCH-I545



We'll see what happens with Phase 2 (the next project they mention).  Glad to see that they got the cost right. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 23, 2015, 09:20:52 PM
SERVICE ROAD ONLY
NO EXIT

Lot of old and weird stuff in that area.
Yes, I do notice that about Upstate New York.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on July 24, 2015, 08:03:46 AM
Lots of signs going up in the Binghamton area for I-86, not greened out either.  All of the new BGS assemblies so far are in the southbound/eastbound direction, and indicate I-81 south, I-86 east, and NY-17 east, in that order.  Additionally, new directional signs were mounted this week at the intersection of US-11 and Prospect St., and along the length of Prospect St., indicating the way toward the soon-to-be-opened new exit 72 onramp to I-86 west and NY-17 west.

This leads me to believe that once the new ramp from I-81 south to NY-17 west is opened, they might unveil the signs in Tioga County I reported on previously (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1487.msg2026362#msg2026362) and I-86 will extend from Erie to Windsor, NY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 24, 2015, 12:54:59 PM
I was theorizing that as well.  There was a small project to work on the acceleration/deceleration lanes in Tioga County; other than that, I can't think of anything that was needed between Chemung and Kamikaze Curve.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on July 24, 2015, 08:22:10 PM
Given the multitude of 86 shields in Sullivan and Orange counties that have been present uncovered for years, I wouldn't be surprised if whatever is going up in Binghamton is just following the same pattern. NYSDOT has gotten sick of waiting for AASHTO and is just putting up signs when they feel like it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 25, 2015, 12:17:20 AM
I was theorizing that as well.  There was a small project to work on the acceleration/deceleration lanes in Tioga County; other than that, I can't think of anything that was needed between Chemung and Kamikaze Curve.

My former boss was part of the overall NY 17/I-86 conversion project when it was being semi-funded through centralized means (and then gradually, NYSDOT realized that it wasn't going to happen and sent funds elsewhere for the most part outside a few key projects of which Elmira to Chemung was one and Prospect Mountain was another).  He had a map of all the projects that needed to be done along it for the conversion.

...

I didn't copy it before he transferred units.   :no:

...

I'm surprised designation is coming before Phase II of Prospect Mountain.  Phase I actually was to leave the site a little less safe than it was to begin with -- just to set up Phase II to do the other big lift of the project and achieve the expected benefits (and also why Phase II is starting so soon after Phase I).  So, that's why I'm scratching my head over why designation now rather than later.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 25, 2015, 10:41:34 AM
Quote
NYSDOT has gotten sick of waiting for AASHTO and is just putting up signs when they feel like it.

It's not AASHTO...it's FHWA.  And FHWA could easily smack NYSDOT back if they're signing an Interstate route without authorization.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 25, 2015, 02:30:23 PM
Quote
NYSDOT has gotten sick of waiting for AASHTO and is just putting up signs when they feel like it.

It's not AASHTO...it's FHWA.  And FHWA could easily smack NYSDOT back if they're signing an Interstate route without authorization.


There's no way NYSDOT is putting up I-86 signs without authorization from FHWA.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 26, 2015, 12:39:31 AM
The shields on the Quickway were covered when installed, but the covers fell off of some. Everything will probably be covered. Shields have been in place in several (undesignated) areas east of Waverly for years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on July 30, 2015, 02:27:12 PM
Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)

I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on July 30, 2015, 04:24:35 PM
It's time for US 20 in Albany, NY to buy new pants, as it is going on a road diet. The road diet would be for part of the Madison Avenue section of US 20 within Albany city limits.

http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/07/30/options-for-madison-ave-road-diet-albany (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/07/30/options-for-madison-ave-road-diet-albany)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 30, 2015, 04:25:36 PM
Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)

I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.

They spent all that money to put in a bike path noone uses. I used to travel up and down that road weekly to Lake Grove I don't recall seeing anyone using the bike path, with the occasional person using it like a sidewalk. The new section has narrower lanes and a lower speed limit where clearly there was nothing wrong with the 55mph limit that was there before. They should have made it like those freeways in Jersey where theres stuff on the side of the road but they still have proper interchanges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on July 30, 2015, 04:32:26 PM
Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)

I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.

They spent all that money to put in a bike path noone uses. I used to travel up and down that road weekly to Lake Grove I don't recall seeing anyone using the bike path, with the occasional person using it like a sidewalk. The new section has narrower lanes and a lower speed limit where clearly there was nothing wrong with the 55mph limit that was there before. They should have made it like those freeways in Jersey where theres stuff on the side of the road but they still have proper interchanges.
I have to agree that redesigning NY 347 as a Jersey freeway would have been the way to go, as opposed to the highway design being inspired by Queens Boulevard and being passed off as an "urban greenway".

I've moved away from Long Island some time ago, but I never saw NY 347 as bicycle friendly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 30, 2015, 04:44:51 PM


I've moved away from Long Island some time ago,

You're a lucky man, I cant stand it here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 30, 2015, 06:22:29 PM
Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)

I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.

They spent all that money to put in a bike path noone uses. I used to travel up and down that road weekly to Lake Grove I don't recall seeing anyone using the bike path, with the occasional person using it like a sidewalk. The new section has narrower lanes and a lower speed limit where clearly there was nothing wrong with the 55mph limit that was there before. They should have made it like those freeways in Jersey where theres stuff on the side of the road but they still have proper interchanges.
I have to agree that redesigning NY 347 as a Jersey freeway would have been the way to go, as opposed to the highway design being inspired by Queens Boulevard and being passed off as an "urban greenway".

I've moved away from Long Island some time ago, but I never saw NY 347 as bicycle friendly.

Part of the problem, of course, is that in the local culture, one thing you cannot do is instruct people how and where to walk, stand or ride, as they will do so where they are most comfortable. For example, when a park in my Bronx neighborhood was rehabilitated, they installed both a hard-surfaced path for pedestrian traffic (and bicycles, where there isn't an adjacent street), and a cinder jogging track parallel to it. But almost universally, if you see both pedestrians and joggers present, the pedestrians will be using the jogging track and the joggers will be on the hard-surfaced path.

How this related to NY 347, I guess, is that if people don't see it as a bicycle route, they won't use it as one; and if they do, they're as likely to ride in the roadway as to use a bicycle path, especially if it has pedestrians obstructing it (which isn't at all surprising).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 30, 2015, 06:33:23 PM
Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)

I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.

They spent all that money to put in a bike path noone uses. I used to travel up and down that road weekly to Lake Grove I don't recall seeing anyone using the bike path, with the occasional person using it like a sidewalk. The new section has narrower lanes and a lower speed limit where clearly there was nothing wrong with the 55mph limit that was there before. They should have made it like those freeways in Jersey where theres stuff on the side of the road but they still have proper interchanges.
Hey, NYSDOT READ MY SIGNATURE!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 30, 2015, 11:28:29 PM
NY 347:  The Gift that Keeps on Giving to LICA.

(emphasized personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on July 31, 2015, 08:25:30 AM
Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)

I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.

They spent all that money to put in a bike path noone uses. I used to travel up and down that road weekly to Lake Grove I don't recall seeing anyone using the bike path, with the occasional person using it like a sidewalk. The new section has narrower lanes and a lower speed limit where clearly there was nothing wrong with the 55mph limit that was there before. They should have made it like those freeways in Jersey where theres stuff on the side of the road but they still have proper interchanges.
I have to agree that redesigning NY 347 as a Jersey freeway would have been the way to go, as opposed to the highway design being inspired by Queens Boulevard and being passed off as an "urban greenway".

I've moved away from Long Island some time ago, but I never saw NY 347 as bicycle friendly.

Part of the problem, of course, is that in the local culture, one thing you cannot do is instruct people how and where to walk, stand or ride, as they will do so where they are most comfortable. For example, when a park in my Bronx neighborhood was rehabilitated, they installed both a hard-surfaced path for pedestrian traffic (and bicycles, where there isn't an adjacent street), and a cinder jogging track parallel to it. But almost universally, if you see both pedestrians and joggers present, the pedestrians will be using the jogging track and the joggers will be on the hard-surfaced path.

How this related to NY 347, I guess, is that if people don't see it as a bicycle route, they won't use it as one; and if they do, they're as likely to ride in the roadway as to use a bicycle path, especially if it has pedestrians obstructing it (which isn't at all surprising).
Considering that NY 347 is still a higher speed corridor that goes through a mix of suburban neighborhoods and shopping centers, I don't envision that many people using the highway as a bike route. However, there's been a bit of a cultural shift towards bicycle transportation, so I could be wrong.

SCH-I545

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 31, 2015, 03:24:50 PM
I was travelling around the Buffalo area, and I made observations that are giving me questions:


Also, why are boulevards and parkways now the trend?

Thanks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 31, 2015, 04:58:26 PM
I was travelling around the Buffalo area, and I made observations that are giving me questions:

  • Why are the Grand Island bridges always backed up?
  • What is the GIB construction project for?
  • Will the Robert Moses parkway be reduced to 35 MPH in its entirety?
  • Will anything ever be done to the stub of the Lasalle Expressway?

Also, why are boulevards and parkways now the trend?

Thanks.

As the resident transportation person in my circle, I feel like I'm always answering the first 2 questions here.

1. Volume and tolls. I don't have enough data (namely PHVs and truck percentages) to calculate capacity, but I know it's at jam density just because there aren't enough lanes. Actual 2011 count was 70,788 on the South Grand Island Bridge, with the NB side having 4 more vehicles than the SB side. I don't need PHVs to tell you that if traffic follows a standard pattern, a 4-lane expressway with an AADT of 71K will have issues. Tolls reduce capacity greatly because everyone needs to slow down, but problems would exist even without the tolls.

2. Redecking. SB side of the South Grand Island Bridge was redecked a couple of years ago. They're extending the life another 20-30 years so they can actually fund a replacement. A replacement will almost certainly be constructed before it has to be redecked again. Same reason the Tappan Zee Bridge was redecked a few years ago even though its replacement has been on the books for a while.

3. Doubtful, especially not the section north of Lewiston.

4. Doubtful. No reason to. Projected AADT at the ET in 2013 was around 11K and I know it isn't all at once. ET functions well as it is with no delays due to low volumes. When it comes time for the bridges to be reconstructed, we might see it lowered to grade, but until then, no reason to waste money on a little-used highway.

5. Boulevards calm traffic and can help to prevent collisions. The oft-hated raised median on NY 5 near the SUNY Buffalo campus was installed because people in Buffalo are known to use center turn lanes as suicide lanes, especially at that location.

Parkways are another story. This is a parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.770888,-73.869663,3a,75y,329.12h,83.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYaKJTc6DTzF9yljLIDBKNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Parkways have fallen out of fashion.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 31, 2015, 05:07:25 PM

I was travelling around the Buffalo area, and I made observations that are giving me questions:

  • Why are the Grand Island bridges always backed up?
  • What is the GIB construction project for?
  • Will the Robert Moses parkway be reduced to 35 MPH in its entirety?
  • Will anything ever be done to the stub of the Lasalle Expressway?

Also, why are boulevards and parkways now the trend?

Thanks.

As the resident transportation person in my circle, I feel like I'm always answering the first 2 questions here.

1. Volume and tolls. I don't have enough data (namely PHVs and truck percentages) to calculate capacity, but I know it's at jam density just because there aren't enough lanes. Actual 2011 count was 70,788 on the South Grand Island Bridge, with the NB side having 4 more vehicles than the SB side. I don't need PHVs to tell you that if traffic follows a standard pattern, a 4-lane expressway with an AADT of 71K will have issues. Tolls reduce capacity greatly because everyone needs to slow down, but problems would exist even without the tolls.

2. Redecking. SB side of the South Grand Island Bridge was redecked a couple of years ago. They're extending the life another 20-30 years so they can actually fund a replacement. A replacement will almost certainly be constructed before it has to be redecked again. Same reason the Tappan Zee Bridge was redecked a few years ago even though its replacement has been on the books for a while.

3. Doubtful, especially not the section north of Lewiston.

4. Doubtful. No reason to. Projected AADT at the ET in 2013 was around 11K and I know it isn't all at once. ET functions well as it is with no delays due to low volumes. When it comes time for the bridges to be reconstructed, we might see it lowered to grade, but until then, no reason to waste money on a little-used highway.

5. Boulevards calm traffic and can help to prevent collisions. The oft-hated raised median on NY 5 near the SUNY Buffalo campus was installed because people in Buffalo are known to use center turn lanes as suicide lanes, especially at that location.

Parkways are another story. This is a parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.770888,-73.869663,3a,75y,329.12h,83.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYaKJTc6DTzF9yljLIDBKNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Parkways have fallen out of fashion.

Thanks for taking the time to create such a succinct explanation, I have no more question.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on August 01, 2015, 10:46:09 AM
"Robust" funding may be returning to NYSDOT in exchange for state spending to cover MTA deficits, per Gov Cuomo.
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/239193/cuomo-upstate-will-gets-its-infrastructure-bucks-to-balance-mta/ (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/239193/cuomo-upstate-will-gets-its-infrastructure-bucks-to-balance-mta/)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 01, 2015, 10:52:39 AM
"Robust" funding may be returning to NYSDOT in exchange for state spending to cover MTA deficits, per Gov Cuomo.
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/239193/cuomo-upstate-will-gets-its-infrastructure-bucks-to-balance-mta/ (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/239193/cuomo-upstate-will-gets-its-infrastructure-bucks-to-balance-mta/)

The word on the street is that this is may be all just talk when it comes down to it.  I heard from a source that the New York State Department of Budget is arguing that upstate transportation dollars should also take into account the Thruway, Bridge Authority and others on top of NYSDOT and therefore upstate NY already has close to funding parity with the MTA.  In other words, DOB is saying "Um...the coffers are dry...where do you think this money is coming from?"

Like I said, just something that I heard.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 01, 2015, 10:54:09 AM
Well superficially that seems like good news. I wonder what this would entail? I would like to see the non-tolled portions of the Thruway in Buffalo widened to 8 lanes and a redesigned Exit 51. Still as I suggested, I will believe it when I see it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Revive 755 on August 01, 2015, 11:59:47 AM
Parkways are another story. This is a parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.770888,-73.869663,3a,75y,329.12h,83.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYaKJTc6DTzF9yljLIDBKNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Parkways have fallen out of fashion.

That looks more like a freeway that is just being called a parkway. This (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.001839,-76.865332,3a,75y,3.13h,80.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy7ggphEeTn225y2eQVquTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) is a better example of parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 01, 2015, 01:55:48 PM
Parkways are another story. This is a parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.770888,-73.869663,3a,75y,329.12h,83.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYaKJTc6DTzF9yljLIDBKNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Parkways have fallen out of fashion.

That looks more like a freeway that is just being called a parkway. This (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.001839,-76.865332,3a,75y,3.13h,80.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy7ggphEeTn225y2eQVquTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) is a better example of parkway.

As far as New York is concerned, a parkway is nothing more than a freeway that bans trucks. As the peraob who asked the question is, judging by context, likely referring to something within the state, the New York definition applies.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 01, 2015, 02:59:17 PM

Parkways are another story. This is a parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.770888,-73.869663,3a,75y,329.12h,83.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYaKJTc6DTzF9yljLIDBKNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Parkways have fallen out of fashion.

That looks more like a freeway that is just being called a parkway. This (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.001839,-76.865332,3a,75y,3.13h,80.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy7ggphEeTn225y2eQVquTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) is a better example of parkway.

As far as New York is concerned, a parkway is nothing more than a freeway that bans trucks. As the peraob who asked the question is, judging by context, likely referring to something within the state, the New York definition applies.

It's not so much a definition, it's just that what were originally built in NY as truly recreational parkways have, over the years, undergone so much enlargement and reconfiguration that they no longer resemble their intended designs.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 01, 2015, 07:23:07 PM
Well superficially that seems like good news. I wonder what this would entail? I would like to see the non-tolled portions of the Thruway in Buffalo widened to 8 lanes and a redesigned Exit 51. Still as I suggested, I will believe it when I see it.

Don't get your hopes up. There's going to be a very minor widening project east of Exit 51 next year, but that's about it, besides a couple of bridge replacements. Right now, they're in short-term mode to get everything to LOS D if improvements can be done cheaply, at least in Buffalo. Everything goes through the MPO and I know there is nothing even in the planning stages because it's that far out. We're probably talking 10+ years until anything substantial begins to happen. Thing opened 60+ years ago, so the limited funds are being sent to replace the bridges and implement AET.

"Robust" funding may be returning to NYSDOT in exchange for state spending to cover MTA deficits, per Gov Cuomo.
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/239193/cuomo-upstate-will-gets-its-infrastructure-bucks-to-balance-mta/ (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/239193/cuomo-upstate-will-gets-its-infrastructure-bucks-to-balance-mta/)

The word on the street is that this is may be all just talk when it comes down to it.  I heard from a source that the New York State Department of Budget is arguing that upstate transportation dollars should also take into account the Thruway, Bridge Authority and others on top of NYSDOT and therefore upstate NY already has close to funding parity with the MTA.  In other words, DOB is saying "Um...the coffers are dry...where do you think this money is coming from?"

Like I said, just something that I heard.

That's what I've heard on my end.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 05, 2015, 08:29:32 AM
Regarding my second question when I asked about that sign on NY 263; Did NYSDOT get rid of the westernmost gas station along the Belt Parkway? Because I was looking for that and with or without the misdirection of Google Maps, I couldn't find it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on August 05, 2015, 09:54:18 AM
Regarding my second question when I asked about that sign on NY 263; Did NYSDOT get rid of the westernmost gas station along the Belt Parkway? Because I was looking for that and with or without the misdirection of Google Maps, I couldn't find it.
Still there as of June 25th, 2015, because that's when I last visited New York. I don't know if you mean the one between exits 10 and 11.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 05, 2015, 06:17:16 PM
Regarding my second question when I asked about that sign on NY 263; Did NYSDOT get rid of the westernmost gas station along the Belt Parkway? Because I was looking for that and with or without the misdirection of Google Maps, I couldn't find it.
Still there as of June 25th, 2015, because that's when I last visited New York. I don't know if you mean the one between exits 10 and 11.
No, I meant between the Verrazano—Narrows Bridge and the last exit with the Gowanus Expressway in Sunset Park.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on August 05, 2015, 09:39:37 PM
Regarding my second question when I asked about that sign on NY 263; Did NYSDOT get rid of the westernmost gas station along the Belt Parkway? Because I was looking for that and with or without the misdirection of Google Maps, I couldn't find it.
Still there as of June 25th, 2015, because that's when I last visited New York. I don't know if you mean the one between exits 10 and 11.
No, I meant between the Verrazano—Narrows Bridge and the last exit with the Gowanus Expressway in Sunset Park.

I don't think there was ever a gas station on the Belt other than the one by Exits 10-11. Steve Anderson's nycroads site only mentions that gas station. Given that the Belt is basically shoved between a park and the water past the Verrazano until it reaches the Gowanus, I don't see where they would have put a gas station.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 05, 2015, 09:51:04 PM
Regarding my second question when I asked about that sign on NY 263; Did NYSDOT get rid of the westernmost gas station along the Belt Parkway? Because I was looking for that and with or without the misdirection of Google Maps, I couldn't find it.
Still there as of June 25th, 2015, because that's when I last visited New York. I don't know if you mean the one between exits 10 and 11.
No, I meant between the Verrazano—Narrows Bridge and the last exit with the Gowanus Expressway in Sunset Park.

I don't think there was ever a gas station on the Belt other than the one by Exits 10-11. Steve Anderson's nycroads site only mentions that gas station. Given that the Belt is basically shoved between a park and the water past the Verrazano until it reaches the Gowanus, I don't see where they would have put a gas station.

Unless that parking area just north of the Verrazano once had a gas station
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 05, 2015, 10:21:41 PM
Yes, I think there once was a gas station on the eastbound side north of the Verrazano Bridge. I'm talking circa 1970. I only remember it 'cause I think I stopped there to make a phone call back then.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 05, 2015, 10:59:35 PM
Yes, I think there once was a gas station on the eastbound side north of the Verrazano Bridge. I'm talking circa 1970. I only remember it 'cause I think I stopped there to make a phone call back then.

Confirmed (http://historicaerials.com?layer=1966&zoom=17&lat=40.622902533822455&lon=-74.041006565094 via @historicaerials). At 88th and 91st Streets. Both were quite small. Only sign of the EB one from the parkway is a shoulder, while the WB one also has old utility poles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 12, 2015, 05:20:56 PM
Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)

I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.
I remember that. I've also mentioned this before but I once knew of an attractive girl who seemed to have a crush on me, until she found out I wanted those upgrades. She lived a whopping mile away from the road, and she thought the proposed service roads would somehow take her house.

Refresh my memory; When did you move away from Long Island?



Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on August 13, 2015, 02:49:21 PM
Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)

I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.
I remember that. I've also mentioned this before but I once knew of an attractive girl who seemed to have a crush on me, until she found out I wanted those upgrades. She lived a whopping mile away from the road, and she thought the proposed service roads would somehow take her house.

Refresh my memory; When did you move away from Long Island?
I usually pin the time I left LI as August 1998, but I was in college between then and 2002, so I left for good in 2002.

SCH-I545

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on August 13, 2015, 02:51:02 PM
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/08/13/thinking-about-the-direction-of-central-ave (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/08/13/thinking-about-the-direction-of-central-ave)

Not yet a proposal, there is now talk of NY 5 in Albany (Central Avenue to the local contingent) of undergoing a road diet.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 13, 2015, 05:31:39 PM
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/08/13/thinking-about-the-direction-of-central-ave (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/08/13/thinking-about-the-direction-of-central-ave)
Light rail?

*facedesk*

I remember when John Poorman at CDTC went around touting the "largest traffic signal synchronization project in the country" -- his idea of getting the signals timed from Albany to Schenectady so you could drive down Central without stops.

Never happened.  Neither will this.
Not yet a proposal, there is now talk of NY 5 in Albany (Central Avenue to the local contingent) of undergoing a road diet.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 14, 2015, 10:04:04 AM
West of Clinton Ave, there's too much traffic, though converting from 5 lane undivided to 4 lane divided would help (so would getting rid of the too-many driveways and traffic signals along that stretch).  But east of Clinton Ave/Manning Blvd, traffic volumes drop below 20K so a road diet east of that point is possible/feasible.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 14, 2015, 04:39:19 PM
West of Clinton Ave, there's too much traffic, though converting from 5 lane undivided to 4 lane divided would help (so would getting rid of the too-many driveways and traffic signals along that stretch).  But east of Clinton Ave/Manning Blvd, traffic volumes drop below 20K so a road diet east of that point is possible/feasible.

I agree with you about the traffic signals -- the Capital District simply has too many in general.  However, I'm scratching my head about getting rid of the suicide lane.  It's too vital.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 14, 2015, 05:22:23 PM
West of Clinton Ave, there's too much traffic, though converting from 5 lane undivided to 4 lane divided would help (so would getting rid of the too-many driveways and traffic signals along that stretch).  But east of Clinton Ave/Manning Blvd, traffic volumes drop below 20K so a road diet east of that point is possible/feasible.

I agree with you about the traffic signals -- the Capital District simply has too many in general.  However, I'm scratching my head about getting rid of the suicide lane.  It's too vital.

That's not a location where I'd say to get rid of the suicide lane. Turn lane is needed. You could put in a raised median and U-turn ramps, but I don't know if that would be worthwhile.

As far as signals are concerned, it doesn't help that the grid shifts at NY 5. Unless there are some major changes, almost all of them are necessary.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 15, 2015, 08:08:19 AM
Quote
I agree with you about the traffic signals -- the Capital District simply has too many in general.  However, I'm scratching my head about getting rid of the suicide lane.  It's too vital.

The idea being that one would replace the center left turn lane with a raised median (landscaped where possible) and left turn lanes at intersections.  Businesses would howl at the "loss of access", but such a configuration is FAR SAFER and has higher traffic capacity than the free-for-all that exists with a flush center LTL.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 15, 2015, 04:41:14 PM
Perhaps something like NY 252/Jefferson Rd, with media replacing the turn lane and U turns allowed at the lights?  Of course, Jefferson Rd was also widened when they did this, and I'm not sure how much room there is to do that to Central Ave.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 15, 2015, 04:43:21 PM
Quote
I agree with you about the traffic signals -- the Capital District simply has too many in general.  However, I'm scratching my head about getting rid of the suicide lane.  It's too vital.

The idea being that one would replace the center left turn lane with a raised median (landscaped where possible) and left turn lanes at intersections.  Businesses would howl at the "loss of access", but such a configuration is FAR SAFER and has higher traffic capacity than the free-for-all that exists with a flush center LTL.

I know many examples could work for this, but Main St. in Buffalo north of 198 uses this configuration and businesses appear to be flourishing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 15, 2015, 05:06:01 PM
Perhaps something like NY 252/Jefferson Rd, with media replacing the turn lane and U turns allowed at the lights?  Of course, Jefferson Rd was also widened when they did this, and I'm not sure how much room there is to do that to Central Ave.

Very little. They'd have to add a few jughandles for larger vehicles. Take NY 104 in Greece, except less ROW.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 16, 2015, 07:10:53 AM
Or larger vehicles could just "go around the block".  Though I do realize that the farther away from downtown Albany one gets, the less of a streetgrid that exists.  Another huge fault of suburban development.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 16, 2015, 03:01:10 PM
Or larger vehicles could just "go around the block".  Though I do realize that the farther away from downtown Albany one gets, the less of a streetgrid that exists.  Another huge fault of suburban development.



The side streets to go "around the block" could not handle larger vehicles and those side streets can be quite residential (although not all are, e.g. Interstate Ave).  Any plan to send trucks down those side streets would be met with heavy opposition.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 16, 2015, 03:10:52 PM
The delivery folks would figure it out.  If it works in Buffalo (as was noted above), no reason why it can't work in Albany.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 16, 2015, 03:35:40 PM
It doesn't help that the capital district is a little odd, with city downtowns essentially adjacent to suburban stip malls with no buffer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 16, 2015, 03:55:12 PM
Agreed - it will not be fun to be there while they are figuring it out. It wasn't fun when it was being resurfaced let alone getting a road diet. Those living in the Capital District I wish you all well; though the end product should be pretty good.  ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 16, 2015, 04:04:29 PM
The delivery folks would figure it out.  If it works in Buffalo (as was noted above), no reason why it can't work in Albany.

Different scenario. Fewer driveways. Just need to have ways to turn around.

It doesn't help that the capital district is a little odd, with city downtowns essentially adjacent to suburban stip malls with no buffer.

No different from most of the northeast.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 16, 2015, 05:51:13 PM
The delivery folks would figure it out.  If it works in Buffalo (as was noted above), no reason why it can't work in Albany.


No, it won't. :P  Have to look at the local characteristics of the avenue that you're dieting.  Just because it works in a totally different city, doesn't mean that it'll work in yours.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 17, 2015, 01:01:03 PM
It doesn't help that the capital district is a little odd, with city downtowns essentially adjacent to suburban stip malls with no buffer.

No different from most of the northeast.
Eh?  Growing up in Rochester, the development was like an onion: downtown, urban in the outer part of the city, urban/older suburban in the near suburbs (many of which were functionally part of the city, down to the mailing address), modern suburban only in the exurbs.  In Albany, it's downtown, clumps of urban development in some neighborhoods, and endless sprawl in even the first ring suburbs.  Growing up in Rochester and living in the Albany area now, both are in first ring suburbs just a few miles from downtown, but in Brighton I was in a 50s neighborhood surrounded by 40s development that looked like it was part of the city, and in Colonie/Latham the neighborhood is late 60s/70s era and much less dense.  In Brighton, only Monroe Ave (NY 31) was a strip mall corridor; in Colonie, most of the major roads are strip mall corridors.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 17, 2015, 01:06:53 PM
It doesn't help that the capital district is a little odd, with city downtowns essentially adjacent to suburban stip malls with no buffer.

No different from most of the northeast.
Eh?  Growing up in Rochester, the development was like an onion: downtown, urban in the outer part of the city, urban/older suburban in the near suburbs (many of which were functionally part of the city, down to the mailing address), modern suburban only in the exurbs.  In Albany, it's downtown, clumps of urban development in some neighborhoods, and endless sprawl in even the first ring suburbs.  Growing up in Rochester and living in the Albany area now, both are in first ring suburbs just a few miles from downtown, but in Brighton I was in a 50s neighborhood surrounded by 40s development that looked like it was part of the city, and in Colonie/Latham the neighborhood is late 60s/70s era and much less dense.  In Brighton, only Monroe Ave (NY 31) was a strip mall corridor; in Colonie, most of the major roads are strip mall corridors.

By "Northeast", I mean eastern New York and New England. Heck, that's most of Queens.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 17, 2015, 08:51:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman
No, it won't. :P  Have to look at the local characteristics of the avenue that you're dieting.  Just because it works in a totally different city, doesn't mean that it'll work in yours.

So the rumors that Upstate isn't a united Upstate are true...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 18, 2015, 11:20:49 AM
Recently, I found a new proposal for allegedly improving NY 27 east of Route 112, and I don't like it. I can't find the link right now, but...

1)They plan to add the new service roads between the ROW for the proposed service road and the main roads.
2)They're proposing too many ramps between Hospital Road and Patchogue-Yaphank Road. Plus, one of the proposals involves redirecting the eastbound service road towards North Dunton Avenue.
3)They want a stupid traffic circle at Horse Block Road, Victory Boulevard, and some of the Sunrise Highway ramps, and worse, they want to reduce the ramps at Exit 57!


 :angry:

Title: Re: New York
Post by: nyratk1 on August 18, 2015, 07:48:48 PM
Recently, I found a new proposal for allegedly improving NY 27 east of Route 112, and I don't like it. I can't find the link right now, but...

1)They plan to add the new service roads between the ROW for the proposed service road and the main roads.
2)They're proposing too many ramps between Hospital Road and Patchogue-Yaphank Road. Plus, one of the proposals involves redirecting the eastbound service road towards North Dunton Avenue.
3)They want a stupid traffic circle at Horse Block Road, Victory Boulevard, and some of the Sunrise Highway ramps, and worse, they want to reduce the ramps at Exit 57!


 :angry:



I'd love to see that link. Also the Dunton Avenue proposal makes sense. I'm guessing it'd be a similar setup as the SSP exit WB for Carleton Avenue?

Did a quick mockup of what I'm thinking:

(http://i.imgur.com/pYzmQo2.png)

The other part I'd like is an EB Sunrise Service Rd. east of William Floyd, bonus points if it accesses the Southport Shopping Center. It'd help with Montauk Hwy traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 19, 2015, 05:24:39 PM
The project replacing the Northway bridges over Albany-Shaker Road is progressing nicely.  The northbound substructure was just put in today and some of the jersey barriers replaced with cones.  I would not be surprised if they start staging and installing the deck soon.  After that, some paving and they'll be done with the northbound side.

The posts for the new tenth mile markers are in.  Given the height, it looks like we might be getting enhanced tenth mile markers on the Northway.  I hope I'm wrong - those things are ugly and the standard tenth mile markers are much more attractive, but I can't think of any other reason for the posts to be so high.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 19, 2015, 07:20:07 PM
While we're on the topic of bridges/construction, I'll give a few updates for Region 5's projects along with those of NYSTA Buffalo Section:

-Decks were poured on the new EB I-290 bridges at Exit 1 about 3 weeks ago. Did a drive-by today and trucks were driving on the deck. Expect constant-slope barriers to be poured pretty soon. Appears on schedule to open around the Autumnal Equinox. Second phase (WB bridges) will be started in the spring.

-A couple bridges on NY 400 got new guard rails and joints. Old-style 2-rail bridge rail was replaced by the newer style of 2-rail.

-Substructure for Cleveland Drive bridge over I-90 was finished just under 2 weeks ago. Currently filling in the approaches. Realigned entrance ramp has been completed and paved, currently used as a staging area. 4th lane now continuous from Exit 50 entrance to Exit 51W ramp departure.

-Peace Bridge project progressing. Porter Avenue bridge currently being reconstructed, down to 2 lanes. NB exit ramp to Busti Avenue at Exit 9 has been realigned through a prefabricated "tunnel". New sign gantries up or in the process of being installed.

-Every sign on NY 263 was replaced over the past 3 months. Breaking from typical NYSDOT practice, all reference markers were rechained to include the 1970s realignment around UB North Campus. Each RM north of North Forest Road was increased by 0.3 mile. Along with the Niagara Falls Blvd resigning project, this is one of Region 5's first large-scale applications of mixed-case street name signage. New speed limit signs on both roads are much smaller and mounted on one post instead of two.

-Preliminary work for the NY 400 bridge replacement over NY 240 has begun. That'll be a mess when things get into full-swing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 20, 2015, 09:35:47 AM
I'd love to see that link. Also the Dunton Avenue proposal makes sense. I'm guessing it'd be a similar setup as the SSP exit WB for Carleton Avenue?

Did a quick mockup of what I'm thinking:

(http://i.imgur.com/pYzmQo2.png)

The other part I'd like is an EB Sunrise Service Rd. east of William Floyd, bonus points if it accesses the Southport Shopping Center. It'd help with Montauk Hwy traffic.
Unfortunately it isn't like the Heckscher Parkway/Carleton Avenue interchange (not that it'd work there), and it's not like your map either. I may have to search through the history on my PC  to find the link.

I'll tell you something I do know about the eastbound service road east of William Floyd; it was designed to go around the NYSDOT maintenance yard before reaching Titmus Drive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 21, 2015, 07:14:00 PM
I'm just going to leave this here and walk away...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/21/dix-hills-lie-rest-stop/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 21, 2015, 07:22:37 PM
I'm just going to leave this here and walk away...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/21/dix-hills-lie-rest-stop/

About flipping time they built it. All I have to say.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on August 21, 2015, 07:53:49 PM
I'm just going to leave this here and walk away...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/21/dix-hills-lie-rest-stop/

About flipping time they built it. All I have to say.

"This isn't a good location"

Thanks to Long Island's years of building nothing but suburban development without leaving any room for the freight infrastructure necessary to support it, there is no good location. Nobody wants trucks parking near their house but they gotta park somewhere if you like eating or being able to buy anything.

What's staggering about Long Island is how it's home to well over a million people (more than most cities) and yet it has no seaport facilities (other than an oil terminal in Inwood) and basically no ability to bring freight in by rail, either.

Everything has to be trucked in through New York City, contributing to all sorts of congestion - this is why there are so many trucks on the Cross Bronx always jamming things up. It's also why during midday hours the ramp from the Clearview southbound to the LIE eastbound is a perpetual mess, because it's a twisty low speed ramp with truck after truck after truck heading over it en route to Long Island. Since there's no direct ramp from the Van Wyck and every other highway out to Long Island is a parkway, this is the way trucks have to go.
And of course, because NIMBYs don't want ugly stinky trucks anywhere near their houses, there are no real truck stops on Long Island either, forcing truckers to either head back to where they came from in one shift, or park their rigs overnight in whatever odd spot they can.

This sort of insanity is why I find myself wishing everything east of the Cross Island would just sink into the Atlantic Ocean. Long Island is beyond help. They might as well put up signs saying "abandon hope all ye who enter here".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 21, 2015, 09:03:20 PM
As a lifelong Long Islander I gotta agree that Duke87 pretty much nailed it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 21, 2015, 10:09:20 PM
Please, if the Town of Hempstead was a city, it would be the 16th largest in the nation. Insane amount of people on the island and there's no way to get stuff there. Few things complicating matters:

-53' trailers have to go in/out via the Clearview and Cross Bronx/Bruckner. No exceptions.
-48' trailers have to use Interstates. Could theoretically take I-278 to the LIE if going to/from the south/west. Things are a little fuzzy with these and it's unclear if such a truck could go from the Van Wyck to Sunrise Highway, for example.
-Combinations under 55' total length can use truck routes as well, which include Atlantic Avenue, Conduit Boulevard, and a few other major thoroughfares.

If anything, the truck regulations are a major reason why a Long Island Sound crossing is needed. Everything would go in/out via there regardless of how much the toll is because it would be relatively unrestricted.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 21, 2015, 10:14:33 PM
Unfortunately, whenever anyone brings up a Long Island Sound crossing in an official setting, they usually get committed to a mental institution.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 21, 2015, 10:23:13 PM
For years the main obstruction to building a Long Island Sound bridge or tunnel (besides the cost) has been the affluent North Shore population who don't want it to ruin their idyllic lifestyle, and they have the political clout. That's why it doesn't happen and probably won't in my lifetime. Shame on all of us.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 21, 2015, 10:26:40 PM
I've never been to Long Island, which is probably rare here, but if it's as long as it seems on the maps I'm surprised there isn't one rest stop.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 21, 2015, 10:27:33 PM
They might as well put up signs saying "abandon hope all ye who enter here".

OH GOD YES. As a long islander, this place is getting worse and worse as the years go by.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on August 22, 2015, 12:41:58 AM
Ok, if anybody lives in Long Island, let's just hope you are NOT, I repeat NOT a rich d-bag who hates every road that exists. Otherwise if it won't work, to build the LIS bridge, I like this strategy:
1. Demolish all roads in and leading to the Hamptons
2. Give at least two months
3. If they beg and plead you've done it right.
4. Restore the roads and build the bridge

Can't believe NYC ever tried this out.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 22, 2015, 03:14:10 AM
Ok, if anybody lives in Long Island, let's just hope you are NOT, I repeat NOT a rich d-bag who hates every road that exists. Otherwise if it won't work, to build the LIS bridge, I like this strategy:
1. Demolish all roads in and leading to the Hamptons
2. Give at least two months
3. If they beg and plead you've done it right.
4. Restore the roads and build the bridge

Can't believe NYC ever tried this out.

I live there, MOST Long Islanders if you ask them, they would love a bridge from LI to Connecticut, but its the people on the North Shore AND the people in Southern Connecticut that are opposing it.

If you look at William Floyd Parkway on the map, it ends at NY 25A and theres not a whole lot there to the north of where the highway ends, the suburban development kinda ends a bit before that. Shoreham and Rocky Point may be on the North shore but they're relatively Middle class areas, unlike the super rich areas near the top further west. The big issue there is going to be a few things:

1) Environmentalists
2) NIMBYS in Shoreham that do happen to protest
3) NIMBYS in Southern Connecticut
4) The Ferry Lobby which is another thing people don't mention, Ive heard the ferry companies (Orient-New London and Port Jeff-Bridgeport) lobbied heavily against the bridge also.

The other issue with that location is where does the bridge touch down on the New Haven side.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Nature Boy on August 22, 2015, 07:40:55 AM
I know nothing about all about development on Long Island and only a little about New Haven but...........

What about extending I-91 across the Long Island Sound into New York, re-signing I-495 as I-91 and having it terminate at the Queens-Midtown Tunnel?

I-91 would be signed north-south in much the same manner that I-95 is through CT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 22, 2015, 08:33:56 AM
The most recent proposal is a tunnel between Rye and Oyster Bay. With this, I-287 would be extended through the tunnel and down the SOB. Enough cleared ROW exists on the Oyster Bay side to get started and the Rye end is practically on the water. A bridge-tunnel would make the Rye approach easier and might lower costs. This proposal has the advantage of providing an easy bypass of the Cross Bronx while still serving Nassau County.

I could also see a Bridgeport-Stony Brook crossing. Would connect Nicolls Rd and Route 8. The Sound is narrower here than it is near New Haven and it still has major highway connections on both ends. I-91 would be ideal, but it's the widest part of the Sound.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Nature Boy on August 22, 2015, 08:59:30 AM
The most recent proposal is a tunnel between Rye and Oyster Bay. With this, I-287 would be extended through the tunnel and down the SOB. Enough cleared ROW exists on the Oyster Bay side to get started and the Rye end is practically on the water. A bridge-tunnel would make the Rye approach easier and might lower costs. This proposal has the advantage of providing an easy bypass of the Cross Bronx while still serving Nassau County.

I could also see a Bridgeport-Stony Brook crossing. Would connect Nicolls Rd and Route 8. The Sound is narrower here than it is near New Haven and it still has major highway connections on both ends. I-91 would be ideal, but it's the widest part of the Sound.

I honestly just want to get rid of I-495 in NY because it's a misuse of an even digit 3di.

You could extend I-91 through a multiplex with 95 through Bridgeport and then cross the Long Island Sound, build a connection down to the LIE and then sign it as I-91 (with everything to the east being signed as I-391).

I have an idea that I'll post in Fictional Highways
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 22, 2015, 09:16:49 AM
The best proposal I've heard (I'm sure it was just in threads on this forum, not from any official source) for an I-495 renumbering is to extend I-80 along the LIE instead.  Get it there along the Cross Bronx and one of the bridges.  Combine that with I-87 being extended along much of current I-278 and NY 440, connecting back to I-287 in NJ and you have a much-improved numbering in the NYC area, in my opinion.  Seems unlikely to happen, though.  If NY ever gets on board with mileage based exit numbering, maybe that would be the time to push for some renumberings like these.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Nature Boy on August 22, 2015, 09:27:05 AM
NYC's interstate numbering is a total disaster. It's like someone drunkenly assigned numbers to the 3dis down there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 22, 2015, 09:40:42 AM
NYC's interstate numbering is a total disaster. It's like someone drunkenly assigned numbers to the 3dis down there.

They all made sense if the network was completed. Other than not connecting to the parent, I-278 and I-678 have compliant numbering. 695 and 895 are compliant. 495 was supposed to cross the Sound. 295 and 878 were added later. There is really no reason to change numbers other than to make a very insignificant portion of the population happy. And, given how NYC really only allows trucks on Interstates, they all have to remain Interstates or risk making truck travel even worse than it already is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Nature Boy on August 22, 2015, 09:44:22 AM
What was the original plan for I-495 crossing the Sound? I've never heard the story of why that never happened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 22, 2015, 10:22:10 AM
Just squeezing this in, I understand bridge pouring is underway on the Utica arterial, no?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 22, 2015, 10:30:44 AM

What was the original plan for I-495 crossing the Sound? I've never heard the story of why that never happened.

http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/eastern-sound/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Zeffy on August 22, 2015, 11:13:34 AM

What was the original plan for I-495 crossing the Sound? I've never heard the story of why that never happened.

http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/eastern-sound/

That site just does not load correctly for me...which is odd because it used to.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 22, 2015, 12:40:24 PM

What was the original plan for I-495 crossing the Sound? I've never heard the story of why that never happened.

http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/eastern-sound/

That site just does not load correctly for me...which is odd because it used to.

I'm having the same issue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 22, 2015, 03:48:41 PM
As a lifelong Long Islander I gotta agree that Duke87 pretty much nailed it.
I agree with everything except the line about everything east of the Cross Island sinking into the Atlantic. Plus the congestion on the Cross Bronx is the best reason to revive the Mid-Manhattan and Lower Manhattan Expressways.

Unfortunately, whenever anyone brings up a Long Island Sound crossing in an official setting, they usually get committed to a mental institution.
Ask me if I give a shit. If you've read any of my posts, you know I don't.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 22, 2015, 04:01:52 PM
Widening the Cross Bronx wouldn't do anything unless there's another bridge between the Bronx and the island or I-95 gets widened up to New Haven. If they could dualize the Throgs Neck and improve the Clearview, that's one thing, but there are multiple bottlenecks. It's at the point where the best thing to do is build the bridge as far out as possible to get as much away from the area as possible.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 22, 2015, 04:10:08 PM
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 22, 2015, 04:25:24 PM
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.

For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office.  That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area.  A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.

(emphasized personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 22, 2015, 04:26:26 PM
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.

The state has amazingly had money for all kinds of things that are much more expensive than and that I'd consider less essential than reopening the rest areas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 22, 2015, 09:42:25 PM
Just squeezing this in, I understand bridge pouring is underway on the Utica arterial, no?

I believe the WB bridges are already poured. Pretty sure the timeline to move the WB traffic to the new roadway is September. EB will stay on the old roadway/diverted section.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 22, 2015, 09:42:59 PM
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.

For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office.  That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area.  A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.

(emphasized personal opinion)

Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 22, 2015, 10:10:15 PM

Just squeezing this in, I understand bridge pouring is underway on the Utica arterial, no?

I believe the WB bridges are already poured. Pretty sure the timeline to move the WB traffic to the new roadway is September. EB will stay on the old roadway/diverted section.

Great, I can't wait to drive on it soon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 22, 2015, 11:41:23 PM
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.

For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office.  That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area.  A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.

(emphasized personal opinion)

Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.


I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.

For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office.  That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area.  A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.

(emphasized personal opinion)

Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.



This situation is just not that simple, as the local opposition shows.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 23, 2015, 12:19:40 PM
NYC's interstate numbering is a total disaster. It's like someone drunkenly assigned numbers to the 3dis down there.

They all made sense if the network was completed. Other than not connecting to the parent, I-278 and I-678 have compliant numbering. 695 and 895 are compliant. 495 was supposed to cross the Sound. 295 and 878 were added later. There is really no reason to change numbers other than to make a very insignificant portion of the population happy. And, given how NYC really only allows trucks on Interstates, they all have to remain Interstates or risk making truck travel even worse than it already is.
495 was proposed to cross the sound once or twice, but the original intent was only from the NJ Turnpike to I-278 (I think - you may correct me if it's 678 or 295). Everything east of there started out as NY 495, and only later was the Interstate number extended. So while 495 now is a very long spur, it started out as an urban link deserving of an even number.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 23, 2015, 08:23:25 PM
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.

For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office.  That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area.  A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.

(emphasized personal opinion)

Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.


I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.

For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office.  That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area.  A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.

(emphasized personal opinion)

Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.



This situation is just not that simple, as the local opposition shows.

Correct. Both areas are facing cutbacks right now. NIMBYs down there are more powerful than the ones upstate as well. Makes me wonder where the money is going.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on August 23, 2015, 08:28:05 PM
Makes me wonder where the money is going.
The Politician's big fat bank accounts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 23, 2015, 10:01:47 PM
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.

For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office.  That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area.  A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.

(emphasized personal opinion)

Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.


I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.

For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office.  That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area.  A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.

(emphasized personal opinion)

Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.



This situation is just not that simple, as the local opposition shows.

Correct. Both areas are facing cutbacks right now. NIMBYs down there are more powerful than the ones upstate as well. Makes me wonder where the money is going.

Well, if the bulldozers don't move, then the checks usually stop flowing as well.

That said, for projects of intense interest, any money linked to them typically stays with them until they're actually done, which may be years down the road.  It's a pretty rare thing for the money to actually be redistributed to other regions or whatnot in cases like this, in my opinion.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on August 24, 2015, 12:03:00 AM
I'd work on rail freight mobility before trying to build a toll bridge across the Sound.  Are all the rail lines on Long Island passenger only?  Any of them have unused ROW wide enough to put in a freight line?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 24, 2015, 12:25:49 AM

I'd work on rail freight mobility before trying to build a toll bridge across the Sound.  Are all the rail lines on Long Island passenger only?  Any of them have unused ROW wide enough to put in a freight line?

Interestingly, I have seen no discussion anywhere of Cuomo's slipping in of the Cross-Harbor freight tunnel in a speech about projects the state needs to push, along with LaGuardia and I think the Hudson rail tunnel.

No mention of the impossibly expensive Port Authority replacement.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 24, 2015, 07:48:03 AM

I'd work on rail freight mobility before trying to build a toll bridge across the Sound.  Are all the rail lines on Long Island passenger only?  Any of them have unused ROW wide enough to put in a freight line?

Interestingly, I have seen no discussion anywhere of Cuomo's slipping in of the Cross-Harbor freight tunnel in a speech about projects the state needs to push, along with LaGuardia and I think the Hudson rail tunnel.

No mention of the impossibly expensive Port Authority replacement.

All of the commuter lines have freighr service, but facilities are limited.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 24, 2015, 11:55:57 AM

I'd work on rail freight mobility before trying to build a toll bridge across the Sound.  Are all the rail lines on Long Island passenger only?  Any of them have unused ROW wide enough to put in a freight line?

Interestingly, I have seen no discussion anywhere of Cuomo's slipping in of the Cross-Harbor freight tunnel in a speech about projects the state needs to push, along with LaGuardia and I think the Hudson rail tunnel.

No mention of the impossibly expensive Port Authority replacement.

He also gave a State of the State Address where he mentioned studying the Rooftop (again).  Just because it leaves the Gov's mouth in a speech doesn't mean that it will become a reality.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 24, 2015, 03:12:17 PM
Please, if the Town of Hempstead was a city, it would be the 16th largest in the nation. Insane amount of people on the island and there's no way to get stuff there. Few things complicating matters:

-53' trailers have to go in/out via the Clearview and Cross Bronx/Bruckner. No exceptions.
-48' trailers have to use Interstates. Could theoretically take I-278 to the LIE if going to/from the south/west. Things are a little fuzzy with these and it's unclear if such a truck could go from the Van Wyck to Sunrise Highway, for example.
-Combinations under 55' total length can use truck routes as well, which include Atlantic Avenue, Conduit Boulevard, and a few other major thoroughfares.

If anything, the truck regulations are a major reason why a Long Island Sound crossing is needed. Everything would go in/out via there regardless of how much the toll is because it would be relatively unrestricted.

If I-78 was extended that would be another route as well.  Southern Brooklyn, Queens really have no expressway at all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 24, 2015, 06:50:15 PM
cl94, can you fill me in on what's going on with Lake Ave in Orchard Park? It's been closed for a few months now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 24, 2015, 07:00:45 PM
cl94, can you fill me in on what's going on with Lake Ave in Orchard Park? It's been closed for a few months now.

Full-depth reconstruction. To save money, it was built on slag and fly ash. With the past few winters, the foundation failed quite spectacularly. They're rebuilding it properly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 25, 2015, 09:21:08 AM
We'll be right back with our current discussion, right after this.

NYSDOT - project D262988 - sign face layouts have an NY 11 instead of a US 11 shield in the plans! Can this be averted in time or once the sign plans have been submitted is it too late?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262988

Sign plans are in supplemental information

Now, back to the show.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 25, 2015, 09:30:40 AM
Oops, this just in -

That same project also features a new New York state line sign with updated logo and graphics.

Now back to the show
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on August 25, 2015, 10:32:22 AM
NYSDOT - project D262988 - sign face layouts have an NY 11 instead of a US 11 shield in the plans! Can this be averted in time or once the sign plans have been submitted is it too late?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262988

Sign plans are in supplemental information
The direction cardinals are shown in mixed-case lettering as well.  IIRC, such are still to be done in all-caps (with a taller first letter) per MUTCD.

At least there's no Clearview font on the signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 25, 2015, 10:34:18 AM
NYSDOT - project D262988 - sign face layouts have an NY 11 instead of a US 11 shield in the plans! Can this be averted in time or once the sign plans have been submitted is it too late?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262988

Sign plans are in supplemental information
The direction cardinals are shown in mixed-case lettering as well.  IIRC, such are still to be done in all-caps (with a taller first letter) per MUTCD.

At least there's no Clearview font on the signs.

They're in the supplemental, which likely means they aren't finalized. Typically, finalized sign layouts will show up under "plans".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on August 25, 2015, 11:46:46 AM
They're in the supplemental, which likely means they aren't finalized. Typically, finalized sign layouts will show up under "plans".

I don't think a set of plans will be issued for bidding.  This appears to be a small-signs job, which NYSDOT tends to do with proposal books only.  NYSDOT also customarily does not include sign panel details in its plans.  The supplemental documentation uploaded for bidding purposes tends to be final, though it can be changed by amendment.

The notice to contractors should identify a point of contact for questions.  I would suggest one of us sends an email to point out the errors, such as NY 11 shield used for US 11, cardinal direction words in mixed-case, etc.  This might result in revised signface layouts being issued.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 25, 2015, 12:28:28 PM
They're in the supplemental, which likely means they aren't finalized. Typically, finalized sign layouts will show up under "plans".

I don't think a set of plans will be issued for bidding.  This appears to be a small-signs job, which NYSDOT tends to do with proposal books only.  NYSDOT also customarily does not include sign panel details in its plans.  The supplemental documentation uploaded for bidding purposes tends to be final, though it can be changed by amendment.

The notice to contractors should identify a point of contact for questions.  I would suggest one of us sends an email to point out the errors, such as NY 11 shield used for US 11, cardinal direction words in mixed-case, etc.  This might result in revised signface layouts being issued.

I've had several conversations with Region 9 about the mixed case cardinal directions over the past couple of years and they assured me that they understood the MUTCD and that it wouldn't happen again. Either these are old plans that haven't been updated or someone in R9 just doesn't get it (or doesn't care) when it comes to established signing practices.  I've sent an email to Region 9 advising them of the errors.  Plans can be changed and if necessary, overlays can be made.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hbelkins on August 25, 2015, 05:42:21 PM
Party poopers. Y'all should wait until the erroneous signs are posted, take a picture, and then complain.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 25, 2015, 05:47:01 PM
Party poopers. Y'all should wait until the erroneous signs are posted, take a picture, and then complain.

Or just post them in "Worst Of" even thought they're awesomely made.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 25, 2015, 06:23:21 PM
Agreed - the problem seems to be a growing trend. I was just hoping to catch it before it got to the fabrication process and .. viola! .. another signing error.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on August 25, 2015, 08:20:11 PM
Had a great vacation last week, staying in Painted Post, NY for five days going to Corning and Cooperstown among my wife's and my pursuits.  Anyway, by staying there I got to see the re-done South Hamilton Street as well as the I-86/I-99 interchange (I joked to my wife that this should be called the Get Smart interchange).  NYSDOT did a fine job on this considering how this interchange was set up just 10 years ago.  We drove there taking US 15 up from Williamsport.  My opinion about this is that I-99 should be signed all the way down to Williamsport with a caveat that the I-180/US 15 interchange be upgraded in the near future (it works for North Carolina).  US 15 is pretty much Interstate standard from that interchange to the PA/NY state line.

The Prospect Mountain interchange is progressing nicely.  Still a bit of work to do--probably will take all of the two to three years of completion that is projected.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 25, 2015, 08:42:09 PM
The Prospect Mountain interchange is progressing nicely.  Still a bit of work to do--probably will take all of the two to three years of completion that is projected.

Of course there's more work to do :D.  The first phase actually left things with more safety problems than there were at the beginning, so NYSDOT always planned to keep the phases as close together as possible.  Phase II is set to be let later this year.  Should be interesting what the bids come in at given the recent volatility.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 25, 2015, 09:20:57 PM
Party poopers. Y'all should wait until the erroneous signs are posted, take a picture, and then complain.
You're right. What's the fun in doing that, when you can wait until the general public sees it and doesn't care?! Anyone who thinks otherwise, well:  :pan: On topic, did they show what the new state line would look like?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 25, 2015, 09:42:36 PM
On topic, did they show what the new state line would look like?
I would assume this design:
(http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i90/101_2392-s.JPG)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 25, 2015, 09:53:39 PM
On topic, did they show what the new state line would look like?
I would assume this design:
(http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i90/101_2392-s.JPG)

Probably. There are a couple of those out this way. Hopefully without the URL that is noncompliant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on August 25, 2015, 10:24:52 PM
Nope... the contract plans linked above show a sign with this logo:

https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#imgrc=Br3caJG67CqmRM%3A

In green, with "WELCOME TO" above.  Perhaps for use on 2-lane roads at the border (ie-non-interstate).

Perhaps meant to replace this style:
https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#tbm=isch&q=welcome+to+new+york+state&imgrc=0eiH-8xbr-Q0rM%3A
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 25, 2015, 10:46:58 PM

Nope... the contract plans linked above show a sign with this logo:

https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#imgrc=Br3caJG67CqmRM%3A

In green, with "WELCOME TO" above.  Perhaps for use on 2-lane roads at the border (ie-non-interstate).

Perhaps meant to replace this style:
https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#tbm=isch&q=welcome+to+new+york+state&imgrc=0eiH-8xbr-Q0rM%3A
does MUTCD allow this type of thing? When you come in on I-90 EB from PA, you are bombarded with all kinds of signs, something I haven't seen outside of New York.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on August 25, 2015, 11:08:04 PM
Party poopers. Y'all should wait until the erroneous signs are posted, take a picture, and then complain.

Actually, by suggesting that someone get in touch with NYSDOT to have the errors fixed before letting, I am acting from purely mercenary motives.  I have the plans with mistakes already in hand.  If they fix the errors and upload the new plans before the letting date, then I get plans with mistakes plus corrected plans.  Win.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on August 25, 2015, 11:11:03 PM
Perhaps meant to replace this style:

https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#tbm=isch&q=welcome+to+new+york+state&imgrc=0eiH-8xbr-Q0rM%3A

Is Alfred E. Smith no longer the governor?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 25, 2015, 11:16:42 PM

Nope... the contract plans linked above show a sign with this logo:

https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#imgrc=Br3caJG67CqmRM%3A

In green, with "WELCOME TO" above.  Perhaps for use on 2-lane roads at the border (ie-non-interstate).

Perhaps meant to replace this style:
https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#tbm=isch&q=welcome+to+new+york+state&imgrc=0eiH-8xbr-Q0rM%3A
does MUTCD allow this type of thing? When you come in on I-90 EB from PA, you are bombarded with all kinds of signs, something I haven't seen outside of New York.

Yes, the roadside powerpoint presentation of New York State tourism.  I have a little marketing in my history and get that just creating the passive feeling that there is a lot to think about with regard to New York tourism is worth it to someone's campaign, but the official nature of these makes them seem, well, officious.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 26, 2015, 10:29:43 AM
I spoke with R9, they are fixing the signing plans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 26, 2015, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: hbelkins
Party poopers. Y'all should wait until the erroneous signs are posted, take a picture, and then complain.

Minimizing confusion amongst the traveling public > the desires of a few signgeeks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 26, 2015, 12:34:16 PM
I spoke with R9, they are fixing the signing plans.

Awesome! Thank you!  :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 26, 2015, 07:45:44 PM
Nope... the contract plans linked above show a sign with this logo:

https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#imgrc=Br3caJG67CqmRM%3A

In green, with "WELCOME TO" above.  Perhaps for use on 2-lane roads at the border (ie-non-interstate).

Perhaps meant to replace this style:
https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#tbm=isch&q=welcome+to+new+york+state&imgrc=0eiH-8xbr-Q0rM%3A
Kinda surprising, given that NYSDOT has historically used the same welcome sign for all roads.  Guess somebody didn't want to pay for the full-size sign on two lane roads.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2015, 08:56:26 PM
Party poopers. Y'all should wait until the erroneous signs are posted, take a picture, and then complain.
I know you're being sarcastic, but better off preventing taxpayer waste if you can. Of course, once the sign is made, may as well be quiet and leave it out.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2015, 08:57:11 PM
Is Alfred E. Neuman no longer the governor?
What, you worry?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 26, 2015, 08:57:53 PM

Is Alfred E. Neuman no longer the governor?
What, you worry?

None of them look like him, maybe Spitzer actually.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 27, 2015, 10:53:33 AM
I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard  connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 27, 2015, 11:08:05 AM
I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard  connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.

Google "I-687". That's why.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Henry on August 27, 2015, 11:30:16 AM
I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard  connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.

Google "I-687". That's why.
Besides, that interchange was originally built for the cancelled I-687 project. It was to go to I-87 where Exit 3 would have served the connection there. More information can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_687
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 27, 2015, 11:30:29 AM

I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard  connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.

Google "I-687". That's why.
I saw a power transmission line travels between the two trumpets, I was definitely wrong assuming that's where the routing of I-687 was supposed to go.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 27, 2015, 04:34:02 PM

I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard  connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.

Google "I-687". That's why.
I saw a power transmission line travels between the two trumpets, I was definitely wrong assuming that's where the routing of I-687 was supposed to go.

http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-687_ny.html

(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 27, 2015, 04:45:04 PM
I-687 is the main reason Exits 4-5 on I-87 are so messed up. The C-D setup was supposed to continue on as I-687. Now that Exit 1 has been rebuilt to handle heavy traffic to/from the north, an expressway would be redundant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 27, 2015, 04:54:27 PM
I-687 is the main reason Exits 4-5 on I-87 are so messed up. The C-D setup was supposed to continue on as I-687. Now that Exit 1 has been rebuilt to handle heavy traffic to/from the north, an expressway would be redundant.

Plus we now have the "Alternate 7" freeway connecting the Northway at Exit 7 to I-787 in Green Island/Watervliet that handles a lot of the traffic from the north into Albany.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 27, 2015, 04:58:05 PM
I-687 is the main reason Exits 4-5 on I-87 are so messed up. The C-D setup was supposed to continue on as I-687. Now that Exit 1 has been rebuilt to handle heavy traffic to/from the north, an expressway would be redundant.

Plus we now have the "Alternate 7" freeway connecting the Northway at Exit 7 to I-787 in Green Island/Watervliet that handles a lot of the traffic from the north into Albany.

It is way, way, way, way past time for people to be still calling it Alt 7.  It's become the MA 128 of the Capital Region of NY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 27, 2015, 05:16:44 PM
I-687 is the main reason Exits 4-5 on I-87 are so messed up. The C-D setup was supposed to continue on as I-687. Now that Exit 1 has been rebuilt to handle heavy traffic to/from the north, an expressway would be redundant.

Plus we now have the "Alternate 7" freeway connecting the Northway at Exit 7 to I-787 in Green Island/Watervliet that handles a lot of the traffic from the north into Albany.

It is way, way, way, way past time for people to be still calling it Alt 7.  It's become the MA 128 of the Capital Region of NY.

Only difference is that Route 128 is still signed as such. Alternate 7 signs haven't even existed in my lifetime.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 27, 2015, 05:19:56 PM
I-687 is the main reason Exits 4-5 on I-87 are so messed up. The C-D setup was supposed to continue on as I-687. Now that Exit 1 has been rebuilt to handle heavy traffic to/from the north, an expressway would be redundant.

Plus we now have the "Alternate 7" freeway connecting the Northway at Exit 7 to I-787 in Green Island/Watervliet that handles a lot of the traffic from the north into Albany.

It is way, way, way, way past time for people to be still calling it Alt 7.  It's become the MA 128 of the Capital Region of NY.

Only difference is that Route 128 is still signed as such. Alternate 7 signs haven't even existed in my lifetime.

HA!  Good point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 27, 2015, 05:24:47 PM
I-687 is the main reason Exits 4-5 on I-87 are so messed up. The C-D setup was supposed to continue on as I-687. Now that Exit 1 has been rebuilt to handle heavy traffic to/from the north, an expressway would be redundant.

Plus we now have the "Alternate 7" freeway connecting the Northway at Exit 7 to I-787 in Green Island/Watervliet that handles a lot of the traffic from the north into Albany.

It is way, way, way, way past time for people to be still calling it Alt 7.  It's become the MA 128 of the Capital Region of NY.

Only difference is that Route 128 is still signed as such. Alternate 7 signs haven't even existed in my lifetime.

HA!  Good point.

I was out there on Sunday and one of the radio stations referred to it as Alternate 7. I didn't know if I should laugh hysterically or feel sorry for the tourists/people who moved there in past 25 years and don't know what Alternate 7 is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 27, 2015, 05:30:32 PM
Traffic reports routinely call it "Alternate 7" or "Alt 7" still here.  They have over the years I've lived here, anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 27, 2015, 05:47:00 PM
Traffic reports routinely call it "Alternate 7" or "Alt 7" still here.  They have over the years I've lived here, anyway.

 :-D That also used to annoy me when I lived in the Capital District - I kept shouting (to the radio) "it IS Route 7!"  :banghead:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 27, 2015, 06:35:30 PM
I'm with everyone on that.  It's way past time just to call it Route 7.  The funny thing is, I don't hear many "normal" people refer to it that way, but the traffic reporters call it "Alternate 7" every time.  Of course, as I griped in a post a while back, they're the same ones (OK, at least one) who think Thruway Exit 25A's toll plaza is the "Duanesburg Interchange Toll Bar".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 27, 2015, 06:55:08 PM
They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).

I wouldn't call I-687 obsolete.  I-90 has large backups every single day west of exit 5 at every single merge (and I-787 and NY 7 have their own issues as well).  Diverting some of that traffic away would help matters.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on August 27, 2015, 07:15:52 PM
They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).

I wouldn't call I-684 obsolete.  I-90 has large backups every single day west of exit 5 at every single merge (and I-787 and NY 7 have their own issues as well).  Diverting some of that traffic away would help matters.
Since when did I-684 move 140 miles north?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 27, 2015, 08:34:56 PM

Corporate Woods Boulevard

I would just like to take a moment to say this name made me smile.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 27, 2015, 09:19:00 PM
They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).


No, they don't.  It's NY 7 west of the Northway and NY 7 east of Northway and nothing ever happens on the segment of NY 7 west of the Northway except for traffic getting backed up at Wade Road and the Sonic now.

There is no reason to all anything "Alternate 7" at all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 27, 2015, 09:31:38 PM
They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).


No, they don't.  It's NY 7 west of the Northway and NY 7 east of Northway and nothing ever happens on the segment of NY 7 west of the Northway except for traffic getting backed up at Wade Road and the Sonic now.

There is no reason to all anything "Alternate 7" at all.

Yep. Everyone knows "old NY 7" as NY 2 or the road name. It's been in its current place for 30 years. Heck, it was never signed as NY 7 Alternate. That was only the number used before they decided to extend NY 2.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 28, 2015, 04:41:05 PM
They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).

I wouldn't call I-684 obsolete.  I-90 has large backups every single day west of exit 5 at every single merge (and I-787 and NY 7 have their own issues as well).  Diverting some of that traffic away would help matters.
Since when did I-684 move 140 miles north?
Since I made that typo.

They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).


No, they don't.  It's NY 7 west of the Northway and NY 7 east of Northway and nothing ever happens on the segment of NY 7 west of the Northway except for traffic getting backed up at Wade Road and the Sonic now.

There is no reason to all anything "Alternate 7" at all.
Once in a blue moon the traffic reports even mention accidents on random side streets in faraway towns, so it's not impossible.  Plus, if one were to say "backups on the Northway from Route 7 to the twins", to which exit (6 or 7) would they be referring?  Could be either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 28, 2015, 05:11:02 PM
They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).

I wouldn't call I-684 obsolete.  I-90 has large backups every single day west of exit 5 at every single merge (and I-787 and NY 7 have their own issues as well).  Diverting some of that traffic away would help matters.
Since when did I-684 move 140 miles north?
Since I made that typo.

They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).


No, they don't.  It's NY 7 west of the Northway and NY 7 east of Northway and nothing ever happens on the segment of NY 7 west of the Northway except for traffic getting backed up at Wade Road and the Sonic now.

There is no reason to all anything "Alternate 7" at all.
Once in a blue moon the traffic reports even mention accidents on random side streets in faraway towns, so it's not impossible.  Plus, if one were to say "backups on the Northway from Route 7 to the twins", to which exit (6 or 7) would they be referring?  Could be either.

They should go full blown NYSDOT and call it "Interstate 787A".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 28, 2015, 05:24:22 PM
Once in a blue moon the traffic reports even mention accidents on random side streets in faraway towns, so it's not impossible.  Plus, if one were to say "backups on the Northway from Route 7 to the twins", to which exit (6 or 7) would they be referring?  Could be either.

I suspect that a lot of people think of Exits 6 and 7 as one big interchange anyway.  To continue either direction on Route 7, one never enters a mainline Northway lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 28, 2015, 05:26:01 PM
Once in a blue moon the traffic reports even mention accidents on random side streets in faraway towns, so it's not impossible.  Plus, if one were to say "backups on the Northway from Route 7 to the twins", to which exit (6 or 7) would they be referring?  Could be either.

It's a very short distance between those exits, so it really doesn't matter.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 28, 2015, 05:39:38 PM
Once in a blue moon the traffic reports even mention accidents on random side streets in faraway towns, so it's not impossible.  Plus, if one were to say "backups on the Northway from Route 7 to the twins", to which exit (6 or 7) would they be referring?  Could be either.

It's a very short distance between those exits, so it really doesn't matter.

Precisely. The concurrency is shorter than Latham Farms (the adjacent strip mall) is long. WB NY 7 even stays on a C/D road. If Exit 7 is backed up, Exit 6 is almost always congested as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 28, 2015, 10:21:11 PM
On a different note...

I was on I-86 near Salamanca earlier today. The rebuild is evidently being completed in 2+ segments, with the dividing line in the middle of the US 219 concurrency. The western segment (that brought the full closure) had a full-depth reconstruction last year. Wearing course is asphalt, which Region 5 seems to be preferring as of late. Eastern segment. which was reconstructed this year, is having the top layer of asphalt paved as we speak. Down to one lane in each direction. As part of the work, maintenance was done to the bridges and the median jersey barrier was replaced with a constant slope barrier. Enhanced milemarkers were installed, but most other signs were not replaced. Any and all mention of NY 17 has been removed from this segment.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on August 28, 2015, 10:34:16 PM
Going back to the discussion of I-87 and the Albany area.. Has NYSDOT ever had plans of widening the Northway between the Thruway and the Twin Bridges from 6 lanes to 8 lanes? Last time I was in the area it seemed pretty congested.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 28, 2015, 11:06:54 PM
Going back to the discussion of I-87 and the Albany area.. Has NYSDOT ever had plans of widening the Northway between the Thruway and the Twin Bridges from 6 lanes to 8 lanes? Last time I was in the area it seemed pretty congested.

As bridges south of Exit 13 are replaced, they are being widened to accommodate 8 lanes. At this point in time, it's not being widened, nor is any plan to do so in the near future. Most of this is because the bottleneck is between Exits 7 and 8. Except on the segment south of NY 5, traffic counts on I-87 are highest between Exits 5 and 8. To eliminate the bottleneck, you'd have to replace the Twin Bridges or build another span for one direction of traffic and have the other carriageway split.

In reality, it needs 8 lanes south of Exit 9. Doing this would reduce traffic on US 9 to a reasonable level and might even divert traffic from NY 32. Yet, due to not having several million dollars to replace the bridges, nothing is being widened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 28, 2015, 11:23:58 PM
To eliminate the bottleneck, you'd have to replace the Twin Bridges or build another span for one direction of traffic and have the other carriageway split.

^This, ^this, ^this.  Probably have to straighten the curves out as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 29, 2015, 09:01:35 AM
On a different note...

I was on I-86 near Salamanca earlier today. The rebuild is evidently being completed in 2+ segments, with the dividing line in the middle of the US 219 concurrency. The western segment (that brought the full closure) had a full-depth reconstruction last year. Wearing course is asphalt, which Region 5 seems to be preferring as of late. Eastern segment. which was reconstructed this year, is having the top layer of asphalt paved as we speak. Down to one lane in each direction. As part of the work, maintenance was done to the bridges and the median jersey barrier was replaced with a constant slope barrier. Enhanced milemarkers were installed, but most other signs were not replaced. Any and all mention of NY 17 has been removed from this segment.

Admittedly, once that eastern segment is done, it will be smooth as silk! I visited family in Olean and observed the same thing.  :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 29, 2015, 02:50:33 PM
This is huge: Region 10 is adopting flashing yellow arrows (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=9178&p_is_digital=Y))

Intersection of Northern Boulevard (NY 25A) and Cedar Swamp Rd (NY 107) in Nassau County is getting FYAs for left turn movements from NY 25A. Other than NYCDOT using them at intersections with no through movement, I think this is the first application downstate and the first "standard" installation in the region.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on August 29, 2015, 03:46:46 PM
As is Region 7, surprisingly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 29, 2015, 08:25:00 PM
Once in a blue moon the traffic reports even mention accidents on random side streets in faraway towns, so it's not impossible.  Plus, if one were to say "backups on the Northway from Route 7 to the twins", to which exit (6 or 7) would they be referring?  Could be either.

It's a very short distance between those exits, so it really doesn't matter.

Precisely. The concurrency is shorter than Latham Farms (the adjacent strip mall) is long. WB NY 7 even stays on a C/D road. If Exit 7 is backed up, Exit 6 is almost always congested as well.
I've found it's usually closer to exit 7 that backups form, at least outside of tourist season.  Of course, since I get off at exit 6, I take advantage of that fact and zoom by the stopped cars on the times when the queue extends further back.  Once it gets too far back, however, oftentimes some yahoos try to use the exit only lane as a passing lane and slow everyone down when they merge back.
Going back to the discussion of I-87 and the Albany area.. Has NYSDOT ever had plans of widening the Northway between the Thruway and the Twin Bridges from 6 lanes to 8 lanes? Last time I was in the area it seemed pretty congested.

As bridges south of Exit 13 are replaced, they are being widened to accommodate 8 lanes. At this point in time, it's not being widened, nor is any plan to do so in the near future. Most of this is because the bottleneck is between Exits 7 and 8. Except on the segment south of NY 5, traffic counts on I-87 are highest between Exits 5 and 8. To eliminate the bottleneck, you'd have to replace the Twin Bridges or build another span for one direction of traffic and have the other carriageway split.

In reality, it needs 8 lanes south of Exit 9. Doing this would reduce traffic on US 9 to a reasonable level and might even divert traffic from NY 32. Yet, due to not having several million dollars to replace the bridges, nothing is being widened.
Given the condition of those bridges, I'd favor replacements.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 29, 2015, 08:44:46 PM
Given the condition of those bridges, I'd favor replacements.

Even it is replaced, the MPO appears to be quite opposed to adding lanes anywhere, operating under the "automated vehicles will solve everything" viewpoint. Yeah, about that...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 30, 2015, 12:57:34 AM
Given the condition of those bridges, I'd favor replacements.

Even it is replaced, the MPO appears to be quite opposed to adding lanes anywhere, operating under the "automated vehicles will solve everything" viewpoint. Yeah, about that...

Heh.  I remember working with one of the honchos of CDTC.  He really did seem to be determined to bring the world of The Jetsons into reality.  He had all sorts of quixotic ideas, but you're right:  Adding lanes isn't on their radar and, in reality, not on NYSDOT's, either.  In fact, I heard one office director at NYSDOT gripe about the Thruway work between Exits 23 and 24: "That's not our policy!" He growled.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 30, 2015, 02:31:18 PM
Given the condition of those bridges, I'd favor replacements.

Even it is replaced, the MPO appears to be quite opposed to adding lanes anywhere, operating under the "automated vehicles will solve everything" viewpoint. Yeah, about that...

Heh.  I remember working with one of the honchos of CDTC.  He really did seem to be determined to bring the world of The Jetsons into reality.  He had all sorts of quixotic ideas, but you're right:  Adding lanes isn't on their radar and, in reality, not on NYSDOT's, either.  In fact, I heard one office director at NYSDOT gripe about the Thruway work between Exits 23 and 24: "That's not our policy!" He growled.
Would that be the same guy who wants to reduce the speed limit on Wolf Rd to 25 and implement a road diet?  But yeah, CDTC is very much in bike/ped advocacy mode right now.

I think it's current Region 1 policy that any widening of the Northway would be HOV/HOT/etc. lanes and not general purpose lanes.  Ramp meters were also considered and rejected.

Not surprised about the gripe over the Thruway work.  After looking at the traffic counts there, I was surprised myself.  Even near rush hour, the road looks empty.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 30, 2015, 02:43:27 PM
Yet another Kosciuszko Bridge in need of replacement. :P
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 30, 2015, 03:09:52 PM
Given the condition of those bridges, I'd favor replacements.

Even it is replaced, the MPO appears to be quite opposed to adding lanes anywhere, operating under the "automated vehicles will solve everything" viewpoint. Yeah, about that...

Heh.  I remember working with one of the honchos of CDTC.  He really did seem to be determined to bring the world of The Jetsons into reality.  He had all sorts of quixotic ideas, but you're right:  Adding lanes isn't on their radar and, in reality, not on NYSDOT's, either.  In fact, I heard one office director at NYSDOT gripe about the Thruway work between Exits 23 and 24: "That's not our policy!" He growled.
Would that be the same guy who wants to reduce the speed limit on Wolf Rd to 25 and implement a road diet?  But yeah, CDTC is very much in bike/ped advocacy mode right now.

I think it's current Region 1 policy that any widening of the Northway would be HOV/HOT/etc. lanes and not general purpose lanes.  Ramp meters were also considered and rejected.

You've got to be kidding me. By any chance, is that dimwit from Albany? Everyone I know who grew up or lived there for a long time wants everything widened. At the current rate of population growth, it'll all be LOS F in 10-15 years if nothing is widened.

Region 5 might be a bunch of bozos, but GBNRTC wants almost everything in Buffalo widened with GP lanes to get the region to LOS C-D or better in addition to pushing transit and bike usage. Let's just say the people above me were not happy when Cuomo ordered the road diet on NY 198.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 30, 2015, 05:42:15 PM
Queens, NY people:

Anybody know if the old button copy on Rockwaway Point Blvd by the Cross Bay Bridge and the Marine Parkway Bridge?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 30, 2015, 07:27:59 PM
You've got to be kidding me. By any chance, is that dimwit from Albany? Everyone I know who grew up or lived there for a long time wants everything widened. At the current rate of population growth, it'll all be LOS F in 10-15 years if nothing is widened.
Not sure where he's from.  This isn't something that's being seriously looked at right now; it was mentioned in a design for bike/ped training given by the FHWA.  Increasing bike/ped accessibility is currently a big priority of the MPO and the municipalities in the area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 30, 2015, 11:37:22 PM
Queens, NY people:

Anybody know if the old button copy on Rockwaway Point Blvd by the Cross Bay Bridge and the Marine Parkway Bridge?
Some. Not for long. Actually, I think only at CBB now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 31, 2015, 04:23:27 PM
Widening the Cross Bronx wouldn't do anything unless there's another bridge between the Bronx and the island or I-95 gets widened up to New Haven. If they could dualize the Throgs Neck and improve the Clearview, that's one thing, but there are multiple bottlenecks.
Believe it or not, I'm not sure I'd advocate widening the Cross Bronx, but I like the idea of dualizing the Throgs Neck Bridge. You could reduce congestion coming on and off the Cross Island Parkway, and get rid of weaving between the Cross Bronx and Throgs Neck Expressways.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on August 31, 2015, 04:35:22 PM
Widening the Cross Bronx wouldn't do anything unless there's another bridge between the Bronx and the island or I-95 gets widened up to New Haven. If they could dualize the Throgs Neck and improve the Clearview, that's one thing, but there are multiple bottlenecks.
Believe it or not, I'm not sure I'd advocate widening the Cross Bronx, but I like the idea of dualizing the Throgs Neck Bridge. You could reduce congestion coming on and off the Cross Island Parkway, and get rid of weaving between the Cross Bronx and Throgs Neck Expressways.
Would AET tolling on the NYC bridges help traffic?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 31, 2015, 04:43:49 PM
Widening the Cross Bronx wouldn't do anything unless there's another bridge between the Bronx and the island or I-95 gets widened up to New Haven. If they could dualize the Throgs Neck and improve the Clearview, that's one thing, but there are multiple bottlenecks.
Believe it or not, I'm not sure I'd advocate widening the Cross Bronx, but I like the idea of dualizing the Throgs Neck Bridge. You could reduce congestion coming on and off the Cross Island Parkway, and get rid of weaving between the Cross Bronx and Throgs Neck Expressways.
Would AET tolling on the NYC bridges help traffic?

They're working on AET as we speak, but tollbooth capacity isn't the issue. It's the lack of lanes on the crossings themselves. Every major crossing is a bottleneck because you have a bunch of expressways/parkways converging and the lanes aren't balanced. Backups originate at the merge point or after the tolls when a bunch of lanes get dropped. At GW, for example, you have I-95, Palisades Parkway, US 1/9, and NJ 4 feeding into 7 lanes of traffic. Backups there originate after the tolls.

Heck, backups often extend through the tolls. I've gone through E-ZPass lanes without having to slow down because traffic was backed up so much.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 31, 2015, 04:57:07 PM
And from pictures I've seen of New York City's expressways and parkways, it is impossible to widen outwards. What about elevating new lanes over the existing lanes or going underground?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 31, 2015, 05:06:10 PM
And from pictures I've seen of New York City's expressways and parkways, it is impossible to widen outwards. What about elevating new lanes over the existing lanes or going underground?

Head over to Google and turn on the terrain layer. Contrary to popular belief, New York is anything but flat. The Cross Bronx alternates between deep cuts/tunnels and viaducts over valleys and rivers with relatively little change in elevation. Can't build above because of the depressed/tunnel sections and can't build under for the opposite reason, unless you went all-out and built a deep set of express lanes extending from New Jersey to the New England Thruway that tunnels under everything.

While the other boroughs aren't as extreme, these parkways and expressways were pushed through already-old neighborhoods. It's not all-elevated or all-depressed anywhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 31, 2015, 06:38:52 PM
And from pictures I've seen of New York City's expressways and parkways, it is impossible to widen outwards. What about elevating new lanes over the existing lanes or going underground?
Underground, you face the issue of centuries of buried utilities that in essence, no one really knows what's under there until they start digging. Many of these utilities could be active and unmapped or incorrectly mapped, and you might find all sorts of other stuff along the way. Not to mention crossing streets with known utilities and subway lines, and having to relocate everything you go near. Cost- and effort-prohibitive.
Above ground, you face billions of dollars in seismically stable structure, and you have to dig column foundations, which puts you right back in the same spot as the underground solution. Not nearly as disruptive, but the issues crop up, and then add the visual divider you've just erected between communities. Cost- and politically prohibitive.
Widening in place is the only tenable solution. It's limited to undercutting or overtopping the frontage roads and could probably buy you two lanes in each direction if you pack it in. You're unlikely to run into nearly as much stuff going sideways as you are going down, and while you would need to build a lot of expensive wall, at least you're not changing the neighborhood dynamic of the road with your new structure.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 31, 2015, 07:05:36 PM
Housekeeping note (I guess), I will be away from AARoads for awhile until I get a handle on classwork. Civil engineering takes a lot of brain cells.

On a side note, I completed my first surveying lab today. Yay!

Widening the Cross Bronx wouldn't do anything unless there's another bridge between the Bronx and the island or I-95 gets widened up to New Haven. If they could dualize the Throgs Neck and improve the Clearview, that's one thing, but there are multiple bottlenecks.
Believe it or not, I'm not sure I'd advocate widening the Cross Bronx, but I like the idea of dualizing the Throgs Neck Bridge. You could reduce congestion coming on and off the Cross Island Parkway, and get rid of weaving between the Cross Bronx and Throgs Neck Expressways.
Would AET tolling on the NYC bridges help traffic?

They're working on AET as we speak, but tollbooth capacity isn't the issue. It's the lack of lanes on the crossings themselves. Every major crossing is a bottleneck because you have a bunch of expressways/parkways converging and the lanes aren't balanced. Backups originate at the merge point or after the tolls when a bunch of lanes get dropped. At GW, for example, you have I-95, Palisades Parkway, US 1/9, and NJ 4 feeding into 7 lanes of traffic. Backups there originate after the tolls.

Heck, backups often extend through the tolls. I've gone through E-ZPass lanes without having to slow down because traffic was backed up so much.

When will they expand upstate? 2020?

Given the condition of those bridges, I'd favor replacements.

Even it is replaced, the MPO appears to be quite opposed to adding lanes anywhere, operating under the "automated vehicles will solve everything" viewpoint. Yeah, about that...

Heh.  I remember working with one of the honchos of CDTC.  He really did seem to be determined to bring the world of The Jetsons into reality.  He had all sorts of quixotic ideas, but you're right:  Adding lanes isn't on their radar and, in reality, not on NYSDOT's, either.  In fact, I heard one office director at NYSDOT gripe about the Thruway work between Exits 23 and 24: "That's not our policy!" He growled.
Would that be the same guy who wants to reduce the speed limit on Wolf Rd to 25 and implement a road diet?  But yeah, CDTC is very much in bike/ped advocacy mode right now.

I think it's current Region 1 policy that any widening of the Northway would be HOV/HOT/etc. lanes and not general purpose lanes.  Ramp meters were also considered and rejected.

You've got to be kidding me. By any chance, is that dimwit from Albany? Everyone I know who grew up or lived there for a long time wants everything widened. At the current rate of population growth, it'll all be LOS F in 10-15 years if nothing is widened.

Region 5 might be a bunch of bozos, but GBNRTC wants almost everything in Buffalo widened with GP lanes to get the region to LOS C-D or better in addition to pushing transit and bike usage. Let's just say the people above me were not happy when Cuomo ordered the road diet on NY 198.

With the way things are going and the lack of resources needed to repair shoddy roads in the Northtowns, that'll be the day. Wake me up when the Thruway is continuous 4 lanes from barrier to barrier in Buffalo (not counting exit/merge lanes).

I do think that Buffalo is ahead of the game in bike transportation. 3 hours east in Utica it's like every street is an expressway, which isn't terrible, but not convenient for bikes when they are unneeded expressways. Especially Genesee St. and Oriskany Blvd.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 31, 2015, 07:32:05 PM
Cl94 is correct in his description of the physical nature of the Cross Bronx Expwy. It was probably the most difficult and challenging 5 miles of highway ever built thru any city anywhere. You can read about what it took to accomplish it in Robert Moses' biography The Power Broker, by Robert Caro. To do any kind of expansion would be even more cost prohibitive and complex than The Big Dig was in Boston which was a small job compared to what the Cross Bronx Expwy. would take. It is virtually impossible to do. And even if it were possible, the politicians who control the funding would never have the will to do it.

In my opinion, the best most feasible option is still the bridge or tunnel crossing Long Island Sound connecting I-287 at Rye to the vicinity of Oyster Bay on Long Island. But the politicians probably won't have the will to overcome the opposition of the affluent communities in those areas. So again nothing will get done. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 31, 2015, 07:34:32 PM
Cl94 is correct in his description of the physical nature of the Cross Bronx Expwy. It was probably the most difficult and challenging 5 miles of highway ever built thru any city anywhere. You can read about what it took to accomplish it in Robert Moses' biography The Power Broker, by Robert Caro. To do any kind of expansion would be even more cost prohibitive and complex than The Big Dig was in Boston which was a small job compared to what the Cross Bronx Expwy. would take. It is virtually impossible to do. And even if it were possible, the politicians who control the funding would never have the will to do it.

In my opinion, the best most feasible option is still the bridge or tunnel crossing Long Island Sound connecting I-287 at Rye to the vicinity of Oyster Bay on Long Island. But the politicians probably won't have the will to overcome the opposition of the affluent communities in those areas. So again nothing will get done.

I read about it awhile back on Wikipedia. I didn't even know that NYC had canyons and gorges, that must've been a crazy project.

They probably could've built the Lower Manhattan Expressway with the kind of effort that required.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 31, 2015, 07:37:45 PM
Only the borough of the Bronx and upper Manhattan has that really severe terrain. The other boroughs have some hills etc. but nothing like the Bronx.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Nature Boy on August 31, 2015, 07:48:51 PM
I always wonder how beautiful what is now New York City must have been when it was in its natural state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on August 31, 2015, 08:19:21 PM

I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard  connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.

Google "I-687". That's why.
I saw a power transmission line travels between the two trumpets, I was definitely wrong assuming that's where the routing of I-687 was supposed to go.

http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-687_ny.html

(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)
I really miss the classic 1960's and 1970's Rand McNally cartography.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 31, 2015, 08:53:26 PM
Speaking of Albany, the new Northway tenth mile markers near exit 4 are in.  I guess the posts look taller without the signs, because aside from the full mile, they're standard rather than enhanced.  The "3" on the enhanced one looks like it's anorexic, though.

Hopefully they can get some more mileposts in soon.  Changing styles 3-4 times in a 15 minute commute is disconcerting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 31, 2015, 08:56:53 PM
I wish they would create a full connection with the Cross Island and Clearview. OR a connection to the Hutch from the Bruckner WB. Right now it's Whitestone for points north and Throgs Neck for points east

I'll explain: coming from, let's say JFK going to CT, I'd take the Whitestone to the Hutch (to bypass the traffic on I-95 @ Pelham and Hutch) to I-95 via Exit 6.  I hop to I-95 b/c the Hutch north of here bunches up by the Cross County and up by the Mobil Station.

But if the Whitestone is a mess, the Throgs Neck is good I'll take that...but sometimes it's not a better route b/c of the said backup on I-95 by Pelham Pkwy.

Switching between both bridges isn't easy. Going from Whitestone to Throgs one has to take Cross County EB to Clearview and go south turn around at an exit and come back to the Throgs.

If I'm coming from LI and the Whitestone is a mess, I'd like to take the Throgs but can't b/c there is no easy way to get the Hutch w/o hitting a back up on I-95. If there was an easy way to the Hutch from the Throgs via Bruckner I'd be in heaven.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 31, 2015, 09:41:03 PM
Those "half" interchanges are typical of 1950's-60's highway construction in NYC. Sometimes to change from one highway to another you have to get off onto the street and work your way over to the other highway. Ya' gotta be sharp to drive in New York City.

Some other examples of this are the interchange of the L.I.E. (I-495) and the Van Wyck Expwy. Ext. (I-678) in Flushing and the interchange of the Van Wyck Expwy. and the Grand Central/J. Robinson Pkwys. in Kew Gardens, both in Queens.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on August 31, 2015, 09:43:55 PM
Took a little trip from VT out to Massena, NY over the weekend.  Didn't get many road pics... but did get a couple:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-iV448E5Pepk/VeUB2rJpG_I/AAAAAAAAVVk/SRzTdnoQL-0/s640-Ic42/IMG_3418.JPG)
Button copy and (mostly) all-text signage at NY 374's eastern terminus at NY 22.  Seeing as how there's (relatively) new signage in the area, not sure how this one got skipped.  (apologies for the crappy shot... some weird camera setting on my phone activated and darkened up the shot, but you get the gist of it).

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-dqyoPf3EM4Q/VeUB2sHT5cI/AAAAAAAAVVg/cqRaQ6gj0LE/s640-Ic42/IMG_3419.JPG)
Northway at Exit 38N.  No mention of NY 22 North on this sign. 

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-sKdP_-swL0c/VeUB29EA1JI/AAAAAAAAVVo/R_vIdPqrhwc/s640-Ic42/IMG_3420.JPG)
Northway at Exit 39.  A quick 1-mile jaunt on the Northway, spliced in with (mostly) back roads.  Some new signage in this area.  The 1 mile advance signs for Exits 38 & 39 look too compressed.  I didn't get a shot of them, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 31, 2015, 10:17:55 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Xhnsp5q.jpg)

Is this any better for you? Still kinda blurry.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on August 31, 2015, 10:43:35 PM
Took a little trip from VT out to Massena, NY over the weekend. 

Hey, that's my neck of the woods! :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 01, 2015, 07:21:58 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Xhnsp5q.jpg)

Is this any better for you? Still kinda blurry.

I'm grateful it has survived this long. (not sure how it survived, but still nice to see)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on September 01, 2015, 07:38:30 AM
I'm grateful it has survived this long. (not sure how it survived, but still nice to see)

Region 7 is notoriously slow at replacing things.

Speaking of Region 7, they've actually begun replacing all of the Seaway Trail markers with ones with the new name and design introduced in 2010. Unfortunately, there's considerably fewer of them than before...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadsguy on September 01, 2015, 01:02:24 PM
Fortunately there's a decent Street View (https://goo.gl/maps/vXSGF) shot of it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 01, 2015, 01:52:00 PM
They're working on AET as we speak, but tollbooth capacity isn't the issue. It's the lack of lanes on the crossings themselves. Every major crossing is a bottleneck because you have a bunch of expressways/parkways converging and the lanes aren't balanced. Backups originate at the merge point or after the tolls when a bunch of lanes get dropped. At GW, for example, you have I-95, Palisades Parkway, US 1/9, and NJ 4 feeding into 7 lanes of traffic. Backups there originate after the tolls.

While that's true, you have to imagine that some of the backup could be alleviated by not having so many toll lanes needing to merge back together after the plaza, as well as having different areas for cash customers and for E-ZPass users. Both movements (the merging of many lanes after the plaza, and the weaving around of vehicles to get to some other toll lane, often unnecessarily) tend to gum up the works if done in a disorderly fashion. And that's a given around here…
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on September 01, 2015, 05:53:44 PM

I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard  connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.

Google "I-687". That's why.
I saw a power transmission line travels between the two trumpets, I was definitely wrong assuming that's where the routing of I-687 was supposed to go.

http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-687_ny.html

(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)
I really miss the classic 1960's and 1970's Rand McNally cartography.
Agreed.  I remember the days when all these roads existed or did not exist, as the case may be, and signed with the numbers indicated.  I guess I am showing my age.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 01, 2015, 10:15:10 PM
Would AET tolling on the NYC bridges help traffic?

They're working on AET as we speak, but tollbooth capacity isn't the issue. It's the lack of lanes on the crossings themselves. Every major crossing is a bottleneck because you have a bunch of expressways/parkways converging and the lanes aren't balanced. Backups originate at the merge point or after the tolls when a bunch of lanes get dropped. At GW, for example, you have I-95, Palisades Parkway, US 1/9, and NJ 4 feeding into 7 lanes of traffic. Backups there originate after the tolls.

Heck, backups often extend through the tolls. I've gone through E-ZPass lanes without having to slow down because traffic was backed up so much.

The bottleneck with the GWB is the roads connecting to it on the New York side. Note that when heading outbound during the evening rush, in the direction where there is no toll plaza to contend with, all the nasty traffic is on the roads approaching the bridge. Once you're on the bridge, you're more or less home free.
Heading inbound, when traffic backs up all the way over the bridge, it's not because of the bridge itself or because of the toll plazas. It's because 7 lanes of bridge has less than 7 equivalent lanes of highway on the New York side to dump into.

Nonetheless, while each crossing has different reasons for having traffic jams, generally speaking they are not because of the toll plaza. Not anymore at least. I remember back in the 1990s it was routine for toll plazas themselves to be the cause of traffic jams, since everyone had to stop and pay cash or at least use tokens/change baskets. Once EZpass became widely used this problem largely went away.

One noteworthy exception is the Triboro Bridge. The Triboro is generally the least traffic prone of all the East River crossings, but there are times where Bronx-Queens traffic backs up behind the toll plaza if, for whatever reason, a large number of people are paying cash at a time when relatively few cash lanes are staffed. Seems to happen mostly on Friday and Saturday nights. In these cases the lines for the cash lanes back up onto the Bronx Kill span (Queens-bound) or the main viaduct (Bronx-bound) and vehicles with EZpass have to sit in it until they get closer to the toll plaza and the roadway widens for it.

I've also observed this phenomenon on the Whitestone, but it's much less common.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 01, 2015, 10:37:48 PM

I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard  connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.

Google "I-687". That's why.
I saw a power transmission line travels between the two trumpets, I was definitely wrong assuming that's where the routing of I-687 was supposed to go.

http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-687_ny.html

(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)
I really miss the classic 1960's and 1970's Rand McNally cartography.
Agreed.  I remember the days when all these roads existed or did not exist, as the case may be, and signed with the numbers indicated.  I guess I am showing my age.

What, by the way, was the original plan for NY 85 north of I-90? It seems already to have been canceled by the time of this map.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 01, 2015, 10:59:18 PM
There was some sort of government facility there that is now a practically abandoned brownfield; I'm betting it was an obstacle for any plans for quite a while. 

That said, I did hear a former RPPM of Region 1 say that the brownfield is basically what's been keeping NY 85 from being extended to Central Ave (besides the lack of funding for expansions).  His opinion was that the few houses right at the end of current NY 85 (south of the brownfield) would not be an obstacle cost-wise in terms of obtaining the ROW.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on September 02, 2015, 03:30:01 AM

I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard  connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.

Google "I-687". That's why.
I saw a power transmission line travels between the two trumpets, I was definitely wrong assuming that's where the routing of I-687 was supposed to go.

http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-687_ny.html

(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)
I really miss the classic 1960's and 1970's Rand McNally cartography.
Agreed.  I remember the days when all these roads existed or did not exist, as the case may be, and signed with the numbers indicated.  I guess I am showing my age.

What, by the way, was the original plan for NY 85 north of I-90? It seems already to have been canceled by the time of this map.
NY 85 was to continue north and connect with the proposed Interstate 687.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on September 02, 2015, 08:12:51 AM
(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)
I really miss the classic 1960's and 1970's Rand McNally cartography.
Same here.  Personally, I wish RandMcNally would revive the old graphics (but maybe still show the Interstate shields in their actual colors).  It's worth noting that some of the 3di bubble-style shields out there resemble RMN's 3di shields shapewise.  Sample 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8110565,-75.4541434,3a,75y,6.49h,75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfetihnABXMsPmBGWrI_BEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).  Sample 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.102872,-75.2904043,3a,75y,212.14h,82.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spU5JA1BU_kMdaURftsPghg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 03, 2015, 10:48:26 AM
(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)
I really miss the classic 1960's and 1970's Rand McNally cartography.
Same here.  Personally, I wish RandMcNally would revive the old graphics (but maybe still show the Interstate shields in their actual colors).  It's worth noting that some of the 3di bubble-style shields out there resemble RMN's 3di shields shapewise.  Sample 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8110565,-75.4541434,3a,75y,6.49h,75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfetihnABXMsPmBGWrI_BEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).  Sample 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.102872,-75.2904043,3a,75y,212.14h,82.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spU5JA1BU_kMdaURftsPghg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).
I'm more interested in the use of proposed and under construction roads on these maps than the old graphics themselves.

But back on the proposed "improvements" for NY 27 (I still can't find that link); If they're going to add the service roads, and I firmly believe they should, they should add them to the originally intended rights of way. I may have to take drastic measures on a google search to find this proposal.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on September 03, 2015, 02:36:27 PM
Quote
I'm more interested in the use of proposed and under construction roads on these maps than the old graphics themselves
I can see RMcN not getting into the controversy of proposed routes, but I would like to see a "approved - awaiting funding" for routes with an approved FEIS and other coordination.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on September 03, 2015, 03:04:13 PM
Quote
I'm more interested in the use of proposed and under construction roads on these maps than the old graphics themselves
I can see RMcN not getting into the controversy of proposed routes, but I would like to see a "approved - awaiting funding" for routes with an approved FEIS and other coordination.
Such would have been helpful while the US 202 Parkway was under construction south of Doylestown, Bucks County, PA.  During the years the road was finally under construction, not one map/atlas showed the road as such (broken/dashed line).   Only after the road opened, did maps/atlases started showing it.  Contrast such to the decades of showing the Blue Route/I-476 as a dotted/dashed line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 03, 2015, 04:50:18 PM
All I know is that Rand McNally showed the Nashua, NH bypass as being under construction for what was probably decades. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 03, 2015, 05:58:04 PM
All I know is that Rand McNally showed the Nashua, NH bypass as being under construction for what was probably decades. :D

Does it still show it as being under construction?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on September 03, 2015, 08:51:03 PM
The artwork change with the 1980 North American Road Atlas dropped the proposed freeway line work. They probably figured by then that so few new roads were going to be added that it was no longer necessary to show any proposals. That or if they did, they would just show it as under construction as they did for the Nashua Bypass and others (as I recall the two portions of I-476 were shown u/c for years too).

All I know is that Rand McNally showed the Nashua, NH bypass as being under construction for what was probably decades. :D

Equally they have shown the K-4 freeway extension as under construction on the Topeka inset for over ten years. The highway is still planned, but not funded.

All I know is that Rand McNally showed the Nashua, NH bypass as being under construction for what was probably decades. :D

Does it still show it as being under construction?

No they finally dropped it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 03, 2015, 08:54:02 PM
All I know is that Rand McNally showed the Nashua, NH bypass as being under construction for what was probably decades. :D

Does it still show it as being under construction?

No they finally dropped it.

It's about flipping time. I lived in Nashua long before I could remember anything and my parents said that was planned long before they moved there. Anyone know which edition finally removed it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on September 03, 2015, 09:05:56 PM
It's about flipping time. I lived in Nashua long before I could remember anything and my parents said that was planned long before they moved there. Anyone know which edition finally removed it?

They dropped it in the 2009 edition.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 03, 2015, 10:00:26 PM
It's about flipping time. I lived in Nashua long before I could remember anything and my parents said that was planned long before they moved there. Anyone know which edition finally removed it?

They dropped it in the 2009 edition.

Heh.  I thought it was a couple of years even after that. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 04, 2015, 01:18:43 PM
Has anyone else noticed the really bad potholes on the Sunrise Highway Service road in Babylon? They stuck ROUGH ROAD signs by one of the bad stretches, which looks literally like the surface of the moon, even worse than some of the sections of the FDR Drive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 04, 2015, 02:32:21 PM
Has anyone else noticed the really bad potholes on the Sunrise Highway Service road in Babylon? They stuck ROUGH ROAD signs by one of the bad stretches, which looks literally like the surface of the moon, even worse than some of the sections of the FDR Drive.

That's typical Erie County practice. Rough road sign goes up 5-10 years before they fix it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 02:51:55 PM
It was also the case on NY 85.  First case I was aware of where they were placed on a freeway.   :wow:

I heard they're used as a means to mitigate liability, of all things.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 04, 2015, 02:57:30 PM
Has anyone else noticed the really bad potholes on the Sunrise Highway Service road in Babylon? They stuck ROUGH ROAD signs by one of the bad stretches, which looks literally like the surface of the moon, even worse than some of the sections of the FDR Drive.

That's typical Erie County practice. Rough road sign goes up 5-10 years before they fix it.

Would we be able to throw Chautauqua County in to that as well? On I-86 east at the PA-NY state line, not only are there ROUGH ROAD signs, but they are in construction colors, with z-bars! (which I am told are indications of a long-term sign posting)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 02:59:01 PM
Has anyone else noticed the really bad potholes on the Sunrise Highway Service road in Babylon? They stuck ROUGH ROAD signs by one of the bad stretches, which looks literally like the surface of the moon, even worse than some of the sections of the FDR Drive.

That's typical Erie County practice. Rough road sign goes up 5-10 years before they fix it.

Would we be able to throw Chautauqua County in to that as well? On I-86 east at the PA-NY state line, not only are there ROUGH ROAD signs, but they are in construction colors, with z-bars! (which I am told are indications of a long-term sign posting)

That's not the county; that's NYSDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 04, 2015, 03:02:26 PM
Oops - sorry I misread
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 03:08:15 PM
Oops - sorry I misread

Actually, I don't think you did.  Here in NY, there's a stark division between the municipalities, counties and NYSDOT.  Cl94 was referring to the practice of Erie County in particular. I was just pointing out that for I-86, the roads were actually signed with those ROUGH ROAD signs you mentioned by NYSDOT rather than Chautauqua County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 04, 2015, 03:11:30 PM
Oops - sorry I misread

Actually, I don't think you did.  Here in NY, there's a stark division between the municipalities, counties and NYSDOT.  Cl94 was referring to the practice of Erie County in particular. I was just pointing out that for I-86, the roads were actually signed with those ROUGH ROAD signs you mentioned by NYSDOT rather than Chautauqua County.

I gotcha - just the same, I do appreciate the clarification  :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 04, 2015, 05:23:38 PM
It was also the case on NY 85.  First case I was aware of where they were placed on a freeway.   :wow:

I heard they're used as a means to mitigate liability, of all things.

its not the freeway part itself, its the service roads by the NY 231 Exit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 05:48:12 PM
It was also the case on NY 85.  First case I was aware of where they were placed on a freeway.   :wow:

I heard they're used as a means to mitigate liability, of all things.

its not the freeway part itself, its the service roads by the NY 231 Exit.

I understood that.  I was pointing out what I consider to be an improper use of the sign elsewhere. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 04, 2015, 11:54:47 PM
It looks like Interstate 81 through Oswego County is getting all new BGSes for all exits within the county. I drove from Exit 33 NB to the Jefferson County line and noticed that each interchange (well, 33, 34, 35 and 36 so far) now has a 2 mile advance exit panel in addition to the 1 mile and at the beginning of the ramp. The NYS route markers are the new type with series D numbers and the exit tabs are the new wider variety. Overall the signs look great. The supplemental sign for Selkirk Shores State Park at Exit 36 is now brown instead of green. I think there's still quite a few signs to go up, 511ny shows right shoulder work continuing through the 25th of this month. Unfortunately I have had no luck in finding the plans for this project online, if anyone can steer me in the right direction I'd certainly appreciate it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 05, 2015, 01:51:54 PM
Does anyone know why this intersection is designed like this?: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2086705,-75.4569363,413m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on September 05, 2015, 01:57:58 PM
Just a thought, but what's the building in the middle?  is it landmarked?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on September 05, 2015, 01:58:42 PM
Does anyone know why this intersection is designed like this?: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2086705,-75.4569363,413m/data=!3m1!1e3
It looks like that it favors NY 49 through traffic, but forgets that NY 26 is 4-lane divided.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 05, 2015, 03:54:45 PM
The building in the middle is a pump station. Not landmarked, and in fact appears to have been built at the same time as the current interchange (sometime between 1988 and 1997, per historic aerials). Prior to that it was a four way intersection with what may have been a one way pair carrying the routes to the northwest: http://historicaerials.com?layer=T1988&zoom=17&lat=43.20901547420224&lon=-75.45816779136658 (http://historicaerials.com?layer=T1988&zoom=17&lat=43.20901547420224&lon=-75.45816779136658)

I'm not familiar with the history behind the project but topologically it's just a directional-Y interchange with two of the ramps not grade-separated. Further complications are the result of tight geometry and a nearby railroad crossing.

Said railroad crossing is just a spur track, though (well, it once was more, but the rest is abandoned), so train crossings are infrequent.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 08, 2015, 04:38:20 PM
Looks like NY 481 is next in the sign rehab department - from I-81 to Cicero-Baldwinsville - (officially exits 10-12 but there are a couple signs from exit 9)

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263008

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 08, 2015, 05:11:10 PM
I-290 EB bridges at Exit 1 are completed and open. The lane of EB traffic on the temporary span has been shifted to the new span. A small amount of paving remains on the EB side before everything can reopen for the winter. New span is 3 lanes plus 10' shoulder, so they may go without the temp spans for the next phase.

Breaking from typical NYSDOT practice, a full-depth reconstruction was completed just west of the NY 265 span and it is full-depth asphalt instead of the typical overlain concrete.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on September 08, 2015, 05:17:58 PM
Looks like NY 481 is next in the sign rehab department - from I-81 to Cicero-Baldwinsville - (officially exits 10-12 but there are a couple signs from exit 9)

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263008

Look at those erroneous NY11 shields!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on September 08, 2015, 05:32:41 PM
Looks like NY 481 is next in the sign rehab department - from I-81 to Cicero-Baldwinsville - (officially exits 10-12 but there are a couple signs from exit 9)

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263008

Look at those erroneous NY11 shields!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/31954731@N00/5988854036
Again? How hard is it to make US 11?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 08, 2015, 05:33:30 PM
Looks like NY 481 is next in the sign rehab department - from I-81 to Cicero-Baldwinsville - (officially exits 10-12 but there are a couple signs from exit 9)

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263008

Look at those erroneous NY11 shields!

It looks like there is one erroneous NY 11 marker mentioned numerous times. I'm curious to see if the one off will be installed or if the contractor will catch it. The only other thing that bothered me about the plans is the "1/2 mile" on the Circle Drive advance guide panel; why would GuidSIGN even allow that to happen?

I'm happy to see that NY 481 is getting mile markers in Onondaga County.   I-481 has been completed since 1985 but it still doesn't have any posted mile markers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on September 08, 2015, 06:27:34 PM
Also of note to me is the 2 mile advance signage. New York generally doesn't use those.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 08, 2015, 06:44:35 PM
I-290 EB bridges at Exit 1 are completed and open. The lane of EB traffic on the temporary span has been shifted to the new span. A small amount of paving remains on the EB side before everything can reopen for the winter. New span is 3 lanes plus 10' shoulder, so they may go without the temp spans for the next phase.

Breaking from typical NYSDOT practice, a full-depth reconstruction was completed just west of the NY 265 span and it is full-depth asphalt instead of the typical overlain concrete.

Great. What's the ETA on the Cleveland Dr. bridgework and Lake Ave if you know?

Also, is there a case to have the Elm/Oak arterial in DT Buffalo downgraded? I don't know the traffic counts, but having driven down there for a summer job on that arterial, I'd answer with a big fat NO.

(http://i1.wp.com/buffalorising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/City-Park-Plan-2.jpg?resize=1000%2C521)

Also, where do you guys get your plans from? "Projects in your Neighborhood" on the DOT website or someplace else?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 08, 2015, 06:44:43 PM
Also of note to me is the 2 mile advance signage. New York generally doesn't use those.

Region 3 is putting up a bunch of 2 mile advance signs. Interstate 81 now has them through Oswego County as well (or they're in the process of being installed).  Still can't find those sign plans online.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 08, 2015, 06:48:47 PM
I-290 EB bridges at Exit 1 are completed and open. The lane of EB traffic on the temporary span has been shifted to the new span. A small amount of paving remains on the EB side before everything can reopen for the winter. New span is 3 lanes plus 10' shoulder, so they may go without the temp spans for the next phase.

Breaking from typical NYSDOT practice, a full-depth reconstruction was completed just west of the NY 265 span and it is full-depth asphalt instead of the typical overlain concrete.

Great. What's the ETA on the Cleveland Dr. bridgework and Lake Ave if you know?

Also, is there a case to have the Elm/Oak arterial in DT Buffalo downgraded? I don't know the traffic counts, but having driven down there for a summer job on that arterial, I'd answer with a big fat NO.

(http://i1.wp.com/buffalorising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/City-Park-Plan-2.jpg?resize=1000%2C521)

Also, where do you guys get your plans from? "Projects in your Neighborhood" on the DOT website or someplace else?

Elm/Oak is fine as-is. Gets used quite a bit. A downgrade is not necessary.

Cleveland Drive entrance ramp will open soon (if not open already) and the bridge will be open before Thanksgiving.

Plans come from here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/doing-business/opportunities/const-notices
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 08, 2015, 08:02:22 PM
So just for the hell of it I was looking at the NY 5/8/12 executive summary and saw that they intend(ed) to lower the expressway and put Warren St and Noyes St overtop. Is this still in the plans, or is it scrapped?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region2/projects/arterial-viaduct-replacement/repository/Utica%20NS%20Arterial%20Study%20Exec%20Summary.pdf
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 08, 2015, 08:20:04 PM
So just for the hell of it I was looking at the NY 5/8/12 executive summary and saw that they intend(ed) to lower the expressway and put Warren St and Noyes St overtop. Is this still in the plans, or is it scrapped?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region2/projects/arterial-viaduct-replacement/repository/Utica%20NS%20Arterial%20Study%20Exec%20Summary.pdf

The Arterial project was split into two projects, the first project well underway. The second half, which would reconstruct the arterial from Burrstone Rd. to Noyes St., with an interchange at Oswego St and Noyes St carried over the Arterial, does not have funding secured at this time. The interim solution is two traffic signals remaining on the arterial until the second half of the entire project can be funded and completed.  NYSDOT routinely evades any questions asking why there are two lights remaining on the Arterial.

Another interesting project in the works in the "Aud to Broad" project along NY 5S, which I think has been mentioned before. This will be a road diet, including possible roundabouts and traffic calming features along this stretch of NY 5S, making it more pedestrian friendly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 08, 2015, 08:39:21 PM
So just for the hell of it I was looking at the NY 5/8/12 executive summary and saw that they intend(ed) to lower the expressway and put Warren St and Noyes St overtop. Is this still in the plans, or is it scrapped?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region2/projects/arterial-viaduct-replacement/repository/Utica%20NS%20Arterial%20Study%20Exec%20Summary.pdf

The Arterial project was split into two projects, the first project well underway. The second half, which would reconstruct the arterial from Burrstone Rd. to Noyes St., with an interchange at Oswego St and Noyes St carried over the Arterial, does not have funding secured at this time. The interim solution is two traffic signals remaining on the arterial until the second half of the entire project can be funded and completed.  NYSDOT routinely evades any questions asking why there are two lights remaining on the Arterial.

Another interesting project in the works in the "Aud to Broad" project along NY 5S, which I think has been mentioned before. This will be a road diet, including possible roundabouts and traffic calming features along this stretch of NY 5S, making it more pedestrian friendly.

The lights on the Arterial are definitely newer, although I'm not sure why they used fixed masts instead of sticking with what was (I assume) wires.

I haven't seen (nor looked for) any materials regarding the NY 5S project, but it's in need of a downgrade. I once almost got hit trying to cross Oriskany Blvd in an attempt to get to Union Station.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 08, 2015, 09:08:57 PM
So just for the hell of it I was looking at the NY 5/8/12 executive summary and saw that they intend(ed) to lower the expressway and put Warren St and Noyes St overtop. Is this still in the plans, or is it scrapped?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region2/projects/arterial-viaduct-replacement/repository/Utica%20NS%20Arterial%20Study%20Exec%20Summary.pdf

The Arterial project was split into two projects, the first project well underway. The second half, which would reconstruct the arterial from Burrstone Rd. to Noyes St., with an interchange at Oswego St and Noyes St carried over the Arterial, does not have funding secured at this time. The interim solution is two traffic signals remaining on the arterial until the second half of the entire project can be funded and completed.  NYSDOT routinely evades any questions asking why there are two lights remaining on the Arterial.

Another interesting project in the works in the "Aud to Broad" project along NY 5S, which I think has been mentioned before. This will be a road diet, including possible roundabouts and traffic calming features along this stretch of NY 5S, making it more pedestrian friendly.

The lights on the Arterial are definitely newer, although I'm not sure why they used fixed masts instead of sticking with what was (I assume) wires.

I haven't seen (nor looked for) any materials regarding the NY 5S project, but it's in need of a downgrade. I once almost got hit trying to cross Oriskany Blvd in an attempt to get to Union Station.

All of the new traffic signals related to the Arterial project are on fixed masts with dark brown, decorative features. Interestingly, the same masts are used for both state maintained and city maintained intersections, but the city maintained intersections have yellow traffic signals and the state maintained intersections have green traffic signals.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 08, 2015, 10:36:04 PM
So just for the hell of it I was looking at the NY 5/8/12 executive summary and saw that they intend(ed) to lower the expressway and put Warren St and Noyes St overtop. Is this still in the plans, or is it scrapped?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region2/projects/arterial-viaduct-replacement/repository/Utica%20NS%20Arterial%20Study%20Exec%20Summary.pdf

The Arterial project was split into two projects, the first project well underway. The second half, which would reconstruct the arterial from Burrstone Rd. to Noyes St., with an interchange at Oswego St and Noyes St carried over the Arterial, does not have funding secured at this time. The interim solution is two traffic signals remaining on the arterial until the second half of the entire project can be funded and completed.  NYSDOT routinely evades any questions asking why there are two lights remaining on the Arterial.

Another interesting project in the works in the "Aud to Broad" project along NY 5S, which I think has been mentioned before. This will be a road diet, including possible roundabouts and traffic calming features along this stretch of NY 5S, making it more pedestrian friendly.

I believe the soonest the second project could even be let would be in State Fiscal Year 18-19.  We'll see what happens with it. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on September 10, 2015, 01:36:42 PM
Just what exactly needs to be upgraded on the Quickway to make it up to interstate standards?  I have not been on that road since I was a kid and as a grownup driver, I rode it a few times in Orange County between I-87 and I-84, but that was years ago so I cannot remember what the substandard features were on it.

Could someone explain to me what needs to be upgraded, especially between I-87 and I-84 where they could be signed considering its connected to the rest of the system.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 10, 2015, 01:55:40 PM
Okay, here's what remains:

-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)

They're not signing it east of I-84 until the NY 17/32 interchange is rebuilt and the Crystal Run/I-84 project is finished. Almost everything else is remaining as-is due to terrain. A bunch of spot upgrades are in progress as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on September 10, 2015, 01:59:49 PM
Okay, here's what remains:

-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)

They're not signing it east of I-84 until the NY 17/32 interchange is rebuilt and the Crystal Run/I-84 project is finished. Almost everything else is remaining as-is due to terrain. A bunch of spot upgrades are in progress as well.
Is not Exit 98 been fixed?  According to Google the bypass of the small village or hamlet is completed with a grade separated diamond.

Oh and BTW what is the new NY 17/ NY 32 interchange to be like when completed?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 10, 2015, 03:11:04 PM
Okay, here's what remains:

-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)

They're not signing it east of I-84 until the NY 17/32 interchange is rebuilt and the Crystal Run/I-84 project is finished. Almost everything else is remaining as-is due to terrain. A bunch of spot upgrades are in progress as well.
Is not Exit 98 been fixed?  According to Google the bypass of the small village or hamlet is completed with a grade separated diamond.

Yeah, the signal at Exit 98 has been bypassed for a few years now; that's why it's not in the list above.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on September 10, 2015, 03:25:27 PM
Okay, my mistake I thought that you were referring to that one as I thought that one was near Hancock. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 10, 2015, 04:56:20 PM
Is there any timeline of when the portion between exit 84 and exit 87 will be bypassed? It seems Interstate 86 should have stretched all the way from Interstate 90 to Interstate 87 by now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 10, 2015, 04:57:49 PM
Okay, here's what remains:

-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)

They're not signing it east of I-84 until the NY 17/32 interchange is rebuilt and the Crystal Run/I-84 project is finished. Almost everything else is remaining as-is due to terrain. A bunch of spot upgrades are in progress as well.

This is the one (future) Interstate I have not been on in Upstate, at least past Binghamton. Going to NYC about 8 years ago my parents decided taking 86-81-380-80-280 would be quicker than NY 17. So since I've never been on it I can't say if it was or wasn't quicker, but I assume it has a 55 MPH posted limit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 10, 2015, 05:25:17 PM

[/quote]
This is the one (future) Interstate I have not been on in Upstate, at least past Binghamton. Going to NYC about 8 years ago my parents decided taking 86-81-380-80-280 would be quicker than NY 17. So since I've never been on it I can't say if it was or wasn't quicker, but I assume it has a 55 MPH posted limit.
[/quote]

It's mainly 65 but there are 55 segments interspersed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 10, 2015, 05:52:15 PM
Is there any timeline of when the portion between exit 84 and exit 87 will be bypassed? It seems Interstate 86 should have stretched all the way from Interstate 90 to Interstate 87 by now.
No idea.  It appears that any timeline information on it is gone, so it might not even be on the STIP any more for all I know.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on September 10, 2015, 08:54:13 PM
Just extend I-86 to Sullivan/Orange county line. The only obstacle is the RIRO, the simple way out is to demolish the thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 10, 2015, 09:24:21 PM
Okay, here's what remains:

-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)

They're not signing it east of I-84 until the NY 17/32 interchange is rebuilt and the Crystal Run/I-84 project is finished. Almost everything else is remaining as-is due to terrain. A bunch of spot upgrades are in progress as well.

This is the one (future) Interstate I have not been on in Upstate, at least past Binghamton. Going to NYC about 8 years ago my parents decided taking 86-81-380-80-280 would be quicker than NY 17. So since I've never been on it I can't say if it was or wasn't quicker, but I assume it has a 55 MPH posted limit.

About half and half, but the 55 is relatively unenforced (but I wouldn't go much faster in a vehicle with poor handling). Do note that all but ~1 mile in Delaware County and ~1/4 of the length in Sullivan County is signed at 55. Traffic, when present, often moves a good 10-15+ over the limit. Compare that to I-80 in Stroudsburg, where you'll get a ticket for going 52. A hell of a lot more scenic on NY 17 and traffic is typically better. My family typically takes NY 17, US 6/202, Bear Mountain Parkway, the Taconic, and the Sprain Brook. Tolls are significantly less (even if you use the Thruway south of Woodbury) and you avoid the Port Authority crossings, which are notoriously expensive and quite congested. Going to Long Island from Buffalo, the first backup I typically encounter is on the Bronx River Parkway a little north of the Cross Bronx.

As far as the RIRO goes, there's a lot of local opposition, but the Army Corps of Engineers isn't hearing any of it. Except for the at-grade section, the 55 areas are not being updated due to local opposition.

The stretch between Exits 84 and 87 is the part in Hancock. It's very possible they're still working on the FEIS. It was supposed to begin construction this year or next year, but that obviously isn't happening. I-86 reassurance markers are up and covered between Hancock and I-84. When it'll be designated is unknown.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 10, 2015, 10:54:13 PM
Okay, here's what remains:

-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)



Unfortunately, this description is simply far, far too simplistic compared to the reality. 

There were half-a-dozen individual projects that were needed in Region 8 alone that were never done since the program that funded I-86 projects was essentially yanked what's now a decent number of years ago (i.e., when NYSDOT priorities changed to preservation-only -- coffin nails were really driven as recently as 2012, though, although the programming of the conversion started slowing down a year or two prior).  A couple of straggler projects deemed necessary were continued (e.g., Prospect Mountain), but most were put on the back-burner, and by back-burner, I mean way out of the STIP period. 

Exit 111 is just one of the bigger projects on the list of back-burnered projects.  For an example of another: Even the connection to I-87 needs additional work to garner designation.  Any time that is brought up, the words "Woodbury Centre" causes the discussion to come to an abrupt halt.  My bet is that we're not going to see I-86 connecting to I-87 in my lifetime.

Last I heard, work on the Hale Eddy to Hancock project -- essentially the next in line in terms of NYSDOT's I-86 programming some time ago now -- had ceased.  That project is more hopeful than others, though, for being done sometime in the nearer future, I suppose (Region 6 wants to do it, I believe).

Anyway, the short of it is that the political weight behind I-86 is just not there anymore (e.g. Moynihan).  NYSDOT commissioners and NY governors have, at most, just paid lip service to the conversion for the past few years.

It just ain't happening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 10, 2015, 11:30:40 PM
About half and half, but the 55 is relatively unenforced (but I wouldn't go much faster in a vehicle with poor handling). Do note that all but ~1 mile in Delaware County and ~1/4 of the length in Sullivan County is signed at 55. Traffic, when present, often moves a good 10-15+ over the limit. Compare that to I-80 in Stroudsburg, where you'll get a ticket for going 52.
You sure about that? I breeze through at 65 with plenty of company.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 10, 2015, 11:34:39 PM
Okay, here's what remains:

-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)



Unfortunately, this description is simply far, far too simplistic compared to the reality. 

There were half-a-dozen individual projects that were needed in Region 8 alone that were never done since the program that funded I-86 projects was essentially yanked what's now a decent number of years ago (i.e., when NYSDOT priorities changed to preservation-only -- coffin nails were really driven as recently as 2012, though, although the programming of the conversion started slowing down a year or two prior).  A couple of straggler projects deemed necessary were continued (e.g., Prospect Mountain), but most were put on the back-burner, and by back-burner, I mean way out of the STIP period. 

Exit 111 is just one of the bigger projects on the list of back-burnered projects.  For an example of another: Even the connection to I-87 needs additional work to garner designation.  Any time that is brought up, the words "Woodbury Centre" causes the discussion to come to an abrupt halt.  My bet is that we're not going to see I-86 connecting to I-87 in my lifetime.

Last I heard, work on the Hale Eddy to Hancock project -- essentially the next in line in terms of NYSDOT's I-86 programming some time ago now -- had ceased.  That project is more hopeful than others, though, for being done sometime in the nearer future, I suppose (Region 6 wants to do it, I believe).

Anyway, the short of it is that the political weight behind I-86 is just not there anymore (e.g. Moynihan).  NYSDOT commissioners and NY governors have, at most, just paid lip service to the conversion for the past few years.

It just ain't happening.

Yeah, that's what I feared. All of the conversion projects have been pulled from the project lists. I saw something recently about Woodbury, but I can't remember where.

I'm not giving up hope that something will be done within the next 50 years, but not with the current group of people in charge. From what I've seen, plans pretty much exist for the last at-grade section and Region 9 wants to do it. At some point, the preservation-only mindset is going to change. Traffic counts in most places are on the rise and LOS E (or worse) is the norm in many places.

I hate to say this, but we need people to retire to get the old blood out of the system and funding won't get back to a decent level until the state stops paying Tier 1 and 2 pensions. We're probably talking 10-15 years until there's any reductions in the pension black hole.

Eventually, it'll get to a point where NYSDOT won't have much of a choice because everything is clogged. I hope it doesn't get to that point. My job when I start doctoral studies in the spring will basically be figuring out ways to milk as much capacity out of the state's system as we can get, but it's getting to a point, especially along the I-87 corridor, where you can't move everyone even if everyone rides on each other's bumper and all driver error is eliminated. I've seen the LOS data from Buffalo's MPO. It's not good and traffic has gotten a lot worse since I moved here in 2007.

About half and half, but the 55 is relatively unenforced (but I wouldn't go much faster in a vehicle with poor handling). Do note that all but ~1 mile in Delaware County and ~1/4 of the length in Sullivan County is signed at 55. Traffic, when present, often moves a good 10-15+ over the limit. Compare that to I-80 in Stroudsburg, where you'll get a ticket for going 52.
You sure about that? I breeze through at 65 with plenty of company.

Every time I've been through there, it was heavily enforced. Someone who slowly passed me once was pulled over.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 10, 2015, 11:42:38 PM
I don't see how the pension fund affects funding that ends up in NYSDOT's capital program.  My understanding is that the pension fund is a totally separate pot from the budget sources that fund NYSDOT.

Pension fund seems to be doing pretty well, too (http://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/22/new-york-pension-fund-increases/27790757/).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 10, 2015, 11:47:52 PM
Oh, and I haven't heard a peep out of Region 9 on I-86 outside of Prospect Mountain (i.e., in terms of them pushing to do whatever project).  I'm pretty sure there's nothing in its program I-86 conversion-wise besides that one project (and it is sizable).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 11, 2015, 09:02:01 AM
I don't see how the pension fund affects funding that ends up in NYSDOT's capital program.  My understanding is that the pension fund is a totally separate pot from the budget sources that fund NYSDOT.

Pension fund seems to be doing pretty well, too (http://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/22/new-york-pension-fund-increases/27790757/).

If the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going? Entire state is losing funds.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 11, 2015, 10:17:50 AM
Quote
If the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going?

Transportation infrastructure is expensive.  Bottom line.  Period.  As has been the case across most (all?) of the country, the costs of materials has jumped significantly in the past decade.  Even though oil's come back down in recent weeks, steel and concrete are still expensive.  And then there is payroll/personnel costs, which is the single largest expense (by far) for transit agencies.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 11, 2015, 12:40:49 PM
I don't see how the pension fund affects funding that ends up in NYSDOT's capital program.  My understanding is that the pension fund is a totally separate pot from the budget sources that fund NYSDOT.

Pension fund seems to be doing pretty well, too (http://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/22/new-york-pension-fund-increases/27790757/).

If the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going? Entire state is losing funds.

Definitely not to the pension.   NYSDOT simply has a general shortage from the usual budget sources and it's not due to money being siphoned off to the pension.  NY's pension has its own sources of revenue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 11, 2015, 12:41:30 PM
I also confirmed today that the I-86 conversion from Hale Eddy to Hancock is off the program entirely.  Nothing is happening on that project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 11, 2015, 12:56:43 PM
Quote
If the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going?

Transportation infrastructure is expensive.  Bottom line.  Period.  As has been the case across most (all?) of the country, the costs of materials has jumped significantly in the past decade.  Even though oil's come back down in recent weeks, steel and concrete are still expensive.  And then there is payroll/personnel costs, which is the single largest expense (by far) for transit agencies.

It's more of that funds are being withdrawn and redistributed elsewhere. NYC public transit had a lot (over $20B) withdrawn and I don't think they've been able to get a lot of it back. I know what stuff costs, which is exactly why funding cuts across the board are BS.

I also confirmed today that the I-86 conversion from Hale Eddy to Hancock is off the program entirely.  Nothing is happening on that project.

Not surprised. I checked Region 5's list and they've pulled everything that isn't essential maintenance as well (except for Cuomo's pet project, of course).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 11, 2015, 02:15:19 PM
I believe a large chunk of NY's gas tax revenue (as well as the general fund) goes to pay back loans that were used to build past projects.  Prior to Cuomo, the state operated on an EXTREMELY large deficit, going all the way back to Rockefeller.  The past habit of spending like money was no object is coming back to hurt NY now.

As far as I understand it, the pension fund operates like one giant 401k with the main difference being that a defined benefit is guaranteed to employees who retire.  Both the state and the employee contribute a set percentage; the retirement tiers change when the state wishes to change its contribution amount.  It actually costs the state more to keep people working than to pay their pension once they reach a certain age, which is why early retirement incentives occasionally happen.

As for I-86, exit 131 is still on the STIP mainly because there's a strong local push to get it built.  Exit 122 was just completed, as was the total reconstruction between NY 17K and I-84 (and NOW Schumer wants to widen that section...), and the bridge over the Neversink River.  I wouldn't be surprised if there's another unfunded project between exits 79 and 84, given the fact that I-86 ends at NY 79.

Prospect Mountain is the last project preventing the gap in the Southern Tier from being closed.  That and being a very high profile project is probably the reason why it's still going.  Aside from Hale Eddy and exit 131, the other projects aren't even sexy enough to put on the website, let along throw money at.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 11, 2015, 04:26:26 PM
Does anyone know if every new project go through the typical NYSDOT letting process? I keep close tabs on project plans and such through the NYSDOT website, but there are new sign projects going on in the Central New York area that I've never seen plans for.  I can't find PIN or contract numbers for some of these projects on the "Projects In Neighborhood" site... one example being the signing rehab project in R3 Oswego County on I-81. The SUNY POLY sign project in Utica is another example. Do some projects just skip the normal channels?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 11, 2015, 09:42:53 PM
Does anyone know if every new project go through the typical NYSDOT letting process? I keep close tabs on project plans and such through the NYSDOT website, but there are new sign projects going on in the Central New York area that I've never seen plans for.  I can't find PIN or contract numbers for some of these projects on the "Projects In Neighborhood" site... one example being the signing rehab project in R3 Oswego County on I-81. The SUNY POLY sign project in Utica is another example. Do some projects just skip the normal channels?

Not every project goes through the typical NYSDOT letting process (e.g., local lets, design-build and VPPs being the typical exceptions), but the signing rehab should have been on there. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 11, 2015, 09:46:09 PM
Yeah, Exit 122 was one of those very old stragglers from the "statewide significant" days.  I'll check on Exit 131, but I'm betting it's in the same boat as Hale Eddy to Hancock.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 12, 2015, 03:52:02 PM
Does anyone know if every new project go through the typical NYSDOT letting process? I keep close tabs on project plans and such through the NYSDOT website, but there are new sign projects going on in the Central New York area that I've never seen plans for.  I can't find PIN or contract numbers for some of these projects on the "Projects In Neighborhood" site... one example being the signing rehab project in R3 Oswego County on I-81. The SUNY POLY sign project in Utica is another example. Do some projects just skip the normal channels?

Will that be just a taping-over of the "Inst of Tech" on the BGSs or entirely new signs? I saw the concept on your site and thought that would be a good idea, however I know UB for instance is the control destination (along with Lockport) for I-990 in Amherst.

The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 12, 2015, 05:46:27 PM
The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.

Because no one actually goes to Utica.  Just a dim spot on your way elsewhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 12, 2015, 06:25:42 PM
Does anyone know if every new project go through the typical NYSDOT letting process? I keep close tabs on project plans and such through the NYSDOT website, but there are new sign projects going on in the Central New York area that I've never seen plans for.  I can't find PIN or contract numbers for some of these projects on the "Projects In Neighborhood" site... one example being the signing rehab project in R3 Oswego County on I-81. The SUNY POLY sign project in Utica is another example. Do some projects just skip the normal channels?

Will that be just a taping-over of the "Inst of Tech" on the BGSs or entirely new signs? I saw the concept on your site and thought that would be a good idea, however I know UB for instance is the control destination (along with Lockport) for I-990 in Amherst.

The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.

UB is a secondary control. Given the short distance before Exit 1, I-290 Exit 4 is effectively the North Campus exit.

The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.

Because no one actually goes to Utica.  Just a dim spot on your way elsewhere.

Basically correct. Utica isn't a big destination. The city itself is 2/3 the population of Albany, even smaller than Schenectady. The metro area population is about 250,000. There is really nothing in Utica.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on September 13, 2015, 12:02:40 PM
Quote
The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.
Utica was a control city on the ramps from I-481 to I-90 (Thruway exit 34A).  But it's been at least 5 years since I was past there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2015, 03:24:39 PM
I would like to know why "Albany" is used way out in Buffalo, when you have Rochester, the state's third largest city (in fact the I-190 control city for I-290 is that) and Syracuse that also is a big New York city.  The last time I was there the NY 33 exit for I-90 E Bound and the pull through on 90 EB at the Exit 50 diverge said "Albany" and not Rochester or Syracuse which are even both bigger than Albany population wise.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 13, 2015, 04:40:23 PM
I would like to know why "Albany" is used way out in Buffalo, when you have Rochester, the state's third largest city (in fact the I-190 control city for I-290 is that) and Syracuse that also is a big New York city.  The last time I was there the NY 33 exit for I-90 E Bound and the pull through on 90 EB at the Exit 50 diverge said "Albany" and not Rochester or Syracuse which are even both bigger than Albany population wise.

It's the Thruway and it's for long distance travelers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2015, 04:48:15 PM
Still, why Albany over the others?  True Albany is the State Capital, but small in comparison to Syracuse, a much bigger city which is still a great distance away as well. Plus it intersects I-81 there just as Albany is where I-87 intersects I-90 (and the NYS Thruway).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 13, 2015, 04:50:06 PM
Still, why Albany over the others?  True Albany is the State Capital, but small in comparison to Syracuse, a much bigger city which is still a great distance away as well. Plus it intersects I-81 there just as Albany is where I-87 intersects I-90 (and the NYS Thruway).

Because Albany's over on the eastern side of the state.  You can make it further than Syracuse on the Thruway.  It's about distance, not size.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 13, 2015, 05:09:06 PM
Quote
The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.
Utica was a control city on the ramps from I-481 to I-90 (Thruway exit 34A).  But it's been at least 5 years since I was past there.

The signs at I-481/I-90 now say Albany and Buffalo. There's a secondary destination sign on I-81 SB at I-481 that says Utica, but there's no mention of Utica once you're on I-481.  The Utica sign has been there since the interchange was built in '85.

The Little Falls (29A) interchange has overheads for Albany and Utica. I don't know why they chose Utica for the new sign, when they changed the others to either Albany or Buffalo.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 13, 2015, 05:11:40 PM
The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.

Because no one actually goes to Utica.  Just a dim spot on your way elsewhere.

I would like to know why "Albany" is used way out in Buffalo, when you have Rochester, the state's third largest city (in fact the I-190 control city for I-290 is that) and Syracuse that also is a big New York city.  The last time I was there the NY 33 exit for I-90 E Bound and the pull through on 90 EB at the Exit 50 diverge said "Albany" and not Rochester or Syracuse which are even both bigger than Albany population wise.

Some of the overhead signs on I-90 EB in the Buffalo area list Rochester, mostly around the I-190 interchange. IIRC, the Rochester designation was originally an overlay over "Niagara Falls", when the Thruway urged Niagara Falls traffic to I-290. I believe the Rochester designation made it to the new (awful) signs put up in the last year or so. The control cities are listed out of order - Albany then Rochester.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 13, 2015, 05:14:54 PM
The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.

Because no one actually goes to Utica.  Just a dim spot on your way elsewhere.

I would like to know why "Albany" is used way out in Buffalo, when you have Rochester, the state's third largest city (in fact the I-190 control city for I-290 is that) and Syracuse that also is a big New York city.  The last time I was there the NY 33 exit for I-90 E Bound and the pull through on 90 EB at the Exit 50 diverge said "Albany" and not Rochester or Syracuse which are even both bigger than Albany population wise.

Some of the overhead signs on I-90 EB in the Buffalo area list Rochester, mostly around the I-190 interchange. IIRC, the Rochester designation was originally an overlay over "Niagara Falls", when the Thruway urged Niagara Falls traffic to I-290. I believe the Rochester designation made it to the new (awful) signs put up in the last year or so. The control cities are listed out of order - Albany then Rochester.

Rochester still is on the sign. Rochester is the control for I-290 at its western terminus as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 14, 2015, 11:34:45 AM
Does anyone know if every new project go through the typical NYSDOT letting process? I keep close tabs on project plans and such through the NYSDOT website, but there are new sign projects going on in the Central New York area that I've never seen plans for.  I can't find PIN or contract numbers for some of these projects on the "Projects In Neighborhood" site... one example being the signing rehab project in R3 Oswego County on I-81. The SUNY POLY sign project in Utica is another example. Do some projects just skip the normal channels?

Will that be just a taping-over of the "Inst of Tech" on the BGSs or entirely new signs? I saw the concept on your site and thought that would be a good idea, however I know UB for instance is the control destination (along with Lockport) for I-990 in Amherst.

The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.

UB is a secondary control. Given the short distance before Exit 1, I-290 Exit 4 is effectively the North Campus exit.

The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.

Because no one actually goes to Utica.  Just a dim spot on your way elsewhere.

Basically correct. Utica isn't a big destination. The city itself is 2/3 the population of Albany, even smaller than Schenectady. The metro area population is about 250,000. There is really nothing in Utica.

This is unfortunately correct.

And yes, I do wonder why Rochester isn't as prominently displayed on the BGSs in the Buffalo area, because Albany is quite a ways away.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 14, 2015, 12:34:02 PM
I have actually been to Utica a couple of times on business. There was recently a $20M investment made in their performing arts venue such that it went from one of the worst stops on the road to one of the best. Now, some productions are holding their technical rehearsals in the space, so that's one way they're bringing a little business back into the city.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 14, 2015, 01:08:53 PM
I have actually been to Utica a couple of times on business. There was recently a $20M investment made in their performing arts venue such that it went from one of the worst stops on the road to one of the best. Now, some productions are holding their technical rehearsals in the space, so that's one way they're bringing a little business back into the city.


iPhone

With the AMS Nano Plant and General Electric R&D coming to Nano Marcy (with a substantial investment and nearly 2500 employees), I believe Utica will be worthy of more traffic in the near future.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 14, 2015, 03:29:00 PM
I have actually been to Utica a couple of times on business. There was recently a $20M investment made in their performing arts venue such that it went from one of the worst stops on the road to one of the best. Now, some productions are holding their technical rehearsals in the space, so that's one way they're bringing a little business back into the city.


iPhone

With the AMS Nano Plant and General Electric R&D coming to Nano Marcy (with a substantial investment and nearly 2500 employees), I believe Utica will be worthy of more traffic in the near future.

Heh.  Marcy's on the other side of the Thruway from Utica. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 14, 2015, 04:48:16 PM
By now I think most people here have pieced together that I go to school in Marcy; where, I cannot say. One of my goals this summer is to get (potentially) an internship with the R2 DOT office, but that's no time soon. I need to build up experience over the next couple of semesters.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 14, 2015, 05:00:23 PM
By now I think most people here have pieced together that I go to school in Marcy; where, I cannot say. One of my goals this summer is to get (potentially) an internship with the R2 DOT office, but that's no time soon. I need to build up experience over the next couple of semesters.

If you're thinking grad school or anything planning-related, you might want to look at an MPO. I know from experience that the Buffalo MPO pays pretty well and the supervisors are pretty good to work with.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 14, 2015, 05:23:52 PM
By now I think most people here have pieced together that I go to school in Marcy; where, I cannot say. One of my goals this summer is to get (potentially) an internship with the R2 DOT office, but that's no time soon. I need to build up experience over the next couple of semesters.

If you're thinking grad school or anything planning-related, you might want to look at an MPO. I know from experience that the Buffalo MPO pays pretty well and the supervisors are pretty good to work with.

Interesting, does a typical assignment involve working on studies? That's what the HOCTS does.

I know this is PM-type stuff, but why would a CE major go into grad school to get a master's degree? My adviser said it helps you achieve seniority and an overall increase in pay, but is it so one can learn more about the concentration they choose?

Even more, what type of research would a civil engineering student expect to encounter if they're going for a Ph.D?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 14, 2015, 06:03:50 PM
By now I think most people here have pieced together that I go to school in Marcy; where, I cannot say. One of my goals this summer is to get (potentially) an internship with the R2 DOT office, but that's no time soon. I need to build up experience over the next couple of semesters.

If you're thinking grad school or anything planning-related, you might want to look at an MPO. I know from experience that the Buffalo MPO pays pretty well and the supervisors are pretty good to work with.

Interesting, does a typical assignment involve working on studies? That's what the HOCTS does.

I know this is PM-type stuff, but why would a CE major go into grad school to get a master's degree? My adviser said it helps you achieve seniority and an overall increase in pay, but is it so one can learn more about the concentration they choose?

Even more, what type of research would a civil engineering student expect to encounter if they're going for a Ph.D?

We might want the mods to split this into a separate college/grad school thread, but GBNRTC is mainly traffic counts. If it's a slow summer, they might want you in the office using software. Knowledge of Synchro is a huge plus. Transportation people love that because it shows you know how to do the dirty work.

Grad school is necessary for structural and geotechnical engineering. Not everything transportation-related requires it, but it's becoming a prerequisite for higher-level stuff and design work.

As for PhD, you've come to the right person. I'm starting my PhD in Transportation Engineering at Rensselaer in January. A lot of the research comes from Transportation Research Board (TRB) proposals, but other stuff is more localized. I'll likely have a lot more info on the process this time next week after I meet with my adviser.

Honestly, if you wanna know as much as possible about what's going on in transportation, you should try and find a way to get to the TRB Annual Meeting in DC every January (that goes for everyone). It's expensive (registration is reasonable for students, but hotels are not), but if you're really into transportation, it's an amazing experience. Countless research projects presented covering almost everything imaginable, workshops and case studies, and networking opportunities that allow you to meet transportation people from around the world. A bit closer to home, the Upstate NY section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers has their Annual Meeting in Buffalo on October 1st and 2nd. Again, great place to go if you want to know what's going on and meet like-minded professionals.

Back on topic, is there anything that's newish in the Albany I should check out when I'm there this weekend?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on September 14, 2015, 06:49:11 PM
Only things that come to mind are the new Albany Shaker Rd bridges on the Northway that are currently being worked on. There's also the new Washington Ave/Fuller Road roundabout and I-787 has some bridge redecking going on between the Thruway and the SME. Patroon Island Bridge construction is also moving along nicely.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 14, 2015, 06:58:12 PM
Either I-790 in Utica has been truncated to the interchange with NY 8/12 or NYSDOT R2 started the new reference markers at the wrong location. Aside from the fact that the top line says "790" instead of "790I", 1000 on the EB side is at the flyover bridge for NY 5 WEST to NY 8/12 SOUTH.

I'm inclined to think that the reference markers were installed wrong but I've sent an email to R2 to inquire further. They must love my weekly emails. Small wonder I didn't get hired.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 14, 2015, 08:07:57 PM
Only things that come to mind are the new Albany Shaker Rd bridges on the Northway that are currently being worked on. There's also the new Washington Ave/Fuller Road roundabout and I-787 has some bridge redecking going on between the Thruway and the SME. Patroon Island Bridge construction is also moving along nicely.

Alright, so nothing new. Thanks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 14, 2015, 08:11:25 PM

I have actually been to Utica a couple of times on business. There was recently a $20M investment made in their performing arts venue such that it went from one of the worst stops on the road to one of the best. Now, some productions are holding their technical rehearsals in the space, so that's one way they're bringing a little business back into the city.


iPhone

With the AMS Nano Plant and General Electric R&D coming to Nano Marcy (with a substantial investment and nearly 2500 employees), I believe Utica will be worthy of more traffic in the near future.

Heh.  Marcy's on the other side of the Thruway from Utica. :D

But the Stanley Theatre's right downtown.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 14, 2015, 08:29:55 PM
By now I think most people here have pieced together that I go to school in Marcy; where, I cannot say. One of my goals this summer is to get (potentially) an internship with the R2 DOT office, but that's no time soon. I need to build up experience over the next couple of semesters.

If you're thinking grad school or anything planning-related, you might want to look at an MPO. I know from experience that the Buffalo MPO pays pretty well and the supervisors are pretty good to work with.

Interesting, does a typical assignment involve working on studies? That's what the HOCTS does.

I know this is PM-type stuff, but why would a CE major go into grad school to get a master's degree? My adviser said it helps you achieve seniority and an overall increase in pay, but is it so one can learn more about the concentration they choose?

Even more, what type of research would a civil engineering student expect to encounter if they're going for a Ph.D?

We might want the mods to split this into a separate college/grad school thread, but GBNRTC is mainly traffic counts. If it's a slow summer, they might want you in the office using software. Knowledge of Synchro is a huge plus. Transportation people love that because it shows you know how to do the dirty work.

Grad school is necessary for structural and geotechnical engineering. Not everything transportation-related requires it, but it's becoming a prerequisite for higher-level stuff and design work.

As for PhD, you've come to the right person. I'm starting my PhD in Transportation Engineering at Rensselaer in January. A lot of the research comes from Transportation Research Board (TRB) proposals, but other stuff is more localized. I'll likely have a lot more info on the process this time next week after I meet with my adviser.

Honestly, if you wanna know as much as possible about what's going on in transportation, you should try and find a way to get to the TRB Annual Meeting in DC every January (that goes for everyone). It's expensive (registration is reasonable for students, but hotels are not), but if you're really into transportation, it's an amazing experience. Countless research projects presented covering almost everything imaginable, workshops and case studies, and networking opportunities that allow you to meet transportation people from around the world. A bit closer to home, the Upstate NY section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers has their Annual Meeting in Buffalo on October 1st and 2nd. Again, great place to go if you want to know what's going on and meet like-minded professionals.

Back on topic, is there anything that's newish in the Albany I should check out when I'm there this weekend?

I'd advocate for a thread split, this is an interesting conversation, and good luck in Rensselaer.

The I-790 thing is interesting. Maybe it means they want to extended it westward now?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 14, 2015, 09:05:08 PM
CDTC has been using summer interns as of late to inventory all the pedestrian infrastructure in the area.  Not sure what the extent of their traffic count program is.  NYSDOT internships can be all over, but I can tell you that they don't pay anything (the only state agency to have no paid internships, btw).  It's also good to join you local branch of YPT if there's on in the area.

Regarding the Thruway control cities, it appears from the signs that Buffalo, Albany, and NYC are the primary control cities, with Erie, Syracuse, and Montreal functioning as secondary control cities, and Rochester, Utica, and Boston as tertiary.  It's about long distance travel, and because Albany is the capital district (and where the handoff between I-87 and I-90 is).  And while Albany itself isn't big, the Capital District metro area is pretty sizeable, and according to Wikipedia's numbers from the 2010 Census, the second largest in the state after NYC (beating even Buffalo and nearly twice as large as Syracuse).

Regarding I-790, I believe there's a long range plan to get it re-routed onto NY 49.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 14, 2015, 09:26:54 PM
Nowadays, you have to be careful with college and graduate school and getting the bang-for-the-buck.  As my boss puts it: "What do you get when you graduate college with an engineering degree?  An engineering degree.  What do you get when you get a master's in engineering?  An engineering degree."  By this, he meant for engineers that want to get into the dirty work of doing engineering the cost of graduate school may not be worth the benefits. 

Look at it this way:  Those years that you are paying to go to school are years you could be earning money.  Even in other areas, some of us who got masters in non-engineering fields and yet ended up in transportation are kicking ourselves since -- when the hiring windows are open -- the State of New York has been focusing on providing "traineeships" which only require a bachelor's.  They start at a lower rate, but after a couple of years, you end up where you'd be if you had a master's.  Again, getting a master's equals spending money when you could have been earning it.

Of course, if you want to go into research, you can go cl94's route.  Had to snicker a little at his glowing review of TRB.  NYSDOT used to send down a healthy contingent of individuals to TRB, funding them fully.  Over the past few years, that contingent has become much smaller and NYSDOT is less willing to fund your attendance.  You can still go on your own dime, of course. 

However, regarding practitioners, the perspective on TRB research has been growing more and more critical.  I'm hearing more people I work with say things like, "It's research for other researchers."  It is sounding like transportation research is falling prey to the same pitfalls as other areas of academia:  The research is more about churning it amongst other academic researchers trying to get tenure rather than actually providing informed opinions on policy and engineering practices that influence DOT behavior.  This view has led to the diminished attendance at TRB over the years I've been in the business.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 14, 2015, 09:27:49 PM
It's also good to join you local branch of YPT if there's on in the area.
 

To what benefit? :D  Reminds me of those that say joining NYSATE is also a "good idea."  Sure, you get to go to a picnic, but really there's not much else to it. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 14, 2015, 10:11:59 PM
That matches my experience attending a webinar on transportation research.  Everything was geared towards people doing more research.

Interestingly, one of the people in a traineeship in Region 1 has a master's in planning, and I have a planning job that started at grade 18 but only have a bachelor's.  Just a quirk of how the TA list was designed and when the person with the traineeship got hired.

I believe the Albany branch of YPT does interesting things like tour Albany Airport, but I've only been a member for the past couple months and the only thing so far was a meet and greet; in practice, it appears to function as a planning club at UAlbany as the majority of members are students or alumni there (actually, I think I'm the only person who isn't).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 14, 2015, 10:27:23 PM
CDTC has been using summer interns as of late to inventory all the pedestrian infrastructure in the area.  Not sure what the extent of their traffic count program is.  NYSDOT internships can be all over, but I can tell you that they don't pay anything (the only state agency to have no paid internships, btw).  It's also good to join you local branch of YPT if there's on in the area.

Regarding the Thruway control cities, it appears from the signs that Buffalo, Albany, and NYC are the primary control cities, with Erie, Syracuse, and Montreal functioning as secondary control cities, and Rochester, Utica, and Boston as tertiary.  It's about long distance travel, and because Albany is the capital district (and where the handoff between I-87 and I-90 is).  And while Albany itself isn't big, the Capital District metro area is pretty sizeable, and according to Wikipedia's numbers from the 2010 Census, the second largest in the state after NYC (beating even Buffalo and nearly twice as large as Syracuse).

Regarding I-790, I believe there's a long range plan to get it re-routed onto NY 49.

Converting NY 49 and NY 365 to NY 790 (essentially connecting Thruway Exit 33 to Thruway Exit 31 with "790") is on the HOCTS radar and there's a stronger push for it to happen with the Nano activity, but I don't believe there's funding yet.

Long range plans (a couple of decades) would then involve converting the new NY 790 to I-790. I asked about "Future NY 790" signs, even if they're up for 20 years like some of the Future I-86 signs in the southern part of the state, and apparently they're thinking about it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 14, 2015, 11:37:33 PM
Nowadays, you have to be careful with college and graduate school and getting the bang-for-the-buck.  As my boss puts it: "What do you get when you graduate college with an engineering degree?  An engineering degree.  What do you get when you get a master's in engineering?  An engineering degree."  By this, he meant for engineers that want to get into the dirty work of doing engineering the cost of graduate school may not be worth the benefits. 

Look at it this way:  Those years that you are paying to go to school are years you could be earning money.  Even in other areas, some of us who got masters in non-engineering fields and yet ended up in transportation are kicking ourselves since -- when the hiring windows are open -- the State of New York has been focusing on providing "traineeships" which only require a bachelor's.  They start at a lower rate, but after a couple of years, you end up where you'd be if you had a master's.  Again, getting a master's equals spending money when you could have been earning it.

Of course, if you want to go into research, you can go cl94's route.  Had to snicker a little at his glowing review of TRB.  NYSDOT used to send down a healthy contingent of individuals to TRB, funding them fully.  Over the past few years, that contingent has become much smaller and NYSDOT is less willing to fund your attendance.  You can still go on your own dime, of course. 

However, regarding practitioners, the perspective on TRB research has been growing more and more critical.  I'm hearing more people I work with say things like, "It's research for other researchers."  It is sounding like transportation research is falling prey to the same pitfalls as other areas of academia:  The research is more about churning it amongst other academic researchers trying to get tenure rather than actually providing informed opinions on policy and engineering practices that influence DOT behavior.  This view has led to the diminished attendance at TRB over the years I've been in the business.
I got my Master's year paid for. Otherwise it definitely wouldn't have been worth it for what I'm doing now (as a practicing engineer).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 15, 2015, 07:36:54 AM
Nowadays, you have to be careful with college and graduate school and getting the bang-for-the-buck.  As my boss puts it: "What do you get when you graduate college with an engineering degree?  An engineering degree.  What do you get when you get a master's in engineering?  An engineering degree."  By this, he meant for engineers that want to get into the dirty work of doing engineering the cost of graduate school may not be worth the benefits. 

Look at it this way:  Those years that you are paying to go to school are years you could be earning money.  Even in other areas, some of us who got masters in non-engineering fields and yet ended up in transportation are kicking ourselves since -- when the hiring windows are open -- the State of New York has been focusing on providing "traineeships" which only require a bachelor's.  They start at a lower rate, but after a couple of years, you end up where you'd be if you had a master's.  Again, getting a master's equals spending money when you could have been earning it.

Of course, if you want to go into research, you can go cl94's route.  Had to snicker a little at his glowing review of TRB.  NYSDOT used to send down a healthy contingent of individuals to TRB, funding them fully.  Over the past few years, that contingent has become much smaller and NYSDOT is less willing to fund your attendance.  You can still go on your own dime, of course. 

However, regarding practitioners, the perspective on TRB research has been growing more and more critical.  I'm hearing more people I work with say things like, "It's research for other researchers."  It is sounding like transportation research is falling prey to the same pitfalls as other areas of academia:  The research is more about churning it amongst other academic researchers trying to get tenure rather than actually providing informed opinions on policy and engineering practices that influence DOT behavior.  This view has led to the diminished attendance at TRB over the years I've been in the business.
I got my Master's year paid for. Otherwise it definitely wouldn't have been worth it for what I'm doing now (as a practicing engineer).
Heh.  My master's years were "paid for" as well.  Free tuition, lots of fees waived and a paid research assistantship.  Wasn't enough to cover living expenses, however. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 15, 2015, 03:18:14 PM

As for I-86, exit 131 is still on the STIP mainly because there's a strong local push to get it built.  Exit 122 was just completed, as was the total reconstruction between NY 17K and I-84 (and NOW Schumer wants to widen that section...), and the bridge over the Neversink River.  I wouldn't be surprised if there's another unfunded project between exits 79 and 84, given the fact that I-86 ends at NY 79.

Prospect Mountain is the last project preventing the gap in the Southern Tier from being closed.  That and being a very high profile project is probably the reason why it's still going.  Aside from Hale Eddy and exit 131, the other projects aren't even sexy enough to put on the website, let along throw money at.
Yeah, Exit 122 was one of those very old stragglers from the "statewide significant" days.  I'll check on Exit 131, but I'm betting it's in the same boat as Hale Eddy to Hancock.

And, I am correct.  Exit 131 isn't an active project in NYSDOT's program, just like Hale Eddy to Hancock.  Furthermore, I cannot find it on the STIP (vdeane, under what PIN did you see it?).

Also keep in mind that the STIP is merely an enabling document -- the only reason to have projects on there is so you can use federal funds on them and the action to remove anything from the STIP can lag behind reality for both serious political reasons and something as simple as the STIP dude in the Region simply hasn't gotten around to it yet.  Even if a project is on the STIP, it doesn't mean that NYSDOT will actually carry the project out.  In fact, FHWA is somewhat frustrated with how many amendments to the STIP NYSDOT approves; I've heard that NYSDOT is head and shoulders above any other state in that regard.

In other words, don't believe everything you read. :D

(P.S. Despite being completed only recently, the upgrade from Exit 116 to Exit 121 (NY 17K to I-84) was also funded years ago as part of the now-defunct statewide significance program as well).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 15, 2015, 06:20:27 PM
I admit it has been a little while since I last checked exit 131 (last year?).  Looks like it got nuked too, though the website still lists it as PIN 8006.96 if you dig far enough.  Still, the municipalities push for it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on September 15, 2015, 07:05:53 PM
If NYSDOT is stalling on I-86, then what's the point of trying to replace NY 17? Just delete the designation, or go balls to the wall and just sign it all along NY 17.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 15, 2015, 07:29:12 PM
If NYSDOT is stalling on I-86, then what's the point of trying to replace NY 17? Just delete the designation, or go balls to the wall and just sign it all along NY 17.

I wouldn't be shocked if NYSDOT plans to truncate NY 17 to I-81 after the Prospect Mountain stuff is done. Regions 5 and 6 barely sign NY 17 as it is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 15, 2015, 07:52:24 PM
If NYSDOT is stalling on I-86, then what's the point of trying to replace NY 17? Just delete the designation, or go balls to the wall and just sign it all along NY 17.

There was once more political will and money to pursue the completion of the conversion when there's just not anymore.  Kind of awkward to take the I-86 shields down now (and unnecessary).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 15, 2015, 07:54:09 PM
I admit it has been a little while since I last checked exit 131 (last year?).  Looks like it got nuked too, though the website still lists it as PIN 8006.96 if you dig far enough.  Still, the municipalities push for it.

Yep, that's the PIN I knew; didn't know if they had started up work under a different one or not (and they haven't). 

As I've mentioned before, all those municipalities need to do is look at Binghamton to see an example where interstates were no economic saviors.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 15, 2015, 10:36:19 PM
Quote
If the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going?
Transportation infrastructure is expensive.  Bottom line.  Period.  As has been the case across most (all?) of the country, the costs of materials has jumped significantly in the past decade.  Even though oil's come back down in recent weeks, steel and concrete are still expensive.  And then there is payroll/personnel costs, which is the single largest expense (by far) for transit agencies.

Steel prices have dropped considerably over the past year although they are still a bit higher than they were 15 years go. And of course the market remains volatile enough that anyone planning projects which will take years to complete cannot rely on the price staying as low as it is right now.

Realistically, though, while downstate suffers from costs having spiraled out of control (we're building the world's most expensive subway line ever!), upstate has not so much.

New York's lack of ability to pay for things cannot be pinned on any one problem in particular. What it is is the end result of a general philosophy that has persisted for decades of creating a government structure which is extremely feudal and inefficient, heavy on patronage, constantly finding new matters to meddle with, and then grabbing money from every which where to pay for it all, making the state an expensive place to live and do business without providing services in return that get people their money's worth.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 15, 2015, 10:52:29 PM
Quote
If the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going?
Transportation infrastructure is expensive.  Bottom line.  Period.  As has been the case across most (all?) of the country, the costs of materials has jumped significantly in the past decade.  Even though oil's come back down in recent weeks, steel and concrete are still expensive.  And then there is payroll/personnel costs, which is the single largest expense (by far) for transit agencies.

Steel prices have dropped considerably over the past year although they are still a bit higher than they were 15 years go. And of course the market remains volatile enough that anyone planning projects which will take years to complete cannot rely on the price staying as low as it is right now.

Realistically, though, while downstate suffers from costs having spiraled out of control (we're building the world's most expensive subway line ever!), upstate has not so much.

New York's lack of ability to pay for things cannot be pinned on any one problem in particular. What it is is the end result of a general philosophy that has persisted for decades of creating a government structure which is extremely feudal and inefficient, heavy on patronage, constantly finding new matters to meddle with, and then grabbing money from every which where to pay for it all, making the state an expensive place to live and do business without providing services in return that get people their money's worth.

Actually, despite price fluctuations that should work in its favor, NYSDOT is finding that estimates are still out of line with the bids that come in.  No one is yet sure why, is my understanding of the current state of affairs, but bids have been coming in high enough where NYSDOT regions have had to provide justifications for their acceptance or re-letting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 16, 2015, 01:47:20 PM
As I've mentioned before, all those municipalities need to do is look at Binghamton to see an example where interstates were no economic saviors.
I believe they actually want the interchange for the congestion mitigation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 16, 2015, 02:20:22 PM
As I've mentioned before, all those municipalities need to do is look at Binghamton to see an example where interstates were no economic saviors.
I believe they actually want the interchange for the congestion mitigation.

Ah yes, the storied traffic jams in Binghamton. :rolleyes:  :D  Although congestion mitigation may have been one of the reasons behind Prospect Mountain, safety and the fact they had to replace the bridges anyway were much more significant.

Besides, the whole idea of I-86 was sold on the idea that it would bring $3.2 billion in economic development to the Southern Tier.  I remember the number well, because the study behind it was widely regarded as a complete joke.

In any matter, my point was that if someone suggests that interstates automatically cause economic development, all they have to do is look at Binghamton to see that just isn't the case.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: AMLNet49 on September 16, 2015, 02:50:05 PM
So I’m trying to wrap my head around what this will look like when they stop funding new projects. As I understand, I-86 will be signed from its start in Penna all the way to Exit 84 in the town of Deposit? And then after the at-grade intersection with Hale Eddy Road through Hancock will remain signed as NY-17 if they don't upgrade it. But then on the other side of that project do they sign the rest of the road to I-87 as I-86 or just leave it as a dangling end which would make people on I-87 not recognize that the NY-17 exit actually leads to an Interstate?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 16, 2015, 04:27:26 PM
I'm wondering if the budgetary concerns and projects falling off the STIP is why the Utica North-South Arterial is going to still have two traffic signals when this project is complete, when the original plan was to eliminate all traffic signals and have a second interchange at Oswego or Noyes Street.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 16, 2015, 04:35:16 PM
I'm wondering if the budgetary concerns and projects falling off the STIP is why the Utica North-South Arterial is going to still have two traffic signals when this project is complete, when the original plan was to eliminate all traffic signals and have a second interchange at Oswego or Noyes Street.

Why can't the area just snatch some of the $500M of the economic competition money and use it for that?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 16, 2015, 04:53:11 PM
I'm wondering if the budgetary concerns and projects falling off the STIP is why the Utica North-South Arterial is going to still have two traffic signals when this project is complete, when the original plan was to eliminate all traffic signals and have a second interchange at Oswego or Noyes Street.

Hm.  I'd have to go back and check, but I'm pretty sure that the North-South Arterial projects didn't experience any major design changes...just some funding issues along the way (i.e., "When can we fit this into the statewide program?").
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 16, 2015, 04:54:10 PM
I'm wondering if the budgetary concerns and projects falling off the STIP is why the Utica North-South Arterial is going to still have two traffic signals when this project is complete, when the original plan was to eliminate all traffic signals and have a second interchange at Oswego or Noyes Street.

Why can't the area just snatch some of the $500M of the economic competition money and use it for that?

*guffaws*

 :rofl:

That "economic competition" crap is just to funnel money to businesses who have friends in high places, not public agencies.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 16, 2015, 05:12:11 PM
Does anyone know if every new project go through the typical NYSDOT letting process? I keep close tabs on project plans and such through the NYSDOT website, but there are new sign projects going on in the Central New York area that I've never seen plans for.  I can't find PIN or contract numbers for some of these projects on the "Projects In Neighborhood" site... one example being the signing rehab project in R3 Oswego County on I-81. The SUNY POLY sign project in Utica is another example. Do some projects just skip the normal channels?

Not every project goes through the typical NYSDOT letting process (e.g., local lets, design-build and VPPs being the typical exceptions), but the signing rehab should have been on there. 

I noticed that too.  I noticed some new BGS signs on the FDR last summer but never saw them on the DOT site.  The same with the I-895 signage on the Bronx River Parkway going SB.  They appeared one day and I was surprised.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 16, 2015, 06:10:01 PM
I'm wondering if the budgetary concerns and projects falling off the STIP is why the Utica North-South Arterial is going to still have two traffic signals when this project is complete, when the original plan was to eliminate all traffic signals and have a second interchange at Oswego or Noyes Street.

Why can't the area just snatch some of the $500M of the economic competition money and use it for that?

*guffaws*

 :rofl:

That "economic competition" crap is just to funnel money to businesses who have friends in high places, not public agencies.

Ding, ding, ding! This state runs on patronage. Haven't you learned that yet?   :spin:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 16, 2015, 07:06:24 PM
Actually, despite price fluctuations that should work in its favor, NYSDOT is finding that estimates are still out of line with the bids that come in.  No one is yet sure why, is my understanding of the current state of affairs, but bids have been coming in high enough where NYSDOT regions have had to provide justifications for their acceptance or re-letting.

Are these bids T&M or lump sum? If the former, are particular items exceeding estimates or is everything higher across the board? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 16, 2015, 07:10:10 PM
I'm wondering if the budgetary concerns and projects falling off the STIP is why the Utica North-South Arterial is going to still have two traffic signals when this project is complete, when the original plan was to eliminate all traffic signals and have a second interchange at Oswego or Noyes Street.

Why can't the area just snatch some of the $500M of the economic competition money and use it for that?

*guffaws*

 :rofl:

That "economic competition" crap is just to funnel money to businesses who have friends in high places, not public agencies.

Ding, ding, ding! This state runs on patronage. Haven't you learned that yet?   :spin:

Quote
If the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going?
Transportation infrastructure is expensive.  Bottom line.  Period.  As has been the case across most (all?) of the country, the costs of materials has jumped significantly in the past decade.  Even though oil's come back down in recent weeks, steel and concrete are still expensive.  And then there is payroll/personnel costs, which is the single largest expense (by far) for transit agencies.
New York's lack of ability to pay for things cannot be pinned on any one problem in particular. What it is is the end result of a general philosophy that has persisted for decades of creating a government structure which is extremely feudal and inefficient, heavy on patronage, constantly finding new matters to meddle with, and then grabbing money from every which where to pay for it all, making the state an expensive place to live and do business without providing services in return that get people their money's worth.

Yes...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on September 18, 2015, 11:23:15 AM
The Blenheim Covered Bridge in North Blenheim, Schoharie County, New York will be rebuilt as a replica, just 15 feet higher than the version that was washed away in 2011 by floodwaters from the remnants of Hurricane Irene. The historic Blenheim Covered Bridge was unique in that it featured dual carriageways.

http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again (http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 18, 2015, 07:20:44 PM
The Blenheim Covered Bridge in North Blenheim, Schoharie County, New York will be rebuilt as a replica, just 15 feet higher than the version that was washed away in 2011 by floodwaters from the remnants of Hurricane Irene. The historic Blenheim Covered Bridge was unique in that it featured dual carriageways.

http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again (http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again)
Would be nice if they could use the salvaged bits as part of the current bridge with just a display or two of the original jointwork, rather than build the whole thing new again.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on September 18, 2015, 08:38:25 PM
The Blenheim Covered Bridge in North Blenheim, Schoharie County, New York will be rebuilt as a replica, just 15 feet higher than the version that was washed away in 2011 by floodwaters from the remnants of Hurricane Irene. The historic Blenheim Covered Bridge was unique in that it featured dual carriageways.

http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again (http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again)
Would be nice if they could use the salvaged bits as part of the current bridge with just a display or two of the original jointwork, rather than build the whole thing new again.
Meh, the roadgeek websites (such as yours) still show the old Blenheim. I think it's still not too late and the old Blenheim can live on. It's nothing bad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on September 19, 2015, 06:20:44 AM
The Blenheim Covered Bridge in North Blenheim, Schoharie County, New York will be rebuilt as a replica, just 15 feet higher than the version that was washed away in 2011 by floodwaters from the remnants of Hurricane Irene. The historic Blenheim Covered Bridge was unique in that it featured dual carriageways.

http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again (http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again)
Would be nice if they could use the salvaged bits as part of the current bridge with just a display or two of the original jointwork, rather than build the whole thing new again.
I'm not sure how much of the bridge was able to be salvaged, but I think that some of the wood was later found quite a ways downstream in the Schoharie Creek.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 19, 2015, 08:45:24 PM
For those keeping score, Interstate 781 exits have been renumbered to exits 1A-B with 1A for I-81 north. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 19, 2015, 10:50:47 PM
The sign replacement project on Interstate 81 in Oswego County is coming along nicely. There were signs sitting in the closed Brewerton Rest Area for the Brewerton exit northbound. Post mounts are in place north of the Salmon River to the Jefferson County line, but I couldn't find the signs that would be going up soon. This is the fourth generation of interchange signage since the building of I-81 in Oswego County.

A typical sequence now looks like this, though I didn't take photos of the existing services signs - they are not being replaced. As mentioned in an earlier post, the "2 mile" advance sign is new for this stretch of Interstate 81. I believe similar signs will be installed between the Cortland County line and I-81 exit 16 A. The signing plans for NY 481 from I-81 to the Oswego County line also call for additional advance signs along that stretch as well. It looks like Region 3 is going all out National MUTCD with NYS Supplement. Good for them.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/public/IMG_0079.jpg)
(http://upstatenyroads.com/public/IMG_0080.jpg)
(http://upstatenyroads.com/public/IMG_0081.jpg)
(http://upstatenyroads.com/public/IMG_0082.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 19, 2015, 10:52:22 PM
For those keeping score, Interstate 781 exits have been renumbered to exits 1A-B with 1A for I-81 north.

So that's one noncompliant S-N combo gone.

Although really, there shouldn't be any exit numbers there since it's the end of the road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 19, 2015, 11:07:22 PM
Quote
Although really, there shouldn't be any exit numbers there since it's the end of the road.

There's no reason why "the end of the road" can't have exit numbers....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 20, 2015, 07:58:57 AM
There's no reason why "the end of the road" can't have exit numbers....

I mean it's a matter of opinion. As far as I know there isn't a standard addressing this.

I don't think it makes sense to have exit numbers when there is no through route. 781 is certainly not the only place in New York where this happens, but then there are also plenty of places in New York where it doesn't. If they're going to do it they should at least do it consistently.

(I'm also not a fan of fudging what should be exit 0 up to 1, but that's a separate argument)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on September 20, 2015, 10:12:56 AM
(new I-81 signs)

Holy crap, those actually look pretty damn good. Why can't all signs in our state look like that? Is it so hard for NYSDOT to keep to one consistent design?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 20, 2015, 11:19:45 AM
(new I-81 signs)

Holy crap, those actually look pretty damn good. Why can't all signs in our state look like that? Is it so hard for NYSDOT to keep to one consistent design?

I am very impressed by the design and quality of all of these new signs as well. Region 3 is usually very consistent with their work. I with the regions were consistent with each other and that there was some sort of statewide implementation of consistency.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Zeffy on September 20, 2015, 11:27:50 AM
These are pristine examples of how signage should be done. Kudos to Region 3!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 20, 2015, 07:25:54 PM
There's no reason why "the end of the road" can't have exit numbers....

I mean it's a matter of opinion. As far as I know there isn't a standard addressing this.

I don't think it makes sense to have exit numbers when there is no through route. 781 is certainly not the only place in New York where this happens, but then there are also plenty of places in New York where it doesn't. If they're going to do it they should at least do it consistently.

(I'm also not a fan of fudging what should be exit 0 up to 1, but that's a separate argument)
The only one I knew of until recently was NY 390 at the Parkway (exit 27).  I-781, of course, has recent exit numbers (fun fact: the original plan called for sequential numbers with I-81 as exit 1 (as now), US 11 as exit 2 (now exit 4), and Fort Drum as exit 3 (now unnumbered)).  I-99 also has a numbered terminus (exits 12/13 at I-86; exit 12 was unnumbered prior to the conversion to mile-based numbering, and exit 13 was exit 4).  I'm not aware of others off the top of my head, at least that don't involve stub ramps.

Not sure what the need for 2 mile advance signs is, but those are some sexy signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 20, 2015, 07:32:26 PM
Alright, when the heck did Round Lake get a bunch of roundabouts? CR 80 is closed to eastbound traffic, there's a roundabout in front of Hannaford, and they're putting in another at the CR 80/Raylinsky Rd intersection.

Staying on Round Lake, when was the speed limit east of the bypass dropped to 20? Did NYSDOT finally transfer that section of highway to the village?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 20, 2015, 10:45:26 PM
The only one I knew of until recently was NY 390 at the Parkway (exit 27).  I-781, of course, has recent exit numbers (fun fact: the original plan called for sequential numbers with I-81 as exit 1 (as now), US 11 as exit 2 (now exit 4), and Fort Drum as exit 3 (now unnumbered)).  I-99 also has a numbered terminus (exits 12/13 at I-86; exit 12 was unnumbered prior to the conversion to mile-based numbering, and exit 13 was exit 4).  I'm not aware of others off the top of my head, at least that don't involve stub ramps.

A couple more that immediately come to mind:
- the Cross Island Parkway at I-678, the end is signed as exits 36N-S.
- the Interborough Parkway at the Grand Central ends at exits 8E-W, although only on the current set of signs. Previously neither had a number.

Then you have some odd cases. At the western End of the Cross County Parkway, exit 2 is for the Saw Mill northbound and then exit 1 is for Rumsey Road. The "through route", or as close as there is to one, to the Saw Mill southbound has no number. This one I'll excuse because of the odd interchange configuration.

At the eastern end of I-287, there is no exit number for I-95 north but I-95 south is exit 12. This only came to be in a sign replacement project 10-15 years or so ago, though. Prior to that neither was numbered.
Likewise, the eastern end of I-278 now has exit 54 for the offramp into the Brucker interchange (previously - no number), while the through route onto I-95 north has no number.

There are also plenty of definitive termini without exit numbers, for example:
- NY 17 (at I-87)
- I-990 (at I-290)
- I-87 (at I-278)
- I-684 (at I-287)
- Southern State Parkway (at Cross Island/Belt)

But as signs get redone the trend does seem to be towards adding exit numbers to termini.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 20, 2015, 11:16:47 PM
Alright, when the heck did Round Lake get a bunch of roundabouts? CR 80 is closed to eastbound traffic, there's a roundabout in front of Hannaford, and they're putting in another at the CR 80/Raylinsky Rd intersection.

Staying on Round Lake, when was the speed limit east of the bypass dropped to 20? Did NYSDOT finally transfer that section of highway to the village?

It looks like (according to Google Maps) the whole Malta/Round Lake area loves roundabouts for some reason. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Round+Lake,+NY/@42.9668285,-73.7950613,16.25z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x89de159b194b97df:0x866385d08d5f0424

I can't say I've ever seen 6 in a row like that in under a mile.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 20, 2015, 11:29:33 PM
Alright, when the heck did Round Lake get a bunch of roundabouts? CR 80 is closed to eastbound traffic, there's a roundabout in front of Hannaford, and they're putting in another at the CR 80/Raylinsky Rd intersection.

Staying on Round Lake, when was the speed limit east of the bypass dropped to 20? Did NYSDOT finally transfer that section of highway to the village?

It looks like (according to Google Maps) the whole Malta/Round Lake area loves roundabouts for some reason. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Round+Lake,+NY/@42.9668285,-73.7950613,16.25z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x89de159b194b97df:0x866385d08d5f0424

I can't say I've ever seen 6 in a row like that in under a mile.

Oh yes, those of us from the Empire State have been watching that curiosity develop over the past, what, ten years? It was certainly an oft-remarked-upon feature on many of our local webmasters' travels.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 21, 2015, 09:33:06 AM
Less than a decade ago at ITS-NY, NYSDOT's COO was giving a half-improvised speech and started talking about the then-still-in-construction Malta roundabouts at I-87.  He actually said something like, "Five roundabouts in less than a mile?  We'll see how that works out for you!"  He was actually referring to NYSDOT Region 1.

Of course, people were quite confused since you'd think the COO would have had a hand in the project.  Come to think of it, maybe he didn't and that's why he was ranting about it.

Anyway, one of the more bizarre things I've witnessed during my career. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 21, 2015, 11:14:29 AM
I knew about the Malta ones. I'm talking about the roundabouts on CR 80 west of I-87 that I saw nothing about.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 21, 2015, 12:14:59 PM
I knew about the Malta ones. I'm talking about the roundabouts on CR 80 west of I-87 that I saw nothing about.

Well, I seem to remember they started popping up in Round Lake soon after the craze started in Malta, along with the Round Lake Bypass construction. It all seems to be an outgrowth of the same local initiative, at least by my casual observation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 21, 2015, 12:36:00 PM
I knew about the Malta ones. I'm talking about the roundabouts on CR 80 west of I-87 that I saw nothing about.

Clearly being a Saratoga County initiative, it just may be a county-thing to eliminate signalized intersections and perhaps they are just going with the NYSDOT-inspired roundabout solution. I searched the Saratoga County DPW website and found absolutely nothing in terms of plans or projects (past or future).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 21, 2015, 01:11:36 PM
I knew about the Malta ones. I'm talking about the roundabouts on CR 80 west of I-87 that I saw nothing about.

Well, I seem to remember they started popping up in Round Lake soon after the craze started in Malta, along with the Round Lake Bypass construction. It all seems to be an outgrowth of the same local initiative, at least by my casual observation.

If anything, a local initiative bolstered by the backing that FHWA put behind roundabouts some years ago.  When the Malta ones went in, the FHWA endorsement of roundabouts was frequently mentioned, although no additional or special funding was set aside by FHWA for the installation of roundabouts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 21, 2015, 09:48:28 PM
On a completely different topic, Region 4 installed a bunch of FYAs on US 20/NY 5 in Geneva at Lake Street and Castle Street. Left turn doghouses are now 4-section FYAs, while right turn signals, at least heading WB on 5/20, are now 3-section FYAs with no green and a red ball. First three-section FYAs I know about Upstate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 22, 2015, 11:10:07 AM
D262775 is for the Taconic State Parkway in Westchester County - a sign replacement. In the sign plans, a APL is in the works at exit 2 - on plans page 34.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262775
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 22, 2015, 11:15:55 AM
The "top hat" Taconic Pkwy sign is going to be replaced with an APL too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 22, 2015, 11:29:07 AM
D262775 is for the Taconic State Parkway in Westchester County - a sign replacement. In the sign plans, a APL is in the works at exit 2 - on plans page 34.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262775

Forget about the APL- the Taconic is getting mile-based exit numbers. That's the big thing here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 22, 2015, 11:45:26 AM
Shrub Oak is a control city on 132 and 6, but Kitchawan is not on 134? Alright...

Tad disappointed it's only for Westchester. I want to see the rest. :P
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 22, 2015, 12:03:50 PM
D262775 is for the Taconic State Parkway in Westchester County - a sign replacement. In the sign plans, a APL is in the works at exit 2 - on plans page 34.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262775

Forget about the APL- the Taconic is getting mile-based exit numbers. That's the big thing here.

Good catch!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 22, 2015, 07:02:13 PM
Forget about the APL- the Taconic is getting mile-based exit numbers.

OH SHIT THAT'S AWESOME

...of course they're using Kensico Circle as the zero point rather than numbering continuously with the Bronx River Parkway as would be logical. Which is unsurprising but disappointing.

From a strictly functional perspective I'd argue the exit numbers would be more useful if measuring the distance all the way back to The Bronx rather than to an arbitrary point where the road changes name which is before the end of most journeys.

In my previous speculations on the matter of mile-based exit numbers I noted that the distance from Story Avenue onto the Taconic is almost the same via the Bronx River Parkway alignment as it is via the Sprain (which is constructed as the through route at both ends). I therefore had the wacky idea that at the BRP/Sprain split, both should keep counting from the mileage to that point (~9), and have exits numbered accordingly, which then at the Sprain/Taconic split would allow the two to seamlessly transition back together (~22).

Of course, I am probably committing the roadgeek's fallacy of thinking about this in far more detail than any normal member of the motoring public or any DOT employees who are not members of this board would. :P




Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 22, 2015, 07:11:48 PM
I'm pretty sure the Bronx River Parkway officially continues from the circle to NY 22.

In response to an earlier question: yes, the road through Round Lake was downloaded; the reference route was moved to the bypass.

Looks like Region 8 is keeping their tenth mile markers rather than adopting the MUTCD standards.  And the plans appear to have inconsistent exit tab styles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 22, 2015, 11:23:58 PM
I'm pretty sure the Bronx River Parkway officially continues from the circle to NY 22.

Officially, yes. That was the original northern end of the road. The Taconic came a little later. But since there are no exits along that little stretch and it is not signed as part of the mainline, this technical detail does not impact the ability of the BRP and the Taconic to be signed with one continuous set of mileage if R8 wanted to.


Of course, the designation setup in general is unusual. The BRP and Taconic are really old roads not built to anything close to modern standards. The BRP in the Bronx and the southern end of Westchester has since been rebuilt into something that looks more like a modern highway, as has most of the Taconic in northern Westchester. The part in between, however, was left as is and bypassed by building the Sprain.

The result is that today, the most logical through route as built and as followed by traffic is BRP - Sprain - Taconic. Following the Taconic or BRP designation at either end of the Sprain is a TOTSO, and takes one onto a much lower grade road.

If this were a numbered highway, it would probably follow the logical through route described above. But in the strange world of NY Parkways, moving a designation isn't done and so instead we have the current screwy setup which clings to some sanity by virtue of neither the Sprain nor the Taconic having any numbered exits.

But now NYSDOT is going to sign the Sprain from the Taconic as an exit rather than treating it like the through route. And, the next sign replacement project on the Sprain has a good shot at giving it its own set of self-contained exit numbers.


In other words, NYSDOT is creating another I-87, where what is effectively the same highway will have three sets of exit numbers because they reset every time the road changes names. :banghead:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 22, 2015, 11:42:32 PM
Wonder if the change in signing will result in more people NOT taking the Sprain Brook south instead of the Taconic. The current signing is quite effective in that regard.

Also, where did those ugly Clearview exit signs on the Westchester County section of the BRP come from? They scream Region 8 with those boxed street names. I guess the county DPW outsourced their signing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 22, 2015, 11:44:55 PM
Wonder if the change in signing will result in more people NOT taking the Sprain Brook south instead of the Taconic. The current signing is quite effective in that regard.

Also, where did those ugly Clearview exit signs on the Westchester County section of the BRP come from? They scream Region 8 with those boxed street names. I guess the county DPW outsourced their signing.

County maintained. Probably their decision.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 23, 2015, 09:03:03 AM
Wonder if the change in signing will result in more people NOT taking the Sprain Brook south instead of the Taconic. The current signing is quite effective in that regard.

Also, where did those ugly Clearview exit signs on the Westchester County section of the BRP come from? They scream Region 8 with those boxed street names. I guess the county DPW outsourced their signing.

Doubtful. It's still the implied through route, online/GPS mapping systems tell everyone to take the Sprain, and locals know to take the Sprain. I understand what R8 is doing, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. I disagree with the "same road" argument, because it's clearly signed as three separate designations.

The Clearview comes from the Westchester County sign shop. Westchester uses Clearview and only Clearview.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 23, 2015, 01:20:46 PM
I'm pretty sure the Bronx River Parkway officially continues from the circle to NY 22.

Officially, yes. That was the original northern end of the road. The Taconic came a little later. But since there are no exits along that little stretch and it is not signed as part of the mainline, this technical detail does not impact the ability of the BRP and the Taconic to be signed with one continuous set of mileage if R8 wanted to.


Of course, the designation setup in general is unusual. The BRP and Taconic are really old roads not built to anything close to modern standards. The BRP in the Bronx and the southern end of Westchester has since been rebuilt into something that looks more like a modern highway, as has most of the Taconic in northern Westchester. The part in between, however, was left as is and bypassed by building the Sprain.

The result is that today, the most logical through route as built and as followed by traffic is BRP - Sprain - Taconic. Following the Taconic or BRP designation at either end of the Sprain is a TOTSO, and takes one onto a much lower grade road.

If this were a numbered highway, it would probably follow the logical through route described above. But in the strange world of NY Parkways, moving a designation isn't done and so instead we have the current screwy setup which clings to some sanity by virtue of neither the Sprain nor the Taconic having any numbered exits.

But now NYSDOT is going to sign the Sprain from the Taconic as an exit rather than treating it like the through route. And, the next sign replacement project on the Sprain has a good shot at giving it its own set of self-contained exit numbers.


In other words, NYSDOT is creating another I-87, where what is effectively the same highway will have three sets of exit numbers because they reset every time the road changes names. :banghead:
The BRP numbers also reset where it splits off from the Sprain (the mileage doesn't, though).  Makes me wonder if there were plans to continue the sequential numbering from the first part of the BRP onto the Sprain and Taconic that didn't happen for some reason (perhaps a question of what to do with the remaining piece of the Taconic?).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 23, 2015, 05:03:12 PM
In fairness, NYSDOT considers them all separate, even in referenece route numbers. They don't share names and while ROWs continue onto each other, they are all separate in NYSDOT's eyes (NY 907H-BRP/NY 987F-SBP/NY 987G-TSP).

What I am disappointed in, and maybe Rothman or cl94 can help, when will the rest of Putnam/Dutchess/Columbia ones will be released? It will be nice to see the exit numbers, especially as only P7 remains (http://tinyurl.com/taconicp7) southbound signed of the old system. It will also hopefully make the Columbia County part feel a little more like the rest by using the same numbering.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 23, 2015, 05:50:17 PM
In fairness, NYSDOT considers them all separate, even in referenece route numbers. They don't share names and while ROWs continue onto each other, they are all separate in NYSDOT's eyes (NY 907H-BRP/NY 987F-SBP/NY 987G-TSP).

What I am disappointed in, and maybe Rothman or cl94 can help, when will the rest of Putnam/Dutchess/Columbia ones will be released? It will be nice to see the exit numbers, especially as only P7 remains (http://tinyurl.com/taconicp7) southbound signed of the old system. It will also hopefully make the Columbia County part feel a little more like the rest by using the same numbering.

No clue. I'm not with NYSDOT and I don't have MPO connections in that part of the state. The section being numbered is basically Interstate-grade freeway outside of a few low bridges. Just inside Putnam, RIROs and full-blown at-grade intersections begin.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on September 23, 2015, 05:53:17 PM
Why are people shocked at the Taconic getting mile-based exit numbers?

OT, the real upgraded parts needed are in Dutchess and Putnam County. The space is there but for some reason NYSDOT is doing nothing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 23, 2015, 05:59:44 PM
Why are people shocked at the Taconic getting mile-based exit numbers?

OT, the real upgraded parts needed are in Dutchess and Putnam County. The space is there but for some reason NYSDOT is doing nothing.

We're shocked because non-Interstate expressways rarely have exit numbers and those that do had them assigned a looooooooong time ago. The Taconic lost its numbers a while back. Many parkways have numbers, but again, those were assigned quite long ago and Regions 10 and 11 number everything.

NYSDOT isn't upgrading it because there's no demand and the terrain makes construction expensive. It's all mountains. There's nobody living on the east side of the Hudson. Ever been on the Taconic in Dutchess? It's empty.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 23, 2015, 06:42:10 PM
In fairness, NYSDOT considers them all separate, even in referenece route numbers. They don't share names and while ROWs continue onto each other, they are all separate in NYSDOT's eyes (NY 907H-BRP/NY 987F-SBP/NY 987G-TSP).

What I am disappointed in, and maybe Rothman or cl94 can help, when will the rest of Putnam/Dutchess/Columbia ones will be released? It will be nice to see the exit numbers, especially as only P7 remains (http://tinyurl.com/taconicp7) southbound signed of the old system. It will also hopefully make the Columbia County part feel a little more like the rest by using the same numbering.

No clue. I'm not with NYSDOT and I don't have MPO connections in that part of the state. The section being numbered is basically Interstate-grade freeway outside of a few low bridges. Just inside Putnam, RIROs and full-blown at-grade intersections begin.

Yeah well, the original exit numbers died at the Dutchess/Columbia line, so it would be nice to have them up to the Berkshire. Also, I picture the intersections can just be unnumbered. I've driven them many times, it's not important.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 23, 2015, 07:41:00 PM

NYSDOT isn't upgrading it because there's no demand and the terrain makes construction expensive. It's all mountains. There's nobody living on the east side of the Hudson. Ever been on the Taconic in Dutchess? It's empty.

Hey, who you callin' nobody? :-P

Anyway, aside from that, there actually is a good deal of traffic on that stretch of the Taconic. Poughkeepsie has become something of a sixth borough lately; in fact, it seems there are more NYC escapees living up there than there are, say, between there and Croton.

The result of this is that much of the Taconic traffic in Putnam and northern Westchester, as well as US 9, is in the form of through traffic between NYC and the Poughkeepsie area, rather than trips around the local area.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 23, 2015, 10:19:46 PM
OT, the real upgraded parts needed are in Dutchess and Putnam County. The space is there but for some reason NYSDOT is doing nothing.

They've abandoned plans to widen the road through Putnam County because it would be expensive and logistically difficult. Besides the likely local controversy, much of the road in Putnam county passes through a state park (Clarence Fahnestock Memorial). Federal law makes it very difficult to take parkland for infrastructure construction.

But NYSDOT isn't quite doing nothing. Bryant Pond Road was converted from an at grade intersection to an interchange back in the 90s. They plan to do the same at Pudding Street in the next few years, money permitting.

Indeed, that's one of the biggest reasons why NYSDOT may be "doing nothing" in any particular location. DOT lacks the funding to properly maintain all the roads they already have, so any significant new construction is out of the question at least for the time being. Part of this is because the state's finances have been eh for a while, part of it is because congress has been unwilling to enact a new comprehensive transportation program as they have in the past, with the result that federal funding for projects is drying up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 24, 2015, 12:19:46 AM
NYSDOT's having their first big meeting tomorrow on the current TIP/STIP update and then on Friday is the MPO Association meeting (or, at least, some big MPO meeting if it's not a formal meeting of the association).

You'd think they'd be exciting, but it's going to be basically more of the same stuff that you've heard before and what's been outlined by Duke:  Very little (if any) new construction (NYSDOT has literally a few million left in a very old Interstate construction fund source -- FHWA won't let NYSDOT use it up for maintenance  :ded:), focus on maintenance...blah blah blah.

Lots of people know about the federal side of the equation Duke outlined, but the state side is more nuanced.  Yes, New York's finances aren't in the greatest shape, but they certainly aren't in the worst.  From what I've experienced in terms of how the Department of Budget treats NYSDOT, the greater funding concerns -- rather than an overall shortage -- are more along the lines of how big of a slice of the pie NYSDOT receives and the raiding of gas tax revenues for non-transportation-related purposes. 

Some things that have happened with DOB are just asinine, such as when DOB thinks it knows better than NYSDOT how much money NYSDOT needs specifically on engineering and construction and then assigns restricted pots of funds to NYSDOT for each.  Although things get resolved in the end (usually at 11:59 p.m. on March 31st), there does seem to be some really poor decisions made in the name of accountability that just unduly hamper NYSDOT's (and therefore AGC's) ability to deliver the capital program within a given year.

Any way, it's late and I'm rambling... :spin:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 24, 2015, 12:20:45 AM
Oh, and I won't know the specifics of the Taconic job.  Vdeane's more on that nitty-gritty level of things...although she's a little too far north for that one! :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 25, 2015, 04:17:20 PM
I'd guess this sign is coming down then.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5277/13883588898_e387c1456a_c.jpg)[/url]
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 25, 2015, 06:52:38 PM
D262955 - NY 17/I-81 Interchange Phase 2 - preliminary plans - have been released.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262955

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 25, 2015, 08:28:25 PM
D262955 - NY 17/I-81 Interchange Phase 2 - preliminary plans - have been released.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262955



It should be let by the end of the year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 25, 2015, 09:34:38 PM
Updated my Taconic Parkway exit list with the new numbers: http://nysroads.com/tsplist.php
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 26, 2015, 12:13:01 AM
Updated my Taconic Parkway exit list with the new numbers: http://nysroads.com/tsplist.php

I also see that most of the AET redesigns you did are done. They look awesome. Exit 57 might have heavy development coming there in a couple of years, so I don't know if that redesign would suffice changes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on September 26, 2015, 07:29:55 AM
D262955 - NY 17/I-81 Interchange Phase 2 - preliminary plans - have been released.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262955


Interesting to see they're changing the direction of NY-7 to E-W even south of I-88.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 26, 2015, 04:45:38 PM
D262955 - NY 17/I-81 Interchange Phase 2 - preliminary plans - have been released.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262955



I noticed Exits 4N-S is becoming Exit 4A and I86/NY 17 West is becoming Exit 4B.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 26, 2015, 05:22:05 PM
Probably because, if I'm not mistaken, the interchange at NY 7 is being "downgraded" to a single northbound off-ramp.  As best as I can tell, the future Exit 4 will be a 5-ramp par-clo with a NB 7-to-NB 81 loop being the only remaining loop.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 28, 2015, 08:20:51 PM
The news we've all been waiting for in the Utica Arterial project: traffic to be shifted to the new bridge soon.

http://www.wktv.com/news/Arterial_Project_Shifts_into_High_Gear_Lane_Shifts_Coming.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 03, 2015, 07:59:33 PM
The news we've all been waiting for in the Utica Arterial project: traffic to be shifted to the new bridge soon.

http://www.wktv.com/news/Arterial_Project_Shifts_into_High_Gear_Lane_Shifts_Coming.html

Tonight was a bittersweet night, as although I've only known about the Utica area for a couple years, it was my last time driving on the old Arterial bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 04, 2015, 06:38:59 PM
I forget which old maps I saw this on, but Exit 18 on the Southern State Parkway was supposed to have provisions for expansion into a full cloverleaf interchange. If it had been rebuilt that way, you could've separated ramps for both Eagle Avenue an Hempstead Lake State Park. On the other hand, you'd create too much weaving on the parkway itself.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 04, 2015, 08:01:33 PM
That section of the Southern State Pkwy. from the Queens County-line to the Wantagh Pkwy. is terribly antiquated to begin with. It is basically a (1950's) widened version of the original winding, park-like 1920's four-lane road. Some improvements have been made in recent years, but it's still an antiquated, winding road 'til you get as far east as the Wantagh Pkwy. (Exit-27).  From there on east it's a somewhat straighter route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 04, 2015, 08:46:46 PM
I always wonder how beautiful what is now New York City must have been when it was in its natural state.
I can show you something closer to natural in the Bronx from the 1940's;
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?110852


That section of the Southern State Pkwy. from the Queens County-line to the Wantagh Pkwy. is terribly antiquated to begin with. It is basically a (1950's) widened version of the original winding, park-like 1920's four-lane road. Some improvements have been made in recent years, but it's still an antiquated, winding road 'til you get as far east as the Wantagh Pkwy. (Exit-27).  From there on east it's a somewhat straighter route.
That's true, and knowing that I once suggested a major realignment project between Exits 20 and 21 to NYSDOT, and still think Meadowbrook Road (Exit 23) should be closed permanently.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on October 05, 2015, 07:33:35 AM
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar.  Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles  between Olean and Painted Post?  Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly.  I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 05, 2015, 08:11:54 AM
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar.  Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles  between Olean and Painted Post?  Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly.  I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.


I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 05, 2015, 09:35:29 PM
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar.  Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles  between Olean and Painted Post?  Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly.  I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.


I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.

A former boss of mine has an I-386 shield that was used by Wellsville representatives that were lobbying NYSDOT and Albany for a spur route to their town.  I'm hoping to still inherit it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on October 05, 2015, 09:37:20 PM
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar.  Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles  between Olean and Painted Post?  Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly.  I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.


I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.

A former boss of mine has an I-386 shield that was used by Wellsville representatives that were lobbying NYSDOT and Albany for a spur route to their town.  I'm hoping to still inherit it.

WOW!! Is it  state-named or is it neutered?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 05, 2015, 09:41:23 PM
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar.  Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles  between Olean and Painted Post?  Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly.  I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.


I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.

A former boss of mine has an I-386 shield that was used by Wellsville representatives that were lobbying NYSDOT and Albany for a spur route to their town.  I'm hoping to still inherit it.

You're kidding me. Do they want New York's version of I-180? The AADT on NY 19 is under 8,000 and, more importantly, there is nothing there. Hornell at least has the railcar plant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 05, 2015, 10:20:48 PM
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar.  Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles  between Olean and Painted Post?  Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly.  I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.


I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.

A former boss of mine has an I-386 shield that was used by Wellsville representatives that were lobbying NYSDOT and Albany for a spur route to their town.  I'm hoping to still inherit it.

Haha, I'm surprised this was even considered.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 05, 2015, 10:33:11 PM
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar.  Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles  between Olean and Painted Post?  Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly.  I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.


I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.

A former boss of mine has an I-386 shield that was used by Wellsville representatives that were lobbying NYSDOT and Albany for a spur route to their town.  I'm hoping to still inherit it.

WOW!! Is it  state-named or is it neutered?


Neutered.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on October 05, 2015, 11:18:10 PM
Gotcha - just curious  :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 05, 2015, 11:44:56 PM
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar.  Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles  between Olean and Painted Post?  Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly.  I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.


I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.

A former boss of mine has an I-386 shield that was used by Wellsville representatives that were lobbying NYSDOT and Albany for a spur route to their town.  I'm hoping to still inherit it.

Haha, I'm surprised this was even considered.

It really wasn't.  It was more them presenting their argument for the route and everyone with common sense saying, "We value your opinion."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on October 06, 2015, 04:03:59 AM
Drove up to Westchester today, I noticed they were replacing the signs on the Cross County Parkway by Exit 6. They had a lane blocked as the crane was hoisting the new sign into place.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on October 06, 2015, 08:53:18 AM
Drove up to Westchester today, I noticed they were replacing the signs on the Cross County Parkway by Exit 6. They had a lane blocked as the crane was hoisting the new sign into place.

Yeah, that was going to happen eventually.  Are they replacing the button-copy on the Hutch as well, or just the Cross County for now.

[Thinks about how he needs an excuse to get up there to snap the new signage.]
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on October 06, 2015, 01:28:56 PM
there were a few button letter signs on the Hutch between the City line and Exit 13 (Cross County Parkway)

Cross County still has a few left, but I would get there as soon as you can since it might not be around very long. US 9 in Tarrytown by the Thruway and NY 119 has a few left.

-----

Just about every button letter sign on Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk) is all gone. In 2012-13 the DOT basically replaced everything, including signs that were only a few years old on I-495 that dated back to the completed HOV lane extension project.

There are a few left here and there on side streets leading up to highways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 06, 2015, 10:39:49 PM
I believe some button-copy signs still survive on Long Island's Northern State Parkway from the 1984 re-signing project. Most or all of the overhead's have been replaced but there might still be some ground-mounted ones left. To my knowledge, those were the last button-copy signs erected on Long Island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on October 07, 2015, 02:44:01 AM
I believe some button-copy signs still survive on Long Island's Northern State Parkway from the 1984 re-signing project. Most or all of the overhead's have been replaced but there might still be some ground-mounted ones left. To my knowledge, those were the last button-copy signs erected on Long Island.

nope, theyre all gone, I've been on the entire Northern State as recently as August or so (not all at once, but sections here and there on different days) from Queens to Hauppauge, all the button copy is gone.

Wantagh parkway has one or two button letter signs left near the North end, the rest is all gone.

Recently the expressway part of Sunrise Highway got all new signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on October 07, 2015, 08:47:09 AM
I believe some button-copy signs still survive on Long Island's Northern State Parkway from the 1984 re-signing project. Most or all of the overhead's have been replaced but there might still be some ground-mounted ones left. To my knowledge, those were the last button-copy signs erected on Long Island.

nope, theyre all gone, I've been on the entire Northern State as recently as August or so (not all at once, but sections here and there on different days) from Queens to Hauppauge, all the button copy is gone.

Wantagh parkway has one or two button letter signs left near the North end, the rest is all gone.

Recently the expressway part of Sunrise Highway got all new signs.

The FDR Drive is still mostly button copy.  It will be interesting to see how long that lasts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 08, 2015, 07:27:37 PM
What's going on with the gantry on the NY 12 NB ramp to I-790 EB? A repair, or complete replacement?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 08, 2015, 11:33:05 PM
What's going on with the gantry on the NY 12 NB ramp to I-790 EB? A repair, or complete replacement?

The signs were replaced in the late 2000s (maybe 2008 or so), but the structure itself is original to the 1989 reconstruction project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 09, 2015, 12:00:28 AM
What's going on with the gantry on the NY 12 NB ramp to I-790 EB? A repair, or complete replacement?

The signs were replaced in the late 2000s (maybe 2008 or so), but the structure itself is original to the 1989 reconstruction project.

It looks like the overhead structures are cracking and NYSDOT decided they needed to be taken down immediately. The ramp is currently closed. NYSDOT is going to put up ground signs for temporary measures, but knowing that R2, that could be for a year or two. I hope we don't have to wait that long for the new signs to go up. Most likely they'll put up new sign structures but that's just an educated guess.

http://www.uticaod.com/article/20151008/NEWS/151009419

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on October 09, 2015, 02:32:13 AM
What is the official name for I-290.  I have two maps that show two completely different names, even though Youngman is used on both.

My old Exxon Map shows it as "Youngman Memorial Highway" and my Rand McNally shows it as the "Youngman Expressway."  Which one of them is the official name?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 09, 2015, 09:19:22 AM
What is the official name for I-290.  I have two maps that show two completely different names, even though Youngman is used on both.

My old Exxon Map shows it as "Youngman Memorial Highway" and my Rand McNally shows it as the "Youngman Expressway."  Which one of them is the official name?

Officially, "Youngmann Memorial Highway", yet in the increasingly rare case it is referred to by name, people use the latter.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 09, 2015, 01:05:11 PM
So I took a look at what was going on with the closed ramp from NY 8/12 NB to NY 49 WB/I-790/NY 5 EB in Utica.  As reported in the Utica OD, apparently three sign gantries didn't pass inspection due to cracks in the structures and had to come down immediately.  They are:

1.  At the ramp split for NY 49 WB and I-790/NY 5 EB
2.  Following ramp for NY 49 WB, first gantry indicating NY 49 WEST Rome / River Rd EAST NEXT RIGHT
3.  After the pedestrian bridge over the same ramp, indicating lanes for NY 49 WEST ROME / River Rd EAST (down arrow).

The signs on the second and third gantry were still button copy and original to the construction of the ramp in '88 or '89. The first gantry is the same age but the signs were replaced around '08 or so.

The River Rd button copy signs have been ground mounted on the right side of the ramp, crews were in the process of installing standalone markers with up arrows to the left for NY 49 WB on the left side of the ramp.  When I drove through, one River Rd button copy sign still had the down arrow showing even though it's now a ground mounted sign.

The River Rd gantries have been completely removed, including the supporting posts. 

Crews are still working on the first gantry at the ramp split for 49/790/5. The supporting posts are still up (they have extraneous markers on them for ramp speed, SUNY POLY (which shouldn't be there) and a Thruway trailblazer (which shouldn't be there either).  There's not enough room on the supporting posts for the number of route markers they'll have to install there while keeping the other signs, so I'll be curious to see how their makeshift information installation goes.  There's quite a few folks working on the crews in the pouring rain so I'm guessing they want to get the ramp open by the end of the day.

It remains to be seen how long it will take for NYSDOT R2 to replace the gantries properly, if I were a betting man I'd guess at least a year and probably not until spring '17.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on October 09, 2015, 08:13:28 PM

What is the official name for I-290.  I have two maps that show two completely different names, even though Youngman is used on both.

My old Exxon Map shows it as "Youngman Memorial Highway" and my Rand McNally shows it as the "Youngman Expressway."  Which one of them is the official name?

Officially, "Youngmann Memorial Highway", yet in the increasingly rare case it is referred to by name, people use the latter.
When I lived in Buffalo about a million years ago, there was a sign on the east end that said "Elmer G. H. Youngmann Memorial Highway." My parents are the only people I ever heard call it "the Youngmann" and not "the 290".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 09, 2015, 10:48:37 PM
Temporary signs are up in Utica for the gantries that were removed and I only mention this again because as of tonight, officially:

Interstate 790 has its first ground mounted route marker actually on the route in over 25 years.  It has a black-on-white EAST banner to go with it, but hey, it's a start.

It's on the post that used to hold the overhead signs for the ramp split 49 WEST/790 & 5 EAST.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on October 10, 2015, 01:26:17 AM
Interstate 790 has its first ground mounted route marker actually on the route in over 25 years.  It has a black-on-white EAST banner to go with it, but hey, it's a start.

That is phenomenal!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 10, 2015, 02:13:07 AM
Temporary signs are up in Utica for the gantries that were removed and I only mention this again because as of tonight, officially:

Interstate 790 has its first ground mounted route marker actually on the route in over 25 years.  It has a black-on-white EAST banner to go with it, but hey, it's a start.

It's on the post that used to hold the overhead signs for the ramp split 49 WEST/790 & 5 EAST.

Do you have a picture?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 11, 2015, 09:36:13 PM
I drove by NY-17 on I-84 and was surprised to see some of the I-86 shields now showing.  I'm not sure if they fell off or the DOT took them down.  However, some are still covered up.  Also, a check of the DOT site says the section from I-84 westward is "designated to become I-86." according to their map. 
https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/multi/i-86/repository/11BDEE3265DB006AE0530A3DFC05006A

A lot of road work at I-84 is now finished. I didn't actually get off the exit tho.

Today EB:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/753/21475997923_fc920c275f.jpg)


Photo EB taken last winter but the I-86 shield IS STILL covered up today.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5699/21474891394_948a6b9b5f.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on October 12, 2015, 03:47:27 PM
Still confused by this... isn't I-86 supposed to (eventually) extend east of I-84 to the Thruway, and eventually replace NY 17?  If so, why bother with the dual "I-86 West NY 17 West" signage?  Just a slap of an I-86 shield alongside the NY 17 shield, or just replace the NY 17 with I-86 when the redesignation time comes. 

Or maybe, at the rate the I-86 signing/upgrading is progressing, the I-84 signs will be due for replacement when I-86 makes it from I-84 to the Thruway!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 12, 2015, 03:55:59 PM
Still confused by this... isn't I-86 supposed to (eventually) extend east of I-84 to the Thruway, and eventually replace NY 17?  If so, why bother with the dual "I-86 West NY 17 West" signage?  Just a slap of an I-86 shield alongside the NY 17 shield, or just replace the NY 17 with I-86 when the redesignation time comes. 

Or maybe, at the rate the I-86 signing/upgrading is progressing, the I-84 signs will be due for replacement when I-86 makes it from I-84 to the Thruway!

The latter is likely. The remaining stages have been dropped from the plan due to lack of funds. As far as operations are concerned, the most important stuff is done or is under construction. No signalized intersections remain.

I will note that the one remaining at-grade section is the busiest segment between NY 79 and the formerly infamous Exit 98 if using AADT as the metric.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NYhwyfan on October 12, 2015, 08:00:19 PM

What is the official name for I-290.  I have two maps that show two completely different names, even though Youngman is used on both.

My old Exxon Map shows it as "Youngman Memorial Highway" and my Rand McNally shows it as the "Youngman Expressway."  Which one of them is the official name?

Officially, "Youngmann Memorial Highway", yet in the increasingly rare case it is referred to by name, people use the latter.
When I lived in Buffalo about a million years ago, there was a sign on the east end that said "Elmer G. H. Youngmann Memorial Highway." My parents are the only people I ever heard call it "the Youngmann" and not "the 290".
Most people I know, including myself, call I-290 either "The Youngmann" or "The 290."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 16, 2015, 10:57:18 PM

What is the official name for I-290.  I have two maps that show two completely different names, even though Youngman is used on both.

My old Exxon Map shows it as "Youngman Memorial Highway" and my Rand McNally shows it as the "Youngman Expressway."  Which one of them is the official name?

Officially, "Youngmann Memorial Highway", yet in the increasingly rare case it is referred to by name, people use the latter.
When I lived in Buffalo about a million years ago, there was a sign on the east end that said "Elmer G. H. Youngmann Memorial Highway." My parents are the only people I ever heard call it "the Youngmann" and not "the 290".
Most people I know, including myself, call I-290 either "The Youngmann" or "The 290."

I don't know where, but I saw somewhere in the news today they called it "The Youngmann." Me and my family have always called it the 290, and the Scajacquada the 198, and NY 5 south of Buffalo "the Skyway," or "Route 5."

One restaurant capitalized on the "Rt 5" moniker, called Root Five in Hamburg. The food was good, but it's since switched hands and changed names.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 17, 2015, 08:47:32 PM
How many lanes can fit under here?

(http://i.imgur.com/sUyNONG.jpg)

Also, is a pier going underneath or no?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 17, 2015, 10:04:11 PM
No pier. Single span. I'm thinking 5 lanes if they tried hard enough. An Exit 50 reconfiguration is at least a decade out, but they're planning ahead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on October 18, 2015, 07:47:06 AM

What is the official name for I-290.  I have two maps that show two completely different names, even though Youngman is used on both.

My old Exxon Map shows it as "Youngman Memorial Highway" and my Rand McNally shows it as the "Youngman Expressway."  Which one of them is the official name?

Officially, "Youngmann Memorial Highway", yet in the increasingly rare case it is referred to by name, people use the latter.
When I lived in Buffalo about a million years ago, there was a sign on the east end that said "Elmer G. H. Youngmann Memorial Highway." My parents are the only people I ever heard call it "the Youngmann" and not "the 290".
Most people I know, including myself, call I-290 either "The Youngmann" or "The 290."

I don't know where, but I saw somewhere in the news today they called it "The Youngmann." Me and my family have always called it the 290, and the Scajacquada the 198, and NY 5 south of Buffalo "the Skyway," or "Route 5."

One restaurant capitalized on the "Rt 5" moniker, called Root Five in Hamburg. The food was good, but it's since switched hands and changed names.

Is it still a restaurant?  What's its current name?  Or does the building still stand at least.  I want to look it up on Google Maps/GSV.

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 18, 2015, 10:16:09 AM
It's now called "The Public House on the Lake," and it's still open. Good views of the lake and what I would call decent food.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 18, 2015, 07:50:12 PM
Interesting article about NYC's $8bn MTA deal http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/will-upstate-roads-get-parity-with-mtas-8-billion-20151017
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 18, 2015, 09:04:03 PM
Interesting article about NYC's $8bn MTA deal http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/will-upstate-roads-get-parity-with-mtas-8-billion-20151017

Sounds like a typical Buffalo person who hates downstate. Honestly, the MTA has been getting shorted for quite a while. Thanks to Joe Bruno, Upstate got a lot of money it probably didn't deserve during the 90s and early 2000s. The $8B doesn't even cover the entire amount they were shorted by the state earlier this year. If the MTA can't run, NYC dies and if NYC dies, the state dies. Simple as that. Buffalo is getting plenty of money in the form of the Buffalo Billion. If you go on a per-person basis, the Buffalo Billion is more than what the MTA is getting, as the MTA service area covers at least 12-13 million people in New York and a good portion of Connecticut.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on October 18, 2015, 09:38:06 PM
It's now called "The Public House on the Lake," and it's still open. Good views of the lake and what I would call decent food.

The GSV picture was taken in October 2013 before the renaming (I thought it'd been sold earlier than that).  The Root Five logo was pretty cool (a fish shaped like a 5).  Although if a deal could've been worked out with Peanuts Worldwide they could've used the crewcut, seldom seen (since the '60s) character "5".  (I hope Charles Schulz is smiling at that somewhere - after all, it's a pun, Charlie Brown!)

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 18, 2015, 10:57:13 PM
Interesting article about NYC's $8bn MTA deal http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/will-upstate-roads-get-parity-with-mtas-8-billion-20151017

Sounds like a typical Buffalo person who hates downstate. Honestly, the MTA has been getting shorted for quite a while. Thanks to Joe Bruno, Upstate got a lot of money it probably didn't deserve during the 90s and early 2000s. The $8B doesn't even cover the entire amount they were shorted by the state earlier this year. If the MTA can't run, NYC dies and if NYC dies, the state dies. Simple as that. Buffalo is getting plenty of money in the form of the Buffalo Billion. If you go on a per-person basis, the Buffalo Billion is more than what the MTA is getting, as the MTA service area covers at least 12-13 million people in New York and a good portion of Connecticut.

Quote
Of major metropolitan areas, Buffalo has among the better road conditions, TRIP said. About 12 percent of the Buffalo area’s roads are in poor condition, compared with 43 percent in New York City, 28 percent in Syracuse and 21 percent in Rochester.

When I read this, I said well there you go. A city with 11-13M people with 43% poor roads has wayyy more infrastructure needs than a city of 251K, or combined upstate region of likely under 5M.

The author is likely a member of the "secession" party.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 19, 2015, 09:59:34 AM
Interesting article about NYC's $8bn MTA deal http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/will-upstate-roads-get-parity-with-mtas-8-billion-20151017

I think it's safe to say that NYSDOT has never had parity with MTA's budget.  NYSDOT goes through this exercise every time MTA's budget is discussed, where NYSDOT proves that it could use up just as much money as the MTA.  It never works out.

(personal opinion emphasized)


Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 19, 2015, 01:32:59 PM
I'm wondering where that money is going to come from.  It's not just going to poof into thin air, and this governor will NOT raise taxes or cut his pet projects (ex: Taste NY, rebuilding LaGuardia because Biden didn't like it, etc.).  That leaves the agencies, whose operations are already being bled dry.  So if you can't take money from any of those sources, where do you get it?  Payroll.  I will NOT be surprised in any way if we see layoffs over this (the union would never accept a pay cut, and I can't afford one anyways), and I do NOT want to lose my job so the state can funnel more money into the MTA black hole.

Remember when the residents of Rockland and Westchester Counties were in an uproar over the possibilities of $14 tolls to cross the Tappan Zee?  The amount Cuomo wants to send to the MTA is DOUBLE the cost of that project (and the LaGuardia project is just as expensive as the Tappan Zee).

The MTA has numerous problems, and shoveling more money at them won't solve them.  If they went bankrupt, maybe then they would solve their corruption issues.  Besides, authorities are supposed to be self-sufficient anyways.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on October 19, 2015, 05:39:18 PM
I'm wondering where that money is going to come from.  It's not just going to poof into thin air, and this governor will NOT raise taxes or cut his pet projects (ex: Taste NY, rebuilding LaGuardia because Biden didn't like it, etc.).  That leaves the agencies, whose operations are already being bled dry.  So if you can't take money from any of those sources, where do you get it?  Payroll.  I will NOT be surprised in any way if we see layoffs over this (the union would never accept a pay cut, and I can't afford one anyways), and I do NOT want to lose my job so the state can funnel more money into the MTA black hole.

Remember when the residents of Rockland and Westchester Counties were in an uproar over the possibilities of $14 tolls to cross the Tappan Zee?  The amount Cuomo wants to send to the MTA is DOUBLE the cost of that project (and the LaGuardia project is just as expensive as the Tappan Zee).

The MTA has numerous problems, and shoveling more money at them won't solve them.  If they went bankrupt, maybe then they would solve their corruption issues.  Besides, authorities are supposed to be self-sufficient anyways.

(personal opinion emphasized)
In 2009 the MTA went bankrupt. They cut the V line, truncated the G line to Court Square in 2010, and changed the M line. What next, intentionally try and kill MTA by sucking all of their money out?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 19, 2015, 06:03:10 PM
I'm wondering where that money is going to come from.  It's not just going to poof into thin air, and this governor will NOT raise taxes or cut his pet projects (ex: Taste NY, rebuilding LaGuardia because Biden didn't like it, etc.).  That leaves the agencies, whose operations are already being bled dry.  So if you can't take money from any of those sources, where do you get it?  Payroll.  I will NOT be surprised in any way if we see layoffs over this (the union would never accept a pay cut, and I can't afford one anyways), and I do NOT want to lose my job so the state can funnel more money into the MTA black hole.

Remember when the residents of Rockland and Westchester Counties were in an uproar over the possibilities of $14 tolls to cross the Tappan Zee?  The amount Cuomo wants to send to the MTA is DOUBLE the cost of that project (and the LaGuardia project is just as expensive as the Tappan Zee).

The MTA has numerous problems, and shoveling more money at them won't solve them.  If they went bankrupt, maybe then they would solve their corruption issues.  Besides, authorities are supposed to be self-sufficient anyways.

(personal opinion emphasized)
In 2009 the MTA went bankrupt. They cut the V line, truncated the G line to Court Square in 2010, and changed the M line. What next, intentionally try and kill MTA by sucking all of their money out?

That's my thought. The MTA has been facing cuts from the state for quite some time while ridership has never been higher. You'll never convince people Upstate about this, but the MTA is what keeps the state economy (and as a result, the national economy) moving. Many lines are crush-loaded even on weekends because state funding cuts have reduced frequencies. 6 trains per hour isn't enough on most lines, yet that's what they're forced to run. Cut funding so wage increases can't happen and then we'll have a transit strike. Back in 2005, the City economy lost $1 BILLION during the 3 day strike.

Even with the MTA getting $8 billion, the NYC metro area still gets a smaller percentage of its state taxes back than most parts of Upstate. And don't act like Upstate gets no love. The Buffalo Billion is going to provide 1,000 jobs. Joe Bruno's 15 years diverted tons of money to the Albany area.

Tappan Zee tolls will increase. There's no question about that. Even if they increase for inflation, it's still an increase.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 19, 2015, 06:44:25 PM
(ex: Taste NY,

Hmm. I've seen signs in my school's dining hall about "Taste NY" or Taste of NY or something. Quite honestly whenever they bring local food onto our campus, it makes my day. Sodexplosion is awful.

That being said, NYS has a multitude of bloated projects and agencies that just suck up a ton of money for no good reason.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 19, 2015, 07:16:57 PM
In theory, authorities aren't supposed to take ANY taxpayer dollars at all.  That's why they exist in the first place: to build something with bonds that are paid back through user fees.  The MTA has always been a money pit.  Several decades ago, the state tried to solve the money problem by dissolving the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority into the MTA and using the bridges to subsidize it.  That did nothing to solve the MTA's financial woes... it did give us sky high bridge tolls and cancel the Long Island Sound Crossing.

The MTA is going to be a black hole until they fix their corruption issues.  If they will not do that willingly, then perhaps they should be dissolved and replaced with an agency.  An agency that the governor can control.  An agency where the governor could classify all critical job titles as non-union at stroke of a pen if they tried to strike (yes, the governor can DO that, and DID with IT staff just a few months ago).  If they want taxpayer dollars, it should come with assurances that the money won't just be thrown at big raises for some patronage jobs or some pet project that benefits Uncle Billy's construction firm more than it does riders.

Honestly, I'd at least be a little less fearful of this if we knew where it was coming from.  Between the Tappan Zee, LaGuardia, and this, that's $19 billion going to downstate.  That's a LOT of money.  And nobody has any idea where it's coming from.  Right now, my job is one the line until my union settles with the governor for the next contract... and all current indicators point towards a leadership that will hold out for as long as it takes to get big raises and a governor that won't humor them.  It's the 2011 mass layoff event all over again.

And just because the MTA's transit system is vital to NYC doesn't change the fact that the MTA itself is a slow, inefficient, corrupt, money black hole.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on October 19, 2015, 07:36:07 PM
In theory, authorities aren't supposed to take ANY taxpayer dollars at all.  That's why they exist in the first place: to build something with bonds that are paid back through user fees.  The MTA has always been a money pit.  Several decades ago, the state tried to solve the money problem by dissolving the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority into the MTA and using the bridges to subsidize it.  That did nothing to solve the MTA's financial woes... it did give us sky high bridge tolls and cancel the Long Island Sound Crossing.

The MTA is going to be a black hole until they fix their corruption issues.  If they will not do that willingly, then perhaps they should be dissolved and replaced with an agency.  An agency that the governor can control.  An agency where the governor could classify all critical job titles as non-union at stroke of a pen if they tried to strike (yes, the governor can DO that, and DID with IT staff just a few months ago).  If they want taxpayer dollars, it should come with assurances that the money won't just be thrown at big raises for some patronage jobs or some pet project that benefits Uncle Billy's construction firm more than it does riders.

Honestly, I'd at least be a little less fearful of this if we knew where it was coming from.  Between the Tappan Zee, LaGuardia, and this, that's $19 billion going to downstate.  That's a LOT of money.  And nobody has any idea where it's coming from.  Right now, my job is one the line until my union settles with the governor for the next contract... and all current indicators point towards a leadership that will hold out for as long as it takes to get big raises and a governor that won't humor them.  It's the 2011 mass layoff event all over again.

And just because the MTA's transit system is vital to NYC doesn't change the fact that the MTA itself is a slow, inefficient, corrupt, money black hole.
It all dates from 1992.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/nyregion/cuomo-seeks-delay-in-5-year-program-for-transit-funds.html

That's the NY Times, dated January 15th, 1992. Cuomo delayed the MTA transit fund. 20 years later, the MTA still hasn't got their money and is still corrupt.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 19, 2015, 07:39:22 PM
The biggest problem with the MTA right now is the chair. The chair was put in by Cuomo and has been fighting with the City and counties at every turn. Coming from the City's side, I completely understand the frustrations and the requirement that funds are set in stone before the City ups its contribution. The State has a long history of taking away funds earmarked toward the MTA and it makes good sense for the City to not commit anything until the State commits funding for a state authority. Certainly doesn't help that one of Prendergast's first orders of business was to gut capital funding for projects in the City. It has devolved into a political battle between Cuomo and de Blasio. The Chair politicized a flipping train derailment. Stating that "$8 Billion is going to the MTA" without context is quite absurd. The MTA should get more than that over the next few years, but that amount was guaranteed.

Also note that the LIRR and Metro-North are governed by different regulations than MUTCD. Those 2 are under the jurisdiction of the FRA and must follow laws and policies that apply to railroads. NYCTA is a public transit agency. The labor dispute was on the railroad side.

TL;DR: It's part of one giant political showdown between Cuomo and de Blasio. The MTA is merely a pawn, with the Chair being an agent of Cuomo.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on October 19, 2015, 07:58:48 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bay+Ridge,+Brooklyn,+NY/@40.605194,-74.029874,3a,66.8y,286.73h,96.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sU55y3SnO0IElA34lRX15nw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2455f3f1cab0d:0xa5a45198ea4d73d6

Why the hidden tolls for the Verrazano Bridge?  Is the TBTA ashamed at what they charge?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on October 19, 2015, 08:12:20 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bay+Ridge,+Brooklyn,+NY/@40.605194,-74.029874,3a,66.8y,286.73h,96.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sU55y3SnO0IElA34lRX15nw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2455f3f1cab0d:0xa5a45198ea4d73d6

Why the hidden tolls for the Verrazano Bridge?  Is the TBTA ashamed at what they charge?
It's due to the change in tolls for the bridge. I can't remember but there's a price under there ($11 if I remember). The patch must've only covered the amount, and the new amount wasn't put on the patch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 19, 2015, 08:12:47 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bay+Ridge,+Brooklyn,+NY/@40.605194,-74.029874,3a,66.8y,286.73h,96.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sU55y3SnO0IElA34lRX15nw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2455f3f1cab0d:0xa5a45198ea4d73d6

Why the hidden tolls for the Verrazano Bridge?  Is the TBTA ashamed at what they charge?

They're not going to post a $16 toll (http://web.mta.info/bandt/traffic/btmain.html#cars).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 19, 2015, 10:17:45 PM
In theory, authorities aren't supposed to take ANY taxpayer dollars at all.  That's why they exist in the first place: to build something with bonds that are paid back through user fees.  The MTA has always been a money pit.  Several decades ago, the state tried to solve the money problem by dissolving the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority into the MTA and using the bridges to subsidize it.  That did nothing to solve the MTA's financial woes... it did give us sky high bridge tolls and cancel the Long Island Sound Crossing.

The MTA is going to be a black hole until they fix their corruption issues.  If they will not do that willingly, then perhaps they should be dissolved and replaced with an agency.  An agency that the governor can control.  An agency where the governor could classify all critical job titles as non-union at stroke of a pen if they tried to strike (yes, the governor can DO that, and DID with IT staff just a few months ago).  If they want taxpayer dollars, it should come with assurances that the money won't just be thrown at big raises for some patronage jobs or some pet project that benefits Uncle Billy's construction firm more than it does riders.

Dissolving the MTA and starting over won't change anything because the problem is bigger than just the MTA. As you hint at, there are union issues... that is, in fact, the root of all the trouble here. New York City has a well-established social pyramid with three castes:
1) Wall street types and other filthy rich people
2) Union members
3) Everyone else

Because union members are higher ranking citizens than everyone else, all government agencies in New York City serve their interests first and satisfy the interests of everyone else only to the degree that can be done while still giving the union members everything they want. So long as this remains the case the MTA or whatever you replace it with will be a money pit the same way everything else down here is.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 19, 2015, 11:38:22 PM
Because union members are higher ranking citizens than everyone else, all government agencies in New York City serve their interests first and satisfy the interests of everyone else only to the degree that can be done while still giving the union members everything they want. So long as this remains the case the MTA or whatever you replace it with will be a money pit the same way everything else down here is.

Cool, I didn't realize the city was giving me everything I want! When can I pick it up?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on October 20, 2015, 03:53:44 PM
Several decades ago, the state tried to solve the money problem by dissolving the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority into the MTA and using the bridges to subsidize it.  That did nothing to solve the MTA's financial woes... it did give us sky high bridge tolls and cancel the Long Island Sound Crossing.

Money wasn't the sole reason for doing that.  In fact, it could be argued that it was a very much secondary consideration.  A much greater benefit of that move, in the eyes of Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, was to put an end once and for all to Robert Moses' last remaining political power base, which was the TBTA.  No one who was around NY politics at the time had any delusions about any kind of budget balancing or using revenues from some properties to subsidize others.  They all knew what was going on...all except Moses.

Rockefeller executed his plan brilliantly.  At the time he announced the formation of the MTA, Moses was dead set against it, using his tired argument that it was a violation of the contracts with TBTA bond holders.  What got Moses to change his mind and come out in favor of the merger was Rockefeller's verbal promise that Moses would hold a high-ranking position at the MTA.  Having secured his support, Rockefeller simply stopped taking Moses' phone calls, and when the TBTA ceased to exist Moses had nothing left.

Motorists, of course, footed the bill (and continue to do so) for this power play.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 20, 2015, 11:49:36 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bay+Ridge,+Brooklyn,+NY/@40.605194,-74.029874,3a,66.8y,286.73h,96.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sU55y3SnO0IElA34lRX15nw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2455f3f1cab0d:0xa5a45198ea4d73d6

Why the hidden tolls for the Verrazano Bridge?  Is the TBTA ashamed at what they charge?
It's due to the change in tolls for the bridge. I can't remember but there's a price under there ($11 if I remember). The patch must've only covered the amount, and the new amount wasn't put on the patch.

I can't guarantee it, but I think it's $13 under there. I seem to remember $13 being posted.

Also not posting it means they can get some money from people who don't know it's $16. It's a shrewd move, but one that's not illegal. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 21, 2015, 12:40:57 AM
Because union members are higher ranking citizens than everyone else, all government agencies in New York City serve their interests first and satisfy the interests of everyone else only to the degree that can be done while still giving the union members everything they want. So long as this remains the case the MTA or whatever you replace it with will be a money pit the same way everything else down here is.

Cool, I didn't realize the city was giving me everything I want! When can I pick it up?

Right here! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole)

Anyways, point is - unions have bargaining power far beyond what the rest of the general public has. And, in New York, they also have a government that is generally unwilling to fight them too hard because it would be politically unpopular. The end result is that there is a significant disparity in whose interests are served. Subway trains continue to be staffed by two people despite the fact that plenty of major systems in the world have managed to get by with one, because the TWU would raise fucking hell if the MTA attempted to lay the extra workers off. Tollbooths continue to be staffed by more people than there are cash lanes open despite the ready availability of technology for them to be staffed by zero people, for the same basic reason. And when the MTA's capital budget balloons out to crazy levels the fuss is all over where to get the money from and never about why New York City has literally the highest urban rail construction costs in the world, because peeling that onion would reveal that a lot of it is the union construction workers demanding high staffing levels and getting work done slowly compared to their brethren elsewhere (even their unionized brethren elsewhere!).

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want to see all these people forced to work in sweatshop conditions for shit pay and I acknowledge that unions play a significant role in preventing that. But NYC's unions have extended their power far beyond preventing management abuse and well into absolving themselves of accountability for anything and preserving the existence of obsolete jobs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on October 21, 2015, 04:46:57 AM
Speaking of Unions, does LIRR still do their annual walkout? 

Back when I was living in NJ (North Jersey listens to NY radio and TV) from my birth to 1990, it seems like every time you turned around the LIRR always was on strike.  They struck more than any other transit agency around, including the MTA, the cabbies, and even PATH.  They were always famous for having crybabies and used in many jokes among people for the amount of strikes they were always doing.

I was wondering since I left 25 years ago, if the unions for that railroad still do their frequent striking or did they finally get tired of it or something else?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 21, 2015, 09:09:14 AM
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want to see all these people forced to work in sweatshop conditions for shit pay and I acknowledge that unions play a significant role in preventing that. But NYC's unions have extended their power far beyond preventing management abuse and well into absolving themselves of accountability for anything and preserving the existence of obsolete jobs.

Yeah, my union doesn't have anywhere near that kind of potency, though they raise a stink when necessary, and have gotten some things done. But it's one of "NYC's unions", hence my joke indicating how what you describe doesn't match my experience in reality. Unions, like everything else in the world, can be done well or they can be done poorly, or somewhere in between. NYC's unions don't fall totally into one category or the other, naturally, and so while I understand your inclination to generalize for brevity's sake, you can see how that sometimes means the argument doesn't ring true for those instances that are outside the generality.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 21, 2015, 09:25:56 AM
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want to see all these people forced to work in sweatshop conditions for shit pay and I acknowledge that unions play a significant role in preventing that. But NYC's unions have extended their power far beyond preventing management abuse and well into absolving themselves of accountability for anything and preserving the existence of obsolete jobs.

Yeah, my union doesn't have anywhere near that kind of potency, though they raise a stink when necessary, and have gotten some things done. But it's one of "NYC's unions", hence my joke indicating how what you describe doesn't match my experience in reality. Unions, like everything else in the world, can be done well or they can be done poorly, or somewhere in between. NYC's unions don't fall totally into one category or the other, naturally, and so while I understand your inclination to generalize for brevity's sake, you can see how that sometimes means the argument doesn't ring true for those instances that are outside the generality.

I have to agree. There are a few strong unions in New York. The teacher's union is one. It's impossible to fire a teacher, even if they cause physical harm to a student. Transit union is quite strong as well. Most of the transit union's strength comes from the fact that the US economy tanks whenever they aren't on the job.

Most unions, however, are not. And I disagree about the Wall Street types as well. Most of them aren't above the average citizen. It's the government officials and those friendly with them who have the power more than anything else.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 22, 2015, 06:45:56 PM
The time has come – the Utica Arterial (southbound) is now open:

http://www.uticaod.com/article/20151022/NEWS/151029769

Granted they still have to shift the lanes eastward in the spring, but for the most part it's up and running.

I can't wait to get on it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 22, 2015, 06:55:16 PM
The time has come – the Utica Arterial (southbound) is now open:

http://www.uticaod.com/article/20151022/NEWS/151029769

Granted they still have to shift the lanes eastward in the spring, but for the most part it's up and running.

I can't wait to get on it.

Drove on it this afternoon. The Court St ramp is still blocked off and the striping indicates no lane changes at the moment, but it's always cool to get the new view off a new bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 26, 2015, 12:17:54 AM
The time has come – the Utica Arterial (southbound) is now open:

http://www.uticaod.com/article/20151022/NEWS/151029769

Granted they still have to shift the lanes eastward in the spring, but for the most part it's up and running.

I can't wait to get on it.

Drove on it this afternoon. The Court St ramp is still blocked off and the striping indicates no lane changes at the moment, but it's always cool to get the new view off a new bridge.

...and now GSV has updated Utica area imagery for 2015.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 26, 2015, 01:00:09 PM
That might just be part of the Arterial.  I've been noticing imagery dated 2015 randomly popping up (sometimes only for one frame on a route) but never any blocks of areas with the new imagery.  Not sure what's going on, but Google usually takes at least a year to get updated imagery out after they drive it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on October 26, 2015, 03:10:53 PM
Google Earth aerial imagery for the Utica area is dated this past May.  Could that be what Buffaboy was referring to?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 26, 2015, 07:02:03 PM
Well, I know the aerials are updated, but I also noticed in addition to the Arterial that they updated Genesee St. as well. Honestly, I don't understand the methodology and routing they implement to update the images.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on October 27, 2015, 01:06:05 PM
D262955 (NY 17/I-81 in Binghamton) is now advertised, and for me represents 3.06 GB of last Monday's 4.03 GB NYSDOT construction plans download.  I haven't attempted to go through the 8 volumes of plans in any detail yet, but I count 80 tasty pages of signface layouts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on October 27, 2015, 02:35:55 PM
D262955 (NY 17/I-81 in Binghamton) is now advertised, and for me represents 3.06 GB of last Monday's 4.03 GB NYSDOT construction plans download.  I haven't attempted to go through the 8 volumes of plans in any detail yet, but I count 80 tasty pages of signface layouts.

They are quite tasty indeed :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 27, 2015, 06:19:50 PM
That might just be part of the Arterial.  I've been noticing imagery dated 2015 randomly popping up (sometimes only for one frame on a route) but never any blocks of areas with the new imagery.  Not sure what's going on, but Google usually takes at least a year to get updated imagery out after they drive it.

They are much quicker at updating StreetView nowadays. New stuff appears as little as 2 months around here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 27, 2015, 06:32:19 PM
Intersection of US 11, NY 26, and NY 79 in Whitney is being reconstructed and widened as part of a project to replace the NY 26/79 bridge over the Tioughnioga River. Each approach is getting a dedicated left turn lane and a 4-lens FYA for left turns. NB US 11/NY 26 is getting a dedicated right turn lane, as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on November 17, 2015, 05:20:57 PM
Seems like all the new signals region 4 is installing have reflectorized backplates and FYA's.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 17, 2015, 05:33:41 PM
Seems like all the new signals region 4 is installing have reflectorized backplates and FYA's.

Backplates are the new standard. New NYSDOT installations and the one new NYSTA installation I've seen in Buffalo have backplates. A few other states, notably Ohio, have adopted reflectorized backplates as the standard.

I expect Region 1 to eventually go all-FYA for new installations, as they have (or will) installed them at 4 intersections in the Albany area. Even Region 10 is joining the fun- they're installing one on Northern Boulevard at some point. Still no word from Regions 3, 5, 7, or 8.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 17, 2015, 07:54:31 PM
cl94, where on Northern Blvd. is Region-10 installing a FYA? I'll have to take a look.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 17, 2015, 09:14:35 PM
cl94, where on Northern Blvd. is Region-10 installing a FYA? I'll have to take a look.

Cedar Swamp Rd / NY 107. Plans here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=9178&p_is_digital=Y).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 17, 2015, 09:37:26 PM
Thank-you, cl94. Very interesting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 17, 2015, 10:06:47 PM
Seems like all the new signals region 4 is installing have reflectorized backplates and FYA's.

Backplates are the new standard. New NYSDOT installations and the one new NYSTA installation I've seen in Buffalo have backplates. A few other states, notably Ohio, have adopted reflectorized backplates as the standard.

I expect Region 1 to eventually go all-FYA for new installations, as they have (or will) installed them at 4 intersections in the Albany area. Even Region 10 is joining the fun- they're installing one on Northern Boulevard at some point. Still no word from Regions 3, 5, 7, or 8.

Backplates also mean pole mounts, right? Or still sticking with the strings lights?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 17, 2015, 11:00:52 PM
Seems like all the new signals region 4 is installing have reflectorized backplates and FYA's.

Backplates are the new standard. New NYSDOT installations and the one new NYSTA installation I've seen in Buffalo have backplates. A few other states, notably Ohio, have adopted reflectorized backplates as the standard.

I expect Region 1 to eventually go all-FYA for new installations, as they have (or will) installed them at 4 intersections in the Albany area. Even Region 10 is joining the fun- they're installing one on Northern Boulevard at some point. Still no word from Regions 3, 5, 7, or 8.

Backplates also mean pole mounts, right? Or still sticking with the strings lights?

Depends. Region 10 is still putting in span wire in "less urbanized" areas and where the highway is wide, but a couple installations in Nassau County are pole mount using unique mast arms (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8395157,-73.6150495,3a,52.4y,14.06h,82.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLXIoIbCjO_m7kRsQoPhZIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) also used by the County and Village of Hempstead. Can't find anything that isn't span wire in Suffolk at a quick glance.

Region 5 is exclusively mast arms. Region 1 had more mast arms than most regions to begin with, especially north of Albany. They're mostly mast arms, but the new plans have a lot of span wire. Pretty certain Region 4 is only mast arms.

Edit: fixed link, changed Region 1 stuff after seeing the most-recent signal plans
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on November 18, 2015, 09:48:26 AM
D263075 - Safety improvements to I-890 at exit 4.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263075
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2015, 12:15:45 PM
Another day, another set of new FYAs in Region 1. This time we have the intersection of NY 7 and NY 142 in Center Brunswick (facing EB NY 7) and US 4 at NY 32 in Waterford (facing NB NY 32). Included in the plans but in a different contract are FYAs at NY 146 at Blue Barns Rd and Glenridge Rd (all approaches). Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=9870&p_is_digital=). All of the FYAs are being put on span wire.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 18, 2015, 03:35:45 PM
Seems like all the new signals region 4 is installing have reflectorized backplates and FYA's.

Backplates are the new standard. New NYSDOT installations and the one new NYSTA installation I've seen in Buffalo have backplates. A few other states, notably Ohio, have adopted reflectorized backplates as the standard.

I expect Region 1 to eventually go all-FYA for new installations, as they have (or will) installed them at 4 intersections in the Albany area. Even Region 10 is joining the fun- they're installing one on Northern Boulevard at some point. Still no word from Regions 3, 5, 7, or 8.

Backplates also mean pole mounts, right? Or still sticking with the strings lights?

Depends. Region 10 is still putting in span wire in "less urbanized" areas and where the highway is wide, but a couple installations in Nassau County are pole mount using unique mast arms[/url also used by the County and Village of Hempstead. Can't find anything that isn't span wire in Suffolk at a quick glance.

Region 5 is exclusively mast arms. Region 1 had more mast arms than most regions to begin with, especially north of Albany, but they're exclusive as well. Pretty certain Region 4 is only mast arms.
 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8395157,-73.6150495,3a,52.4y,14.06h,82.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLXIoIbCjO_m7kRsQoPhZIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

does NYSDOT use vertical mounted signals like these Upstate? (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9056928,-77.040994,3a,75y,305.84h,84.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq58uzB48pBwPA-X49xr79Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on November 18, 2015, 04:51:57 PM
Still no word from Regions 3, 5, 7, or 8.

R7 has already started going FYA. There are now some installed at the intersection of NY37 and NY420 in Massena...complete with a bunch of confused drivers who have no clue what it actually means.

Reflective backplates are standard too, but they're reusing existing spanwires.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2015, 06:10:26 PM
Pole-mounted signals are rare in NYSDOT installations. They're typically found when an intersection is on a curve and a repeater signal is desired so drivers before the curve can see the signal indication.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 18, 2015, 06:51:42 PM
Another day, another set of new FYAs in Region 1. This time we have the intersection of NY 7 and NY 142 in Center Brunswick (facing EB NY 7) and US 4 at NY 32 in Waterford (facing NB NY 32). Included in the plans but in a different contract are FYAs at NY 146 at Blue Barns Rd and Glenridge Rd (all approaches). Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=9870&p_is_digital=). All of the FYAs are being put on span wire.

What's an FYA?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 18, 2015, 06:54:50 PM
Flashing Yellow Arrow
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 18, 2015, 07:09:33 PM
I saw a FYA in Staten Island. It's turning from Lily Pond Ave. SB to I-278 EB. A green ball would be perfectly sufficient here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 18, 2015, 07:45:42 PM
D263075 - Safety improvements to I-890 at exit 4.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263075

Took a look at the exit numbering.  EB 4A and 4B will become just 4 (makes sense on its own) but WB retains 4B and 4C.  A little weird, and I'm wondering if it's even MUTCD compliant given that I-890 has mile-based numbers.  Shoulding 4 and 4B become 4A and 4C become 4B?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2015, 09:08:16 PM
I saw a FYA in Staten Island. It's turning from Lily Pond Ave. SB to I-278 EB. A green ball would be perfectly sufficient here.

NYCDOT has been using them for a couple years, mainly with right turns. The intent is to reinforce that pedestrians have the right of way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 18, 2015, 09:26:29 PM
cl94, since you mentioned Hempstead, have you seen that funky single mast-arm installation on Fulton Ave. (NY-24) a few blocks west of Hofstra U? Possibly the corner of Kernochan Ave.
 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2015, 10:12:11 PM
cl94, since you mentioned Hempstead, have you seen that funky single mast-arm installation on Fulton Ave. (NY-24) a few blocks west of Hofstra U? Possibly the corner of Kernochan Ave.

They just put that one up recently, so I haven't, but it's a style quite common in Region 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2602106,-73.5947861,3a,45.6y,205.53h,86.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6TkjUltl7Stb-YfrrvZwiQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D6TkjUltl7Stb-YfrrvZwiQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D94.948288%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 18, 2015, 10:19:17 PM
That installation in Region-1 looks normal. The one in Hempstead uses an unusually wide pole and a very wide, long mast-arm in a similar diagonal configuration. It looks really weird.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2015, 10:39:20 PM
That installation in Region-1 looks normal. The one in Hempstead uses an unusually wide pole and a very wide, long mast-arm in a similar diagonal configuration. It looks really weird.

The one I pulled up is on the smaller side. R1 has bigger ones, typically used in cramped locations where span wire wouldn't work.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 19, 2015, 10:17:34 AM
Flashing Yellow Arrow

Yeah, not the world's most common thing.  Although probably more common than flashing green, at least in this country.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 19, 2015, 09:39:50 PM
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on November 20, 2015, 06:32:15 PM
The new FYA signals in Rochester made the news today.

http://13wham.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/new-signals-at-local-intersections-27812.shtml





Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 20, 2015, 08:27:24 PM
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.

I've yet to see one IRL.

Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2015, 08:39:48 PM
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.

I've yet to see one IRL.

Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?

Take a quick trip out to Mohawk. Some on NY 5S.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 20, 2015, 09:48:05 PM
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.

I've yet to see one IRL.

Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?

Take a quick trip out to Mohawk. Some on NY 5S.

I'm gonna say Rochester (Gates, actually) is a bit of a quicker trip for him. ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 20, 2015, 09:53:23 PM
Well, he was asking about Region 2...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2015, 10:12:44 PM
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.

I've yet to see one IRL.

Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?

Take a quick trip out to Mohawk. Some on NY 5S.

I'm gonna say Rochester (Gates, actually) is a bit of a quicker trip for him. ;-)

Well, he was asking about Region 2...

He goes to school in Utica. The ones in Mohawk are right there and are usually active. Many of the ones in Rochester don't go FYA full-time. The only Rochester ones I've actually seen doing their thing are the new ones in Gates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 21, 2015, 12:22:55 AM
The northbound lanes of the Utica North-South Arterial were moved over to the new overpass some time today. It is a single lane with a maximum width restriction of 10-feet (if memory serves correctly).  A temporary Court Street off-ramp follows the old arterial detour, the NY 5A / NY 5S Downtown Utica interchange is closed to NB traffic at this time. 

I'm not sure if Court Street is now open underneath the new bridge, but reports indicated it is slated to be open by Thanksgiving.

The NB interchange for NY 5A / NY 5S looks like it'll be open very soon as well. And it looked like they've already started dismantling the remaining parts of the old bridge so they can build the remainder of the new overpass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 21, 2015, 12:42:44 AM
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.

I've yet to see one IRL.

Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?

Take a quick trip out to Mohawk. Some on NY 5S.

I'm gonna say Rochester (Gates, actually) is a bit of a quicker trip for him. ;-)

Well, he was asking about Region 2...

He goes to school in Utica. The ones in Mohawk are right there and are usually active. Many of the ones in Rochester don't go FYA full-time. The only Rochester ones I've actually seen doing their thing are the new ones in Gates.

Ah yes; I was looking at the wrong person's location there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on November 21, 2015, 10:34:18 AM
The new onramp at I-86/NY-17 Exit 72 opened yesterday.  There has been a lot of work in the last couple weeks as they intend to finish up on schedule by the end of next month.  I-86 is fully signed throughout the limits of the project, as well as on supplemental reassurance signs that have been mounted in a few other locations.  On NY-7, instead of totally replacing the BGS listing only I-81 and NY-17, they have put up large ground-mounted I-86 BGS assemblies that were placed in troublesome locations.   At the exit 4 cloverleaf, these signs are placed immediately after the preceding onramp and could easily be mistaken by someone unfamiliar with the area as referring to the preceding onramp.

On the official project Facebook page, a NYSDOT representative responded to a question regarding the I-86 designation by saying that the entirety of the road in Tioga County is ready, but there are some deficiencies between the Broome County line and Prospect Mountain that need to be remediated before the designation can be extended through Broome County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 21, 2015, 12:26:06 PM
The northbound lanes of the Utica North-South Arterial were moved over to the new overpass some time today. It is a single lane with a maximum width restriction of 10-feet (if memory serves correctly).  A temporary Court Street off-ramp follows the old arterial detour, the NY 5A / NY 5S Downtown Utica interchange is closed to NB traffic at this time. 

I'm not sure if Court Street is now open underneath the new bridge, but reports indicated it is slated to be open by Thanksgiving.

The NB interchange for NY 5A / NY 5S looks like it'll be open very soon as well. And it looked like they've already started dismantling the remaining parts of the old bridge so they can build the remainder of the new overpass.

I've yet to drive on the thing!

Also, what's this all about?

Quote
Route 49 eastbound between Cavanaugh Road and Route 12 — overhead sign installation work to continue, weather permitting. Motorists will encounter a lane and shoulder closure and intermittent delays. Flaggers will control traffic during brief traffic stoppages.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 21, 2015, 04:09:14 PM


Also, what's this all about?

Quote
Route 49 eastbound between Cavanaugh Road and Route 12 — overhead sign installation work to continue, weather permitting. Motorists will encounter a lane and shoulder closure and intermittent delays. Flaggers will control traffic during brief traffic stoppages.

The signs need to be added to the new gantry installed at the WB exit ramp for CR 34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy. The gantry has been up for over a week, but with no signs. It looks like they're getting it done before Thanksgiving.  The overhead installation with 1/4 mile advance sign for CR 34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy and 1/2 mile for 5/8/12 was put up two weeks ago. This is finishing up the installation.

There has never been advance guide signs for the 49/I-790/5/8/12 interchange on NY 49 WB since the completion of the road over 10 years ago, they finally got the funding together to put up advance guide signs. Due to the proximity of the CR34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy and 790/5/8/12 interchanges, overhead signs were necessary.

This is also the first time an Oneida County Route is mentioned on freeway guide signs and I think it's wonderful.

I noticed that a NYSDOT contractor is also working on replacing several ground mounted signs in the area but I haven't found a contract online for that.  It looks like some of the SUNY POLY college symbol standalone signs are getting replaced with something more freeway friendly. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 21, 2015, 06:24:48 PM


Also, what's this all about?

Quote
Route 49 eastbound between Cavanaugh Road and Route 12 — overhead sign installation work to continue, weather permitting. Motorists will encounter a lane and shoulder closure and intermittent delays. Flaggers will control traffic during brief traffic stoppages.

The signs need to be added to the new gantry installed at the WB exit ramp for CR 34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy. The gantry has been up for over a week, but with no signs. It looks like they're getting it done before Thanksgiving.  The overhead installation with 1/4 mile advance sign for CR 34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy and 1/2 mile for 5/8/12 was put up two weeks ago. This is finishing up the installation.

There has never been advance guide signs for the 49/I-790/5/8/12 interchange on NY 49 WB since the completion of the road over 10 years ago, they finally got the funding together to put up advance guide signs. Due to the proximity of the CR34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy and 790/5/8/12 interchanges, overhead signs were necessary.

This is also the first time an Oneida County Route is mentioned on freeway guide signs and I think it's wonderful.

I noticed that a NYSDOT contractor is also working on replacing several ground mounted signs in the area but I haven't found a contract online for that.  It looks like some of the SUNY POLY college symbol standalone signs are getting replaced with something more freeway friendly. :)

Why they renamed the parkway "Marcy-SUNY" parkway is beyond me. It reinforces the misnaming of the school to things like "SUNY," "SUNY Tech" and I still here "SUNYIT" at times when it's been a year since the name change.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 21, 2015, 09:25:49 PM


Also, what's this all about?

Quote
Route 49 eastbound between Cavanaugh Road and Route 12 — overhead sign installation work to continue, weather permitting. Motorists will encounter a lane and shoulder closure and intermittent delays. Flaggers will control traffic during brief traffic stoppages.

The signs need to be added to the new gantry installed at the WB exit ramp for CR 34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy. The gantry has been up for over a week, but with no signs. It looks like they're getting it done before Thanksgiving.  The overhead installation with 1/4 mile advance sign for CR 34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy and 1/2 mile for 5/8/12 was put up two weeks ago. This is finishing up the installation.

There has never been advance guide signs for the 49/I-790/5/8/12 interchange on NY 49 WB since the completion of the road over 10 years ago, they finally got the funding together to put up advance guide signs. Due to the proximity of the CR34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy and 790/5/8/12 interchanges, overhead signs were necessary.

This is also the first time an Oneida County Route is mentioned on freeway guide signs and I think it's wonderful.

I noticed that a NYSDOT contractor is also working on replacing several ground mounted signs in the area but I haven't found a contract online for that.  It looks like some of the SUNY POLY college symbol standalone signs are getting replaced with something more freeway friendly. :)

Why they renamed the parkway "Marcy-SUNY" parkway is beyond me. It reinforces the misnaming of the school to things like "SUNY," "SUNY Tech" and I still here "SUNYIT" at times when it's been a year since the name change.

The naming of the parkway was left to the Town of Marcy officials since the school officially resides in the town of Marcy. They have always been cranky about the fact that every other SUNY school has the name of its location in its name, but this one has been everything but what they want... SUNY Utica-Rome, SUNY IT and now SUNY POLY and not SUNY Marcy.  So, that's why the town board named the parkway Marcy-SUNYIT Parkway, which has been changed to Marcy-SUNY Parkway with the changing of the school to SUNY POLY.

I wish folks would just call it "County Route 34".

Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 21, 2015, 11:40:40 PM
On the official project Facebook page, a NYSDOT representative responded to a question regarding the I-86 designation by saying that the entirety of the road in Tioga County is ready, but there are some deficiencies between the Broome County line and Prospect Mountain that need to be remediated before the designation can be extended through Broome County.

Veeerrry interesting. I guess that means we could see the I-86 designation be extended to either Exit 66 (NY 17C/NY 434/Apalachin), which is the easternmost exit in Tioga County, or the Tioga/Broome county line (between Exits 66 and 67) at some point in the near future.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 22, 2015, 02:12:11 PM
On the official project Facebook page, a NYSDOT representative responded to a question regarding the I-86 designation by saying that the entirety of the road in Tioga County is ready, but there are some deficiencies between the Broome County line and Prospect Mountain that need to be remediated before the designation can be extended through Broome County.
Odd.  I would have thought the Broome County section west of I-81 was already up to standards.  What upgrades could it possibly need?

Tioga County has several substandard ramps but I think NYSDOT was able to appease FHWA simply by lengthening the acceleration/deceleration lanes, which has been done in the past couple years.

Veeerrry interesting. I guess that means we could see the I-86 designation be extended to either Exit 66 (NY 17C/NY 434/Apalachin), which is the easternmost exit in Tioga County, or the Tioga/Broome county line (between Exits 66 and 67) at some point in the near future.
I believe the current plan is to sign it all the way between US 220 and the current segment east of I-81 in one fell swoop when the Prospect Mountain Phase II project is done.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 22, 2015, 02:19:56 PM
On the official project Facebook page, a NYSDOT representative responded to a question regarding the I-86 designation by saying that the entirety of the road in Tioga County is ready, but there are some deficiencies between the Broome County line and Prospect Mountain that need to be remediated before the designation can be extended through Broome County.
Odd.  I would have thought the Broome County section west of I-81 was already up to standards.  What upgrades could it possibly need?

Tioga County has several substandard ramps but I think NYSDOT was able to appease FHWA simply by lengthening the acceleration/deceleration lanes, which has been done in the past couple years.

Veeerrry interesting. I guess that means we could see the I-86 designation be extended to either Exit 66 (NY 17C/NY 434/Apalachin), which is the easternmost exit in Tioga County, or the Tioga/Broome county line (between Exits 66 and 67) at some point in the near future.
I believe the current plan is to sign it all the way between US 220 and the current segment east of I-81 in one fell swoop when the Prospect Mountain Phase II project is done.

Correct. Everything west of NY 79 will be signed after Phase 2. At least that's what I've been told.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 22, 2015, 08:28:12 PM
Is this true?

dot engineers screw up rt12 project


Quote
"The tax payers will get caught holding the bag on this one. The ramp to the walkway bridge doesn't conform to code. Without checking a DOT engineer signed off on a elevation change. This doesn't meet American Disabilities Act, and needs to be changed. Secondly brigde bearing supprts on Court st. overpass were installed backwards. Again a DOT engineer signed off on this. It wasn't till final inspection that someone found the mistake. To fix this the bridge needs to be jacked up. The bearings are welde in so it will cost tax payers millons. Some one should lose their jobs here. But in good old DOT fashion they'll be hinden in the state office building playing video games till their retirement."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 22, 2015, 11:30:06 PM
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.

I've yet to see one IRL.

Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?

Take a quick trip out to Mohawk. Some on NY 5S.

Oh I didn't even see this post. Will have to do.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 23, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.

I've yet to see one IRL.

Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?

Take a quick trip out to Mohawk. Some on NY 5S.

Oh I didn't even see this post. Will have to do.

Both are on the NY 5S / NY 28 concurrency. One is across the river from Exit 30, the other is a mile north of the runaway truck ramp. Both face the approach that has the concurrency. I don't know if there is a third at the one just south of the Thruway facing WB NY 5S.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 23, 2015, 10:24:35 AM
Is this true?

dot engineers screw up rt12 project


Quote
"The tax payers will get caught holding the bag on this one. The ramp to the walkway bridge doesn't conform to code. Without checking a DOT engineer signed off on a elevation change. This doesn't meet American Disabilities Act, and needs to be changed. Secondly brigde bearing supprts on Court st. overpass were installed backwards. Again a DOT engineer signed off on this. It wasn't till final inspection that someone found the mistake. To fix this the bridge needs to be jacked up. The bearings are welde in so it will cost tax payers millons. Some one should lose their jobs here. But in good old DOT fashion they'll be hinden in the state office building playing video games till their retirement."

Yes.  Of course, having this blunder happen right when a new commissioner was coming in just made it an even bigger deal.  First rule of new commissioner is allegedly: "No more bad press!"

(personal opinion expressed)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 23, 2015, 10:41:21 AM
Buffaboy:  where did that come from?  A link or a source would've been useful, though I'm guessing Rothman was aware of that project given his response.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 23, 2015, 02:21:54 PM
Looks like a news article, but it somehow managed to escape the clippings.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 23, 2015, 02:38:22 PM
Looks like a news article, but it somehow managed to escape the clippings.

I believe it's a mention in the Utica Topix board. Anything there should be taken with many grains of salt.

On another Utica note - the other overhead signs on NY 49 EB at the Marcy-SUNY Pkwy interchange are going up today.  I couldn't snap a photo but there are three signs on the installation:

Left side
NORTH 8 / NORTH 12
Poland
Watertown
EXIT 1/4 MILE

Middle
WEST 5 / SOUTH 8 / SOUTH 12
Downtown Utica
NEXT RIGHT

Right
Oneida CR 34
Marcy-SUNY Pkwy
(blank line)
(up arrow on the right side next to Marcy-SUNY Pkwy line)

The route markers are such are all standard and the signs look very good and MUTCD compliant. I'll try to snap photo in the next day or two.

Elderlee Inc is also working in the area installing ground mounted posts for the 1 MILE advance sign for the same interchange. They are also working on ground mounted signs on NY 8/12 NORTH between the NY 5A/5S and NY 49/I-790/NY 5 interchanges -- I think these are SUNY POLY signs they are replacing. :) Unfortunately I can't find anything online for ground mounted signs in R2 at this time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 23, 2015, 02:53:32 PM
Looks like a news article, but it somehow managed to escape the clippings.

I believe it's a mention in the Utica Topix board. Anything there should be taken with many grains of salt.

Don't even ask why I was browsing that site...

Looks like a news article, but it somehow managed to escape the clippings.
On another Utica note - the other overhead signs on NY 49 EB at the Marcy-SUNY Pkwy interchange are going up today.  I couldn't snap a photo but there are three signs on the installation:

Left side
NORTH 8 / NORTH 12
Poland
Watertown
EXIT 1/4 MILE

Middle
WEST 5 / SOUTH 8 / SOUTH 12
Downtown Utica
NEXT RIGHT

Right
Oneida CR 34
Marcy-SUNY Pkwy
(blank line)
(up arrow on the right side next to Marcy-SUNY Pkwy line)

The route markers are such are all standard and the signs look very good and MUTCD compliant. I'll try to snap photo in the next day or two.

Elderlee Inc is also working in the area installing ground mounted posts for the 1 MILE advance sign for the same interchange. They are also working on ground mounted signs on NY 8/12 NORTH between the NY 5A/5S and NY 49/I-790/NY 5 interchanges -- I think these are SUNY POLY signs they are replacing. :) Unfortunately I can't find anything online for ground mounted signs in R2 at this time.

I'm glad they've gotten this done, seems like a decent assembly. I'll definitely be able to see this tomorrow.

Also, I know you're a pilot. Is it just me or do I see you in the sky sometimes?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 03, 2015, 06:40:25 PM
Are these yellow on brown signs an Adirondack thing? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4805199,-73.8189322,3a,15y,166.29h,89.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5V6QUDsqVCspmfWH4njEuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 03, 2015, 07:14:08 PM
Looks like a news article, but it somehow managed to escape the clippings.

I believe it's a mention in the Utica Topix board. Anything there should be taken with many grains of salt.

Don't even ask why I was browsing that site...

Looks like a news article, but it somehow managed to escape the clippings.
On another Utica note - the other overhead signs on NY 49 EB at the Marcy-SUNY Pkwy interchange are going up today.  I couldn't snap a photo but there are three signs on the installation:

Left side
NORTH 8 / NORTH 12
Poland
Watertown
EXIT 1/4 MILE

Middle
WEST 5 / SOUTH 8 / SOUTH 12
Downtown Utica
NEXT RIGHT

Right
Oneida CR 34
Marcy-SUNY Pkwy
(blank line)
(up arrow on the right side next to Marcy-SUNY Pkwy line)

The route markers are such are all standard and the signs look very good and MUTCD compliant. I'll try to snap photo in the next day or two.

Elderlee Inc is also working in the area installing ground mounted posts for the 1 MILE advance sign for the same interchange. They are also working on ground mounted signs on NY 8/12 NORTH between the NY 5A/5S and NY 49/I-790/NY 5 interchanges -- I think these are SUNY POLY signs they are replacing. :) Unfortunately I can't find anything online for ground mounted signs in R2 at this time.

I'm glad they've gotten this done, seems like a decent assembly. I'll definitely be able to see this tomorrow.

Also, I know you're a pilot. Is it just me or do I see you in the sky sometimes?

Elderlee Inc has been busy putting more sign posts all around the Utica area - I-790, NY 5, NY 49, NY 8, NY 12. I still can't find the plans online for what they're doing but there's going to be quite a few signs going up soon.

Yes, I'm a pilot and I do fly over the area quite a bit. I fly in and out of Griffiss... really enjoy flying over Utica at night at this time of year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 03, 2015, 07:28:56 PM
Are these yellow on brown signs an Adirondack thing? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4805199,-73.8189322,3a,15y,166.29h,89.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5V6QUDsqVCspmfWH4njEuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Adirondack and Catskill, yes. Although that particular one looks pretty off-spec.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on December 03, 2015, 09:35:41 PM
Are these yellow on brown signs an Adirondack thing? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4805199,-73.8189322,3a,15y,166.29h,89.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5V6QUDsqVCspmfWH4njEuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Adirondack and Catskill, yes. Although that particular one looks pretty off-spec.

You can see a bunch of examples of these on my "New York State Touring Routes and Parkways Traveled" page:

http://www.teresco.org/pics/nyshighways/ (http://www.teresco.org/pics/nyshighways/)

Scroll to routes like NY 30 that spend some time in the Adirondacks.

I know there was some discussion of these here in the not-too-distant past in the context of an effort to force NY to stop using them because of readability problems.  I like them and hope NY continues to use them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 03, 2015, 10:37:21 PM
Are these yellow on brown signs an Adirondack thing? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4805199,-73.8189322,3a,15y,166.29h,89.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5V6QUDsqVCspmfWH4njEuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Adirondack and Catskill, yes. Although that particular one looks pretty off-spec.

You can see a bunch of examples of these on my "New York State Touring Routes and Parkways Traveled" page:

http://www.teresco.org/pics/nyshighways/ (http://www.teresco.org/pics/nyshighways/)

Scroll to routes like NY 30 that spend some time in the Adirondacks.

I know there was some discussion of these here in the not-too-distant past in the context of an effort to force NY to stop using them because of readability problems.  I like them and hope NY continues to use them.

Region 1 has a bunch of yellow on brown reference markers (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3885759,-73.6463425,3a,17.9y,239.19h,81.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5fE4LlkomAqJTmPZhEQ3Yw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) scattered around. Unlike every other type of sign, these are not ubiquitous. Do note that the vast majority of signs on I-87 are in standard colors.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 04, 2015, 01:21:18 PM
The yellow on brown reference markers are the new standard for the Adirondacks (except for possibly I-87).  Basically, the FHWA has allowed NY to retain yellow on brown for the Adirondacks, but not the Catskills, which will be white on brown going forward.  Also, I believe some yellow and brown signs (such as Hospital signs) are reverting to their standard colors in both parks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 04, 2015, 01:30:45 PM

The yellow on brown reference markers are the new standard for the Adirondacks (except for possibly I-87).  Basically, the FHWA has allowed NY to retain yellow on brown for the Adirondacks, but not the Catskills, which will be white on brown going forward.  Also, I believe some yellow and brown signs (such as Hospital signs) are reverting to their standard colors in both parks.

Why Adirondack and not Catskill?  Doesn't a single standard serve the public better than two?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 04, 2015, 01:40:46 PM
The yellow on brown reference markers are the new standard for the Adirondacks (except for possibly I-87).  Basically, the FHWA has allowed NY to retain yellow on brown for the Adirondacks, but not the Catskills, which will be white on brown going forward.  Also, I believe some yellow and brown signs (such as Hospital signs) are reverting to their standard colors in both parks.

Services signs were typically standard colors anyway
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 04, 2015, 01:52:21 PM
Probably because the Adirondacks are the bigger and more well known of the two and the FHWA was very much against with allowing the signs to continue to be used at all.  We're lucky even the Adirondacks still have them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 04, 2015, 03:06:55 PM

The yellow on brown reference markers are the new standard for the Adirondacks (except for possibly I-87).  Basically, the FHWA has allowed NY to retain yellow on brown for the Adirondacks, but not the Catskills, which will be white on brown going forward.  Also, I believe some yellow and brown signs (such as Hospital signs) are reverting to their standard colors in both parks.

Why Adirondack and not Catskill?  Doesn't a single standard serve the public better than two?

That's not a basic premise I would entertain, no. If diverse conditions warrant diverse standards, then a single standard would serve the public less well than two. Now, whether the Adirondack and Catskill preserves represent diverse conditions, that is certainly a good question.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 04, 2015, 08:10:49 PM

The yellow on brown reference markers are the new standard for the Adirondacks (except for possibly I-87).  Basically, the FHWA has allowed NY to retain yellow on brown for the Adirondacks, but not the Catskills, which will be white on brown going forward.  Also, I believe some yellow and brown signs (such as Hospital signs) are reverting to their standard colors in both parks.

Why Adirondack and not Catskill?  Doesn't a single standard serve the public better than two?

That's not a basic premise I would entertain, no. If diverse conditions warrant diverse standards, then a single standard would serve the public less well than two. Now, whether the Adirondack and Catskill preserves represent diverse conditions, that is certainly a good question.
I think there's a "Historic Resource" argument to be made in the Adirondacks, since this practice has been going on long enough that yellow-on-brown is expected as part of the landscape. I don't think the Catskills are known for it quite the same way. SHPO does strange things. (State Historic Preservation Office - at least that's what the one in NJ is called.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 04, 2015, 11:41:50 PM


The yellow on brown reference markers are the new standard for the Adirondacks (except for possibly I-87).  Basically, the FHWA has allowed NY to retain yellow on brown for the Adirondacks, but not the Catskills, which will be white on brown going forward.  Also, I believe some yellow and brown signs (such as Hospital signs) are reverting to their standard colors in both parks.

Why Adirondack and not Catskill?  Doesn't a single standard serve the public better than two?

That's not a basic premise I would entertain, no. If diverse conditions warrant diverse standards, then a single standard would serve the public less well than two. Now, whether the Adirondack and Catskill preserves represent diverse conditions, that is certainly a good question.
I think there's a "Historic Resource" argument to be made in the Adirondacks, since this practice has been going on long enough that yellow-on-brown is expected as part of the landscape. I don't think the Catskills are known for it quite the same way. SHPO does strange things. (State Historic Preservation Office - at least that's what the one in NJ is called.)

I don't know the comparative histories of how Adirondack and Catskill parks are conceived. I simply am going based on the assumption that they both represent the same type of political fiction, and thus ought to be treated more or less the same in terms of how they are presented to the public.  As empirestate points out, this may very well be a flawed assumption.  It is nevertheless what I chose to assume because looking up and reading more about this is more than I was motivated to do.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 04, 2015, 11:59:31 PM
The big difference between the parks is that Adirondack Park has the Adirondack Park Agency, which strictly regulates development within the park. Granted, opposition is strong, but it has preserved the parklike atmosphere and it is basically a state park that has people living in it. Catskill Park is little more than a forest preserve.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 06, 2015, 05:30:06 PM
Because Obama signed the transportation bill on Friday, could we see the completion of the 219 corridor in the future?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 06, 2015, 05:40:22 PM
Because Obama signed the transportation bill on Friday, could we see the completion of the 219 corridor in the future?

Doubtful. US 219 is mainly being held up by disputes with the Seneca Nation about treaties. New York wants the Senecas to pay the state casino revenue, which is in violation of a federal treaty.

If anything highway-related in New York gets pushed up, it will probably be the easternmost section of I-86 (which needs to be widened anyway) or one of the Thruway projects in Buffalo that will be a joint project with NYSDOT. Honestly, what needs money right now is passenger rail and mass transit in the form of East Side Access, a new Hudson River tunnel, and the Second Avenue Subway, if only so those projects actually get completed (because we all know they're needed).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 06, 2015, 05:50:13 PM
Don't forget that NY doesn't even have the funding to do the environmental impact statement for the remainder of US 219, most of which isn't on Seneca land.  The next project (formerly in the STIP, the only one that ever was), which probably would have been done by now had NYSDOT not switched into preservation mode a few years ago, would have extended the freeway south to Snake Run Rd.

Also, I-81 in Syracuse is now a high priority corridor.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 06, 2015, 05:57:47 PM
Don't forget that NY doesn't even have the funding to do the environmental impact statement for the remainder of US 219, most of which isn't on Seneca land.  The next project (formerly in the STIP, the only one that ever was), which probably would have been done by now had NYSDOT not switched into preservation mode a few years ago, would have extended the freeway south to Snake Run Rd.

Also, I-81 in Syracuse is now a high priority corridor.

I don't really see the point in going to Snake Run Road unless you can get the funding to get past NY 242. That's where the main bottleneck is. Snake Run Road doesn't even get past Ashford Hollow, let alone the nasty hill just south of there or the ski town.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 06, 2015, 06:23:30 PM
I believe the plan was to build US 219 one interchange at a time.  No big long sections of new freeway construction in New York.  We don't do that here any more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on December 06, 2015, 09:10:58 PM
They could also pull a Quebec and build an orphaned bypass of Ellicottville next before anything else, on the pretense of that being the most useful segment. But they won't do that.

Is there some particular reason the rest of 219 down to Salamanca needs to be full freeway or would an expressway ("West Virginia Freeway") design suffice? Would be cheaper both due to not needing as many overpasses and interchanges, and due to the potential of using the existing alignment as half the road in some places.

On the note of I-81 being designated a high priority corridor, what is the latest on the viaduct in Syracuse? Any options seemingly favored?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 06, 2015, 09:27:17 PM
They could also pull a Quebec and build an orphaned bypass of Ellicottville next before anything else, on the pretense of that being the most useful segment. But they won't do that.

Is there some particular reason the rest of 219 down to Salamanca needs to be full freeway or would an expressway ("West Virginia Freeway") design suffice? Would be cheaper both due to not needing as many overpasses and interchanges, and due to the potential of using the existing alignment as half the road in some places.

Along most of US 219, a new alignment is necessary due to grades, curves, and development. The only portion they could even think of using is a small stretch between Ellicottville and Great Valley. New York never really liked anything that wasn't full control of access. Even the expressway sections of NY 17 (I think 5) were limited to developed areas and where terrain made construction of a new alignment impractical, with one of those (Corning) designed to be a temporary measure that was bypassed pretty quickly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on December 07, 2015, 09:46:20 AM

Is there some particular reason the rest of 219 down to Salamanca needs to be full freeway or would an expressway ("West Virginia Freeway") design suffice? Would be cheaper both due to not needing as many overpasses and interchanges, and due to the potential of using the existing alignment as half the road in some places.

Pennsylvania will likely choose the WV Freeway option at best.  It will simply cost too much to build a full freeway south of Bradford.  The road should be designed to serve the communities along it; long-distance travel is well-served by I-390/US 15.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 07, 2015, 10:10:02 AM

Is there some particular reason the rest of 219 down to Salamanca needs to be full freeway or would an expressway ("West Virginia Freeway") design suffice? Would be cheaper both due to not needing as many overpasses and interchanges, and due to the potential of using the existing alignment as half the road in some places.

Pennsylvania will likely choose the WV Freeway option at best.  It will simply cost too much to build a full freeway south of Bradford.  The road should be designed to serve the communities along it; long-distance travel is well-served by I-390/US 15.

Except US 219 gets a heck of a lot of truck traffic that uses it between SW Pennsylvania and Buffalo, a lot of which is avoiding the tolls. Every small town will have to be bypassed unless they want to take out every house in the town. Most of it would need a bypass anyway to preserve access to the numerous homes built right on the road. That and the grades/curves in PA, even without the section that has the truck bypass, would need some major upgrades.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 07, 2015, 12:55:46 PM
On the note of I-81 being designated a high priority corridor, what is the latest on the viaduct in Syracuse? Any options seemingly favored?
I'm not aware of anything beyond the fact that the viaduct and boulevard alternatives are still being evaluated, along with an unspecified tunnel option that is not any of the alternatives investigated before nor the DestiNY USA proposal (which omitted the I-690 interchange).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on December 07, 2015, 03:54:26 PM

Is there some particular reason the rest of 219 down to Salamanca needs to be full freeway or would an expressway ("West Virginia Freeway") design suffice? Would be cheaper both due to not needing as many overpasses and interchanges, and due to the potential of using the existing alignment as half the road in some places.

Pennsylvania will likely choose the WV Freeway option at best.  It will simply cost too much to build a full freeway south of Bradford.  The road should be designed to serve the communities along it; long-distance travel is well-served by I-390/US 15.

Except US 219 gets a heck of a lot of truck traffic that uses it between SW Pennsylvania and Buffalo, a lot of which is avoiding the tolls. Every small town will have to be bypassed unless they want to take out every house in the town. Most of it would need a bypass anyway to preserve access to the numerous homes built right on the road. That and the grades/curves in PA, even without the section that has the truck bypass, would need some major upgrades.
I find it easy to get US 219 freeway from Ebensburg up until PA 36. North of there, it's pretty tricky due to how curvy the road is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on December 08, 2015, 08:06:50 AM
They could also pull a Quebec and build an orphaned bypass of Ellicottville next before anything else, on the pretense of that being the most useful segment. But they won't do that.

Is there some particular reason the rest of 219 down to Salamanca needs to be full freeway or would an expressway ("West Virginia Freeway") design suffice? Would be cheaper both due to not needing as many overpasses and interchanges, and due to the potential of using the existing alignment as half the road in some places.

On the note of I-81 being designated a high priority corridor, what is the latest on the viaduct in Syracuse? Any options seemingly favored?

West Virginia WHAT??? Never saw that term before.

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on December 08, 2015, 08:09:41 AM
He probably made it up on the spot.  Likely referring to how West Virginia signs some of their expressway-grade facilities as "freeways"...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 08, 2015, 06:15:34 PM
He probably made it up on the spot.  Likely referring to how West Virginia signs some of their expressway-grade facilities as "freeways"...

Have you ever noticed most NY freeways are known as "Expressways?" Probably because that's what they actually are.

Okay that's a rhetorical question.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 08, 2015, 07:16:13 PM

He probably made it up on the spot.  Likely referring to how West Virginia signs some of their expressway-grade facilities as "freeways"...

Have you ever noticed most NY freeways are known as "Expressways?" Probably because that's what they actually are.

I thought it was irony.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on December 08, 2015, 07:45:39 PM
Have you ever noticed most NY freeways are known as "Expressways?" Probably because that's what they actually are.

Almost all expressways in the New York area are full freeways, and many of them are interstates.  In this area, we use "highway" for what FHWA calls a freeway.  A highway is considered an expressway if all vehicles (including trucks) are allowed or a parkway if only cars are allowed.  The terminology dates back to before the interstate system existed, so I'd guess that it probably also goes back to before functional classification.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 09, 2015, 03:15:52 PM
The next project (formerly in the STIP, the only one that ever was), which probably would have been done by now had NYSDOT not switched into preservation mode a few years ago, would have extended the freeway south to Snake Run Rd.

No, it would not have been done by now.

A long time ago in NYSDOT years (8 or so), the US 219 projects were sort of lumped into the same special group as the NY 17/I-86 conversion projects.  Even before the I-86 project list was narrowed, the US 219 projects were the first from the hybrid group to be whittled away from getting any additional funding from NYSDOT's Main Office (i.e., on top of regional allocations).

I'll put it this way:  I'd consider the NY 17/I-86 conversion "tabled," whereas I saw people simply run away from US 219 like the plague. 

I did see some poor guy bring up US 219 and was immediately and practically shouted down a few years ago.  Haven't heard a thing about it ever since.

(personal opinion expressed).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on December 09, 2015, 05:14:13 PM
So there is now a FYA on E 8th St at the intersection with Broadway in Manhattan. The put a dedicated right turn lane in and the FYA signs on the right side (the overhead signal is still a standard green). First time I've seen a FYA in Manhattan proper. Are they anywhere else?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 09, 2015, 05:23:12 PM
The next project (formerly in the STIP, the only one that ever was), which probably would have been done by now had NYSDOT not switched into preservation mode a few years ago, would have extended the freeway south to Snake Run Rd.

No, it would not have been done by now.

A long time ago in NYSDOT years (8 or so), the US 219 projects were sort of lumped into the same special group as the NY 17/I-86 conversion projects.  Even before the I-86 project list was narrowed, the US 219 projects were the first from the hybrid group to be whittled away from getting any additional funding from NYSDOT's Main Office (i.e., on top of regional allocations).

I'll put it this way:  I'd consider the NY 17/I-86 conversion "tabled," whereas I saw people simply run away from US 219 like the plague. 

I did see some poor guy bring up US 219 and was immediately and practically shouted down a few years ago.  Haven't heard a thing about it ever since.

(personal opinion expressed).
Well, the last time I saw it on the public site, it was listen with a planned completion date that would now be in the past.  Of course, that was ages ago, only a year or two after the extension to Peters Rd opened at the most.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 09, 2015, 05:54:33 PM
The next project (formerly in the STIP, the only one that ever was), which probably would have been done by now had NYSDOT not switched into preservation mode a few years ago, would have extended the freeway south to Snake Run Rd.

No, it would not have been done by now.

A long time ago in NYSDOT years (8 or so), the US 219 projects were sort of lumped into the same special group as the NY 17/I-86 conversion projects.  Even before the I-86 project list was narrowed, the US 219 projects were the first from the hybrid group to be whittled away from getting any additional funding from NYSDOT's Main Office (i.e., on top of regional allocations).

I'll put it this way:  I'd consider the NY 17/I-86 conversion "tabled," whereas I saw people simply run away from US 219 like the plague. 

I did see some poor guy bring up US 219 and was immediately and practically shouted down a few years ago.  Haven't heard a thing about it ever since.

(personal opinion expressed).
Well, the last time I saw it on the public site, it was listen with a planned completion date that would now be in the past.  Of course, that was ages ago, only a year or two after the extension to Peters Rd opened at the most.

While we still see the occasional thing about NY 17 improvements, especially west of I-84, US 219 is something I've heard nothing about in a few years. I'm pretty sure all of that was cut not too long after the most recent extension was started. Do I expect most (if not all) of the remaining parts of NY 17 to be upgraded to Interstate standards within the next 20-30 years? Yes. US 219 extension? Not a chance, especially if PA hasn't finished their section.

On a scale of how likely something is to be constructed, I'd put the full US 219 expressway below a direct connection between the Northway and the Thruway, an extension of either Sunrise Highway or the LIE, and even a Long Island Sound crossing. It is that dead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 09, 2015, 06:26:58 PM
The next project (formerly in the STIP, the only one that ever was), which probably would have been done by now had NYSDOT not switched into preservation mode a few years ago, would have extended the freeway south to Snake Run Rd.

No, it would not have been done by now.

A long time ago in NYSDOT years (8 or so), the US 219 projects were sort of lumped into the same special group as the NY 17/I-86 conversion projects.  Even before the I-86 project list was narrowed, the US 219 projects were the first from the hybrid group to be whittled away from getting any additional funding from NYSDOT's Main Office (i.e., on top of regional allocations).

I'll put it this way:  I'd consider the NY 17/I-86 conversion "tabled," whereas I saw people simply run away from US 219 like the plague. 

I did see some poor guy bring up US 219 and was immediately and practically shouted down a few years ago.  Haven't heard a thing about it ever since.

(personal opinion expressed).
and even a Long Island Sound crossing. It is that dead.

Wow that's not good for that road!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 09, 2015, 07:34:59 PM

So there is now a FYA on E 8th St at the intersection with Broadway in Manhattan. The put a dedicated right turn lane in and the FYA signs on the right side (the overhead signal is still a standard green). First time I've seen a FYA in Manhattan proper. Are they anywhere else?

Yeah, there's a bunch of them (check also the FYA thread for other examples). I just saw another one today (or was it yesterday?)–at 42nd Street and Eighth, if I'm not mistaken.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on December 09, 2015, 09:02:35 PM
He probably made it up on the spot.  Likely referring to how West Virginia signs some of their expressway-grade facilities as "freeways"...

That is in fact what it refers to, although I can take no credit for coining the term. I think I picked it up from Alps.

US 219 gets a heck of a lot of truck traffic that uses it between SW Pennsylvania and Buffalo, a lot of which is avoiding the tolls.

If that's the problem, removing tolls from the Ripley-Lackawanna section of the Thruway is probably a considerably cheaper solution than building 30 miles of new freeway in NY alone (plus much more in PA) to accommodate the shunpiking trucks.

Or add truck tolls to the Southern Expressway, but AASHTO might cry foul.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 12, 2015, 02:19:10 PM
New ground-mounted signs were being put up yesterday in both directions on I-81 between exits 11-13.  I have a couple pictures I managed to snap.  On the new sign for exit 12, there are three destinations listed.  I'm not sure I've ever seen that before.  Does anybody have some other examples?

http://i.imgur.com/Cr7wWDh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UyPWrLV.jpg
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 12, 2015, 04:44:26 PM
New ground-mounted signs were being put up yesterday in both directions on I-81 between exits 11-13.  I have a couple pictures I managed to snap.  On the new sign for exit 12, there are three destinations listed.  I'm not sure I've ever seen that before.  Does anybody have some other examples?

http://i.imgur.com/Cr7wWDh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UyPWrLV.jpg

I've seen it in a few places. It's uncommon, but Exit 12 warrants it. Exit is in Homer and it is the main exit for Cortland and Ithaca. Better than having Ithaca on a standalone sign like NYSTA does.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 12, 2015, 05:47:20 PM
New ground-mounted signs were being put up yesterday in both directions on I-81 between exits 11-13.  I have a couple pictures I managed to snap.  On the new sign for exit 12, there are three destinations listed.  I'm not sure I've ever seen that before.  Does anybody have some other examples?

http://i.imgur.com/Cr7wWDh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UyPWrLV.jpg

Region 3 is going all out with excellent panel designs along I-81, including the new 2 mile advance panels. I see NY 481 is getting the same type of signs in an upcoming project.

There's a three destination sign on NY 12 north of Utica - NY 365 Rome, Barneveld, Prospect. Rome replaced NY 287 on the original panels when that route designation was deleted, and the addition of Rome carried over to the current panels, which were installed in the late 1990s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 12, 2015, 05:51:40 PM
I agree these new panels are great.  So are the ones Region 9 is putting in, for the most part.  My only gripe with these (not so much on the ones pictured but some of the others) is questionable placement of the exit tab.  In fact, for exit 13 southbound it was positioned just a couple inches from the left.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 12, 2015, 09:34:45 PM
Three destinations is very New Jersey like. NJDOT is famous for this practice especially on I-295 in Southern NJ. The MUTCD discourages but does not prohibit this practice.

Sec. 2E.10.01 reads in part: No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide sign or Exit Direction sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 15, 2015, 05:09:57 PM
BGS on the Taconic Parkway for "Donald J Trump State Park." Didn't even know this existed.

(http://i.imgur.com/YFcCpIN.jpg)

I think I'm going to make a "Buffaboy State Park" near Utica.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 15, 2015, 05:16:43 PM
BGS on the Taconic Parkway for "Donald J Trump State Park." Didn't even know this existed.

(http://i.imgur.com/YFcCpIN.jpg)

I think I'm going to make a "Buffaboy State Park" near Utica.

He bought the land to make it into a golf course, but Yorktown wouldn't give him the permits due to wetland impacts. The park has been closed for 5 years due to lack of funding. While it was open, the signs not on the Taconic were frequently stolen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 27, 2015, 09:55:09 PM
Is there a map of where all of these "emergency detour" routes go to?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 27, 2015, 10:07:44 PM
Is there a map of where all of these "emergency detour" routes go to?

Good question. Last week, I saw an "emergency detour E" along WB NY 33 between NY 78 and I-90. Being as the signs are quite new, I'm assuming they're for toll booth construction/congestion in Williamsville. Hopefully, the interim measure before AET conversion (20 mph lanes for EB and an extra WB lane) will reduce some of the backups. I'm assuming there's a C and D, likely for EB I-90 via NY 33 and NY 77 and I-290 to I-90 EB via NY 5 and NY 78.

Region 5 Detours A and B are for I-190 via I-290 and US 62.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 28, 2015, 01:48:37 AM
Is there a map of where all of these "emergency detour" routes go to?

Good question. Last week, I saw an "emergency detour E" along WB NY 33 between NY 78 and I-90. Being as the signs are quite new, I'm assuming they're for toll booth construction/congestion in Williamsville. Hopefully, the interim measure before AET conversion (20 mph lanes for EB and an extra WB lane) will reduce some of the backups. I'm assuming there's a C and D, likely for EB I-90 via NY 33 and NY 77 and I-290 to I-90 EB via NY 5 and NY 78.

Region 5 Detours A and B are for I-190 via I-290 and US 62.

C is off of Exit 57 in Hamburg, and leads to US 20.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 28, 2015, 08:26:15 AM
Is there a map of where all of these "emergency detour" routes go to?

Good question. Last week, I saw an "emergency detour E" along WB NY 33 between NY 78 and I-90. Being as the signs are quite new, I'm assuming they're for toll booth construction/congestion in Williamsville. Hopefully, the interim measure before AET conversion (20 mph lanes for EB and an extra WB lane) will reduce some of the backups. I'm assuming there's a C and D, likely for EB I-90 via NY 33 and NY 77 and I-290 to I-90 EB via NY 5 and NY 78.

Region 5 Detours A and B are for I-190 via I-290 and US 62.

C is off of Exit 57 in Hamburg, and leads to US 20.

Which means D is likely the reverse of that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on December 28, 2015, 10:43:29 AM
Another C leaves the Thruway westbound at I-481. G and H run along NY 96 between NY 14 and NY 332.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 28, 2015, 12:02:20 PM
Is there a map of where all of these "emergency detour" routes go to?

B is eastbound along NY 365 and NY 49, A is the reverse. Interestingly, D and E are used by NYSDOT for the detours around the Utica Arterial project.

So in typical Thruway fashion the detours "increment" backwards, east to west instead of west to east. I'm completely not surprised by this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 28, 2015, 01:02:03 PM
Anyone notice that the letters for "emergency detour" in the sign are reflective but the letters for the detour letter are not?  The actual letters for the detours seem to be as nonreflective as the lettering in the newer guide signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 28, 2015, 01:05:18 PM
Anyone notice that the letters for "emergency detour" in the sign are reflective but the letters for the detour letter are not?  The actual letters for the detours seem to be as nonreflective as the lettering in the newer guide signs.

No, but I did notice that the ones for Detour E in Cheektowaga and Amherst are in Clearview
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 28, 2015, 04:11:46 PM
Anyone notice that the letters for "emergency detour" in the sign are reflective but the letters for the detour letter are not?  The actual letters for the detours seem to be as nonreflective as the lettering in the newer guide signs.

No, but I did notice that the ones for Detour E in Cheektowaga and Amherst are in Clearview
Anyone notice that the letters for "emergency detour" in the sign are reflective but the letters for the detour letter are not?  The actual letters for the detours seem to be as nonreflective as the lettering in the newer guide signs.

I mentioned this to the Thruway Authority a month or two ago and they said these signs were manufactured wrong. There wasn't suppose to be Clearview and the wrong reflective lettering was used. These signs will stay but future signs should look better.

"EMERGENCY DETOUR" should be in C and the letter designation should be in Series D.  According to the Thruway, only the first batch of signs erroneously used Clearview, but every sign I've seen is in Clearview.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 29, 2015, 04:41:31 PM
NY 33 EB has had 2 lanes closed all day between NY 240 and I-90 for emergency bridge work. Concrete surrounding a bridge joint had to be replaced. Would have been done last night, but Buffalo got its first winter storm of the year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 30, 2015, 02:07:19 PM
Looks like there are some new signs going up in the Utica area before the end of the year. I'll have to go on a scouting trip after work.

I mentioned to NYSDOT Region 2 that their method of signing SUNY POLY ran contrary to the MUTCD back in August. I don't know if the original work was temporary or not, but these signs do a much better job of relaying information at freeway speeds.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/public/sunypoly.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 30, 2015, 02:27:46 PM
I saw those being states from the Oneida County Welcome Center (just off the exit 31 toll booths) last week when attempting to order takeout from Karams (alas, they didn't even pick up the phone and I wound up turning around right back onto the Thruway).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 30, 2015, 02:35:40 PM
I'm curious if the same contract is greening out all the overhead signs that say SUNY Inst of Tech.

Update: I did a drive around to see what signs had gone up.  There are a couple of new signs on NY 8 and NY 12 SB north of Utica.  One is north of the Horatio Street ramp but I didn't drive far enough up to see what it said. Another is on the C/D road which is also marked Horatio St. There's now an exit sign for "Seymour Rd" at the beginning of the ramp.  I have a hunch that the current "Horatio St / SUNY Inst of Tech" interchange is going to be redesigned as "Horatio St / Seymour Rd", but I don't know if it will be with this contract or sometime in the spring. A couple of the overhead gantries from the 1988 MUD project are marked with red tape and don't have identification information on them, which tells me that they are slated for replacement (or removal) in the fairly near future.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 31, 2015, 03:14:34 PM
Looks like there are some new signs going up in the Utica area before the end of the year. I'll have to go on a scouting trip after work.

I mentioned to NYSDOT Region 2 that their method of signing SUNY POLY ran contrary to the MUTCD back in August. I don't know if the original work was temporary or not, but these signs do a much better job of relaying information at freeway speeds.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/public/sunypoly.jpg)

I like how they actually used the full name.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on December 31, 2015, 07:32:57 PM
SUNY... sounds like a Bobby Hebb song title.

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 04, 2016, 04:19:20 PM
This is probably a stupid question, but why aren't routes in NY called SH 324 or SH 400 like in other states?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 04, 2016, 05:01:16 PM
This is probably a stupid question, but why aren't routes in NY called SH 324 or SH 400 like in other states?

Because the abbreviation for "New York" isn't "SH".  :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on January 04, 2016, 05:04:23 PM
Assuming that SH = State Highway, which other states are you referring to?  And are you referring to them using SH in an official capacity, or local verbage?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on January 04, 2016, 05:38:36 PM
This is probably a stupid question, but why aren't routes in NY called SH 324 or SH 400 like in other states?

It is very rare for someone to use "Highway" (at least in Central or Western New York, based on my experience) in lieu of "Route".  I've never heard someone refer to "Highway 104B" or "Highway 17" but I've heard lots of "Route 104B" and "Route 17".

Back in the all-text days, NYSDOT used N Y (without periods). On the rare occasion today they use NY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on January 04, 2016, 06:02:09 PM
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road.  This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers.  While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 04, 2016, 07:35:40 PM
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road.  This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers.  While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.

That's interesting...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 04, 2016, 09:57:07 PM
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road.  This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers.  While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.

Correct. SH numbers are written in law as designations, but are rarely used in any common fashion. A few contract documents have them.

On a different topic, Buffalo has an Emergency Detour F as well. EB NY 33 from I-90 to a point east of NY 78. I'll do some scouting because I'm moving out to Albany tomorrow morning.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on January 04, 2016, 10:08:32 PM
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road.  This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers.  While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.

But even the interstates written into law are "interstate routes", like "interstate route 505" is generally I-81, except the portion written into law where Interstate Route 505 goes from Watertown to Plattsburgh via Massena and Malone.

Even in the law they're not written as "Interstate Highway".

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/highway/hay0340-a_340-a.html (http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/highway/hay0340-a_340-a.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 04, 2016, 11:04:31 PM
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road.  This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers.  While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.

But even the interstates written into law are "interstate routes", like "interstate route 505" is generally I-81, except the portion written into law where Interstate Route 505 goes from Watertown to Plattsburgh via Massena and Malone.

Even in the law they're not written as "Interstate Highway".

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/highway/hay0340-a_340-a.html (http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/highway/hay0340-a_340-a.html)

Be it those numbers are for their FAI numbers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on January 05, 2016, 09:33:49 AM
Correct. SH numbers are written in law as designations, but are rarely used in any common fashion. A few contract documents have them.

Wait, the numbers are written into the law?  I don't see them here: http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/highway/hay0341_341.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on January 05, 2016, 12:41:40 PM
D263107 - a project for bridge rehab - has potentially an upgrade of NY 9N to US 9N as evidenced by the plans on page 17:

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263107

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 05, 2016, 03:19:35 PM
D263107 - a project for bridge rehab - has potentially an upgrade of NY 9N to US 9N as evidenced by the plans on page 17:

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263107



Yeesh.  Probably just a mix-up as usual.

...

Oh.  Part of the Critical Bridges over Troubled Water initiative to boot.   Funded by HUD/FEMA...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 05, 2016, 04:04:20 PM
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road.  This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers.  While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.

That's interesting...

That's the real and more helpful answer. ;-)

You can find the SH numbers on NYSDOT quadrangles (such as I have available here (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html)).

Correct. SH numbers are written in law as designations, but are rarely used in any common fashion. A few contract documents have them.

Wait, the numbers are written into the law?  I don't see them here: http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/highway/hay0341_341.html

Well, they're in there, but as references to themselves as recorded by the DOT. I feel as thought there may be an older source, from the 1920s, perhaps, that records the original SH designtions. I'm pretty sure I've seen it but I don't remember where; it may come up in a Google Books search.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 05, 2016, 05:19:17 PM
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road.  This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers.  While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.

That's interesting...

That's the real and more helpful answer. ;-)

You can find the SH numbers on NYSDOT quadrangles (such as I have available here (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html)).

Correct. SH numbers are written in law as designations, but are rarely used in any common fashion. A few contract documents have them.

Wait, the numbers are written into the law?  I don't see them here: http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/highway/hay0341_341.html

Well, they're in there, but as references to themselves as recorded by the DOT. I feel as thought there may be an older source, from the 1920s, perhaps, that records the original SH designtions. I'm pretty sure I've seen it but I don't remember where; it may come up in a Google Books search.

Wherever they are, the SH numbers are quite archaic. I've seen that SH numbers are in the State Highway Law, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 05, 2016, 06:10:18 PM
They're pretty much only used in legal affairs, such as transferring a road to a municipality.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on January 06, 2016, 08:35:54 AM
D263107 - a project for bridge rehab - has potentially an upgrade of NY 9N to US 9N as evidenced by the plans on page 17:

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263107



Yeesh.  Probably just a mix-up as usual.

...

Oh.  Part of the Critical Bridges over Troubled Water initiative to boot.   Funded by HUD/FEMA...

Good to know - thank you.  :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on January 06, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
D263107 - a project for bridge rehab - has potentially an upgrade of NY 9N to US 9N as evidenced by the plans on page 17:

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263107

Are you sure that's not just a goof, especially since the signs shown are detour signs that are presumably temporary?  It seems very unlike New York to add a new US route entirely within the state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on January 06, 2016, 10:24:19 AM
Yeah, it probably is a goof since the following pages contains NY 9N shield assemblies. I just jumped the gun and posted it when I saw US 9N shields.  My apologies.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 06, 2016, 09:04:13 PM
Anybody know when the speed bumps in front of Joe Bruno's house were taken out? I drove through there today and they were gone.

For the uninitiated, I'm talking about this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7647913,-73.5394629,3a,75y,42.05h,60.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szCAuQkY6I5hkeSwgCiz2GQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664) and the one at the other side of his property.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on January 06, 2016, 09:26:01 PM
I thought for sure I'd have more new signs from I-790 and NY 49 in the Utica to post today, crews were taking down an overhead sign for the Marcy-SUNY Parkway interchange when I went to lunch this afternoon. It was hanging from the crane on the shoulder. On my way home, they had put it back up with absolutely no changes to the panel.  I have no idea what they were doing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 06, 2016, 10:07:23 PM
Quote
ALBANY – Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday he wants to put $22 billion toward upstate’s aging roads and bridges while spending another $1 billion to freeze tolls on the state Thruway.

Cuomo laid out part of his transportation plan at an event Wednesday in Liverpool, Onondaga County, the latest stop in a statewide tour this week that has seen him slowly roll out his agenda for 2016 ahead of his State of the State address and budget proposal Jan. 13.

The Democratic governor offered few specifics on his infrastructure spending push, but said the $22 billion would be spread out over five years. He also proposed spending $30 million on upstate New York’s public-transportation systems.


http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/06/cuomo-proposes-thruway-toll-freeze-22b-for-roads/78357802/

What would the money go to? Finishing I-86? Making I-90 4+ lanes from barrier to barrier in Buffalo? Finishing the Utica arterial?

Or is this just rhetoric? From what I understand most bridges cost under $50M to replace/repair.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 06, 2016, 10:37:17 PM
Quote
ALBANY — Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday he wants to put $22 billion toward upstate’s aging roads and bridges while spending another $1 billion to freeze tolls on the state Thruway.

Cuomo laid out part of his transportation plan at an event Wednesday in Liverpool, Onondaga County, the latest stop in a statewide tour this week that has seen him slowly roll out his agenda for 2016 ahead of his State of the State address and budget proposal Jan. 13.

The Democratic governor offered few specifics on his infrastructure spending push, but said the $22 billion would be spread out over five years. He also proposed spending $30 million on upstate New York’s public-transportation systems.


http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/06/cuomo-proposes-thruway-toll-freeze-22b-for-roads/78357802/

What would the money go to? Finishing I-86? Making I-90 4+ lanes from barrier to barrier in Buffalo? Finishing the Utica arterial?

Or is this just rhetoric? From what I understand most bridges cost under $50M to replace/repair.

Bridges and repaving are what has been announced. 200+ bridges and 1300 miles. Rest will be announced at the State of the State a week from today.

What stuck out most wasn't a highway project. They're putting funds toward triple-tracking the LIRR main line and expanding Penn Station with additional tunnels. Not only will that do a lot for the City and Long Island, but it will likely have a positive effect on traffic as more trains would be able to run.

As to where the money would go, good flipping question. I have a few educated guesses:

-If Region 1 and CDTC would get with the picture, some would undoubtedly go to widening the Northway south of Clifton Park, but that's not going to happen until pigs fly.
-I-81 rebuild/replacement in Syracuse. Again, an obvious one, but this one actually may happen.
-Possible US 9 improvements near NY 149 and NY 149 improvements
-NY 78 improvements near Buffalo
-NY 198 rebuild
-Statewide signal upgrades for coordination, FYAs, etc. Wouldn't shock me because the state is trending toward eliminating traditional span-wire signals and using double span wires or (increasingly) mast arms.
-Unlikely, but statewide exit renumbering. Cost is the excuse and this will provide the money not covered by the feds.
-Assorted interchange rebuilds. I wouldn't be shocked to see a lot more SPUIs and/or DDIs being constructed over the next few years.
-Sign replacements for reflectivity. As in bye-bye button copy and first-generation retroreflective signage. A lot of signage has been replaced recently (I'm looking at you, Regions 1 and 5), but there is still some bad stuff out there (I'm still trying to figure out how Region 1 hasn't replaced a very faded brown sign at I-87 Exit 13).

A good chunk of the Upstate public transit funding is likely going to the planned Albany BRT expansion and Buffalo Light Rail, with some to Syracuse for their BRT/light rail study.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 06, 2016, 11:24:04 PM
Quote
offering a tax credit worth 50 percent of tolls for passenger vehicles with E-Z Pass that rack up more than $50 in tolls annually

Of course they have to make this complicated by forcing people to account for it in their taxes. Because simply giving a larger discount for EZpass transactions wouldn't work.

What I find interesting about this idea though is that it is in a way a whole new level of transponder discrimination. In order to get the higher discount on Thruway tolls, you need to be a New York State taxpayer. No one from out of state will be able to take advantage even if they get a NY tag.

The $50 threshold is not that difficult to meet if you use the Tappan Zee Bridge, 11 eastbound crossings in a year will get you there. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that if this gets implemented Tappan Zee tolls will be explicitly excluded, for exactly that reason.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 06, 2016, 11:54:20 PM
Quote
offering a tax credit worth 50 percent of tolls for passenger vehicles with E-Z Pass that rack up more than $50 in tolls annually

Though I have a sneaking suspicion that if this gets implemented Tappan Zee tolls will be explicitly excluded, for exactly that reason.

Shh! There may be some NYSTA people browsing this, don't give them ideas!
 
Also, those are interesting ideas above. I wish some money could go to hastening the implementation of AET.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 07, 2016, 01:21:28 AM

Bridges and repaving are what has been announced. 200+ bridges and 1300 miles. Rest will be announced at the State of the State a week from today.

What stuck out most wasn't a highway project. They're putting funds toward triple-tracking the LIRR main line and expanding Penn Station with additional tunnels. Not only will that do a lot for the City and Long Island, but it will likely have a positive effect on traffic as more trains would be able to run.

As to where the money would go, good flipping question. I have a few educated guesses:

-If Region 1 and CDTC would get with the picture, some would undoubtedly go to widening the Northway south of Clifton Park, but that's not going to happen until pigs fly.
-I-81 rebuild/replacement in Syracuse. Again, an obvious one, but this one actually may happen.
-Possible US 9 improvements near NY 149 and NY 149 improvements
-NY 78 improvements near Buffalo
-NY 198 rebuild
-Statewide signal upgrades for coordination, FYAs, etc. Wouldn't shock me because the state is trending toward eliminating traditional span-wire signals and using double span wires or (increasingly) mast arms.
-Unlikely, but statewide exit renumbering. Cost is the excuse and this will provide the money not covered by the feds.
-Assorted interchange rebuilds. I wouldn't be shocked to see a lot more SPUIs and/or DDIs being constructed over the next few years.
-Sign replacements for reflectivity. As in bye-bye button copy and first-generation retroreflective signage. A lot of signage has been replaced recently (I'm looking at you, Regions 1 and 5), but there is still some bad stuff out there (I'm still trying to figure out how Region 1 hasn't replaced a very faded brown sign at I-87 Exit 13).

A good chunk of the Upstate public transit funding is likely going to the planned Albany BRT expansion and Buffalo Light Rail, with some to Syracuse for their BRT/light rail study.

For those of us not with the ins, what's NY 149 and NY 78 need improvement in? (NY 78, aside of the Depew disaster with the Erie / NYC / LVRR bridges).

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 07, 2016, 08:16:05 AM
NY 149 needs upgrades near US 9. LOS F is common during the summer.

NY 78 needs work in Depew in addition to upgrades between I-90 and NY 263.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 07, 2016, 09:05:28 AM
I preface my comments to emphasize that they are my own opinion.

It is my belief that the Governor has made these announcements prior to informing the executive agencies of the specifics of his proposals.  As of right now, no major additions have been made to NYSDOT's capital program and actually, the program has been considered "frozen" since the program update in November.

Of course, "frozen" at NYSDOT is more on paper than in reality -- the program's constantly in flux -- but the current hold on the program as NYSDOT works through its program update means that NYSDOT will be waiting for word from above before doing anything.

That all said, my feel for the current expectations is that the announcements are really just going to boil down to not much "extra" money, but the Governor making room in the program for a dozen or so truly major projects -- yet to be enunciated clearly.

So, if my opinion turns out to become reality, the real question is what will move out and if the new projects coming in will have greater benefits than those that had to make room for them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 07, 2016, 01:33:31 PM
I would not at all be surprised if this was actually the TOTAL amount of money that will be spent over the next five years, NOT an additional amount over the regular budget.  He did just announce $7 billion for upstate transportation a couple days ago, after all.  This could be the normal amount for the agency budgets with the $7 billion added in.

What I find interesting about this idea though is that it is in a way a whole new level of transponder discrimination. In order to get the higher discount on Thruway tolls, you need to be a New York State taxpayer. No one from out of state will be able to take advantage even if they get a NY tag.
I don't think he mentioned E-ZPass, which would have the effect of incentivising cash usage if someone's usual annual toll amount is near $50.  It also has the effect of possibly having some people forgetting to do this or deciding it's not worth the effort, giving the state money (like how companies profit off of rebates).  Also, the reason he's doing this is to promote business in upstate NY... it's kinda a way of saying "you've gotta move your operations to NY to take advantage of this discount".

-Sign replacements for reflectivity. As in bye-bye button copy and first-generation retroreflective signage. A lot of signage has been replaced recently (I'm looking at you, Regions 1 and 5), but there is still some bad stuff out there (I'm still trying to figure out how Region 1 hasn't replaced a very faded brown sign at I-87 Exit 13).
Region 1 hasn't actually been doing much guide sign replacements as of late.  The newer style exit tabs are VERY rare here - I'm actually not sure if we have ANY of the rounded corner style that became common in other regions around 2010, and only a few of our signs use the modern style adopted in the past couple years (I can think of three and only three).  Almost all of our signs are late 90s/00s style.

We did a couple of mile marker/gore sign replacements last year, though we don't usually do dedicated sign replacement projects.  The City of Albany replaced some of their signs for state highways over the last few years, which decimated the state named interstate shields in the area.

The button copy signs near Latham Circle are still holding on.

Region 4, on the other hand, replaces a few overhead signs every year.  I imagine a contract for this year will appear online at some point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 07, 2016, 11:32:02 PM
I don't think he mentioned E-ZPass

The WGRZ article linked above did.


As for all of these ideas, it's important to realize that in politics, seemingly radical proposals, good or bad, never get implemented as originally proposed. The governor is proposing a bunch of big things as a starting point for haggling, the eventual end result will be a scaled back version where some things happen as planned, some things happen differently or in a less grandiose manner, and some things simply don't happen.

Given how Albany has committed to giving the MTA a bunch of money, though, typical NY politics dictate that an equal sum of money be given to various items upstate.

DOT really needs the money although it is short sighted to be putting so much focus on building new things when funding levels as they stand are insufficient to prevent what we already have from falling apart.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 08, 2016, 12:14:25 AM
I don't think he mentioned E-ZPass

The WGRZ article linked above did.


As for all of these ideas, it's important to realize that in politics, seemingly radical proposals, good or bad, never get implemented as originally proposed. The governor is proposing a bunch of big things as a starting point for haggling, the eventual end result will be a scaled back version where some things happen as planned, some things happen differently or in a less grandiose manner, and some things simply don't happen.

Given how Albany has committed to giving the MTA a bunch of money, though, typical NY politics dictate that an equal sum of money be given to various items upstate.

DOT really needs the money although it is short sighted to be putting so much focus on building new things when funding levels as they stand are insufficient to prevent what we already have from falling apart.

Given the language of the announcement, I think the money will go more towards keeping stuff from falling apart and operational improvements. As far as new stuff is concerned, no new "highway" is required that would not be considered an "upgrade".

Region 1 hasn't actually been doing much guide sign replacements as of late.  The newer style exit tabs are VERY rare here - I'm actually not sure if we have ANY of the rounded corner style that became common in other regions around 2010, and only a few of our signs use the modern style adopted in the past couple years (I can think of three and only three).  Almost all of our signs are late 90s/00s style.

I wasn't necessarily referring to guide signage, but the example is a particularly bad sign that is becoming difficult to read during the day. In quite a few places, shields have been replaced more than once since the early 2000s. How do I know that? Because a bunch of Interstate shields that were once state name are on their second neutered iteration. Last I checked, there were exactly 3 state name shields left. 787 recently had a bunch of sign replacements. Tabs at I-90 aren't rounded, but those signs were put up this year. I wasn't paying particularly close attention, but some signs at I-87 Exit 2 appear new.

Region 1 also got rid of most button copy pretty early on. Once upon a time, everything at the I-87/I-90 interchange was button copy excluding the backlit sign. The only original (1980s) signs left are in NYSTA territory (and a set was flushed out by the widening). Most of the region's signage was retroreflective by the turn of the century. Just about everything out there is less than 20 years old and in many cases closer to 10 (I-90 had full replacements when it was rebuilt).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 08, 2016, 11:19:00 AM

Given how Albany has committed to giving the MTA a bunch of money, though, typical NY politics dictate that an equal sum of money be given to various items upstate.


Someone hasn't studied the specific, peculiar history of the parity issue between NYSDOT and MTA.  For as long as I've worked at NYSDOT, NYSDOT has raised the parity issue annually -- to no avail.  NYSDOT scurries around getting all sorts of data and fiscal information in the spring and...nothing ever happened parity-wise of any note.

That said, this is the first time in a decade where a bone might actually be thrown NYSDOT's way, but see my earlier post.  It's probably only going to be mostly a reshuffling of the projects currently in the pipeline rather than a windfall for all sorts of new projects to pursue for NYSDOT (LIRR ain't NYSDOT, for one example).

Also, anyone want to start a consulting firm with me?  We can bid for that Long Island Sound crossing study.  I've got four previous studies that were done here; we can just mostly copy those, take our time saying we're working hard, and then walk away with a cool $5m.

(personal opinion expressed)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 25, 2016, 07:30:32 PM
New plans are out today. Region 5 is widening US 62 from the railroad overpass just east of the Niagara Falls airport out to Sy Road to include a full center turn lane. Only a minuscule portion of the dangerous section, but it's a start.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 25, 2016, 08:08:49 PM
New plans are out today. Region 5 is widening US 62 from the railroad overpass just east of the Niagara Falls airport out to Sy Road to include a full center turn lane. Only a minuscule portion of the dangerous section, but it's a start.

I'm not familiar with that area, but it seems to be a worthwhile project.

What will happen under the bridge?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 26, 2016, 08:09:11 PM
It's not worth the money to reconfigure this road. If they put up Jersey barriers with RIROs, won't this solve the problem?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 26, 2016, 08:35:36 PM
New plans are out today. Region 5 is widening US 62 from the railroad overpass just east of the Niagara Falls airport out to Sy Road to include a full center turn lane. Only a minuscule portion of the dangerous section, but it's a start.

I'm not familiar with that area, but it seems to be a worthwhile project.

What will happen under the bridge?

Bridge is already divided. Something similar to what currently happens on the west side.

It's not worth the money to reconfigure this road. If they put up Jersey barriers with RIROs, won't this solve the problem?


I saw the story and I know enough about this area to know that there is enough shunpike traffic to make a passing lane quite welcome. Enough people west of where the right lane ends go below the speed limit. You'll get road rage because people can't pass over a center turn lane. Center turn lanes are discouraged over 45 MPH because of the risk of head-ons, anyway. If anything, put in turn lanes at the intersections and leave it at that. Relatively inexpensive without decreasing capacity.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 27, 2016, 01:08:18 PM
New plans are out today. Region 5 is widening US 62 from the railroad overpass just east of the Niagara Falls airport out to Sy Road to include a full center turn lane. Only a minuscule portion of the dangerous section, but it's a start.

I'm not familiar with that area, but it seems to be a worthwhile project.

What will happen under the bridge?

Bridge is already divided. Something similar to what currently happens on the west side.

It's not worth the money to reconfigure this road. If they put up Jersey barriers with RIROs, won't this solve the problem?


I saw the story and I know enough about this area to know that there is enough shunpike traffic to make a passing lane quite welcome. Enough people west of where the right lane ends go below the speed limit. You'll get road rage because people can't pass over a center turn lane. Center turn lanes are discouraged over 45 MPH because of the risk of head-ons, anyway. If anything, put in turn lanes at the intersections and leave it at that. Relatively inexpensive without decreasing capacity.

Passing lane? Isn't that why it's a 4 lane highway?

Also, I definitely don't think a speed limit decrease should be considered for that stretch of road. Anybody who lives in the Southtowns knows that it's a long haul to get from NY 75 to Lakeview and beyond on US 20.

In addition, cl94, do you have an idea why the lights are supposedly timed to stop traffic frequently on US 20 from NY 75 to NY 240/277? That's according to some who I've spoken to that drive the route daily from Hamburg to Orchard Park/West Seneca. Since I've lived there for almost 2 decades now, I never really noticed it until now, but I do believe it because the lights appear to be spread out further after NY 240/277.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 27, 2016, 01:30:52 PM
New plans are out today. Region 5 is widening US 62 from the railroad overpass just east of the Niagara Falls airport out to Sy Road to include a full center turn lane. Only a minuscule portion of the dangerous section, but it's a start.

I'm not familiar with that area, but it seems to be a worthwhile project.

What will happen under the bridge?

Bridge is already divided. Something similar to what currently happens on the west side.

It's not worth the money to reconfigure this road. If they put up Jersey barriers with RIROs, won't this solve the problem?


I saw the story and I know enough about this area to know that there is enough shunpike traffic to make a passing lane quite welcome. Enough people west of where the right lane ends go below the speed limit. You'll get road rage because people can't pass over a center turn lane. Center turn lanes are discouraged over 45 MPH because of the risk of head-ons, anyway. If anything, put in turn lanes at the intersections and leave it at that. Relatively inexpensive without decreasing capacity.

Passing lane? Isn't that why it's a 4 lane highway?

Also, I definitely don't think a speed limit decrease should be considered for that stretch of road. Anybody who lives in the Southtowns knows that it's a long haul to get from NY 75 to Lakeview and beyond on US 20.

In addition, cl94, do you have an idea why the lights are supposedly timed to stop traffic frequently on US 20 from NY 75 to NY 240/277? That's according to some who I've spoken to that drive the route daily from Hamburg to Orchard Park/West Seneca. Since I've lived there for almost 2 decades now, I never really noticed it until now, but I do believe it because the lights appear to be spread out further after NY 240/277.

They're unsynchronized and actuated. Purely coincidence. Little in the Buffalo area is synchronized. The Elm/Oak corridor and a short stretch of Delaware is all that is active at this point.

The current setup is what I was referring to by "passing lane"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 27, 2016, 03:10:19 PM
^^ I could practically start a thread on "streets that need to be synchronized" because US 20 in the Southtowns, NY 78 and definitely the Elm/Oak corridor (which is already synched) come to mind. Maybe Sheridan and E/W trunk roads like Broadway and Walden as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 02, 2016, 01:46:16 PM
Plan day at NYSDOT. Big one is the much-planned rebuild at the intersection of Walden Avenue (NY 952Q) and CR 57 (Central Avenue) in Lancaster. Plans here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=10586&p_is_digital=Y).

Unusual for R5, SB signals are on span wire AND they're putting in a channelized RT lane. While channelized lanes are often bad, this is a good spot for one due to the heavy turn traffic and relatively-light pedestrian usage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 02, 2016, 03:13:40 PM
As to where the money would go, good flipping question.
Do you know what'd be a good project to use that money for in Region 8? Filling in the damn Bear Mountain Parkway gap!

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 02, 2016, 03:26:34 PM
As to where the money would go, good flipping question.
Do you know what'd be a good project to use that money for in Region 8? Filling in the damn Bear Mountain Parkway gap!

Thank you. They did rebuild some of that area recently, but it isn't enough. The ROW even exists.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 02, 2016, 05:33:57 PM

As to where the money would go, good flipping question.
Do you know what'd be a good project to use that money for in Region 8? Filling in the damn Bear Mountain Parkway gap!

Thank you. They did rebuild some of that area recently, but it isn't enough. The ROW even exists.

Meh, I'd rather they do something about 6 through Lake Mohegan.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on February 02, 2016, 06:40:16 PM
Plan day at NYSDOT. Big one is the much-planned rebuild at the intersection of Walden Avenue (NY 952Q) and CR 57 (Central Avenue) in Lancaster. Plans here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=10586&p_is_digital=Y).

Unusual for R5, SB signals are on span wire AND they're putting in a channelized RT lane. While channelized lanes are often bad, this is a good spot for one due to the heavy turn traffic and relatively-light pedestrian usage.

It would've been nice if this meant 952Q would be decom'd for a touring route. But, nope.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 02, 2016, 07:48:26 PM
Plan day at NYSDOT. Big one is the much-planned rebuild at the intersection of Walden Avenue (NY 952Q) and CR 57 (Central Avenue) in Lancaster. Plans here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=10586&p_is_digital=Y).

Unusual for R5, SB signals are on span wire AND they're putting in a channelized RT lane. While channelized lanes are often bad, this is a good spot for one due to the heavy turn traffic and relatively-light pedestrian usage.

It would've been nice if this meant 952Q would be decom'd for a touring route. But, nope.

If it wasn't for the lack of a good connection and the Tops distribution center, I'd swap the designation with NY 33 east of NY 78 and discourage truck traffic on current NY 33. It's used as a shunpike by less-experienced truckers.

Currently, Central Avenue NB has an advanced green with a leading left, while both directions get a lagging left if it senses a vehicle. SB congestion is miserable during the week as the SB phase is short and people don't know how to accelerate. NB needs 2 lanes because of the nearby high school. Per the plans, everything will be done during the summer. If this was R1 or R4, there would likely be FYAs at the intersection, but that's another story...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 02, 2016, 08:54:44 PM
Plan day at NYSDOT. Big one is the much-planned rebuild at the intersection of Walden Avenue (NY 952Q) and CR 57 (Central Avenue) in Lancaster. Plans here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=10586&p_is_digital=Y).

Unusual for R5, SB signals are on span wire AND they're putting in a channelized RT lane. While channelized lanes are often bad, this is a good spot for one due to the heavy turn traffic and relatively-light pedestrian usage.

It would've been nice if this meant 952Q would be decom'd for a touring route. But, nope.

If it wasn't for the lack of a good connection and the Tops distribution center, I'd swap the designation with NY 33 east of NY 78 and discourage truck traffic on current NY 33. It's used as a shunpike by less-experienced truckers.

Currently, Central Avenue NB has an advanced green with a leading left, while both directions get a lagging left if it senses a vehicle. SB congestion is miserable during the week as the SB phase is short and people don't know how to accelerate. NB needs 2 lanes because of the nearby high school. Per the plans, everything will be done during the summer. If this was R1 or R4, there would likely be FYAs at the intersection, but that's another story...

Yes, east of Transit, NY 33 is a very primitive 2-lane shunpike, especially for truckers. They would be better off going south to Walden.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on February 04, 2016, 03:51:44 PM
Plan day at NYSDOT. Big one is the much-planned rebuild at the intersection of Walden Avenue (NY 952Q) and CR 57 (Central Avenue) in Lancaster. Plans here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=10586&p_is_digital=Y).

Unusual for R5, SB signals are on span wire AND they're putting in a channelized RT lane. While channelized lanes are often bad, this is a good spot for one due to the heavy turn traffic and relatively-light pedestrian usage.

It would've been nice if this meant 952Q would be decom'd for a touring route. But, nope.

If it wasn't for the lack of a good connection and the Tops distribution center, I'd swap the designation with NY 33 east of NY 78 and discourage truck traffic on current NY 33. It's used as a shunpike by less-experienced truckers.

Currently, Central Avenue NB has an advanced green with a leading left, while both directions get a lagging left if it senses a vehicle. SB congestion is miserable during the week as the SB phase is short and people don't know how to accelerate. NB needs 2 lanes because of the nearby high school. Per the plans, everything will be done during the summer. If this was R1 or R4, there would likely be FYAs at the intersection, but that's another story...

I'd still prefer something like 333 or 267 to be assigned to the stretch between the city of Buffalo and the changed 33.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 06, 2016, 08:35:16 PM
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 07, 2016, 03:08:59 PM
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.

Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NYhwyfan on February 07, 2016, 03:17:40 PM
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.

Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9993478,-78.8064717,3a,75y,280.33h,72.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJvcqsfF9SPqVskUHvG40fQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 

I-990 SB to I-290 WB
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 07, 2016, 04:31:57 PM
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.

Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?

Oh no. There's quite a few button copy signs in the Utica area. I-790 has an even mix of button and non-button copy signs. They date back to the reconstruction in 1989.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 07, 2016, 04:50:42 PM
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.

Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?

Oh no. There's quite a few button copy signs in the Utica area. I-790 has an even mix of button and non-button copy signs. They date back to the reconstruction in 1989.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

There's even one or two on the Thruway mainline in Utica.

R1 has a couple on ramps at/around the circle stack, but other than the two aforementioned signs, I know of nothing else. They flushed out almost all of the button copy by 2002 or so. Back around the turn of the century, there was a LOT of button copy here, along with many state name shields. Thruway had a couple more at Exit 24 that were taken out with the widening.

Region 5 has a surprising amount as well. A lot of it was taken out during mass sign replacements over the past 3-4 years, but it has most of NYSTA's remaining button copy signs, including what is almost certainly the oldest in the system.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 07, 2016, 05:50:05 PM
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.

Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?

Oh no. There's quite a few button copy signs in the Utica area. I-790 has an even mix of button and non-button copy signs. They date back to the reconstruction in 1989.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
I never even noticed!! Probably because I don't drive around the area very much, esp. at night.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 07, 2016, 05:53:41 PM
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.

Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?

Oh no. There's quite a few button copy signs in the Utica area. I-790 has an even mix of button and non-button copy signs. They date back to the reconstruction in 1989.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

There's even one or two on the Thruway mainline in Utica.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1193943,-75.2238471,3a,15.1y,118.41h,102.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5udMxkZ1xEsKjtIZenmbPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 07, 2016, 05:59:56 PM
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.

Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?

Oh no. There's quite a few button copy signs in the Utica area. I-790 has an even mix of button and non-button copy signs. They date back to the reconstruction in 1989.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

There's even one or two on the Thruway mainline in Utica.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1193943,-75.2238471,3a,15.1y,118.41h,102.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5udMxkZ1xEsKjtIZenmbPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

There is another at the exit itself. Only 2 button copy signs on EB I-90 in New York and the only ones on the EB/SB Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 07, 2016, 07:06:56 PM
Last I checked, the NY 104 EB signs for Hard Rd were still button copy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on February 07, 2016, 08:28:18 PM
Here it seems so weird to me that everybody's talking about the last button-copy signs. You guys should have been around thirty years ago for the last of the Thruway's big blue exit signs from the original 1950's construction. LOL
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 07, 2016, 08:33:08 PM
Here it seems so weird to me that everybody's talking about the last button-copy signs. You guys should have been around thirty years ago for the last of the Thruway's big blue exit signs from the original 1950's construction. LOL

I've seen the pictures. This is probably one of the early green signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9500725,-78.7626168,3a,40.7y,281.82h,84.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sglhY4_LEcaKLrB9Ub7tBFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to be installed, though. Probably dates back to well before the last of the blue was gone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on February 07, 2016, 09:10:51 PM
As I recall in the early '70s there was a small dark green sign in that spot that said "PENNA STATE LINE 70 MILES" although from there it should be 75 or 76 miles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 07, 2016, 09:47:37 PM
Here it seems so weird to me that everybody's talking about the last button-copy signs. You guys should have been around thirty years ago for the last of the Thruway's big blue exit signs from the original 1950's construction. LOL

I've seen the pictures. This is probably one of the early green signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9500725,-78.7626168,3a,40.7y,281.82h,84.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sglhY4_LEcaKLrB9Ub7tBFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to be installed, though. Probably dates back to well before the last of the blue was gone.

That sign was installed in 1987.  Before that was an all button copy sign on green.  Any big blue signs had been replaced/repainted with dark green. 

ROUTE 98
 Batavia
EXIT 48    1 MILE

was dark green in 1987.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 08, 2016, 09:30:02 PM
Has anybody else noticed that Region 2's diagonal striping looks...different? Take a look at this image (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1133123,-75.2058489,390m/data=!3m1!1e3). Standard cross-hatching is present on the Thruway and Region 2's standard is on the surface streets. Is there a reason why R2 uses thinner stripes spaced closer together than is normal?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 08, 2016, 09:54:50 PM
Has anybody else noticed that Region 2's diagonal striping looks...different? Take a look at this image (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1133123,-75.2058489,390m/data=!3m1!1e3). Standard cross-hatching is present on the Thruway and Region 2's standard is on the surface streets. Is there a reason why R2 uses thinner stripes spaced closer together than is normal?

We don't give them enough money to do a proper job. :D

(j/k)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 10, 2016, 01:18:49 PM
I-390 is getting a major reconstruction between Exits 2 and 3 with some long-term ramp closures. Unlike in many parts of the state, the ramps have reference markers. Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=10731&p_is_digital=Y).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on February 10, 2016, 07:33:23 PM
Official: Scajaquada Expressway (NY 198) to be converted to a boulevard: https://twitter.com/NYSDOTBuffalo/status/697576414791467009
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on February 10, 2016, 08:53:55 PM
Official: Scajaquada Expressway (NY 198) to be converted to a boulevard: https://twitter.com/NYSDOTBuffalo/status/697576414791467009
New Urbanists....

yeah this is their work at their worst. Basically they just think every freeway should not have been invented.... :banghead:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 10, 2016, 09:02:25 PM
Has Mr. Driscoll ever seen the traffic counts on that road?  It ranges from 38k on the low end to 71k on the high end.  Those are peaceful, walkable boulevard traffic counts.  Those are traffic counts in line with urban freeways and congested suburban arterials lined with strip malls.  I'd rather cross the road at an overpass than a crosswalk anyways.

Given his position here, I guess we can count on I-81 getting torn down as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 10, 2016, 09:09:45 PM
Has Mr. Driscoll ever seen the traffic counts on that road?  It ranges from 38k on the low end to 71k on the high end.  Those are peaceful, walkable boulevard traffic counts.  Those are traffic counts in line with urban freeways and congested suburban arterials lined with strip malls.  I'd rather cross the road at an overpass than a crosswalk anyways.

Given his position here, I guess we can count on I-81 getting torn down as well.

Money. Campaign donors live in that neighborhood.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 11, 2016, 02:28:58 PM
Official: Scajaquada Expressway (NY 198) to be converted to a boulevard: https://twitter.com/NYSDOTBuffalo/status/697576414791467009

F*cking A :banghead:.

never will i ever drive on that road again

While we're at it, let's take down the Skyway and the 190 because of the same reasons. Right?

Incredible how nobody talks about how the 33 can be put under a lid, but this is priority #1
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on February 11, 2016, 07:05:00 PM
This decision was no doubt inevitable after the incident last year where a kid got killed by a car that ran off the road. The reaction to that gave us a section with a 30 MPH speed limit and crosswalks, so now the ball is already rolling on making the route not a freeway anymore. The current situation can't remain as is since having that sort of segment on what's otherwise a freeway is a safety nightmare unto itself. At this point finishing what's already been started and downgrading the whole route is politically easier than backpedaling and restoring the speed limit/removing the crosswalks.

I don't really think this will have a major impact on traffic in Buffalo. Traffic that can reasonably divert to 290 will do so, traffic which cannot will continue using 198 and the trip will take a few minutes longer, and a few trips will be cancelled or diverted to different destinations as people adjust their travel patterns to account for the freeway's absence.


As to whether this is any indication as to what will happen with I-81 or the Sheridan, who knows. Those projects are different in scope and have different stakeholders. One thing is for certain, though: this will get added to the list of successful freeway removals, which are only going to become more popular in the coming years as the concept becomes more proven.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 11, 2016, 07:09:55 PM
This decision was no doubt inevitable after the incident last year where a kid got killed by a car that ran off the road. The reaction to that gave us a section with a 30 MPH speed limit and crosswalks, so now the ball is already rolling on making the route not a freeway anymore.

I don't really think this will have a major impact on traffic in Buffalo. Traffic that can reasonably divert to 290 will do so, traffic which cannot will continue using 198 and the trip will take a few minutes longer, and a few trips will be cancelled or diverted to different destinations as people adjust their travel patterns to account for the freeway's absence.


As to whether this is any indication as to what will happen with I-81 or the Sheridan, who knows. Those projects are different in scope and have different stakeholders. One thing is for certain, though: this will get added to the list of successful freeway removals, which are only going to become more popular in the coming years as the concept becomes more proven.

It's also important to note that this was high up on the list of freeways that were most likely to be removed. Prior to the accident, the plan was to make it an expressway, keeping the major grade separations but not full control of access. People in power have wanted it gone since it was built. Buffalo also isn't growing, either. The area population is only remaining constant because of immigration and, unless things change, I expect a major population loss when the baby boomers start dying out because the median age there is quite high.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 11, 2016, 10:28:39 PM
This decision was no doubt inevitable after the incident last year where a kid got killed by a car that ran off the road. The reaction to that gave us a section with a 30 MPH speed limit and crosswalks, so now the ball is already rolling on making the route not a freeway anymore. The current situation can't remain as is since having that sort of segment on what's otherwise a freeway is a safety nightmare unto itself. At this point finishing what's already been started and downgrading the whole route is politically easier than backpedaling and restoring the speed limit/removing the crosswalks.

I don't really think this will have a major impact on traffic in Buffalo. Traffic that can reasonably divert to 290 will do so, traffic which cannot will continue using 198 and the trip will take a few minutes longer, and a few trips will be cancelled or diverted to different destinations as people adjust their travel patterns to account for the freeway's absence.


As to whether this is any indication as to what will happen with I-81 or the Sheridan, who knows. Those projects are different in scope and have different stakeholders. One thing is for certain, though: this will get added to the list of successful freeway removals, which are only going to become more popular in the coming years as the concept becomes more proven.
The crosswalks never actually got built... Region 5 backed out at the last minute as they were in bad locations (one was right on top of an overpass with sidewalks), even going so far as to remove the paths the paved to go to the crosswalks.

People are already diverting to local streets because, contrary to urbanist expectations, driving 30 on a residential street is a lot less painful than driving 30 on a major arterial.  The residents on those streets are NOT happy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 12, 2016, 07:41:37 AM

People are already diverting to local streets because, contrary to urbanist expectations, driving 30 on a residential street is a lot less painful than driving 30 on a major arterial.  The residents on those streets are NOT happy.

Where'd you hear this?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on February 12, 2016, 05:51:59 PM

People are already diverting to local streets because, contrary to urbanist expectations, driving 30 on a residential street is a lot less painful than driving 30 on a major arterial.  The residents on those streets are NOT happy.

Where'd you hear this?

More to the point, has this actually been confirmed by traffic count data, or is it hearsay from local residents complaining?

I can see it as being plausible that drivers might want to avoid the ludicrously underposted segment for fear of getting a speeding ticket. I can also see it as being plausible that this whole issue made people start paying more attention to cars passing by and so they perceive there as being more of them when really there aren't.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 12, 2016, 06:04:12 PM

People are already diverting to local streets because, contrary to urbanist expectations, driving 30 on a residential street is a lot less painful than driving 30 on a major arterial.  The residents on those streets are NOT happy.

Where'd you hear this?

More to the point, has this actually been confirmed by traffic count data, or is it hearsay from local residents complaining?

I can see it as being plausible that drivers might want to avoid the ludicrously underposted segment for fear of getting a speeding ticket. I can also see it as being plausible that this whole issue made people start paying more attention to cars passing by and so they perceive there as being more of them when really there aren't.

I did the official counts on the surrounding streets immediately after the speed limit was lowered. There was a slight increase, but it wasn't really that much and not particularly significant. The part of the city that it serves is losing population and the new people moving into the western end don't have cars. The increases to the south could be as much because of population growth along Elmwood since the last count as anything else.

As far as the traffic counts, the stuff with the highest counts won't be touched. Do I foresee some operational issues? Yes. It may be a wake-up call to the people who think all urban freeways are bad, but it won't affect much beyond a couple of blocks. Remember- the average driver goes the same way every day no matter what the traffic is like and many people don't even know alternate ways to get from one place to another. Or, they'll just blindly follow their GPS.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 12, 2016, 07:20:34 PM
Immediately after the speed limit change was probably too soon though.  As I recall, people weren't yet taking the 30 zone seriously then, and that was before the pavement was restriped to make it impossible to legally merge onto the road.

In any case, even the sections on NY 198 with the lowest AADT on the route still have a higher AADT than even Wolf Rd near Colonie Center, and we both know how bad that can be.


People are already diverting to local streets because, contrary to urbanist expectations, driving 30 on a residential street is a lot less painful than driving 30 on a major arterial.  The residents on those streets are NOT happy.

Where'd you hear this?
Check the daily clippings.  There were a TON of articles on NY 198 recently, most of which mentioned the resident complaints (although they only devoted one sentence each to the topic).  I think it was mentioned in a few earlier articles as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on February 12, 2016, 10:46:57 PM
So it sounds to me like it might just be a perception issue. Residents are complaining, but the data does not support what they are claiming.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 15, 2016, 09:09:15 PM
This is a left field question. Which highway(S) in the Buffalo area could be widened with HOV lanes if needed?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 25, 2016, 09:58:37 PM
This is a left field question. Which highway(S) in the Buffalo area could be widened with HOV lanes if needed?

None. Aren't enough multi-occupant vehicles to make it worthwhile. You'd likely have what happened in Jersey when I-80 had HOV lanes.

On a different topic, the warm weather means that construction season in Upstate New York is starting early. Saw a VMS earlier saying that NY 85 reconstruction resumes on Monday. They've been doing work at the I-90/I-787 stack all winter as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 26, 2016, 10:23:17 AM
This is a left field question. Which highway(S) in the Buffalo area could be widened with HOV lanes if needed?

None. Aren't enough multi-occupant vehicles to make it worthwhile.

But there would be under the hypothetical situation in which the question is being asked ("if needed"). Unless you're saying that if HOV lanes were needed, they wouldn't be needed? ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 26, 2016, 01:15:25 PM
I think that's a sufficient answer though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 26, 2016, 03:36:41 PM
This is a left field question. Which highway(S) in the Buffalo area could be widened with HOV lanes if needed?


None. Aren't enough multi-occupant vehicles to make it worthwhile.

But there would be under the hypothetical situation in which the question is being asked ("if needed"). Unless you're saying that if HOV lanes were needed, they wouldn't be needed? ;-)

If memory serves correctly, anything built by the Thruway Authority during its original construction should have the ROW and, in most places, appropriate bridge support placement and deck widths to accommodate additional lanes which could theoretically include HOV lanes.  I believe that was one principle about the design of the Thruway that was from studying the PA Turnpike's construction over a decade earlier; they designed it to make accommodating additional lanes much easier, most likely with any additional lanes being added inward toward the median.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2016, 04:04:59 PM
This is a left field question. Which highway(S) in the Buffalo area could be widened with HOV lanes if needed?


None. Aren't enough multi-occupant vehicles to make it worthwhile.

But there would be under the hypothetical situation in which the question is being asked ("if needed"). Unless you're saying that if HOV lanes were needed, they wouldn't be needed? ;-)

If memory serves correctly, anything built by the Thruway Authority during its original construction should have the ROW and, in most places, appropriate bridge support placement and deck widths to accommodate additional lanes which could theoretically include HOV lanes.  I believe that was one principle about the design of the Thruway that was from studying the PA Turnpike's construction over a decade earlier; they designed it to make accommodating additional lanes much easier, most likely with any additional lanes being added inward toward the median.

More specifically, it has the ROW for 6 total lanes. The recent Albany widening was done without any impact to the bridges other than resurfacing of the one at Exit 23 and a deck replacement up at Crossgates. Sections built with 6 lanes do not have the ROW for additional lanes without major modifications, but other than south of Exit 16 and Exits 50-53, it opened with 4 lanes throughout. The spurs/extensions do not have the bridge widths for additional lanes, but the Berkshire Spur does have the ROW and lanes could be added with a few bridge replacements if traffic counts tripled and a capacity increase was necessary. They can't widen I-190 between the Peace Bridge and I-290 and it would have already been done if there was room for an extra lane.

Most NYSDOT expressways do not have this luxury, with I-490 west of Rochester being a notable exception, as it can accommodate 6 lanes east of NY 33A. If Region 1 so desired, NY 7 could also get an extra lane in each direction with little effort, while every bridge on I-87 between I-90 and Exit 13 built in the last 20-30 years is wide enough for an extra lane in each direction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2016, 10:21:35 PM
NY 67 is closed between NY 50 and Saratoga CR 82 nights for the next week to repair a railroad bridge that was hit by a truck. Detour is CR 82, Lake Rd, and Outlet Rd. With the amount of truck traffic that area gets (best truck route to cut the corner between I-87 and the Thruway west of Albany), it is not fun.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 27, 2016, 04:52:14 PM
This is a left field question. Which highway(S) in the Buffalo area could be widened with HOV lanes if needed?


None. Aren't enough multi-occupant vehicles to make it worthwhile.

But there would be under the hypothetical situation in which the question is being asked ("if needed"). Unless you're saying that if HOV lanes were needed, they wouldn't be needed? ;-)

If memory serves correctly, anything built by the Thruway Authority during its original construction should have the ROW and, in most places, appropriate bridge support placement and deck widths to accommodate additional lanes which could theoretically include HOV lanes.  I believe that was one principle about the design of the Thruway that was from studying the PA Turnpike's construction over a decade earlier; they designed it to make accommodating additional lanes much easier, most likely with any additional lanes being added inward toward the median.

More specifically, it has the ROW for 6 total lanes. The recent Albany widening was done without any impact to the bridges other than resurfacing of the one at Exit 23 and a deck replacement up at Crossgates. Sections built with 6 lanes do not have the ROW for additional lanes without major modifications, but other than south of Exit 16 and Exits 50-53, it opened with 4 lanes throughout. The spurs/extensions do not have the bridge widths for additional lanes, but the Berkshire Spur does have the ROW and lanes could be added with a few bridge replacements if traffic counts tripled and a capacity increase was necessary. They can't widen I-190 between the Peace Bridge and I-290 and it would have already been done if there was room for an extra lane.

Most NYSDOT expressways do not have this luxury, with I-490 west of Rochester being a notable exception, as it can accommodate 6 lanes east of NY 33A. If Region 1 so desired, NY 7 could also get an extra lane in each direction with little effort, while every bridge on I-87 between I-90 and Exit 13 built in the last 20-30 years is wide enough for an extra lane in each direction.

Yeah it definitely appears as though I-190 can't be widened at all south of the GI bridges because it's right on the edge of the river.

If the population of the city of Buffalo increased to 1,000,000+ people (highly unlikely), then I guess they'd build an upper deck. But by then they'll have removed I-190 and every other highway in the area  :-D.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 27, 2016, 07:20:22 PM
If the population of the city of Buffalo increased to 1,000,000+ people (highly unlikely), then I guess they'd build an upper deck. But by then they'll have removed I-190 and every other highway in the area  :-D.

They'd also gain the right to enact No Turn On Red city-wide. :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on February 28, 2016, 12:22:59 PM
If the population of the city of Buffalo increased to 1,000,000+ people (highly unlikely), then I guess they'd build an upper deck. But by then they'll have removed I-190 and every other highway in the area  :-D.

They'd also gain the right to enact No Turn On Red city-wide. :-D

Amongst many other things intended to apply only to New York City. The "city of one million people or more" wording appears in a lot of state laws as a way of weaseling around the fact that due to the doctrine of home rule the state is prohibited from passing laws that apply specifically to one municipality.

Meanwhile Buffalo's population is nowhere near a million people and actively decreasing, so this isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on February 28, 2016, 09:27:46 PM
If the population of the city of Buffalo increased to 1,000,000+ people (highly unlikely), then I guess they'd build an upper deck. But by then they'll have removed I-190 and every other highway in the area  :-D.

They'd also gain the right to enact No Turn On Red city-wide. :-D

Amongst many other things intended to apply only to New York City. The "city of one million people or more" wording appears in a lot of state laws as a way of weaseling around the fact that due to the doctrine of home rule the state is prohibited from passing laws that apply specifically to one municipality.

Meanwhile Buffalo's population is nowhere near a million people and actively decreasing, so this isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Even if Buffalo annexed all of Erie County, it would fall just short of that >1,000,000 population requirement.

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 28, 2016, 09:43:52 PM
If the population of the city of Buffalo increased to 1,000,000+ people (highly unlikely), then I guess they'd build an upper deck. But by then they'll have removed I-190 and every other highway in the area  :-D.

They'd also gain the right to enact No Turn On Red city-wide. :-D

Amongst many other things intended to apply only to New York City. The "city of one million people or more" wording appears in a lot of state laws as a way of weaseling around the fact that due to the doctrine of home rule the state is prohibited from passing laws that apply specifically to one municipality.

Meanwhile Buffalo's population is nowhere near a million people and actively decreasing, so this isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Even if Buffalo annexed all of Erie County, it would fall just short of that >1,000,000 population requirement.

ixnay

Yes. Buffalo itself is growing slightly due to immigration, but Erie County is shrinking because people leave for college and don't return. The metro area includes all of Niagara and Cattaraugus Counties and is still about the same size as the Albany metro area, which doesn't officially include Warren or Washington Counties.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on February 28, 2016, 11:31:24 PM
Why does New York City have that stupid no turn on red rule anyway, so many street corners you can easily go right on red, especially in eastern queens and staten island which are more suburban than anything else.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 29, 2016, 12:31:16 AM
Why does New York City have that stupid no turn on red rule anyway, so many street corners you can easily go right on red, especially in eastern queens and staten island which are more suburban than anything else.

Pedestrian traffic. So people making rights on red don't cut off/hit people crossing. Also reduces the people who make rights on red without stopping or think they have the right of way. Huge problem in Western New York
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 29, 2016, 08:09:12 AM
The metro area includes all of Niagara and Cattaraugus Counties and is still about the same size as the Albany metro area, which doesn't officially include Warren or Washington Counties.

Eh, the Buffalo MSA is slightly larger than Albany/Schenectady/Troy's.  Buffalo has 1.1.m; Albany/Schenectady/Troy has just under 900K.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on February 29, 2016, 11:50:21 AM
Why does New York City have that stupid no turn on red rule anyway, so many street corners you can easily go right on red, especially in eastern queens and staten island which are more suburban than anything else.

Pedestrian traffic. So people making rights on red don't cut off/hit people crossing. Also reduces the people who make rights on red without stopping or think they have the right of way. Huge problem in Western New York
The City of Rochester has red light cameras at many intersections and I think most of the tickets generated are from rolling right turns on red. More of a cash cow than anything.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 29, 2016, 01:27:22 PM

Why does New York City have that stupid no turn on red rule anyway, so many street corners you can easily go right on red, especially in eastern queens and staten island which are more suburban than anything else.

Sounds like you don't walk around Manhattan too often. ;-)

(The suburban areas you describe are very often posted with permissive right-on-red.)


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on February 29, 2016, 09:13:15 PM
(The suburban areas you describe are very often posted with permissive right-on-red.)

Most permissive right on red postings are for turns at three way intersections where there is no cross traffic. And even then, you usually only see them in places where there are a large number of right turning vehicles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on February 29, 2016, 11:15:01 PM

Why does New York City have that stupid no turn on red rule anyway, so many street corners you can easily go right on red, especially in eastern queens and staten island which are more suburban than anything else.

Sounds like you don't walk around Manhattan too often. ;-)

(The suburban areas you describe are very often posted with permissive right-on-red.)


iPhone

Last time I was in Manhattan I was shunpiking to get around the Verezano bridge toll and opted to take the Williamsburg and then across Delancy Street and a few others to get to the Holland Tunnel.

Also not every street in east Queens and Staten Island have the permissive right on red. Only place in Queens I saw it consistently was Howard Beach/Broad Channel. The places off the highway i was in Staten Island didnt.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 01, 2016, 09:40:24 AM

Why does New York City have that stupid no turn on red rule anyway, so many street corners you can easily go right on red, especially in eastern queens and staten island which are more suburban than anything else.

Sounds like you don't walk around Manhattan too often. ;-)

(The suburban areas you describe are very often posted with permissive right-on-red.)


iPhone

Last time I was in Manhattan I was shunpiking to get around the Verezano bridge toll and opted to take the Williamsburg and then across Delancy Street and a few others to get to the Holland Tunnel.

Also not every street in east Queens and Staten Island have the permissive right on red. Only place in Queens I saw it consistently was Howard Beach/Broad Channel. The places off the highway i was in Staten Island didnt.

Yeah; as I said, "very often", but not always.

Anyway, next time you visit the city core on foot, you'll have a very obvious answer as to why the rule exists. Now, as to whether it's the best solution, I'm not sure. I'm a lot more worried about parallel traffic turning in front of me–traffic that has the green when I have the walk. Perpendicular traffic making a right on red has, at least in theory, to stop first; and of course, most pedestrians don't distinguish between signal aspects anyway–they're just as content to walk across oncoming traffic.

Come to think of it, the NTOR rule probably has as much to do with preventing gridlock of vehicles than pedestrian safety.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 01, 2016, 08:22:10 PM
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 01, 2016, 08:55:46 PM
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?

Access to Binghamton and the Southern Tier, cutover from northern New England to the rest of the country, shunpike route for the Thruway. Doesn't have the highest AADTs, but almost all of the traffic is long distance (at least end to end). It gets a LOT of truck traffic, as it's the best way for trucks to cross the Catskills. The most recent traffic class count I can get (2004) west of Exit 12 showed over 40% trucks and buses - and that's in the middle of nowhere with a little over 10,000 vehicles/day.

On a different note, the Traffic Data Viewer has 2011 speed data from the Northway between Exits 11 and 12. Median speed is around 70, 85th percentile is 76.2, maxing out over 77 in the PM rush. Never is the median below 66 or 85% below 73. 85% stays around 75 for the day through Saratoga County and drops to 73 at Exit 18. Either way, that indicates that the speed limit should be at least 70.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2016, 10:12:42 AM
Despite the fact there is significant freight traffic on that corridor, I've heard more than a few people say that I-88 is little more than an expensive boondoggle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on March 02, 2016, 10:16:57 AM
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?

When I lived in Albany and I didn't feel like taking the Thruway home to Ohio, it served well as the distance to Erie, PA via I-86/NY 17 from Albany on I-88 vs Thruway was only 10 miles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 02, 2016, 10:23:49 AM
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?

When I lived in Albany and I didn't feel like taking the Thruway home to Ohio, it served well as the distance to Erie, PA via I-86/NY 17 from Albany on I-88 vs Thruway was only 10 miles.

Hell, the time difference to Buffalo isn't too great. If you want to shunpike, it's faster than taking US 20 across the state. I'll probably take that route returning to RPI from spring break to check on the Binghamton construction. If you're going across the state, you'll end up saving money, even if you use a little more gas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2016, 10:36:22 AM
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?

When I lived in Albany and I didn't feel like taking the Thruway home to Ohio, it served well as the distance to Erie, PA via I-86/NY 17 from Albany on I-88 vs Thruway was only 10 miles.

Hell, the time difference to Buffalo isn't too great.

How do you get back up north to Buffalo from I-86, then, if you head down to I-88?  Hard to believe that time difference "isn't too great."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 02, 2016, 10:45:49 AM
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?

When I lived in Albany and I didn't feel like taking the Thruway home to Ohio, it served well as the distance to Erie, PA via I-86/NY 17 from Albany on I-88 vs Thruway was only 10 miles.

Hell, the time difference to Buffalo isn't too great.

How do you get back up north to Buffalo from I-86, then, if you head down to I-88?  Hard to believe that time difference "isn't too great."

I-390. Difference is about 45 minutes to where my parents live. I'll take the Thruway most of the time, but if I'm going to be eating during my trip, it ends up costing less with the savings on food and tolls.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on March 02, 2016, 11:45:53 AM
NYSDOT will be replacing the I 490 bridge over Marsh Rd. in Pittsford at a cost of $4.1 million. Work is expected to begin in a week or so.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on March 02, 2016, 11:58:34 AM
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?

Everyone knows it's so you can get some chicken from Brooks BBQ on your trip.

As someone living a little west of Albany, I-88 (to I-86) is a nice alternative to the Thruway when traveling west of Erie, and a good way down to I-81 if you want to avoid the I-95 corridor traveling south beyond DC.  We sometimes do I-81/US 15 then cut to I-95 near or south of DC.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2016, 12:03:09 PM
As someone living a little west of Albany, I-88 (to I-86) is a nice alternative to the Thruway when traveling west of Erie, and a good way down to I-81 if you want to avoid the I-95 corridor traveling south beyond DC.  We sometimes do I-81/US 15 then cut to I-95 near or south of DC.

This makes much more sense to me than going to Buffalo via I-88/I-86/I-390.

(Although, I still can't remember if they've fixed the concrete pavement through the Seneca Nation)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 02, 2016, 01:41:50 PM
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?

When I lived in Albany and I didn't feel like taking the Thruway home to Ohio, it served well as the distance to Erie, PA via I-86/NY 17 from Albany on I-88 vs Thruway was only 10 miles.

Hell, the time difference to Buffalo isn't too great. If you want to shunpike, it's faster than taking US 20 across the state. I'll probably take that route returning to RPI from spring break to check on the Binghamton construction. If you're going across the state, you'll end up saving money, even if you use a little more gas.

Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 02, 2016, 01:44:17 PM
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?

Everyone knows it's so you can get some chicken from Brooks BBQ on your trip.

As someone living a little west of Albany, I-88 (to I-86) is a nice alternative to the Thruway when traveling west of Erie, and a good way down to I-81 if you want to avoid the I-95 corridor traveling south beyond DC.  We sometimes do I-81/US 15 then cut to I-95 near or south of DC.
Hahaha, it would be funny if it was a "single purpose boondoggle highway" like I-180 in IL.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 02, 2016, 01:49:15 PM
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?

When I lived in Albany and I didn't feel like taking the Thruway home to Ohio, it served well as the distance to Erie, PA via I-86/NY 17 from Albany on I-88 vs Thruway was only 10 miles.

Hell, the time difference to Buffalo isn't too great. If you want to shunpike, it's faster than taking US 20 across the state. I'll probably take that route returning to RPI from spring break to check on the Binghamton construction. If you're going across the state, you'll end up saving money, even if you use a little more gas.

Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.

Does I-88 get enough traffic to justify its existence? I don't know. But I do know that it diverts traffic from the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 02, 2016, 03:33:01 PM
Are they ever going to upgrade NY 17 between Exit 84 and Exit 87?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 02, 2016, 03:38:05 PM
Are they ever going to upgrade NY 17 between Exit 84 and Exit 87?

It's on the back burner and off the list of projects to be done in the upcoming years. Might be done when the state actually has the money to do it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2016, 09:08:40 PM
Are they ever going to upgrade NY 17 between Exit 84 and Exit 87?

See my post in this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16863.msg2107556#msg2107556. 

Besides Woodbury Commons, all other I-86 conversion projects are indefinitely delayed.

(personal opinion expressed)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on March 02, 2016, 09:17:23 PM
Are they ever going to upgrade NY 17 between Exit 84 and Exit 87?

See my post in this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16863.msg2107556#msg2107556. 

Besides Woodbury Commons, all other I-86 conversion projects are indefinitely delayed.

(personal opinion expressed)

Now only if NYSDOT would spend like $500,000 to make a nice train platform at Woodbury Commons for outlet shopping seasons so Metro-North/NJ Transit can make stops.

Maybe it'd reduce traffic at Exit 131 a bit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 02, 2016, 09:22:33 PM
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?

I-86 and I-88 is a much more scenic and less congested route compared to I-90.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 02, 2016, 09:26:01 PM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.

OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?

In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 02, 2016, 09:51:50 PM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.

OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?

In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?

Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 02, 2016, 10:04:24 PM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

Maybe because of the renumbering of NY state routes back in the 1920's?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on March 02, 2016, 10:28:52 PM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

Maybe because of the renumbering of NY state routes back in the 1920's?

First off, the renumbering was 1930. 2nd, NY  417 didn't exist when 17 was upgraded. Some of the changes of alignment is likely, based on its location, land procurement for the right of way. Following it on 417 would bulldoze several downtowns or places near it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 02, 2016, 10:35:19 PM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

Maybe because of the renumbering of NY state routes back in the 1920's?

First off, the renumbering was 1930. 2nd, NY  417 didn't exist when 17 was upgraded. Some of the changes of alignment is likely, based on its location, land procurement for the right of way. Following it on 417 would bulldoze several downtowns or places near it.

I confused it with 1927, when a few of the routes were changed. I honestly wouldn't have known.  :pan:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2016, 11:00:37 PM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.

OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?

In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?

Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.

Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386."  This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC.  Lots of meetings were had.  I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 02, 2016, 11:01:49 PM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.

OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?

In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?

Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.

Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386."  This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC.  Lots of meetings were had.  I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.

If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2016, 11:03:25 PM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.

OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?

In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?

Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.

Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386."  This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC.  Lots of meetings were had.  I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.

If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180

Everyone needs an I-180.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 02, 2016, 11:05:09 PM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.

OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?

In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?

Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.

Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386."  This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC.  Lots of meetings were had.  I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.

If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180

Everyone needs an I-180.

Well, one could say we have one in the form of the Lake Ontario State Parkway and Robert Moses Parkway
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2016, 11:10:10 PM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.

OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?

In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?

Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.

Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386."  This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC.  Lots of meetings were had.  I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.

If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180

Everyone needs an I-180.

Well, one could say we have one in the form of the Lake Ontario State Parkway and Robert Moses Parkway

Heh.  The old, blocked-off lanes of the Robert Moses always makes me shake my head.  What a waste.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 03, 2016, 01:12:13 AM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.

OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?

In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?

Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.

Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386."  This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC.  Lots of meetings were had.  I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.

If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180

Everyone needs an I-180.
U-206: I-180? Also, DUAAF.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 03, 2016, 08:17:35 AM
Quote from: Rothman
Everyone needs an I-180.

Still waiting for my I-391 (VT already has a Route 191)...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 03, 2016, 10:17:51 AM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.

OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?

In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?

Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.

Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386."  This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC.  Lots of meetings were had.  I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.

If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180

Everyone needs an I-180.

Well, one could say we have one in the form of the Lake Ontario State Parkway and Robert Moses Parkway

Heh.  The old, blocked-off lanes of the Robert Moses always makes me shake my head.  What a waste.

I wonder if they'll do the same thing to the Lake Ontario State Parkway.  Half of it is already closed during the winter.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 03, 2016, 12:20:34 PM
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?

They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.

OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?

In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?

Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.

Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386."  This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC.  Lots of meetings were had.  I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.

If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180

Everyone needs an I-180.

Well, one could say we have one in the form of the Lake Ontario State Parkway and Robert Moses Parkway

Heh.  The old, blocked-off lanes of the Robert Moses always makes me shake my head.  What a waste.

I wonder if they'll do the same thing to the Lake Ontario State Parkway.  Half of it is already closed during the winter.

One exit is closed. East of NY 260 actually gets a relatively-decent amount of traffic. All of that portion gets more traffic than the super-two portion of the Robert Moses Parkway. Probably mostly people who would be cutting down to NY 104, which is a mess as it is. I don't know if it's really worth keeping 4 lanes, but the ability to pass is nice.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 03, 2016, 12:58:39 PM
Yeah, it's only from NY 18 to NY 98 that's closed.  It's west of Hamlin Beach that traffic really drops off and gets to an AADT less than 2000.  The section in Orleans County is very desolate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 03, 2016, 01:12:21 PM
Yeah, it's only from NY 18 to NY 98 that's closed.  It's west of Hamlin Beach that traffic really drops off and gets to an AADT less than 2000.  The section in Orleans County is very desolate.

It's in the middle of nowhere and there are zero attractions other than the state parks. All farmland and vineyards. NY 18 between the parkway and Olcott is a little over 1000. Other than spikes around Olcott and Wilson, it stays pretty low until it turns south near Youngstown. To give one an idea of how desolate it really is, NY 279 just west of where the parkway ends has an AADT slightly higher than NY 421.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 03, 2016, 06:12:11 PM
Yeah, it's only from NY 18 to NY 98 that's closed.  It's west of Hamlin Beach that traffic really drops off and gets to an AADT less than 2000.  The section in Orleans County is very desolate.

It's in the middle of nowhere and there are zero attractions other than the state parks. All farmland and vineyards. NY 18 between the parkway and Olcott is a little over 1000. Other than spikes around Olcott and Wilson, it stays pretty low until it turns south near Youngstown. To give one an idea of how desolate it really is, NY 279 just west of where the parkway ends has an AADT slightly higher than NY 421.

What was the rationale behind constructing the LOSP? Projected population growth?

The only use I could see it for (if fully completed) is for people living in northern Rochester to get to Canada faster.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 03, 2016, 06:17:50 PM
Yeah, it's only from NY 18 to NY 98 that's closed.  It's west of Hamlin Beach that traffic really drops off and gets to an AADT less than 2000.  The section in Orleans County is very desolate.

It's in the middle of nowhere and there are zero attractions other than the state parks. All farmland and vineyards. NY 18 between the parkway and Olcott is a little over 1000. Other than spikes around Olcott and Wilson, it stays pretty low until it turns south near Youngstown. To give one an idea of how desolate it really is, NY 279 just west of where the parkway ends has an AADT slightly higher than NY 421.

I love the LOSP, especially west of Hamlin Beach. I drive as far as I can on that road all year round because it's very "centering" to me as a road geek and just in general.  The only thing that I don't like about the road is the new signs they put up a couple of years ago. It was much more charming back in the button copy days.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 03, 2016, 06:26:30 PM
Yeah, it's only from NY 18 to NY 98 that's closed.  It's west of Hamlin Beach that traffic really drops off and gets to an AADT less than 2000.  The section in Orleans County is very desolate.

It's in the middle of nowhere and there are zero attractions other than the state parks. All farmland and vineyards. NY 18 between the parkway and Olcott is a little over 1000. Other than spikes around Olcott and Wilson, it stays pretty low until it turns south near Youngstown. To give one an idea of how desolate it really is, NY 279 just west of where the parkway ends has an AADT slightly higher than NY 421.

I love the LOSP, especially west of Hamlin Beach. I drive as far as I can on that road all year round because it's very "centering" to me as a road geek and just in general.  The only thing that I don't like about the road is the new signs they put up a couple of years ago. It was much more charming back in the button copy days.

They got rid of the rest of the button copy? Darn. I loved the button copy.

What was the rationale behind constructing the LOSP? Projected population growth?

Connection between the parks and to get people to the parks. Same as the original purpose of the other parkways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on March 03, 2016, 07:08:28 PM
Yeah, it's only from NY 18 to NY 98 that's closed.  It's west of Hamlin Beach that traffic really drops off and gets to an AADT less than 2000.  The section in Orleans County is very desolate.

It's in the middle of nowhere and there are zero attractions other than the state parks. All farmland and vineyards. NY 18 between the parkway and Olcott is a little over 1000. Other than spikes around Olcott and Wilson, it stays pretty low until it turns south near Youngstown. To give one an idea of how desolate it really is, NY 279 just west of where the parkway ends has an AADT slightly higher than NY 421.

I love the LOSP, especially west of Hamlin Beach. I drive as far as I can on that road all year round because it's very "centering" to me as a road geek and just in general.  The only thing that I don't like about the road is the new signs they put up a couple of years ago. It was much more charming back in the button copy days.

They got rid of the rest of the button copy? Darn. I loved the button copy.

What was the rationale behind constructing the LOSP? Projected population growth?

Connection between the parks and to get people to the parks. Same as the original purpose of the other parkways.

Plus it was supposed to connect to the Robert Moses in Youngstown.  That would have made the remote sections more travelled as a long-haul route, at least.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 04, 2016, 04:55:56 PM
I'm taking a little trip downstate tomorrow to get some White Castle in Nyack. Other than the Tappan Zee work, NY 17 and US 202/Bear Mountain Parkway, is there anything major that has happened in Region 8 in the past ~5 years that would be worth checking out?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on March 04, 2016, 08:05:35 PM
I'm taking a little trip downstate tomorrow to get some White Castle in Nyack. Other than the Tappan Zee work, NY 17 and US 202/Bear Mountain Parkway, is there anything major that has happened in Region 8 in the past ~5 years that would be worth checking out?

Is it worth that much hassle to get White Castle?

Also, if you go down via the Taconic, grab the last existing vestige of the old exit numbering system at P7 in Putnam County. (Hortontown Hill Road)



Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 04, 2016, 08:12:09 PM
I'm taking a little trip downstate tomorrow to get some White Castle in Nyack. Other than the Tappan Zee work, NY 17 and US 202/Bear Mountain Parkway, is there anything major that has happened in Region 8 in the past ~5 years that would be worth checking out?

Is it worth that much hassle to get White Castle?

Also, if you go down via the Taconic, grab the last existing vestige of the old exit numbering system at P7 in Putnam County. (Hortontown Hill Road)
Why not buy some local meat and produce and the Todd Hill rest stop and cook at home instead?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 05, 2016, 12:17:41 AM

Is it worth that much hassle to get White Castle?


Did you mean for that to rhyme in perfect poetic rhythm?  That was awesome lolol :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 09, 2016, 10:03:28 PM
For years, people have debated whether or not we should consider the northern end of I-787 to be in Troy or at Exit 9. Well, Region 1 replaced the WB reassurance shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397593,-73.6850161,3a,21.1y,294.91h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sic7LvT34FatOkp5ub0STFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) within the last year. Noticed the Series C this morning. Does this settle the debate?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 10, 2016, 10:57:04 AM
For years, people have debated whether or not we should consider the northern end of I-787 to be in Troy or at Exit 9. Well, Region 1 replaced the WB reassurance shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397593,-73.6850161,3a,21.1y,294.91h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sic7LvT34FatOkp5ub0STFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) within the last year. Noticed the Series C this morning. Does this settle the debate?

Nope. :evilgrin:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 10, 2016, 12:34:58 PM
For years, people have debated whether or not we should consider the northern end of I-787 to be in Troy or at Exit 9. Well, Region 1 replaced the WB reassurance shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397593,-73.6850161,3a,21.1y,294.91h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sic7LvT34FatOkp5ub0STFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) within the last year. Noticed the Series C this morning. Does this settle the debate?

*golf claps*
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr. Matté on March 10, 2016, 12:41:52 PM
For years, people have debated whether or not we should consider the northern end of I-787 to be in Troy or at Exit 9. Well, Region 1 replaced the WB reassurance shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397593,-73.6850161,3a,21.1y,294.91h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sic7LvT34FatOkp5ub0STFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) within the last year. Noticed the Series C this morning. Does this settle the debate?

This also helps. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7394874,-73.6823362,3a,15.9y,147.53h,77.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPQkvG5hRrhMoTcj8CEp8IQ!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on March 10, 2016, 04:03:16 PM
For years, people have debated whether or not we should consider the northern end of I-787 to be in Troy or at Exit 9. Well, Region 1 replaced the WB reassurance shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397593,-73.6850161,3a,21.1y,294.91h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sic7LvT34FatOkp5ub0STFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) within the last year. Noticed the Series C this morning. Does this settle the debate?

This also helps. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7394874,-73.6823362,3a,15.9y,147.53h,77.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPQkvG5hRrhMoTcj8CEp8IQ!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
This too. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397363,-73.6819869,3a,23.1y,280.68h,99.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5KTUr2pS_BAzv4lMyYNBtQ!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 10, 2016, 06:02:48 PM
Original BGS when the "alternate" NY 7 opened in 1986.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 10, 2016, 06:10:26 PM
For years, people have debated whether or not we should consider the northern end of I-787 to be in Troy or at Exit 9. Well, Region 1 replaced the WB reassurance shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397593,-73.6850161,3a,21.1y,294.91h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sic7LvT34FatOkp5ub0STFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) within the last year. Noticed the Series C this morning. Does this settle the debate?
There was never a debate. It always ended in Troy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 10, 2016, 06:55:02 PM
As far as the official definition, I-787 always has ended in Troy.  Where the debate is how it's signed today.  The reference markers don't mean anything for multiple reasons:
-Reference markers are used for internal inventory purposes and no correlation to signage is required (especially in the cases of reference routes and touring routes that officially go a way different than what is signed, such as NY 12E and NY 324)
-I-787 was fully signed into Troy back before the NY 7 freeway and NY 787 were built (also not under debate)
-Reference markers don't change when route designations do (well, they're not supposed to, but sometimes they do (see: I-390 in southern Livingston County))

In any case: note that the only signage is on NY 7 WB.  NY 7 EB, NY 787 SB, and I-787 NB do NOT mention I-787 going over the Collar City Bridge.  At all... not even this brand new one that can't be much older than that reassurance shield.
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i787/100_9858-s.JPG)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 13, 2016, 01:19:04 PM
Those of you following the ongoing I-86 projects, do yourself a favor and point Google Earth (or Google Maps in Earth mode) to the I-81/I-86 interchange in Binghamton. 3D-rendered imagery has just been released showing the Kamikaze Curve/Prospect Mountain project in a very recent state of near-completion.

https://goo.gl/maps/ufHzgM1U8Y52
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 14, 2016, 12:51:52 PM
3D-rendered imagery has just been released showing the Kamikaze Curve/Prospect Mountain project in a very recent state of near-completion.

Completion?  They haven't even let Phase 2 yet!  :sombrero: :spin:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 14, 2016, 02:50:27 PM
3D-rendered imagery has just been released showing the Kamikaze Curve/Prospect Mountain project in a very recent state of near-completion.

Completion?  They haven't even let Phase 2 yet!  :sombrero: :spin:

I was thinking that. We'll be lucky to see the thing done by 2020.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 14, 2016, 06:52:12 PM
3D-rendered imagery has just been released showing the Kamikaze Curve/Prospect Mountain project in a very recent state of near-completion.

Completion?  They haven't even let Phase 2 yet!  :sombrero: :spin:

I was thinking that. We'll be lucky to see the thing done by 2020.

I dunno.  I think the letting for Phase II should be coming up pretty quickly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on March 17, 2016, 04:33:54 PM
Completion?  They haven't even let Phase 2 yet!  :sombrero: :spin:

The interchange has already been reconfigured. What's phase 2? The NY 7 interchange?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 17, 2016, 04:35:44 PM
Completion?  They haven't even let Phase 2 yet!  :sombrero: :spin:

The interchange has already been reconfigured. What's phase 2? The NY 7 interchange?

That and braiding the ramps. It will effectively add 2 more bridges. Still a long way to go.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 17, 2016, 09:58:45 PM
Completion?  They haven't even let Phase 2 yet!  :sombrero: :spin:

The interchange has already been reconfigured. What's phase 2? The NY 7 interchange?

That and braiding the ramps. It will effectively add 2 more bridges. Still a long way to go.

Oh, fine…

3D-rendered imagery has just been released showing the rebuilt I-81/NY 17 interchange in a very recent state of near-completion.

Now, everybody go enjoy the pretty pictures.  :pan:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 17, 2016, 10:02:27 PM
Completion?  They haven't even let Phase 2 yet!  :sombrero: :spin:

The interchange has already been reconfigured. What's phase 2? The NY 7 interchange?

That and braiding the ramps. It will effectively add 2 more bridges. Still a long way to go.

Oh, fine…

3D-rendered imagery has just been released showing the rebuilt I-81/NY 17 interchange in a very recent state of near-completion.

Now, everybody go enjoy the pretty pictures.  :pan:

I plan to detour through the area tomorrow on my way home from spring break. If traffic conditions allow and there aren't cops, I'll do my best to grab a few pictures.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MisterSG1 on March 17, 2016, 10:16:39 PM
I'm taking a little trip downstate tomorrow to get some White Castle in Nyack. Other than the Tappan Zee work, NY 17 and US 202/Bear Mountain Parkway, is there anything major that has happened in Region 8 in the past ~5 years that would be worth checking out?

And yes it is worth the hassle to get White Castle, laugh at me all you want folks, but I've made the trip to 23 Mile Road off I-94 in New Baltimore, MI many of times, usually 3 or 4 times a year to get my guilty fix of White Castle, so yes it is worth it indeed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 18, 2016, 08:32:53 AM
Another fun fact about Prospect Mountain is that Phase 1 technically leaves the interchange in a less safe condition than it was to begin with.  NYSDOT had to grapple with the fact that they had to somehow pay for both phases -- they couldn't just do Phase 1 and let it sit like that for very long.  The letting for Phase 2 should be coming up here at the end of the month (March 31st (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=28199&p_is_digital=N); got a cool $4.5m?  You too can bid on it!).

One thorn-in-the-side problem was a small memorial park along the river that really could have been replaced in a different location and would have actually reduced the costs had such a relocation been allowed.  Unfortunately, the local opposition to that idea proved to strong for NYSDOT to overcome and probably added quite the few millions to the project to avoid affecting the park as much as possible. 

Anyway, the project must go on.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 18, 2016, 12:31:21 PM
Another fun fact about Prospect Mountain is that Phase 1 technically leaves the interchange in a less safe condition than it was to begin with.  NYSDOT had to grapple with the fact that they had to somehow pay for both phases -- they couldn't just do Phase 1 and let it sit like that for very long.  The letting for Phase 2 should be coming up here at the end of the month (March 31st (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=28199&p_is_digital=N); got a cool $4.5m?  You too can bid on it!).

One thorn-in-the-side problem was a small memorial park along the river that really could have been replaced in a different location and would have actually reduced the costs had such a relocation been allowed.  Unfortunately, the local opposition to that idea proved to strong for NYSDOT to overcome and probably added quite the few millions to the project to avoid affecting the park as much as possible. 

Anyway, the project must go on.

The Utica North-South Arterial project is in sort of a same state in that the project was divided into two phases and with the completion of phase one there will now be two traffic lights along the Arterial instead of the original five. This could be argued that it is less safe than the original design in that the non-55 MPH stretch will now be reduced to 1/4 mile instead of the mile that it used to be. It was rare that vehicles slowed down in the original configuration, I doubt that motorists will slow down for this in between configuration of two traffic signals. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, Phase 2 of the arterial project is not even on the radar.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 18, 2016, 02:03:34 PM
Another fun fact about Prospect Mountain is that Phase 1 technically leaves the interchange in a less safe condition than it was to begin with.  NYSDOT had to grapple with the fact that they had to somehow pay for both phases -- they couldn't just do Phase 1 and let it sit like that for very long.  The letting for Phase 2 should be coming up here at the end of the month (March 31st (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=28199&p_is_digital=N); got a cool $4.5m?  You too can bid on it!).

One thorn-in-the-side problem was a small memorial park along the river that really could have been replaced in a different location and would have actually reduced the costs had such a relocation been allowed.  Unfortunately, the local opposition to that idea proved to strong for NYSDOT to overcome and probably added quite the few millions to the project to avoid affecting the park as much as possible. 

Anyway, the project must go on.

I agree. I drove through it today and the weave distance east of the interchange is even shorter than before. Of course, that will be remedied with Phase 2, which, IINM, will make use of a few very visible stubs. I'll upload pictures by the end of the night.

Other than the issue over the river, I think R9 did a very nice job with the project. Signage is quite nice and moving the decision point further west helps to decrease some of the clutter.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 18, 2016, 02:29:09 PM
I also have so photos on (currently) the bottom of my I-81 and I-86/NY 17 photo pages.
http://www.nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i81&state=NY
http://www.nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i86&state=NY

Another fun fact about Prospect Mountain is that Phase 1 technically leaves the interchange in a less safe condition than it was to begin with.  NYSDOT had to grapple with the fact that they had to somehow pay for both phases -- they couldn't just do Phase 1 and let it sit like that for very long.  The letting for Phase 2 should be coming up here at the end of the month (March 31st (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=28199&p_is_digital=N); got a cool $4.5m?  You too can bid on it!).

One thorn-in-the-side problem was a small memorial park along the river that really could have been replaced in a different location and would have actually reduced the costs had such a relocation been allowed.  Unfortunately, the local opposition to that idea proved to strong for NYSDOT to overcome and probably added quite the few millions to the project to avoid affecting the park as much as possible. 

Anyway, the project must go on.

The Utica North-South Arterial project is in sort of a same state in that the project was divided into two phases and with the completion of phase one there will now be two traffic lights along the Arterial instead of the original five. This could be argued that it is less safe than the original design in that the non-55 MPH stretch will now be reduced to 1/4 mile instead of the mile that it used to be. It was rare that vehicles slowed down in the original configuration, I doubt that motorists will slow down for this in between configuration of two traffic signals. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, Phase 2 of the arterial project is not even on the radar.
It was quite obvious that Phase 2 won't be for a LONG time when Region 2 went and replaced the traffic lights there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 18, 2016, 06:45:53 PM
Alright, excuse the poor lighting and wiper blades. It was raining when the pictures were taken:

EB 1/2 mile advance
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1478/25796977961_e5b14d0775_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FiAfN6)

Just past the split, which was moved about 1 mile west of its former location:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1462/25591360970_168c8945a4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EZqq2y)

Now WB:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1695/25771143532_16d32d992b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FgiR7U)

Past the split:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1644/25796970931_29eec11f86_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FiAdGT)

And NB at the merge:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1709/25796967481_c412cbea9f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FiAcFp)

Full album, including the state name shield still hanging on between the 2 halves of Exit 3, is here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/48110267@N04/albums/72157663760429184
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 18, 2016, 09:46:33 PM
They did a nice job down there. I wish I could drive down and check it out again.

Edit: Speaking of the Arterial, I finally got to get on the new bridge. They're still hard at work on the northbound portion but it looks like the southbound part is completed. If my parents didn't hold the car hostage (they think the muffler will fall off on the Thruway and it'll have to be towed) I would have gone on it opening day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 19, 2016, 01:30:59 AM
I've been waiting for someone to post that APL headed NB on I-81.  Do the lanes really follow the arrows as signed?  I seem to remember driving through there a few months ago after that new sign was put up and there was something funky about it that made me think it wasn't totally accurate (maybe another merge from the right?).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on March 19, 2016, 08:24:24 AM
I've been waiting for someone to post that APL headed NB on I-81.  Do the lanes really follow the arrows as signed?  I seem to remember driving through there a few months ago after that new sign was put up and there was something funky about it that made me think it wasn't totally accurate (maybe another merge from the right?).

The funky thing is that exit 5 to US-11 is between that assembly and the ramps to I-88.  So it's posted very prematurely.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 19, 2016, 08:26:35 AM
Quote
The funky thing is that exit 5 to US-11 is between that assembly and the ramps to I-88.  So it's posted very prematurely.

It's still not wrong.  That rightmost lane is still an option lane to I-88.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 19, 2016, 09:01:18 AM
I've been waiting for someone to post that APL headed NB on I-81.  Do the lanes really follow the arrows as signed?  I seem to remember driving through there a few months ago after that new sign was put up and there was something funky about it that made me think it wasn't totally accurate (maybe another merge from the right?).

The funky thing is that exit 5 to US-11 is between that assembly and the ramps to I-88.  So it's posted very prematurely.

Maybe that's what threw me off.

Still, I'm thinking of this lane setup, which doesn't seem to match the APL if it's still the same:

https://goo.gl/maps/rnZsHK6YFoJ2
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 19, 2016, 12:36:43 PM
I've been waiting for someone to post that APL headed NB on I-81.  Do the lanes really follow the arrows as signed?  I seem to remember driving through there a few months ago after that new sign was put up and there was something funky about it that made me think it wasn't totally accurate (maybe another merge from the right?).

The funky thing is that exit 5 to US-11 is between that assembly and the ramps to I-88.  So it's posted very prematurely.

Maybe that's what threw me off.

Still, I'm thinking of this lane setup, which doesn't seem to match the APL if it's still the same:

https://goo.gl/maps/rnZsHK6YFoJ2

The sign is right. The second lane for I-88 is added at US 11.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 19, 2016, 10:41:40 PM
I've been waiting for someone to post that APL headed NB on I-81.  Do the lanes really follow the arrows as signed?  I seem to remember driving through there a few months ago after that new sign was put up and there was something funky about it that made me think it wasn't totally accurate (maybe another merge from the right?).

The funky thing is that exit 5 to US-11 is between that assembly and the ramps to I-88.  So it's posted very prematurely.

Maybe that's what threw me off.

Still, I'm thinking of this lane setup, which doesn't seem to match the APL if it's still the same:

https://goo.gl/maps/rnZsHK6YFoJ2

The sign is right. The second lane for I-88 is added at US 11.

*shrug*

Still seems odd placement for the APL to me, with the left lane drop and the lane add just down the road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 19, 2016, 11:33:18 PM
On a different note, I wanted to see some snow, so I drove up north and decided to clinch NY 421 today. Region 7 replaced all of the signs except for one NB reverse turn sign immediately after the sharp bend west and the distance sign for Horseshoe Lake. I doubt most of the signs are more than 5 years old, including the several reassurance shields in both directions and the NY 30 trailblazers. Everything to the snowplow turn sign near the end (other than the aforementioned sign) is new and the pavement ends sign looks new as well, but I didn't go past where the plow stopped. All of NY 421 was plowed and heavily salted. Why it was plowed to Horseshoe Lake is beyond comprehension, as there is literally nothing beyond Warren Point.

Even with all of those new signs, it may have been the roughest "paved" road I have ever driven on, with several cracks and potholes that rarely allowed me to get over 30 mph. Quite odd seeing a road with brand new signs and clearly-painted lines in that condition.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 21, 2016, 09:46:25 PM
What's the story behind the two NY-5 stubs in Syracuse? Will they ever be extended?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 22, 2016, 07:27:07 AM
No.

Their existence dates back to the late 60s/early 70s plan for Syracuse arterials and expressways.  The stub to the east (towards Syracuse) is dead-dead...too much development in the way.  And while the stub to the west (towards Auburn) technically has nothing physically blocking it, I *HIGHLY* doubt NYSDOT will ever conjure up the funding to extend it, nor is there a serious need for it given demands elsewhere in the Syracuse area (like 31 between Clay and Cicero, for example, or replacing/upgrading the 81 viaduct).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on March 22, 2016, 08:20:14 AM
What's the story behind the two NY-5 stubs in Syracuse? Will they ever be extended?
I heard the full story on a recent road meet, but cannot remember the exact details of it.  I think it was Chris from Minnesota that told me that to the west it would have went beyond Auburn being a bypass of it.  To the east, I cannot remember if we discussed it or not, but I am sure it would have connected to I-81 somewhere.  Perhaps with I-481 which would have made most sense to connect it with creating a beltway around the city.

I once had a map years ago with its proposal and like most things when I moved, got either thrown out or lost.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 22, 2016, 12:54:16 PM
I remember reading that it would have come out a couple miles south of I-481 (why there and not at I-481, I have no idea).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 22, 2016, 01:15:30 PM
I remember reading that it would have come out a couple miles south of I-481 (why there and not at I-481, I have no idea).

As a kid I had a map of the area (1978 or so) and I-481 was proposed to meet up with the eastern NY 5 stub. As others have mentioned, too much development in the way now. That's the first I've heard of the expressway meeting up with 81 south of the current 481 interchange, that would have been interesting.

If they go ahead with tearing down the viaduct and going with the boulevard approach, I bet a lot of motorists are going to wish that missing connection of the "beltway" connecting 481 to the route 5 stub was in place.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 22, 2016, 01:47:28 PM
If they go ahead with tearing down the viaduct and going with the boulevard approach, I bet a lot of motorists are going to wish that missing connection of the "beltway" connecting 481 to the route 5 stub was in place.

Of course, even if that's the selected alternative, AASHTO would still have to approve the decommissioning and route change, so there is hope.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 22, 2016, 02:34:02 PM
I remember reading that it would have come out a couple miles south of I-481 (why there and not at I-481, I have no idea).

As a kid I had a map of the area (1978 or so) and I-481 was proposed to meet up with the eastern NY 5 stub. As others have mentioned, too much development in the way now. That's the first I've heard of the expressway meeting up with 81 south of the current 481 interchange, that would have been interesting.

If they go ahead with tearing down the viaduct and going with the boulevard approach, I bet a lot of motorists are going to wish that missing connection of the "beltway" connecting 481 to the route 5 stub was in place.
That connection would go a long way to making the boulevard alternative more viable.  I-81 would move onto I-481, I-481 would move onto I-81 from I-690 to I-481, I-281 would be added on the west side from I-81 to I-690 via the unbuilt connection, and NY 695 could just be removed as it would be replaced with I-281; NY 5 would remain where it is.

I could have sworn I read about the 2 miles south thing on either your site or Empire State Roads.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 22, 2016, 03:08:21 PM
Personal opinion stressed, but I could think of worse projects than an I-481/NY-5 connection. Imagine if the central planners had gone through and connected I-990 to NY-400 via US-62, or NY-5 in Buffalo to NY-425 via Delaware Ave and massive eminent domain (both were planned). Thankfully that didn't happen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on March 22, 2016, 03:13:45 PM
Say goodbye to two miles of the Robert Moses Parkway:

Quote
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that New York State will replace an underutilized two-mile stretch of the Robert Moses Parkway North in Niagara Falls with open space, scenic overlooks and recreational trails to make the waterfront more accessible to residents, tourists and visitors alike. The project marks the largest expansion of green space since the Niagara Reservation was designed in 1885, and will link the Niagara River Gorge and Falls into a single destination to allow easier access to the water’s edge.

Quote
The project will remove an underutilized two-mile segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive. It will include a reconstruction of Whirlpool Street, which will be redesigned into a two-lane street to provide all north-south access to the section of the Niagara Gorge Corridor closest to the parkway.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-42-million-project-remove-two-mile-stretch-robert-moses-parkway-and

And they're even taking submissions for a new name:

Quote
The Robert Moses Parkway naming competition will accept online submissions until 5 p.m. on April 30, 2016. The winning name will be selected by a panel comprised of state representatives and members of the local community. The new name will be unveiled on a permanent sign during an official ribbon-cutting event when the project is complete. Suggestions can be submitted at http://go.ny.gov/Niagara.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 22, 2016, 04:34:39 PM
Say goodbye to two miles of the Robert Moses Parkway:

Quote
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that New York State will replace an underutilized two-mile stretch of the Robert Moses Parkway North in Niagara Falls with open space, scenic overlooks and recreational trails to make the waterfront more accessible to residents, tourists and visitors alike. The project marks the largest expansion of green space since the Niagara Reservation was designed in 1885, and will link the Niagara River Gorge and Falls into a single destination to allow easier access to the water’s edge.

Quote
The project will remove an underutilized two-mile segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive. It will include a reconstruction of Whirlpool Street, which will be redesigned into a two-lane street to provide all north-south access to the section of the Niagara Gorge Corridor closest to the parkway.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-42-million-project-remove-two-mile-stretch-robert-moses-parkway-and

And they're even taking submissions for a new name:

Quote
The Robert Moses Parkway naming competition will accept online submissions until 5 p.m. on April 30, 2016. The winning name will be selected by a panel comprised of state representatives and members of the local community. The new name will be unveiled on a permanent sign during an official ribbon-cutting event when the project is complete. Suggestions can be submitted at http://go.ny.gov/Niagara.

We've known this was probably coming for a year or so. Not having to redeck/reconstruct the Whirlpool Bridge viaduct (which would need it) will almost pay for the project. Unlike many expressway removal plans, this one actually makes sense. Entire thing is prime parkland and it is completely redundant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 22, 2016, 04:49:13 PM
Regarding early Syracuse proposals, hopefully this map clears some things up:

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1708/25872268142_99e28c4ff0_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/25872268142/)

I found this map in an early 1970s (1971?) transportation plan for the Syracuse area.  Nothing was planned west of Camillus (I believe the extension to Auburn was proposed in the 1950s but hasn't been seriously considered since 1970).  The extension to I-81, as shown in the map, was indeed south of I-481, though it should be noted that mid-1960s proposals considered building I-481 to meet I-81 at this southern location instead of its existing location.

There were a number of possible plans considered for routing NY 5 between the east end of the freeway and downtown Syracuse.  These included a one-way pair or limited-access arterial utilizing parts of W. Genessee St and/or Erie Blvd, a freeway routing along W. Genessee St or Erie Blvd, and a freeway running south towards Onondaga Blvd, then east towards downtown Syracuse.  This last option prevailed through the mid '70s, and some of the routing can be seen on aerial imagery as a space between developments in Westvale between the end of the freeway and Onondaga Blvd.  Near Onondaga Blvd, this freeway would have turned east, and would have been either a freeway or limited-access arterial paralleling either Grand Ave or Onondaga Blvd/Onondaga St east to either Geddes St or possibly as far as West St.  Eventually, all options for extension or expansion were dropped.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 22, 2016, 06:50:13 PM
Say goodbye to two miles of the Robert Moses Parkway:

Quote
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that New York State will replace an underutilized two-mile stretch of the Robert Moses Parkway North in Niagara Falls with open space, scenic overlooks and recreational trails to make the waterfront more accessible to residents, tourists and visitors alike. The project marks the largest expansion of green space since the Niagara Reservation was designed in 1885, and will link the Niagara River Gorge and Falls into a single destination to allow easier access to the water’s edge.

Quote
The project will remove an underutilized two-mile segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive. It will include a reconstruction of Whirlpool Street, which will be redesigned into a two-lane street to provide all north-south access to the section of the Niagara Gorge Corridor closest to the parkway.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-42-million-project-remove-two-mile-stretch-robert-moses-parkway-and

And they're even taking submissions for a new name:

Quote
The Robert Moses Parkway naming competition will accept online submissions until 5 p.m. on April 30, 2016. The winning name will be selected by a panel comprised of state representatives and members of the local community. The new name will be unveiled on a permanent sign during an official ribbon-cutting event when the project is complete. Suggestions can be submitted at http://go.ny.gov/Niagara.

We've known this was probably coming for a year or so. Not having to redeck/reconstruct the Whirlpool Bridge viaduct (which would need it) will almost pay for the project. Unlike many expressway removal plans, this one actually makes sense. Entire thing is prime parkland and it is completely redundant.
The question is: what do they plan to do with the rest of it?  Leave it as a "work zone" forever?  Reconstruct what's currently there in a way that doesn't scream "we just plopped some jersey barriers on the road and called it done"?  Rebuild as it was?  Mix?

One beef with this: it was awfully wasteful to reconstruct the part from Main St to the geological museum only to rip it out.  If they weren't sure they were going to keep that section, they should have held off.

I wonder if the renaming is for the whole parkway or just a part of it.  I thought it was already decided to rename it Niagara Scenic Parkway though?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 22, 2016, 06:57:24 PM
Say goodbye to two miles of the Robert Moses Parkway:

Quote
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that New York State will replace an underutilized two-mile stretch of the Robert Moses Parkway North in Niagara Falls with open space, scenic overlooks and recreational trails to make the waterfront more accessible to residents, tourists and visitors alike. The project marks the largest expansion of green space since the Niagara Reservation was designed in 1885, and will link the Niagara River Gorge and Falls into a single destination to allow easier access to the water’s edge.

Quote
The project will remove an underutilized two-mile segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive. It will include a reconstruction of Whirlpool Street, which will be redesigned into a two-lane street to provide all north-south access to the section of the Niagara Gorge Corridor closest to the parkway.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-42-million-project-remove-two-mile-stretch-robert-moses-parkway-and

And they're even taking submissions for a new name:

Quote
The Robert Moses Parkway naming competition will accept online submissions until 5 p.m. on April 30, 2016. The winning name will be selected by a panel comprised of state representatives and members of the local community. The new name will be unveiled on a permanent sign during an official ribbon-cutting event when the project is complete. Suggestions can be submitted at http://go.ny.gov/Niagara.

We've known this was probably coming for a year or so. Not having to redeck/reconstruct the Whirlpool Bridge viaduct (which would need it) will almost pay for the project. Unlike many expressway removal plans, this one actually makes sense. Entire thing is prime parkland and it is completely redundant.
The question is: what do they plan to do with the rest of it?  Leave it as a "work zone" forever?  Reconstruct what's currently there in a way that doesn't scream "we just plopped some jersey barriers on the road and called it done"?  Rebuild as it was?  Mix?

One beef with this: it was awfully wasteful to reconstruct the part from Main St to the geological museum only to rip it out.  If they weren't sure they were going to keep that section, they should have held off.

I wonder if the renaming is for the whole parkway or just a part of it.  I thought it was already decided to rename it Niagara Scenic Parkway though?

From what my parents have said, Buffalo media makes it appear that the entire thing is being renamed.

I honestly have no idea why the part south of the discovery center was redone. Granted, the "rip out" alternative was just that, an alternative, but it was an alternative that made a lot of sense. When they get around to ripping it out in 2018, it will have been in that configuration for 6 years.

As far as the rest, who knows. Other than the portion over the dam, it serves a purpose.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 22, 2016, 08:22:29 PM
Regarding early Syracuse proposals, hopefully this map clears some things up:

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1708/25872268142_99e28c4ff0_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/25872268142/)

I found this map in an early 1970s (1971?) transportation plan for the Syracuse area.  Nothing was planned west of Camillus (I believe the extension to Auburn was proposed in the 1950s but hasn't been seriously considered since 1970).  The extension to I-81, as shown in the map, was indeed south of I-481, though it should be noted that mid-1960s proposals considered building I-481 to meet I-81 at this southern location instead of its existing location.

There were a number of possible plans considered for routing NY 5 between the east end of the freeway and downtown Syracuse.  These included a one-way pair or limited-access arterial utilizing parts of W. Genessee St and/or Erie Blvd, a freeway routing along W. Genessee St or Erie Blvd, and a freeway running south towards Onondaga Blvd, then east towards downtown Syracuse.  This last option prevailed through the mid '70s, and some of the routing can be seen on aerial imagery as a space between developments in Westvale between the end of the freeway and Onondaga Blvd.  Near Onondaga Blvd, this freeway would have turned east, and would have been either a freeway or limited-access arterial paralleling either Grand Ave or Onondaga Blvd/Onondaga St east to either Geddes St or possibly as far as West St.  Eventually, all options for extension or expansion were dropped.


Wow, that's a very interesting map. Now I wish I had saved the map I had with the loop meeting up with 481 at 81 Exit 16A. Ah, the mistakes of youth. 

A couple of things on that map image:
* Henry Clay Blvd. is marked as 7th North St. -- did 7th North Street ever go out where Henry Clay Blvd is?
* Mattydale is marked to be in Eastwood. This is interesting, because I always remembered a sign on US Route 11 South just south of the Northern Lights circle (marked Mattydale Oval here) that said "Hinsdale".

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on March 23, 2016, 10:34:20 PM
If they go ahead with tearing down the viaduct and going with the boulevard approach, I bet a lot of motorists are going to wish that missing connection of the "beltway" connecting 481 to the route 5 stub was in place.

Of course, even if that's the selected alternative, AASHTO would still have to approve the decommissioning and route change, so there is hope.

AASHTO declining to approve the route change won't stop NYSDOT from tearing down the viaduct if that's what they decide to do.

It will then merely mean that I-81 is a gap in it, and if you think this is a situation no one with decision making power will accept, I point you to the gap in I-95 that has existed for decades.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 23, 2016, 11:44:00 PM
AASHTO has no direct control over funding whatsoever and certainly doesn't keep NYSDOT or any other DOT from doing anything (e.g., didn't I-26 signs go up in Tennessee before the formal change from I-181 to I-26?).  It's a lobbying organization foremost and a loose coordination body second.

The code is more what you'd call "guidelines"...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 24, 2016, 09:36:13 AM
Given that it's an Interstate route, FHWA would be the approval authority anyway, not AASHTO.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: goldfishcrackers4 on March 24, 2016, 01:07:28 PM
Does anyone know what is going on in Region 2 with the Route 8 bridge over the Arterial. I noticed the dates have been pushed back to 2020-2022.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.WEPIDYNPAGEMULTI.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=205675

When this bridge is redone, the entire interchange should be altered.  It is dangerous as it is right now.  At one point, I heard discussion of a directional interchange here, but that does not seem practical, especially considering that the Arterial expressway ends shortly after this interchange. They also have the two railroad crossings with lights...

Agreed with above that the situation on the new Arterial with the light at Noyes St. will create a dangerous situation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 24, 2016, 03:12:27 PM
Does anyone know what is going on in Region 2 with the Route 8 bridge over the Arterial. I noticed the dates have been pushed back to 2020-2022.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.WEPIDYNPAGEMULTI.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=205675

When this bridge is redone, the entire interchange should be altered.  It is dangerous as it is right now.  At one point, I heard discussion of a directional interchange here, but that does not seem practical, especially considering that the Arterial expressway ends shortly after this interchange. They also have the two railroad crossings with lights...

Agreed with above that the situation on the new Arterial with the light at Noyes St. will create a dangerous situation.

I know it's on the long term MPO planning agenda, so don't expect anything anytime soon. But I think they should turn it into a condensed stack, especially if they're thinking about extending NY-840 north into Rome.

If you're merging on via the little access ramps in the vicinity, it can be dangerous indeed. Those probably need to be removed.

The grade crossing isn't really a hazard per se, but for a highway (and this is on the NY-365 as well) it should be an overpass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2016, 03:48:59 PM
Back to Syracuse, have they made any final decisions on what will happen to Interstate 81 in the city? And if not, does anyone know when they will make such decisions?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 25, 2016, 03:13:13 PM
Uncovered on reddit, 1970

(http://i.imgur.com/fLVrf4G.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on March 25, 2016, 03:17:48 PM
That's a great find.  Oh how times have changed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on March 25, 2016, 03:20:17 PM
Alright, excuse the poor lighting and wiper blades. It was raining when the pictures were taken:

EB 1/2 mile advance
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1478/25796977961_e5b14d0775_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FiAfN6)

..snip

I know this is somewhat necro... but I really dig that sound barrier along the side of the interstate.  That looks great.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: sbeaver44 on March 25, 2016, 04:42:37 PM

Now WB:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1695/25771143532_16d32d992b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FgiR7U)


Interesting that they changed the control city for 17 West to Corning, I believe it had been Elmira or Elmira/Owego.  I wonder if that is because of I-99 going to (basically) Corning, or if the state feels Corning is a more important place as a tourist destination than Elmira, being that Elmira is larger.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on March 25, 2016, 10:23:43 PM
Interesting that they changed the control city for 17 West to Corning, I believe it had been Elmira or Elmira/Owego.  I wonder if that is because of I-99 going to (basically) Corning, or if the state feels Corning is a more important place as a tourist destination than Elmira, being that Elmira is larger.

Corning has replaced Elmira as the westbound control city from the Bighamton area on most if not all new signs put up in the past few years. The reason, most likely, is because of I-99.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr. Matté on March 26, 2016, 05:04:36 PM
I find it more odd that they spent all the trouble of making the signs with just I-86 but sticking an NJDOT NY 17 shield over them until the time came (as seen here: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/i-81/s.html ) but now they're just replacing all the signs showing both 86 and 17.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 26, 2016, 08:12:06 PM
I find it more odd that they spent all the trouble of making the signs with just I-86 but sticking an NJDOT NY 17 shield over them until the time came (as seen here: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/i-81/s.html ) but now they're just replacing all the signs showing both 86 and 17.

While signage for I-86 doesn't start until US 220, the portion through Tioga County is basically awaiting approval and will get designated as soon as an application is submitted. Every reassurance shield in the area is placed on top of an I-86 shield and distance banners are blue. Actually, this is true through most of Region 9 except in Hale Eddy. I can confirm from being through there last week that WB signage starts at or just east of US 220 in Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on March 27, 2016, 10:53:32 AM
I find it more odd that they spent all the trouble of making the signs with just I-86 but sticking an NJDOT NY 17 shield over them until the time came (as seen here: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/i-81/s.html ) but now they're just replacing all the signs showing both 86 and 17.

While signage for I-86 doesn't start until US 220, the portion through Tioga County is basically awaiting approval and will get designated as soon as an application is submitted. Every reassurance shield in the area is placed on top of an I-86 shield and distance banners are blue. Actually, this is true through most of Region 9 except in Hale Eddy. I can confirm from being through there last week that WB signage starts at or just east of US 220 in Pennsylvania.

Westbound signage right now starts at exit 62 for NY-282 in Nichols.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 27, 2016, 12:15:43 PM

Now WB:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1695/25771143532_16d32d992b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FgiR7U)


Interesting that they changed the control city for 17 West to Corning, I believe it had been Elmira or Elmira/Owego.  I wonder if that is because of I-99 going to (basically) Corning, or if the state feels Corning is a more important place as a tourist destination than Elmira, being that Elmira is larger.

I'm curious why the left lane needs an "EXIT ONLY" but the right lane doesn't. It's not like you can exit to the left from the right lane (at least not safely).

(Edit: fixed the misaligned quote tags)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on March 27, 2016, 12:40:19 PM
I'm curious why the left lane needs an "EXIT ONLY" but the right lane doesn't. It's not like you can exit to the left from the right lane (at least not safely).

Because the right lane is a through lane, not an exit lane.

Yes, this distinction depends on whether you've following 81 or 17/86, sure, but that segment of road uses I-81's exit numbers so it's considered the through route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 27, 2016, 09:35:48 PM
Especially after the reunumbering upon the completion of Phase II... the exit to NY 7 will change from 4N-S to 4A and the exit to I-86 will be 4B.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 28, 2016, 01:30:57 PM
Time for a traffic nightmare: NY 85 closed between I-90 and US 20 this Saturday and Sunday (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/traveler-advisories/2016/2016-03-28), including Exit 4. Detour is through the state office park and Exit 3. After this, the entire road will be a super two for reconstruction through the end of the summer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 28, 2016, 01:45:21 PM
Time for a traffic nightmare: NY 85 closed between I-90 and US 20 this Saturday and Sunday (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/traveler-advisories/2016/2016-03-28), including Exit 4. Detour is through the state office park and Exit 3. After this, the entire road will be a super two for reconstruction through the end of the summer.

*shrug*

Yep, but it's for a very good cause -- finally getting rid of those "Rough Road" signs!

I use NY 85 regularly to get down to Bethlehem/Delmar.  I'll just use I-787 to 9W to get to where I need to go.  Time difference is actually probably minimal given that my usual route takes me through the Five Corners intersection (Kenwood & Delaware).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 28, 2016, 07:49:59 PM
Time for a traffic nightmare: NY 85 closed between I-90 and US 20 this Saturday and Sunday (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/traveler-advisories/2016/2016-03-28), including Exit 4. Detour is through the state office park and Exit 3. After this, the entire road will be a super two for reconstruction through the end of the summer.

*shrug*

Yep, but it's for a very good cause -- finally getting rid of those "Rough Road" signs!

I use NY 85 regularly to get down to Bethlehem/Delmar.  I'll just use I-787 to 9W to get to where I need to go.  Time difference is actually probably minimal given that my usual route takes me through the Five Corners intersection (Kenwood & Delaware).
Hopefully traffic is just bad enough that they don't think NY 85 can be road-dieted.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 28, 2016, 08:26:52 PM
Thing I've noticed with such weekend road closures is that, if they're announced ahead of time, traffic tends to not be as bad as many think...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on March 28, 2016, 08:41:21 PM
Uncovered on reddit, 1970

(http://i.imgur.com/fLVrf4G.jpg)
I wish some of this could've been built. (Also, I love your subtitle about I-85's "extension" to Buffalo.  Along the 219, I presume...)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 29, 2016, 12:34:28 PM
Time for a traffic nightmare: NY 85 closed between I-90 and US 20 this Saturday and Sunday (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/traveler-advisories/2016/2016-03-28), including Exit 4. Detour is through the state office park and Exit 3. After this, the entire road will be a super two for reconstruction through the end of the summer.

*shrug*

Yep, but it's for a very good cause -- finally getting rid of those "Rough Road" signs!

I use NY 85 regularly to get down to Bethlehem/Delmar.  I'll just use I-787 to 9W to get to where I need to go.  Time difference is actually probably minimal given that my usual route takes me through the Five Corners intersection (Kenwood & Delaware).
Hopefully traffic is just bad enough that they don't think NY 85 can be road-dieted.

I do think that, besides the obvious funding issues Region 1 had, one of the main reasons NY 85 was put off for so long was an underestimation of the traffic that uses it.  So, that's a little worrisome.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 29, 2016, 12:39:25 PM
Any thought of a road diet for NY 85 would be one of the dumbest things New York could do. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 29, 2016, 12:42:12 PM
Any thought of a road diet for NY 85 would be one of the dumbest things New York could do. 

*points at Delmar Bypass* 

I dunno.  That thing's pretty darned dumb. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 29, 2016, 01:02:18 PM
Any thought of a road diet for NY 85 would be one of the dumbest things New York could do. 

*points at Delmar Bypass* 

I dunno.  That thing's pretty darned dumb. :D

What's dumber is that the entire thing was built without signalized intersections. The Town of Bethlehem had to petition NYSDOT to add signals after a bunch of accidents.

I do think that, besides the obvious funding issues Region 1 had, one of the main reasons NY 85 was put off for so long was an underestimation of the traffic that uses it.  So, that's a little worrisome.

I'm convinced they underestimate everything. The Northway needs 8 lanes and there isn't a way to sugar-coat it, but the denial continues.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 29, 2016, 02:11:40 PM

I'm convinced they underestimate everything. The Northway needs 8 lanes and there isn't a way to sugar-coat it, but the denial continues.

Anytime widening the Northway is brought up, someone brings up the Twin Bridges.  Besides the usual rhetoric (eh, you'll increase sprawl, eh, it's expensive and our other infrastructure's falling apart, etc.), it's having to replace those suckers that usually is the coffin nail in such conversations.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 29, 2016, 02:17:28 PM

I'm convinced they underestimate everything. The Northway needs 8 lanes and there isn't a way to sugar-coat it, but the denial continues.

Anytime widening the Northway is brought up, someone brings up the Twin Bridges.  Besides the usual rhetoric (eh, you'll increase sprawl, eh, it's expensive and our other infrastructure's falling apart, etc.), it's having to replace those suckers that usually is the coffin nail in such conversations.

Because they are in such good condition. The other bridge of the same name was holding back the widening of tbe BQE for how long? Widen the Northway and half of the other problems go away.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 29, 2016, 06:51:32 PM
IMO the big issue with the Northway isn't traffic counts (though they are higher than other upstate metro areas) so much as the fact that Capital District drivers seem to think that it's acceptable to merge onto a freeway at 40 mph.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 29, 2016, 07:12:21 PM
Uncovered on reddit, 1970

(http://i.imgur.com/fLVrf4G.jpg)
I wish some of this could've been built. (Also, I love your subtitle about I-85's "extension" to Buffalo.  Along the 219, I presume...)

It would be nice if an outer "parkway" could be built around the county from near Irving into Concord and the eastern county line and then into Niagara County. No trucks, just cars only like the Taconic. A nice scenic bypass featuring foliage and fauna while cutting across the Thruway. It wouldn't shorten time, but it would be scenic!

(http://www.cyburbia.org/gallery/data/516/medium/ebay2_177.jpg)

With all of the sprawl that's happening though (preventing an outer belt freeway (not parkway)) and a declining city population, I don't think either will be built or considered anytime soon. At the same time, just look at how Texas conducts business.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 29, 2016, 07:12:42 PM
IMO the big issue with the Northway isn't traffic counts (though they are higher than other upstate metro areas) so much as the fact that Capital District drivers seem to think that it's acceptable to merge onto a freeway at 40 mph.

Is that too fast?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 29, 2016, 07:50:59 PM
Any thought of a road diet for NY 85 would be one of the dumbest things New York could do.
I wouldn't be that optimistic. Given number of circles struck into 85... Did anyone try roundabout on the interstate? That is not at at-grade crossing, nor a traffic light - so roundabout  instead of exit 4 should be a no-brainier!
Worst part of the joke - i wouldn't put my life on roundabout not being considered.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 29, 2016, 07:59:30 PM

I'm convinced they underestimate everything. The Northway needs 8 lanes and there isn't a way to sugar-coat it, but the denial continues.

Anytime widening the Northway is brought up, someone brings up the Twin Bridges.  Besides the usual rhetoric (eh, you'll increase sprawl, eh, it's expensive and our other infrastructure's falling apart, etc.), it's having to replace those suckers that usually is the coffin nail in such conversations.

And why adding third bridge to be used north-south depending on time of day is such a huge problem?  I've seen a few places where road capacity is reallocated for commute flow...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on March 29, 2016, 08:08:21 PM
Is that too fast?

Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 29, 2016, 08:13:19 PM
Is that too fast?

Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.

With geometry on some of the ramps, 55 at the beginning of the merge zone is pushing it around here. A lot of the ramps in Upstate New York have a curve at the end that many vehicles cannot take at full speed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 29, 2016, 09:17:38 PM
Is that too fast?

Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.

With geometry on some of the ramps, 55 at the beginning of the merge zone is pushing it around here. A lot of the ramps in Upstate New York have a curve at the end that many vehicles cannot take at full speed.

I think that's why I asked that question. I drive a high profile SUV, I have a need for speed, but on a lot of ramps (especially clovers), I can't go above certain speeds.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 29, 2016, 09:53:56 PM
IMO the big issue with the Northway isn't traffic counts...

Did we attend the same data conference today?  I was at the one where HDSB kept reminding us of all the issues there are with their data! :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 30, 2016, 04:38:14 PM
I looked on Google maps, is the Northway really 10 lanes in Latham?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadsguy on March 30, 2016, 04:54:07 PM
I looked on Google maps, is the Northway really 10 lanes in Latham?

Where on Google did you see that? It's only ever six, plus auxiliary/merge lanes that might briefly make it ten.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 30, 2016, 05:28:59 PM
I looked on Google maps, is the Northway really 10 lanes in Latham?

Where on Google did you see that? It's only ever six, plus auxiliary/merge lanes that might briefly make it ten.

It's 10 between Exits 6 and 7. 2 of those are on a C-D road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 30, 2016, 06:53:11 PM
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom.  I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1556/25535242613_79359bf7bb_c.jpg)

Maybe these are county maintained as well?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1534/26115821076_2b2bb5ef01_c.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1611/25533084394_6c88489655_b.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 30, 2016, 07:06:34 PM
Is that too fast?

Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.

With geometry on some of the ramps, 55 at the beginning of the merge zone is pushing it around here. A lot of the ramps in Upstate New York have a curve at the end that many vehicles cannot take at full speed.
Aside from the cloverleaf loop ramps at NY 5 and I-90, I can take the ending curve at 50 on all the Northway ramps in normal conditions, and there's still a long acceleration lane to accelerate the rest of the way in.  The guys who merge on at 40 STAY at 40 until after they have already moved into the main travel lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 30, 2016, 07:20:12 PM
Is that too fast?

Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.

With geometry on some of the ramps, 55 at the beginning of the merge zone is pushing it around here. A lot of the ramps in Upstate New York have a curve at the end that many vehicles cannot take at full speed.
Aside from the cloverleaf loop ramps at NY 5 and I-90, I can take the ending curve at 50 on all the Northway ramps in normal conditions, and there's still a long acceleration lane to accelerate the rest of the way in.  The guys who merge on at 40 STAY at 40 until after they have already moved into the main travel lane.

And they move into the travel lane as quickly as possible instead of using the acceleration lane to their fullest potential.  Motorists on the eastern side of the state are notorious for that.  A woman became very upset with me because she entered the Thruway at 35 and immediately moved to the travel lane, I passed her on the right in the acceleration lane because there was plenty of room and I wanted to be doing at least 55-60 before merging into traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 30, 2016, 07:30:57 PM
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom.  I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1556/25535242613_79359bf7bb_c.jpg)

Maybe these are county maintained as well?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1534/26115821076_2b2bb5ef01_c.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1611/25533084394_6c88489655_b.jpg)

I'm not seeing it, sorry.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 30, 2016, 07:49:32 PM
Is that too fast?

Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.

With geometry on some of the ramps, 55 at the beginning of the merge zone is pushing it around here. A lot of the ramps in Upstate New York have a curve at the end that many vehicles cannot take at full speed.
Aside from the cloverleaf loop ramps at NY 5 and I-90, I can take the ending curve at 50 on all the Northway ramps in normal conditions, and there's still a long acceleration lane to accelerate the rest of the way in.  The guys who merge on at 40 STAY at 40 until after they have already moved into the main travel lane.

And they move into the travel lane as quickly as possible instead of using the acceleration lane to their fullest potential.  Motorists on the eastern side of the state are notorious for that.  A woman became very upset with me because she entered the Thruway at 35 and immediately moved to the travel lane, I passed her on the right in the acceleration lane because there was plenty of room and I wanted to be doing at least 55-60 before merging into traffic.
Heck, they even wait to get to full speed at Thruway exit 24 going onto I-90 (though thankfully they're usually at 60 or so), even though the ramps can handle full Thruway speeds.  They also slow down to 50 getting off I-90 at exit 24 despite the ramps being able to handle more and being a whole mile away from the toll booths.  Capital District drivers also take a long time to accelerate from lights; they're basically driving like 90 year old men most of the time (except in downtown Albany, for some reason).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 30, 2016, 08:15:59 PM
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom.  I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.

[…]

Maybe these are county maintained as well?

Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 30, 2016, 08:40:34 PM
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom.  I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.

[…]

Maybe these are county maintained as well?

Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.

That sign is actually on I-287.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 31, 2016, 08:37:07 AM
Quote from: cl94
It's 10 between Exits 6 and 7. 2 of those are on a C-D road.

Technically that's true, but I would also argue that it can be confusing to the layman to say such, as 4 of those 10 are not through lanes as Roadsguy mentioned.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on March 31, 2016, 08:46:57 AM
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom.  I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.

[…]

Maybe these are county maintained as well?

Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.

That sign is actually on I-287.

Yes, the first one is on I-287, but the others are on Westchester Avenue, which is Westchester CR 62.  It's very conceivable that those are county-maintained.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 31, 2016, 09:27:40 AM
Is that too fast?

Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.

With geometry on some of the ramps, 55 at the beginning of the merge zone is pushing it around here. A lot of the ramps in Upstate New York have a curve at the end that many vehicles cannot take at full speed.
Aside from the cloverleaf loop ramps at NY 5 and I-90, I can take the ending curve at 50 on all the Northway ramps in normal conditions, and there's still a long acceleration lane to accelerate the rest of the way in.  The guys who merge on at 40 STAY at 40 until after they have already moved into the main travel lane.

And they move into the travel lane as quickly as possible instead of using the acceleration lane to their fullest potential.  Motorists on the eastern side of the state are notorious for that.  A woman became very upset with me because she entered the Thruway at 35 and immediately moved to the travel lane, I passed her on the right in the acceleration lane because there was plenty of room and I wanted to be doing at least 55-60 before merging into traffic.
Heck, they even wait to get to full speed at Thruway exit 24 going onto I-90 (though thankfully they're usually at 60 or so), even though the ramps can handle full Thruway speeds. 

...except for the little matter of that 20 mph hairpin curve from Thruway NB to Northway/Free I-90. :D

(Yeah, I know you meant come from the west.  Just giving you a hard time.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 31, 2016, 10:19:50 AM
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom.  I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.

[…]

Maybe these are county maintained as well?

Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.

That sign is actually on I-287.

Yes, the first one is on I-287, but the others are on Westchester Avenue, which is Westchester CR 62.  It's very conceivable that those are county-maintained.

Hmm? They're all three on Westchester Ave:
https://goo.gl/maps/xFUW5opaexG2
https://goo.gl/maps/BCf99W1jVHu
https://goo.gl/maps/HjCyEnBWgsN2
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MisterSG1 on March 31, 2016, 11:50:11 AM
I looked on Google maps, is the Northway really 10 lanes in Latham?

Where on Google did you see that? It's only ever six, plus auxiliary/merge lanes that might briefly make it ten.

It's 10 between Exits 6 and 7. 2 of those are on a C-D road.

I respectfully disagree, looking at the map, it doesn't look like a C-D road entirely. The southbound side appears to be a C-D road, but there appears to be only one lane that's constant throughout the C-D section.

What I would consider to be a C-D road that's 10 lanes through, or at least very close to it, is at Exit 55 on the Thruway.

EDIT, it appears I misread your post slightly, but still, those 2 lanes that leave on the NB side at Exit 7, I wouldn't call those lanes myself, because you can see a continuity line on the right side of the right lane, this makes it obvious to the driver that these are not through lanes but lanes that will obviously leave the freeway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 31, 2016, 12:52:13 PM
I think that's more like a frontage road.  In any case, those two lanes on the SB side are actually NY 7... it's an odd case where there's an overlap in one direction but not the other.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 31, 2016, 06:33:20 PM
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom.  I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.

[…]

Maybe these are county maintained as well?

Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.

That sign is actually on I-287.

Yes, the first one is on I-287, but the others are on Westchester Avenue, which is Westchester CR 62.  It's very conceivable that those are county-maintained.

Hmm? They're all three on Westchester Ave:
https://goo.gl/maps/xFUW5opaexG2
https://goo.gl/maps/BCf99W1jVHu
https://goo.gl/maps/HjCyEnBWgsN2

I think the reasoning behind it is that Westchester Avenue is kind of the service road for I-287.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 31, 2016, 06:45:40 PM
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom.  I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.

[…]

Maybe these are county maintained as well?

Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.

That sign is actually on I-287.

Yes, the first one is on I-287, but the others are on Westchester Avenue, which is Westchester CR 62.  It's very conceivable that those are county-maintained.

Hmm? They're all three on Westchester Ave:
https://goo.gl/maps/xFUW5opaexG2
https://goo.gl/maps/BCf99W1jVHu
https://goo.gl/maps/HjCyEnBWgsN2

I think the reasoning behind it is that Westchester Avenue is kind of the service road for I-287.

Right…which is a county road…so it makes sense that the signs are labeled by the county.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on March 31, 2016, 06:59:19 PM
Right…which is a county road…so it makes sense that the signs are labeled by the county.

Although Westchester Ave was part of NY 119 when I-287 was first built. I've always assumed those signs to be original to the highway's construction in 1961 but if they're county branded, maybe they aren't.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 31, 2016, 07:20:54 PM
I looked on Google maps, is the Northway really 10 lanes in Latham?

Where on Google did you see that? It's only ever six, plus auxiliary/merge lanes that might briefly make it ten.

It's 10 between Exits 6 and 7. 2 of those are on a C-D road.
What I would consider to be a C-D road that's 10 lanes through, or at least very close to it, is at Exit 55 on the Thruway.

Every time I drive on that portion, I like to call it "I-90 Express"  :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 31, 2016, 07:25:31 PM
Technically the c/d roads at Thruway exit 55 are part of US 219.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on March 31, 2016, 07:55:43 PM
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom.  I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.

[…]

Maybe these are county maintained as well?

Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.

That sign is actually on I-287.

Yes, the first one is on I-287, but the others are on Westchester Avenue, which is Westchester CR 62.  It's very conceivable that those are county-maintained.

Hmm? They're all three on Westchester Ave:
https://goo.gl/maps/xFUW5opaexG2
https://goo.gl/maps/BCf99W1jVHu
https://goo.gl/maps/HjCyEnBWgsN2

My mistake.  I saw the exit number and assumed it was on I-287.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on March 31, 2016, 07:56:39 PM
Right…which is a county road…so it makes sense that the signs are labeled by the county.

Although Westchester Ave was part of NY 119 when I-287 was first built. I've always assumed those signs to be original to the highway's construction in 1961 but if they're county branded, maybe they aren't.

It could be that they were installed by NYSDOT back when it was NY 119, and now the county is responsible for replacing them when the time comes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 31, 2016, 08:15:38 PM
Right…which is a county road…so it makes sense that the signs are labeled by the county.

Although Westchester Ave was part of NY 119 when I-287 was first built. I've always assumed those signs to be original to the highway's construction in 1961 but if they're county branded, maybe they aren't.

They still could be. Many NY routes are not on state-maintained roads. It's perfectly possible that Westchester Ave. was county-maintained even then, and just had NY 119 routed over it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 31, 2016, 08:33:16 PM
Right…which is a county road…so it makes sense that the signs are labeled by the county.

Although Westchester Ave was part of NY 119 when I-287 was first built. I've always assumed those signs to be original to the highway's construction in 1961 but if they're county branded, maybe they aren't.

They still could be. Many NY routes are not on state-maintained roads. It's perfectly possible that Westchester Ave. was county-maintained even then, and just had NY 119 routed over it.

Either way, the sign looks cool.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on March 31, 2016, 08:57:55 PM
I thought this was an interesting fact: The Voyager Golden Records contain this picture of what was at the time a modern highway in Ithaca, NY:
(http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/images/image103.gif)

Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4782683,-76.4993467,3a,55.4y,58.04h,79.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBVkH5q6nSPnNVreXFGrI0A!2e0) the same scene in Street View, and here's (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/goldenrec.html) a list of everything on the records.  The picture is in the Scenes From Earth section.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 31, 2016, 09:09:20 PM
Right…which is a county road…so it makes sense that the signs are labeled by the county.

Although Westchester Ave was part of NY 119 when I-287 was first built. I've always assumed those signs to be original to the highway's construction in 1961 but if they're county branded, maybe they aren't.

It could be that they were installed by NYSDOT back when it was NY 119, and now the county is responsible for replacing them when the time comes.
Oh, that time has come and gone. Wonder if the state would kick in funding.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 31, 2016, 11:10:28 PM
I thought this was an interesting fact: The Voyager Golden Records contain this picture of what was at the time a modern highway in Ithaca, NY:
(http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/images/image103.gif)

Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4782683,-76.4993467,3a,55.4y,58.04h,79.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBVkH5q6nSPnNVreXFGrI0A!2e0) the same scene in Street View, and here's (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/goldenrec.html) a list of everything on the records.  The picture is in the Scenes From Earth section.

What's nuts is the view in the other direction and the view going down the hill. It's one hell of a downgrade.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 31, 2016, 11:24:01 PM
Technically the c/d roads at Thruway exit 55 are part of US 219.

Oh I've known that, I mean how it runs parallel to I-90. Kind of like NY-49 in Utica, although there isn't direct access to I-90 (yet).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 31, 2016, 11:29:43 PM
I thought this was an interesting fact: The Voyager Golden Records contain this picture of what was at the time a modern highway in Ithaca, NY:
(http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/images/image103.gif)

Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4782683,-76.4993467,3a,55.4y,58.04h,79.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBVkH5q6nSPnNVreXFGrI0A!2e0) the same scene in Street View, and here's (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/goldenrec.html) a list of everything on the records.  The picture is in the Scenes From Earth section.

If aliens get to the spacecraft, they'll see what a real highway looks like.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 01, 2016, 12:19:29 PM
In a surprise announcement, NYSDOT, VTrans and New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced the construction of a new Interstate spur along the US 4 and NY 149 corridor between Interstate 87 in Bolton and US 4 east of Rutland earlier today. The route, to be designated Interstate 387, will be a four-lane limited access freeway running through Warren, Washington, and Rutland Counties. In his speech, Cuomo noted that the project will include a four-lane cable-stayed signature bridge across Lake George between Bolton Landing and Shelving Rock, a signature arch bridge across South Bay and twin two-lane tunnels under Cat Mountain and West Mountain. Intermediate exits between I-87 and the current west end of the freeway will be located at NY 9N, Washington CR 7, NY 22, and VT 4A. The grade crossing near US 7 will be eliminated and the freeway will be extended east to Mendon around the southeast side of Rutland with a new interchange at US 7.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: AMLNet49 on April 01, 2016, 12:51:14 PM
In a surprise announcement, NYSDOT, VTrans and New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced the construction of a new Interstate spur along the US 4 and NY 149 corridor between Interstate 87 in Bolton and US 4 east of Rutland earlier today. The route, to be designated Interstate 387, will be a four-lane limited access freeway running through Warren, Washington, and Rutland Counties. In his speech, Cuomo noted that the project will include a four-lane cable-stayed signature bridge across Lake George between Bolton Landing and Shelving Rock, a signature arch bridge across South Bay and twin two-lane tunnels under Cat Mountain and West Mountain. Intermediate exits between I-87 and the current west end of the freeway will be located at NY 9N, Washington CR 7, NY 22, and VT 4A. The grade crossing near US 7 will be eliminated and the freeway will be extended east to Mendon around the southeast side of Rutland with a new interchange at US 7.

You worked hard on this April Fools prank
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 01, 2016, 01:27:04 PM
The signature bridge across Lake George was a nice touch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 01, 2016, 01:51:10 PM
Ignorance is bliss, especially today...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 01, 2016, 05:01:30 PM
Thank god somebody finally got around to an April Fools joke. I'm pretty sure this is the first one I've seen all day, apart from the re-release of Calvin & Hobbes by Berke Breathed, of course.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 01, 2016, 05:28:34 PM
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom.  I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1556/25535242613_79359bf7bb_c.jpg)
I'm not seeing it, sorry.

I only noticed the "County of Westchester on the Exit 9N-S sign.  Just found it suspect the other signs haven't been replaced as well (Including the ones on the I-287 EB mainline in the area)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on April 01, 2016, 06:07:07 PM
In a surprise announcement, NYSDOT, VTrans and New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced the construction of a new Interstate spur along the US 4 and NY 149 corridor between Interstate 87 in Bolton and US 4 east of Rutland earlier today. The route, to be designated Interstate 387, will be a four-lane limited access freeway running through Warren, Washington, and Rutland Counties. In his speech, Cuomo noted that the project will include a four-lane cable-stayed signature bridge across Lake George between Bolton Landing and Shelving Rock, a signature arch bridge across South Bay and twin two-lane tunnels under Cat Mountain and West Mountain. Intermediate exits between I-87 and the current west end of the freeway will be located at NY 9N, Washington CR 7, NY 22, and VT 4A. The grade crossing near US 7 will be eliminated and the freeway will be extended east to Mendon around the southeast side of Rutland with a new interchange at US 7.
That is one helluva news release and yes, the Lake George bridge was a special touch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 01, 2016, 07:01:20 PM
In real news, plans of the new LIE rest area/welcome center (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263143) were released. EB side at the current parking area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 01, 2016, 07:24:48 PM
I assume this is the version with no truck parking.  Honestly, what's the point?  NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing.  Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 01, 2016, 07:29:01 PM
I assume this is the version with no truck parking.  Honestly, what's the point?  NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing.  Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?

(personal opinion emphasized)

It is and I agree that it is bullshit. Quite ironic that the plans went online today. Unless they're planning to add another truck facility, this will take away one of the very few truck parking areas on the Island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 02, 2016, 07:25:43 AM
In a surprise announcement, NYSDOT, VTrans and New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced the construction of a new Interstate spur along the US 4 and NY 149 corridor between Interstate 87 in Bolton and US 4 east of Rutland earlier today. The route, to be designated Interstate 387, will be a four-lane limited access freeway running through Warren, Washington, and Rutland Counties. In his speech, Cuomo noted that the project will include a four-lane cable-stayed signature bridge across Lake George between Bolton Landing and Shelving Rock, a signature arch bridge across South Bay and twin two-lane tunnels under Cat Mountain and West Mountain. Intermediate exits between I-87 and the current west end of the freeway will be located at NY 9N, Washington CR 7, NY 22, and VT 4A. The grade crossing near US 7 will be eliminated and the freeway will be extended east to Mendon around the southeast side of Rutland with a new interchange at US 7.
great minds think alike. I posted this beauty on another forum yesterday

Quote
ALBANY — As Erie County and its inner- and mid- ring suburbs grow, so does the need for improved transportation, according to local and state officials. Banking on TIGER grants, they believe that a revival of the 1971 Outer Belt plan is necessary. A bypass of Amherst, a cut across the East Side, and a Lancaster Relief Route were all proposed during the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s. The outer belt highway was proposed during this timeframe as well, but went into hiatus during the mid- 1980s and was ultimatly shelved from the region's long range planning document in 1993.

In a statement forwarded to The News, Rep. Chris Collins took a bullish approach to the plan, saying the area's transportation infrastructure has become overcrowded in recent years, and cited the frequent delays at Exit 51 in Cheektowaga.

"The state DOT informed me that the 90/33 interchange is nearing the end-of-life cycle, and that a replacement would cost an exorbitant amount of money. Their recommendation was that a reliever highway may in fact be necessary.

Part of the area beltway had been completed by 1975, including the Milestrip Expressway in Blasdell and the LaSalle Expressway in Niagara Falls, both of which were designed to join in the eastern suburbs. According to the statement, the proposed beltway would follow the initial proposed path from the 1971 regional plan, taking it through Orchard Park, Elma, Lancaster and Amherst, ultimatly joining with the LaSalle Expressway east of Niagara Falls.

Collins noted in his statement that he is aware of the potential issues with the routing of the route, but says that the eminent domain would be justifiable under the current circumstances.

"When you look at the routing, it's clear that it takes up a lot of land," Collins said. "The DOT has said that much of this is negotiable in their study of alternatives and that there may be alterations to cut down on costs."

The Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council, responsible for the area's transportation planning, has shifted towards public transportation and mass transit in the latest study. While the agency did not immediately responded for comment, it has been amenable to policy changes in the past.

The fact that people believed this is amazing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 02, 2016, 11:14:58 AM
I assume this is the version with no truck parking.  Honestly, what's the point?  NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing.  Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?

(personal opinion emphasized)

The federal aid ineligibility threat has not been carried out yet, insofar as I know.

*knows something everyone else doesn't know about this whole mess but can't tell and boasts of his secret knowledge like a six-year-old* :P
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 02, 2016, 03:28:35 PM
I assume this is the version with no truck parking.  Honestly, what's the point?  NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing.  Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?

(personal opinion emphasized)

The federal aid ineligibility threat has not been carried out yet, insofar as I know.

*knows something everyone else doesn't know about this whole mess but can't tell and boasts of his secret knowledge like a six-year-old* :P

Oh? Is there another announcement coming?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 02, 2016, 07:32:41 PM
I assume this is the version with no truck parking.  Honestly, what's the point?  NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing.  Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?

(personal opinion emphasized)

The federal aid ineligibility threat has not been carried out yet, insofar as I know.

*knows something everyone else doesn't know about this whole mess but can't tell and boasts of his secret knowledge like a six-year-old* :P

Oh? Is there another announcement coming?

Long Island also doesn't need these rest stops. There are nearly 60 exits on 495, a lot of them containing places to stop, and it's only 71 miles long. It only takes an hour and fifteen minutes max to reach Riverhead from NYC.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 02, 2016, 07:48:55 PM
I assume this is the version with no truck parking.  Honestly, what's the point?  NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing.  Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?

(personal opinion emphasized)

The federal aid ineligibility threat has not been carried out yet, insofar as I know.

*knows something everyone else doesn't know about this whole mess but can't tell and boasts of his secret knowledge like a six-year-old* :P

Oh? Is there another announcement coming?

Long Island also doesn't need these rest stops. There are nearly 60 exits on 495, a lot of them containing places to stop, and it's only 71 miles long. It only takes an hour and fifteen minutes max to reach Riverhead from NYC.

Long Island has a grand total of zero truck stops and very few places for trucks to legally park. A run from Jersey to eastern Suffolk is barely doable on a single shift if traffic is good and you have to do a round trip. Let me give you an idea of timing: a round trip from Nassau to Montauk can be ~5 hours on a good day. It takes forever to travel across the Island, especially for a truck that is basically limited to one of two limited-access routes and a few N-S connectors between them. The original idea of a rest area was to provide a better truck parking location. And 1:15 is on a weekend or at night. Good luck doing that when a truck would have to deliver.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 02, 2016, 10:05:09 PM
I assume this is the version with no truck parking.  Honestly, what's the point?  NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing.  Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?

(personal opinion emphasized)

The federal aid ineligibility threat has not been carried out yet, insofar as I know.

*knows something everyone else doesn't know about this whole mess but can't tell and boasts of his secret knowledge like a six-year-old* :P

Oh? Is there another announcement coming?

Long Island also doesn't need these rest stops. There are nearly 60 exits on 495, a lot of them containing places to stop, and it's only 71 miles long. It only takes an hour and fifteen minutes max to reach Riverhead from NYC.

Long Island has a grand total of zero truck stops and very few places for trucks to legally park. A run from Jersey to eastern Suffolk is barely doable on a single shift if traffic is good and you have to do a round trip. Let me give you an idea of timing: a round trip from Nassau to Montauk can be ~5 hours on a good day. It takes forever to travel across the Island, especially for a truck that is basically limited to one of two limited-access routes and a few N-S connectors between them. The original idea of a rest area was to provide a better truck parking location. And 1:15 is on a weekend or at night. Good luck doing that when a truck would have to deliver.

We actually do have one stop past exit 48, even though it is an eastbound sort of deal. And 495 is actually fine so long as it isn't rush hour.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 02, 2016, 10:27:10 PM
I assume this is the version with no truck parking.  Honestly, what's the point?  NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing.  Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?

(personal opinion emphasized)

The federal aid ineligibility threat has not been carried out yet, insofar as I know.

*knows something everyone else doesn't know about this whole mess but can't tell and boasts of his secret knowledge like a six-year-old* :P

Oh? Is there another announcement coming?

Long Island also doesn't need these rest stops. There are nearly 60 exits on 495, a lot of them containing places to stop, and it's only 71 miles long. It only takes an hour and fifteen minutes max to reach Riverhead from NYC.

Long Island has a grand total of zero truck stops and very few places for trucks to legally park. A run from Jersey to eastern Suffolk is barely doable on a single shift if traffic is good and you have to do a round trip. Let me give you an idea of timing: a round trip from Nassau to Montauk can be ~5 hours on a good day. It takes forever to travel across the Island, especially for a truck that is basically limited to one of two limited-access routes and a few N-S connectors between them. The original idea of a rest area was to provide a better truck parking location. And 1:15 is on a weekend or at night. Good luck doing that when a truck would have to deliver.

We actually do have one stop past exit 48, even though it is an eastbound sort of deal. And 495 is actually fine so long as it isn't rush hour.

Unless you're referring to the Dix Hills parking area, there's nothing in the area other than the weigh station.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 02, 2016, 11:07:36 PM
On a different note, does anybody know when NY 5S was moved over to the old railroad bridge over Schoharie Creek? I drove through there last week and was quite surprised to be driving on the rail bridge. The trail was shifted to the former NY 5S bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 02, 2016, 11:42:40 PM
On a different note, does anybody know when NY 5S was moved over to the old railroad bridge over Schoharie Creek? I drove through there last week and was quite surprised to be driving on the rail bridge. The trail was shifted to the former NY 5S bridge.

Wasn't it as a result of the Thruway bridge collapse?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on April 03, 2016, 12:57:03 AM
On a different note, does anybody know when NY 5S was moved over to the old railroad bridge over Schoharie Creek? I drove through there last week and was quite surprised to be driving on the rail bridge. The trail was shifted to the former NY 5S bridge.

Wasn't it as a result of the Thruway bridge collapse?

That was one of the times, yes, but in recent years 5S has been switched back and forth a few times.  I think this most recent switch was done by early last fall.  I seem to remember it being switched back over to the railroad bridge when I drove out that way to get on the Thruway at 28 headed west in September.  Maybe it was later than that, though.

Were they alternating traffic now on the RR bridge?  It was very annoying all summer when they were working on the RR bridge and had one lane alternating (with traffic lights) on the original automobile bridge (the one to the south/upstream) to keep half of the bridge dedicated for the bike trail.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 03, 2016, 02:08:55 AM
On a different note, does anybody know when NY 5S was moved over to the old railroad bridge over Schoharie Creek? I drove through there last week and was quite surprised to be driving on the rail bridge. The trail was shifted to the former NY 5S bridge.

Wasn't it as a result of the Thruway bridge collapse?

That was one of the times, yes, but in recent years 5S has been switched back and forth a few times.  I think this most recent switch was done by early last fall.  I seem to remember it being switched back over to the railroad bridge when I drove out that way to get on the Thruway at 28 headed west in September.  Maybe it was later than that, though.

Were they alternating traffic now on the RR bridge?  It was very annoying all summer when they were working on the RR bridge and had one lane alternating (with traffic lights) on the original automobile bridge (the one to the south/upstream) to keep half of the bridge dedicated for the bike trail.

It was two-way traffic. The trail crossed over to the other bridge on either side.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MisterSG1 on April 03, 2016, 12:24:23 PM
Technically the c/d roads at Thruway exit 55 are part of US 219.

So V, if the collector lanes at this point are indeed US 219, and the core lanes are I-90 or the Thruway, does this mean that the Thruway Authority ONLY is responsible for maintenance of the core? While the NYSDOT would be responsible for the collectors? I was wondering this and I'm sure you would know the answer as it did cross my mind when you posted that reply.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 03, 2016, 12:51:51 PM
Technically the c/d roads at Thruway exit 55 are part of US 219.

So V, if the collector lanes at this point are indeed US 219, and the core lanes are I-90 or the Thruway, does this mean that the Thruway Authority ONLY is responsible for maintenance of the core? While the NYSDOT would be responsible for the collectors? I was wondering this and I'm sure you would know the answer as it did cross my mind when you posted that reply.

I'll beat her to the answer- that is correct. Signs at the gore points indicate the change in maintenance. Similarly, the I-190 C-D road at I-290 heading NB is maintained by NYSDOT (and according to mileposts, it is the zero point for I-290).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 03, 2016, 05:15:44 PM
On a different note, does anybody know when NY 5S was moved over to the old railroad bridge over Schoharie Creek? I drove through there last week and was quite surprised to be driving on the rail bridge. The trail was shifted to the former NY 5S bridge.

Wasn't it as a result of the Thruway bridge collapse?

That was one of the times, yes, but in recent years 5S has been switched back and forth a few times.  I think this most recent switch was done by early last fall.  I seem to remember it being switched back over to the railroad bridge when I drove out that way to get on the Thruway at 28 headed west in September.  Maybe it was later than that, though.

Were they alternating traffic now on the RR bridge?  It was very annoying all summer when they were working on the RR bridge and had one lane alternating (with traffic lights) on the original automobile bridge (the one to the south/upstream) to keep half of the bridge dedicated for the bike trail.

There are several bridges in R2 that have one-way alternating traffic due to bridge inspection results and I think the bridges that you're talking about are amongst them. Perhaps they swapped bridges again to try to extend the shelf life of both bridges.  NYSDOT money is tight, which is really a shame because budgetary concerns should never compromise motorist safety when it comes to things like bridges and such.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 04, 2016, 01:04:50 PM
NB Northway closed between Exits 16 (Saratoga CR 33) and 17 (US 9) in Wilton and Moreau (http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Wreck-slows-Northway-traffic-7226802.php?cmpid=fbsocialflow) due to a multi-vehicle accident. This comes less than 24 hours after I-88 was shut down in Schenevus for an accident of similar scale.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on April 04, 2016, 01:10:19 PM
^^ It's amazing, almost embarrassing, how poorly the Albany area is handling a few inches of snow today.  This level of disruption is normally reserved for much more significant snowfalls or in places that are much less prepared to deal with snow.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 04, 2016, 01:20:33 PM
^^ It's amazing, almost embarrassing, how poorly the Albany area is handling a few inches of snow today.  This level of disruption is normally reserved for much more significant snowfalls or in places that are much less prepared to deal with snow.

It's the only storm of the year and we're having a year's worth of accidents. I'm convinced it's because people forgot how to drive in the snow. NY 28N is closed in Minerva due to a tour bus accident and the various traffic sources are reporting an accident every couple of miles along every major road. I-787 has an accident every half-mile or so along its entire length, including one on the Collar City Bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 04, 2016, 01:34:37 PM
^^ It's amazing, almost embarrassing, how poorly the Albany area is handling a few inches of snow today.  This level of disruption is normally reserved for much more significant snowfalls or in places that are much less prepared to deal with snow.

Judging from social media, it appears everyone has forgotten that snow in April is not at all uncommon at these latitudes.

(Not even kidding…I bet if there was a study, people today would perform far worse at long-term memory tasks than we used to, because of the immediacy with which information tends to be presented to and processed by us.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 04, 2016, 01:41:34 PM
I can't believe the situation, myself and all the nonsense that's going on out there.  Especially since my commute was slowed down by scared people putzing along at 20 mph or less on Central Ave in Colonie.

We've had April snow before, in fact, quite recently (either last year or the year before we got a dusting even later than this).  April Fools' blizzards are at least frequent enough to stick in people's memories, I would have thought.

A person can be smart; people are stupid.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 04, 2016, 01:50:01 PM
I'm trying to figure it out. Yeah, we've had a light winter, but anything can happen around here until Memorial Day. My commute in was slow, but I also passed a bunch of people who had spun out heading down the hills too fast.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 04, 2016, 03:19:22 PM
A person can be smart; people are stupid.

I LOVE this quote.  Carry on ^_^
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on April 04, 2016, 08:42:57 PM
I think a big part of the problem is that the various organizations responsible for salting/sanding/plowing really dropped the ball on the morning commute.  It's like they thought that just because it was warm a few days ago that the snow wouldn't stick on the roads today.  Well, it's been cold the last day or two, and yes, it stuck.  Once the plows got out and surfaces were treated, the pavement quickly became just wet, even while the snow was still coming down.  And of course drivers seemed to forget how to deal with snow, behaving in the dangerous combination of some being terrified and driving way too slow and some driving like it's sunny and 60 on dry roads.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 04, 2016, 08:46:27 PM
I think a big part of the problem is that the various organizations responsible for salting/sanding/plowing really dropped the ball on the morning commute.  It's like they thought that just because it was warm a few days ago that the snow wouldn't stick on the roads today.  Well, it's been cold the last day or two, and yes, it stuck.  Once the plows got out and surfaces were treated, the pavement quickly became just wet, even while the snow was still coming down.  And of course drivers seemed to forget how to deal with snow, behaving in the dangerous combination of some being terrified and driving way too slow and some driving like it's sunny and 60 on dry roads.

I think the wetness yesterday afternoon and evening didn't help things. Stuff was heavily salted when I was out in the early afternoon, but at least where I am, we got rain during and after the initial snowburst (the one that caused the I-88 accident) and I think that washed the salt away. Certainly doesn't excuse the lack of salting overnight.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MisterSG1 on April 04, 2016, 09:28:20 PM
While all this drama went on in Albany, let me speak for what happened in the GTA....I left this morning slightly before 6AM to head to the subway station, which involves me using the 401. Well, I think I saw 5 accidents on my way to the highway alone, didn't see any issues surprisingly on the 427 or 409.

When I got to the Allen Rd exit, 4 or 5 inches of snow had to have fallen and the plows hadn't touched or treated the loop ramp, I carefully take the ramp at 10-15km/h (advisory speed is 30km/h), some guy behind me pulls to the right of me and tries to overtake me, I let him go, he tries to make the ramp, overcorrects, goes into the jersey barrier, and spins out facing me.....yup what an idiot.

When I board the subway, which is at most 5 minutes after, for those of you who don't know, the subway passes over the 401, and I saw the 401 EB Express lanes had no flow whatsoever....yup I knew it was gonna be a long and horrifying commute for most people today.


I think the issue here is that most people thought winter was over, as we've had nicer weather combined with the very little snowfall we've had this year, and well people do stupid moves. It's not just drivers in Albany, but here in the GTA as well!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 05, 2016, 03:09:05 PM
The new state budget includes funding for Northway Exit 3 (http://blog.timesunion.com/business/state-budget-has-50m-for-new-exit-4-link-to-albany-airport/73781/?cmpid=fbsocialflow) (or whatever they're numbering the new ramps). If you're remotely familiar with the area, you will know that the project is much needed and long overdue.

If you haven't been following the developments, the C-D road that was supposed to be the beginning of I-687 will be removed and a 3/4 trumpet will be constructed behind the Red Roof Inn on the south side, connecting directly to NY 155/CR 151 at the end of the airport runway. The current NB ramps will remain, but the NB exit ramp will be converted to right turn only. The SB Exit 5 entrance ramp will be directly connected to the mainline and both current SB ramps will be eliminated.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 05, 2016, 05:51:06 PM
I believe it's supposed to be numbered exit 4.  It also includes an exit only lane NB between exits 4 and 5, which should help some of the congestion there (largely caused by people using the right lane as an exit only lane now, even though it's really a through lane).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 05, 2016, 07:35:15 PM
I believe it's supposed to be numbered exit 4.  It also includes an exit only lane NB between exits 4 and 5, which should help some of the congestion there (largely caused by people using the right lane as an exit only lane now, even though it's really a through lane).

It says in the article that they're going to be reconfiguring exit 4, not adding an exit 3.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 05, 2016, 07:43:41 PM
I believe it's supposed to be numbered exit 4.  It also includes an exit only lane NB between exits 4 and 5, which should help some of the congestion there (largely caused by people using the right lane as an exit only lane now, even though it's really a through lane).

It says in the article that they're going to be reconfiguring exit 4, not adding an exit 3.

My point is that a ramp is being added. Old NB Exit 4 is staying.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 06, 2016, 01:14:10 PM
I believe it's supposed to be numbered exit 4.  It also includes an exit only lane NB between exits 4 and 5, which should help some of the congestion there (largely caused by people using the right lane as an exit only lane now, even though it's really a through lane).

It says in the article that they're going to be reconfiguring exit 4, not adding an exit 3.
It says they're reconfiguring exit 4... it does NOT say what NYSDOT plans to number the exits when done (which will be 4A/4B NB... yes, I asked).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 06, 2016, 02:02:51 PM
I believe it's supposed to be numbered exit 4.  It also includes an exit only lane NB between exits 4 and 5, which should help some of the congestion there (largely caused by people using the right lane as an exit only lane now, even though it's really a through lane).

It says in the article that they're going to be reconfiguring exit 4, not adding an exit 3.
It says they're reconfiguring exit 4... it does NOT say what NYSDOT plans to number the exits when done (which will be 4A/4B NB... yes, I asked).

Thanks. That's what I was wondering. None of the study documents I could find publicly available listed exit numbers. Of course, depending on if/when the Northway ever gets renumbered, those numbers could be something completely different by the time everything is posted or shortly thereafter.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 06, 2016, 09:08:20 PM
I've passed by this place a million times, what is it's significance to the DOT?

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7571549,-78.836929,201m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 06, 2016, 09:34:30 PM
Looks like a residency or subresidency.  They're the ones who handle routine maintenance such as snow plowing or dealing with signs that are knocked over.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 06, 2016, 09:42:22 PM
I've passed by this place a million times, what is it's significance to the DOT?

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7571549,-78.836929,201m/data=!3m1!1e3

Looks like a residency or subresidency.  They're the ones who handle routine maintenance such as snow plowing or dealing with signs that are knocked over.

It isn't the residency-the Hamburg/South Erie Residency is on Lakeview Rd in the village. The R5 residency listing I found does not include that location.

What does the sign say? Looks like equipment storage and a fueling station. Could be the sign shop and other manufacturing/maintenance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 06, 2016, 09:49:24 PM
I have heard about a sign shop near there.  Given the vehicles in the lot, it could be vehicle maintenance too (like the one in Waterford).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 06, 2016, 10:02:13 PM
Given the vehicles in the lot, it could be vehicle maintenance too (like the one in Waterford).

I was thinking that. None of the residencies in the area have vehicle maintenance facilities beyond refueling and salt barns.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 06, 2016, 10:53:47 PM
There's some kind of fuel pump in the front and offices.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 06, 2016, 11:34:59 PM
On a different note, I was checking on the NY 85 construction yesterday and noticed that Region 1 installed an APL at the I-90 trumpet. I don't know when it happened, but I don't remember it from the last time I was out that way. First APL in Region 1.

NY 85 is 3 lanes through most of the construction zone. 2 EB, 1 WB. This was accomplished by closing an exit ramp heading EB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on April 07, 2016, 07:44:47 AM
On a different note, I was checking on the NY 85 construction yesterday and noticed that Region 1 installed an APL at the I-90 trumpet. I don't know when it happened, but I don't remember it from the last time I was out that way. First APL in Region 1.

NY 85 is 3 lanes through most of the construction zone. 2 EB, 1 WB. This was accomplished by closing an exit ramp heading EB.

I thought I knew most of the terms and acronyms by now, but I guess not.  What does APL stand for?

I'm guessing you're referring to the new large overhead sign showing which lanes to use to get to each direction on I-90.  That has been there 2 or 3 weeks now, I think.  Just yesterday I noticed a lot more ground-mounted temporary-looking signs indicating left lane for WB and right lane for EB I-90.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 07, 2016, 07:53:34 AM
I've taken some sort of diabolical joy in watching the big ground-mounted sign that lists colleges in Albany on NY 85 NB slowly fall to the ground.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 07, 2016, 07:59:23 AM
The new state budget includes funding for Northway Exit 3 (http://blog.timesunion.com/business/state-budget-has-50m-for-new-exit-4-link-to-albany-airport/73781/?cmpid=fbsocialflow) (or whatever they're numbering the new ramps). If you're remotely familiar with the area, you will know that the project is much needed and long overdue.

I disagree with how needed this project is.  It's been pushed off for years because people make do with going through the lights at the end of Wolf Road and Region 1 certainly has other issues that need addressing overall due to their unfortunate hyperfocus on Interstates in the early 2000s (i.e., non-Interstates have gone to pot condition-wise and they've been trying to dig themselves out from under that backlog...MAP-21 didn't do them any favors with the added emphasis on the NHS and they've been restricted in their efforts by their fund source mix). 

In my opinion, without political pressure having been put upon NYSDOT, the project would have been pushed off even further given the other priorities Region 1 faces.  Building new while letting everything else go kaput just isn't wise.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: davewiecking on April 07, 2016, 08:20:56 AM
I thought I knew most of the terms and acronyms by now, but I guess not.  What does APL stand for?
Arrow Per Lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 07, 2016, 12:20:59 PM
There's some kind of fuel pump in the front and offices.
Some NYSDOT facilities have gas, a few more diesel, and a lot more CNG.

The new state budget includes funding for Northway Exit 3 (http://blog.timesunion.com/business/state-budget-has-50m-for-new-exit-4-link-to-albany-airport/73781/?cmpid=fbsocialflow) (or whatever they're numbering the new ramps). If you're remotely familiar with the area, you will know that the project is much needed and long overdue.

I disagree with how needed this project is.  It's been pushed off for years because people make do with going through the lights at the end of Wolf Road and Region 1 certainly has other issues that need addressing overall due to their unfortunate hyperfocus on Interstates in the early 2000s (i.e., non-Interstates have gone to pot condition-wise and they've been trying to dig themselves out from under that backlog...MAP-21 didn't do them any favors with the added emphasis on the NHS and they've been restricted in their efforts by their fund source mix). 

In my opinion, without political pressure having been put upon NYSDOT, the project would have been pushed off even further given the other priorities Region 1 faces.  Building new while letting everything else go kaput just isn't wise.
Seriously, that area backs up every day.  Sometimes the traffic getting off there backs up onto the Northway in the morning, and in the evening, it's the main cause of congestion until you get near NY 7.  It also take a LONG time to get through all those lights, which is THE reason why no reasonable alternative routes to the Northway exist for my commute.  Even when the Northway is a parking lot and you're constantly hitting a complete stop, it's STILL faster than taking Wolf Road through, and getting off at exit 4 if it's congested (especially NB) is a hopeless cause.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 07, 2016, 12:26:21 PM
There's some kind of fuel pump in the front and offices.
Some NYSDOT facilities have gas, a few more diesel, and a lot more CNG.

The new state budget includes funding for Northway Exit 3 (http://blog.timesunion.com/business/state-budget-has-50m-for-new-exit-4-link-to-albany-airport/73781/?cmpid=fbsocialflow) (or whatever they're numbering the new ramps). If you're remotely familiar with the area, you will know that the project is much needed and long overdue.

I disagree with how needed this project is.  It's been pushed off for years because people make do with going through the lights at the end of Wolf Road and Region 1 certainly has other issues that need addressing overall due to their unfortunate hyperfocus on Interstates in the early 2000s (i.e., non-Interstates have gone to pot condition-wise and they've been trying to dig themselves out from under that backlog...MAP-21 didn't do them any favors with the added emphasis on the NHS and they've been restricted in their efforts by their fund source mix). 

In my opinion, without political pressure having been put upon NYSDOT, the project would have been pushed off even further given the other priorities Region 1 faces.  Building new while letting everything else go kaput just isn't wise.
Seriously, that area backs up every day.  Sometimes the traffic getting off there backs up onto the Northway in the morning, and in the evening, it's the main cause of congestion until you get near NY 7.  It also take a LONG time to get through all those lights, which is THE reason why no reasonable alternative routes to the Northway exist for my commute.  Even when the Northway is a parking lot and you're constantly hitting a complete stop, it's STILL faster than taking Wolf Road through, and getting off at exit 4 if it's congested (especially NB) is a hopeless cause.

Congestion mitigation through building new infrastructure versus preserving old, which NYSDOT's stated policy is "preservation first." :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 07, 2016, 01:41:32 PM
There's some kind of fuel pump in the front and offices.
Some NYSDOT facilities have gas, a few more diesel, and a lot more CNG.

The new state budget includes funding for Northway Exit 3 (http://blog.timesunion.com/business/state-budget-has-50m-for-new-exit-4-link-to-albany-airport/73781/?cmpid=fbsocialflow) (or whatever they're numbering the new ramps). If you're remotely familiar with the area, you will know that the project is much needed and long overdue.

I disagree with how needed this project is.  It's been pushed off for years because people make do with going through the lights at the end of Wolf Road and Region 1 certainly has other issues that need addressing overall due to their unfortunate hyperfocus on Interstates in the early 2000s (i.e., non-Interstates have gone to pot condition-wise and they've been trying to dig themselves out from under that backlog...MAP-21 didn't do them any favors with the added emphasis on the NHS and they've been restricted in their efforts by their fund source mix). 

In my opinion, without political pressure having been put upon NYSDOT, the project would have been pushed off even further given the other priorities Region 1 faces.  Building new while letting everything else go kaput just isn't wise.
Seriously, that area backs up every day.  Sometimes the traffic getting off there backs up onto the Northway in the morning, and in the evening, it's the main cause of congestion until you get near NY 7.  It also take a LONG time to get through all those lights, which is THE reason why no reasonable alternative routes to the Northway exist for my commute.  Even when the Northway is a parking lot and you're constantly hitting a complete stop, it's STILL faster than taking Wolf Road through, and getting off at exit 4 if it's congested (especially NB) is a hopeless cause.

Congestion mitigation through building new infrastructure versus preserving old, which NYSDOT's stated policy is "preservation first." :D

And I donxt think anyone is complaining. The area has been a mess since I was a young child and it has only gotten worse as the population has surged.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 07, 2016, 06:25:13 PM
There's some kind of fuel pump in the front and offices.
Some NYSDOT facilities have gas, a few more diesel, and a lot more CNG.

The new state budget includes funding for Northway Exit 3 (http://blog.timesunion.com/business/state-budget-has-50m-for-new-exit-4-link-to-albany-airport/73781/?cmpid=fbsocialflow) (or whatever they're numbering the new ramps). If you're remotely familiar with the area, you will know that the project is much needed and long overdue.

I disagree with how needed this project is.  It's been pushed off for years because people make do with going through the lights at the end of Wolf Road and Region 1 certainly has other issues that need addressing overall due to their unfortunate hyperfocus on Interstates in the early 2000s (i.e., non-Interstates have gone to pot condition-wise and they've been trying to dig themselves out from under that backlog...MAP-21 didn't do them any favors with the added emphasis on the NHS and they've been restricted in their efforts by their fund source mix). 

In my opinion, without political pressure having been put upon NYSDOT, the project would have been pushed off even further given the other priorities Region 1 faces.  Building new while letting everything else go kaput just isn't wise.
Seriously, that area backs up every day.  Sometimes the traffic getting off there backs up onto the Northway in the morning, and in the evening, it's the main cause of congestion until you get near NY 7.  It also take a LONG time to get through all those lights, which is THE reason why no reasonable alternative routes to the Northway exist for my commute.  Even when the Northway is a parking lot and you're constantly hitting a complete stop, it's STILL faster than taking Wolf Road through, and getting off at exit 4 if it's congested (especially NB) is a hopeless cause.

Congestion mitigation through building new infrastructure versus preserving old, which NYSDOT's stated policy is "preservation first." :D
The new infrastructure replaces old. They're not adding a new highway, just reconfiguring an existing interchange.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 07, 2016, 07:52:30 PM
One could argue that the some of the expressways that were planned for Albany should've been constructed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 07, 2016, 08:20:56 PM
One could argue that the some of the expressways that were planned for Albany should've been constructed.

I-687 is redundant given the late-80s reconstruction of Exit 1. A lot of the traffic that currently exists in the area could be fixed by building a flyover at I-787 Exit 9 (or extending the merge lane) and adding another EB lane on NY 7 to give an alternate. The choke point on I-87 is north of where it would have come in, anyway. At Exit 1, the original expressway connection to I-787 isn't needed, but a direct ramp would do wonders for traffic, even if it's E-ZPass only.

A completed South Mall (at least on the east end) would have been nice to reduce traffic at the Patroon Island Bridge, especially if they had it continue to US 4 to run over current NY 43. If they still wanted to do it, it could be completed while removing a remarkably small amount of buildings. On the west side, a decent street-level connection that makes the movement to I-90 already exists.

I-88 would be useless without replacing the Twin Bridges and having it extend into Vermont (which was a pipe dream to begin with, given the terrain and the amount of Troy that would need to be destroyed). The main draw for the center section is nonexistent as long as NYSTA allows toll-free travel between Exits 24 and 25A.

Moving to the northern end of the region, what would be useful is I-92, or at least a portion of it. NY 149 and US 4 are miserable, even during the off-season (i.e. right now). Queues during the peak season can near 1 mile in length (yes, I kept track once) and the off-peak parts of the year have a steady stream of vehicles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 08, 2016, 08:35:29 AM
One could argue that the some of the expressways that were planned for Albany should've been constructed.
I would argue, that DOT needs some semi-descent traffic engineers. But that is probably too much to ask.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on April 08, 2016, 06:54:39 PM
Does anyone know what happened with county routes throughout the state in the last 1-2 years?  Suddenly there was a HUGE uptick in signage (at least in the Southern Tier, all of which I travel regularly on back roads for work).  Did some new funding come available to do these projects, or was there a mandate that counties needed to sign the highways better?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 08, 2016, 07:05:55 PM
Does anyone know what happened with county routes throughout the state in the last 1-2 years?  Suddenly there was a HUGE uptick in signage (at least in the Southern Tier, all of which I travel regularly on back roads for work).  Did some new funding come available to do these projects, or was there a mandate that counties needed to sign the highways better?

No idea, it certainly hasn't made any difference down here.  Nassau and Westchester counties are still completely unsigned.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 08, 2016, 07:19:10 PM
Does anyone know what happened with county routes throughout the state in the last 1-2 years?  Suddenly there was a HUGE uptick in signage (at least in the Southern Tier, all of which I travel regularly on back roads for work).  Did some new funding come available to do these projects, or was there a mandate that counties needed to sign the highways better?

No idea, it certainly hasn't made any difference down here.  Nassau and Westchester counties are still completely unsigned.

I have noticed no change. Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Essex Counties were always well-signed. Warren started signing ~7 years ago and has been gradually improving. Most of Erie's remaining signs have actually come down pretty recently, with no counties in Western New York outside of the Southern Tier signing their highways. Schenectady County still only posts the numbers on blades, while markers are rare in the Finger Lakes as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on April 08, 2016, 07:42:10 PM
Does anyone know what happened with county routes throughout the state in the last 1-2 years?  Suddenly there was a HUGE uptick in signage (at least in the Southern Tier, all of which I travel regularly on back roads for work).  Did some new funding come available to do these projects, or was there a mandate that counties needed to sign the highways better?

Additional data point: I believe more pentagons have appeared in Montgomery County in recent years.  I don't remember any that existed for more than a few years, but admittedly my travels are mainly in the eastern part of the county.  I also believe that there are still many county-maintained roads that do not have pentagons.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on April 08, 2016, 07:46:01 PM
Does anyone know what happened with county routes throughout the state in the last 1-2 years?  Suddenly there was a HUGE uptick in signage (at least in the Southern Tier, all of which I travel regularly on back roads for work).  Did some new funding come available to do these projects, or was there a mandate that counties needed to sign the highways better?

No idea, it certainly hasn't made any difference down here.  Nassau and Westchester counties are still completely unsigned.

I have noticed no change. Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Essex Counties were always well-signed. Warren started signing ~7 years ago and has been gradually improving. Most of Erie's remaining signs have actually come down pretty recently, with no counties in Western New York outside of the Southern Tier signing their highways. Schenectady County still only posts the numbers on blades, while markers are rare in the Finger Lakes as well.

Huh, that's interesting.  Every road in Broome County has been signed with green name signs having a small blue pentagon with the number, as well as standard pentagon signage.  Wednesday I was in Delaware, Sullivan, and Ulster Counties and noticed quite a bit of new signage on their county roads.  I've seen the same in Chenango County and Tompkins County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 08, 2016, 07:59:26 PM
Was there any centralized push at all to get more county routes signed? My understanding is that many counties over the past bunch of years have made the decision to put up signs independent of each other but for the same reason: often map data will have the numbers, and when someone's GPS tells them "turn right on county road 26", that's a problem if there's no sign for county road 26. I'm sure many counties decided it was easier to just put up signs than to continually fight with GPS manufacturers to remove the numbers from their data.

I would even hazard a guess that the counties which have not decided to put up signs are counties that for whatever reason have not experienced a particular problem with GPS devices calling out route numbers there are no signs for.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 08, 2016, 08:19:45 PM
A lot of the counties that don't post signs are the more urban ones, so it's possible that people traveling in those counties are looking more for street names than county route numbers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 08, 2016, 08:54:13 PM
Oneida County has a bunch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 08, 2016, 09:26:46 PM
In the case of Warren County, tourism maps distributed by the county had numbers long before they were posted. CR 7 is one that really sticks out. I have a Warren County map from the late 90s showing the number quite prominently. Of course, this was back before Washington County used the pentagon, but that's a different story.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 08, 2016, 10:31:19 PM
Quote from: cl94
A completed South Mall (at least on the east end) would have been nice to reduce traffic at the Patroon Island Bridge, especially if they had it continue to US 4 to run over current NY 43. If they still wanted to do it, it could be completed while removing a remarkably small amount of buildings.

It's not that easy.  Sure, there may not be many buildings in the way, but you'd A) have to be careful to avoid impacts to the Amtrak station, and B) up the hill towards I-90, take your pick of plowing through a gravel pit or a cemetery.

Quote
Moving to the northern end of the region, what would be useful is I-92, or at least a portion of it. NY 149 and US 4 are miserable, even during the off-season (i.e. right now). Queues during the peak season can near 1 mile in length (yes, I kept track once) and the off-peak parts of the year have a steady stream of vehicles.

149's biggest issue, by far, is lack of a direct connection to the Northway.  As for US 4, while a freeway would be nice, the bulk of its problems would be remedied by a few periodic sets of passing lanes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 09, 2016, 12:15:35 AM
Oneida County has a bunch.

Oneida County was just signed within the last seven years or so. When CR 840 was signed, the county folks made a point of saying that no other county routes would be signed. Then they signed them two years later.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 09, 2016, 02:32:53 AM
Does anyone know what happened with county routes throughout the state in the last 1-2 years?  Suddenly there was a HUGE uptick in signage (at least in the Southern Tier, all of which I travel regularly on back roads for work).  Did some new funding come available to do these projects, or was there a mandate that counties needed to sign the highways better?
Shovel-ready projects for Federal stimulus funding?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 09, 2016, 10:10:07 AM
Was there any centralized push at all to get more county routes signed? My understanding is that many counties over the past bunch of years have made the decision to put up signs independent of each other but for the same reason: often map data will have the numbers, and when someone's GPS tells them "turn right on county road 26", that's a problem if there's no sign for county road 26. I'm sure many counties decided it was easier to just put up signs than to continually fight with GPS manufacturers to remove the numbers from their data.

I would even hazard a guess that the counties which have not decided to put up signs are counties that for whatever reason have not experienced a particular problem with GPS devices calling out route numbers there are no signs for.

As far as I know, Nassau has been very effective in keeping their CR numbers off of commercial maps by denying that they exist, although you can find them on the LHI from NYSDOT (or on my web site).  Westchester, however, has had a lot of their CR numbers show up on Google Maps, but I have yet to ever see any CR signage in Westchester.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on April 09, 2016, 06:31:53 PM
Suffolk is really hit or miss with county routes being signed. some like 97, 83, 11, 1, 2, 80, 10, 6, 104, 105, 19, 34, and 39 (the ones i know off the top of my head) are signed really well. Others like 92, 82 are signed really sporadically, same with 3 (its signed well in the town of Islip but the town of Huntington has a real lack of Route 3 signs). the county routes in the town of huntington in particular have a tendency to be signed badly, and a lot of them aren't signed at all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 09, 2016, 09:06:38 PM
Chautauqua County has had excellent county route signage since I lived there in the mid 1980s. Their destination signs were always easy to spot because they would be supported with a diagonal cross bar from about 1/2 up the installation to the ground behind the sign. County route markers themselves were all over the place, but cardinal directions came later.

Oswego County started posting pentagon markers in the early 1980s, complete with cardinal directions right from the onset.  Prior to that there were a very few black on white small squares on some of the county routes.

Jefferson County just started posting in the late 1990s. They still use what looks like Series A numerals from time to time.

To the best of my knowledge, Onondaga County has only ever posted CR 57 (even though it's actually CR 91). The latest generation of county route markers were hideous looking.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on April 09, 2016, 09:27:52 PM
is there any evidence Nassau ever signed county routes? I haven't seen any in older photos of the county and there appears to be no surviving examples of any county route signs, so if they did they got rid of them really throughly 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 09, 2016, 10:20:14 PM
is there any evidence Nassau ever signed county routes? I haven't seen any in older photos of the county and there appears to be no surviving examples of any county route signs, so if they did they got rid of them really throughly

Unfortunately, I travel through Nassau County a lot, and I haven't seen a single sign. In fact, the signs according to Wikipedia look different compared to the rest of the state's county routes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 09, 2016, 10:23:44 PM
Chautauqua County has had excellent county route signage since I lived there in the mid 1980s. Their destination signs were always easy to spot because they would be supported with a diagonal cross bar from about 1/2 up the installation to the ground behind the sign. County route markers themselves were all over the place, but cardinal directions came later.

Oswego County started posting pentagon markers in the early 1980s, complete with cardinal directions right from the onset.  Prior to that there were a very few black on white small squares on some of the county routes.

Jefferson County just started posting in the late 1990s. They still use what looks like Series A numerals from time to time.

To the best of my knowledge, Onondaga County has only ever posted CR 57 (even though it's actually CR 91). The latest generation of county route markers were hideous looking.

I certainly agree with the first and the last is correct from what I have seen as well.

is there any evidence Nassau ever signed county routes? I haven't seen any in older photos of the county and there appears to be no surviving examples of any county route signs, so if they did they got rid of them really throughly 

I did a quick Google search and found this picture of an old shield (http://www.gribblenation.net/nycosigns/nassau.htm). Yes, they did, and they stopped signing when the standard pentagon marker became a requirement. There are drawings all over the Internet, but this is the only physical shield I have seen. They did a damn good job of getting rid of the signage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 10, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
Suffolk is really hit or miss with county routes being signed. some like 97, 83, 11, 1, 2, 80, 10, 6, 104, 105, 19, 34, and 39 (the ones i know off the top of my head) are signed really well. Others like 92, 82 are signed really sporadically, same with 3 (its signed well in the town of Islip but the town of Huntington has a real lack of Route 3 signs). the county routes in the town of huntington in particular have a tendency to be signed badly, and a lot of them aren't signed at all.

I'm not aware of a ton that aren't signed at all.  There's CR 39A, which is multiplexed with NY 27 for its entire length, as well as CR 75 and CR 32.  I'm also pretty sure that CR 40, CR 41, and CR 59 are unsigned, although I haven't clinched them, so I can't say for sure.  Any others?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 10, 2016, 09:46:47 AM
is there any evidence Nassau ever signed county routes? I haven't seen any in older photos of the county and there appears to be no surviving examples of any county route signs, so if they did they got rid of them really throughly

Unfortunately, I travel through Nassau County a lot, and I haven't seen a single sign. In fact, the signs according to Wikipedia look different compared to the rest of the state's county routes.

What you're seeing on Wikipedia is the old county route system from back when they used to be signed, which goes back a number of decades.  (I was born in Nassau County in 1987 and grew up there, and I've never seen a single county route sign anywhere in the county.)  They've since renumbered the county routes, leaving a lot of the more minor roads with no route number at all, and the new route numbers have never been signed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 10, 2016, 01:43:36 PM
Suffolk is really hit or miss with county routes being signed. some like 97, 83, 11, 1, 2, 80, 10, 6, 104, 105, 19, 34, and 39 (the ones i know off the top of my head) are signed really well. Others like 92, 82 are signed really sporadically, same with 3 (its signed well in the town of Islip but the town of Huntington has a real lack of Route 3 signs). the county routes in the town of huntington in particular have a tendency to be signed badly, and a lot of them aren't signed at all.

I'm not aware of a ton that aren't signed at all.  There's CR 39A, which is multiplexed with NY 27 for its entire length, as well as CR 75 and CR 32.  I'm also pretty sure that CR 40, CR 41, and CR 59 are unsigned, although I haven't clinched them, so I can't say for sure.  Any others?

County Route 11 is probably the best example of good signing in western Suffolk County. The whole route is signed pretty well. County Route 92 has gotten better with more signs than before.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 10, 2016, 08:58:02 PM
Suffolk is really hit or miss with county routes being signed. some like 97, 83, 11, 1, 2, 80, 10, 6, 104, 105, 19, 34, and 39 (the ones i know off the top of my head) are signed really well. Others like 92, 82 are signed really sporadically, same with 3 (its signed well in the town of Islip but the town of Huntington has a real lack of Route 3 signs). the county routes in the town of huntington in particular have a tendency to be signed badly, and a lot of them aren't signed at all.

I'm not aware of a ton that aren't signed at all.  There's CR 39A, which is multiplexed with NY 27 for its entire length, as well as CR 75 and CR 32.  I'm also pretty sure that CR 40, CR 41, and CR 59 are unsigned, although I haven't clinched them, so I can't say for sure.  Any others?

County Route 11 is probably the best example of good signing in western Suffolk County. The whole route is signed pretty well. County Route 92 has gotten better with more signs than before.

Yeah, when I've been on CR 92, the signage I've seen has been pretty sparse.  The big ones like CR 97, CR 85, CR 80, and CR 111 are all pretty well signed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 10, 2016, 10:40:51 PM
As far as I know, Nassau has been very effective in keeping their CR numbers off of commercial maps by denying that they exist, although you can find them on the LHI from NYSDOT (or on my web site).

Or mine, if you really want some light bedtime reading:
www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on April 10, 2016, 11:13:03 PM
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.

92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 10, 2016, 11:31:16 PM
With all this talk about unsigned county routes, I remembered that there are 7 in Warren County that are unsigned. CRs 51 and 69 in Lake George are completely unsigned, as are CRs 80-82 in North Creek and CR 83 in Queensbury. 80-82 are local streets that look nothing like the rest of the county route system, while 83 is the entrance to Great Escape, a mere 0.04 miles long (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3566692,-73.700497,3a,19.4y,263.94h,86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv409nSip1Wcsl6vJKHA7qA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Picture taken at the ET, end of the paint (the driveway for the cabins) is the WT. The eastern half of CR 6 is unsigned, but the segment on Fort George Road is fully marked.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 11, 2016, 08:51:03 AM
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.

92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.

It's arguable as to whether CR 5 actually exists.  Up until recently, it was one of the so-called "county system roads," which are town or village roads that were assigned a county route number on paper in order to make them eligible for certain funding, even though the county never had any intention of actually maintaining them.  A few years ago, the Town of Huntington sued the county to force them to start maintaining the county system roads in the town, and they won in court, which is why CR 5, CR 9, and a few others now show up in state documents.  The last time I had contact with SCDPW about this, the issue was still somewhat up in the air as to what they were doing with them and whether or not they would actually become signed county routes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 11, 2016, 03:51:43 PM
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.

92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.

Heading southbound from its northern terminus at NY-110 in Huntington Village there is a sign for CR 92.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 11, 2016, 07:28:22 PM
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.

92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.

Heading southbound from its northern terminus at NY-110 in Huntington Village there is a sign for CR 92.

That must be very new, then.  Last time I was through there, there no sign for CR 92 on NY 110, and no sign where you need to turn from High Street onto Oakwood Road (or vice versa) to stay on CR 92.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 11, 2016, 08:59:22 PM
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.

92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.

Heading southbound from its northern terminus at NY-110 in Huntington Village there is a sign for CR 92.

That must be very new, then.  Last time I was through there, there no sign for CR 92 on NY 110, and no sign where you need to turn from High Street onto Oakwood Road (or vice versa) to stay on CR 92.

It is. I only noticed it for the first time a week or two ago. There is also a sign at its southern terminus near NY 25, but it's been there for a long time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on April 12, 2016, 03:23:54 AM
that sign is gone, it was by the Valero station, it got knocked down and noone replaced it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 12, 2016, 08:45:33 AM
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.

92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.

Heading southbound from its northern terminus at NY-110 in Huntington Village there is a sign for CR 92.

That must be very new, then.  Last time I was through there, there no sign for CR 92 on NY 110, and no sign where you need to turn from High Street onto Oakwood Road (or vice versa) to stay on CR 92.

It is. I only noticed it for the first time a week or two ago. There is also a sign at its southern terminus near NY 25, but it's been there for a long time.

I'm assuming that you're talking about a sign on CR 92.  I've never seen any signage for CR 92 on NY 25.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 12, 2016, 03:06:34 PM
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.

92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.

Heading southbound from its northern terminus at NY-110 in Huntington Village there is a sign for CR 92.

That must be very new, then.  Last time I was through there, there no sign for CR 92 on NY 110, and no sign where you need to turn from High Street onto Oakwood Road (or vice versa) to stay on CR 92.

It is. I only noticed it for the first time a week or two ago. There is also a sign at its southern terminus near NY 25, but it's been there for a long time.

I'm assuming that you're talking about a sign on CR 92.  I've never seen any signage for CR 92 on NY 25.

Yes. I meant after you turn onto CR 92 from NY 25 or NY 110. And apparently the sign got knocked down and not replaced? Weird, because that sign was there for years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 15, 2016, 01:48:03 PM
Here's one I've always wondered: why is I-990 8 lanes from the I-290 interchange to past the first interchange when I-290 is at 3 lanes?

Also, why is this exit sign here? There isn't one on the Lasalle Expressway stub.

(http://i.imgur.com/BUXSwUT.jpg)

Upon digging into the highway history I notice a website circles back here to cl94 for a reference: http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-990_ny.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 02:28:31 PM
I-990's stub is odd.  NB, it functions like any other stub, but SB, the "ramp" is actually what would be the through lanes; if it was ever built further, that would need to be ripped up.  Why they didn't make them consistent is beyond me.

As far as the number of lanes, traffic does drop noticeably after the SUNY Buffalo exit, but the road is relatively lightly traveled and it doesn't need eight lanes (even six is a bit much along most of its length).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 05:49:03 PM
I-990's stub is odd.  NB, it functions like any other stub, but SB, the "ramp" is actually what would be the through lanes; if it was ever built further, that would need to be ripped up.  Why they didn't make them consistent is beyond me.

As far as the number of lanes, traffic does drop noticeably after the SUNY Buffalo exit, but the road is relatively lightly traveled and it doesn't need eight lanes (even six is a bit much along most of its length).

Traffic counts barely warrant 6 lanes to Exit 2. Exit 3 is so close that the extra lane was just extended. The 8 lane section is only there because the southernmost 2 interchanges are spaced so closely. I figure it will become much more used when the Sweet Home Road reconstruction gets underway and 2 lanes are closed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MisterSG1 on April 15, 2016, 06:43:37 PM
I-990's stub is odd.  NB, it functions like any other stub, but SB, the "ramp" is actually what would be the through lanes; if it was ever built further, that would need to be ripped up.  Why they didn't make them consistent is beyond me.

As far as the number of lanes, traffic does drop noticeably after the SUNY Buffalo exit, but the road is relatively lightly traveled and it doesn't need eight lanes (even six is a bit much along most of its length).




Traffic counts barely warrant 6 lanes to Exit 2. Exit 3 is so close that the extra lane was just extended. The 8 lane section is only there because the southernmost 2 interchanges are spaced so closely. I figure it will become much more used when the Sweet Home Road reconstruction gets underway and 2 lanes are closed.


Buffaboy's question was never answered, he was wondering why a freeway terminus would be signed as an exit..

My guess is, and this is me speaking as someone from neighboring Ontario, it's signed as an exit because the freeway meets the street with a T-intersection.

ON 404 used to end at a T intersection with Green Lane, and when this terminus used to exist, it was indeed signed as an exit with an exit tab and an exit gore sign even though all drivers were forced to "exit".

(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_404-406_images/404_cl_51_north_Aug04.jpg)

In asphalt planet's photo, you can clearly see a sign with an exit tab being signed like an exit even though it's an exit you must make.

As for why the LaSalle doesn't have a gore exit sign....who knows really, but I guess it may have to do with the road not having any exit numbers in the first place. Does this happen because the road is a simple state route freeway and not something more prominent like an interstate route? I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 08:01:01 PM
Stubs are usually signed like an exit in NY, though the gore isn't as common (I could have sworn NY 204 had a gore sign before the stub was removed, though)

As for state route freeways being worse, it pays to remember that the Skyway is a 1950s bridge, and the other two mentioned are parkways, though the upstate regions often don't post exit numbers on the state route freeways (and I-790) for some reason.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 08:48:21 PM
Stubs are usually signed like an exit in NY, though the gore isn't as common (I could have sworn NY 204 had a gore sign before the stub was removed, though)

As for state route freeways being worse, it pays to remember that the Skyway is a 1950s bridge, and the other two mentioned are parkways, though the upstate regions often don't post exit numbers on the state route freeways (and I-790) for some reason.

Another example of an Interstate stub being signed as an exit is the LIE. One is forced off at Exit 73. It is possible that it once had a gore sign. Elsewhere, both ends of the SOB are signed as exits (1E and 14W are the last ones SB and NB, respectively). A couple stubs, notably the northern end of the Taconic and the southern end of the Northway, have been reworked so they are no longer particularly visible stub ends. The one stub end in the state I can think of that isn't signed as an exit (and I don't think ever was) is the north end of the US 9W bypass in Kingston.

So, yes, exit numbers are standard on stubs in New York, but there are not many examples of stubs on numbered expressways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 15, 2016, 09:44:03 PM
I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.

That may be the case, but it's likely just coincidence. NY 390 and NY 590 have both had poorer quality sections than their Interstate counterparts, but that's probably more because traffic counts drop off as you approach the lake; the same is likely true for the farther reaches of NY 481 and NY 690.

Then again, remember that this also gives you a comparison between such roads as I-278 (horrible) and NY 27 (not honestly all that terrible). And NY 440's pretty good, isn't it (don't think I've ever taken it)?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 15, 2016, 09:50:42 PM
I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.

That may be the case, but it's likely just coincidence. NY 390 and NY 590 have both had poorer quality sections than their Interstate counterparts, but that's probably more because traffic counts drop off as you approach the lake; the same is likely true for the farther reaches of NY 481 and NY 690.

Then again, remember that this also gives you a comparison between such roads as I-278 (horrible) and NY 27 (not honestly all that terrible). And NY 440's pretty good, isn't it (don't think I've ever taken it)?

NY 27 is honestly one of the higher quality routes, and NY 135 is also pretty nice as well. I-278 is abysmal, and I-87 south of I-95 is kind of bad though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 10:20:52 PM
I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.

That may be the case, but it's likely just coincidence. NY 390 and NY 590 have both had poorer quality sections than their Interstate counterparts, but that's probably more because traffic counts drop off as you approach the lake; the same is likely true for the farther reaches of NY 481 and NY 690.

Then again, remember that this also gives you a comparison between such roads as I-278 (horrible) and NY 27 (not honestly all that terrible). And NY 440's pretty good, isn't it (don't think I've ever taken it)?

NY 27 is honestly one of the higher quality routes, and NY 135 is also pretty nice as well. I-278 is abysmal, and I-87 south of I-95 is kind of bad though.

Sunrise Highway (NY 27) is wonderful. The aforementioned BQE doesn't even deserve its Interstate designation and parts of the Van Wyck (I-678) and Cross Bronx (I-95) aren't much better. NY 17 has been Interstate-quality outside of a few sections since the expressway route was built, but I-81 in Syracuse is miserable. I-587 is a glorified four-lane boulevard that doesn't even have a true interchange.

The parkways are often built to lower standards either on purpose to make them feel more scenic (in the case of the Upstate parkways) or because they're quite old (downstate parkways minus Sprain Brook and reconstructed sections of the Taconic). Most of the downstate parkway system predates WWII and the Interstate system, with some of the worst Interstates (portions of I-278 and I-678) actually being converted parkways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 15, 2016, 10:58:21 PM
I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.

That may be the case, but it's likely just coincidence. NY 390 and NY 590 have both had poorer quality sections than their Interstate counterparts, but that's probably more because traffic counts drop off as you approach the lake; the same is likely true for the farther reaches of NY 481 and NY 690.

Then again, remember that this also gives you a comparison between such roads as I-278 (horrible) and NY 27 (not honestly all that terrible). And NY 440's pretty good, isn't it (don't think I've ever taken it)?

NY 27 is honestly one of the higher quality routes, and NY 135 is also pretty nice as well. I-278 is abysmal, and I-87 south of I-95 is kind of bad though.

Sunrise Highway (NY 27) is wonderful. The aforementioned BQE doesn't even deserve its Interstate designation and parts of the Van Wyck (I-678) and Cross Bronx (I-95) aren't much better. NY 17 has been Interstate-quality outside of a few sections since the expressway route was built, but I-81 in Syracuse is miserable. I-587 is a glorified four-lane boulevard that doesn't even have a true interchange.

The parkways are often built to lower standards either on purpose to make them feel more scenic (in the case of the Upstate parkways) or because they're quite old (downstate parkways minus Sprain Brook and reconstructed sections of the Taconic). Most of the downstate parkway system predates WWII and the Interstate system, with some of the worst Interstates (portions of I-278 and I-678) actually being converted parkways.

Exactly. The Sunrise Highway is easily the best highway on Long Island, and the BQE is miserable, and so is the Belt Parkway. The Van Wyck isn't too terrible, but it isn't great either. If you're heading to the South fork or eastern Long Island, Take NY-27 instead of I-495. It's worth it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on April 15, 2016, 11:22:37 PM
Upon digging into the highway history I notice a website circles back here to cl94 for a reference: http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-990_ny.html

Interstate-Guide is also our website. If I see something on the board here that I did not know about for a route, or something in addition to what we have posted for a route at iguide, I'll add it in a site update over there.

Frankly I forgot about updating the I-990 page with that post from CL. I drove I-990 way back in 2000 and haven't been back to Buffalo since, so I have not had a reason to update those pages otherwise. I am slowly working at overhauling each route sitewide with newer pics and more research though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on April 16, 2016, 12:13:28 AM
Correction, the limited access part of Sunrise Highway is wonderful, the traffic light laden part in Nassau county is tedious and takes forever.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 16, 2016, 12:03:08 PM
Correction, the limited access part of Sunrise Highway is wonderful, the traffic light laden part in Nassau county is tedious and takes forever.

When I talk about the Sunrise Highway, I mean the actual "highway" part of it. Other wise, I just use NY 27 when I am talking about the non-limited access portions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 16, 2016, 03:39:12 PM
Correction, the limited access part of Sunrise Highway is wonderful, the traffic light laden part in Nassau county is tedious and takes forever.

When I talk about the Sunrise Highway, I mean the actual "highway" part of it. Other wise, I just use NY 27 when I am talking about the non-limited access portions.

I think that's understood, although actually I believe the name Sunrise Highway is an older term for the whole route, and would have applied to the original non-freeway route before being upgraded.

Also note that the freeway portion does get a little rougher towards its eastern end, which like other routes I've mentioned would just be due to lower traffic demands.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 16, 2016, 04:14:46 PM
Correction, the limited access part of Sunrise Highway is wonderful, the traffic light laden part in Nassau county is tedious and takes forever.

When I talk about the Sunrise Highway, I mean the actual "highway" part of it. Other wise, I just use NY 27 when I am talking about the non-limited access portions.

I think that's understood, although actually I believe the name Sunrise Highway is an older term for the whole route, and would have applied to the original non-freeway route before being upgraded.

Also note that the freeway portion does get a little rougher towards its eastern end, which like other routes I've mentioned would just be due to lower traffic demands.

It also helps that it's the main way to get to the south fork. Also, further west allows for the use of the Southern Parkway and even I-495 instead. I'd still take the Sunrise Highway over I-495 any day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 16, 2016, 06:56:44 PM
I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.

That may be the case, but it's likely just coincidence. NY 390 and NY 590 have both had poorer quality sections than their Interstate counterparts, but that's probably more because traffic counts drop off as you approach the lake; the same is likely true for the farther reaches of NY 481 and NY 690.

Then again, remember that this also gives you a comparison between such roads as I-278 (horrible) and NY 27 (not honestly all that terrible). And NY 440's pretty good, isn't it (don't think I've ever taken it)?
Oddly enough NY 531's pavement is in great shape.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 17, 2016, 09:43:01 AM
Correction, the limited access part of Sunrise Highway is wonderful, the traffic light laden part in Nassau county is tedious and takes forever.

When I talk about the Sunrise Highway, I mean the actual "highway" part of it. Other wise, I just use NY 27 when I am talking about the non-limited access portions.

I think that's understood, although actually I believe the name Sunrise Highway is an older term for the whole route, and would have applied to the original non-freeway route before being upgraded.

Also note that the freeway portion does get a little rougher towards its eastern end, which like other routes I've mentioned would just be due to lower traffic demands.

People who live on the South Shore in Nassau County very much refer to it as Sunrise Highway.  In fact, numbers are very rarely used among the locals for anything in Nassau except NY 106 and NY 107.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 17, 2016, 11:15:01 AM
I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.

That may be the case, but it's likely just coincidence. NY 390 and NY 590 have both had poorer quality sections than their Interstate counterparts, but that's probably more because traffic counts drop off as you approach the lake; the same is likely true for the farther reaches of NY 481 and NY 690.

Then again, remember that this also gives you a comparison between such roads as I-278 (horrible) and NY 27 (not honestly all that terrible). And NY 440's pretty good, isn't it (don't think I've ever taken it)?

NY 440 is pretty good, and definitely a good route to take, but I-278 is not bad on Staten Island. Once you hit the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, I-278 is paved well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 17, 2016, 10:36:25 PM
Two updates from my recent North Country expedition. Any ideas?

1) NY 314 EB is signed to END at US 9. WB is signed straight at the I-87 NB ramps. There are no traces of 314 signage east of there (county maintenance). Not sure how NY 314 is now defined as of 2016.
2) NY 456 is completely unsigned in both directions (county maintenance) and with no junction signage. Wikipedia suggests it was once signed. Not sure if it even exists as of 2016.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on April 17, 2016, 10:56:43 PM

People who live on the South Shore in Nassau County very much refer to it as Sunrise Highway.  In fact, numbers are very rarely used among the locals for anything in Nassau except NY 106 and NY 107.

106 is called Newbridge Road mostly south of the downtown Hicksville split. 109 is just 109.

Also I noticed that on I-495 and NY 27 they got new small signs next to the overpasses that tell you the name of the street that goes over the highway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 17, 2016, 11:17:59 PM
Two updates from my recent North Country expedition. Any ideas?

2) NY 456 is completely unsigned in both directions (county maintenance) and with no junction signage. Wikipedia suggests it was once signed. Not sure if it even exists as of 2016.

It was (https://goo.gl/maps/gfSYu6GiJVN2) signed (https://goo.gl/maps/L8GzngBfPF82) as of 2012. (https://goo.gl/maps/suFkG45vA472)

Now, there has not been a touring route book produced since Jan 2012, so it's plausible things have changed, but we won't know without a new one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 17, 2016, 11:29:04 PM
Two updates from my recent North Country expedition. Any ideas?

1) NY 314 EB is signed to END at US 9. WB is signed straight at the I-87 NB ramps. There are no traces of 314 signage east of there (county maintenance). Not sure how NY 314 is now defined as of 2016.
2) NY 456 is completely unsigned in both directions (county maintenance) and with no junction signage. Wikipedia suggests it was once signed. Not sure if it even exists as of 2016.

As of November 2015, GSV on the Northway showed the NY 456 exit as being signed for that route. Was it still signed from the Northway? If you don't know, I'll do a run up there next weekend to check it out. I need to clinch I-87, anyway.

The most recent Official Description I can find online dates from 2012, which is much too old to account for any change. Similarly, the most recent publicly-available highway inventory is 2014, which includes both routes in full. Honestly, this makes me quite curious as well. Do any of our resident NYSDOT employees have access to the internal computer files or people who would know an answer?

On a completely different topic, while doing searches for the above, I found the NYSDOT traffic safety repository (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/), which includes some pretty interesting things. Most notably:

-NYSDOT officially encourages FYAs over doghouses for all PPLT situations, as well as FYAs at protected-only locations to allow for off-peak permissive operations. The flashing red arrow is allowed if studies indicate that an FYA would not work. Regions 1 and 4 in particular appear to be following this pretty closely.
-Backplates with 3" reflective stripe required for all new signal installations on approaches where the speed is at least 45 mph, encouraged for lower speeds. Retrofits on existing installations are encouraged if the wires can handle the loading.
-Reasons provided for switch away from climbing lane and auxiliary lane markings unique to New York
-A full list of how the 2009 MUTCD changed operations

Interesting stuff.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 17, 2016, 11:49:12 PM


The most recent Official Description I can find online dates from 2012, which is much too old to account for any change. Similarly, the most recent publicly-available highway inventory is 2014, which includes both routes in full. Honestly, this makes me quite curious as well. Do any of our resident NYSDOT employees have access to the internal computer files or people who would know an answer?

When I requested info for NY 252A and 360, I did a FOIA request that got me internal memos. Hopefully someone here has it, otherwise, can FOIA Region 7.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on April 18, 2016, 04:10:22 AM
I wonder if R7 stopped posting shields on roads they don't actually maintain.

NY374 is no longer signed north of US11 either, now signed simply as CR52:

(http://i.imgur.com/Fzb6GJI.jpg)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 18, 2016, 08:43:41 AM

People who live on the South Shore in Nassau County very much refer to it as Sunrise Highway.  In fact, numbers are very rarely used among the locals for anything in Nassau except NY 106 and NY 107.

106 is called Newbridge Road mostly south of the downtown Hicksville split. 109 is just 109.

Also I noticed that on I-495 and NY 27 they got new small signs next to the overpasses that tell you the name of the street that goes over the highway.

True, although only a tiny piece of NY 109 is in Nassau, so I generally associate it primarily with Suffolk.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 18, 2016, 01:10:40 PM
I checked the 2014 Traffic Data Report (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/NYSDOT_Traffic_Data_Report_2014.pdf) and NY 314 east of US 9, NY 22 north of US 11, NY 374 north of US 11, and the entirety of NY 456 are no longer listed.  Neither is NY 12E southeast of Paddy Hill Road, and reference route 971H (Paddy Hill Road) no longer appears either, suggesting that NY 12E now officially follows the signs in the area (Main Office Traffic and Safety had mentioned something about a jurisdictional transfer in that area when I asked about it, in the two out of infinity questions I was able to get through before the guy left; there's also something going on with NY 324 at the I-190 overlap, and a new revision of the touring route log is in the works).

On a completely different topic, while doing searches for the above, I found the NYSDOT traffic safety repository (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/), which includes some pretty interesting things. Most notably:

-NYSDOT officially encourages FYAs over doghouses for all PPLT situations, as well as FYAs at protected-only locations to allow for off-peak permissive operations. The flashing red arrow is allowed if studies indicate that an FYA would not work. Regions 1 and 4 in particular appear to be following this pretty closely.
-Backplates with 3" reflective stripe required for all new signal installations on approaches where the speed is at least 45 mph, encouraged for lower speeds. Retrofits on existing installations are encouraged if the wires can handle the loading.
-Reasons provided for switch away from climbing lane and auxiliary lane markings unique to New York
-A full list of how the 2009 MUTCD changed operations
Personally I favor doghouses over FYAs as FYAs have the capability of having a red arrow when straight is green, a situation I despise.  Not sure about the aesthetic of the back-plates, either.

I HAVE noticed that the old double stripe for climbing lanes seems to have been going away with restripings.  Too bad; makes it obvious it's a climbing lane (though it might have fueled the culture of not using them unless one can't make it up the hill or is being tailgated; I've noticed that out of state drivers, notably Vermont, are more likely to move right into the lane and them move back left at the end of it).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 18, 2016, 01:34:14 PM
Alright, so the 2014 Clinton County traffic data report has incorrect info. I figured something was up with the I-190 overlap, given how signs indicate that NY 324 enters I-190 at both Exit 15 and Exit 17.

The double stripe was explicitly mentioned on the MUTCD changes, while the "climbing lane" memo also mentions the white half no-passing half-skip lines (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7590339,-73.7460792,3a,60y,288.29h,74.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syDmiA2fXTX6GWVFPiO1ksQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) New York used to use quite extensively. NYSTA and Regions 4 and 5 eliminated them pretty quickly, with areas further east still using them quite a bit (such as on the Northway in Saratoga County, part of which hasn't been resurfaced since the early 2000s). As of last year, the double stripe was still quite common on the Quickway in southeastern Region 9 and on the Thruway in Victor. The other main places with climbing lanes (Region 1, I-88 in Region 9) have replaced them with wide stripes.

Backplates with or without the reflective strip on approaches with a speed >= 45 MPH are mandated by the 2009 MUTCD, hence why a bunch of signals in New York installed shortly before the stripe was adopted have backplates. NYSDOT only requires them on completely new installations. I am quite curious about how many local municipalities and counties will follow this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 18, 2016, 01:50:03 PM
Alright, so the 2014 Clinton County traffic data report has incorrect info. I figured something was up with the I-190 overlap, given how signs indicate that NY 324 enters I-190 at both Exit 15 and Exit 17.
So signs FINALLY match what the log has said for years?  That's good; the EB direction was technically impossible to follow due to a turn restriction on SB exit 17 (also means I wouldn't have to make an effort to clinch that stretch).

Given how the signage is, I wouldn't be surprised if the route changes are real and the traffic data report more up to date than the touring route book (which is out of date and was never specific enough about routings for my liking anyways, so I never use it).  I wouldn't use NY 456's continued reference on Northway guide signs as of Nov 15 as evidence of its continued existence; those signs are the ONLY surviving mention that NY 456 ever existed (perhaps NYSDOT was uncomfortable with a route number having the same name as a species on Torchwood?), and one can see the exit ramp signage for it literally disappear with the historical street view, and it's possible the signs are waiting to be replaced with ones that don't mention NY 456.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 18, 2016, 01:52:41 PM
Alright, so the 2014 Clinton County traffic data report has incorrect info. I figured something was up with the I-190 overlap, given how signs indicate that NY 324 enters I-190 at both Exit 15 and Exit 17.
So signs FINALLY match what the log has said for years?  That's good; the EB direction was technically impossible to follow due to a turn restriction on SB exit 17 (also means I wouldn't have to make an effort to clinch that stretch).

Given how the signage is, I wouldn't be surprised if the route changes are real and the traffic data report more up to date than the touring route book (which is out of date and was never specific enough about routings for my liking anyways, so I never use it).  I wouldn't use NY 456's continued reference on Northway guide signs as of Nov 15 as evidence of its continued existence; those signs are the ONLY surviving mention that NY 456 ever existed (perhaps NYSDOT was uncomfortable with a route number having the same name as a species on Torchwood?), and one can see the exit ramp signage for it literally disappear with the historical street view, and it's possible the signs are waiting to be replaced with ones that don't mention NY 456.

EB still has the turn restriction
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 18, 2016, 02:00:09 PM
What I meant was that following NY 324 EB onto Grand Island Boulevard was impossible due to the turn restriction, and that following NY 324 EB would no longer be impossible if signed on I-190 as the Traffic Data Report has said for eons.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 18, 2016, 09:27:37 PM
I checked the 2014 Traffic Data Report (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/NYSDOT_Traffic_Data_Report_2014.pdf) and NY 314 east of US 9, NY 22 north of US 11, NY 374 north of US 11, and the entirety of NY 456 are no longer listed.  Neither is NY 12E southeast of Paddy Hill Road, and reference route 971H (Paddy Hill Road) no longer appears either, suggesting that NY 12E now officially follows the signs in the area (Main Office Traffic and Safety had mentioned something about a jurisdictional transfer in that area when I asked about it, in the two out of infinity questions I was able to get through before the guy left; there's also something going on with NY 324 at the I-190 overlap, and a new revision of the touring route log is in the works).

Sounds like TravelMapping needs to update a few things then.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 18, 2016, 09:37:03 PM
What I meant was that following NY 324 EB onto Grand Island Boulevard was impossible due to the turn restriction, and that following NY 324 EB would no longer be impossible if signed on I-190 as the Traffic Data Report has said for eons.

EB is signed on Grand Island Boulevard as leaving at Exit 15 and reassurance assemblies have been updated to say "To East NY 324". WB is still signed as using Grand Island Boulevard to Exit 17. Do note that the one EB reassurance assembly between the bridge and Exit 15 does not include NY 324.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 19, 2016, 01:12:09 PM
I checked the 2014 Traffic Data Report (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/NYSDOT_Traffic_Data_Report_2014.pdf) and NY 314 east of US 9, NY 22 north of US 11, NY 374 north of US 11, and the entirety of NY 456 are no longer listed.  Neither is NY 12E southeast of Paddy Hill Road, and reference route 971H (Paddy Hill Road) no longer appears either, suggesting that NY 12E now officially follows the signs in the area (Main Office Traffic and Safety had mentioned something about a jurisdictional transfer in that area when I asked about it, in the two out of infinity questions I was able to get through before the guy left; there's also something going on with NY 324 at the I-190 overlap, and a new revision of the touring route log is in the works).

Sounds like TravelMapping needs to update a few things then.
I submitted a GitHub issue when I saw Steve's post after I checked the Traffic Data Report.  I mentioned the others in comments.  So, I would expect that it will probably be reflected in TM soon.

It's good to see the two big cases where the route definition and route signage don't match (aside from the I-495 weirdness, but that's only in the touring route book and functional class viewer; other logs match signage) get resolved.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 19, 2016, 05:47:06 PM
 Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 19, 2016, 06:11:14 PM
Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?
There was never anything there besides empty space and the intersection. I notice the clearing, maybe for directional ramps never built.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 19, 2016, 06:40:43 PM
Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?
There was never anything there besides empty space and the intersection. I notice the clearing, maybe for directional ramps never built.

I'm pretty sure the original plan was to have the expressway merge into current US 9W further north. The clearing on the north side of NY 32 predates expressway construction by at least 30 years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 20, 2016, 10:33:57 AM
I checked the 2014 Traffic Data Report (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/NYSDOT_Traffic_Data_Report_2014.pdf) and NY 314 east of US 9, NY 22 north of US 11, NY 374 north of US 11, and the entirety of NY 456 are no longer listed.  Neither is NY 12E southeast of Paddy Hill Road, and reference route 971H (Paddy Hill Road) no longer appears either, suggesting that NY 12E now officially follows the signs in the area (Main Office Traffic and Safety had mentioned something about a jurisdictional transfer in that area when I asked about it, in the two out of infinity questions I was able to get through before the guy left; there's also something going on with NY 324 at the I-190 overlap, and a new revision of the touring route log is in the works).

Sounds like TravelMapping needs to update a few things then.
I submitted a GitHub issue when I saw Steve's post after I checked the Traffic Data Report.  I mentioned the others in comments.  So, I would expect that it will probably be reflected in TM soon.

It's good to see the two big cases where the route definition and route signage don't match (aside from the I-495 weirdness, but that's only in the touring route book and functional class viewer; other logs match signage) get resolved.

I checked the 2014 Inventory Listings (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/highway-data-services/inventory-listing) for the relevant counties and found that all five route segments (12E, 22, 314, 374, 456) are still listed as touring routes.  The segments that don't appear on the traffic data report are shown as county maintained, but it wouldn't be the first time we had county maintained touring routes that were signed and included in TM (3A, 151, 155 amongst others).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 20, 2016, 10:42:23 PM
I checked the 2014 Inventory Listings (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/highway-data-services/inventory-listing) for the relevant counties and found that all five route segments (12E, 22, 314, 374, 456) are still listed as touring routes.  The segments that don't appear on the traffic data report are shown as county maintained, but it wouldn't be the first time we had county maintained touring routes that were signed and included in TM (3A, 151, 155 amongst others).

The qualification "signed" is not met in these cases, though. 22 and 374 are both explicitly signed in the field as ending at US 11. 12E is likewise explicitly signed as ending at 12F, not continuing into Watertown. And while 456 was signed only a few years ago (per GMSV), Steve reports that now it is not, which certainly implies some deliberate effort to remove the route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 20, 2016, 11:21:03 PM
Quote
The qualification "signed" is not met in these cases, though.

Tim held hard and fast to this rule when it was CHM, but the reality is somewhat looser than that.  If you have some routes that are signed in some segments but not in others, they tended to be kept for continuity.  I was also successful in including a couple unsigned, but major, Minnesota routes in CHM.

The discrepancies between NYSDOT's traffic log reports and their inventory reports don't help any.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 21, 2016, 07:16:55 PM
I checked the 2014 Inventory Listings (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/highway-data-services/inventory-listing) for the relevant counties and found that all five route segments (12E, 22, 314, 374, 456) are still listed as touring routes.  The segments that don't appear on the traffic data report are shown as county maintained, but it wouldn't be the first time we had county maintained touring routes that were signed and included in TM (3A, 151, 155 amongst others).

The qualification "signed" is not met in these cases, though. 22 and 374 are both explicitly signed in the field as ending at US 11. 12E is likewise explicitly signed as ending at 12F, not continuing into Watertown. And while 456 was signed only a few years ago (per GMSV), Steve reports that now it is not, which certainly implies some deliberate effort to remove the route.
I'm debating whether I should drive the Clinton CR at the north end of 374 to truly consider the route clinched. I might make it an exit point coming back from Toronto (assuming I go), depending on my other route choices.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 21, 2016, 10:23:55 PM
Quote
The qualification "signed" is not met in these cases, though.

Tim held hard and fast to this rule when it was CHM, but the reality is somewhat looser than that.  If you have some routes that are signed in some segments but not in others, they tended to be kept for continuity.  I was also successful in including a couple unsigned, but major, Minnesota routes in CHM.

The discrepancies between NYSDOT's traffic log reports and their inventory reports don't help any.

And sometimes, the signage tells a third thing. It's a mess and a nightmare for anyone using their GPS to navigate while expecting a number that may or may not be posted.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on April 21, 2016, 10:50:50 PM
To add insult to injury, there is no END signage on NY374 north at US11!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on April 22, 2016, 06:43:48 PM
According to Wikipedia, NY 374 still goes to the Canadian border along with County route 52.  However, seeing the above photo makes me wonder if the Wikipedia article is up-to-date.  Usually in NY State what the signage says is more than likely correct.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on April 22, 2016, 08:03:34 PM
Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?
There was never anything there besides empty space and the intersection. I notice the clearing, maybe for directional ramps never built.

I'm pretty sure the original plan was to have the expressway merge into current US 9W further north. The clearing on the north side of NY 32 predates expressway construction by at least 30 years.

We're actually talking about two different spots now. The US 9W/NY 299 intersection in Highland was always a T intersection. The 9W/NY 32 intersection in Kingston was originally supposed to be a diamond interchange, as that portion of 9W is the arterial coming from the Rondout waterfront. The original plan was to have it go up up to NY 199 and end there. However, there are some environmentally sensitive lakes along the path and I do not believe it ever got past the planning stages.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 22, 2016, 08:25:14 PM
Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?
There was never anything there besides empty space and the intersection. I notice the clearing, maybe for directional ramps never built.

I'm pretty sure the original plan was to have the expressway merge into current US 9W further north. The clearing on the north side of NY 32 predates expressway construction by at least 30 years.

We're actually talking about two different spots now. The US 9W/NY 299 intersection in Highland was always a T intersection. The 9W/NY 32 intersection in Kingston was originally supposed to be a diamond interchange, as that portion of 9W is the arterial coming from the Rondout waterfront. The original plan was to have it go up up to NY 199 and end there. However, there are some environmentally sensitive lakes along the path and I do not believe it ever got past the planning stages.

Duh. I completely misread that. Yeah, it's graded for a trumpet, but one was never built.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on April 22, 2016, 10:55:56 PM
Duh. I completely misread that. Yeah, it's graded for a trumpet, but one was never built.

Interesting, I've lived around here all my life and I've never noticed that until now. Just checked the aerial imagery.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 23, 2016, 01:29:55 PM
Duh. I completely misread that. Yeah, it's graded for a trumpet, but one was never built.

Interesting, I've lived around here all my life and I've never noticed that until now. Just checked the aerial imagery.

My grandmother lived not too far from there and I've been through there several times, including last weekend. Never noticed it as well, but the grading is apparent on GSV.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 23, 2016, 03:47:06 PM
US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Catfan on April 23, 2016, 04:00:07 PM
This concrete structure was part of some viaduct that was connected to the Rochester Subway, which ran from 1927 to 1956.  The subway structure crossing the Genesee River is still there.  I was there in December 2014.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 23, 2016, 10:15:24 PM
This concrete structure was part of some viaduct that was connected to the Rochester Subway, which ran from 1927 to 1956.  The subway structure crossing the Genesee River is still there.  I was there in December 2014.
Are we playing Jeopardy or something?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on April 24, 2016, 03:37:53 PM
This concrete structure was part of some viaduct that was connected to the Rochester Subway, which ran from 1927 to 1956.  The subway structure crossing the Genesee River is still there.  I was there in December 2014.
I think you're talking about the Broad St Bridge over the Genesee River...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 24, 2016, 07:49:53 PM
US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.

It did?  Why did they get rid of it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 24, 2016, 09:24:25 PM
I was up at the northern end of the Northway earlier this evening as part of a day-long road trip and there are a couple things that might be of interest to people:

-Regions 1 and 7 are replacing several bridges in northern Essex and southern Clinton Counties. SB side has already been rebuilt, NB side is currently under construction. Down to 1 lane in each direction with contraflow. R1 has the limit posted at 50 through the work zone, while R7 is posted at 45 in the contraflow sections and 55 between the two contraflow sections.
-We've mentioned NY 314 and NY 456 recently on this thread. Signs on the Northway have not been replaced yet, but there are no shields for NY 456 posted on the ramp.
-On another thread, we mentioned how New York's distinctive climbing lane markings are going away. The SB side south of Exit 31 still has the double stripe. Its days are probably numbered.
-Exit 42 construction is done and it is a dumbbell interchange similar to Exit 12.
-US 9 bridge over Trout Brook adjacent to the Northway in Pottersville is being rebuilt. Single lane. That'll be a nightmare starting in about a month.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 24, 2016, 09:31:08 PM
US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.

It did?  Why did they get rid of it?
A foolish desire to downgrade the highway system. If anything, they should've just built a two-way north to south connecting ramp between US 9W and NY 303, and added some ramps to NY 304.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 24, 2016, 10:31:02 PM
US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.

It did?  Why did they get rid of it?

Despite what D-Day claimed, it was likely due to old age.  The old interchange dated at least back to the 1930s so it's quite likely the overpass (which carried the US 9 mainline) was in bad enough condition to where NYSDOT figured it was more cost-effective to remove the bridge and convert the junction into an intersection.  A side benefit of such is that it allowed movements between US 9 South and NY 303 South.  Looking at 2012 traffic volumes, nothing stands out traffic-wise suggesting an interchange is needed (again, despite D-Day's claims).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 24, 2016, 11:04:47 PM
US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.

It did?  Why did they get rid of it?

Despite what D-Day claimed, it was likely due to old age.  The old interchange dated at least back to the 1930s so it's quite likely the overpass (which carried the US 9 mainline) was in bad enough condition to where NYSDOT figured it was more cost-effective to remove the bridge and convert the junction into an intersection.  A side benefit of such is that it allowed movements between US 9 South and NY 303 South.  Looking at 2012 traffic volumes, nothing stands out traffic-wise suggesting an interchange is needed (again, despite D-Day's claims).
The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 24, 2016, 11:55:08 PM
The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.
Keep in mind though, that the Palisades is for Passenger Cars Only, whereas US 9W isn't. I can't imagine the Parkway serving as anything else but temporary relief, especially after the cancellation of the Pearl River-Haverstraw Freeway.

On another topic in the same part of Rockland County, has anyone ever considered the Hook Mountain Tunnel as a train watching site?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 25, 2016, 12:07:59 AM
The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.
Keep in mind though, that the Palisades is for Passenger Cars Only, whereas US 9W isn't. I can't imagine the Parkway serving as anything else but temporary relief, especially after the cancellation of the Pearl River-Haverstraw Freeway.

On another topic in the same part of Rockland County, has anyone ever considered the Hook Mountain Tunnel as a train watching site?

Problem is that there isn't a good safe place to watch from. When fanning that line, I often hang out on the Poughkeepsie bridge. The tracks winding between the cliffs and the river make for some great photo opportunities.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 25, 2016, 12:52:54 PM
The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.
Keep in mind though, that the Palisades is for Passenger Cars Only, whereas US 9W isn't. I can't imagine the Parkway serving as anything else but temporary relief, especially after the cancellation of the Pearl River-Haverstraw Freeway.

On another topic in the same part of Rockland County, has anyone ever considered the Hook Mountain Tunnel as a train watching site?


I imagine most long-haul trucks take the Thruway, which also probably takes much of the traffic that used to take US 9W.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 26, 2016, 12:07:38 AM
The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.
Keep in mind though, that the Palisades is for Passenger Cars Only, whereas US 9W isn't. I can't imagine the Parkway serving as anything else but temporary relief, especially after the cancellation of the Pearl River-Haverstraw Freeway.

On another topic in the same part of Rockland County, has anyone ever considered the Hook Mountain Tunnel as a train watching site?


How many trucks are using 9W anyway, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 26, 2016, 08:17:06 AM
NYSDOT did a classification count (http://ftp.dot.ny.gov/tdv/YR2014/R08/85_Rockland/85_0653_CLS_07-2014.pdf) in July, 2014 on the stretch of 9W to the south.  For the week they did the count, out of ~8300 average vpd total, they counted 16% (~1300) "trucks and buses" (which according to their classification also includes pickups and vans), with about 370 "heavy vehicles" (includes buses and any truck with 6+ wheels or 3+ axles).  Only about 70 were full semis.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 26, 2016, 10:12:46 AM
Anybody who has ever driven on 9W would understand why there so few trucks. The road isn't remotely truck-friendly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 26, 2016, 11:18:40 AM
Anybody who has ever driven on 9W would understand why there so few trucks. The road isn't remotely truck-friendly.
Very true. Although places like Haverstraw, West Haverstraw, and Stony Point still need local deliveries.

Do you know what I always thought would've been great? If they could put a wye intersection at US 9W and Short Clove Road (Rockland CR 90). The trouble is they'd have to blast a shitload of the mountain away in order to do that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 26, 2016, 01:07:09 PM
This concrete structure was part of some viaduct that was connected to the Rochester Subway, which ran from 1927 to 1956.  The subway structure crossing the Genesee River is still there.  I was there in December 2014.
I think you're talking about the Broad St Bridge over the Genesee River...

I assumed he meant this (https://goo.gl/maps/f2U7r6FkTx72).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on May 03, 2016, 05:15:44 PM
D263211 - an R5 overhead sign replacement contract - link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263211

Heads up! An old button copy sign about to be discarded: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2526253,-79.0356007,3a,15y,99.91h,88.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEINk3u-OsqHHH2kE0R9ZmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It's old and will be missed.  :no:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 03, 2016, 05:29:48 PM
D263211 - an R5 overhead sign replacement contract - link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263211

Heads up! An old button copy sign about to be discarded: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2526253,-79.0356007,3a,15y,99.91h,88.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEINk3u-OsqHHH2kE0R9ZmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It's old and will be missed.  :no:

Other than that, no button copy (unless I'm missing something). Still 3 NYSDOT button copy signs that I know of and one state name shield.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 03, 2016, 11:30:12 PM
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.

D263211 - an R5 overhead sign replacement contract - link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263211

Heads up! An old button copy sign about to be discarded: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2526253,-79.0356007,3a,15y,99.91h,88.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEINk3u-OsqHHH2kE0R9ZmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It's old and will be missed.  :no:

Interesting to see the Milestrip exit sign move from a span gantry to a cantilever.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on May 04, 2016, 05:38:20 PM
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.

I believe cl94 is referring specifically to Region 5 and the project area referenced by the post.  ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 04, 2016, 05:42:55 PM
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.

I believe cl94 is referring specifically to Region 5 and the project area referenced by the post.  ;-)

Correct. I'm referring to the button copy signs under R5 maintenance. One of the 3 is being removed, plus there's one under SUNY jurisdiction. I-990 ramp to I-290 WB and Walden Avenue EB at I-90, plus one in miserable shape on the SUNY Buffalo north campus. Get your pics while you can. I think there are actually more NYSTA button copy signs in R5 now (including the non-reflective one that likely dates from just after the switch to green).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on May 04, 2016, 06:45:40 PM
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.

I believe cl94 is referring specifically to Region 5 and the project area referenced by the post.  ;-)

Correct. I'm referring to the button copy signs under R5 maintenance. One of the 3 is being removed, plus there's one under SUNY jurisdiction. I-990 ramp to I-290 WB and Walden Avenue EB at I-90, plus one in miserable shape on the SUNY Buffalo north campus. Get your pics while you can. I think there are actually more NYSTA button copy signs in R5 now (including the non-reflective one that likely dates from just after the switch to green).

What NYSTA sign is that old?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on May 04, 2016, 06:47:28 PM
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.



There are quite a few button copy signs in the Utica area and the two overhead button copy signs on the Thruway for Exit 31 were installed by NYSDOT with the reconstruction of I-790 in 1989 or so.  I believe quite a few of the button copy signs in the Utica area will be coming down in the next overhead sign project which should start later this year.  Several of them have already come down due to structural issues with the overhead sign bridges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 04, 2016, 07:14:58 PM
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.

I believe cl94 is referring specifically to Region 5 and the project area referenced by the post.  ;-)

Correct. I'm referring to the button copy signs under R5 maintenance. One of the 3 is being removed, plus there's one under SUNY jurisdiction. I-990 ramp to I-290 WB and Walden Avenue EB at I-90, plus one in miserable shape on the SUNY Buffalo north campus. Get your pics while you can. I think there are actually more NYSTA button copy signs in R5 now (including the non-reflective one that likely dates from just after the switch to green).

What NYSTA sign is that old?

This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9501533,-78.7624865,3a,42y,259.02h,92.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si8EALwHoGu1QxgeMVwQKPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). It survived a massive sign replacement program that replaced just about every other sign in the area. It's in crappy shape as well. Was there as of mid-March.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on May 04, 2016, 07:51:21 PM
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.

I believe cl94 is referring specifically to Region 5 and the project area referenced by the post.  ;-)

Correct. I'm referring to the button copy signs under R5 maintenance. One of the 3 is being removed, plus there's one under SUNY jurisdiction. I-990 ramp to I-290 WB and Walden Avenue EB at I-90, plus one in miserable shape on the SUNY Buffalo north campus. Get your pics while you can. I think there are actually more NYSTA button copy signs in R5 now (including the non-reflective one that likely dates from just after the switch to green).

What NYSTA sign is that old?

This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9501533,-78.7624865,3a,42y,259.02h,92.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si8EALwHoGu1QxgeMVwQKPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). It survived a massive sign replacement program that replaced just about every other sign in the area. It's in crappy shape as well. Was there as of mid-March.

That sign was installed in 1987 when I was in college at SUNY Fredonia, replacing a darker green all-button copy sign. That's a leftover from the era when the Thruway was putting some elements on the panel in button copy and other elements in non-button copy. Many signs would have a button copy border and non-button copy lettering or vice-versa. Some had '1 MILE' in button copy but the destinations in non-button copy. It's like they were using up old stock.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 04, 2016, 07:55:51 PM
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.

I believe cl94 is referring specifically to Region 5 and the project area referenced by the post.  ;-)

Correct. I'm referring to the button copy signs under R5 maintenance. One of the 3 is being removed, plus there's one under SUNY jurisdiction. I-990 ramp to I-290 WB and Walden Avenue EB at I-90, plus one in miserable shape on the SUNY Buffalo north campus. Get your pics while you can. I think there are actually more NYSTA button copy signs in R5 now (including the non-reflective one that likely dates from just after the switch to green).

What NYSTA sign is that old?

This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9501533,-78.7624865,3a,42y,259.02h,92.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si8EALwHoGu1QxgeMVwQKPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). It survived a massive sign replacement program that replaced just about every other sign in the area. It's in crappy shape as well. Was there as of mid-March.

Ah yes, the famous Cheektowaga sign. I'll pass by that in a couple days.

And given it was installed in '87 as upstate just said, it doesn't say exits 51-52a like it should, because that exit was built in the 90s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 04, 2016, 08:32:55 PM
Okay, this is a new one. I was goofing around in Historic Aerials (http://a.historicaerials.com/?SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&VERSION=1.1.1&LAYERS=1966&STYLES=&FORMAT=image%2Fjpeg&TRANSPARENT=false&HEIGHT=256&WIDTH=256&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&BBOX=-78.826904296875,42.742978093466434,-78.8214111328125,42.74701217318067), and I noticed that in 1966 there was a bridge here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7450025,-78.8249757,3a,75y,176.98h,78.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUbTCQVZWjzHja3BA_Lq98g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but now there isn't. Considering the fact that I have driven over this grade crossing hundreds, if not thousands of times, I am very surprised that this was the case. Why was it removed?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 04, 2016, 08:58:17 PM
Okay, this is a new one. I was goofing around in Historic Aerials (http://a.historicaerials.com/?SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&VERSION=1.1.1&LAYERS=1966&STYLES=&FORMAT=image%2Fjpeg&TRANSPARENT=false&HEIGHT=256&WIDTH=256&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&BBOX=-78.826904296875,42.742978093466434,-78.8214111328125,42.74701217318067), and I noticed that in 1966 there was a bridge here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7450025,-78.8249757,3a,75y,176.98h,78.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUbTCQVZWjzHja3BA_Lq98g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but now there isn't. Considering the fact that I have driven over this grade crossing hundreds, if not thousands of times, I am very surprised that this was the case. Why was it removed?

R5 took out a bunch of grade separations between the late 70s and early 90s. Two very notable ones were over the since-removed spur line serving the quarry east of the airport on NY 33 and NY 78 in Cheektowaga. My guess is that the bridges needed to be replaced and rail traffic did not warrant keeping a grade separation. Around the same time, R5 filled in a bunch of overpasses in Cheektowaga and Depew. There are a couple on Walden Avenue. Most evidence of what was along NY 33 was removed when it was reconstructed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 05, 2016, 12:43:04 AM
Okay, this is a new one. I was goofing around in Historic Aerials (http://a.historicaerials.com/?SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&VERSION=1.1.1&LAYERS=1966&STYLES=&FORMAT=image%2Fjpeg&TRANSPARENT=false&HEIGHT=256&WIDTH=256&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&BBOX=-78.826904296875,42.742978093466434,-78.8214111328125,42.74701217318067), and I noticed that in 1966 there was a bridge here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7450025,-78.8249757,3a,75y,176.98h,78.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUbTCQVZWjzHja3BA_Lq98g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but now there isn't. Considering the fact that I have driven over this grade crossing hundreds, if not thousands of times, I am very surprised that this was the case. Why was it removed?

R5 took out a bunch of grade separations between the late 70s and early 90s. Two very notable ones were over the since-removed spur line serving the quarry east of the airport on NY 33 and NY 78 in Cheektowaga. My guess is that the bridges needed to be replaced and rail traffic did not warrant keeping a grade separation. Around the same time, R5 filled in a bunch of overpasses in Cheektowaga and Depew. There are a couple on Walden Avenue. Most evidence of what was along NY 33 was removed when it was reconstructed.

Now that you mention it, I do vaguely remember a grade crossing on Transit and another on Genesee St. that's long gone, but I can't think of when it was removed.

Another thing I noticed on the aerial was that a similar bridge existed on Ridge Rd in Lackawanna but it was filled under like you described. I always wondered why the road went up a hill for no reason.

Actually I think Maple Rd has one as well. Interesting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 05, 2016, 02:14:17 AM
Okay, this is a new one. I was goofing around in Historic Aerials (http://a.historicaerials.com/?SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&VERSION=1.1.1&LAYERS=1966&STYLES=&FORMAT=image%2Fjpeg&TRANSPARENT=false&HEIGHT=256&WIDTH=256&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&BBOX=-78.826904296875,42.742978093466434,-78.8214111328125,42.74701217318067), and I noticed that in 1966 there was a bridge here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7450025,-78.8249757,3a,75y,176.98h,78.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUbTCQVZWjzHja3BA_Lq98g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but now there isn't. Considering the fact that I have driven over this grade crossing hundreds, if not thousands of times, I am very surprised that this was the case. Why was it removed?

R5 took out a bunch of grade separations between the late 70s and early 90s. Two very notable ones were over the since-removed spur line serving the quarry east of the airport on NY 33 and NY 78 in Cheektowaga. My guess is that the bridges needed to be replaced and rail traffic did not warrant keeping a grade separation. Around the same time, R5 filled in a bunch of overpasses in Cheektowaga and Depew. There are a couple on Walden Avenue. Most evidence of what was along NY 33 was removed when it was reconstructed.

Now that you mention it, I do vaguely remember a grade crossing on Transit and another on Genesee St. that's long gone, but I can't think of when it was removed.

Another thing I noticed on the aerial was that a similar bridge existed on Ridge Rd in Lackawanna but it was filled under like you described. I always wondered why the road went up a hill for no reason.

Actually I think Maple Rd has one as well. Interesting.

That one is long gone. Taken out at some point before 1972. Predates I-990. The one on Transit was taken out post-2007. I only know that because it was taken out after I moved to Buffalo.

A more recent example is CR 139 (Pavement Road) in Lancaster. That one was filled in as part of a 2011-12 bridge replacement.

As far as out here? I live on top of a filled-in railroad tunnel and that former line has a bunch of filled-in and visibly removed bridges. And I'm not even talking about the former Latham grade crossing (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7864266,-73.7576508,3a,60y,49.22h,72.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIpKfIVvni4ErCBIPZUIQCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Yeah...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 05, 2016, 10:45:32 AM
As for the original one, there's not as much traffic on the ex-Erie Buffalo & Southwestern Railroad that still crosses at 62. It serves very little purpose to have a bridge over underused tracks. Now that said, there are still bridges over US 62 for the B&SW toward Gowanda.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 05, 2016, 11:01:22 AM
As for the original one, there's not as much traffic on the ex-Erie Buffalo & Southwestern Railroad that still crosses at 62. It serves very little purpose to have a bridge over underused tracks. Now that said, there are still bridges over US 62 for the B&SW toward Gowanda.

Those are maintained by the railroad. All are in locations that would be quite expensive to put at grade in a safe manner. The removed bridges that NYSDOT converted into grade crossings were on flat land and the bridges themselves likely caused more of a safety concern than the grade crossings.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 08, 2016, 02:01:24 PM
Found in the Buffalo News

According to the article, the Kensington Expressway was also built to evacuate people in the event of a [nuclear] attack, where over 230k people would die without it.

(http://history.buffalonews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2016/04/1946-highway-map.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on May 08, 2016, 05:15:41 PM
Found in the Buffalo News

According to the article, the Kensington Expressway was also built to evacuate people in the event of a [nuclear] attack, where over 230k people would die without it.

]
Interesting that the Kensington was to be routed down Fillmore rather than Humboldt.  Apparently it was easier to get the elms from Humboldt removed than to raze a bunch of homes along Fillmore.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on May 14, 2016, 06:44:51 PM
Westbound Exit 7 on I-690 is being widened to have two exit lanes for the new amphitheater in Syracuse.  New signs have been installed that say "(NY 297 shield)/Amphitheater/Fairgrounds/Solvay".  I forgot about the fold-up button copy sign along that stretch, so I'm not sure if it's still there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on May 14, 2016, 07:39:09 PM
The text only BGSes on NY 252 at the NY 15 interchange in Rochester are being replaced. Sad to see the old signs go.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on May 14, 2016, 07:44:05 PM
The text only BGSes on NY 252 at the NY 15 interchange in Rochester are being replaced. Sad to see the old signs go.

I too am saddened to see that whole generation of signage quickly disappear.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Stephane Dumas on May 24, 2016, 05:05:34 PM
I don't know where to post that article, it almost go into fictionnal highways territory. Some folks dream of a super-bridge from NJ who span the Hudson river and Manhattan.
http://tollroadsnews.com/news/daily-news-brief-may-24-2016#1
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/05/could_this_futuristic_bridge_across_the_hudson_solve_njs_transit_woes.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 24, 2016, 05:28:22 PM
I don't know where to post that article, it almost go into fictionnal highways territory. Some folks dream of a super-bridge from NJ who span the Hudson river and Manhattan.
http://tollroadsnews.com/news/daily-news-brief-may-24-2016#1
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/05/could_this_futuristic_bridge_across_the_hudson_solve_njs_transit_woes.html

It's a real proposal that has been taken up by a news agency, so this is the spot for it. Granted, I don't see this ever happening, especially with the massive opposition that existed for the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on May 24, 2016, 06:27:23 PM
I don't know where to post that article, it almost go into fictionnal highways territory. Some folks dream of a super-bridge from NJ who span the Hudson river and Manhattan.
http://tollroadsnews.com/news/daily-news-brief-may-24-2016#1
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/05/could_this_futuristic_bridge_across_the_hudson_solve_njs_transit_woes.html

Just because this wild proposal originated from outside this forum doesn't mean discussion belongs in the factual portions of the board, in my opinion.

No one's going to go for an elevated rail across Manhattan.  They took all the Els down for a reason.  Even if they could get approvals, which they couldn't, where would the terminal go for all the passengers to get down again and transfer to their subways or buses?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 24, 2016, 08:25:07 PM
I don't know where to post that article, it almost go into fictionnal highways territory. Some folks dream of a super-bridge from NJ who span the Hudson river and Manhattan.
http://tollroadsnews.com/news/daily-news-brief-may-24-2016#1
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/05/could_this_futuristic_bridge_across_the_hudson_solve_njs_transit_woes.html

Just because this wild proposal originated from outside this forum doesn't mean discussion belongs in the factual portions of the board, in my opinion.

No one's going to go for an elevated rail across Manhattan.  They took all the Els down for a reason.  Even if they could get approvals, which they couldn't, where would the terminal go for all the passengers to get down again and transfer to their subways or buses?

What's needed is CAR access from NJ to Long Island. Truck volume is relatively low, and transit volume is also low.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 24, 2016, 09:50:22 PM
What's needed is CAR access from NJ to Long Island. Truck volume is relatively low, and transit volume is also low.

It's anecdotal, but my experience with what the ramp from the Clearview southbound to the LIE eastbound looks like on a typical weekday midday would suggest that truck volume to Long Island is not all that low.

That said, the wild proposal claims trucks would be banned from using the bridge to minimize noise and air quality issues. Seems a little fig leafish to me compared to the overall scope of the project but there you go.


Meanwhile, there is an actual real proposal for a cross-harbor freight rail tunnel, which would be seriously helpful because it would allow trucks to be taken off the road not only going to Long Island but also to the city, Westchester, and Connecticut - all markets which have opportunities to receive more cargo by rail if there were a way for it to cross the Hudson south of Castleton.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on May 24, 2016, 10:04:53 PM
What's needed is another way to get off and on Long Island. Every way almost always backs up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 24, 2016, 10:14:41 PM
The Cross-Harbor Tunnel, while expensive, would be an excellent solution- IF intermodal facilities are built in Nassau and/or Suffolk. That would provide an actual replacement for the trucks that must go through the City. I know how backed up that ramp from the Clearview gets, hence why I always take the Cross Island to the Grand Central/Northern State when going out that way. Of course, true intermodal facilities that are able to accept piggyback operation must be built actually on the Island, with the current plan putting a facility in Maspeth.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on May 24, 2016, 10:23:00 PM
The Cross-Harbor Tunnel, while expensive, would be an excellent solution- IF intermodal facilities are built in Nassau and/or Suffolk. That would provide an actual replacement for the trucks that must go through the City. I know how backed up that ramp from the Clearview gets, hence why I always take the Cross Island to the Grand Central/Northern State when going out that way. Of course, true intermodal facilities that are able to accept piggyback operation must be built actually on the Island, with the current plan putting a facility in Maspeth.

Funny how I find the Clearview to be less backed up than the Cross Island. A direct connection between the 2 heading east/south would be nice.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 25, 2016, 01:45:39 AM
Looks kinda like the Mid-MEX.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: goldfishcrackers4 on May 25, 2016, 10:22:07 AM
It looks like Reg 2 removed that overhead sign project from the list. I couldn't find it, at least.  Perhaps new signs should be part of a larger project to renumber 49 to I790?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 25, 2016, 11:29:03 AM
Quote from: Alps
What's needed is CAR access from NJ to Long Island. Truck volume is relatively low, and transit volume is also low.

I would hazard a bet that transit volume wouldn't be so low if there were through-running services besides Amtrak at Penn Station.  Would also do a lot to address the capacity problems at Penn Station.

Regarding the bridge proposal, it should be noted that it would not only ban trucks (as Duke mentioned), but would also ban passenger vehicles as well.  It's basically proposed as an alternative to the Gateway Tunnel project, so the primary focus is on rail, but it would also include decks for buses and for bike/ped.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 25, 2016, 01:41:04 PM
It looks like Reg 2 removed that overhead sign project from the list. I couldn't find it, at least.  Perhaps new signs should be part of a larger project to renumber 49 to I790?

From what I've heard, FHWA won't approve a move unless the grade crossing gets eliminated and it can go all the way to downtown Rome.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on May 25, 2016, 01:51:38 PM
It looks like Reg 2 removed that overhead sign project from the list. I couldn't find it, at least.  Perhaps new signs should be part of a larger project to renumber 49 to I790?

From what I've heard, FHWA won't approve a move unless the grade crossing gets eliminated and it can go all the way to downtown Rome.

That's only to renumber the roadway to Interstate 790. NY Route 790 is reserved for 49 and 365 between Thruway exits 31 and 33. The only thing missing on that change is funding.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on May 25, 2016, 01:54:09 PM
It looks like Reg 2 removed that overhead sign project from the list. I couldn't find it, at least.  Perhaps new signs should be part of a larger project to renumber 49 to I790?

What overhead sign project? There's one currently scheduled for letting later this year. Did a project appear on a list somewhere recently?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: goldfishcrackers4 on May 26, 2016, 09:15:32 AM
It looks like Reg 2 removed that overhead sign project from the list. I couldn't find it, at least.  Perhaps new signs should be part of a larger project to renumber 49 to I790?

What overhead sign project? There's one currently scheduled for letting later this year. Did a project appear on a list somewhere recently?

My mistake. When I put in Region 2 for projects, and didn't specify Oneida County, the project was there. Probably user error.  :confused:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 29, 2016, 04:52:32 PM
New topic, this time about a bridge over the Hudson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fixed_crossings_of_the_Hudson_River

What's the name of the bridge north of the Sandy Hill Bridge between South Glens Falls and Hudson Falls?

While we're at it, there are others that need names.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 29, 2016, 04:59:24 PM
It doesn't have a name, nor does the unlisted private bridge at the quarry or the I-87 bridge. If they do have names, they certainly aren't posted anywhere, nor are they public.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on May 30, 2016, 10:32:04 PM
What's needed is another way to get off and on Long Island. Every way almost always backs up.

oh gods yes!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 31, 2016, 11:49:06 AM
It's not going to ever happen, short of democracy being thrown out of the country in favor of an absolutist monarchy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on May 31, 2016, 03:53:31 PM
...especially with the massive opposition that existed for the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.

Not enough to kill it, apparently, since it already exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Manhattan_Expressway
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 31, 2016, 04:07:38 PM
...especially with the massive opposition that existed for the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.

Not enough to kill it, apparently, since it already exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Manhattan_Expressway

Yeah, I mixed my names up. I forgot what they were going to call I-495 across 34th Street.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on May 31, 2016, 04:25:21 PM
...especially with the massive opposition that existed for the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.

Not enough to kill it, apparently, since it already exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Manhattan_Expressway

Yeah, I mixed my names up. I forgot what they were going to call I-495 across 34th Street.

You're thinking of the Mid-Manhattan Expressway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on May 31, 2016, 04:27:12 PM
...especially with the massive opposition that existed for the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.

Not enough to kill it, apparently, since it already exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Manhattan_Expressway

Yeah, I mixed my names up. I forgot what they were going to call I-495 across 34th Street.

You're thinking of the Mid-Manhattan Expressway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 05, 2016, 05:55:46 PM
Traffic pattern change on NY 85 in Albany:

-WB back on the WB side
-US 20 exit reopened WB
-Both directions still 1 lane north/east of US 20
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on June 10, 2016, 01:36:13 AM
The Robert Moses Parkway is no more. Say hello to the Niagara Scenic Parkway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-more-17-million-funding-restore-and-enhance-historic-niagara-falls).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on June 10, 2016, 12:42:20 PM
The Robert Moses Parkway is no more. Say hello to the Niagara Scenic Parkway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-more-17-million-funding-restore-and-enhance-historic-niagara-falls).

To be fair, he already has a Causeway on Long Island/Fire Island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beeper1 on June 10, 2016, 12:52:35 PM
And two major state parks (one on Long Island and one up on the St Lawrence River), and the major hydropower dam on the St Lawrence near Massena.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on June 10, 2016, 07:08:32 PM
The Robert Moses Parkway is no more. Say hello to the Niagara Scenic Parkway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-more-17-million-funding-restore-and-enhance-historic-niagara-falls).

To be fair, he already has a Causeway on Long Island/Fire Island.

It may not be such a bad thing since it reduces the potential for confusion with the Robert Moses Causeway.  That said, I think that this is the first time that I've seen NY rename something to take someone's name off of it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 10, 2016, 10:58:54 PM
Any text route button copy signs left in upstate?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 10, 2016, 11:06:01 PM
Any text route button copy signs left in upstate?

Utica and Amsterdam. The ones in Rochester are slated for replacement this spring-1 was still up 2 weeks ago, may already be gone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on June 10, 2016, 11:13:51 PM
Any text route button copy signs left in upstate?

Just posted a pic of one of the signs in Amsterdam a couple days ago:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17987.msg2149212#msg2149212 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17987.msg2149212#msg2149212)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on June 10, 2016, 11:15:57 PM
Any text route button copy signs left in upstate?

I grabbed this picture in 2013.  I don't know if these survive.

(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20130515/ny69westny5awest.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 11, 2016, 12:32:13 AM
The Robert Moses Parkway is no more. Say hello to the Niagara Scenic Parkway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-more-17-million-funding-restore-and-enhance-historic-niagara-falls).

To be fair, he already has a Causeway on Long Island/Fire Island.
Yes, but they could've at least made it part of the Lake Ontario State Parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 11, 2016, 12:38:32 AM
The Robert Moses Parkway is no more. Say hello to the Niagara Scenic Parkway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-more-17-million-funding-restore-and-enhance-historic-niagara-falls).

To be fair, he already has a Causeway on Long Island/Fire Island.
Yes, but they could've at least made it part of the Lake Ontario State Parkway.


That would be quite a gap.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 11, 2016, 12:41:59 AM
It's not going to ever happen, short of democracy being thrown out of the country in favor of an absolutist monarchy.
Well, either that or a sudden public acceptance of the benefit of road improvements, instead of the myth of them being a blight upon communities, the cause of all urban decay, dragging down property values, only benefitting the auto industry, big oil, big banks, and all that other nonsense that has been prevalent since the 1960's.

That would be quite a gap.
Not if the gap is filled in, like originally intended.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 11, 2016, 08:32:40 AM
To be fair, he already has a Causeway on Long Island/Fire Island.
Yes, but they could've at least made it part of the Lake Ontario State Parkway.
That would be quite a gap.
Not if the gap is filled in, like originally intended.

Indeed, but that's a major undertaking, not something they "could've at least" done to atone for taking Moses' name off of it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on June 11, 2016, 09:40:25 AM
Any text route button copy signs left in upstate?

I grabbed this picture in 2013.  I don't know if these survive.

(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20130515/ny69westny5awest.jpg)

Nope, we were through there after the Utica/Rome Road Meet last year, and it's not button copy anymore.  Photos are available at http://www.greaternyroads.info/roads/nystate/ny5a.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 11, 2016, 03:16:25 PM
I just saw this little newsletter from Metro-North about the Harlem Line;

http://bit.ly/25zoyAJ

Quote
Next Weekend Wassaic Branch Substitute Busing June 10-12

 
Next weekend substitute bus service will be provided between Southeast and Wassaic for select trains on Friday evening, June 10, and all trains on Saturday and Sunday June 11 & 12 to accommodate reconstruction work for the Towners Crossing on Route 164.
Anyone have any info on this grade crossing? Is this a repair job, or an elimination?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 11, 2016, 05:36:59 PM
I doubt they'd call it reconstruction if they were eliminating the crossing.  I'm guessing they're replacing the crossing surface.

That would be quite a gap.
Not if the gap is filled in, like originally intended.
That project is essentially dead.  Heck, there's talk of reducing the portion in Orleans County down to two lanes because it's in bad shape but the AADT is too low to justify spending limited dollars fixing it.

Anyone else think it's interesting that they went with the "Niagara Scenic Parkway" name despite the only portion of the parkway that's scenic being slated for removal?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 11, 2016, 11:35:56 PM
Funny you mentioned the LOSP diet proposal. That was brought up at today's Toronto meet.

On a different topic, I overheard that Region 6 has a FYA now. Where is it? I'm driving through tomorrow and will detour to take a look.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 8.Lug on June 12, 2016, 02:30:24 AM
On a different topic, I overheard that Region 6 has a FYA now. Where is it? I'm driving through tomorrow and will detour to take a look.
What's region 6? They're popping up around Rochester - so stupid. If people aren't intelligent enough to yield on a green light, are they really expected to learn a completely new signal?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 12, 2016, 12:21:41 PM
Region 6 is the lower part of the finger lakes region which contains cities of Hornell and Elmira
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 14, 2016, 05:16:45 PM
Looks like Region 10 is installing another FYA. This one will be at the intersection of NY 24, Staples St and Prospect Pl in Farmingdale. FYAs are facing both NY 24 approaches. Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=12468&p_is_digital=Y). The intersection is currently unsignalized and the side street approaches will be split-phased.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 15, 2016, 07:21:55 PM
I saw one of the new state welcome signs for surface streets today.  It's just a green sign with the "New York State of Opportunity" logo on it.  NY 43 at the Massachusetts border.  Didn't have my camera, unfortunately.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 15, 2016, 08:10:03 PM
I saw one of the new state welcome signs for surface streets today.  It's just a green sign with the "New York State of Opportunity" logo on it.  NY 43 at the Massachusetts border.  Didn't have my camera, unfortunately.

There's another one in the area, I think on NY 7 at the Vermont border. I saw it in my rearview mirror a couple weeks ago. The small size caught me off guard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 17, 2016, 10:02:07 PM
NY 74 at Vermont has one too (brown and white for the Adirondacks).  Looks like Region 1 went out and replaced a bunch.

No picture of this one either... I'm really kicking myself, because I even had my camera because I suspected they had replaced the sign, but it slipped my mind when I was there!  I can only hope that NY 185 and US 4 have also been replaced (NY 185 was still the old style as of April/May), because the HPMS survey is now my only chance of getting pictures any time soon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 17, 2016, 10:30:47 PM
NY 74 at Vermont has one too (brown and white for the Adirondacks).  Looks like Region 1 went out and replaced a bunch.

No picture of this one either... I'm really kicking myself, because I even had my camera because I suspected they had replaced the sign, but it slipped my mind when I was there!  I can only hope that NY 185 and US 4 have also been replaced (NY 185 was still the old style as of April/May), because the HPMS survey is now my only chance of getting pictures any time soon.

Brown and white? That's new.

If I did remember the one on NY 7 correctly, I'll try and grab a picture this weekend. Not like I live particularly far from it. I'll try and check on US 4 as well.

Region 1 has been going crazy with the sign replacements lately. I-787 has a bunch of new signs and there are a few new ones up on the Northway in Saratoga County. Don't know how much longer the button copy at the circle stack will last.

Also, does anyone know what's going on with the watershed signs I've been seeing around the state? NYSTA posted signs along the Thruway for the Lake Erie and Lake Ontario watersheds and Region 4 put one on US 20 for the Lake Erie watershed. Will there eventually be some for the Hudson/Delaware/Susquehanna Rivers as well?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 17, 2016, 10:48:52 PM
There was a contract a couple years ago to replace the milemarkers and gore signs on all of I-787 that isn't under construction and I-90 in Rensselaer County.  All the gore signs on I-87 in Warren County have been replaced, and it looks like Saratoga is being worked on now (don't recall about Essex, but I can confirm that border patrol still uses their checkpoint, as it was active Monday morning).

NY 346 still used the old sign as of two days ago.

I believe the Susquehanna was already signed with the Chesapeake Bay watershed signs.  Wouldn't be surprised if they were part of Cuomo's water initiative after the issues in Orleans and Hoosick Falls were featured all over the news.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 17, 2016, 11:10:13 PM
So it is still active. I was through there on Wednesday and was lucky enough to not see it open. Neither was the one on NY 30 south of Malone.

I knew Warren County is getting a bunch of stuff replaced. Needed it. Most of the old signs were there when I was little. The badly-faded brown signs at Exit 13 were replaced recently.

Knew 346 still had the old sign, as does US 20 (but that's Region 8, so who knows what they're up to). Been a few months since I was on NY 2, NY 67, or NY 313. No idea about 22A or 149, but the latter always had a non-standard sign. I didn't see anything new in Region 5 and, as of Sunday, US 15 and NY 328 in Region 6 were the old style.

If there are signs for the Susquehanna, I certainly didn't see any along I-390 in Steuben County last weekend.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on June 18, 2016, 09:07:22 AM
I-390 northbound does have a sign for the Lake Ontario watershed, at the top of the hill between Exits 2 and 3.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 19, 2016, 03:47:55 AM
This is kinda region specific, but is there a roundabout going in at the intersection of accident prone US-62 and Sowles Road in Hamburg? I've noticed construction activity picking up and the surrounding area is being widened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 19, 2016, 07:44:16 PM
I got a picture of the new-style sign on NY 2 at Petersburgh Pass. I'll upload it later tonight.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 19, 2016, 09:11:02 PM
I got a picture of the new-style sign on NY 2 at Petersburgh Pass. I'll upload it later tonight.

Sorry about the poor image quality. If you're familiar with where this sign is located, you will know that a) there is no place to safely stop and leave a vehicle to take a picture and b) you get about 3 seconds to take it if going remotely close to the speed limit. As it is on a blind curve, I was not about to slow to a crawl to take a picture.

I miss having the state seal on the signs, but these signs are a lot sharper than the cluttered blue signs NYSDOT and NYSTA have been putting up recently on limited-access highways.

(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7316/27171991733_29093e8d72_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Hp6yu6)New-style New York state line sign, NY 2, Petersburgh Pass (https://flic.kr/p/Hp6yu6) by cl94 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48110267@N04/), on Flickr
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 19, 2016, 10:58:02 PM
I got a picture of the new-style sign on NY 2 at Petersburgh Pass. I'll upload it later tonight.

Sorry about the poor image quality. If you're familiar with where this sign is located, you will know that a) there is no place to safely stop and leave a vehicle to take a picture and b) you get about 3 seconds to take it if going remotely close to the speed limit. As it is on a blind curve, I was not about to slow to a crawl to take a picture.

I miss having the state seal on the signs, but these signs are a lot sharper than the cluttered blue signs NYSDOT and NYSTA have been putting up recently on limited-access highways.

(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7316/27171991733_29093e8d72_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Hp6yu6)New-style New York state line sign, NY 2, Petersburgh Pass (https://flic.kr/p/Hp6yu6) by cl94 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48110267@N04/), on Flickr

Will they be replacing the old ones at every state line entrance?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 19, 2016, 11:18:35 PM
Will they be replacing the old ones at every state line entrance?

Eventually. The one that was there was button copy and in miserable shape, so it was overdue for replacement. Two of the other ones that were replaced (NY 43 and (I think) NY 7) were button copy as well. NY 74 wasn't, but was certainly old enough to be button copy and in as bad shape, hence why it was replaced. If NY 67 and 313 haven't been replaced yet, I have a hunch they will be by the end of the summer, as they are also button copy. It is worth noting that most of R1's state line signage dated from no later than 1995 1994, as almost all had Mario Cuomo's name covered, so they are certainly due for replacement.

Edit: election was 1994, so that is the latest Cuomo signs would have been installed. May have been earlier depending on when R1 stopped using button copy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 20, 2016, 06:27:12 PM
Alright, another child death along a NYSDOT road: http://wnyt.com/news/road-safety-cohoes-dot-mayor/4174410/?cat=300 . At first glance, it would appear to be similar to the NY 198 mess. However, knowing New York, something should actually be done here, but nothing will be. NY 198 was a limited-access highway where a freak accident prompted immediate reactions from the wealthy neighborhood and state politicians. NY 787 is a surface road and nobody pays attention.

NY 787 has a pedestrian death every couple of years, typically children travelling to or from school. Cohoes has no school buses, so everyone living on the island has to walk across NY 787 to get to school. I disagree that the entire thing should be ripped out, but something needs to be done here, if only a pedestrian bridge is built. But, Cohoes is a poor community and there aren't a bunch of rich people begging to have the thing removed (or have anything done), so I wouldn't be shocked if everything remains exactly as it is today. Pedestrian volumes through there are certainly not low and people fly through.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 20, 2016, 07:28:26 PM
On the other hand, NYSDOT just announced its latest Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (which has actually been in the works for a while).  That increases the pressure to do something over what it would normally be.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 21, 2016, 02:21:33 PM
Alright, another child death along a NYSDOT road: http://wnyt.com/news/road-safety-cohoes-dot-mayor/4174410/?cat=300 . At first glance, it would appear to be similar to the NY 198 mess. However, knowing New York, something should actually be done here, but nothing will be. NY 198 was a limited-access highway where a freak accident prompted immediate reactions from the wealthy neighborhood and state politicians. NY 787 is a surface road and nobody pays attention.

NY 787 has a pedestrian death every couple of years, typically children travelling to or from school. Cohoes has no school buses, so everyone living on the island has to walk across NY 787 to get to school. I disagree that the entire thing should be ripped out, but something needs to be done here, if only a pedestrian bridge is built. But, Cohoes is a poor community and there aren't a bunch of rich people begging to have the thing removed (or have anything done), so I wouldn't be shocked if everything remains exactly as it is today. Pedestrian volumes through there are certainly not low and people fly through.

What can realistically be done there? And what is the average pedestrian accident rate for such "boulevard" would be? I suspect "onceevery few years" is pretty much expected with that amount of road and foot traffic.
Posting 30-35 MPH signs would do exactly nothing, re-configuring road for lower speed would make traffic worse and further reduce attractiveness of not-so-wealthy neighborhood. Reducing flow from current 25k vehicles translates further decay of area.
I would think that some flavor of grade separation (underground crosswalk) may be a good idea, but likely too expensive.

Its same problem as with 7 in Troy, I would say - "box" brings in traffic which has nowhere to go...
In another thread, actually, an idea of extending 787 north towards Mechanicville - Malta - Saratoga was floated, and I think that makes sense..   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 22, 2016, 11:03:44 PM
NY 74 at Vermont has one too (brown and white for the Adirondacks).  Looks like Region 1 went out and replaced a bunch.

No picture of this one either... I'm really kicking myself, because I even had my camera because I suspected they had replaced the sign, but it slipped my mind when I was there!  I can only hope that NY 185 and US 4 have also been replaced (NY 185 was still the old style as of April/May), because the HPMS survey is now my only chance of getting pictures any time soon.

Brown and white? That's new.
Must have been misremembering.  Just saw a photo someone took including it for the rail inventory (there's a crossing right on top of it) and it is indeed brown and gold.  First forgetting to take a picture, then having the color wrong... I must have been REALLY out of it that day!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 24, 2016, 03:36:51 PM
As far as brown and white, that is the new color scheme for the Catskills, reference markers and all. Every RM I saw inside the park in R1 was replaced with brown and white, similar to the brown and gold ones in the Adirondacks with one major difference- the top row (route number) is larger. I don't know if that's a one-off or the new standard. R1 and R8 have replaced most of the old signs in the park, so the vast majority of signs are now white on brown and mixed-case with a ]"Catskill Park" banner above every sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9781373,-74.0847942,3a,19.4y,171.14h,85.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6icIYOyv-A-xXlwAteiSvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Spot replacements have been going on for a few years, but the brown and gold is virtually gone other than town-installed signs and Adopt-A-Highway company names.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 24, 2016, 06:34:43 PM
As far as brown and white, that is the new color scheme for the Catskills, reference markers and all. Every RM I saw inside the park in R1 was replaced with brown and white, similar to the brown and gold ones in the Adirondacks with one major difference- the top row (route number) is larger. I don't know if that's a one-off or the new standard. R1 and R8 have replaced most of the old signs in the park, so the vast majority of signs are now white on brown and mixed-case with a ]"Catskill Park" banner above every sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9781373,-74.0847942,3a,19.4y,171.14h,85.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6icIYOyv-A-xXlwAteiSvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Spot replacements have been going on for a few years, but the brown and gold is virtually gone other than town-installed signs and Adopt-A-Highway company names.
Are you saying the RMs are heading back toward the older standard? Callough callay!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 24, 2016, 11:17:55 PM
As far as brown and white, that is the new color scheme for the Catskills, reference markers and all. Every RM I saw inside the park in R1 was replaced with brown and white, similar to the brown and gold ones in the Adirondacks with one major difference- the top row (route number) is larger. I don't know if that's a one-off or the new standard. R1 and R8 have replaced most of the old signs in the park, so the vast majority of signs are now white on brown and mixed-case with a ]"Catskill Park" banner above every sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9781373,-74.0847942,3a,19.4y,171.14h,85.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6icIYOyv-A-xXlwAteiSvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Spot replacements have been going on for a few years, but the brown and gold is virtually gone other than town-installed signs and Adopt-A-Highway company names.
Are you saying the RMs are heading back toward the older standard? Callough callay!

No. Top row was about 33% larger than usual. Still the 8 x 10 signs. NY 23 and NY 23A have them. Unfortunately, I didn't get a picture.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on June 28, 2016, 06:55:15 PM
Will they be replacing the old ones at every state line entrance?

Eventually. The one that was there was button copy and in miserable shape, so it was overdue for replacement. Two of the other ones that were replaced (NY 43 and (I think) NY 7) were button copy as well. NY 74 wasn't, but was certainly old enough to be button copy and in as bad shape, hence why it was replaced. If NY 67 and 313 haven't been replaced yet, I have a hunch they will be by the end of the summer, as they are also button copy. It is worth noting that most of R1's state line signage dated from no later than 1995 1994, as almost all had Mario Cuomo's name covered, so they are certainly due for replacement.

Edit: election was 1994, so that is the latest Cuomo signs would have been installed. May have been earlier depending on when R1 stopped using button copy.

NY 67's welcome sign has been replaced with the new style "New York State of Opportunity" welcome sign, as I've referenced over the Northeast Roads group on Facebook. I've also interpreted from others that it's not a statewide mandate, perhaps it's the blue welcome signs seen on the Interstates that are supposed to be used instead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 28, 2016, 09:16:00 PM
Something new from NYSDOT (at least in R2). First time I've seen one of these.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/built-to-lead.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 28, 2016, 09:19:47 PM
Will they be replacing the old ones at every state line entrance?

Eventually. The one that was there was button copy and in miserable shape, so it was overdue for replacement. Two of the other ones that were replaced (NY 43 and (I think) NY 7) were button copy as well. NY 74 wasn't, but was certainly old enough to be button copy and in as bad shape, hence why it was replaced. If NY 67 and 313 haven't been replaced yet, I have a hunch they will be by the end of the summer, as they are also button copy. It is worth noting that most of R1's state line signage dated from no later than 1995 1994, as almost all had Mario Cuomo's name covered, so they are certainly due for replacement.

Edit: election was 1994, so that is the latest Cuomo signs would have been installed. May have been earlier depending on when R1 stopped using button copy.

NY 67's welcome sign has been replaced with the new style "New York State of Opportunity" welcome sign, as I've referenced over the Northeast Roads group on Facebook. I've also interpreted from others that it's not a statewide mandate, perhaps it's the blue welcome signs seen on the Interstates that are supposed to be used instead.

The blue signs that aren't MUTCD-compliant because they contain a URL?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 29, 2016, 01:10:24 PM
Something new from NYSDOT (at least in R2). First time I've seen one of these.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/built-to-lead.jpg)
There's one on in Region 4 for the I-490 bridge replacement over Marsh Road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 29, 2016, 10:12:49 PM
Normally, I wouldn't post a mill and fill contract. Except the wording of this contract is a bit...um...intriguing. Also contained within are a bunch of safety upgrades (replacement of W-shape median rail with sturdier box beam rail).

NY 17 from NY 30 to Delaware/Sullivan line (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=12551&p_is_digital=Y). Note how the contract refers to the section as "Future I-86".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on June 29, 2016, 10:35:09 PM
Normally, I wouldn't post a mill and fill contract. Except the wording of this contract is a bit...um...intriguing. Also contained within are a bunch of safety upgrades (replacement of W-shape median rail with sturdier box beam rail).

NY 17 from NY 30 to Delaware/Sullivan line (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=12551&p_is_digital=Y). Note how the contract refers to the section as "Future I-86".

The plans do call for I-86 to extend all the way to I-87. Aside from the section from exits 84-87, isn't the entire road already up to Interstate standards?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 29, 2016, 10:49:33 PM
The plans do call for I-86 to extend all the way to I-87. Aside from the section from exits 84-87, isn't the entire road already up to Interstate standards?

The official word is that everything east of Deposit has been put on hold indefinitely. Either Region 9 wasn't given the memo or it is back on. Of course, if the original schedule was followed, it would be done already.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 30, 2016, 01:36:32 PM
Technically I think there are a few deficient features between exits 79-84 too... in any case, my impression is that the remaining needed upgrades (with the exception of the Hale Eddy section) in Region 9 are minor, so it's possible they rolled them in.  Heck, Region 4 just installed an acceleration lane on I-590 in a resurfacing project, do it's definitely possible.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 30, 2016, 03:08:19 PM
In my experience, both MnDOT and VTrans will often incorporate safety improvements or guardrail replacement into a resurfacing project....VTrans replaced guardrail on one such project on I-91 last year around here.  I would not be surprised if this was a normal thing in many (most?) states.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on June 30, 2016, 06:26:10 PM
There's one on in Region 4 for the I-490 bridge replacement over Marsh Road.

Can confirm the existence of at least one in Region 11 as well (LIE at GCP). Must be a statewide thing.

Funky color they got on those. That's... not an MUTCD standard shade, is it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on June 30, 2016, 07:39:59 PM
Something new from NYSDOT (at least in R2). First time I've seen one of these.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/built-to-lead.jpg)
There's one on in Region 4 for the I-490 bridge replacement over Marsh Road.

Didn't get any pictures but two of these were put up in Region 9 this week for projects that were already underway on I-88.  Between exits 3 and 5, and 12 and 13 (resurfacing).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 01, 2016, 08:06:41 AM
There's one on in Region 4 for the I-490 bridge replacement over Marsh Road.

Can confirm the existence of at least one in Region 11 as well (LIE at GCP). Must be a statewide thing.

Funky color they got on those. That's... not an MUTCD standard shade, is it?

Apparently Governor Cuomo requested that the regions put these up for major projects. The Utica North-South Arterial project is about 3/4 completed at this time, so the sign is a little late in the game. Must be part of the branding push to show that New York State is a state of opportunity and ready to lead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on July 01, 2016, 08:49:31 AM
There's one on in Region 4 for the I-490 bridge replacement over Marsh Road.

Can confirm the existence of at least one in Region 11 as well (LIE at GCP). Must be a statewide thing.

Funky color they got on those. That's... not an MUTCD standard shade, is it?

Apparently Governor Cuomo requested that the regions put these up for major projects. The Utica North-South Arterial project is about 3/4 completed at this time, so the sign is a little late in the game. Must be part of the branding push to show that New York State is a state of opportunity and ready to lead.

...and of course, what Governor Cuomo wants, Governor Cuomo gets.  That said, I actually do like the signs.  They give motorists driving through the construction zone some idea of what's going on.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on July 01, 2016, 09:34:09 AM
Saw a few on I-81 North in Cortland and Onondaga counties.

Surprised Gov. Cuomo has not taken a page from his father (and many other pols) and include his name on the signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on July 01, 2016, 11:30:45 AM
Reminds me of what Florida and Missouri does for their road projects. I like it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 01, 2016, 02:59:31 PM
I came across the aerial photo of the New York State Fairgrounds near Syracuse. The photo was taken in 1968 and clearly shows that the parking and roadway configurations, what is now Interstate 690, was much different than it is today. Thought some folks might be interested.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/PICT0022.JPG)

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/PICT0024.JPG)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 02, 2016, 12:20:35 AM
Something new from NYSDOT (at least in R2). First time I've seen one of these.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/built-to-lead.jpg)

I saw one on Niagara St in Buffalo the other day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on July 02, 2016, 11:28:35 PM
I came across the aerial photo of the New York State Fairgrounds near Syracuse. The photo was taken in 1968 and clearly shows that the parking and roadway configurations, what is now Interstate 690, was much different than it is today. Thought some folks might be interested.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/PICT0022.JPG)

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/PICT0024.JPG)
I remember the split around the fairgrounds at a very young age.  I believe that the eastbound lanes were moved next to the westbound lanes around 1973-75 in preparation for what is now NY 695's interchange with I-690.  The old eastbound lanes can be seen on current Google car photos (on bridge from NY 695 to I-690 west).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on July 03, 2016, 08:48:13 AM
I suppose we don't need to list all of them, but this one is probably in a different region (not that I know the NYSDOT region numbering scheme or the region boundaries), so I'll mention it.  One of these "Built to Lead" signs popped up very recently on NY 30 in Vail Mills.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 03, 2016, 09:01:17 AM
I suppose we don't need to list all of them, but this one is probably in a different region (not that I know the NYSDOT region numbering scheme or the region boundaries), so I'll mention it.  One of these "Built to Lead" signs popped up very recently on NY 30 in Vail Mills.
R1, rest area between exits 12 and 11 on I-90 free portion.
Great to see critical safety infrastructure items, such as restrooms, is being taken care of!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on July 03, 2016, 11:38:44 AM
Regarding the "Built to Lead"/"State of Opportunity" project blurb signs, these seem to be part of the same rebranding initiative that has put paid to the old NYSDOT globe-of-stripes logo.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 04, 2016, 04:55:57 PM
There's a pair on I-390 on either side of the upcoming reconstruction in Steuben County, a pair on NY 400 at the NT, and a pair on I-81 at NY 80. Over the past month, they have appeared everywhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 04, 2016, 05:23:53 PM
There's a pair on I-390 on either side of the upcoming reconstruction in Steuben County, a pair on NY 400 at the NT, and a pair on I-81 at NY 80. Over the past month, they have appeared everywhere.
Not really everywhere. Washington ave. ext. doesn't have those. Probably because it is current;y scheduled to be completed in several weeks, maybe because it is taking twice longer than planned.. Or possibly because project is slowly turning clusterf..k...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 04, 2016, 10:00:01 PM
17 has them in Corning.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 04, 2016, 11:47:54 PM
I saw one of those Built to Lead signs on Staten Island but I forget where, I think it was near the Verezano. There is one of those new light blue colored Welcome to New York signs on Staten Island just past the toll plaza for the Outerbridge crossing.

(http://www.27east.com/assets/Article/486084/ILoveNY.JPG)

(note thats not a photo of the one on Staten Island, its an example photo)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 05, 2016, 09:36:02 AM
I came across the aerial photo of the New York State Fairgrounds near Syracuse. The photo was taken in 1968 and clearly shows that the parking and roadway configurations, what is now Interstate 690, was much different than it is today. Thought some folks might be interested.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/PICT0022.JPG)

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/PICT0024.JPG)

I'm guessing the traffic lights at the exit from the parking lots were only added after the reconfiguration?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on July 05, 2016, 11:37:52 AM
Back to the Great Lakes Watershed signs...I saw a Entering Lake Erie Watershed sign, not on a freeway, but on US 20 headed westbound in I believe near Alexander NY (south of Batavia)...but there didn't appear to be a corresponding Lake Ontario Watershed sign in the opposite direction.  East of there, everything drains either into Lake Ontario directly, or into the Genesee River...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 05, 2016, 12:18:08 PM
Back to the Great Lakes Watershed signs...I saw a Entering Lake Erie Watershed sign, not on a freeway, but on US 20 headed westbound in I believe near Alexander NY (south of Batavia)...but there didn't appear to be a corresponding Lake Ontario Watershed sign in the opposite direction.  East of there, everything drains either into Lake Ontario directly, or into the Genesee River...

Lake Erie watershed appears to be mostly signed. I do not recall seeing a sign on NY 60 south of Fredonia. Other than on the Thruway, I have seen no Lake Ontario signs and nothing for anything else
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on July 05, 2016, 03:28:43 PM
Surprised Gov. Cuomo has not taken a page from his father (and many other pols) and include his name on the signs.

The signs were being changed every time a new governor was sworn in, at a considerable expense.  When George Pataki became governor (1995-2006) he put a stop to it.

In the 2009 NY supplement to the MUTCD (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/B-2011Supplement-adopted.pdf, page 251) there is a drawing of the old "Welcome to New York" sign.  The drawing has a governor's name on it...Al Smith (1919-1921, 1923-1929).  Further, the sign is done in FHwA fonts, which didn't exist when Smith was governor.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 06, 2016, 01:10:41 PM
Since we talk about the 86 construction, something that came to mind and research is coming up with blanks on: Why are exits 22, 88, 91, 95 and 117 missing? There should be answers in state documents but I'm not exactly close to Albany.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 06, 2016, 01:51:37 PM
Since we talk about the 86 construction, something that came to mind and research is coming up with blanks on: Why are exits 22, 88, 91, 95 and 117 missing? There should be answers in state documents but I'm not exactly close to Albany.

22 is reserved for the US 219 expressway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 06, 2016, 03:09:29 PM
Since we talk about the 86 construction, something that came to mind and research is coming up with blanks on: Why are exits 22, 88, 91, 95 and 117 missing? There should be answers in state documents but I'm not exactly close to Albany.

22 is reserved for the US 219 expressway.

That makes sense. I doubted it was for Parkside Drive (which is the only nearby intersection). Still doesn't answer the east of Hale Eddy ones.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on July 06, 2016, 06:35:21 PM
Back to the Great Lakes Watershed signs...I saw a Entering Lake Erie Watershed sign, not on a freeway, but on US 20 headed westbound in I believe near Alexander NY (south of Batavia)...but there didn't appear to be a corresponding Lake Ontario Watershed sign in the opposite direction.  East of there, everything drains either into Lake Ontario directly, or into the Genesee River...

Lake Erie watershed appears to be mostly signed. I do not recall seeing a sign on NY 60 south of Fredonia. Other than on the Thruway, I have seen no Lake Ontario signs and nothing for anything else

I've only seen a Lake Erie watershed sign (at least in NYS) on the Thruway proper. I have seen Lake Ontario watershed signs up in Jefferson County, but that may have been a county install (they've been up for years).

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2755/4305055004_b24250c174.jpg)

There's also a Chesapeake Bay watershed sign on I-88 westbound near the Schoharie-Otsego county line, but that was put up about 5-10 years ago and may have been part of a multi-state effort to mark the Chesapeake Bay watershed boundary (much more elaborate signs exist on I-80 in PA, for instance) and the Seeley Creek Watershed on NY 328 near Elmira.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on July 06, 2016, 06:36:22 PM
I suppose we don't need to list all of them, but this one is probably in a different region (not that I know the NYSDOT region numbering scheme or the region boundaries), so I'll mention it.  One of these "Built to Lead" signs popped up very recently on NY 30 in Vail Mills.

I've seen these signs on I-86 and I-88 recently as well, both for major projects and not quite as major projects.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 06, 2016, 07:35:30 PM
Also missing are 3 (well, formerly, as NY's numbers are a continuation of PA's and PA exit 3 was exit 2 before the switch to mile-based numbers), 5, and 55 (reserved for an extension of Clemons Center Parkway).

117 was an exit for Tarbell Road.  Not sure when it was removed, but Historic Aerials has it disappearing sometime in the 90s or 2000s.  I just assumed it was open in 1999 when I did my April Fools Day prank (yes, the NY 17 exit list took a VERY large chunk of the time spend on that).
http://www.nysroads.com/1999/ny17list.php
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 06, 2016, 08:02:55 PM
I suppose we don't need to list all of them, but this one is probably in a different region (not that I know the NYSDOT region numbering scheme or the region boundaries), so I'll mention it.  One of these "Built to Lead" signs popped up very recently on NY 30 in Vail Mills.

I've seen these signs on I-86 and I-88 recently as well, both for major projects and not quite as major projects.

There's one for the minor bridge projects on I-88 WB east of Cobleskill. NY 146 has one for the Rexford Bridge replacement. That is the first I have seen in R1.

Lake Erie watershed signs are present on US 20, US 20A (near the brake check area west of Warsaw), and US 219 (north of Ellicottville just south of the parking area). There may be others.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 06, 2016, 09:01:11 PM
Also missing are 3 (well, formerly, as NY's numbers are a continuation of PA's and PA exit 3 was exit 2 before the switch to mile-based numbers), 5, and 55 (reserved for an extension of Clemons Center Parkway).

117 was an exit for Tarbell Road.  Not sure when it was removed, but Historic Aerials has it disappearing sometime in the 90s or 2000s.  I just assumed it was open in 1999 when I did my April Fools Day prank (yes, the NY 17 exit list took a VERY large chunk of the time spend on that).
http://www.nysroads.com/1999/ny17list.php

Now I see why I missed it on HA [117], that's a ramp hard to catch from above.

55 makes sense as well and I see where it would be.

Still leaves 88, 91 and 95. 88 is especially weird because there is an 87A.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 06, 2016, 09:20:15 PM
Also missing are 3 (well, formerly, as NY's numbers are a continuation of PA's and PA exit 3 was exit 2 before the switch to mile-based numbers), 5, and 55 (reserved for an extension of Clemons Center Parkway).

117 was an exit for Tarbell Road.  Not sure when it was removed, but Historic Aerials has it disappearing sometime in the 90s or 2000s.  I just assumed it was open in 1999 when I did my April Fools Day prank (yes, the NY 17 exit list took a VERY large chunk of the time spend on that).
http://www.nysroads.com/1999/ny17list.php

Now I see why I missed it on HA [117], that's a ramp hard to catch from above.

55 makes sense as well and I see where it would be.

Still leaves 88, 91 and 95. 88 is especially weird because there is an 87A.

You're forgetting 118A. NY 17M at its western terminus. Removed around the same time as 117. EB exit, WB entrance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 06, 2016, 09:36:37 PM
Also missing are 3 (well, formerly, as NY's numbers are a continuation of PA's and PA exit 3 was exit 2 before the switch to mile-based numbers), 5, and 55 (reserved for an extension of Clemons Center Parkway).

117 was an exit for Tarbell Road.  Not sure when it was removed, but Historic Aerials has it disappearing sometime in the 90s or 2000s.  I just assumed it was open in 1999 when I did my April Fools Day prank (yes, the NY 17 exit list took a VERY large chunk of the time spend on that).
http://www.nysroads.com/1999/ny17list.php

Now I see why I missed it on HA [117], that's a ramp hard to catch from above.

55 makes sense as well and I see where it would be.

Still leaves 88, 91 and 95. 88 is especially weird because there is an 87A.

You're forgetting 118A. NY 17M at its western terminus. Removed around the same time as 117. EB exit, WB entrance.

118A I knew. I'm asking on the ones I'm baffled on. I've gone through numerous aerials and topos and can't find answers for 88, 91 or 95.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on July 06, 2016, 09:52:01 PM
I've gone through numerous aerials and topos and can't find answers for 88, 91 or 95.

The Quickway was already built west of Hancock and east of Parksville by the time that segment broke ground (late 60s). Is it possible that the state simply overestimated how many interchanges there would be when numbering things east of there and ended up needing to skip a few numbers once they filled the gap?

 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 07, 2016, 01:03:26 PM
That could explain 91 and 95, assuming they were numbered back then (also 3 and 5 at the western end), but not 88 due to the presence of exit 87A.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 07, 2016, 05:38:05 PM
On a different topic, I found some pictures of the infamous I-87 grade crossing just south of the Twin Bridges. This page has them (http://gino.cdfw.net/_railpage/TandS/northway.html). Similar to the NY 49 and US 4 expressway grade crossings, it has signals and crossbucks, but no gates.

Back to the signs: there's at least one at the circle stack for the South Mall bridge rehab.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on July 07, 2016, 08:41:20 PM
On a different topic, I found some pictures of the infamous I-87 grade crossing just south of the Twin Bridges. This page has them (http://gino.cdfw.net/_railpage/TandS/northway.html). Similar to the NY 49 and US 4 expressway grade crossings, it has signals and crossbucks, but no gates.

Back to the signs: there's at least one at the circle stack for the South Mall bridge rehab.

Oh wow. I lived up here for over a decade now and never knew of a railroad at-grade crossing on the Northway. The trail I walk on regularly is part of the same old railroad, but I had assumed that they just shut the railroad down before the Northway was built.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 07, 2016, 08:57:14 PM
Only error of note is that, despite what that website owner was told and thought, the Northway rail crossing was not the only at-grade rail crossing on an interstate.  I-95 had been designated along the Shirley Highway (today's I-395) in northern Virginia by then, and had an at-grade crossing of the W&OD (Washington & Old Dominion) that existed for several years until that railroad was shut down in 1968.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 10, 2016, 05:42:56 PM
I noticed new "ENTERING Lake Ontario Watershed" sign on I-90 (NYS Thruway) WB just east of the NY Route 26 overpass in Oneida County, Town of Westmoreland. The sign is identical to the sign EB out by Batavia (FHWA fonts and all that) but the supports are not nearly as sturdy.

There was no watershed sign in the EB sign at that location as far as I could see.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 10, 2016, 05:59:11 PM
I noticed new "ENTERING Lake Ontario Watershed" sign on I-90 (NYS Thruway) WB just east of the NY Route 26 overpass in Oneida County, Town of Westmoreland. The sign is identical to the sign EB out by Batavia (FHWA fonts and all that) but the supports are not nearly as sturdy.

There was no watershed sign in the EB sign at that location as far as I could see.

When I was through last week, there was not.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 10, 2016, 11:35:06 PM
This might be a trivial question, but I've always wondered, why is New Armour Road in Orchard Park built like a bypass?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on July 11, 2016, 09:02:54 AM
This might be a trivial question, but I've always wondered, why is New Armour Road in Orchard Park built like a bypass?
Because those on the existing Armor-Duells Crs Rd didn't want all the traffic headed to NY 240 (many skiers) or Chestnut Ridge Park.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 15, 2016, 02:10:00 PM
Here's something interesting... the I-81 project in Syracuse is part of the keynote address for the Walk-Bike NY conference... makes one wonder if this is a tell as to which option NYSDOT is leaning towards?
https://www.itsmr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Walk-Bike-2016-Agenda-for-web.pdf

(personal speculation emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 16, 2016, 12:19:36 PM
Another pic I found. I was going to put it in one of the signs-related threads, but this isn't about signs.

http://viewoftheblue.com/photography/susq_cny.html

The pic I'm focusing on is one of a former Lackawanna station in Norwich, New York.

http://viewoftheblue.com/photography/susq_cny/norw480.jpg

I noticed some old wooden road closing gates at the dead end street next to it on both sides of the tracks. It looks like that road used to cross the tracks until sometime in the (mid?) 20th Century.


Another thing; What's the point of keeping NY 22 only two lanes wide between I-684 and CR 54? They aren't using the reservoirs as an excuse, are they? Also, I finally spotted an NY 22 sign on US 1 that I missed the chance to take a picture of. I didn't think anybody in NYCDOT gave a shit about that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on July 17, 2016, 08:41:03 AM
No pics, but I-86 was signed from exit 67 west to the Broome County line over the past week.  This corresponds with new To 86 signs being mounted throughout the Binghamton area.  The majority of on-ramps have a supplemental TO banner temporarily mounted to the I-86 shields.  However, the new I-86 assemblies posted on the highway in Vestal do not have this.  They are on signposts above NY-17 shields.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 17, 2016, 09:44:27 AM
So they got this new Rest Stop being worked on in Commack on 495 between Exits 51 and 52.

http://www.smithtownmatters.com/politics-government/2016/3/22/dot-to-convert-lie-parking-area-to-taste-of-ny-welcome-cente.html

One of the issues is the current Rest Area is a common place for truckers to park in order to take a nap and the new one will be banning trucks from parking there.

Apparently theres a new Truck stop being planned further east on the island but I dont normally drive that far out to check on that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 17, 2016, 11:07:47 PM
No pics, but I-86 was signed from exit 67 west to the Broome County line over the past week.  This corresponds with new To 86 signs being mounted throughout the Binghamton area.  The majority of on-ramps have a supplemental TO banner temporarily mounted to the I-86 shields.  However, the new I-86 assemblies posted on the highway in Vestal do not have this.  They are on signposts above NY-17 shields.

So they removed the NY 17 shields that were covering them. They've been up for years under NY 17 shields throughout the entirety of Region 9 minus the immediate Hale Eddy area and around Prospect Mountain.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on July 18, 2016, 07:14:44 AM
No pics, but I-86 was signed from exit 67 west to the Broome County line over the past week.  This corresponds with new To 86 signs being mounted throughout the Binghamton area.  The majority of on-ramps have a supplemental TO banner temporarily mounted to the I-86 shields.  However, the new I-86 assemblies posted on the highway in Vestal do not have this.  They are on signposts above NY-17 shields.

So they removed the NY 17 shields that were covering them. They've been up for years under NY 17 shields throughout the entirety of Region 9 minus the immediate Hale Eddy area and around Prospect Mountain.

No, these are completely new assemblies.  They're replacing all of the assemblies throughout Broome County.  I watched them install several of them over the past week.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 20, 2016, 10:26:43 AM
I noticed new "ENTERING Lake Ontario Watershed" sign on I-90 (NYS Thruway) WB just east of the NY Route 26 overpass in Oneida County, Town of Westmoreland. The sign is identical to the sign EB out by Batavia (FHWA fonts and all that) but the supports are not nearly as sturdy.

There was no watershed sign in the EB sign at that location as far as I could see.
And a very similar "Lake Erie watershed" is further down the WB road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on July 20, 2016, 09:23:45 PM
While it's been some time since I've drove around in circles in Malta, NY until I puked (seriously, there's more roundabouts than traffic lights in that town), I drove around the Luther Forest area of Malta (over where Global Foundries is located) after my walk this evening. Previously unbeknownst to me are four new Saratoga County routes that have been recently posted (not on the NYSDOT logs yet). They are...

CR 72 is Hundred Acre Woods Way
CR 73 is Rocket Drive
CR 77 is Stone Break Road / Stone Break Extension
CR 78 is Luther Forest Boulevard
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 20, 2016, 09:29:34 PM
While it's been some time since I've drove around in circles in Malta, NY until I puked (seriously, there's more roundabouts than traffic lights in that town), I drove around the Luther Forest area of Malta (over where Global Foundries is located) after my walk this evening. Previously unbeknownst to me are four new Saratoga County routes that have been recently posted (not on the NYSDOT logs yet). They are...

CR 72 is Hundred Acre Woods Way
CR 73 is Rocket Drive
CR 77 is Stone Break Road / Stone Break Extension
CR 78 is Luther Forest Boulevard

Didn't know those were county routes. I was up that way a couple months ago and they were certainly not posted. Also didn't realize that Saratoga County left room in their numbering scheme for extra routes given the presence of the scattered 100-series routes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on July 20, 2016, 09:38:20 PM
While it's been some time since I've drove around in circles in Malta, NY until I puked (seriously, there's more roundabouts than traffic lights in that town), I drove around the Luther Forest area of Malta (over where Global Foundries is located) after my walk this evening. Previously unbeknownst to me are four new Saratoga County routes that have been recently posted (not on the NYSDOT logs yet). They are...

CR 72 is Hundred Acre Woods Way
CR 73 is Rocket Drive
CR 77 is Stone Break Road / Stone Break Extension
CR 78 is Luther Forest Boulevard

Didn't know those were county routes. I was up that way a couple months ago and they were certainly not posted. Also didn't realize that Saratoga County left room in their numbering scheme for extra routes given the presence of the scattered 100-series routes.

I think that Saratoga County has unused county route numbers reserved throughout the county, scattered throughout their route numbering scheme. There's certainly quite a few unused numbers between 1-100.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 20, 2016, 09:44:49 PM
I think that Saratoga County has unused county route numbers reserved throughout the county. There's certainly quite a few unused numbers between 1-100.

I looked through the listing and noticed that, which really makes me wonder about the 100 series. Each of those routes has an unused number that would fit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Stephane Dumas on July 21, 2016, 01:07:50 PM
NYSDOT had posted a bunch of photos of the construction of the new Kosciusko bridge who'll replace the current one. https://www.dot.ny.gov/kbridge/photos
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 21, 2016, 04:38:21 PM
Although the new bridge is getting more lanes than the existing bridge, is there room to add additional lanes to the bridge's approaches?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 21, 2016, 05:51:14 PM
Although the new bridge is getting more lanes than the existing bridge, is there room to add additional lanes to the bridge's approaches?

They'll be widening it from the LIE on the north side to the first exit on the south side. They can't widen too far south without taking out a bunch of houses. Honestly, making the bridge wider should do wonders, as that's the choke point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on July 21, 2016, 07:59:16 PM
Although the new bridge is getting more lanes than the existing bridge, is there room to add additional lanes to the bridge's approaches?
Right now you have quite a bit of merge heading westbound. That'll be cleared up. Eastbound you get the lane added from the surface streets, and it carries through to the LIE. There will be a lot better lane balance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 21, 2016, 08:13:05 PM
Although the new bridge is getting more lanes than the existing bridge, is there room to add additional lanes to the bridge's approaches?
Right now you have quite a bit of merge heading westbound. That'll be cleared up. Eastbound you get the lane added from the surface streets, and it carries through to the LIE. There will be a lot better lane balance.

Isn't it going to be 5 WB and 4 EB? That changes the 3 -> 1 merge from the LIE to a weave, which, while tighter than it could be, will do wonders for preventing the 24/7 backup on the WB side of the bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on July 22, 2016, 12:09:08 AM
Although the new bridge is getting more lanes than the existing bridge, is there room to add additional lanes to the bridge's approaches?
Right now you have quite a bit of merge heading westbound. That'll be cleared up. Eastbound you get the lane added from the surface streets, and it carries through to the LIE. There will be a lot better lane balance.

Isn't it going to be 5 WB and 4 EB? That changes the 3 -> 1 merge from the LIE to a weave, which, while tighter than it could be, will do wonders for preventing the 24/7 backup on the WB side of the bridge.
Cor, I don't remember, I only designed the damn thing. :-D One of the directions has a 2-lane through route and 3-lane C-D road but I could swear that was eastbound - which is the bridge that is being built now and will open right away. The future westbound bridge, not part of the current contract (they are going to wait to see how traffic does and then see if they can fund it), will be the 4 laner.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on August 08, 2016, 11:56:26 PM
Last night, I found a couple interesting videos on YouTube.  This one is a precast deck section being lifted into place on the I-690 westbound bridge over North Salina Street in Syracuse:

This one is the demolition of the old I-81/NY 17 bridges over the Chenango River in Binghamton from several different angles.  It was taken by the company that did the explosives on the bridges:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 17, 2016, 08:40:53 AM
More state line signage being placed -

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-notices

D263278, D263279, D263280, and D263281 in each supplemental information link has the updated state line sign (white on blue) with I (heart) NY app information, and what looks to be a new independent sign for NY Parks, stating "New York Outdoor Recreation" (in all caps)

Also, "New York" in mixed case Raavi Bold.
 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 17, 2016, 10:13:09 AM
More state line signage being placed -

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-notices

D263278, D263279, D263280, and D263281 in each supplemental information link has the updated state line sign (white on blue) with I (heart) NY app information, and what looks to be a new independent sign for NY Parks, stating "New York Outdoor Recreation" (in all caps)

Also, "New York" in mixed case Raavi Bold.
 

These are the signs I saw on the Thruway and the lighter blue portions look badly faded.  I think they've been up two weeks.  Not a good design at all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 17, 2016, 03:15:47 PM
NYSTA added another one of those things these south of Exit 23. Again, I don't know why.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 17, 2016, 03:36:39 PM
NYSTA added another one of those things these south of Exit 23. Again, I don't know why.

I've been on the Thruway a lot in the last few weeks, and each time there seems to be a new collection of these things popping up.  I don't think the ones in the Syracuse area were there a few weeks ago, and were this week.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 17, 2016, 03:57:01 PM
Looking at some of the locations for these, the blue signs often replace brand new "state of opportunity" signs. What a waste.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 17, 2016, 05:27:04 PM
Yeah every time o get on the Thruway now around Buffalo they're all over the place. There are smaller versions of signs that don't really tell drivers much and act almost as billboards for the governor's pet projects like the wine country stuff and TasteNY™...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 17, 2016, 06:26:53 PM
NYSTA added another one of those things these south of Exit 23. Again, I don't know why.

I've been on the Thruway a lot in the last few weeks, and each time there seems to be a new collection of these things popping up.  I don't think the ones in the Syracuse area were there a few weeks ago, and were this week.

They're being installed betweens Thruway exits 31 and 32. At least, I'm pretty sure as there are sign post mounts for several signs in succession.  In speaking with friends that work at NYSDOT R2, apparently they're going up on the NYSDOT freeways in Utica-Rome area as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 17, 2016, 06:27:25 PM
Yeah every time o get on the Thruway now around Buffalo they're all over the place. There are smaller versions of signs that don't really tell drivers much and act almost as billboards for the governor's pet projects like the wine country stuff and TasteNY™...

I completely agree that these are nothing more than legislated billboards mounted close to the road. Frivolous waste.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 17, 2016, 06:44:06 PM
Yeah every time o get on the Thruway now around Buffalo they're all over the place. There are smaller versions of signs that don't really tell drivers much and act almost as billboards for the governor's pet projects like the wine country stuff and TasteNY™...

I completely agree that these are nothing more than legislated billboards mounted close to the road. Frivolous waste.
I've seen a bunch of blue signs advertizing I love NY app. No information at all.
SOmething like this:

(http://tbrnewsmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/pjsigns2_petroski_071516w-300x200.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 17, 2016, 07:58:04 PM
The one south of 23 is basically a welcome sign. I'm trying to figure out how they're going to put the succession on NY 2. There's a cliff on the right side.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on August 18, 2016, 06:04:30 AM
Whatever happened to...

     Welcome to
     NEW YORK

  The Empire State

Not "jazzy" enough?  Boring?

It would look good on a blue sign.

Leave the apps and websites for the rest areas and service areas.  The old welcome signs have to be better than this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on August 18, 2016, 06:38:48 AM
Whatever happened to...

     Welcome to
     NEW YORK

  The Empire State

Not "jazzy" enough?  Boring?

It would look good on a blue sign.

Leave the apps and websites for the rest areas and service areas.  The old welcome signs have to be better than this.
I'd love it if the governor's name was still on it. It'd be even better with button copy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on August 18, 2016, 12:09:00 PM
I don't like governors' names on public works projects.  It makes it look like they paid for it personally or that the public works project would never have happened without them, which is rarely the case.  Let them pay for their own reelection propaganda.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 18, 2016, 02:18:30 PM
I was disappointed to see on my way to Albany today that there is now a series of those silly signs on the Thruway EB approaching 25.  They weren't there as of last week.  You know, I'd be tempted to download their silly app if the existence of these signs didn't bother me so much.  I think the ones coming up on 25 are especially bad as they're interspersed with existing (meaningful) signs that are already pretty densely clustered.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 18, 2016, 03:50:41 PM
Given where they've popped up: 23, 24, 50, 53, among others, there is clearly a reason they have it on the Thruway at exits in the main cities.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 18, 2016, 05:22:32 PM
IMO if the Thruway is signing all this stuff they can sign county line signs.  Seriously.  They're proving themselves to be hypocrites with every single one of these signs they erect.  Does I <3 NY use county names?  Because it would be really ironic if they did.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 18, 2016, 05:25:13 PM
IMO if the Thruway is signing all this stuff they can sign county line signs.  Seriously.  They're proving themselves to be hypocrites with every single one of these signs they erect.  Does I <3 NY use county names?  Because it would be really ironic if they did.
problem is that county lines may be somewhat useful. Sign needs to be completely useless to get admitted to Thruway mainline.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 18, 2016, 07:52:53 PM
IMO if the Thruway is signing all this stuff they can sign county line signs.  Seriously.  They're proving themselves to be hypocrites with every single one of these signs they erect.  Does I <3 NY use county names?  Because it would be really ironic if they did.
problem is that county lines may be somewhat useful. Sign needs to be completely useless to get admitted to Thruway mainline.

Let's see, every state line, every airport, every major city...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 19, 2016, 04:59:23 AM
IMO if the Thruway is signing all this stuff they can sign county line signs.  Seriously.  They're proving themselves to be hypocrites with every single one of these signs they erect.  Does I <3 NY use county names?  Because it would be really ironic if they did.
problem is that county lines may be somewhat useful. Sign needs to be completely useless to get admitted to Thruway mainline.

Let's see, every state line, every airport, every major city...
Every watershed, every Erie canal crossing...
BGS are in a different group, apparently. But looks like there is no reasonable system.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 19, 2016, 06:23:20 AM
Yeah every time o get on the Thruway now around Buffalo they're all over the place. There are smaller versions of signs that don't really tell drivers much and act almost as billboards for the governor's pet projects like the wine country stuff and TasteNY™...

I completely agree that these are nothing more than legislated billboards mounted close to the road. Frivolous waste.
I've seen a bunch of blue signs advertizing I love NY app. No information at all.
SOmething like this:

(http://tbrnewsmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/pjsigns2_petroski_071516w-300x200.jpg)

Funny, that looks more like a "Path Through History" sign with the app ad on the bottom to me. They have these at any sites where they have something historic.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orient_Historic_District_sign_on_NY_25.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oysterponds_Historical_Society-4.JPG

They even have them at Subway stations:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grand_Concourse_HD_Path_Through_History_@_167th_Street-Jerome.JPG

Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 19, 2016, 11:46:22 AM
This one was up on Tuesday afternoon, on I-84 West, town of Southeast, Putnam County:
(http://i.imgur.com/0SiX0FZ.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 19, 2016, 01:07:57 PM
I assume that's the one near the state line.  If so, IMO that one is fine because it's actually welcoming people to the state (which is what welcome signs are supposed to do).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 19, 2016, 03:23:41 PM
That one is at the state line. The one on the LIE west of Riverhead that I saw an hour ago isn't. Region 10 is also signing the Peconic River, LI Sound, and "South Shore" watersheds along the LIE.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 19, 2016, 07:30:41 PM
Thruway version. It looks very faded even though the sign is brand new.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/thruway-experience.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 19, 2016, 11:06:21 PM
That one is at the state line. The one on the LIE west of Riverhead that I saw an hour ago isn't. Region 10 is also signing the Peconic River, LI Sound, and "South Shore" watersheds along the LIE.
Partial inventory of Ugly Blue Signs on Thruway:
6 between exit 50 and 49 westbound, 2 big and 4 small
4 small between exit 45 and 44
5 between 40 and 39
5 between 35 and 34a
Few on toll booths exit 41 entering toll road

For the record, there was 1 airport sign on the stretch, for Oneida county airport
Update: at least 4 more before exit 25. One BGS for Albany airport past the toll booth should not count towards Thruway signage
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 20, 2016, 12:18:46 AM
Update: at least 4 more before exit 25.

I mentioned the ones EB approaching 25, but noticed later that there's also a complete set WB approaching 25.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 20, 2016, 12:35:22 AM
they stuck one of those signs on the LIE West by Exit 44, and teh whole progression about food and drink and other random NY stuff. I dunno why they put it there since its not a place near a state line nor is it a spot that a lot of out of towners end up near.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 20, 2016, 01:33:36 AM
WHO puts them up? Where are the plans? It seems like whenever we hear about signs going up there are at least plans publicly available, contracts, etc...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on August 20, 2016, 05:21:16 AM
Thruway version. It looks very faded even though the sign is brand new.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/thruway-experience.jpg)
Are these the signs that seem to be popping up like dandelions all along the Thruway or are they more like welcome signs that would be at state lines?  If they are like this, then I could see one on each side of one of the cities the Thruway passes (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Albany, Kingston, Newburgh, and each side of the Tappan Zee).

In the photo above, I believe that is westbound, east of Syracuse about 2 miles east of I-481.  That would be fine.  An eastbound one for Syracuse could be near the NY 173 overpass (mm 294) in Warners if one was to be placed.  Don't need a bunch of them like most of you are describing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 20, 2016, 07:41:57 AM
WHO puts them up? Where are the plans? It seems like whenever we hear about signs going up there are at least plans publicly available, contracts, etc...
Well, some changes seem to fly under the radar. For example, certain arterial in Albany had speed limit lowered from 45 to 30 this Friday - and I don't think there was any word of that until news were published Thursday evening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on August 20, 2016, 07:49:03 AM
Update: at least 4 more before exit 25.

I mentioned the ones EB approaching 25, but noticed later that there's also a complete set WB approaching 25.

Plus there are signs on the toll booths at 25 itself as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 20, 2016, 01:10:57 PM
WOW! Way too much overkill with the welcoming. A state line welcome message is one thing - but to post it this often ... it sounds like (to me) a better display would be at "it can wait" (formerly known as 'rest or parking areas') where tourism could be promoted to the hilt.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 20, 2016, 02:48:21 PM
After doing a JFK Run for someone, I noticed JFK Expressway coming out of Kennedy Airport has a set of those stupid Welcome signs. Also I found them on Grand Central Parkway at the NYC Line. Why the hell do we need so many of these signs?!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on August 20, 2016, 03:13:57 PM
I'm planning on going to Toronto next year and so I'm gonna check out some things on the way there. Notably, the US 219 construction project. Was that project killed, just like I-86, or is it on life support? I'll see whatever they've done in 2017, and check out I-86 (between exits 14 and 21).

Also, I'll see the overkill welcome signage, since I'll use the Thruway between exits 55 and 53.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 20, 2016, 04:07:41 PM
At least the Thruway signs are noticeably different from the welcome signs, so it's not as bad as I feared.  I guess we can now say that the majority of the "WTF?" factor is in Regions 10 and 11.  As for the JFK Expressway, that's because of the airport.

Yikes on how it's faded though.  The shields on the mile markers on I-87 in Warren County are faded too.  I wonder if a few batches of blue paint were defective?

Well, some changes seem to fly under the radar. For example, certain arterial in Albany had speed limit lowered from 45 to 30 this Friday - and I don't think there was any word of that until news were published Thursday evening.
That one surprised me.  Normally there's warning as the press will report on when the municipality goes to NYSDOT for a speed study.  There was no news on anything until the change happened, making me wonder if such a study was ever done (plus is an obvious arterial, not much city-style development, and they seem to think that going 30 through the expanse of nothing near the state office campus won't be painful... how was this approved?).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 20, 2016, 05:19:51 PM
I'm planning on going to Toronto next year and so I'm gonna check out some things on the way there. Notably, the US 219 construction project. Was that project killed, just like I-86, or is it on life support? I'll see whatever they've done in 2017, and check out I-86 (between exits 14 and 21).

Also, I'll see the overkill welcome signage, since I'll use the Thruway between exits 55 and 53.

It's basically on hiatus/life support, certainly not dead though. Every few months a story pops up in the news about how they (interest groups) are looking to see if Cuomo will put in funding in the budget, but it doesn't happen. I can't think of when it will be built, but it needs to be.

Edit: a little research shows that a study was reportedly approved by NYSDOT last month... anyone here can verify that? Interesting if true.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 20, 2016, 05:20:38 PM
At least the Thruway signs are noticeably different from the welcome signs, so it's not as bad as I feared.  I guess we can now say that the majority of the "WTF?" factor is in Regions 10 and 11.  As for the JFK Expressway, that's because of the airport.

Yikes on how it's faded though.  The shields on the mile markers on I-87 in Warren County are faded too.  I wonder if a few batches of blue paint were defective?

Well, some changes seem to fly under the radar. For example, certain arterial in Albany had speed limit lowered from 45 to 30 this Friday - and I don't think there was any word of that until news were published Thursday evening.
That one surprised me.  Normally there's warning as the press will report on when the municipality goes to NYSDOT for a speed study.  There was no news on anything until the change happened, making me wonder if such a study was ever done (plus is an obvious arterial, not much city-style development, and they seem to think that going 30 through the expanse of nothing near the state office campus won't be painful... how was this approved?).

Sounds like NY 198.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 7/8 on August 20, 2016, 05:50:04 PM
I'm planning on going to Toronto next year and so I'm gonna check out some things on the way there. Notably, the US 219 construction project. Was that project killed, just like I-86, or is it on life support? I'll see whatever they've done in 2017, and check out I-86 (between exits 14 and 21).

Also, I'll see the overkill welcome signage, since I'll use the Thruway between exits 55 and 53.

It's basically on hiatus/life support, certainly not dead though. Every few months a story pops up in the news about how they (interest groups) are looking to see if Cuomo will put in funding in the budget, but it doesn't happen. I can't think of when it will be built, but it needs to be.

Edit: a little research shows that a study was reportedly approved by NYSDOT last month... anyone here can verify that? Interesting if true.

It'd be nice if they could get it built to Ellicottville (my family usually goes skiing at Holiday Valley for Family Day/President's Day weekend) :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on August 20, 2016, 05:57:57 PM
I found some more of those stupid blue signs on NY812 today, near the entrance to the Ogdensburg International Airport.

I realize that there are soon going to be flights to Florida coming to and from that airport soon, but still...it's a tiny airport in the middle of nowhere, why does it need all those stupid signs? The only people who are really going to be flying into there are locals and Canadians...and the latter aren't staying in the state anyways.

To add insult to injury, said airport is just four miles away from the bridge from Canada, meaning all those Canadians will soon be greeted by those dumb signs as soon as they come over anyways. What a waste of money.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on August 20, 2016, 09:44:19 PM
I was on the Thruway earlier this afternoon, headed westbound between exits 34 and 36, and I was on the lookout for the new blue signs.  I agree that they're bright and quite obnoxious.  I didn't see the faded blue sign that was posted earlier, but I wasn't looking.  I looked in Street View, and it is westbound, so I would have passed it.  I saw the signs on the toll booths that Doug mentioned earlier in Canastota as well.

Yeah every time o get on the Thruway now around Buffalo they're all over the place. There are smaller versions of signs that don't really tell drivers much and act almost as billboards for the governor's pet projects like the wine country stuff and TasteNY™...

Governor Cuomo is really pushing tourism, and the signs everywhere (even off the Thruway) drive me nuts.  IMO, they're a waste of money.

On another topic, I saw a sign I've never seen before at the intersection of NY 13 and Center Street in Canastota (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0778867,-75.7515979,3a,85.6y,13.63h,93.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa2x3tFbxSg4iPo6iCutK6w!2e0).  I initially thought it was "ONCOMING TRAFFIC MAY HAVE EXTENDED GREEN", but it was "SIGNAL UNDER STUDY FOR REMOVAL".  I only saw a set of signs hanging from the span wire for NY 13.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 21, 2016, 02:55:35 AM
I'm planning on going to Toronto next year and so I'm gonna check out some things on the way there. Notably, the US 219 construction project. Was that project killed, just like I-86, or is it on life support? I'll see whatever they've done in 2017, and check out I-86 (between exits 14 and 21).

Also, I'll see the overkill welcome signage, since I'll use the Thruway between exits 55 and 53.

It's basically on hiatus/life support, certainly not dead though. Every few months a story pops up in the news about how they (interest groups) are looking to see if Cuomo will put in funding in the budget, but it doesn't happen. I can't think of when it will be built, but it needs to be.

Edit: a little research shows that a study was reportedly approved by NYSDOT last month... anyone here can verify that? Interesting if true.

It'd be nice if they could get it built to Ellicottville (my family usually goes skiing at Holiday Valley for Family Day/President's Day weekend) :)

It's the quickest way to get to DC too (by car).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 21, 2016, 07:59:07 AM
Have noticed that the recent I <3 NY television ads have started mentioning the app.  They also show a scene of one of these blue signs next to a roadway that I'm pretty sure is fake.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 21, 2016, 08:27:23 AM
Have noticed that the recent I <3 NY television ads have started mentioning the app.  They also show a scene of one of these blue signs next to a roadway that I'm pretty sure is fake.


The a Thruway ran into an issue where the ads started before the signs were up, so they rushed installation.

The first of the series of signs is the only faded one and it's faded in both directions just east of Exit 34A.  There are sign post mounts between exits 31 and 32, I'll take a look to see of those signs are faded as well once they're installed.  The other signs in the series are the normal services blue color.

I noticed that all the toll booths entering the Thruway are getting the logo signs for the various I Love NY app features.  One of the things I liked about the Thruway was the lack of advertising at entrances like the PA Turnpike does.  It seems those days are gone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 21, 2016, 09:21:44 AM
\ installation.

The first of the series of signs is the only faded one and it's faded in both directions just east of Exit 34A.  There are sign post mounts between exits 31 and 32, I'll take a look to see of those signs are faded as well once they're installed.  The other signs in the series are the normal services blue color.
Honestly speaking, they don't look actually faded to me, more like designed or fabricated with a strange background. I actually thought that was intentional.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on August 21, 2016, 09:25:14 AM
As previously mentioned, there's one SB on the Thruway past Exit 23, but yesterday I saw them preparing to install one NB directly across from the parking area. It's the same light blue as seen on the ones by 34A in the pic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 21, 2016, 10:46:58 AM
I could swear I saw one on the Belt Parkway in Brooklyn yesterday, but I could be mistaken
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on August 21, 2016, 10:59:42 AM
New signs unrelated to the tourism campaign have been installed on I-81 south of Binghamton. They are APL for the I-81/86 split.

I-81N in the area has some new reassurance assemblies, I-81N / TO I-86; with NY 17 on the second line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 21, 2016, 12:18:24 PM
They do seem to be consistently using a light blue background on part of the signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 21, 2016, 05:10:09 PM
That one surprised me.  Normally there's warning as the press will report on when the municipality goes to NYSDOT for a speed study.  There was no news on anything until the change happened, making me wonder if such a study was ever done (plus is an obvious arterial, not much city-style development, and they seem to think that going 30 through the expanse of nothing near the state office campus won't be painful... how was this approved?).

Sounds like NY 198.
NY 198 is a state highway that was ordered to 30 by Cuomo in the immediate aftermath of an event that proved to be an excellent means for those who never wanted the freeway in the first place to steamroll over all opposition.  Washington Ave is not on the state highway system (just a city arterial), and I'm not aware of any specific issue with it; it would appear to simply be a victim of the dislike many Capital District municipalities (as well as the local MPO) have for automobiles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 21, 2016, 09:12:48 PM
That one surprised me.  Normally there's warning as the press will report on when the municipality goes to NYSDOT for a speed study.  There was no news on anything until the change happened, making me wonder if such a study was ever done (plus is an obvious arterial, not much city-style development, and they seem to think that going 30 through the expanse of nothing near the state office campus won't be painful... how was this approved?).

Sounds like NY 198.
NY 198 is a state highway that was ordered to 30 by Cuomo in the immediate aftermath of an event that proved to be an excellent means for those who never wanted the freeway in the first place to steamroll over all opposition.  Washington Ave is not on the state highway system (just a city arterial), and I'm not aware of any specific issue with it; it would appear to simply be a victim of the dislike many Capital District municipalities (as well as the local MPO) have for automobiles.

Honestly speaking there is some sense in reducing the speed limit.
Foot traffic is increasing over there - there are plenty of hotels on the north side of Washington, and I am sort of uncomfortable telling people "yes, it is only half a mile - but you better get a car". Dorm students walking to Sunoco to buy beer are an issue as well. Now with a new dorm on the northern side, students crossing 7 lanes of traffic will become the new norm. 30 MPH gives them a small chance to graduate some day.

with 4 traffic light on the stretch, rush hour traffic is quite slow anyway. So I don't see All this as a big issue - beyond speed limit being slapped the way it is.  probably once rt. 85 work is completed, more traffic will shift over there. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 21, 2016, 09:22:11 PM
if theyre in college, they should be smart enough to know how to cross a street without getting killed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 21, 2016, 09:42:45 PM
if theyre in college, they should be smart enough to know how to cross a street without getting killed.

With how people drive on that stretch, I agree with the lowering. It was lowered east of Exit 2. Quite a few people running red lights and making rolling rights on red. I would have lowered it to 35, but 45 is too high for the stretch. Most of the 55 stretch is still intact (it drops to 45 a little earlier EB now)

Washington Ave is not on the state highway system (just a city arterial), and I'm not aware of any specific issue with it; it would appear to simply be a victim of the dislike many Capital District municipalities (as well as the local MPO) have for automobiles.

After living in Erie County, I call BS. Roads through farmland out there are 35-40. Good luck finding 55 for much on the surface. How much of US 9 is 55, even in pretty developed areas? Other than Grooms Rd-NY 146, Malta and Saratoga Springs, virtually everything from Latham to South Glens Falls is 55.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 21, 2016, 10:35:45 PM
if theyre in college, they should be smart enough to know how to cross a street without getting killed.
Come on, even if Monday to 5 PM Friday they are students, Friday night to Sunday they are primarily party-goers...

Most of the 55 stretch is still intact (it drops to 45 a little earlier EB now)

It was 45 for almost full year as DOT struggles to complete resurface project over there. Its a long story, and I almost feel that Washington ave. ext. saga is worth a separate post just to humiliate NYSDOT and their contractors (they well deserve that, for sure!)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 22, 2016, 02:10:55 AM
how strict is the speed limit enforced tho? traffic is probably going the exact speed of the previous limit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 22, 2016, 02:18:55 AM
if theyre in college, they should be smart enough to know how to cross a street without getting killed.

With how people drive on that stretch, I agree with the lowering. It was lowered east of Exit 2. Quite a few people running red lights and making rolling rights on red. I would have lowered it to 35, but 45 is too high for the stretch. Most of the 55 stretch is still intact (it drops to 45 a little earlier EB now)

Washington Ave is not on the state highway system (just a city arterial), and I'm not aware of any specific issue with it; it would appear to simply be a victim of the dislike many Capital District municipalities (as well as the local MPO) have for automobiles.

After living in Erie County, I call BS. Roads through farmland out there are 35-40. Good luck finding 55 for much on the surface. How much of US 9 is 55, even in pretty developed areas? Other than Grooms Rd-NY 146, Malta and Saratoga Springs, virtually everything from Latham to South Glens Falls is 55.

Many of the narrow farm roads in Clarence/Akron are probably 35/40, even though I stupidly thought that if a speed limit wasn't marked on such a road it just defaults to the state speed limit of 55. Or maybe it still does?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 22, 2016, 09:48:03 AM
This one was up on Tuesday afternoon, on I-84 West, town of Southeast, Putnam County:
(http://i.imgur.com/0SiX0FZ.jpg)


One gets greeted with an identical sign and the subsequent series of tourism signs when leaving the parking lot of Syracuse Airport. I landed up at Watertown Airport last week and while I didn't drive out of the airport, I could see from the runway a similarly shaped series of signs in each direction on NY 12F.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 22, 2016, 09:54:15 AM
how strict is the speed limit enforced tho? traffic is probably going the exact speed of the previous limit.
Constant police presence is advertised.
Given that city of Albany is deep in red, I expect quite a few speeding tickets (later reduced to non-moving violations payable to the city) will be issued. Then there will be plenty of complains that city spending on officer overtime is out of control. Business as usual.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 22, 2016, 10:01:35 AM
if theyre in college, they should be smart enough to know how to cross a street without getting killed.

With how people drive on that stretch, I agree with the lowering. It was lowered east of Exit 2. Quite a few people running red lights and making rolling rights on red. I would have lowered it to 35, but 45 is too high for the stretch. Most of the 55 stretch is still intact (it drops to 45 a little earlier EB now)

Washington Ave is not on the state highway system (just a city arterial), and I'm not aware of any specific issue with it; it would appear to simply be a victim of the dislike many Capital District municipalities (as well as the local MPO) have for automobiles.

After living in Erie County, I call BS. Roads through farmland out there are 35-40. Good luck finding 55 for much on the surface. How much of US 9 is 55, even in pretty developed areas? Other than Grooms Rd-NY 146, Malta and Saratoga Springs, virtually everything from Latham to South Glens Falls is 55.

Many of the narrow farm roads in Clarence/Akron are probably 35/40, even though I stupidly thought that if a speed limit wasn't marked on such a road it just defaults to the state speed limit of 55. Or maybe it still does?

It is 55 unless signed otherwise, but most are signed at 40. And as far as enforcement, they often are. An example I'll give is Cemetery Rd in Lancaster. In 2011-12, they rebuilt a bridge, widened and improved geometry. The speed limit was lowered from 45 to 35 and there is always a town cop running radar. Half the time, the cop is hiding behind a hedge in the cemetery.

how strict is the speed limit enforced tho? traffic is probably going the exact speed of the previous limit.
Constant police presence is advertised.
Given that city of Albany is deep in red, I expect quite a few speeding tickets (later reduced to non-moving violations payable to the city) will be issued. Then there will be plenty of complains that city spending on officer overtime is out of control. Business as usual.

And knowing Albany, it probably is strictly enforced. I don't speed on city streets for a reason.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 22, 2016, 01:47:57 PM
Come to think of it, this might be in response to the number of red light camera tickets issues being FAR lower than expected (to the point that it looks like the red light running issue the city and media were harping about looks like it was made up to justify the cameras).  Sure, the city CLAIMS the cameras weren't about revenue, but the fact that they were banking on getting $2 million a year from them (based on projections from the company that runs the cameras) to plug a hole in the budget shows otherwise.

In any case, driving along this stretch (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6823821,-73.8076351,3a,75y,308.62h,86.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZ7AwxEi0GITL3xJB_QvazQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DZ7AwxEi0GITL3xJB_QvazQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D358.68066%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) will feel painful.

I've never been a fan of the "let's make it 30 because it's in a city and we don't want to teach pedestrians how to use a crosswalk" argument.  IMO it's absurd that the stretch of road I linked to and Lark Street will have the same speed limit despite being very different in terms of roadway character.  It just teaches people that speed limits are about politicians scoring political points and not about safety.

Washington Ave is not on the state highway system (just a city arterial), and I'm not aware of any specific issue with it; it would appear to simply be a victim of the dislike many Capital District municipalities (as well as the local MPO) have for automobiles.

After living in Erie County, I call BS. Roads through farmland out there are 35-40. Good luck finding 55 for much on the surface. How much of US 9 is 55, even in pretty developed areas? Other than Grooms Rd-NY 146, Malta and Saratoga Springs, virtually everything from Latham to South Glens Falls is 55.
Let's put it this way: if the director of CDTC had his way, Wolf Road would have the speed limit reduced to 25, and a road diet would be done through the entire corridor, including around Colonie Center.  Many of the municipalities were horrified that people got tickets for jaywalking on Central Avenue recently.  The differences between Region 1 and CDTC are like night and day (personal opinion emphasized).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on August 22, 2016, 09:53:34 PM
I've never been a fan of the "let's make it 30 because it's in a city and we don't want to teach pedestrians how to use a crosswalk" argument.  IMO it's absurd that the stretch of road I linked to and Lark Street will have the same speed limit despite being very different in terms of roadway character.  It just teaches people that speed limits are about politicians scoring political points and not about safety.

A long standing offender in this category is also Southern Blvd (9W) from the Thruway/787 down to the Normans Kill bridge. A road designed for at least 40 signed as 30(it's 45 once you cross into Bethlehem). Adding insult to injury, when heading NB you are greeting with a city speed limit sign of 30 when you haven't even crossed the bridge into Albany yet. That one has always boggled my mind, and city cops sit there quite often.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 23, 2016, 07:49:46 AM

In any case, driving along this stretch (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6823821,-73.8076351,3a,75y,308.62h,86.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZ7AwxEi0GITL3xJB_QvazQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DZ7AwxEi0GITL3xJB_QvazQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D358.68066%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) will feel painful.

I've never been a fan of the "let's make it 30 because it's in a city and we don't want to teach pedestrians how to use a crosswalk" argument.  IMO it's absurd that the stretch of road I linked to and Lark Street will have the same speed limit despite being very different in terms of roadway character.  It just teaches people that speed limits are about politicians scoring political points and not about safety.


Well, that stretch is less than 1 mile long from traffic light at Brevator to traffic light at medical center. There 45, and even 55  may be reasonable as you accelerate downhill. Then there are 4 (of course non-synchronized) lights over the next less than a mile stretch with significant number of pedestrians - and there 30 is realistic for traffic light progression.  While posted at 45, detour through SUNY campus at 25 MPH often makes sense.
I am not sure posting 1 mile at higher speed limit actually makes sense (or legal after all)
If they mess with state office campus and access to 85, then things would start hurting. Until then, I wouldn't really worry. Although state campus roads are designed under influence to begin with...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 23, 2016, 11:54:59 AM
NYSDOT just released a new batch of plans and this one is HUUUUUUUUUUGE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXRaboSo70A). Region 5 will be installing their first FYA at the intersection of NY 78 and Tonawanda Creek Rd in Amherst. It will be a 3-section permissive-only. Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=12961&p_is_digital=Y).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 23, 2016, 05:54:54 PM
NYSDOT just released a new batch of plans and this one is HUUUUUUUUUUGE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXRaboSo70A). Region 5 will be installing their first FYA at the intersection of NY 78 and Tonawanda Creek Rd in Amherst. It will be a 3-section permissive-only. Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=12961&p_is_digital=Y).

I remember seeing 3 headed FYAs in NC.  (example here is on Timber Dr at Grovemont Rd in Garner (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7094684,-78.6414404,3a,75y,358.45h,81.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7gS_jR8MAXouYInyI1L12A!2e0!5s20140601T000000!7i13312!8i6656))  I think the ones in NC though still have a lead protected-green though but I am not certain on that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 23, 2016, 05:57:34 PM
The 3-headed FYAs in North Carolina do not have a protected-green.  There are examples along US 17 in northeastern NC (at NC 45 specifically comes to mind).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 24, 2016, 12:19:40 AM
NYSDOT just released a new batch of plans and this one is HUUUUUUUUUUGE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXRaboSo70A). Region 5 will be installing their first FYA at the intersection of NY 78 and Tonawanda Creek Rd in Amherst. It will be a 3-section permissive-only. Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=12961&p_is_digital=Y).

Appropriately linked video. I'll have to check that junction out soon, pretty sure I haven't seen an FYA in person yet.

Edit: IIRC that's an unsignalized intersection that definitely needs a signal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 24, 2016, 06:52:09 PM
It is an unsignalized intersection. Surprised that R5 of all places is doing one the first permissive-only left turn installation that isn't along NY 33 in Rochester. They're typically the last to adopt new practices.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on August 25, 2016, 10:25:58 AM
NYSDOT just released a new batch of plans and this one is HUUUUUUUUUUGE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXRaboSo70A). Region 5 will be installing their first FYA at the intersection of NY 78 and Tonawanda Creek Rd in Amherst. It will be a 3-section permissive-only. Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=12961&p_is_digital=Y).

Appropriately linked video. I'll have to check that junction out soon, pretty sure I haven't seen an FYA in person yet.

Edit: IIRC that's an unsignalized intersection that definitely needs a signal.

I've seen a couple of them that are in the City. I'd be curious to know if they are helping with making sure drivers know to yield to pedestrians before making their turn (although in the City, pedestrians will usually just go so you don't have a choice as a driver).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 25, 2016, 10:42:01 AM
That one is at the state line. The one on the LIE west of Riverhead that I saw an hour ago isn't. Region 10 is also signing the Peconic River, LI Sound, and "South Shore" watersheds along the LIE.
I saw those types of signs when I was up north in June. The closest the LIE comes to the South Shore is in places like Medford. Granted, there are protected areas near the headwaters of the Connetquot River near Exit 58, and the Carmans River crosses under the LIE between Exits 67 and 68. In any case, it's obvious the whole idea is to push tourism in the state. Now if they could only build and rebuild the roads so that they could handle all those tourists, that'd be a really decent favor.




Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 25, 2016, 05:33:07 PM
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 25, 2016, 05:42:39 PM
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.

The signs went up a month or two ago. Money grab.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 25, 2016, 05:56:46 PM
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.

The signs went up a month or two ago. Money grab.

I am pretty sure that has been the case in VA since 2012 if not before.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on August 26, 2016, 04:17:13 AM
What's next?  "This interchange sponsored by State Farm"?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 26, 2016, 06:53:00 AM
What's next?  "This interchange sponsored by State Farm"?
HELP truck sponsored by State Farm? Oh, wait..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 26, 2016, 08:42:05 AM
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.

That's depressing. Wait until all bridges are sponsored by Pepsi.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 26, 2016, 09:52:29 AM
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on August 26, 2016, 09:54:49 AM
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.

That's depressing. Wait until all bridges are sponsored by Pepsi.

Twin Spans will be Left Twix vs Right Twix... (Up for debate on if the L/R branding changes based on travel direction)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 26, 2016, 10:45:30 AM
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.
I think that exact thought helped me to switch away from Geico last year - after dealing with them for 10+ years... 20% bill hike  with no apparent reason was another factor... I mean, now the reason is fairly apparent..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 26, 2016, 10:49:35 AM
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.
I think that exact thought helped me to switch away from Geico last year - after dealing with them for 10+ years... 20% bill hike  with no apparent reason was another factor... I mean, now the reason is fairly apparent..

For a company that does a massive amount of advertising like Geico, the cost of a rest area "sponsorship" must be a drop in the bucket.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 26, 2016, 11:20:21 AM
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.
I think that exact thought helped me to switch away from Geico last year - after dealing with them for 10+ years... 20% bill hike  with no apparent reason was another factor... I mean, now the reason is fairly apparent..

For a company that does a massive amount of advertising like Geico, the cost of a rest area "sponsorship" must be a drop in the bucket.

Stuff like that is why I stick with USAA. None of the BS.

Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.

That's depressing. Wait until all bridges are sponsored by Pepsi.

Twin Spans will be Left Twix vs Right Twix... (Up for debate on if the L/R branding changes based on travel direction)

The Twin Bridges are already the right color for this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 26, 2016, 12:51:47 PM
HELP truck sponsored by State Farm? Oh, wait..
Were there even HELP trucks before State Farm started operating them?  My impression was they were a service State Farm decided to do and got NYSDOT to put signs on the roads for.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SectorZ on August 26, 2016, 12:56:41 PM
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.
I think that exact thought helped me to switch away from Geico last year - after dealing with them for 10+ years... 20% bill hike  with no apparent reason was another factor... I mean, now the reason is fairly apparent..

For a company that does a massive amount of advertising like Geico, the cost of a rest area "sponsorship" must be a drop in the bucket.

From around 2010-ish, of the 4 biggest personal auto insurers (State Farm, Allstate, GEICO, Progressive - in that order), GEICO outspent the other 3 combined in ads. Insane given how much especially Progressive spends, and amazing they spend so much to be 3rd and 4th.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 26, 2016, 03:16:18 PM
HELP truck sponsored by State Farm? Oh, wait..
Were there even HELP trucks before State Farm started operating them?  My impression was they were a service State Farm decided to do and got NYSDOT to put signs on the roads for.

In the past, I'm thinking maybe even 30 years ago now, there were the "CVS Samaritan" motorist aid trucks in the Capital District (and I assume many other places as well), so the idea of these kinds of things being sponsored or operated by a private company has been around a long time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on August 26, 2016, 03:47:53 PM
What's next?  "This interchange sponsored by State Farm"?

Or "sponsored by County General Hospital Emergency Department"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on August 26, 2016, 07:03:01 PM
From around 2010-ish, of the 4 biggest personal auto insurers (State Farm, Allstate, GEICO, Progressive - in that order), GEICO outspent the other 3 combined in ads. Insane given how much especially Progressive spends, and amazing they spend so much to be 3rd and 4th.

Geico is unique in that they run multiple ad campaigns at the same time. And they do it so well, when another company tries to move in on their turf (Esurance tried a few years ago "That's not how this works"), and people still thought they were Geico ads.

State Farm sponsors PA Turnpike Safety patrols.

Sometimes marketing can become so ingrained in a community, it is forgotten that it is actually a corporate name. The Carrier Dome in Syracuse comes to mind, as it was (one of?) the first marketing deals on a college campus. Of course that may also go with the fact that many do not remember when Carrier had a large presence off... Carrier Circle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 26, 2016, 08:01:54 PM
What's next?  "This interchange sponsored by State Farm"?

Or "sponsored by County General Hospital Emergency Department"
Harley-Davidson sales event sponsored by County General Hospital Emergency Department  :ded:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on August 26, 2016, 11:33:58 PM
This "YOUR SPEED" sign in Fairmount is sponsored by Walmart (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0445089,-76.2480649,3a,15y,266.56h,86.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfzUXO5jGzcQXPxmtqfSQcA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on August 27, 2016, 08:38:24 PM
HELP truck sponsored by State Farm? Oh, wait..
Were there even HELP trucks before State Farm started operating them?  My impression was they were a service State Farm decided to do and got NYSDOT to put signs on the roads for.

Help trucks are generally associated with traffic management centers (TMCs) or state police, for incident management purposes. Help trucks are great for when you break down, but the primary purpose is to get you off the side of the road as fast as possible before someone crashes into you. In that respect, the insurance industry is more than happy to have more help trucks on the roads.

NYSDOT Region 10 had Help trucks run by the INFORM TMC in Happague back in 1998 to help me the first time I ran out of gas on Northern State Parkway.

Rest Area sponsorships, same thing. It's an operation expense for the DOT, many DOTs want to close them. But the insurance industry realizes that tired drivers are a bad thing, as are texting drivers, so they've take on some sponsorship to reduce crashes. In Virginia, Gov. Kaine shut the rest areas, and Gov. McDonnell reopened them as a campaign promise with the understanding that a corporate sponsor would be found so scarce VDOT funds could be used to build roads. GEICO stepped in.

As an interesting aside about highway help trucks....State Farm is very protective of their trademarks in their help truck program. It is one of the few times where FHWA is explicitly allowed to acknowledge the branding of services provided by a private enterprise. Normally in Federal reports published by FHWA, we modify photos to eliminate corporate logos. There is a specific exception for State Farm logos on help trucks on photos in FHWA publications, since FHWA approves of the corporate sponsorship model of providing help trucks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 27, 2016, 09:50:50 PM
Thruway version. It looks very faded even though the sign is brand new.

(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/thruway-experience.jpg)

The "New York State Experience" signs on the Thruway in both directions near Exit 34A have been replaced within the last week. The "faded" looking signs have been replaced with a standard blue color, with the logo sign strip a darker than the normal service area/services blue color.

From what I heard from friends at the Thruway apparently the faded blue was not well received and the Thruway authority replaced them immediately
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 27, 2016, 10:05:51 PM
4 sets on thruway near Utica - before and after, east and westbound. Actually some of those were in progress around 11 AM today.
Someone must feel those are really high priority to have crews doing installation on weekend... I wonder who foots the bill - state or NYSTA?
Installation before exit 25 eastbound is real nice with ugly blue squeezed between bunch of real signs. Almost qualifies for a salad - especially nice with that "lane ends in 1 mile" clusterfuck.
I wonder if engineering got to sign those off, or nobody cares anyway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 27, 2016, 10:27:09 PM
The ones NB heading into 23 are also all interleaved with other signs in a stretch that probably had too many signs in too short a distance already.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 27, 2016, 11:21:48 PM
The ones NB heading into 23 are also all interleaved with other signs in a stretch that probably had too many signs in too short a distance already.

I noticed those yesterday. They weren't up a week ago and they are ridiculous.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 28, 2016, 12:02:24 AM
theres more of those signs on the LIE Westbound past Exit 40W, its ridiculous already. How much is the DOT wasting putting these signs up, instead of fixing some of the moon crater potholes we have in some spots out here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: sparker on August 28, 2016, 12:03:23 AM
From the looks of it, it won't be long before these info signs switch from blue to British Racing Green -- and NASCAR-like logos are plastered randomly over the face.  I know costs have to be offset somehow, but some sort of limits need to be established. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 28, 2016, 12:37:21 PM
4 sets on thruway near Utica - before and after, east and westbound. Actually some of those were in progress around 11 AM today.
Someone must feel those are really high priority to have crews doing installation on weekend... I wonder who foots the bill - state or NYSTA?
Installation before exit 25 eastbound is real nice with ugly blue squeezed between bunch of real signs. Almost qualifies for a salad - especially nice with that "lane ends in 1 mile" clusterfuck.
I wonder if engineering got to sign those off, or nobody cares anyway?

Apparently Cuomo wanted the signs up yesterday so whoever is paying for these signs authorized overtime, whatever, to get them up as soon as possible.  I know the bigger of the signs are $2500 in materials.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 28, 2016, 12:38:28 PM
4 sets on thruway near Utica - before and after, east and westbound. Actually some of those were in progress around 11 AM today.
Someone must feel those are really high priority to have crews doing installation on weekend... I wonder who foots the bill - state or NYSTA?
Installation before exit 25 eastbound is real nice with ugly blue squeezed between bunch of real signs. Almost qualifies for a salad - especially nice with that "lane ends in 1 mile" clusterfuck.
I wonder if engineering got to sign those off, or nobody cares anyway?

Apparently Cuomo wanted the signs up yesterday so whoever is paying for these signs authorized overtime, whatever, to get them up as soon as possible.  I know the bigger of the signs are $2500 in materials.

Yet they can't put up county line signs? Flipping ridiculous.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on August 28, 2016, 01:14:29 PM
4 sets on thruway near Utica - before and after, east and westbound. Actually some of those were in progress around 11 AM today.
Someone must feel those are really high priority to have crews doing installation on weekend... I wonder who foots the bill - state or NYSTA?
Installation before exit 25 eastbound is real nice with ugly blue squeezed between bunch of real signs. Almost qualifies for a salad - especially nice with that "lane ends in 1 mile" clusterfuck.
I wonder if engineering got to sign those off, or nobody cares anyway?

Apparently Cuomo wanted the signs up yesterday so whoever is paying for these signs authorized overtime, whatever, to get them up as soon as possible.  I know the bigger of the signs are $2500 in materials.

Yet they can't put up county line signs? Flipping ridiculous.
PennDOT is even worse with this. There's so many dumb safety corridor signs that aren't even enforced that sometimes, the useful signs gets stolen and is never put back up. This has happened on their INTERSTATES.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 28, 2016, 09:59:57 PM
the set of signs on the LIE Westbound at Exit 44 (Route 135) was taken down.

There are two sets on the LIE Westbound that I know of, past Exit 52 (where the now closed parking area is) and past Exit 40W.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 28, 2016, 10:38:15 PM
A set was put up in each direction at the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge. If you're unfamiliar with the area, that bridge gets mostly local traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 29, 2016, 08:11:34 AM
4 sets on thruway near Utica - before and after, east and westbound. Actually some of those were in progress around 11 AM today.
Someone must feel those are really high priority to have crews doing installation on weekend... I wonder who foots the bill - state or NYSTA?
Installation before exit 25 eastbound is real nice with ugly blue squeezed between bunch of real signs. Almost qualifies for a salad - especially nice with that "lane ends in 1 mile" clusterfuck.
I wonder if engineering got to sign those off, or nobody cares anyway?

Apparently Cuomo wanted the signs up yesterday so whoever is paying for these signs authorized overtime, whatever, to get them up as soon as possible.  I know the bigger of the signs are $2500 in materials.

Yet they can't put up county line signs? Flipping ridiculous.

Not sure that NYSDOT nor NYSTA really want to put up the signs to begin with. This is a pet project of King Andy and he is the one demanding the signs be put up, to correlate with all the commercials they're showing about the signs. Commercials being shown in New York state, no less.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 29, 2016, 01:16:06 PM
Wasn't FHWA complaining about the welcome signs a while ago?  If anything, these are worse.  You'd think they'd be threatening to revoke NY's highway money (or have done so already).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 29, 2016, 01:23:25 PM
Wasn't FHWA complaining about the welcome signs a while ago?  If anything, these are worse.  You'd think they'd be threatening to revoke NY's highway money (or have done so already).

I was thinking that. I might send the head office an email quoting the section of the MUTCD banning URLs and their explanation. Per Section 2D.50 (community wayfinding signs):

Quote
Standard:
32 Except for signs that are intended to be viewed only by pedestrians, bicyclists stopped out of the flow of traffic, or occupants of parked vehicles, Internet and e-mail addresses, including domain names and uniform resource locators (URL), shall not be displayed on any community wayfinding guide sign or sign assembly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 29, 2016, 01:38:01 PM
And, though it's not specifically mentioned, I would think that phone apps would be within the spirit of that standard.  Perhaps they could add them with the next MUTCD.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 29, 2016, 01:53:16 PM
Wasn't FHWA complaining about the welcome signs a while ago?  If anything, these are worse.  You'd think they'd be threatening to revoke NY's highway money (or have done so already).
At least thruway is not getting federal funds, as far as I remember. toll bridge across Hudson - probably the same.
In fact, I don't see I-84, 86 and 81 mentioned here. I also believe there was nothing on Northway (yet?). Maybe this is sort of working around MUTCD scope? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 29, 2016, 02:29:18 PM
Wasn't FHWA complaining about the welcome signs a while ago?  If anything, these are worse.  You'd think they'd be threatening to revoke NY's highway money (or have done so already).
At least thruway is not getting federal funds, as far as I remember. toll bridge across Hudson - probably the same.
In fact, I don't see I-84, 86 and 81 mentioned here. I also believe there was nothing on Northway (yet?). Maybe this is sort of working around MUTCD scope?

I-84 has the signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 29, 2016, 05:51:04 PM
I seem to recall FHWA threatening a state over the actions of an agency/municipality that didn't receive federal funds before.  Personally, I'd rather the Thruway director tell Cuomo to shove the signs where the sun doesn't shine, but then people who are willing to call out politicians and higher ups on BS tend not to get put in positions of authority.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 29, 2016, 07:46:42 PM
Wasn't FHWA complaining about the welcome signs a while ago?  If anything, these are worse.  You'd think they'd be threatening to revoke NY's highway money (or have done so already).

I was thinking that. I might send the head office an email quoting the section of the MUTCD banning URLs and their explanation. Per Section 2D.50 (community wayfinding signs):

Quote
Standard:
32 Except for signs that are intended to be viewed only by pedestrians, bicyclists stopped out of the flow of traffic, or occupants of parked vehicles, Internet and e-mail addresses, including domain names and uniform resource locators (URL), shall not be displayed on any community wayfinding guide sign or sign assembly.
I thought FHWA issued an update - perhaps unofficial - relaxing the mandate about URLs and phone numbers, given how connected everyone is and the ability for passengers to visit sites.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 29, 2016, 07:49:34 PM
Wasn't FHWA complaining about the welcome signs a while ago?  If anything, these are worse.  You'd think they'd be threatening to revoke NY's highway money (or have done so already).

I was thinking that. I might send the head office an email quoting the section of the MUTCD banning URLs and their explanation. Per Section 2D.50 (community wayfinding signs):

Quote
Standard:
32 Except for signs that are intended to be viewed only by pedestrians, bicyclists stopped out of the flow of traffic, or occupants of parked vehicles, Internet and e-mail addresses, including domain names and uniform resource locators (URL), shall not be displayed on any community wayfinding guide sign or sign assembly.
I thought FHWA issued an update - perhaps unofficial - relaxing the mandate about URLs and phone numbers, given how connected everyone is and the ability for passengers to visit sites.

It is up to SIX meaningless signs in progression. I am uploading a video of one of those spots...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 29, 2016, 09:03:10 PM
UGS: 3 signs can be seen intermixed with the real ones, two more were there before this video starts.
DO you think this 1- mile stretch is sort of overloaded ?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 30, 2016, 12:35:01 PM
4 sets on thruway near Utica - before and after, east and westbound. Actually some of those were in progress around 11 AM today.
Someone must feel those are really high priority to have crews doing installation on weekend... I wonder who foots the bill - state or NYSTA?
Installation before exit 25 eastbound is real nice with ugly blue squeezed between bunch of real signs. Almost qualifies for a salad - especially nice with that "lane ends in 1 mile" clusterfuck.
I wonder if engineering got to sign those off, or nobody cares anyway?

Apparently Cuomo wanted the signs up yesterday so whoever is paying for these signs authorized overtime, whatever, to get them up as soon as possible.  I know the bigger of the signs are $2500 in materials.

Yet they can't put up county line signs? Flipping ridiculous.

*shrugs*

Where there's a political will, there's a way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 30, 2016, 12:35:43 PM
HELP truck sponsored by State Farm? Oh, wait..
Were there even HELP trucks before State Farm started operating them?  My impression was they were a service State Farm decided to do and got NYSDOT to put signs on the roads for.

HELP predates State Farm's involvement.  In fact, NYSDOT still funds them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 30, 2016, 02:06:29 PM
A couple more sets of FYAs have gome up in Region 1:

NY 146 at Blue Barns Rd in Clifton Park
Central Avenue just west of NY 155 in Colonie (not yet active).

The Central Avenue one replaces a protected-only left turn. Clifton Park replaced doghouses.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on August 31, 2016, 04:06:23 AM
Welcome to New York--signs every 1000 feet.   :-/

Watched the video above.  Constant reading material there near Schenectady, huh?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 31, 2016, 08:09:56 AM
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.
So are the toll booths on the Suncoast Parkway. This sort of thing doesn't just happen in New York.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 02, 2016, 08:37:51 AM
Driving east on the Thruway at Exit 34A, crews were working last night at around 11:30 pm taking the Cuomo welcome signs down or relocating them. There were only two left in the series with one coming down as I passed by.


In the other direction they were digging post holes. The "Finger Lakes Region" sign, which was interspersed with the Cuomo signs, had been removed. Perhaps that was getting moved downstream or something.

Again, these were crews working at 11:30 at night doing sign work.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on September 02, 2016, 08:47:26 AM
Welcome to New York--signs every 1000 feet.   :-/

Yesterday, I discovered that there's also one where you come out of the Lincoln Tunnel (NY 495) in Manhattan.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on September 02, 2016, 09:52:41 AM
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.

The state line and Preble rest areas on I-81 N now feature stand-alone signs indicating Geico's Sponsorship. At least at Preble, I saw no reference to Geico at the area itself.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 02, 2016, 09:59:00 AM
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.

The state line and Preble rest areas on I-81 N now feature stand-alone signs indicating Geico's Sponsorship. At least at Preble, I saw no reference to Geico at the area itself.

From what I can tell, it's statewide.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on September 02, 2016, 08:35:59 PM
Yep, statewide. (http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Geico-Teams-Up-With-NY-To-Prevent-Distracted-Driving-392190541.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on September 02, 2016, 10:16:59 PM
Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 02, 2016, 10:20:01 PM
Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?

What is wrong with "Adopt-A-Highway"? I thought it was supposed to allow companies or groups to clean up litter a few times a years from whatever road is "adopted" by that respective group.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 02, 2016, 10:44:35 PM
Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?
The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 02, 2016, 11:13:17 PM
Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?
The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.

Almost every limited-access highway rest and parking area in the state has been rebranded as a "text stop". A couple "parking areas" still exist on I-87 north of Queensbury, but that's about it. Surface roads have not been rebranded.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 03, 2016, 02:37:02 AM
Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?
The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.

I dont recall very many of those on the Southern State, the only one I know of is Eastbound at the Route 110 exit. Northern State has a bunch of old pay phone stops, they arent marked as a place to pull over and text but theyre a handy spot to do that. I wish they kept open the text stop on the LIE westbound by Exit 53 but that was Governor Cuomo's big idea to close both sides and make it impossible to find parking for trucks. My friend is a truck driver and he says he HATES coming down to Long Island for deliveries.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on September 03, 2016, 02:44:33 AM
Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?

What is wrong with "Adopt-A-Highway"? I thought it was supposed to allow companies or groups to clean up litter a few times a years from whatever road is "adopted" by that respective group.
Unless you post it literally every 2000 feet with different companies, then I think that's a problem. I keep seeing them so often and it's always a different company that they don't make sense anymore.

Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?
The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.

Almost every limited-access highway rest and parking area in the state has been rebranded as a "text stop". A couple "parking areas" still exist on I-87 north of Queensbury, but that's about it. Surface roads have not been rebranded.
So why not call it "Rest Area", or as the PTC likes to say "Emergency Stopping Area"?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 03, 2016, 08:08:48 AM
Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?

What is wrong with "Adopt-A-Highway"? I thought it was supposed to allow companies or groups to clean up litter a few times a years from whatever road is "adopted" by that respective group.
Unless you post it literally every 2000 feet with different companies, then I think that's a problem. I keep seeing them so often and it's always a different company that they don't make sense anymore.

Usually a company or organisation adopts a 2 or so mile stretch of roadway, and it's signed at either end with the company name or logo. Basically it's free advertising.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 03, 2016, 05:03:17 PM
I wouldn't call it "free" advertising... remember, they're picking up the trash along the road.

Also: rest areas/parking areas still exist in NY.  They just have the "text stop" banner added to the signs, so I wouldn't call it a rebranding.  Even the Geico signs say "rest area" or "parking area", not "text stop".

Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?
The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.

I dont recall very many of those on the Southern State, the only one I know of is Eastbound at the Route 110 exit. Northern State has a bunch of old pay phone stops, they arent marked as a place to pull over and text but theyre a handy spot to do that. I wish they kept open the text stop on the LIE westbound by Exit 53 but that was Governor Cuomo's big idea to close both sides and make it impossible to find parking for trucks. My friend is a truck driver and he says he HATES coming down to Long Island for deliveries.
I want to know why creating the rest area requires closing the parking area on the other side.  Or why residents care about trucks parking at a HIGHWAY rest area that isn't connected to the local streets at all, or why NY banned trucks at the rest area rather than tell the NIMBYS to shut up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 03, 2016, 06:20:59 PM
I wouldn't call it "free" advertising... remember, they're picking up the trash along the road.

Also: rest areas/parking areas still exist in NY.  They just have the "text stop" banner added to the signs, so I wouldn't call it a rebranding.  Even the Geico signs say "rest area" or "parking area", not "text stop".

Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?
The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.

I dont recall very many of those on the Southern State, the only one I know of is Eastbound at the Route 110 exit. Northern State has a bunch of old pay phone stops, they arent marked as a place to pull over and text but theyre a handy spot to do that. I wish they kept open the text stop on the LIE westbound by Exit 53 but that was Governor Cuomo's big idea to close both sides and make it impossible to find parking for trucks. My friend is a truck driver and he says he HATES coming down to Long Island for deliveries.
I want to know why creating the rest area requires closing the parking area on the other side.  Or why residents care about trucks parking at a HIGHWAY rest area that isn't connected to the local streets at all, or why NY banned trucks at the rest area rather than tell the NIMBYS to shut up.

Probably the area NIMBYs, as a few truck-only parking areas opened up east of the Sag in Suffolk.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 03, 2016, 07:15:18 PM
the whole NIMBY thing was stupid, anyone from the truck stop would have to climb a huge sound barrier in order to get into the service road, let alone any residential area. I heard it was cuz Governor Cuomo got stuck there once and hated that the truckers were peeing in teh bushes and he supposedly saw hookers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 04, 2016, 12:35:35 PM
Yeah, it's too bad nobody pointed that out.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 04, 2016, 07:30:59 PM
Another update on the "Experience New York State" Cuomo signs on the Thruway at Exit 34A WB. They've been relocated again, this time they're about 1 mile east of where they were originally installed. If the NYSTA goes ahead and puts the "Finger Lakes Region Exits 34A-46" sign back up, it won't be intermingled with the Cuomo signs.

Headed eastbound, the signs have also been relocated about 1/2 mile west and if the NYSTA puts the "Utica 42" and others mileage sign back up, it won't be intermingled with the Cuomo signs.

The latest sign relocation was done since Friday evening, which means overtime on a holiday weekend.  These Cuomo signs are VERY important.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 04, 2016, 07:49:27 PM
Another set of Cuomo signs was put up on the west side of the Mid-Hudson Bridge in both directions. Again, a bridge mainly used by locals.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on September 05, 2016, 04:02:33 AM
They've shuffled them around Exit 23 in Albany as well, just days after being installed to begin with. The "Welcome to Albany" sign going NB had been removed, and I assume it will be placed further down where the "NY Experience" sign was before the shuffling. Heading SB, all the signs have been moved to the area between the US 9W bridge and the parking area. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 05, 2016, 11:36:03 AM
Another set of Cuomo signs was put up on the west side of the Mid-Hudson Bridge in both directions. Again, a bridge mainly used by locals.

I noted the one at the Bear Mountain Bridge the other day. But I was also amused by the marking of "Hudson River" on the near end of the bridge. I thought it droll because it was the same size plaque that's used at the crossing of your average creek, but it's placed on the tower of this imposing suspension bridge crossing this majestic waterway, almost as an afterthought.

I also thought it curious that an unsuspecting traveler might come upon this remarkable landform, not expecting it, and not already having the knowledge that it's the Hudson River. I suppose, every once in a while, that does happen! :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 05, 2016, 11:56:18 AM
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 05, 2016, 12:07:51 PM
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?
Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 05, 2016, 02:56:56 PM
I dont recall very many of those on the Southern State, the only one I know of is Eastbound at the Route 110 exit.
I'm pretty sure they have them at places like Exit 41 N-S (Suffolk CR 57) and Exit 42 (Suffolk CR 13). I don't remember if they've been transformed into text stop areas or not, but I still remember talk of converting them into those places.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 05, 2016, 03:39:56 PM
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?
Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.

No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 05, 2016, 06:33:18 PM
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?
Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.

No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.

Those signal heads are from the 80s though, no?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 05, 2016, 06:45:03 PM
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?
Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.

No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.

Those signal heads are from the 80s though, no?

It's possible. If you didn't notice, there are also heads for WB traffic. I have no idea when the bridge was put in, but I can't pick out a centerline on Seneca St in the 1966 aerial, so it's possible it was one-way long before the stadium went up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 05, 2016, 07:37:32 PM
I'm starting to see some of the logic for the Cuomo signs on the Thruway (entering/exiting major metro areas), but not the other areas.  For the Thruway ones, I'd move the WB ones between 24 and 25 to west of 25 and the EB ones there back a mile or two.  I'd also move the 44-45 ones east of exit 44 and add the big signs (seriously, why are you shafting Rochester, NYSTA?).  I'd also move 49-50  east of 49.

I don't get the ones with the Bridge Authority and some of the Long Island ones.  I get the idea of signing them at the NYC border, but IMO the exits are too close together to put them there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 05, 2016, 08:56:14 PM
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?
Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.

No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.
There's no way those signals are for the crosswalk. They're far too high and close to the sidewalk to be visible.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 05, 2016, 08:58:13 PM
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?
Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.

No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.
There's no way those signals are for the crosswalk. They're far too high and close to the sidewalk to be visible.

The crosswalks are the only reason the signal exists. The light turns red only if the button is pressed by a pedestrian. Heard that when working at the MPO and a test confirmed it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 05, 2016, 11:07:55 PM
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?
Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.

No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.

Apparently there are pedestrian walk heads on nearby Seneca and Michigan, or Oak and Swan intersections.. Moreover, looks like there is just one signalized intersection without pedestrian heads within a block or two off stadium... 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 05, 2016, 11:13:29 PM
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?
Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.

No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.

Apparently there are pedestrian walk heads on nearby Seneca and Michigan, or Oak and Swan intersections.. Moreover, looks like there is just one signalized intersection without pedestrian heads within a block or two off stadium...

Several nearby signals have pedestrian heads, but many do not for all crosswalks. Generally, Buffalo only installed pedestrian heads downtown until recently. Go a few blocks east and almost no pedestrian heads can be found. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the light in question only turns red if the button is pressed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 05, 2016, 11:32:50 PM
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?
Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.

No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.

Apparently there are pedestrian walk heads on nearby Seneca and Michigan, or Oak and Swan intersections.. Moreover, looks like there is just one signalized intersection without pedestrian heads within a block or two off stadium...

Several nearby signals have pedestrian heads, but many do not for all crosswalks. Generally, Buffalo only installed pedestrian heads downtown until recently. Go a few blocks east and almost no pedestrian heads can be found. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the light in question only turns red if the button is pressed.

well.. Then the question is when those lights were installed - before the stadium or after. Stadium is about 30 years old, which is kind of oldish for lights..
Because fitting those buttons, but keeping 4 3-light heads instead of two 2-light.. Someone is really willing to pay to hold to their principles! Or, more likely, it was that way for past 40 years - so why change?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on September 06, 2016, 12:17:13 PM
Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?
The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.

Almost every limited-access highway rest and parking area in the state has been rebranded as a "text stop". A couple "parking areas" still exist on I-87 north of Queensbury, but that's about it. Surface roads have not been rebranded.
So why not call it "Rest Area", or as the PTC likes to say "Emergency Stopping Area"?
Those PTC's Emergency Stopping Areas are not intended to be treated like rest or service areas.  Parking in the former is extremely limited is supposed to be on a very short-term basis.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 06, 2016, 01:29:31 PM
I once saw someone literally have a picnic out there at one of those PA Tpke emergancy stopping areas. And quite a few trucks use them as a space to take a nap.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 06, 2016, 01:49:13 PM
Are they similar to Crash Investiugation Sites?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on September 06, 2016, 02:26:51 PM
I once saw someone literally have a picnic out there at one of those PA Tpke emergancy stopping areas. And quite a few trucks use them as a space to take a nap.
Prior to a decade(?) ago, PTC's Emergency Stoppings/Pull-Offs were indeed used as small rest or picnic areas (there used to be a concrete picnic table or two) since its inception; but were changed to the current configuration (a glorified breakdown shoulder) due to (guess on my part) safety reasons.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on September 06, 2016, 02:33:02 PM
I once saw someone literally have a picnic out there at one of those PA Tpke emergancy stopping areas. And quite a few trucks use them as a space to take a nap.
Prior to a decade(?) ago, PTC's Emergency Stoppings/Pull-Offs were indeed used as small rest or picnic areas (there used to be a concrete picnic table or two) since its inception; but were changed to the current configuration (a glorified breakdown shoulder) due to (guess on my part) safety reasons.
At the urging of the NTSB, PTC changed the designation of the majority of their 'informal' rest and picnic pulloff areas to Emergency Stopping Only after a serious accident in 1998 where a Greyhound bus driver fell asleep, drifted off the road and crashed into two tractor trailers parked in one of these areas.  Other toll roads, including the MassPike, took heed of the NTSB recommendations and followed suit with their pulloff areas.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR0001.pdf
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 08, 2016, 01:27:52 PM
As mentioned earlier, the EB Cuomo signs near Exit 25 on the Thruway have been taken down. As of last night, they were not back up.

On a different note, I clinched NY 309 last night. That road is almost as useless as NY 421.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on September 08, 2016, 01:48:11 PM
As mentioned earlier, the EB Cuomo signs near Exit 25 on the Thruway have been taken down. As of last night, they were not back up.

I hadn't noticed yesterday on my way in.  I did notice that there's a set WB beyond 25 now that I don't remember being there a few days ago.

Good to know the state is so rich that they can afford to put up, move, and take down signs on seemingly a daily basis.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 08, 2016, 02:05:06 PM
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers.  I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread.  Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 08, 2016, 02:07:56 PM
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers.  I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread.  Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.

(personal opinion emphasized)

I've been thinking the same thing
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on September 08, 2016, 02:56:35 PM
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers.  I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread.  Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.

(personal opinion emphasized)
I agree these signs (and the silly "I Love NY" median treatments) are a colossal waste of resources.  However, which budget is the money for the NY Tourism signs coming from, DOT, Thruway, or the State Tourism Office?  And is the money for these signs earmarked for that purpose by the Legislature, or is the expenditure based on a Legislative mandate?  When it comes to cheezy feel good signing that serves no real purpose, remember that Warrant 14 (the political warrant) trumps (pardon the pun) all else.

As most of us on this forum know all too well, actions like these are hardly a new thing.  In 2001 and 2002, MassHighway installed approximately 100 six-panel Attractions LOGO signs, and about 40 other tourism-related signs, statewide at the request of the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism (MOTT).  The Legislature had earmarked money in the MOTT budget for highway signing.  Having no such experience, MOTT then transferred the money to MassHighway, who then prepared and let two separate contracts (one in 2001 and one in 2002) to fabricate and install the signs.  IIRC, the entire program cost over $1 million.  It also stirred up a bit of controversy at the time because, although the tourist-related attractions placed on the signs were chosen by the regional tourism councils, those councils never bothered to consult with the actual facilities before submitting the names to MOTT.  As a result, some larger local attractions that could have used the additional publicity were passed over in favor of others that were too small to really justify having highway signing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 08, 2016, 03:42:13 PM
I was briefly in upstate NY over the weekend and may I say how welcome I felt!  :D Not only on the Thruway, but even the New York State experience signs going in to Thatcher Park on NY 157 - very reminiscent of the "entering Erie Canalway Heritage Corridor" signs in which you are always entering and never leaving. (if that fact has been mentioned before in this thread, I apologize - I am just reiterating)

General observations:

> Generally speaking, old signs are quickly disappearing (I'm glad I lived there when I did - most of the old stuff is gone)

> With few exceptions, most of the new stuff doesn't look too bad

> The I-81/I-86/NY 17 interchange is coming along nicely - I've been following from pictures on Facebook and here on the forum - but it's entirely another to see it in person and experience things yourself.

I-88 observations:

> I-88 has new "emergency stopping only" areas in Schenectady County where there is room on the berm for a) a shoulder and b) a place to pull off

> GEICO sponsorship to rest areas and/or parking areas are not posted (yet)

Again, most already know all of this - I'm just adding a few things I noted while I was there. :)


Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on September 08, 2016, 04:44:09 PM
Just drove 27 to 24 on the Thruway and the silly signs that were removed approaching 26 EB are back!  But now a couple miles further west.  I'd say it's an improvement over having them interspersed with everything else coming up on 26.

I don't care which state agency's budget it comes from, this is such a waste.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 08, 2016, 05:40:59 PM
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers.  I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread.  Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.

(personal opinion emphasized)

I've been thinking the same thing

Perhaps someone should make the FHWA aware of this thread. Maybe two people.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 08, 2016, 06:19:42 PM
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers.  I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread.  Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.

(personal opinion emphasized)

I've been thinking the same thing

Perhaps someone should make the FHWA aware of this thread. Maybe two people.

I'm writing an email now. I had to get out of class first.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 08, 2016, 06:45:22 PM
Email sent. I mentioned the little MUTCD thing as well as the sheer cost of the signs ($25 million (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-more-50-million-support-historic-growth-new-york-s-tourism-industry)).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 08, 2016, 10:12:22 PM
So for the amount of money spent on the signs, we could have upgraded every single millimeter of sidewalk in Region 1 to meet ADA standards...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 08, 2016, 10:29:57 PM
Precisely my point. $25 million of my tax dollars could have been spent better.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 09, 2016, 12:26:08 AM
I-278 East in Staten Island, coming off of the Goethals Bridge from Elizabeth, NJ...

(http://i.imgur.com/fbkLOno.jpg)
(Picture taken September 7, 2016)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 09, 2016, 03:12:55 AM
I have no problem with the Welcome to NY signs. I have problems with the signs that follow it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on September 09, 2016, 03:54:02 AM
I also have a problem with them being posted in the middle of the damn state...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 09, 2016, 07:58:38 AM
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers.  I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread.  Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.

(personal opinion emphasized)

I never thought of that. And we talk about wasted tax dollars in NY...well here is a case study folks.

And as you said, all it could take in a later conversation is a "well, we blew $25 million on those confusing billboards in 2015, why not xxxxxx?"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on September 09, 2016, 08:07:14 AM
I'm sure there is a study out there that says that for every dollar spent on in-state tourism advertising, there is an x % increase in tourism spending, which will be used for budgetary justification.  (And as with most studies, I'm sure there are wild assumptions that aren't on the surface but could be easily picked apart.)

Back in July, on a hillside within the I-390 Exit 12 interchange (Thruway), a large "I (heart) NY symbol" was painted/created in the grass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 09, 2016, 08:20:52 AM
I-278 East in Staten Island, coming off of the Goethals Bridge from Elizabeth, NJ...

(http://i.imgur.com/fbkLOno.jpg)
(Picture taken September 7, 2016)

Does that sign really have square corners with a rounded border? Wow, it's very rare to see that in New York (at least Upstate), since NYSDOT doesn't allow that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 09, 2016, 12:15:06 PM
I also have a problem with them being posted in the middle of the damn state...

That too, as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 09, 2016, 12:36:11 PM
I also have a problem with them being posted in the middle of the damn state...

That too, as well.

My favorite for this are the ones on the Thruway in Syracuse. No matter where you came from, you've already been in New York for 2 hours. With the ones on the SB Thruway in Albany, somebody passing them would have been in New York for at least 3-4 hours. At that point, a good portion of travelers are getting off at the Berkshire Spur and going straight to MA.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on September 09, 2016, 01:04:39 PM
I have no problem promoting NY tourism, including to NY residents.  I assume that's why they're all over the place.  I'm no marketing or advertising expert, but I just don't think these signs will accomplish that in any significant way, at borders or anywhere else.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 09, 2016, 03:28:11 PM
I also have a problem with them being posted in the middle of the damn state...

That too, as well.

My favorite for this are the ones on the Thruway in Syracuse. No matter where you came from, you've already been in New York for 2 hours. With the ones on the SB Thruway in Albany, somebody passing them would have been in New York for at least 3-4 hours. At that point, a good portion of travelers are getting off at the Berkshire Spur and going straight to MA.
Well... some people traveling from Syracuse may be those who have flown to SYR, got a rental car and heading somewhere else. While those are likely a small minority, still the point is that could be the first time someone sees those signs! And I assume it can take less than 2 hours to rent a car at the airport and get on a highway.
but putting an extra set of signs over there is a must! sorry, I mean we can make sure rental agencies give out those leaflets...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 09, 2016, 03:35:56 PM
$25 million of my tax dollars could have been spent better.

Good heavens. What tax bracket are you in? ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 09, 2016, 03:37:52 PM
$25 million of my tax dollars could have been spent better.

Good heavens. What tax bracket are you in? ;-)

A higher one than I should be. Education grants are treated as taxable income.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 09, 2016, 04:38:56 PM
I also have a problem with them being posted in the middle of the damn state...

That too, as well.

My favorite for this are the ones on the Thruway in Syracuse. No matter where you came from, you've already been in New York for 2 hours. With the ones on the SB Thruway in Albany, somebody passing them would have been in New York for at least 3-4 hours. At that point, a good portion of travelers are getting off at the Berkshire Spur and going straight to MA.
Well... some people traveling from Syracuse may be those who have flown to SYR, got a rental car and heading somewhere else. While those are likely a small minority, still the point is that could be the first time someone sees those signs! And I assume it can take less than 2 hours to rent a car at the airport and get on a highway.
but putting an extra set of signs over there is a must! sorry, I mean we can make sure rental agencies give out those leaflets...

I would agree except that the Cuomo signs are now along the roadway leading out of Syracuse Airport. :) 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on September 09, 2016, 05:45:00 PM
I have no problem promoting NY tourism, including to NY residents.  I assume that's why they're all over the place.  I'm no marketing or advertising expert, but I just don't think these signs will accomplish that in any significant way, at borders or anywhere else.
I have no problem with promoting NY tourism either.  However, I have a huge problem giving PRIVATE businesses highway signs at the taxpayer's expense.  It's nothing more than government sponsored advertising.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on September 09, 2016, 05:59:17 PM
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.
I respectfully disagree.  The public is already increasingly subjected to private advertising messages, we DO NOT need even more of them at PUBLIC facilities that the government is supposed to be responsible for providing and maintaining.  And of course Geico then will claim they lose money on the deal (which the probably do anyway) so they then can write the costs off on their taxes.  Who ultimately ends up paying for the 'private' sponsorship then?

And, with all due respect to your views on this matter, it is truly unfortunate that so many people in today's society are willing to accept the intrusion of even more advertising hawking products and services, the majority of which we DON'T need, into our lives.  Too bad that George Orwell got it wrong in 1984 - It's not excessive government intrusion into every aspect of our lives that's become the problem, it's excessive intrusion into every aspect of our lives by the marketing executives we should be concerned about.  Sadly, we are continually losing that battle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 09, 2016, 08:52:54 PM
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.
I respectfully disagree.  The public is already increasingly subjected to private advertising messages, we DO NOT need even more of them at PUBLIC facilities that the government is supposed to be responsible for providing and maintaining.  And of course Geico then will claim they lose money on the deal (which the probably do anyway) so they then can write the costs off on their taxes.  Who ultimately ends up paying for the 'private' sponsorship then?

And, with all due respect to your views on this matter, it is truly unfortunate that so many people in today's society are willing to accept the intrusion of even more advertising hawking products and services, the majority of which we DON'T need, into our lives.  Too bad that George Orwell got it wrong in 1984 - It's not excessive government intrusion into every aspect of our lives that's become the problem, it's excessive intrusion into every aspect of our lives by the marketing executives we should be concerned about.  Sadly, we are continually losing that battle.

Hear, hear! Couldn't have said it better myself.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on September 09, 2016, 11:43:40 PM
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.
I respectfully disagree.  The public is already increasingly subjected to private advertising messages, we DO NOT need even more of them at PUBLIC facilities that the government is supposed to be responsible for providing and maintaining.  And of course Geico then will claim they lose money on the deal (which the probably do anyway) so they then can write the costs off on their taxes.  Who ultimately ends up paying for the 'private' sponsorship then?

And, with all due respect to your views on this matter, it is truly unfortunate that so many people in today's society are willing to accept the intrusion of even more advertising hawking products and services, the majority of which we DON'T need, into our lives.  Too bad that George Orwell got it wrong in 1984 - It's not excessive government intrusion into every aspect of our lives that's become the problem, it's excessive intrusion into every aspect of our lives by the marketing executives we should be concerned about.  Sadly, we are continually losing that battle.
It's because of how advertising got to us. It worked at first, but at some point, people began to become reserved, accept that advertising is everywhere, and ignore each and every ad. That's why software such as adblockers exist.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 10, 2016, 01:29:16 AM
dont know if it was mentioned but theres one of those new Welcome to NY signs on the approach to the Lower Level of the Verezano, just before the bridge and it curves under the upper level roadway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 10, 2016, 02:08:02 PM
The new FYAs on Central Avenue in Colonie just west of NY 155 are active. Unlike most in the area, these appear to be operating protected-only during the day. They likely revert to permissive at night or if traffic is light. Definitely an improvement over having it protected 24/7 as before.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on September 11, 2016, 11:29:23 PM
Just drove by a new set of Cuomo signs Westbound on the LIE in between exit 40E and 40W. What a wierd spot for those to go
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 11, 2016, 11:41:53 PM
its past Exit 40W, its right by the onramp from NY 25 West, just before the curve at the Old Westbury Village line. Unless they moved it AGAIN

That set used to be by Route 135
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on September 12, 2016, 05:15:35 AM
There are a new set of tourism signs on the southbound Thruway between exits 21B and 21. The weirdest spot for these yet, and put up within the last week. They are posted almost right on top of each other. How many more of these installations are really needed? It's starting to become a joke.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 12, 2016, 07:45:45 AM
There are a new set of tourism signs on the southbound Thruway between exits 21B and 21. The weirdest spot for these yet, and put up within the last week. They are posted almost right on top of each other. How many more of these installations are really needed? It's starting to become a joke.
It was a joke 2 weeks ago. By now it evolved to farce.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on September 12, 2016, 08:51:24 AM
its past Exit 40W, its right by the onramp from NY 25 West, just before the curve at the Old Westbury Village line. Unless they moved it AGAIN

That set used to be by Route 135

What the heck?  Why?  That's such a weird place for them.  I could see coming across the Queens-Nassau border or over one of the bridges somewhere, but why there?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 12, 2016, 09:56:49 AM
There are a new set of tourism signs on the southbound Thruway between exits 21B and 21. The weirdest spot for these yet, and put up within the last week. They are posted almost right on top of each other. How many more of these installations are really needed? It's starting to become a joke.
It was a joke 2 weeks ago. By now it evolved to farce.

They put them THERE? There's another set 20 miles north of there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 12, 2016, 11:00:17 AM
There are a new set of tourism signs on the southbound Thruway between exits 21B and 21. The weirdest spot for these yet, and put up within the last week. They are posted almost right on top of each other. How many more of these installations are really needed? It's starting to become a joke.
It was a joke 2 weeks ago. By now it evolved to farce.

They put them THERE? There's another set 20 miles north of there.
I bet this is for those coming from Masspike. Or is there another set at state  border?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 12, 2016, 11:25:08 AM
There are a new set of tourism signs on the southbound Thruway between exits 21B and 21. The weirdest spot for these yet, and put up within the last week. They are posted almost right on top of each other. How many more of these installations are really needed? It's starting to become a joke.
It was a joke 2 weeks ago. By now it evolved to farce.

They put them THERE? There's another set 20 miles north of there.
I bet this is for those coming from Masspike. Or is there another set at state  border?

There is a set at the border. Those were the first NYSTA put up years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 12, 2016, 01:02:24 PM
I can understand the LIE ones between exits 39 and 40.  It's really the only major gap between exits until near Riverhead.  The Thruway ones are probably for the Catskills or something; is there another set further south somewhere, perhaps south of exits 19 or 20?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 13, 2016, 01:44:47 AM
I can understand the LIE ones between exits 39 and 40.  It's really the only major gap between exits until near Riverhead.
Personally, I'd rather see them spend the money on reviving the Wantagh State Parkway extension to the LIE.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 13, 2016, 08:15:12 AM
The money spent on these signs wouldn't even get you through project planning, D-Dey.  Let alone utility relocation or beyond...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on September 13, 2016, 08:44:45 AM
I can understand the LIE ones between exits 39 and 40.  It's really the only major gap between exits until near Riverhead.
Personally, I'd rather see them spend the money on reviving the Wantagh State Parkway extension to the LIE.

Yeah, good luck with getting any new highway built on Long Island.  If only...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on September 13, 2016, 09:15:23 AM
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers.  I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread.  Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.
vdeane,  Are you involved with the Tupper Lake - Lake Placid rail to trail conversion?  The money spent on the signs could easily have covered this cost.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 13, 2016, 09:49:22 AM
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers.  I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread.  Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.
vdeane,  Are you involved with the Tupper Lake - Lake Placid rail to trail conversion?  The money spent on the signs could easily have covered this cost.

Don't get me started on how much of a waste that is. A trail nobody would use, while they could try and restart rail service.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 13, 2016, 10:17:09 AM
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers.  I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread.  Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.
vdeane,  Are you involved with the Tupper Lake - Lake Placid rail to trail conversion?  The money spent on the signs could easily have covered this cost.

Don't get me started on how much of a waste that is. A trail nobody would use, while they could try and restart rail service.

The buffoonery of the decision, but welcome to America, 2016.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 13, 2016, 02:32:49 PM
Don't get me started on how much of a waste that is. A trail nobody would use, while they could try and restart rail service.
Let me guess; A trail that would better serve the Adirondack Scenic Railroad.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 13, 2016, 03:26:40 PM
Quote from: cl94
A trail nobody would use

What's your rationale for claiming this?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 13, 2016, 06:41:23 PM
Quote from: cl94
A trail nobody would use

What's your rationale for claiming this?

Access points are few and far between, with the trail often being a good 10-20 miles from the nearest road. Furthermore, there are a couple resort communities only accessible by rail or boat. Take out the rails and there goes a transportation option.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 13, 2016, 10:09:28 PM
I'm not gonna go near that one with a ten foot pole, other than to note that the proposed conversion actually ENDS some Adirondack Scenic Railroad service between Saranac Lake and Lake Placid (I think I read that this is their most profitable line) and put the brand new rail bikes company out of business.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 13, 2016, 10:26:14 PM
I'm not gonna go near that one with a ten foot pole, other than to note that the proposed conversion actually ENDS some Adirondack Scenic Railroad service between Saranac Lake and Lake Placid (I think I read that this is their most profitable line) and put the brand new rail bikes company out of business.

Correct. There have been proposals to get a long-distance train going between Utica and Lake Placid as well. From what I can tell, it's basically a bunch of snowmobilers that want even more trails.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 14, 2016, 02:36:58 AM
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers.  I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread.  Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.
vdeane,  Are you involved with the Tupper Lake - Lake Placid rail to trail conversion?  The money spent on the signs could easily have covered this cost.

Don't get me started on how much of a waste that is. A trail nobody would use, while they could try and restart rail service.

Yes when I was in Utica and heard about this it was hard for me to wrap my head around such a silly idea.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 15, 2016, 11:56:20 AM
I have a question about I-84 near Exit 3 in Waywayanda...There's some massive plant or project being built very near this exit.

This was from US Route 6 west back in August:
(http://i.imgur.com/KG1CWkj.jpg)

This was from I-84 West, just after Exit 3 and before the bridge for US Route 6. This is from Tuesday, September 13th:
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1RwL9y.jpg)

A search largely turned up nothing. Maybe a power plant of sorts? Hmmmm!  :hmmm:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on September 15, 2016, 06:40:49 PM
It's a power plant. http://www.recordonline.com/article/20150131/NEWS/150139896
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on September 15, 2016, 07:41:11 PM
I also think it's hilarious that someone is so enamored with those "New York Experience" signs we've been talking about so much that the television ad about it mostly just shows a series of those signs!  A quick search for a video link came up empty.  Maybe someone else would have more luck tracking it down.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 15, 2016, 09:06:33 PM
I also think it's hilarious that someone is so enamored with those "New York Experience" signs we've been talking about so much that the television ad about it mostly just shows a series of those signs!  A quick search for a video link came up empty.  Maybe someone else would have more luck tracking it down.


I too have been trying to look for it on YouTube but was not able to see it either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on September 25, 2016, 08:05:21 PM
On a trip to the Finger Lakes this weekend, I saw a set of the "New York State Experience" signs on the Thruway between Exits 39 and 40...and another set between 41 and 42. Both directions.

...really?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 25, 2016, 10:12:44 PM
I noticed new plans online for a signing project in NYSDOT Region 9. It's project D263275.  I've sent an email to R9 about the small errors in the first two shown below.  The third is going to be quite the post-interchange destination mileage sign!

(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-1.png)
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-2.png)
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-3.png)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 25, 2016, 10:38:13 PM
I noticed new plans online for a signing project in NYSDOT Region 9. It's project D263275.  I've sent an email to R9 about the small errors in the first two shown below.
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-1.png)
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-2.png)

Let's see…exit tab should be shifted over to align with the inside of the rounded corner on the main panel; "mile" and "exit" should be in small caps; the NY 7 shield is probably too small–and I assume it's a given that the second sign isn't in the right colors. What else?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 26, 2016, 01:39:43 AM
You got a link by chance? I just looked at the plans online and found nothing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on September 26, 2016, 08:45:50 AM
Is this supposed to mean that they're going to be signing I-86 all the way east to I-81 now?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 26, 2016, 10:59:46 AM
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 26, 2016, 11:41:14 AM
It's in one of the supplemental zip files, IIRC. Noticed those signs as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on September 26, 2016, 11:55:33 AM
I noticed new plans online for a signing project in NYSDOT Region 9. It's project D263275.  I've sent an email to R9 about the small errors in the first two shown below.
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-1.png)
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-2.png)

Let's see…exit tab should be shifted over to align with the inside of the rounded corner on the main panel; "mile" and "exit" should be in small caps; the NY 7 shield is probably too small—and I assume it's a given that the second sign isn't in the right colors. What else?
Not to mention that the major guide sign has smaller lettering than the supplemental guide sign does.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 26, 2016, 12:00:03 PM
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."

I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 26, 2016, 12:02:41 PM
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."

I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.


iPhone

Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 26, 2016, 12:11:44 PM
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."

I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.


iPhone

Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.

SUNY Orange has no dorms.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 26, 2016, 12:16:19 PM
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."

I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.


iPhone

Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.

SUNY Orange has no dorms.

Then I have no clue. Adirondack and Sullivan changed their names when they got dorms.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 26, 2016, 12:21:00 PM
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."

I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.


iPhone

Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.

SUNY Orange has no dorms.

Then I have no clue. Adirondack and Sullivan changed their names when they got dorms.

I gave up a long time ago and just call them their CC name. I'm sure they had some rhyme or reason for the changes, but it's not like they are 4-year schools.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 26, 2016, 12:28:46 PM
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/14449817_1069385846493662_7113220769048368762_n.jpg?oh=666a8e006cef8f8920b5e83319ded863&oe=586A3637)

To the trained eye, this typo is a lot more glaring. The hamlet and town are Callicoon with two Ls, not one L.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 26, 2016, 12:53:11 PM
On a trip to the Finger Lakes this weekend, I saw a set of the "New York State Experience" signs on the Thruway between Exits 39 and 40...and another set between 41 and 42. Both directions.

...really?
That's definitely new.  They weren't there Labor Day.  I can see the method to the madness on the ones entering/exiting a metro area... but these new ones make no sense at all!  I suspect they're just doing it to ruin my Thruway experience.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 26, 2016, 01:05:08 PM
On a trip to the Finger Lakes this weekend, I saw a set of the "New York State Experience" signs on the Thruway between Exits 39 and 40...and another set between 41 and 42. Both directions.

...really?
That's definitely new.  They weren't there Labor Day.  I can see the method to the madness on the ones entering/exiting a metro area... but these new ones make no sense at all!  I suspect they're just doing it to ruin my Thruway experience.

41-42 are exits to Finger lakes areas, and Geneva is sort of a resort town. If that is the case, something should come up near exit 21 as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 26, 2016, 02:20:12 PM
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."

I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.


iPhone

Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.

SUNY Orange has no dorms.

Then I have no clue. Adirondack and Sullivan changed their names when they got dorms.

I gave up a long time ago and just call them their CC name. I'm sure they had some rhyme or reason for the changes, but it's not like they are 4-year schools.

Glancing at the list on SUNY's web site, it doesn't look as though they officially refer to any of them in this way (even the 4-year colleges that have traditionally been known as "SUNY Brockport", for example). So perhaps this is just some convention NYSDOT has adopted for its signing practices, though possibly at the request of SUNY to emphasize the schools' affiliation with the state university.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 26, 2016, 02:21:35 PM
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."

I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.


iPhone

Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.

SUNY Orange has no dorms.

Then I have no clue. Adirondack and Sullivan changed their names when they got dorms.

I gave up a long time ago and just call them their CC name. I'm sure they had some rhyme or reason for the changes, but it's not like they are 4-year schools.

Glancing at the list on SUNY's web site, it doesn't look as though they officially refer to any of them in this way (even the 4-year colleges that have traditionally been known as "SUNY Brockport", for example). So perhaps this is just some convention NYSDOT has adopted for its signing practices, though possibly at the request of SUNY to emphasize the schools' affiliation with the state university.


iPhone

Adirondack, Canton, Sullivan and Ulster definitely do.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 26, 2016, 02:43:48 PM
http://www.sunyorange.edu/

The SUNY Orange website gives that away.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on September 27, 2016, 08:07:11 AM
That I-88 exit 12 sign is a direct replacement of the ugly one that's been there for about 15 years.  Hopefully they take your suggestion seriously, because some bad signs have been going up lately in Region 9.  They just posted some horrendous new ones on US-11 in Binghamton at NY-7, including a lovely NY-11 shield.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 27, 2016, 10:30:13 AM
That I-88 exit 12 sign is a direct replacement of the ugly one that's been there for about 15 years.  Hopefully they take your suggestion seriously, because some bad signs have been going up lately in Region 9.  They just posted some horrendous new ones on US-11 in Binghamton at NY-7, including a lovely NY-11 shield.

Heard back from R9 and they have already made the corrections I suggested. Apparently all plans get run by Traffic and Safety now for accuracy and adherence to the Federal MUTCD. This is the first time I've heard about that extra layer of checking.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 27, 2016, 12:31:37 PM
That I-88 exit 12 sign is a direct replacement of the ugly one that's been there for about 15 years.  Hopefully they take your suggestion seriously, because some bad signs have been going up lately in Region 9.  They just posted some horrendous new ones on US-11 in Binghamton at NY-7, including a lovely NY-11 shield.

Heard back from R9 and they have already made the corrections I suggested. Apparently all plans get run by Traffic and Safety now for accuracy and adherence to the Federal MUTCD. This is the first time I've heard about that extra layer of checking.

They get the Callicoon one as well?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 27, 2016, 12:59:04 PM
That I-88 exit 12 sign is a direct replacement of the ugly one that's been there for about 15 years.  Hopefully they take your suggestion seriously, because some bad signs have been going up lately in Region 9.  They just posted some horrendous new ones on US-11 in Binghamton at NY-7, including a lovely NY-11 shield.

Heard back from R9 and they have already made the corrections I suggested. Apparently all plans get run by Traffic and Safety now for accuracy and adherence to the Federal MUTCD. This is the first time I've heard about that extra layer of checking.

They get the Callicoon one as well?

I mentioned the Callicoon error to them in a separate email.  I didn't pick up on that until it was mentioned here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 27, 2016, 02:52:51 PM
Region 8 is in the middle of installing exit numbers for the Taconic in Westchester. Gore signs are up and covered, some tabs have been installed NB. As noted when the plans came out, numbers are mile-based.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 27, 2016, 02:56:11 PM
Region 8 is in the middle of installing exit numbers for the Taconic in Westchester. Gore signs are up and covered, some tabs have been installed NB. As noted when the plans came out, numbers are mile-based.

I am waiting every day for the contract plans for the second set because they are due.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 27, 2016, 03:58:46 PM
I hope Region 8 abandons that awful practice of putting the street names in those little boxes, it makes it harder to read.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 27, 2016, 04:58:01 PM
I hope Region 8 abandons that awful practice of putting the street names in those little boxes, it makes it harder to read.

Region 8 hasn't posted signs with boxes in years, thankfully.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 27, 2016, 06:09:25 PM
I hope Region 8 abandons that awful practice of putting the street names in those little boxes, it makes it harder to read.

Regions 2 and 8 loved those boxes. Drive around Utica and you'll see illegible road names everywhere. Region 3 did it for a little while but I think Region 7 was the first one to include a box around a street name back in the late 1980s. I-81 Exit 52 had ISLAND RD in a box, all in button copy, back in the day. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 27, 2016, 09:07:37 PM
Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 27, 2016, 10:50:01 PM
Adirondack, Canton, Sullivan and Ulster definitely do.

Do what, have dorms?



iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 27, 2016, 10:50:49 PM
Adirondack, Canton, Sullivan and Ulster definitely do.

Do what, have dorms?



iPhone
No, refer to themselves as SUNY X

SM-G920V

Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 27, 2016, 11:33:19 PM
Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.

R10 has their own quirks, such as the wierd way they numbered the parkway exits, and the lack of mile markers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 27, 2016, 11:37:53 PM
Adirondack, Canton, Sullivan and Ulster definitely do.

Do what, have dorms?



iPhone
No, refer to themselves as SUNY X

SM-G920V



Oh, OK. I was saying that SUNY itself doesn't refer to them as such in its list of campuses. I didn't go so far as to check individual schools' web sites. (And Canton is not a community college anyway, right?)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 27, 2016, 11:52:17 PM
Adirondack, Canton, Sullivan and Ulster definitely do.

Do what, have dorms?



iPhone
No, refer to themselves as SUNY X

SM-G920V



Oh, OK. I was saying that SUNY itself doesn't refer to them as such in its list of campuses. I didn't go so far as to check individual schools' web sites. (And Canton is not a community college anyway, right?)

It is mainly a community college. They recently added some bachelor's programs in topics typically covered only by associate's degrees.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 27, 2016, 11:58:44 PM
Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.

R10 has their own quirks, such as the wierd way they numbered the parkway exits, and the lack of mile markers.

Except on the eastern parts of the LIE and Sunrise Highway, exits are spaced closely enough that you don't really need the reference points for drivers.

Exit numbering, while certainly weird, is a really good way to ID the road given how many N/S parkways there are in Nassau and western Suffolk.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: nyratk1 on September 28, 2016, 01:18:13 AM
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."

I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.


iPhone

Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.

SUNY Orange has no dorms.

Then I have no clue. Adirondack and Sullivan changed their names when they got dorms.

Suffolk CCC seems to remain that except for their website address and social media tags (SUNY Suffolk). No dorms on any of their three campuses and probably never gonna happen. Odd move since it seems in recent years, the SUNY university centers de-emphasized the SUNY (Stony Brook and Buffalo most drastic)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on September 28, 2016, 09:44:09 AM
Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.

Unless it's a state route, in which case they don't post the street name at all.  You don't want to know how many Long Islanders don't know that Jericho Turnpike is NY 25 and Sunrise Highway is NY 27.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 28, 2016, 10:39:55 AM
Suffolk CCC seems to remain that except for their website address and social media tags (SUNY Suffolk). No dorms on any of their three campuses and probably never gonna happen.

Interesting, so it seems this might be something SUNY is doing after all (doubtful that the individual schools are coming up with it all independently of each other).

Quote
Odd move since it seems in recent years, the SUNY university centers de-emphasized the SUNY (Stony Brook and Buffalo most drastic)

Yes, they've probably been shifting the branding to denote those more as full-fledged universities rather than "lowly" state schools.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 28, 2016, 12:05:28 PM
I noticed new plans online for a signing project in NYSDOT Region 9. It's project D263275.  I've sent an email to R9 about the small errors in the first two shown below.  The third is going to be quite the post-interchange destination mileage sign!

(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-1.png)
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-2.png)
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-3.png)

In addition, Exit 92 has "Cook Falls" instead of "Cooks Falls" - AIEEE!! There's a bunch o' errors in this batch.  :wow:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 28, 2016, 12:59:00 PM
Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.

Unless it's a state route, in which case they don't post the street name at all.  You don't want to know how many Long Islanders don't know that Jericho Turnpike is NY 25 and Sunrise Highway is NY 27.
I can't help but wonder how people navigate there.  On the way to my hotel from the Long Island meet, I got lost after overshooting my turn and finding nowhere to turn around (which is one reason why one shouldn't check in to their hotel at night while relying on their memory of street view images in the day to find the unmarked road the hotel is on).  I eventually found myself in Syosset and tried to get directions from not one but two gas stations.  Nobody knew what NY 25 was so I gave them Jericho Turnpike.  Nobody knew what that was either, so I had no way whatsoever of relaying where I needed to go.  Somehow, they couldn't even point to where I was on a map or tell me what street I was on, so even my atlas was of no help (I only figured out where I was after the fact).  For a while I was sincerely scared that I would have to sleep in the car in an unknown part of Nassau County; that incident is probably THE reason why I ultimately decided to upgrade to a smartphone (and thank God I did, because I had a similar issue with the Tuxedo meet because Nyack doesn't post street signs).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on September 28, 2016, 07:03:38 PM
Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.

Unless it's a state route, in which case they don't post the street name at all.  You don't want to know how many Long Islanders don't know that Jericho Turnpike is NY 25 and Sunrise Highway is NY 27.
I can't help but wonder how people navigate there.  On the way to my hotel from the Long Island meet, I got lost after overshooting my turn and finding nowhere to turn around (which is one reason why one shouldn't check in to their hotel at night while relying on their memory of street view images in the day to find the unmarked road the hotel is on).  I eventually found myself in Syosset and tried to get directions from not one but two gas stations.  Nobody knew what NY 25 was so I gave them Jericho Turnpike.  Nobody knew what that was either, so I had no way whatsoever of relaying where I needed to go.  Somehow, they couldn't even point to where I was on a map or tell me what street I was on, so even my atlas was of no help (I only figured out where I was after the fact).  For a while I was sincerely scared that I would have to sleep in the car in an unknown part of Nassau County; that incident is probably THE reason why I ultimately decided to upgrade to a smartphone (and thank God I did, because I had a similar issue with the Tuxedo meet because Nyack doesn't post street signs).

Yikes, that doesn't sound good.  In Nassau County, people generally navigate using street names.  I'm surprised that they didn't know what Jericho Turnpike was.  Maybe they were new to the area.  The exception to this is NY 106 and NY 107, which are known by their numbers and most people don't know their names.  In Suffolk County, route numbers are used, and as you probably noticed during the meet, county routes are signed.  Generally, you can tell which county someone is from by whether they talk about Northern Boulevard or NY 25A.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 28, 2016, 07:09:06 PM
Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.

Unless it's a state route, in which case they don't post the street name at all.  You don't want to know how many Long Islanders don't know that Jericho Turnpike is NY 25 and Sunrise Highway is NY 27.
I can't help but wonder how people navigate there.  On the way to my hotel from the Long Island meet, I got lost after overshooting my turn and finding nowhere to turn around (which is one reason why one shouldn't check in to their hotel at night while relying on their memory of street view images in the day to find the unmarked road the hotel is on).  I eventually found myself in Syosset and tried to get directions from not one but two gas stations.  Nobody knew what NY 25 was so I gave them Jericho Turnpike.  Nobody knew what that was either, so I had no way whatsoever of relaying where I needed to go.  Somehow, they couldn't even point to where I was on a map or tell me what street I was on, so even my atlas was of no help (I only figured out where I was after the fact).  For a while I was sincerely scared that I would have to sleep in the car in an unknown part of Nassau County; that incident is probably THE reason why I ultimately decided to upgrade to a smartphone (and thank God I did, because I had a similar issue with the Tuxedo meet because Nyack doesn't post street signs).

Yikes, that doesn't sound good.  In Nassau County, people generally navigate using street names.  I'm surprised that they didn't know what Jericho Turnpike was.  Maybe they were new to the area.  The exception to this is NY 106 and NY 107, which are known by their numbers and most people don't know their names.  In Suffolk County, route numbers are used, and as you probably noticed during the meet, county routes are signed.  Generally, you can tell which county someone is from by whether they talk about Northern Boulevard or NY 25A.

Of course, NY 25A isn't Northern Boulevard in Suffolk, so that helps.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 28, 2016, 07:43:53 PM
Vdeane, just curious since I live a few towns away from Syosset. What hotel were you looking for and where did you end up lost? Even in this era of smart-phones, GPS, etc. a good road map or county street-map is still very valuable. Being old school I still mostly use that stuff.

And Mariethefoxy, you're right about Region-10 have their own signing quirks, but the wierd parkway exit numbering is the legacy system NYSDOT inherited from the Long Island State Park Commission back in the 1970's. Though in 40 years, you'd think NYSDOT could have re-signed the exit numbers with current practice. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on September 29, 2016, 12:46:47 AM
Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.

Unless it's a state route, in which case they don't post the street name at all.  You don't want to know how many Long Islanders don't know that Jericho Turnpike is NY 25 and Sunrise Highway is NY 27.
I can't help but wonder how people navigate there.  On the way to my hotel from the Long Island meet, I got lost after overshooting my turn and finding nowhere to turn around (which is one reason why one shouldn't check in to their hotel at night while relying on their memory of street view images in the day to find the unmarked road the hotel is on).  I eventually found myself in Syosset and tried to get directions from not one but two gas stations.  Nobody knew what NY 25 was so I gave them Jericho Turnpike.  Nobody knew what that was either, so I had no way whatsoever of relaying where I needed to go.  Somehow, they couldn't even point to where I was on a map or tell me what street I was on, so even my atlas was of no help (I only figured out where I was after the fact).  For a while I was sincerely scared that I would have to sleep in the car in an unknown part of Nassau County; that incident is probably THE reason why I ultimately decided to upgrade to a smartphone (and thank God I did, because I had a similar issue with the Tuxedo meet because Nyack doesn't post street signs).

Yikes, that doesn't sound good.  In Nassau County, people generally navigate using street names.  I'm surprised that they didn't know what Jericho Turnpike was.  Maybe they were new to the area.  The exception to this is NY 106 and NY 107, which are known by their numbers and most people don't know their names.  In Suffolk County, route numbers are used, and as you probably noticed during the meet, county routes are signed.  Generally, you can tell which county someone is from by whether they talk about Northern Boulevard or NY 25A.

Of course, NY 25A isn't Northern Boulevard in Suffolk, so that helps.

It is in Queens though. Generally if Im headed anywhere east of Great Neck its 25A, west of there Northern Blvd.

I remember living on LI the other numbered roads were called (and I still call them) Hempstead Turnpike (24), Jericho Turnpike or Middle Country Rd (25), Hillside Ave (25B), Union Turnpoke (25C), 106/107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112,  the Seaford-Oyster Bay (135), 347, and Vets Hwy (454)

Also, the exit numbering system I find to be more logical with the directional suffixes than A B C, easier to navigate.  The prefixes though, not necessary.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on September 29, 2016, 08:50:31 AM
It is in Queens though. Generally if Im headed anywhere east of Great Neck its 25A, west of there Northern Blvd.

I grew up in Port Washington, which is the peninsula east of Great Neck.  It was very much called Northern Boulevard in the area.  Also, don't talk to people from Port Washington about NY 101; they'll have no idea what you're talking about.  It's Port Washington Boulevard or "Port Boulevard" for short if you really want to sound like a local.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 29, 2016, 01:24:06 PM
The strange exit numbering on the LI parkways might be a remnant from when all the parkways were considered to be "spurs" off the Northern and Southern parkways instead of separate routes.  It explains why the exit number have prefixes, are backwards on all the parkways save for the Sunken Meadow and Bethpage, and why the Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow are separate routes in the first place.

In other news, it appears that the new LI rest area will open soon.  Just curious, where exactly are the truck/bus parking spots?  From my reading of the articles, it appears to be the residency off the WB service road near exit 56 and the EB truck inspection station near exit 65, but I wouldn't mind verifying before I put them on my exit list (particularly the signage on the latter, if it is indeed where I think it is).

(Also, why are busses banned too?  Do they really think that a school bus carrying kids on a field trip or something is going to want to have the kids use porta potties?)

Vdeane, just curious since I live a few towns away from Syosset. What hotel were you looking for and where did you end up lost? Even in this era of smart-phones, GPS, etc. a good road map or county street-map is still very valuable. Being old school I still mostly use that stuff.
I was heading to the Meadowbrook Motor Lodge, near where NY 106/107 cross NY 25.  Since I came from the LIE, the plan was to head up NY 106 and turn right onto Old Jericho Turnpike (which has the sign completely covered by trees); unfortunately, the street looks like a private driveway at night, which I wasn't prepared for (I normally look at street view to see what things like this look like, but that wasn't enough as I did not expect it to be dark out when I headed to the hotel), so I went past it.  After a while, I felt like I had gone the wrong way, and with nowhere to pull over or turn around, started looking for a major road that I could take back to NY 25.  I turned onto what I now know is Muttontown Eastwoods Road (wasn't looking much at street names, as I assumed I was still close to the hotel and not more than halfway to NY 25A), and was trying to ask for directions from the gas station at the five way intersection with Split Rock Road.  Now, had I been in a clear state of mind, this would have been fine, but by that point I was having a panic attack.  Granted, it did not help that this was the first time in my life in Nassau County, so my knowledge of the area is what I remembered from maps, and I tend to ignore local roads unless there's a destination on them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on September 29, 2016, 07:48:49 PM
I think you can blame Mr. Moses for the ban on buses from his parkways.  He wanted to keep minorities (more likely in his mind to ride in bus groups than would non-Hispanic whites) out of his parks (especially Jones Beach) and had the bridges designed relatively low.  Just one area where he gave minorities the dirty end of the stick.  Read Robert Caro's The Power Broker to learn more.

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: AMLNet49 on September 29, 2016, 08:17:41 PM

Let's see…exit tab should be shifted over to align with the inside of the rounded corner on the main panel; "mile" and "exit" should be in small caps; the NY 7 shield is probably too small–and I assume it's a given that the second sign isn't in the right colors. What else?

I don't think New York generally aligns the tab to the inside of the corner anymore. I believe the standard practice is now flush to the right, at least judging by replacements downstate and in the city.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 29, 2016, 08:50:46 PM
Good story Vdeane! I know that area well, and it's easy to understand your frustration. Unfortunately when you're going north on 106 or 107, once you go north of NY-25/Jericho Tpk in that area, you pass from a suburban to a rural area that is very dark and intimidating at night if you don't know the area.

If you ever need directions to anywhere in Nassau County again, send me a p.m. and I'll provide competent info. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 29, 2016, 10:36:46 PM

Let's see…exit tab should be shifted over to align with the inside of the rounded corner on the main panel; "mile" and "exit" should be in small caps; the NY 7 shield is probably too small–and I assume it's a given that the second sign isn't in the right colors. What else?

I don't think New York generally aligns the tab to the inside of the corner anymore. I believe the standard practice is now flush to the right, at least judging by replacements downstate and in the city.

The NYSDOT supplement to the MUTCD specifies that the exit number plaque should follow the same design as outlined in the Federal MUTCD, except that the bottom border should be removed and the plaque should be aligned to the inner radius of the guidance panel.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 29, 2016, 10:40:52 PM

Let's see…exit tab should be shifted over to align with the inside of the rounded corner on the main panel; "mile" and "exit" should be in small caps; the NY 7 shield is probably too small–and I assume it's a given that the second sign isn't in the right colors. What else?

I don't think New York generally aligns the tab to the inside of the corner anymore. I believe the standard practice is now flush to the right, at least judging by replacements downstate and in the city.

The NYSDOT supplement to the MUTCD specifies that the exit number plaque should follow the same design as outlined in the Federal MUTCD, except that the bottom border should be removed and the plaque should be aligned to the inner radius of the guidance panel.

Yes. Replacements Upstate tend to follow this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 03, 2016, 11:59:59 PM
Of course, NY 25A isn't Northern Boulevard in Suffolk, so that helps.
And NY 25 isn't Jericho Turnpike east of the NY 25-25A multiplex... although Smithtown Toyota doesn't realize that.

http://www.smithtowntoyota.com/

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on October 06, 2016, 11:51:25 PM
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 07, 2016, 12:18:47 AM
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)

I wonder how long it will take for this to happen Upstate. 10 years+?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 07, 2016, 11:41:55 AM
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)

I wonder how long it will take for this to happen Upstate. 10 years+?

Your optimism is boundless.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 07, 2016, 11:47:33 AM
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)

I wonder how long it will take for this to happen Upstate. 10 years+?

Your optimism is boundless.

I was thinking the same thing. 10 for the barrier tolls is optimistic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 07, 2016, 12:08:03 PM
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)

I wonder how long it will take for this to happen Upstate. 10 years+?

Never; MTA doesn't have any bridges or tunnels upstate. :-D


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on October 07, 2016, 12:09:42 PM
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)
I wonder how long it will take for this to happen Upstate. 10 years+?
Never; MTA doesn't have any bridges or tunnels upstate. :-D

 :clap:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 08, 2016, 12:07:01 AM
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)

I wonder how long it will take for this to happen Upstate. 10 years+?

Your optimism is boundless.

I was thinking the same thing. 10 for the barrier tolls is optimistic.
Especially since I was reading a couple of days ago that the Thruway's planned conversion of the Harriman barrier to AET has been put on hold indefinitely (it was in an article about exit 131).  No idea if that affects Yonkers and New Rochelle or not.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on October 08, 2016, 06:58:48 AM
The New York Thruway should consider adding eight to 10 fully automated interchanges in Upstate New York exclusive to E-ZPass customers, per state Senator Joseph Griffo in a letter he sent to Thruway officials. The estimated cost is $64 million.

http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html (http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 08, 2016, 08:53:15 AM
The New York Thruway should consider adding eight to 10 fully automated interchanges in Upstate New York exclusive to E-ZPass customers, per state Senator Joseph Griffo in a letter he sent to Thruway officials. The estimated cost is $64 million.

http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html (http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html)
I, for one, absolutely oppose the type of "locals only, please" exits. Overall  I would prefer to see some automatic teller technology. Why that is a problem here - vending machines are equally, if not more complex today anyway?
Now the question if Thruway needs more exits is interesting. Between being primarily long-haul road and commuter road - I can see that to be a conflict lasting forever .
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 08, 2016, 09:36:43 AM
The New York Thruway should consider adding eight to 10 fully automated interchanges in Upstate New York exclusive to E-ZPass customers, per state Senator Joseph Griffo in a letter he sent to Thruway officials. The estimated cost is $64 million.

http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html (http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html)
I, for one, absolutely oppose the type of "locals only, please" exits. Overall  I would prefer to see some automatic teller technology. Why that is a problem here - vending machines are equally, if not more complex today anyway?
Now the question if Thruway needs more exits is interesting. Between being primarily long-haul road and commuter road - I can see that to be a conflict lasting forever .

Building another Thruway interchange between Canastota (34) and Collamer (34A - I-481) would provide more direct access to Chittenango, Manlius, etc. and possibly help relieve upcoming congestion on I-481 if the I-81 Syracuse project goes with the boulevard.

Building an interchange between Utica (31) and Westmoreland (32) at CR 840 or along the NY 49 straddle roadway would help relieve congestion at the Breezewood-style connection from Exit 31 to I-790.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 08, 2016, 11:23:12 AM
There are a bunch of places that should get exits. East of 49 is another big one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 08, 2016, 11:46:11 AM
The New York Thruway should consider adding eight to 10 fully automated interchanges in Upstate New York exclusive to E-ZPass customers, per state Senator Joseph Griffo in a letter he sent to Thruway officials. The estimated cost is $64 million.

http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html (http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html)

I couldn't read that article; there are so many video ads embedded in it that there was literally no touchable screen space left for me to scroll!


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on October 08, 2016, 01:18:58 PM
Here's a couple other articles, though not much different or new information compared to the link Doug posted:

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/blogs18/griffo-calls-for-additional-e-z-pass-toll-booths-for-upstate-20161007

http://www.timestelegram.com/news/20161007/griffo-calls-for-high-speed-e-z-pass-interchanges-new-local-exit

Aside from Griffo's suggestion to put one in Marcy or Rome, none of the articles details or mentions where such interchanges should be built.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 08, 2016, 02:07:37 PM
15B at the crossing of the Thruway, where 17, 17A & CR 106 meet has always been my top choice for an exit like this. It would reduce traffic through Sloatsburg and Tuxedo on 17 to get to the Faire on 17A and direct access to Harriman State Park
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 08, 2016, 03:02:53 PM
The Waterloo Outlets could be a place for some E-ZPass-only ramps.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 08, 2016, 07:17:55 PM

Building another Thruway interchange between Canastota (34) and Collamer (34A - I-481) would provide more direct access to Chittenango, Manlius, etc. and possibly help relieve upcoming congestion on I-481 if the I-81 Syracuse project goes with the boulevard.

Building an interchange between Utica (31) and Westmoreland (32) at CR 840 or along the NY 49 straddle roadway would help relieve congestion at the Breezewood-style connection from Exit 31 to I-790.
There are a lot of places where it would be good to have an exit. 85 in Albany comes to mind. Somewhere on the other side of Hudson to make bridge at exit 21A more meaningful..
But my question is more about balancing needs of long haul and commute..

The Waterloo Outlets could be a place for some E-ZPass-only ramps.
For eastbound lanes only?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 08, 2016, 08:31:53 PM
The Waterloo Outlets could be a place for some E-ZPass-only ramps.
For eastbound lanes only?

Don't know. Maybe eastbound off/westbound on only? A fair amount of Rochester traffic goes there; not so sure about Syracuse.



iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on October 08, 2016, 08:48:16 PM
The Waterloo Outlets could be a place for some E-ZPass-only ramps.
For eastbound lanes only?

Don't know. Maybe eastbound off/westbound on only? A fair amount of Rochester traffic goes there; not so sure about Syracuse.

I'm thinking kalvado meant eastbound off/eastbound on to avoid the need for an overpass and make such an interchange a lot less expensive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 08, 2016, 09:13:07 PM
I'm thinking kalvado meant eastbound off/eastbound on to avoid the need for an overpass and make such an interchange a lot less expensive.
Besides, there is a rest area on the other side of Thruway  - until exit is through the area, there will be traffic interference.
Talking things absolutely crazy, I can suggest a pedestrian walkway to outlets from the rest area...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 08, 2016, 09:35:45 PM
15B at the crossing of the Thruway, where 17, 17A & CR 106 meet has always been my top choice for an exit like this. It would reduce traffic through Sloatsburg and Tuxedo on 17 to get to the Faire on 17A and direct access to Harriman State Park

If you don't mind making it slightly easier to shunpike around the Harriman toll it would be easy enough to build this as a free interchange, since it's outside of the ticket system. If you want to add a couple of ramp tolls to prevent that, there is no reason they couldn't do bill by plate for non-EZpass customers.

Still, any proposal to build an interchange at this location will face NIMBY opposition. The locals in the area like being relatively isolated despite relatively close to the city and would prefer to keep it that way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 09, 2016, 01:01:57 AM
It wouldn't be unheard of to put an exit through a service area. The original Exit 20 was at the Malden plaza and parking area (still not a trumpet). Maine has an exit like that as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 09, 2016, 02:11:54 AM
I'm guessing you're referring to I-95 Exit 25 in Kennebunk, ME for ME Route 25. Indeed! Now back to the Empire State...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 09, 2016, 02:27:42 AM
15B at the crossing of the Thruway, where 17, 17A & CR 106 meet has always been my top choice for an exit like this. It would reduce traffic through Sloatsburg and Tuxedo on 17 to get to the Faire on 17A and direct access to Harriman State Park

If you don't mind making it slightly easier to shunpike around the Harriman toll it would be easy enough to build this as a free interchange, since it's outside of the ticket system. If you want to add a couple of ramp tolls to prevent that, there is no reason they couldn't do bill by plate for non-EZpass customers.

Still, any proposal to build an interchange at this location will face NIMBY opposition. The locals in the area like being relatively isolated despite relatively close to the city and would prefer to keep it that way.

My preference would be if ORT exists that everything south of 16 is taken in tolls. Would be nice to generate some toll revenue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 09, 2016, 07:31:35 PM
I'm thinking kalvado meant eastbound off/eastbound on to avoid the need for an overpass and make such an interchange a lot less expensive.
Besides, there is a rest area on the other side of Thruway  - until exit is through the area, there will be traffic interference.
Talking things absolutely crazy, I can suggest a pedestrian walkway to outlets from the rest area...

There is an overpassing road already adjacent to the area. But I'm not necessarily precluding new construction, either. The service area is, indeed, a complication.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 10, 2016, 10:43:26 AM
There are a bunch of places that should get exits. East of 49 is another big one.

I thought somebody said that wasn't in the long-range plans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 10, 2016, 10:49:13 AM
There are a bunch of places that should get exits. East of 49 is another big one.

I thought somebody said that wasn't in the long-range plans.

That was me. None of these are in the long-range plans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 10, 2016, 11:04:43 AM
Erie County:

Between exits 57a/b @ Lakeview Road (diamond preferred)
Between exits 57a and 56 (Southwestern Blvd or Big Tree)
On I-190 at Van Rensselaer St
I-290 at Maple, Parker???

Split diamond between Cayuga and Wehrle

Interchange at Gunnville Road

Interchange at Ransom Road
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 10, 2016, 11:05:18 AM
There are a bunch of places that should get exits. East of 49 is another big one.

I thought somebody said that wasn't in the long-range plans.

That was me. None of these are in the long-range plans.

I figured it was you
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 10, 2016, 10:49:50 PM
15B at the crossing of the Thruway, where 17, 17A & CR 106 meet has always been my top choice for an exit like this. It would reduce traffic through Sloatsburg and Tuxedo on 17 to get to the Faire on 17A and direct access to Harriman State Park

If you don't mind making it slightly easier to shunpike around the Harriman toll it would be easy enough to build this as a free interchange, since it's outside of the ticket system. If you want to add a couple of ramp tolls to prevent that, there is no reason they couldn't do bill by plate for non-EZpass customers.

Still, any proposal to build an interchange at this location will face NIMBY opposition. The locals in the area like being relatively isolated despite relatively close to the city and would prefer to keep it that way.

My preference would be if ORT exists that everything south of 16 is taken in tolls. Would be nice to generate some toll revenue.
You're not going to get it for passenger cars in Rockland County. You might have a chance on the east side of the river.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 10, 2016, 10:53:00 PM
15B at the crossing of the Thruway, where 17, 17A & CR 106 meet has always been my top choice for an exit like this. It would reduce traffic through Sloatsburg and Tuxedo on 17 to get to the Faire on 17A and direct access to Harriman State Park

If you don't mind making it slightly easier to shunpike around the Harriman toll it would be easy enough to build this as a free interchange, since it's outside of the ticket system. If you want to add a couple of ramp tolls to prevent that, there is no reason they couldn't do bill by plate for non-EZpass customers.

Still, any proposal to build an interchange at this location will face NIMBY opposition. The locals in the area like being relatively isolated despite relatively close to the city and would prefer to keep it that way.

My preference would be if ORT exists that everything south of 16 is taken in tolls. Would be nice to generate some toll revenue.
You're not going to get it for passenger cars in Rockland County. You might have a chance on the east side of the river.

Please, on the east side, locals use the parkways as it is. Opposition would be minimal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NYhwyfan on October 11, 2016, 06:52:33 PM
Erie County:

Between exits 57a/b @ Lakeview Road (diamond preferred)
Between exits 57a and 56 (Southwestern Blvd or Big Tree)
On I-190 at Van Rensselaer St
I-290 at Maple, Parker???

Split diamond between Cayuga and Wehrle

Interchange at Gunnville Road

Interchange at Ransom Road

Youngs Road between exits 50/49
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 11, 2016, 07:49:23 PM
15B at the crossing of the Thruway, where 17, 17A & CR 106 meet has always been my top choice for an exit like this. It would reduce traffic through Sloatsburg and Tuxedo on 17 to get to the Faire on 17A and direct access to Harriman State Park

If you don't mind making it slightly easier to shunpike around the Harriman toll it would be easy enough to build this as a free interchange, since it's outside of the ticket system. If you want to add a couple of ramp tolls to prevent that, there is no reason they couldn't do bill by plate for non-EZpass customers.

Still, any proposal to build an interchange at this location will face NIMBY opposition. The locals in the area like being relatively isolated despite relatively close to the city and would prefer to keep it that way.

My preference would be if ORT exists that everything south of 16 is taken in tolls. Would be nice to generate some toll revenue.
You're not going to get it for passenger cars in Rockland County. You might have a chance on the east side of the river.

Please, on the east side, locals use the parkways as it is. Opposition would be minimal.
This location was actually proposed as part of bid for a casino in the area.  It faced stiff NIMBY opposition who like how the area is a little inaccessible from the Thruway, keeping a more rural character than is common in much of the rest of the area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 12, 2016, 08:22:04 PM
This location was actually proposed as part of bid for a casino in the area.  It faced stiff NIMBY opposition who like how the area is a little inaccessible from the Thruway, keeping a more rural character than is common in much of the rest of the area.

Can't say I don't see their point. I like the same thing about the area I live in.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 12, 2016, 08:25:13 PM
I could also see a bunch of environmental issues with having a casino there. Entire area is quite rugged.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 12, 2016, 08:29:46 PM
My issue is that unless you want to drive up 17, it's nearly impossible to get into Harriman without 15A. Harriman State Park is a large park, some kind of access.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 12, 2016, 08:35:07 PM
My issue is that unless you want to drive up 17, it's nearly impossible to get into Harriman without 15A. Harriman State Park is a large park, some kind of access.

There is. Come in from the Palisades Parkway or head up Seven Lakes Drive. Not like the terrain is great for building an exit in that area. Only place to put it is CR 106 and the Thruway ROW is surrounded by protected land on the east and the Ramapo River on the west side, which is a source of drinking water for Rockland and North Jersey.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 12, 2016, 08:38:26 PM
My issue is that unless you want to drive up 17, it's nearly impossible to get into Harriman without 15A. Harriman State Park is a large park, some kind of access.

There is. Come in from the Palisades Parkway or head up Seven Lakes Drive. Not like the terrain is great for building an exit in that area. Only place to put it is CR 106 and the Thruway ROW is surrounded by protected land on the east and the Ramapo River on the west side, which is a source of drinking water for Rockland and North Jersey.

That's great, but what about drivers coming in from the north. 15A works going northbound, but there are drivers to the south. We're going to make them get off at 16 and then drive for a long distance down to Arden Valley Road then deep into the park onto 7LD? An exit at 17A/106 would be nicer for traffic on 17A and into Harriman from the north.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 12, 2016, 08:41:54 PM
My issue is that unless you want to drive up 17, it's nearly impossible to get into Harriman without 15A. Harriman State Park is a large park, some kind of access.

There is. Come in from the Palisades Parkway or head up Seven Lakes Drive. Not like the terrain is great for building an exit in that area. Only place to put it is CR 106 and the Thruway ROW is surrounded by protected land on the east and the Ramapo River on the west side, which is a source of drinking water for Rockland and North Jersey.

That's great, but what about drivers coming in from the north. 15A works going northbound, but there are drivers to the south. We're going to make them get off at 16 and then drive for a long distance down to Arden Valley Road then deep into the park onto 7LD? An exit at 17A/106 would be nicer for traffic on 17A and into Harriman from the north.

People from the north would likely get off at Exit 17 and head down 9W. That's how NYSTA directs people to the adjacent Bear Mountain State Park.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 12, 2016, 08:46:13 PM
That also sounds horribly inconvenient. Another minor benefit of an interchange at 17A/106, as much as they don't want it, Southfields could use some revitalization and maybe be enough to get the Red Apple Rest (a rebuilt one) a second chance
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 13, 2016, 05:49:28 PM
I clinched NY 75 today. Lots of leaves changing colors along the way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 14, 2016, 11:13:33 AM
Just passed through a work zone with VMS reading
SPEEDING NOT TOLERATED / RADAR IS RUNNING / SPEEDING TICKETS IN MAIL  (last one wasn't there yesterday, BTW)
While I understand folks frustrated by working in a closed lane on arterial during commute, my radar detector didn't pick up anything..
But the real question: can speeding tickets be issued by mail in NYS? Or this is just a low-level initiative to actually slow people down?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 14, 2016, 11:55:01 AM
Just passed through a work zone with VMS reading
SPEEDING NOT TOLERATED / RADAR IS RUNNING / SPEEDING TICKETS IN MAIL  (last one wasn't there yesterday, BTW)
While I understand folks frustrated by working in a closed lane on arterial during commute, my radar detector didn't pick up anything..
But the real question: can speeding tickets be issued by mail in NYS? Or this is just a low-level initiative to actually slow people down?

They can't do crap. In New York, the officer running radar has to personally issue the ticket.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 14, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
Pretty sure speed cameras are only legal in NY in school zones in NYC.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 14, 2016, 01:32:29 PM
Pretty sure speed cameras are only legal in NY in school zones in NYC.

And in E-ZPass lanes to issue warnings.

Compare that to DC, where they are along 295. Watch everyone slam on the brakes as they approach them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 14, 2016, 07:47:02 PM
Interesting. Many years ago an accusation was made by a columnist in Car & Driver Magazine that the Thruway Authority was using E-Z Pass records as a speed enforcement tool and issuing tickets by mail. The TA vigorously denied that they were doing this or that it would even be legal because as the poster above stated, an officer has to witness the violation. The columnist ended up apologizing to the NYSTA in a later column.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 14, 2016, 10:14:01 PM
Yeah, there are significant restrictions on speed enforcement in this state. Even the setups where a cop stands on the bridge with the radar gun and a bunch of cars are waiting a mile down the road will be thrown out if you take them to court here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 14, 2016, 10:18:01 PM
On a different topic, clinched NY 7, NY 7A and NY 10 today and noticed a few things:

- I-88 reconstruction Exits 3-6 is progressing nicely. Final paving on the NB side is ongoing and it will hopefully be open to traffic soon.
- NYSDOT put a staffed gift shop/snack bar in the I-81 welcome center at Mile 2. I wonder how long it will be until the Feds remind them that new facilities of the sort are illegal on the Interstate system.
- A boatload of erroneous US 10 signs exist south of NY 28. All NY 8 shields are correct, even if a US 10 sign is on the same posts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 14, 2016, 11:59:51 PM
Question: I know why NY-33 terminates the way it does in downtown Buffalo. But why does the expressway end the way it does in Cheektowaga? Were there plans for expansion? It makes an awkward curve.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 15, 2016, 12:04:38 AM
Question: I know why NY-33 terminates the way it does in downtown Buffalo. But why does the expressway end the way it does in Cheektowaga? Were there plans for expansion? It makes an awkward curve.

Where does it end, though? Not NY 5, but NY 384. Yeah. Franklin/Tupper are state-maintained with RMs for NY 33. Discovered that when working at the MPO.

Yes, there was an expansion plan. Would have followed the railroad ROW to the Thruway. From what I know, that died when they decided to build the football stadium in Orchard Park instead of Lancaster.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 15, 2016, 08:21:42 AM
- NYSDOT put a staffed gift shop/snack bar in the I-81 welcome center at Mile 2. I wonder how long it will be until the Feds remind them that new facilities of the sort are illegal on the Interstate system.
given the way  this tourism promotion is handled, I wonder if NYSDOT was actually informed about new development...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on October 15, 2016, 09:38:07 AM
When it first opened (or at least the first few times I was there) it was self-service check-out, and I wondered if that was a loop-hole. More recently, the checkouts have been staffed.

I seem to recall the PA Welcome Center, when new, also had a staffed PA gift-store, but that has long since been removed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 15, 2016, 10:37:34 AM
I thought it was self-service as well. Definitely a person there running the thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 15, 2016, 10:56:09 AM
 I really don't understand what the objective here is with all of this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 15, 2016, 09:45:36 PM
Why would a snack bar at a Welcome Center be illegal on the Interstate System?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 15, 2016, 09:48:01 PM
Why would a snack bar at a Welcome Center be illegal on the Interstate System?

From the FHWA website (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.cfm#question31)...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 15, 2016, 10:04:56 PM
Thanks cl94. Okay, I read the section. And I think it's ridiculous. I for one (in the course of my travels throughout the Northeast) hate having to leave the Interstate and hunt for a fast-food restaurant or convenience store and then work my way back onto the Interstate. It's so much better with service areas on the highway itself. I'm glad I can at least buy a candy bar or a soda from a rest-area machine that's not illegal. Sheesh!

Could be my Dad was right about the old style highways being better in some ways, like being able to access gas stations, diners, restaurants, etc. right on the road itself. He didn't like the sterile, hypnotic new Interstate highways.   

And BTW how is Connecticut allowed to continue having service areas on I-95 when that road no longer has tolls? I guess they're grandfathered?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 15, 2016, 10:12:07 PM
Thanks cl94. Okay, I read the section. And I think it's ridiculous. I for one (in the course of my travels throughout the Northeast) hate having to leave the Interstate and hunt for a fast-food restaurant or convenience store and then work my way back onto the Interstate. It's so much better with service areas on the highway itself. I'm glad I can at least buy a candy bar or a soda from a rest-area machine that's not illegal. Sheesh! 

And BTW how is Connecticut allowed to continue having service areas on I-95 when that road no longer has tolls? I guess they're grandfathered?

I don't disagree with you. While it may cost more, there is a real convenience in being able to get something at a service area and have restrooms that are decent at the same location. Every other country allows this stuff. Ironically, the reason for the law was to protect small businesses, but it only allowed truck stops to proliferate and put those same small stores out of business.

The service areas in Connecticut and Massachusetts are grandfathered because facilities existed in their position before the road became part of the Interstate system. Ditto for the service areas on the Deegan just south of the Westchester border. Connecticut was a toll facility until the 80s, so that has an additional grandfather factor. Toll facilities that still operate as such can still add service areas and stores, hence why the new gift shops on the Thruway are allowed. NH's infamous liquor store rest areas are all on toll roads and NHDOT has specifically stated that they can't build liquor store rest areas on roads that aren't tolled on multiple occasions because the grandfathering does not apply.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beeper1 on October 15, 2016, 10:14:31 PM
Yes, anything that had services on it before 1960 was grandfathered in.  That's also how the service areas on I-95 in MA were allowed to stay, even though that was never a toll road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 15, 2016, 10:19:12 PM
I've read that the new one on Long Island only gives out free samples and doesn't sell anything as a means to get around the prohibition.

Regarding NY 33, its terminus has moved around several times in downtown Buffalo.  Wikipedia mentions that in the 70s, NY 5 was realigned onto a split one-way pair, resulting in the truncation of NY 33; perhaps the old alignment was NY 384?  All NYSDOT documentation has NY 33 ending at NY 5, but we don't always remove reference markers if a route is relinquished.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 15, 2016, 10:25:32 PM
Well Beeper1, looks like Connecticut just got in under the wire! Wasn't the Turnpike built circa 1958? And I remember it had Interstate-95 markers on it in 1960, the first time I ever rode on it as a kid.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 15, 2016, 10:32:56 PM
All NYSDOT documentation has NY 33 ending at NY 5, but we don't always remove reference markers if a route is relinquished.

It's definitely state-maintained to NY 384. Highway inventory lists Tupper and Edward as NYSDOT-maintained, but without a designation. 3 blocks west of Main St.

A really easy way to tell if you don't have access to that stuff is the lane markings. Buffalo DPW uses extra-long dashed lines.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on October 16, 2016, 07:01:16 AM
I really don't understand what the objective here is with all of this.

It will be obvious two years from now, when Cuomo will be running non-stop re-election ads claiming that his "promotion of tourism" is creating a new golden era of prosperity for the state :rolleyes:.

So the objective of all this government spending is not any government purpose, but the re-election of King Andy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 16, 2016, 05:46:47 PM
I really don't understand what the objective here is with all of this.

It will be obvious two years from now, when Cuomo will be running non-stop re-election ads claiming that his "promotion of tourism" is creating a new golden era of prosperity for the state :rolleyes:.

So the objective of all this government spending is not any government purpose, but the re-election of King Andy.

King Andy has nothing on the Kings Daley.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 16, 2016, 05:56:31 PM
Makes sense.  He did recently change every agency's branding to be his campaign slogan.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 16, 2016, 06:55:59 PM
I fully expect him to get a cabinet position in a Clinton administration. Next attorney general?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 16, 2016, 07:38:39 PM
I fully expect him to get a cabinet position in a Clinton administration. Next attorney general?
If Bharara doesn't file charges first..
It is getting a bit political.. But Cuomo seem to walk thin ice..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 16, 2016, 09:16:53 PM
I fully expect him to get a cabinet position in a Clinton administration. Next attorney general?

HUD secretary again
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 17, 2016, 10:29:42 AM
- NYSDOT put a staffed gift shop/snack bar in the I-81 welcome center at Mile 2. I wonder how long it will be until the Feds remind them that new facilities of the sort are illegal on the Interstate system.
given the way  this tourism promotion is handled, I wonder if NYSDOT was actually informed about new development...

<.<

>.>

My belief is that NYSDOT is usually informed about a quarter before they're supposed to be constructed, at least in Upstate areas. :/

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 17, 2016, 05:37:53 PM
I guess they're trying to be funny here.

(http://i.imgur.com/b8Xei8ml.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 18, 2016, 12:28:48 PM
Another batch of Cuomo signs went up within the past 2 weeks. Northway NB north of Exit 12.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 18, 2016, 01:06:43 PM
Next thing you know they'll be going up in the middle of the Adirondacks.   :rolleyes:

Anyways, there are sets both direction on the Thruway just south of exit 16.  The NB ones are intermixed with signs for exit 16 and the Woodbury toll.  Talk about sign overload.  Those signs would be better about three miles north of the service areas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 18, 2016, 01:41:50 PM
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)
So now I'll have to spend more money to use them without an E-Z Pass, and a lot of people will be thrown out of work. Great job, Governor Cuomo.  Maybe in your next move, you can close down the Long Island Expressway and force everyone to crowd up some of the local roads.

 :pan:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on October 18, 2016, 02:22:32 PM
Maybe in your next move, you can close down the Long Island Expressway and force everyone to crowd up some of the local roads.

 :pan:
Please, don't give him any ideas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on October 18, 2016, 02:47:41 PM
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319  :-(
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on October 18, 2016, 03:30:48 PM
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319  :-(

That's too bad.  There's nothing wrong with the existing signs.  I don't see the point.  Now, if we were getting our very own set of "New York Experience" blue signs in Amsterdam, that would be exciting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 18, 2016, 05:35:59 PM
Region 5 is adding turn lanes and replacing signals on Walden Avenue and they're putting in the region's first PPLT FYAs on Galleria Drive (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=13565&p_is_digital=Y)). Of course, in typical R5 fashion, there's something wrong here: side street doesn't get 2 signal heads with balls.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 18, 2016, 10:44:06 PM
On a different topic, I found some more old Washington County CR "shields" today. CRs 61/64 in Shushan. Don't have a pic because they caught me by surprise, but we do have GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0902011,-73.3422848,3a,49y,135.49h,83.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOMMw_Lc1k-4Z5uQhEMfrow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). There's another one at the bridge over the Batten Kill (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0911495,-73.3450977,3a,62.3y,115.55h,79.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Q1FI9FGFiFrdKmT7bTdfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Oh, and if you want a real treat, this is nearby (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.09369,-73.3433545,3a,46.5y,259.3h,86.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cbZiP6R9zKqKqNS_S2RCg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 18, 2016, 11:32:53 PM
Region 5 is adding turn lanes and replacing signals on Walden Avenue and they're putting in the region's first PPLT FYAs on Galleria Drive (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=13565&p_is_digital=Y)). Of course, in typical R5 fashion, there's something wrong here: side street doesn't get 2 signal heads with balls.

When I worked in Cheektowaga during the summer I would enter the WB Thruway from Walden eastbound, and at Anderson Road I would just merge into the new lane that forms without necessarily signaling. Nothing crazy, but that's all I know about that intersection.

An observation from the new plan: I wonder why the new directional sign don't specify "Albany" or "Erie" as destinations. More cluelessness from NYSDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 19, 2016, 01:06:19 AM
On a different topic, I found some more old Washington County CR "shields" today. CRs 61/64 in Shushan. Don't have a pic because they caught me by surprise, but we do have GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0902011,-73.3422848,3a,49y,135.49h,83.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOMMw_Lc1k-4Z5uQhEMfrow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). There's another one at the bridge over the Batten Kill (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0911495,-73.3450977,3a,62.3y,115.55h,79.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Q1FI9FGFiFrdKmT7bTdfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Oh, and if you want a real treat, this is nearby (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.09369,-73.3433545,3a,46.5y,259.3h,86.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cbZiP6R9zKqKqNS_S2RCg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

A really old precedent to the crossbucks. Really old. Given the size of Shushan, I can understand how its survived.

Regardless, we're halfway through fall and still no sign of the Taconic Stage 2 signage, due Fall 2016.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 19, 2016, 10:29:33 AM
We still have 2 months for the Taconic signage.

Washington County has a bunch of gems. The button copy "stop on red signal" remains in Shushan as well. Washington County and adjacent Vermont is so rural that stuff can go a long time without being seen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on October 19, 2016, 10:32:26 AM
a lot of people will be thrown out of work. Great job, Governor Cuomo.

The press release said no one will be thrown out of work.  They will be reassigned to other jobs in the MTA.

The license plate recognition software is not, at this point, perfect (last figures I saw say it's about 95% accurate), and those license plate photos the software cannot interpret are sent to a person.  I'm guessing at least some of the toll collectors will be re-trained to fill those jobs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on October 19, 2016, 11:03:35 AM
On I-390, the Tourism Is Nifty! signs are a couple of miles before exit 6 northbound and exit 7 southbound.

Fortunately, a couple of the northbound signs are half-hidden behind the trees.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on October 19, 2016, 04:18:55 PM
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319  :-(
Why does NYSDOT keep mentioning the TO routes before the route one is on or possibly turn on?

Examples:     TO    TO    TO    EAST
                    90   NYT    5S      30     

                    TO    TO    EAST  EAST
                    90   NYT     790      5

Is it because the Thruway is that important a destination point?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 19, 2016, 05:56:41 PM
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319  :-(
Why does NYSDOT keep mentioning the TO routes before the route one is on or possibly turn on?

Examples:     TO    TO    TO    EAST
                    90   NYT    5S      30     

                    TO    TO    EAST  EAST
                    90   NYT     790      5

Is it because the Thruway is that important a destination point?


It's only Region 2 that does that. The other NYSDOT Regions follow the convention as laid out by the rest of the country by R2 just doesn't get freeway signing in general. If you look close you'll notice cardinal directions are in Series D instead of Series E(m) or Series E on the plans.

I've been complaining to R2 about how to order route markers on a sign for 20 years. They didn't start doing this until 1995 or so, so there's someone that got hired around then that just doesn't get it. Hopefully the practice won't perpetuate on.

You'll notice overhead panels on the North-South Arterial are EAST 790 - To 90 - To Thruway - EAST 5 - NORTH 8 - NORTH 12.  It took a LOT of kicking and screaming to get them to put the 790 shield first.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 19, 2016, 07:39:14 PM
If that person's been there for 20 years, then maybe better signs will start appearing sometime in the next 10.  Unless that person is the type to never retire... or trains his/her replacement to do the same thing.

Looking at how Region 2 uses the TO banner, it does seem like they don't know what a freeway is.  It's like they don't understand the concept of exit ramps.  Figures... they have fewer freeway miles than any other NYSDOT region, and ALL their freeways have something substandard about them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 19, 2016, 07:44:36 PM
Region 2 is like the bastard stepchild region. Honestly, it should probably just be split up between 1, 3 and 7. Save money and it might help their abysmal signage and striping practices. Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees something a bit wrong with stuff like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1166664,-75.2139082,220m/data=!3m1!1e3).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 19, 2016, 07:54:28 PM
On a different topic, I found some more old Washington County CR "shields" today. CRs 61/64 in Shushan. Don't have a pic because they caught me by surprise, but we do have GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0902011,-73.3422848,3a,49y,135.49h,83.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOMMw_Lc1k-4Z5uQhEMfrow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). There's another one at the bridge over the Batten Kill (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0911495,-73.3450977,3a,62.3y,115.55h,79.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Q1FI9FGFiFrdKmT7bTdfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Oh, and if you want a real treat, this is nearby (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.09369,-73.3433545,3a,46.5y,259.3h,86.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cbZiP6R9zKqKqNS_S2RCg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

A really old precedent to the crossbucks. Really old. Given the size of Shushan, I can understand how its survived.

Regardless, we're halfway through fall and still no sign of the Taconic Stage 2 signage, due Fall 2016.
Wait, what? What did that sign ever say? I've never seen a railroad diamond before.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 19, 2016, 07:59:14 PM
On a different topic, I found some more old Washington County CR "shields" today. CRs 61/64 in Shushan. Don't have a pic because they caught me by surprise, but we do have GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0902011,-73.3422848,3a,49y,135.49h,83.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOMMw_Lc1k-4Z5uQhEMfrow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). There's another one at the bridge over the Batten Kill (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0911495,-73.3450977,3a,62.3y,115.55h,79.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Q1FI9FGFiFrdKmT7bTdfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Oh, and if you want a real treat, this is nearby (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.09369,-73.3433545,3a,46.5y,259.3h,86.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cbZiP6R9zKqKqNS_S2RCg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

A really old precedent to the crossbucks. Really old. Given the size of Shushan, I can understand how its survived.

Regardless, we're halfway through fall and still no sign of the Taconic Stage 2 signage, due Fall 2016.
Wait, what? What did that sign ever say? I've never seen a railroad diamond before.

Scroll down a little bit (http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=120776). Looking at the back of the Shushan sign on GSV, it appears that it might be similar wording. I'd have to get a closer look to confirm. Assuming it's still there, this could go onto a meet route for the potential Lake George meet. Shushan area is old sign heaven.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 19, 2016, 08:19:21 PM
If that person's been there for 20 years, then maybe better signs will start appearing sometime in the next 10.  Unless that person is the type to never retire... or trains his/her replacement to do the same thing.

Looking at how Region 2 uses the TO banner, it does seem like they don't know what a freeway is.  It's like they don't understand the concept of exit ramps.  Figures... they have fewer freeway miles than any other NYSDOT region, and ALL their freeways have something substandard about them.

The signs prior to 1995 were relatively normal. For example, the ordering of markers made sense on the last run of button copy signs for the MUD project, it's only the reflective replacements where the "To" comes first.  Whoever has designed signs since then has purposely flipped everything around, even those replaced in kind.

I agree that they don't get the idea of a ramp. They also like to put Exit gore signs on ramps leading from a two lane road to a freeway and then post a very low advisory speed limit for the on ramp.  Completely backwards. I once suggested that R3 handle R2's small amount of freeway signs. I didn't get any response to that one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 19, 2016, 11:53:30 PM
Region 2 is like the bastard stepchild region. Honestly, it should probably just be split up between 1, 3 and 7. Save money and it might help their abysmal signage and striping practices. Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees something a bit wrong with stuff like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1166664,-75.2139082,220m/data=!3m1!1e3).

HAH! I knew you were going to link to that.

I never understood why the road system in R2 is such a cluster.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 20, 2016, 03:43:05 PM
Maybe in your next move, you can close down the Long Island Expressway and force everyone to crowd up some of the local roads.

 :pan:
Please, don't give him any ideas.
Holy shit, you're right! What a time to regret my sarcasm!  :wow:

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 20, 2016, 03:51:42 PM
The last thing King Andy needs is ideas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 20, 2016, 06:39:26 PM
Maybe in your next move, you can close down the Long Island Expressway and force everyone to crowd up some of the local roads.

 :pan:
Please, don't give him any ideas.
Holy shit, you're right! What a time to regret my sarcasm!  :wow:


Wonder if his subordinates read this board for more project ideas to complete before reelection. If so:


I-88 extension to "Alt 7" north of Albany
I-92 from 87/Glens Falls to US 4/VT border
ALL of I-86
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 20, 2016, 06:44:57 PM
Maybe in your next move, you can close down the Long Island Expressway and force everyone to crowd up some of the local roads.

 :pan:
Please, don't give him any ideas.
Holy shit, you're right! What a time to regret my sarcasm!  :wow:


Wonder if his subordinates read this board for more project ideas to complete before reelection. If so:


I-88 extension to "Alt 7" north of Albany
I-92 from 87/Glens Falls to US 4/VT border
ALL of I-86

You expect him to spend money on a useful transportation project? When pigs fly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 20, 2016, 11:42:20 PM
Maybe in your next move, you can close down the Long Island Expressway and force everyone to crowd up some of the local roads.

 :pan:
Please, don't give him any ideas.
Holy shit, you're right! What a time to regret my sarcasm!  :wow:


Wonder if his subordinates read this board for more project ideas to complete before reelection. If so:


I-88 extension to "Alt 7" north of Albany
I-92 from 87/Glens Falls to US 4/VT border
ALL of I-86

You expect him to spend money on a useful transportation project? When pigs fly.
Show me anything that says the Tappan Zee replacement isn't useful.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 21, 2016, 12:01:52 AM
Show me anything that says the Tappan Zee replacement isn't useful.
Okay, I think we can each cut him some slack for that.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 21, 2016, 12:13:25 AM
Show me anything that says the Tappan Zee replacement isn't useful.
Okay, I think we can each cut him some slack for that.

That's the only one and it was in the pipeline before he was elected
Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on October 21, 2016, 10:44:18 AM
Anyone know why a login is required for many of the NYSDOT project pages?  In particular, all the Route 17 to I-86 pages seem to require login.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 21, 2016, 10:57:24 AM
Show me anything that says the Tappan Zee replacement isn't useful.
Okay, I think we can each cut him some slack for that.

That's the only one and it was in the pipeline before he was elected

My impression was Tappan Zee was a must-build project, to get a replacement before bridge would be closed for structural problems or collapse..
On a similar note -  I still wonder what happened to Lake Champlain bridge that caused so drastic actions...   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 21, 2016, 11:08:06 AM
Show me anything that says the Tappan Zee replacement isn't useful.
Okay, I think we can each cut him some slack for that.

That's the only one and it was in the pipeline before he was elected

My impression was Tappan Zee was a must-build project, to get a replacement before bridge would be closed for structural problems or collapse..
On a similar note -  I still wonder what happened to Lake Champlain bridge that caused so drastic actions...   

Failed inspection. The piers were not structurally sound.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 21, 2016, 11:53:33 AM
Show me anything that says the Tappan Zee replacement isn't useful.
Okay, I think we can each cut him some slack for that.

That's the only one and it was in the pipeline before he was elected

My impression was Tappan Zee was a must-build project, to get a replacement before bridge would be closed for structural problems or collapse..
On a similar note -  I still wonder what happened to Lake Champlain bridge that caused so drastic actions...   

Failed inspection. The piers were not structurally sound.
Very generic statement. And no more details, no pictures, somewhat passing inspection few months before and rehabilitation project underway.
My impression they found something really scary; so scary they didn't even wanted to show...

and my bigger point - imagine something similar to happen to Tappan Zee.... 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on October 21, 2016, 01:08:59 PM
On a similar note -  I still wonder what happened to Lake Champlain bridge that caused so drastic actions...   

Failed inspection. The piers were not structurally sound.
Very generic statement. And no more details, no pictures, somewhat passing inspection few months before and rehabilitation project underway.
My impression they found something really scary; so scary they didn't even wanted to show...

and my bigger point - imagine something similar to happen to Tappan Zee.... 

The bridge assessment report for the old Lake Champlain Bridge is still online (https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region1/projects/lake-champlain-bridge/repository/FINAL_HNTB_SAFETY_ASSESSMENT_BRIDGE_REPORT_DECEMBER.pdf).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on October 22, 2016, 01:17:15 AM
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319  :-(
Why does NYSDOT keep mentioning the TO routes before the route one is on or possibly turn on?

Examples:     TO    TO    TO    EAST
                    90   NYT    5S      30     

                    TO    TO    EAST  EAST
                    90   NYT     790      5

Is it because the Thruway is that important a destination point?


It's only Region 2 that does that. The other NYSDOT Regions follow the convention as laid out by the rest of the country by R2 just doesn't get freeway signing in general. If you look close you'll notice cardinal directions are in Series D instead of Series E(m) or Series E on the plans.

I've been complaining to R2 about how to order route markers on a sign for 20 years. They didn't start doing this until 1995 or so, so there's someone that got hired around then that just doesn't get it. Hopefully the practice won't perpetuate on.

You'll notice overhead panels on the North-South Arterial are EAST 790 - To 90 - To Thruway - EAST 5 - NORTH 8 - NORTH 12.  It took a LOT of kicking and screaming to get them to put the 790 shield first.
Were you the one who at least did the screaming to correct them? 

You have said many times that R2 isn't very good at freeway signage, unlike R3, in which you said has been good.  Maybe R3 should take this over.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on October 22, 2016, 01:19:02 AM
Hey, we are on page 99--the number many roadgeeks hate!  :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 22, 2016, 01:42:12 PM
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319  :-(
Why does NYSDOT keep mentioning the TO routes before the route one is on or possibly turn on?

Examples:     TO    TO    TO    EAST
                    90   NYT    5S      30     

                    TO    TO    EAST  EAST
                    90   NYT     790      5

Is it because the Thruway is that important a destination point?


It's only Region 2 that does that. The other NYSDOT Regions follow the convention as laid out by the rest of the country by R2 just doesn't get freeway signing in general. If you look close you'll notice cardinal directions are in Series D instead of Series E(m) or Series E on the plans.

I've been complaining to R2 about how to order route markers on a sign for 20 years. They didn't start doing this until 1995 or so, so there's someone that got hired around then that just doesn't get it. Hopefully the practice won't perpetuate on.

You'll notice overhead panels on the North-South Arterial are EAST 790 - To 90 - To Thruway - EAST 5 - NORTH 8 - NORTH 12.  It took a LOT of kicking and screaming to get them to put the 790 shield first.
Were you the one who at least did the screaming to correct them? 

You have said many times that R2 isn't very good at freeway signage, unlike R3, in which you said has been good.  Maybe R3 should take this over.


Yes, I've been very vocal with R2 since moving here in 1991. When I interviewed with NYSDOT in the mid '00s they were very aware of who I was. :)

To be fair, R2 is receptive to input from the public. I've seen several of my suggestions come to fruition with the freeway signing in R2, but they are stubborn on the "To" thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on October 22, 2016, 11:27:40 PM
I know quite a few of your suggestions have come to fruition in R2 by following your upstatenyroads website.  As a native Central New Yorker (Camillus), I have found your website to be very informative and somewhat nostalgic.

Nice to have interviewers know who you are before the interview actually commences.  :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on October 22, 2016, 11:31:49 PM
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319  :-(

That's too bad.  There's nothing wrong with the existing signs.  I don't see the point.  Now, if we were getting our very own set of "New York Experience" blue signs in Amsterdam, that would be exciting.

I'll correct myself here.  Coming home tonight in the rain, the old signs (for example, the ones on New York 30 North shown below) were nearly impossible to see compared to new signs.  "Downtown" was crystal clear.  The other two panels were barely readable.  As much as I hate to see them go, I have to admit it's time.

(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20130327/downtown.jpg)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 23, 2016, 10:34:27 AM
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319  :-(

That's too bad.  There's nothing wrong with the existing signs.  I don't see the point.  Now, if we were getting our very own set of "New York Experience" blue signs in Amsterdam, that would be exciting.

I'll correct myself here.  Coming home tonight in the rain, the old signs (for example, the ones on New York 30 North shown below) were nearly impossible to see compared to new signs.  "Downtown" was crystal clear.  The other two panels were barely readable.  As much as I hate to see them go, I have to admit it's time.

(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20130327/downtown.jpg)



There is some legacy button copy in the Utica area (late 60s and early 70s) that is holding up much better than the button copy that's still up from the late 1980s. I think part of that is because of the reflective backgrounds used in the later button copy days vs the earlier installations.  That being said, I agree that when compared with today's reflective technology, there's no comparison.  Even though the button copy signs seem to be designed and manufactured to a higher standard than today's work, they've definitely lost their reflective punch. I really doubt that we'll see signs installed today lasting 40 or more years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 29, 2016, 09:29:28 PM
Grabbed a picture of the post-2015 LaSalle Expressway signage today:

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5638/30532409812_8630a21150_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Nw3zGQ)

They now use a format identical to the Hudson River bridge shields and yes, all of the shields still say "Robert Moses State Parkway" even though a couple of the BGSes have been changed to the new name.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 29, 2016, 10:11:29 PM
The only BGSs that have seen any change are the ones on I-190.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 29, 2016, 10:27:30 PM
The only BGSs that have seen any change are the ones on I-190.

The ones on the LaSalle have been changed. I-190's are currently covered due to a paving-related closure.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 29, 2016, 11:36:33 PM
It would be nice if NYSDOT would wrap this up and finish the signs won by the rigged competition.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on November 02, 2016, 11:21:19 AM
Lots of stuff on the construction opportunities list today. It's a sad day for classic concrete as two of them involve resurfacing.

D263239 Lake Ontario State Parkway for this one: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263239
and
D263288 I-684 for this one: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263288

I am really going to miss the bad-um....bad-um.....bad-um.....bad-um.....bad-um of the concrete.  :-(
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on November 02, 2016, 11:31:06 AM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263288 - check out the plans - book 2 - page 108 (overall page 235) and you'll see a 3-di 684 in a 2-di shield among other interesting things
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 02, 2016, 12:36:15 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263288 - check out the plans - book 2 - page 108 (overall page 235) and you'll see a 3-di 684 in a 2-di shield among other interesting things

Please someone confirm that they are not still putting road names in boxed all caps legend in Region 8. That practice should have been long gone nearly 10 years ago. Time to write an email to NYSDOT again.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 02, 2016, 01:05:39 PM
Sadly, boxed street names are indeed in these plans.  So is their own tenth mile marker design (the did change the color scheme to match the MUTCD but still do them in Region 8 size).  And older style exit gore signs.  Basically, it looks like Region 8 prefers to pretend that NYSDOT never adopted the MUTCD.

Lots of stuff on the construction opportunities list today. It's a sad day for classic concrete as two of them involve resurfacing.

D263239 Lake Ontario State Parkway for this one: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263239
and
D263288 I-684 for this one: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263288

I am really going to miss the bad-um....bad-um.....bad-um.....bad-um.....bad-um of the concrete.  :-(
That section of the Lake Ontario State Parkway already has an asphalt surface.  The concrete is only west of Hamlin Beach State Park, mostly in Orleans County (and some of it may have already been resurfaced).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 02, 2016, 02:38:42 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=13701&p_is_digital=Y

I'd love to know what's going on page 22 with the NY 22 shields. It looks like someone stretched it out in MS Paint.

Also, still no sign of Taconic plans...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 02, 2016, 02:52:17 PM
Also, still no sign of Taconic plans...

Don't know about plans, but actual signs have been installed in northern Westchester. They're appearing along with existing signs (sometimes in front, sometimes behind) and the exit numbers are covered over for some reason.



iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 02, 2016, 03:27:17 PM
We know of those. I'm referring to Phase II, which does everything north of future exit 20 (in Westchester)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 02, 2016, 03:32:49 PM
From what I have seen, everything north of US 6 is on hold.

Also in those plans are a few more FYAs. Region 5 is all of a sudden going all-out with a bunch being installed on NY 93 in Lockport (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=13760&p_is_digital=Y), while Region 3 is putting some on NY 5 in Elbridge (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=13738&p_is_digital=Y). I don't know of any existing FYAs in Region 3, so these may be the first.

The NY 31/36/531 project is in here as well (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=13872&p_is_digital=Y). NB/SB are getting permissive-only FYAs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 02, 2016, 03:44:52 PM
We know of those. I'm referring to Phase II, which does everything north of future exit 20 (in Westchester)

Hmm, perhaps they're waiting for the Pudding St. project before getting to that section?


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 05, 2016, 08:08:39 PM
And re: another subject we were discussing a few pages back: Guess where there is now a new apparently staffed snack bar at a NYSDOT Welcome Center on an Interstate highway?

Just opened recently on Interstate-495, AKA the Long Island Expwy. between Exits 51-52 in Suffolk County, Region-10. I'm amazed. Hasn't it already been established that this cannot be done on an Interstate highway? I don't agree with that policy but is it not still a Federal rule?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 06, 2016, 01:34:14 PM

Wonder if his subordinates read this board for more project ideas to complete before reelection. If so:


I-88 extension to "Alt 7" north of Albany
I-92 from 87/Glens Falls to US 4/VT border
ALL of I-86
Yeah, and finish the damn Bear Mountain State Parkway gap while you're at it too.

And speaking of parkways in Westchester; More interchanges and other intersection eliminations.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 06, 2016, 08:36:08 PM
Original concrete on I-684.  I'll miss the button copy...anybody know when they were installed?

(https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8513/29082411734_73ec3678b2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LiUXMY)Original concrete from the 1960s. I-684 SB near Purdys, NY. (https://flic.kr/p/LiUXMY) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on November 06, 2016, 08:40:43 PM
Original concrete on I-684.  I'll miss the button copy...anybody know when they were installed?
Depending on section; I-684 was built between 1968 and 1974 along with its original button-copy signs
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 06, 2016, 08:57:26 PM
That concrete was rough in places the last time I was over it. New York's original concrete (still a bunch on the parkways) is not wearing particularly well and probably should have been diamond ground a long time ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeCL on November 06, 2016, 10:48:13 PM
Kinda like 95-S I have to say it held up better then I thought it would but they finally paved over it now
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 07, 2016, 07:51:53 AM
Original concrete on I-684.  I'll miss the button copy...anybody know when they were installed?
Depending on section; I-684 was built between 1968 and 1974 along with its original button-copy signs

I don't think there's any original button copy along I-684 but second generation button copy. I could be wrong, but original button copy from the building of the highway would be darker green, centered exit tabs and all-text route number designations (except for Interstates).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on November 07, 2016, 08:20:28 AM
Original concrete on I-684.  I'll miss the button copy...anybody know when they were installed?
Depending on section; I-684 was built between 1968 and 1974 along with its original button-copy signs

I don't think there's any original button copy along I-684 but second generation button copy. I could be wrong, but original button copy from the building of the highway would be darker green, centered exit tabs and all-text route number designations (except for Interstates).
The only original button-copy BGS' near/along I-684 I'm aware of that are still around are the approach signage from I-287 eastbound.

Advance (1/2 mile) BGS along I-287 East (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0298646,-73.740836,3a,75y,111.95h,84.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sConISsc3q5tewgwrwQduMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Exit BGS itself off I-287 East (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.028221,-73.7366671,3a,75y,112.88h,79.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOBFnASoU0d6yGWseznKQzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Split-ramp signage after exiting I-287 East (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0262201,-73.7337135,3a,75y,135.43h,84.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sypOZ3yhofW-BmOdT0UeT0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 07, 2016, 01:50:46 PM
That concrete was rough in places the last time I was over it. New York's original concrete (still a bunch on the parkways) is not wearing particularly well and probably should have been diamond ground a long time ago.

The DOT didn't resurface it for 30 some off years...now when it gets repaved there will be touch ups after 7 and repaving after 10.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 07, 2016, 02:11:02 PM
Original concrete on I-684.  I'll miss the button copy...anybody know when they were installed?
Depending on section; I-684 was built between 1968 and 1974 along with its original button-copy signs

I don't think there's any original button copy along I-684 but second generation button copy. I could be wrong, but original button copy from the building of the highway would be darker green, centered exit tabs and all-text route number designations (except for Interstates).
The only original button-copy BGS' near/along I-684 I'm aware of that are still around are the approach signage from I-287 eastbound.

Advance (1/2 mile) BGS along I-287 East (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0298646,-73.740836,3a,75y,111.95h,84.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sConISsc3q5tewgwrwQduMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Exit BGS itself off I-287 East (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.028221,-73.7366671,3a,75y,112.88h,79.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOBFnASoU0d6yGWseznKQzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Split-ramp signage after exiting I-287 East (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0262201,-73.7337135,3a,75y,135.43h,84.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sypOZ3yhofW-BmOdT0UeT0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I believe I have them all on my Flickr page.
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/2/1474/26348535191_233c6ed7c6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/G9k8xv)Original non-reflective button copy. Harrison, NY. I-287 EB. Notice the &quot;Exit&quot; word next to &quot;1 MILE&quot; the old way of signing it. Does this sign date to when I-87 was renumbered as I-684. (https://flic.kr/p/G9k8xv) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr

However, the Exit 9 N-S sign "Hutch Pkwy and Merritt Pkwy 1/4 Mile" on the WB frontage Road has a "County of Westchester" decal at the bottom. Could be a reason why some have never been replaced.

(https://c6.staticflickr.com/2/1556/25535242613_79359bf7bb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EUsMZF)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on November 13, 2016, 11:42:07 PM
A HAWK pedestrian crossing popped up at NY 324 and Logan Ave. in Tonawanda (between Ted's and Anderson's). I don't remember seeing it two weeks ago. Lots of honking horns as drivers try to figure out what to do during the flashing red phase.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 13, 2016, 11:44:53 PM
A HAWK pedestrian crossing popped up at NY 324 and Logan Ave. in Tonawanda (between Ted's and Anderson's). I don't remember seeing it two weeks ago. Lots of honking horns as drivers try to figure out what to do during the flashing red phase.

It went in over the summer. That one is a bitch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 14, 2016, 01:55:19 PM
A HAWK pedestrian crossing popped up at NY 324 and Logan Ave. in Tonawanda (between Ted's and Anderson's). I don't remember seeing it two weeks ago. Lots of honking horns as drivers try to figure out what to do during the flashing red phase.

It went in over the summer. That one is a bitch.

It's been fun to watch people have no idea what they are doing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 14, 2016, 08:06:32 PM
I assume we're talking about what the MUTCD calls Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. (Chapter 4F) I've never seen one except in the Manual. Their stated purpose is: to facilitate pedestrian crossings at a location that does not meet traffic signal warrants. They seem like a dopey idea to me. If I was not familiar with them from the Manual, and I saw one of these things I would have no clue what to make of it and I'm sure many drivers will react that way.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 14, 2016, 09:01:30 PM
I assume we're talking about what the MUTCD calls Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. (Chapter 4F) I've never seen one except in the Manual. Their stated purpose is: to facilitate pedestrian crossings at a location that does not meet traffic signal warrants. They seem like a dopey idea to me. If I was not familiar with them from the Manual, and I saw one of these things I would have no clue what to make of it and I'm sure many drivers will react that way.


The easiest way would have been to have a green light that turns yellow, then red, then the red starts flashing before returning to steady green.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on November 15, 2016, 03:44:04 PM
The much-awaited Taconic State Parkway Stage 2 sign plans are out - D263236

Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263236
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 15, 2016, 04:06:43 PM
About time. Nice to see that they're extending the numbering up to NY 295. This will be the first significant length of mile-based numbering in the state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on November 15, 2016, 04:38:51 PM
Milepost exit numbers!!!  Nice! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2016, 05:15:28 PM
How many decades will we have to wait for the rest of the state to get mileage-based exits as well (excluding Interstate 99/US 15 and Interstate 781)?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 15, 2016, 05:37:44 PM
Why didn't they give a number to that exit just south of the Thruway?

How many decades will we have to wait for the rest of the state to get mileage-based exits as well (excluding Interstate 99/US 15 and Interstate 781)?
Theoretically, I-890/NY 890 has mile-based exit numbers, but that may not hold with the renumbering at exit 4 (if done right, Erie Blvd and GE should be 4A both directions, and NY 5 should be 4B).

As for everything else... I'm not expecting anything any time in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 15, 2016, 05:46:55 PM
Why didn't they give a number to that exit just south of the Thruway?

I'm assuming that has to do with Region 8 not considering the parkway to start until just south of that exit to allow trucks between there and the Thruway. Per state law, trucks are banned on all parkways excluding south of Sunrise Highway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 15, 2016, 05:59:36 PM
Then why were trucks allowed on the Lake Ontario State Parkway in Orleans County until a few years ago (I presume due to the pavement deterioration)?  Or, at least, they appeared to be... signage directed commercial vehicles to exit at NY 272, and no signage prohibited trucks on the entrance ramps in Orleans County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on November 15, 2016, 06:03:30 PM
Dated Nov 14, are these the next "Cuomo Signs" we'll be tracking? (Due to the size (width) of the linked image, I am providing the direct link instead of the image)

http://www.thruway.ny.gov/img/home-full-19.jpg

(Pull Over for Emergency/Maintenance Vehicles)


Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 15, 2016, 06:07:57 PM
At least those could have a safety benefit. Way too many emergency responders and construction workers hit and killed by drivers in the Albany area recently.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on November 16, 2016, 02:33:11 AM
Mileage exit numbers:
When I-390 opened between Avoca and Wayland in 1975, for just a few weeks Cohocton was exit 10 and Wayland was exit 16. Avoca is exit 1 either way, of course. The Dansville exits were never numbered in the 20s.

Maybe this is because 390 was the first Interstate in Region 6, and there may have been some confusion in the Hornell office.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 16, 2016, 07:15:25 AM
Mileage exit numbers:
When I-390 opened between Avoca and Wayland in 1975, for just a few weeks Cohocton was exit 10 and Wayland was exit 16. Avoca is exit 1 either way, of course. The Dansville exits were never numbered in the 20s.

Maybe this is because 390 was the first Interstate in Region 6, and there may have been some confusion in the Hornell office.

The NYSMUTCD around 1974 called for milepost exit numbering for all newly constructed freeways. That's why that happened with I-390 and also why I-88 had blank exit number panels for a long while, until they decided to switch back to sequential a few years later.  The reasoning for switching back was because they didn't want to have to renumber the interchanges when the U.S. switch to metric.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 16, 2016, 07:16:55 AM
The much-awaited Taconic State Parkway Stage 2 sign plans are out - D263236

Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263236

Happy to see this effort. I used these plans in my pretty strong attempt to get the new signs coming up on I-790 in Utica to include "Albany / Buffalo" on the Thruway approach signs. R2 has to get sick of hearing from me sooner or later. I might have mentioned exit numbers again as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 16, 2016, 09:14:50 AM
About time. Nice to see that they're extending the numbering up to NY 295. This will be the first significant length of mile-based numbering in the state.

How about the Belt Parkway/Cross Island Parkway combination?  Also I-99, if you count that as significant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on November 16, 2016, 09:43:26 AM
About time. Nice to see that they're extending the numbering up to NY 295. This will be the first significant length of mile-based numbering in the state.

How about the Belt Parkway/Cross Island Parkway combination?  Also I-99, if you count that as significant.

All those added up do not even equal the Taconic. Add I-781 and it still falls short of the length of the Taconic. I just think he means that in terms of a single road, that it would be the longest posted with mileage-based exits. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 16, 2016, 10:44:53 AM
Why didn't they give a number to that exit just south of the Thruway?

I'm assuming that has to do with Region 8 not considering the parkway to start until just south of that exit to allow trucks between there and the Thruway. Per state law, trucks are banned on all parkways excluding south of Sunrise Highway.

Not the Bear Mountain Parkway. Trucks are allowed to use it overnight so as to avoid being routed down Peekskill streets. (Light trucks can use it all day.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 16, 2016, 11:46:02 AM
Why didn't they give a number to that exit just south of the Thruway?

How many decades will we have to wait for the rest of the state to get mileage-based exits as well (excluding Interstate 99/US 15 and Interstate 781)?
Theoretically, I-890/NY 890 has mile-based exit numbers, but that may not hold with the renumbering at exit 4 (if done right, Erie Blvd and GE should be 4A both directions, and NY 5 should be 4B).

As for everything else... I'm not expecting anything any time in the foreseeable future.

One could argue, that Northway up to Mohawk works pretty much mileage-based if you put milepost 0 at Western ave. Otherwise we could get a somewhat unique exit -1, as current exit 1E northbound occurs before milepost 0
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 16, 2016, 05:35:44 PM
The NYSMUTCD around 1974 called for milepost exit numbering for all newly constructed freeways. That's why that happened with I-390 and also why I-88 had blank exit number panels for a long while, until they decided to switch back to sequential a few years later.  The reasoning for switching back was because they didn't want to have to renumber the interchanges when the U.S. switch to metric.
Looks like NY resistance to renumbering was big even then.  Of course, that reasoning is pretty stupid in hindsight, given that the metric conversion died and now that the MUTCD mandates mile-based numbers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 17, 2016, 03:34:16 PM
About time. Nice to see that they're extending the numbering up to NY 295. This will be the first significant length of mile-based numbering in the state.

I can't wait for that NY 44 shield to go up. Someone might want to alert R8.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 17, 2016, 11:22:50 PM
Why didn't they give a number to that exit just south of the Thruway?

How many decades will we have to wait for the rest of the state to get mileage-based exits as well (excluding Interstate 99/US 15 and Interstate 781)?
Theoretically, I-890/NY 890 has mile-based exit numbers, but that may not hold with the renumbering at exit 4 (if done right, Erie Blvd and GE should be 4A both directions, and NY 5 should be 4B).

As for everything else... I'm not expecting anything any time in the foreseeable future.

One could argue, that Northway up to Mohawk works pretty much mileage-based if you put milepost 0 at Western ave. Otherwise we could get a somewhat unique exit -1, as current exit 1E northbound occurs before milepost 0

I was driving on a couple of the 3di interstates this past weekend and thinking that there's really no point in converting them to milepost-based exit numbering since they're pretty close already. Interstates 190 and 290 are close enough that I don't think they need to be changed. Interstate 590 might be fine as is. Interstate 690 would fit the bill with the old mileposts, but now that NY 690 is included in the posted distance, and the fact that there's no exit numbers on NY 690, everything on both NY 690/I-690 should be renumbered.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 18, 2016, 09:10:55 AM
^ There's precedent to leaving 3-digit Interstate routes as sequential even if the 1/2-digit routes were converted.  Virginia is an example of this.  The Hampton Roads I-x64's, I-581, and I-395 all remained sequential when Virginia converted.  Probably due to their wider interchange spacing, I-295 and I-495 were lumped with the 2di's and converted to mile-based numbering.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: goldfishcrackers4 on November 18, 2016, 11:06:13 AM
New Roundabout proposed in Downtown Utica.

http://www.uticaod.com/news/20161118/roundabout-proposed-for-downtown-utica

I think this is a good project, but it's a shame that there doesn't seem to be anything in the near future about finishing the Arterial and removing the two remaining lights.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 18, 2016, 06:00:23 PM
New item; The westbound ramp between the Northern State Parkway and the Long Island Expressway at Exit 29A/38 has a really bad merging situation, which was never dealt with during the reconstruction. They could've extended the lanes from the Northern State ramp to Exit 37, but instead all they gave a rat's ass about was putting up those phony sound walls.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 18, 2016, 07:35:32 PM
D-Dey65, is there room under the railroad overpass at the bottom of the hill between Exits-37/38 for that extra westbound lane? Also, just for historical info, that current merge configuration dates to 1959 when the LIE reached Glen Cove Rd. (Exit-39) and the link to Northern State Pkwy. was opened. That was big news at the time in newly developed Nassau County, I was a little kid, but I remember it well! 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 18, 2016, 08:30:11 PM
There could've been, if they could eliminate the shoulder just for that bridge.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 18, 2016, 08:41:07 PM
Not a good idea to eliminate a shoulder. It impedes emergency vehicle response. Also, I believe Interstate highways are required to have continuous shoulders, though you wouldn't know it to drive some of the older highways in the NYC area that were designated as Interstates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on November 18, 2016, 10:19:08 PM
^ There's precedent to leaving 3-digit Interstate routes as sequential even if the 1/2-digit routes were converted.  Virginia is an example of this.  The Hampton Roads I-x64's, I-581, and I-395 all remained sequential when Virginia converted.  Probably due to their wider interchange spacing, I-295 and I-495 were lumped with the 2di's and converted to mile-based numbering.
I concur with Froggie.  There really is no need to have all the I-x90's (except for I-390) change their exit numbers.  Many of the I-x90's have exits closely spaced where there would be A-B-C-D exits instead of "integer" exit numbers.  Same goes for I-787 in Albany as well as I-287 (Cross Westchester).  I believe I-684 should have milepost-based exit numbers.  I also believe I-390 should be re-numbered as I-99--but that is a different thread.

You know, if NYSDOT had followed through with the 1974 MUTCD, they probably would have saved a lot more money changing the exit numbers or posting mileage-based exit numbers on new Interstates in the 1970's and 1980's instead of now(ish).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2016, 10:27:18 PM
It's worth noting that some states also renumbered everything regardless of length and it is my personal belief that this should be done in New York, especially as some of these already have a bunch of A/B exits. Take I-787, for example, which has 3A/B and 4 A/B southbound. I-190 has numbering gaps that would be remedied by renumbering everything and you'd never get above B.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 18, 2016, 11:36:11 PM
Not a good idea to eliminate a shoulder. It impedes emergency vehicle response. Also, I believe Interstate highways are required to have continuous shoulders, though you wouldn't know it to drive some of the older highways in the NYC area that were designated as Interstates.
Okay, so what about replacing the Oyster Bay Branch bridge with longer beams that only require pylons for the divider, and shifting the westbound service road slightly further up? Even if they don't connect the acceleration lane from the Northern State with the deceleration lane for Exit 37, they shouldn't squeeze all those drivers from the parkway into that one short acceleration lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 18, 2016, 11:48:42 PM
W.r.t the Utica roundabout, its great for pedestrians but bad for Arterial finishing. When I was going to school in Utica, crossing Oriskany St to get to the bus station or train station was like playing Frogger, and that's no joke.

Speaking of roundabouts, the Sowles Road/US 62 roundabout is nearing completion.

I hear Carmel Indiana is the top city for light replacements for roundabouts. I'm sure Clifton Park is behind that. I'd like to see Hamburg be up there. It would be nice to see 4 lane roundabouts somewhere in R5.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 19, 2016, 12:49:34 PM
New Roundabout proposed in Downtown Utica.

http://www.uticaod.com/news/20161118/roundabout-proposed-for-downtown-utica

I think this is a good project, but it's a shame that there doesn't seem to be anything in the near future about finishing the Arterial and removing the two remaining lights.

The removal of the two lights on the Arterial is still in the long range plans but I don't believe it has been funded yet. The original project was so suppose to encompass that entire stretch of roadway but they scaled it back, due to funding and I believe also due to political pressure.  At least the project is still on the books.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 20, 2016, 05:14:25 PM
Not a good idea to eliminate a shoulder. It impedes emergency vehicle response. Also, I believe Interstate highways are required to have continuous shoulders, though you wouldn't know it to drive some of the older highways in the NYC area that were designated as Interstates.
Okay, so what about replacing the Oyster Bay Branch bridge with longer beams that only require pylons for the divider, and shifting the westbound service road slightly further up? Even if they don't connect the acceleration lane from the Northern State with the deceleration lane for Exit 37, they shouldn't squeeze all those drivers from the parkway into that one short acceleration lane.

Get back to me with the cost of replacing a railroad bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2016, 05:38:13 PM
Not a good idea to eliminate a shoulder. It impedes emergency vehicle response. Also, I believe Interstate highways are required to have continuous shoulders, though you wouldn't know it to drive some of the older highways in the NYC area that were designated as Interstates.
Okay, so what about replacing the Oyster Bay Branch bridge with longer beams that only require pylons for the divider, and shifting the westbound service road slightly further up? Even if they don't connect the acceleration lane from the Northern State with the deceleration lane for Exit 37, they shouldn't squeeze all those drivers from the parkway into that one short acceleration lane.

Get back to me with the cost of replacing a railroad bridge.

Exactly. Not worth it. Plus, continuous shoulders is a relatively new requirement. Most Interstates in the Northeast don't have continuous full-width shoulders on/under bridges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 20, 2016, 07:37:35 PM
Cl94, I'm not positive, but I think continuous shoulders were a requirement on new Interstate highways from the beginning of the program in 1956. Patterned after the then new existing toll-roads of the 1950's. Agreed, many Interstates in the NYC area don't have them, but I think those were designed and/or built before the Interstate specs became the standard, and were grandfathered in. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2016, 07:51:06 PM
Cl94, I'm not positive, but I think continuous shoulders were a requirement on new Interstate highways from the beginning of the program in 1956. Patterned after the then new existing toll-roads of the 1950's. Agreed, many Interstates in the NYC area don't have them, but I think those were designed and/or built before the Interstate specs became the standard, and were grandfathered in.

NYSDOT and NYSTA didn't start using continuous shoulders over bridges until at least the late 70s. You'd be hard-pressed to find a bridge that isn't relatively new in this state that has full shoulders. Other states are similar.

That being said, there is still an exemption for long bridges and tunnels due to cost.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 20, 2016, 07:54:15 PM
Cl94, I'm not positive, but I think continuous shoulders were a requirement on new Interstate highways from the beginning of the program in 1956. Patterned after the then new existing toll-roads of the 1950's. Agreed, many Interstates in the NYC area don't have them, but I think those were designed and/or built before the Interstate specs became the standard, and were grandfathered in.

NYSDOT and NYSTA didn't start using continuous shoulders over bridges until at least the late 70s. You'd be hard-pressed to find a bridge that isn't relatively new in this state that has full shoulders. Other states are similar.

That being said, there is still an exemption for long bridges and tunnels due to cost.
Talking about long bridges.. The new Tappan Zee - is it designed as full-shouldered?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2016, 07:54:54 PM
Cl94, I'm not positive, but I think continuous shoulders were a requirement on new Interstate highways from the beginning of the program in 1956. Patterned after the then new existing toll-roads of the 1950's. Agreed, many Interstates in the NYC area don't have them, but I think those were designed and/or built before the Interstate specs became the standard, and were grandfathered in.

NYSDOT and NYSTA didn't start using continuous shoulders over bridges until at least the late 70s. You'd be hard-pressed to find a bridge that isn't relatively new in this state that has full shoulders. Other states are similar.

That being said, there is still an exemption for long bridges and tunnels due to cost.
Talking about long bridges.. The new Tappan Zee - is it designed as full-shouldered?

Yes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 20, 2016, 08:13:53 PM
Cl94, you're saying that even the original Thruway, built in 1954 didn't have continuous shoulders?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2016, 08:29:31 PM
Not full-width. NYSDOT didn't have shoulders period.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 20, 2016, 10:21:52 PM
Speaking of shoulders, I wonder what I-90 between Exit 53 and 54 looked like before it was reconstructed. I don't remember at all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on November 21, 2016, 10:51:38 PM
Cl94, I'm not positive, but I think continuous shoulders were a requirement on new Interstate highways from the beginning of the program in 1956. Patterned after the then new existing toll-roads of the 1950's. Agreed, many Interstates in the NYC area don't have them, but I think those were designed and/or built before the Interstate specs became the standard, and were grandfathered in.

I think the Ohio Turnpike was pretty much the only early public-authority turnpike that provided full-width shoulders on bridges.  In their case, they actually made the shoulders a little wider on bridges, presumably to compensate for the limit the bridge railing places on how far a vehicle can pull away from the traveled way.



On a different topic, this one is for the boxed-street-name nostalgists:  NYSDOT's just-advertised signing contract for the Taconic State Parkway (D263236 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263236)) has street names in boxes, but in mixed-case to comply with the 2009 MUTCD.  Sign panel detail sheets alone run to over 300 pages.  The treatment of boxed street names differs from that in D263288 (also currently under advertisement), which is in the classic style with all-uppercase Series D.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on November 22, 2016, 12:53:07 PM
Speaking of shoulders, I wonder what I-90 between Exit 53 and 54 looked like before it was reconstructed. I don't remember at all.
As far as I can remember, it pretty much looked like the rest of the 6 lane Buffalo stretch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 22, 2016, 01:00:49 PM
On a different topic, this one is for the boxed-street-name nostalgists:  NYSDOT's just-advertised signing contract for the Taconic State Parkway (D263236 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263236)) has street names in boxes, but in mixed-case to comply with the 2009 MUTCD.  Sign panel detail sheets alone run to over 300 pages.  The treatment of boxed street names differs from that in D263288 (also currently under advertisement), which is in the classic style with all-uppercase Series D.

Boxed street names?  Are you thinking of the street blades for the at-grade intersections by chance?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on November 22, 2016, 01:22:21 PM
Boxed street names?  Are you thinking of the street blades for the at-grade intersections by chance?

Nope.  There are plenty of those in this contract, but there are also dozens of large sign panels with route shields, distance expressions, and street names in boxes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on November 22, 2016, 01:34:37 PM
On a different topic, this one is for the boxed-street-name nostalgists:  NYSDOT's just-advertised signing contract for the Taconic State Parkway (D263236 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263236)) has street names in boxes, but in mixed-case to comply with the 2009 MUTCD.  Sign panel detail sheets alone run to over 300 pages.  The treatment of boxed street names differs from that in D263288 (also currently under advertisement), which is in the classic style with all-uppercase Series D.

Boxed street names?  Are you thinking of the street blades for the at-grade intersections by chance?

Yes, I just thumbed through the entire thing, and it looks like the boxes you're thinking of are for street name blades. The Taconic is a mix of grade separated exits and regular intersections in its northern regions.
Boxed street names?  Are you thinking of the street blades for the at-grade intersections by chance?

Nope.  There are plenty of those in this contract, but there are also dozens of large sign panels with route shields, distance expressions, and street names in boxes.

I just thumbed through the whole thing. Did not see any BGS's with the street names in a box in the whole thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on November 22, 2016, 02:02:58 PM
I have examined the construction plans and, yes, all of the large sign panels are shown with unboxed street names.  But the signface layouts (in the Supplemental Information downloadable ZIP) include sign panel details for about 21 large panel signs with boxed street names.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 22, 2016, 05:22:11 PM
The I-684 sign project that was just put out to bid had all CAPS/Boxed street names on the guide signs, but I exchanged email with R8 and they are changing the plans to comply with the MUTCD. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Taconic project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 22, 2016, 08:15:21 PM
The I-684 sign project that was just put out to bid had all CAPS/Boxed street names on the guide signs, but I exchanged email with R8 and they are changing the plans to comply with the MUTCD. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Taconic project.

Since when does I-684 even have that many street name on it?  Hardscrabble Road (CR 138), and I think that's it, unless I'm overlooking something...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 22, 2016, 08:45:17 PM
The I-684 sign project that was just put out to bid had all CAPS/Boxed street names on the guide signs, but I exchanged email with R8 and they are changing the plans to comply with the MUTCD. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Taconic project.

Since when does I-684 even have that many street name on it?  Hardscrabble Road (CR 138), and I think that's it, unless I'm overlooking something...

You're right, it was the Hardscrabble Road plans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 23, 2016, 12:49:01 AM
I have examined the construction plans and, yes, all of the large sign panels are shown with unboxed street names.  But the signface layouts (in the Supplemental Information downloadable ZIP) include sign panel details for about 21 large panel signs with boxed street names.
Ah.  I wasn't looking in the ZIP file, just the couple hundred page PDF of the plans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on November 23, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
The I-684 sign project that was just put out to bid had all CAPS/Boxed street names on the guide signs, but I exchanged email with R8 and they are changing the plans to comply with the MUTCD. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Taconic project.

Since when does I-684 even have that many street name on it?  Hardscrabble Road (CR 138), and I think that's it, unless I'm overlooking something...

You're right, it was the Hardscrabble Road plans.

Are they planning to mark the Saw Mill Pkwy and Hutchinson River Pkwy exits with text or shields?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on November 23, 2016, 11:58:15 AM
The I-684 sign project that was just put out to bid had all CAPS/Boxed street names on the guide signs, but I exchanged email with R8 and they are changing the plans to comply with the MUTCD. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Taconic project.

Do you know if they are planning to release the revised plans as an amendment before the letting date?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 23, 2016, 12:05:17 PM
The I-684 sign project that was just put out to bid had all CAPS/Boxed street names on the guide signs, but I exchanged email with R8 and they are changing the plans to comply with the MUTCD. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Taconic project.

Do you know if they are planning to release the revised plans as an amendment before the letting date?

I doubt we'll see revised plans online. There's been a couple of projects in R2 where the signs installed in the field are correct but don't match what was ever shown online.

I did drop a line to R8 this morning about the boxed road names on the Taconic project. Hopefully they'll be corrected as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on November 23, 2016, 01:43:32 PM
Thanks for this--I've seen a few projects (from various other states) where revised sign panel detail sheets were made available before the letting date, but this is very hit-and-miss.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 24, 2016, 01:26:33 PM
This pic is of a beacon on the pole of a fire signal at the intersection of NY 112 and Gladiola Street in North Patchogue:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Fire_Light_@_NY_112-Gladiola_Street_Signal_(cropped).jpg

Do any other states do this? Because I was discussing it with some FDOT officials a long time ago, and they had no idea what I was talking about.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on November 24, 2016, 01:54:19 PM
This pic is of a beacon on the pole of a fire signal at the intersection of NY 112 and Gladiola Street in North Patchogue:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Fire_Light_@_NY_112-Gladiola_Street_Signal_(cropped).jpg

Do any other states do this? Because I was discussing it with some FDOT officials a long time ago, and they had no idea what I was talking about.
They have these in the Rochester area as well and have seen them in operation. They come on when the firehouse preempts the signal when they get a call.

Here's an example in Rochester/Gates
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1428906,-77.7360596,3a,15y,41.68h,100.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM-rGqPmzWvnRR0hTtsxsOg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 24, 2016, 01:54:40 PM
This pic is of a beacon on the pole of a fire signal at the intersection of NY 112 and Gladiola Street in North Patchogue:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Fire_Light_@_NY_112-Gladiola_Street_Signal_(cropped).jpg

Do any other states do this? Because I was discussing it with some FDOT officials a long time ago, and they had no idea what I was talking about.

New England states often have a similar beacon (typically red) that flashes when preemption is activated. Some parts of New York use them as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 24, 2016, 10:17:27 PM
The MUTCD does allow for a special indication light to show that the signal is displaying in preemption mode. In New York, a blue light on the pole is common, in some places there is a white light on the horizontal mast-arm.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 25, 2016, 08:16:25 AM
Quote
in some places there is a white light on the horizontal mast-arm.

This is the standard in Minnesota.  Though it should also be noted that some states don't allow such pre-emption.  Vermont and New Hampshire are two of them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 26, 2016, 06:28:06 PM
NY 63 in Dansville. Anyone else notice the little issue here?

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5532/31260867625_b447c0c2c6_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/PCq7Qi)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on November 26, 2016, 06:43:29 PM
NY 63 in Dansville. Anyone else notice the little issue here?

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5532/31260867625_b447c0c2c6_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/PCq7Qi)

Um... South NY 36 and TO NY 36... it's supposed to be South NY 63 and TO NY 36...  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 26, 2016, 08:01:52 PM
Why not hang the pedestrian signals on the main mast-pole and not have  to build 2 small posts with their additional wiring?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 26, 2016, 08:50:36 PM
I would assume it's so the push buttons can be closer to the sidewalk; too far would not be ADA compliant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 26, 2016, 10:03:07 PM
You might be right vdeane regarding ADA access. But other than that, it seems like a waste just to put the buttons maybe 3 feet closer to the sidewalk. I once saw a Nassau County installation where you had to step thru low bushes to access the pole with the buttons. LOL Interestingly, that location was recently rebuilt.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 27, 2016, 10:38:20 AM
I would assume it's so the push buttons can be closer to the sidewalk; too far would not be ADA compliant.
There had to be a better solution in this situation. Why not locate the signal pole against the sidewalk, or close enough to use a PB extender? Why can't one of the poles have both sets of walk signals on it, and the other one can just be a stub conduit end?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on November 28, 2016, 11:03:25 AM
A few years ago (2011 I think based on Googling), NYSDOT redid the pushbuttons and curb cuts along the Arterial and Grant Ave here in Auburn.  They added poles, so each pushbutton would have its own pole.  At the time, I did some Googling, and found this in Chapter 4E, Section 8 of the MUTCD (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4e.htm#section4E08):

(http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig4e_03.gif)

Quote from: MUTCD, Chapter 4E, Section 8, Paragraph 7
Except as provided in Paragraph 8, where two pedestrian pushbuttons are provided on the same corner of a signalized location, the pushbuttons should be separated by a distance of at least 10 feet.

At the time, I assumed it was to provide the proper placement relative to the crosswalk and/or the required 10 foot separation.  In this Street View image (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9354735,-76.5595032,3a,22.6y,111.66h,80.78t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEgJ__nZ8cMWL37z8v06O9A!2e0), you can see where the old pushbutton was on the pole for the crosswalk signal.  On a newer install just up the street, one side has separate poles (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.938045,-76.5558831,3a,54y,76.69h,71.67t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sgyZ_GI8bUKm97RO6hb0Kag!2e0), but the other side doesn't (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9379968,-76.5561613,3a,32.7y,259.64h,66.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sH0kFNgWf691rvcs1qwAqhw!2e0).  Before the stoplight was replaced, the pushbuttons were moved from the stoplight pole (note the marks on the pole) to two separate poles (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9380765,-76.5559055,3a,42.5y,102.91h,73.28t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgtaFFJH24771l3ulAoMX6Q!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656), and one of those was reused.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on November 28, 2016, 11:49:03 AM
This surfaced in one of the road-related Facebook groups--it appears the BQE is being rehabilitated by NYCDOT rather than NYSDOT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/nyregion/dreaded-by-drivers-brooklyn-queens-expressway-is-set-for-repairs.html

It sounds like NYCDOT may have let the contract as well, but a quick check of its construction procurement site has not turned up a solicitation that corresponds to this project.  In any case, while NYCDOT now makes solicitation documents available online, the solicitation notices I have seen all say that plans (drawings) cannot be downloaded and must be purchased.

There was a NYSDOT construction project earlier this year (the D-number escapes me) involving the BQE and including a large selection of the original as-builts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 28, 2016, 12:34:47 PM
The BQE is a strange animal. While the public inventory states that everything is maintained by NYSDOT, I know NYCDOT has a decent amount of influence, more so than other Interstates in the city.

Would one of the NYSDOT employees on here be able to get into the intranet and actually see who is in charge of the BQE to settle this once and for all?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 28, 2016, 01:12:29 PM
The RIS GIS shapefiles say NYSDOT for owning jurisdiction, but I'm not sure how much I'd trust that with the complex relationship between Region 11 and NYCDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on November 28, 2016, 03:41:03 PM
The BQE is a strange animal. While the public inventory states that everything is maintained by NYSDOT, I know NYCDOT has a decent amount of influence, more so than other Interstates in the city.

Would one of the NYSDOT employees on here be able to get into the intranet and actually see who is in charge of the BQE to settle this once and for all?
I was able to find region 11 projects in Queens. It appears that they do construct and repave the road (such as the Kosciuszko Bridge replacement, and the rehab of a bridge over 47th Street). I'm assuming that NYCDOT advises and oversees the construction, but NYSDOT does the actual construction.

Here's where I'm talking about. (https://www.dot.ny.gov/projects)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on November 29, 2016, 12:37:27 PM
I did some more digging and it seems the recent burst of publicity has been triggered by the start of a design contract for BQE improvements which NYCDOT is supervising.  Construction is not imminent and is expected to begin in 2020 or 2021 depending on whether design-build or design-bid-build is chosen.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bqe-atlantic-to-sands-apr2016.pdf

I did figure the BQE was NYSDOT infrastructure, but that didn't necessarily mean anything one way or the other because states occasionally allow local entities to build for them through agreement--cases in point include Kellogg Avenue in Wichita (KDOT-owned, but bulk of the freeway expansion handled by the City of Wichita), Fort Washington Way in Cincinnati (Ohio DOT-owned, all construction handled by Cincinnati), I-83 in Baltimore, numerous examples in California handled by cities, counties, and MPOs, etc.

We can hope the construction documentation is easily accessible to us by the time a contract is actually let.  Right now access is easier through NYSDOT than NYCDOT, but in four years there may no longer be a difference.

I did dig up the recent NYSDOT contract I was thinking of:  D262963 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262963).  This turns out to be for emergency repairs on the Gowanus Expressway only (four miles south).  The supplemental information does include three of the original construction contracts, as well as a 2200-sheet rehabilitation job from 2009 (D261302).

I was able to find region 11 projects in Queens. It appears that they do construct and repave the road (such as the Kosciuszko Bridge replacement, and the rehab of a bridge over 47th Street). I'm assuming that NYCDOT advises and oversees the construction, but NYSDOT does the actual construction.

It looks like the biggest thing NYSDOT has advertised for construction in Region 11 in the past few months is D263208 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263208) (Phase 2B of the ongoing open-heart surgery at the Kew Gardens Interchange).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 29, 2016, 01:32:48 PM
And that Kew Gardens work is sorely needed, even with the traffic issues it may be causing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 29, 2016, 06:23:51 PM
Is there anything that can be done to improve the BQE in safety or design terms? Or is the BQE stuck the way it is for the rest of eternity?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 29, 2016, 06:47:14 PM
That's not the answer I was looking for. I was looking for a 'yes, they can do XYZ' or a 'no, they can't do anything' type of answer. I've never been to New York, so sorry if my posts sound "useless."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 29, 2016, 08:15:42 PM
I doubt any major changes will ever occur short of the elevated portions being condemned, necessitating reconstruction. The issues with the Big Dig are still on the minds of people and that didn't happen all too far away and you'll never get away with tearing down one of the most expensive neighborhoods of the city to make it straighter.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 29, 2016, 08:48:21 PM
Is there anything that can be done to improve the BQE in safety or design terms? Or is the BQE stuck the way it is for the rest of eternity?
Better shot at the viaduct sections. The depressed roadway is constrained, and so far NY hasn't thought outside the box in terms of digging under the service roads to add shoulders or even lanes. The K-bridge is of course going to be 9 lanes and thus much better than current in all facets, and the southern viaduct leading up to it can have shoulders added with cantilevers off the existing structure (or future replacement thereof). Not as familiar north of the LIE interchange but I know it returns to some depressed sections again, so what you can do is limited.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 29, 2016, 10:05:10 PM
Alps, interesting you should mention about thinking outside the box and digging under the service road. NYC did exactly that back in 1963 when they widened the Grand Central Parkway between Main St. and 168th St. However that was a somewhat easier project as there was an embankment with trees separating the Parkway and the adjacent service roads. Unlike the BQE with its concrete walls in the depressed section. That I'm sure would be much more difficult and expensive in that densely packed urban area. Oh well; we can dream........
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 29, 2016, 10:49:06 PM
Alps, interesting you should mention about thinking outside the box and digging under the service road. NYC did exactly that back in 1963 when they widened the Grand Central Parkway between Main St. and 168th St. However that was a somewhat easier project as there was an embankment with trees separating the Parkway and the adjacent service roads. Unlike the BQE with its concrete walls in the depressed section. That I'm sure would be much more difficult and expensive in that densely packed urban area. Oh well; we can dream........

I was going to mention that. Of course, the BQE literally has buildings up against the road in sections, so it can't be widened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on November 30, 2016, 12:16:13 PM
I am finding it a little confusing to see this round of upgrades to the BQE described as a "rehabilitation" when making good on the identified deficiencies--limited vertical clearance, lack of shoulders on structural sections (including the triple cantilever), concrete with exposed and corroded rebar, etc.--would entail a complete teardown and rebuild.  The presentation linked to above also suggests that the design process may include compilation of an EIS, which is not usually done for 3R/4R work.

However, I would expect the BQE to be improved within its existing footprint, simply because the tunnel alternatives have been ruled non-viable for various reasons (most rush-hour traffic is local to NYC, with an origin or destination in Brooklyn; almost all plausible tunnel alignments conflict with the DEP tunnel; a single tunnel bore would be able to accommodate only two lanes in each direction).

It would not surprise me if they address the geometric deficiencies by tearing out and rebuilding the triple cantilever with wider vertical clearances.

FWIW, the RFP for the design contract is still online, and the scope of services gives an idea of what NYCDOT expects the designers to do.

https://mspwvw-dcscpfvp.nyc.gov/RequestDetail/20160707036
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 30, 2016, 03:52:17 PM
It looks like we may have to wait for self-driving cars to appear. Or maybe New York should implement a congestion-pricing plan that is logical for the city's road system. Other than that, I'm open to suggestions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on December 01, 2016, 04:32:48 PM
City of Rochester to end their red light camera program January 1st.
http://13wham.com/news/top-stories/city-to-announce-changes-to-red-light-cameras

EDIT: Replaced link with a more usable one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 01, 2016, 07:43:09 PM
I couldn't get that Rochester link to work properly, but I saw something about the the mayor deciding the cameras had a disproportionate impact on the city's most impoverished neighborhoods. So what happened? Did they install the cameras only in the poorest section of the city?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 01, 2016, 08:20:42 PM
I couldn't get that Rochester link to work properly, but I saw something about the the mayor deciding the cameras had a disproportionate impact on the city's most impoverished neighborhoods. So what happened? Did they install the cameras only in the poorest section of the city?
If Rochester is anything similar to Albany, downtown is the area where cameras would make sense - and downtown is not the richest part of a city..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on December 01, 2016, 08:29:46 PM
I couldn't get that Rochester link to work properly, but I saw something about the the mayor deciding the cameras had a disproportionate impact on the city's most impoverished neighborhoods. So what happened? Did they install the cameras only in the poorest section of the city?
I replaced my link with one from a local TV station.

I live in a suburban area of Rochester but do drive in the city on occasion. The cameras are mainly at busier intersections but some were installed in rougher areas. Main issue I guess is city residents (who are mainly poorer than those in the suburbs) are more likely to get red light camera tickets just from living in the city. I believe most of the tickets issued are for RTOR so are unfair in my opinion. Many drivers don't actually stop when making those right turns and I have seen the cameras flash even when RTOR was done properly. I think yellow light times were altered at some of the intersections as well.

Rochester's red light cameras are owned by Redflex.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 01, 2016, 08:35:51 PM
Re: RTOR; here in Nassau County the advertised County policy is that you should count 3-5 seconds before making your right-on-red, to avoid a ticket. So far it has worked for me. And re: yellow light timing, as per the MUTCD, they must be at least 3 seconds long.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 01, 2016, 08:47:00 PM
I watched the new link with the Mayor. Okay now, let me get this straight: They're doing away with the cameras because the people who blow the red lights can't afford the fines? Oh I see,  it's so expensive to drive dangerously, that we better not enforce the traffic laws. So let everyone stop for the friggin' red lights like we're all supposed to do regardless of income or social status. Give me a break........
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 01, 2016, 08:51:05 PM
I watched the new link with the Mayor. Okay now, let me get this straight: They're doing away with the cameras because the people who blow the red lights can't afford the fines? Oh I see,  it's so expensive to drive dangerously, that we better not enforce the traffic laws. So let everyone stop for the friggin' red lights like we're all supposed to do regardless of income or social status. Give me a break........

I was thinking that. Do a real stop instead of a Western New York rolling stop and you won't get a ticket. I've watched some of the footage of people who claimed to stop and all of them either passed the line or didn't stop fully.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 02, 2016, 11:47:43 AM
I watched the new link with the Mayor. Okay now, let me get this straight: They're doing away with the cameras because the people who blow the red lights can't afford the fines? Oh I see,  it's so expensive to drive dangerously, that we better not enforce the traffic laws. So let everyone stop for the friggin' red lights like we're all supposed to do regardless of income or social status. Give me a break........

I was thinking that. Do a real stop instead of a Western New York rolling stop and you won't get a ticket. I've watched some of the footage of people who claimed to stop and all of them either passed the line or didn't stop fully.

I only go over the line when I'm going ~ 45-50 only 200 or so feet from the light and slam on the brakes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 02, 2016, 12:53:26 PM
To be fair, a lot of NY intersections seem to be designed such that the utility of right of red is severly diminished if one doesn't bend the rules a little, especially if you're next to a SUV or pickup truck.  They make better walls than windows.  And I'm not sure how many municipalities actually bother with things like site lines (even at stop signs; I know of one such intersection that has a hill on one side and a hedge on the other, and you can't see far in either direction and are just praying there isn't someone flying down the road that you didn't see).

Re: RTOR; here in Nassau County the advertised County policy is that you should count 3-5 seconds before making your right-on-red, to avoid a ticket. So far it has worked for me. And re: yellow light timing, as per the MUTCD, they must be at least 3 seconds long.
That would seem to me as an example of adapting our lives to fit the limitations of whatever technology is currently popular rather than making sure the technology actually fits our needs.  By the time you've waited, the gap in traffic could be gone, taking away your right on red opportunity, all because the government would rather use a half-baked enforcement technology to collect revenue.

I watched the new link with the Mayor. Okay now, let me get this straight: They're doing away with the cameras because the people who blow the red lights can't afford the fines? Oh I see,  it's so expensive to drive dangerously, that we better not enforce the traffic laws. So let everyone stop for the friggin' red lights like we're all supposed to do regardless of income or social status. Give me a break........
Short version: there's a thing called making the punishment fit the crime, and with respect to low income people, it often doesn't; fines that are merely annoying to middle class folks can be devastating to the poor, especially when you add in all the fees/interest for payment plans and punitive measures such as punishing people for not paying by taking away their ability to have a job and make money (by suspending someone's licence, for instance).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 02, 2016, 07:41:16 PM
Okay I watched the whole video. He fails to mention the obvious option. Drive responsibly and you won't get all those pesky tickets! Stop at the stop signs and red lights, stopped school buses, etc. Or as in the case of one of my co-workers who recently got stopped for going 96mph on the New York Thruway; try driving at 70 and you won't get ticketed.

Also, he didn't say in the video, but re: the grandmother who was taken to jail, how many tickets were outstanding and how much money did she owe in fines? I wouldn't be surprised if there were many, many tickets and thousands of dollars in fines and that maybe she was a professional scofflaw, which might be why they finally came to her house to arrest her. There are lots of people like that, professional scofflaws.

But agreed some of the additional court costs and charges on top of the basic fines are a little over the top. In Nassau County the charge for a red-light camera ticket is I believe $80. which is the total of the fine and a surcharge of some sort.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on December 04, 2016, 02:32:46 PM
At least those surcharges and "court costs" apply to everyone equally. If I got a ticket for $150, I'd pay it and that'd be that. The idea that someone, simply because they don't have $150 on hand, would end up in a payment plan where they've paid $500 and still owe $500 for that $150 ticket is usurious and cruel. That person had to pay a lot more money for the same offense because they were poor.

As for Rochester's cameras, I could see them as being a similar injustice if they were deliberately placed disproportionately in poor neighborhoods. But if their placement was fair and poor people just happened to run red lights more often, then discontinuing the program for that reason alone isn't terribly logical.

I do wonder, though, if that was really the only reason or if that is simply what they mayor thought would appeal the most to voters. What the public is told is the official reason for something is very often an oversimplification of something too complex for the average layperson to understand, one reason on a list of many, or in some cases even an outright lie because people would get upset if you told them the real reason.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 06, 2016, 11:44:05 AM
Alps, interesting you should mention about thinking outside the box and digging under the service road. NYC did exactly that back in 1963 when they widened the Grand Central Parkway between Main St. and 168th St. However that was a somewhat easier project as there was an embankment with trees separating the Parkway and the adjacent service roads. Unlike the BQE with its concrete walls in the depressed section. That I'm sure would be much more difficult and expensive in that densely packed urban area. Oh well; we can dream........
I was thinking the exact opposite could be done with the Oakdale Merge at Connetquot River State Park. You have the standard six lanes with shoulders for Sunrise Highway, and have the inner lanes of the service roads connecting the two sections of Montauk Highway run partially beneath Sunrise. Therefore traffic moves and less green space at the park is taken.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 09, 2016, 07:25:38 PM
One of the ramps on I-787 exit 4 (part of northbound US 9) might become a park.
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2016/12/09/albany-skyway
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on December 09, 2016, 08:33:55 PM
And because it's up to us roadgeeks to think of these things that the ubranists who come up with these ideas don't: if this comes to fruition, where does US 9 go?

I suppose the most obvious option would be to run it concurrent with NY 32 down Pearl St. The lack of a dedicated left turn lane at the intersection with Clinton Ave might need addressing, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on December 09, 2016, 11:14:54 PM
US 9 could stay concurrent on I-787 up to I-90.  It could follow I-90 west to rejoin its current routing at Exit 6.  Clinton Ave. and Henry Johnson Blvd. could be Reference Routes.

Of course, this is if this "park" becomes a reality.  Or maybe NYSDOT should consider this anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 10, 2016, 12:10:47 AM
One of the ramps on I-787 exit 4 (part of northbound US 9) might become a park.
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2016/12/09/albany-skyway

*facepalm*
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 10, 2016, 12:15:28 AM
US 9 could stay concurrent on I-787 up to I-90.  It could follow I-90 west to rejoin its current routing at Exit 6.  Clinton Ave. and Henry Johnson Blvd. could be Reference Routes.

Of course, this is if this "park" becomes a reality.  Or maybe NYSDOT should consider this anyway.
It really does make a lot more sense.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on December 10, 2016, 12:55:43 AM
One of the ramps on I-787 exit 4 (part of northbound US 9) might become a park.
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2016/12/09/albany-skyway
Except the High Line was defunct and THEN became a park at least 20 years later. This isn't defunct.

I will give it this though, that's a creative idea for repurposing useless infrastructure. They should turn I-170 in Baltimore into a playground :bigass:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 10, 2016, 07:42:14 AM
One of the ramps on I-787 exit 4 (part of northbound US 9) might become a park.
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2016/12/09/albany-skyway
Except the High Line was defunct and THEN became a park at least 20 years later. This isn't defunct.

I will give it this though, that's a creative idea for repurposing useless infrastructure. They should turn I-170 in Baltimore into a playground :bigass:

They claim "he idea grew out of the realization that the traffic numbers for this off ramp are very low -- so much so that ramp is essentially redundant." NYSDOT traffic counts show 22k vehicles daily. There is some discrepancy about the later number as well, though.

But I heavily doubt there would be a lot of park visitors. More like a foot in the door for "demolish 787" crowd.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 10, 2016, 01:16:33 PM
22K actually seems right. It would F up several bus routes as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 10, 2016, 06:24:02 PM
Keep in mind that the traffic count station showing 22k vehicles goes all the way from where US 9 diverges off the ramp to I-787 north from the South Mall interchange to Broadway and includes both directions.  The NB count was almost certainly taken before Quay Street and the ramp in question branch off (I expect that it was even before the diverge of the ramp to I-787 NB; the math works, and this would match with the probable locations for the SB count on the other frontage road).  Unfortunately, where routes follow ramps, the ramps can sometimes fall through the cracks because traffic count stations follow the primary direction.  We may have done a special count on the ramp this year; I'd have to check (note that specials don't usually show up on the Traffic Data Viewer).

I haven't seen a ton of traffic using that ramp on the times I've been through there.  The vast majority of the traffic there comes off the ramp from I-787 SB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 11, 2016, 04:24:21 PM
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 12, 2016, 12:52:15 AM
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!

Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 12, 2016, 01:11:39 PM
Keep in mind that the traffic count station showing 22k vehicles goes all the way from where US 9 diverges off the ramp to I-787 north from the South Mall interchange to Broadway and includes both directions.  The NB count was almost certainly taken before Quay Street and the ramp in question branch off (I expect that it was even before the diverge of the ramp to I-787 NB; the math works, and this would match with the probable locations for the SB count on the other frontage road).  Unfortunately, where routes follow ramps, the ramps can sometimes fall through the cracks because traffic count stations follow the primary direction.  We may have done a special count on the ramp this year; I'd have to check (note that specials don't usually show up on the Traffic Data Viewer).

I haven't seen a ton of traffic using that ramp on the times I've been through there.  The vast majority of the traffic there comes off the ramp from I-787 SB.
Just checked.  The AADT is 2265, based on data collected from August 2 through August 9 this year.  The count was taken 410 feet north of Quay Street.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 12, 2016, 01:56:25 PM
Keep in mind that the traffic count station showing 22k vehicles goes all the way from where US 9 diverges off the ramp to I-787 north from the South Mall interchange to Broadway and includes both directions.  The NB count was almost certainly taken before Quay Street and the ramp in question branch off (I expect that it was even before the diverge of the ramp to I-787 NB; the math works, and this would match with the probable locations for the SB count on the other frontage road).  Unfortunately, where routes follow ramps, the ramps can sometimes fall through the cracks because traffic count stations follow the primary direction.  We may have done a special count on the ramp this year; I'd have to check (note that specials don't usually show up on the Traffic Data Viewer).

I haven't seen a ton of traffic using that ramp on the times I've been through there.  The vast majority of the traffic there comes off the ramp from I-787 SB.
Just checked.  The AADT is 2265, based on data collected from August 2 through August 9 this year.  The count was taken 410 feet north of Quay Street.

That makes more sense. Ramp is ending up at intersection, and 3 other streets have counts of 5-7k, so 22k didn't quite fit the picture
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on December 12, 2016, 08:32:05 PM
I was on NY 5 between Elbridge and NY 695 Wednesday night.  The portion of NY 5 from where the speed limit increases to 55 east of Elbridge to NY 174 has been repaved and has new guardrails.  I couldn't see how far down NY 174 the paving went.  This normally wouldn't be a big deal, but it was the first time I've seen rumble strips on the shoulder on a surface road in New York.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 12, 2016, 09:10:08 PM
A while back in these threads, we were talking about how the states are not permitted by Federal law to place any mercantile establishments at Interstate highway rest areas, but are only allowed vending machines. And I pointed out that Region-10 just recently opened a new "Welcome Center" on the Long Island Expwy. (I-495) that does have a staffed snack bar, and isn't this illegal.

Well the FHWA has apparently taken note. Today Long Island's Newsday published a story saying the Feds are now insisting on this being corrected along with the tourism signs. And that the NYSDOT commissioner will soon be attending a meeting at FHWA hq. in Washington to discuss these matters. Stay tuned!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 12, 2016, 09:23:51 PM
A while back in these threads, we were talking about how the states are not permitted by Federal law to place any mercantile establishments at Interstate highway rest areas, but are only allowed vending machines. And I pointed out that Region-10 just recently opened a new "Welcome Center" on the Long Island Expwy. (I-495) that does have a staffed snack bar, and isn't this illegal.

Well the FHWA has apparently taken note. Today Long Island's Newsday published a story saying the Feds are now insisting on this being corrected along with the tourism signs. And that the NYSDOT commissioner will soon be attending a meeting at FHWA hq. in Washington to discuss these matters. Stay tuned!

About effing time. Of course, I-81 has one and they are planning to put one on I-90, so they certainly are saying "come at me, bro!".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 12, 2016, 09:49:20 PM
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!

Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!

Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 13, 2016, 09:55:22 AM
For a few days (weeks?) there are "two right lanes closed" signs set up on I-87 NB for alleged roadwork in Twin Bridges northbound, around 6-8 PM
Never seen any actual work, or actual lane closures, though. NYSDOT doesn't have any specific projects for I-87 in that area listed.
Is there actually something going on, or this is Bridgegate light, to celebrate Saratoga county switching from blue to red over the past elections?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 13, 2016, 10:29:34 AM
For a few days (weeks?) there are "two right lanes closed" signs set up on I-87 NB for alleged roadwork in Twin Bridges northbound, around 6-8 PM
Never seen any actual work, or actual lane closures, though. NYSDOT doesn't have any specific projects for I-87 in that area listed.
Is there actually something going on, or this is Bridgegate light, to celebrate Saratoga county switching from blue to red over the past elections?

Deck repairs based on the patches of new asphalt. Been going on for a month or two.

Saratoga County swings. Really good indicator of how the election will end up. I knew Trump had a good chance when I saw how well he was doing in the Albany area. (end election aside)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2016, 10:37:54 AM
I was wondering why everyone was focused on the silly signs and not the much-more-expensive Taste of NY rest areas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 13, 2016, 11:10:51 AM
I was wondering why everyone was focused on the silly signs and not the much-more-expensive Taste of NY rest areas.

There are only 2 Taste NY rest areas open at this time that are illegal. The signs are everywhere. That's why. Granted, FHWA got an email from me about the rest areas as well, complete with pictures of the Binghamton one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 13, 2016, 11:25:32 AM
I was wondering why everyone was focused on the silly signs and not the much-more-expensive Taste of NY rest areas.
It was mentioned that FHWA is asking states for opinions on retail ban. Looks like things did change over past decade, and they are ready to review the policy - hence focus on a rule which is not going away any time soon.

I, for one, feel that having big truck service plaza right next to exit is not different from having such plaza between exits - and wouldn't be surprised if law changes towards something more liberal before this conflict is settled (and it is going on for 3 years by now, as far as I remember - can easily take another 5 years).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 13, 2016, 12:13:47 PM
I was wondering why everyone was focused on the silly signs and not the much-more-expensive Taste of NY rest areas.

There are only 2 Taste NY rest areas open at this time that are illegal. The signs are everywhere. That's why. Granted, FHWA got an email from me about the rest areas as well, complete with pictures of the Binghamton one.

My bet is that the cost of the two rest areas far outweigh the cost of the signs.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 13, 2016, 12:28:44 PM
I was wondering why everyone was focused on the silly signs and not the much-more-expensive Taste of NY rest areas.

There are only 2 Taste NY rest areas open at this time that are illegal. The signs are everywhere. That's why. Granted, FHWA got an email from me about the rest areas as well, complete with pictures of the Binghamton one.

My bet is that the cost of the two rest areas far outweigh the cost of the signs.

(personal opinion emphasized)

They do, but it's where the signs are. Local politicians out in Suffolk got an earful from (wealthy) residents when they went up on NY 25, for example.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 13, 2016, 01:44:51 PM
Does anyone happen to know why NY 590 will be closed 12/16 north of the can of worms?  My Mom saw signs for it but I can't find any info on it.

Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!

Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!

Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.
For some reason I can't see it on mine.  Have to use the historical imagery feature on Google Earth to get it.  Probably because of the clouds.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 13, 2016, 02:29:31 PM
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!

Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!

Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.

Well the Inner Loop I knew about. Not seeing anything too drastic at the Peace Bridge though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 13, 2016, 02:43:58 PM
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!

Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!

Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.

Well the Inner Loop I knew about. Not seeing anything too drastic at the Peace Bridge though.

You need to open it in Google Earth. Yuge change there. As in it now has full expressway connections on the NY side and they got rid of the light.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 13, 2016, 08:12:35 PM
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!

Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!

Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.

Well the Inner Loop I knew about. Not seeing anything too drastic at the Peace Bridge though.

You need to open it in Google Earth. Yuge change there. As in it now has full expressway connections on the NY side and they got rid of the light.

I see the roundabout, one new ramp and another under construction on the NB side. Is that the extent of it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 13, 2016, 10:03:56 PM
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!

Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!

Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.

Well the Inner Loop I knew about. Not seeing anything too drastic at the Peace Bridge though.

You need to open it in Google Earth. Yuge change there. As in it now has full expressway connections on the NY side and they got rid of the light.

I see the roundabout, one new ramp and another under construction on the NB side. Is that the extent of it?

No. The access road through the park is gone. Local traffic needs to use the I-190 ramps to get to/from the bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 13, 2016, 10:17:20 PM
It's new plan day at NYSDOT and Region 1 released a couple no-nos in the form of NY 4 shields] (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14322&p_is_digital=Y). Pages 27 and 28. I already sent R1 an email.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 14, 2016, 07:48:38 AM
It's new plan day at NYSDOT and Region 1 released a couple no-nos in the form of NY 4 shields] (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14322&p_is_digital=Y). Pages 27 and 28. I already sent R1 an email.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuugh.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 14, 2016, 10:26:46 AM
I see the roundabout, one new ramp and another under construction on the NB side. Is that the extent of it?

No. The access road through the park is gone. Local traffic needs to use the I-190 ramps to get to/from the bridge.

Ah, so is. I knew they pared it back some years ago, but it is indeed gone now. And I see some new overdecking on the connector to Niagara St., to accommodate the direct right turn ramp from the plaza to the 190 north. (What's the interim route for this traffic while the ramp is not yet built but the park road is already removed?)

I guess just visually, from the aerials, these changes appear subtle. That's why I was having trouble seeing any radical or "yuge" changes. ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 14, 2016, 10:51:55 AM
I see the roundabout, one new ramp and another under construction on the NB side. Is that the extent of it?

No. The access road through the park is gone. Local traffic needs to use the I-190 ramps to get to/from the bridge.

Ah, so is. I knew they pared it back some years ago, but it is indeed gone now. And I see some new overdecking on the connector to Niagara St., to accommodate the direct right turn ramp from the plaza to the 190 north. (What's the interim route for this traffic while the ramp is not yet built but the park road is already removed?)

I guess just visually, from the aerials, these changes appear subtle. That's why I was having trouble seeing any radical or "yuge" changes. ;-)

Interim route was around the block via the Niagara Street ramp. The project is now complete with all ramps open. Flows much better than it did before.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 14, 2016, 12:49:30 PM
Does anyone happen to know why NY 590 will be closed 12/16 north of the can of worms?  My Mom saw signs for it but I can't find any info on it.

Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!

Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!

Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.
For some reason I can't see it on mine.  Have to use the historical imagery feature on Google Earth to get it.  Probably because of the clouds.

It's very neat looking at the historical imagery around Rochester station. As you step through the few most recent years, you can see a cool progression:
June 2014 — The previous conditions of the Amtrak station, including the platform remnants from the former NYC station, including filled and capped stairways to the passenger and baggage/mail tunnels.
July 2015 — The partial daylighting of the old tunnels (1914), and the beginning of work to fill them.  :colorful:
April 2016 — An open-air view of the new underground concourse and the ramps leading up to the new platform and parking area.
August 2016 — The new platform and station building taking shape.

EDIT: Oh, and if you download the plans from the Design/Build site, they have original 1914 plans of the tunnels superimposed on modern drawings showing the filling process.  :cool:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 14, 2016, 03:15:34 PM
It's new plan day at NYSDOT and Region 1 released a couple no-nos in the form of NY 4 shields] (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14322&p_is_digital=Y). Pages 27 and 28. I already sent R1 an email.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuugh.

Yeah...they politely told me to F off. There's a reason why I have no interest in working for the state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 14, 2016, 04:26:32 PM
It's new plan day at NYSDOT and Region 1 released a couple no-nos in the form of NY 4 shields] (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14322&p_is_digital=Y). Pages 27 and 28. I already sent R1 an email.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuugh.

Yeah...they politely told me to F off. There's a reason why I have no interest in working for the state.

I may feel like an idiot.. but can you explain the problem?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 14, 2016, 04:49:48 PM
It's new plan day at NYSDOT and Region 1 released a couple no-nos in the form of NY 4 shields] (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14322&p_is_digital=Y). Pages 27 and 28. I already sent R1 an email.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuugh.

Yeah...they politely told me to F off. There's a reason why I have no interest in working for the state.

I may feel like an idiot.. but can you explain the problem?

It's US 4, not NY 4. Granted, Region 1 has been making this mistake since before retroreflective signs were a thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on December 17, 2016, 10:09:41 AM
Seasons' greetings! I wrote up an entry on the Sure, Why Not blog about the real life bridge in Seneca Falls, New York that was the inspiration for the bridge scenes in the movie It's a Wonderful Life.
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/12/its-wonderful-bridge.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/12/its-wonderful-bridge.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 17, 2016, 11:46:18 AM
It's new plan day at NYSDOT and Region 1 released a couple no-nos in the form of NY 4 shields] (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14322&p_is_digital=Y). Pages 27 and 28. I already sent R1 an email.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuugh.

Yeah...they politely told me to F off. There's a reason why I have no interest in working for the state.

I've never talked to R1 before, were they that cranky about you pointing out the signing errors on the plans?

I drove around the I-81/I-481/NY 481 interchange last weekend and noticed that all the signs that had "NY 11" on the plans were indeed installed as US 11 routes. That's a nice thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on December 17, 2016, 11:52:41 AM
I've been going back and forth to New York in preparation for a move there next month. One of the routes I take is I-86 in the southern tier/Finger Lakes. Some questions:

1. Will the original service signs be replaced? The letters are not legible at night, and most of the service logos are not either.
2. Does rehabilitation of I-86 constitute the remainder of the circa 1989 segment that's in god-awful condition? It's interesting to compare the construction differences - tinning, joint spacing and barrier height, with the remainder of the Corning bypass that was built about ten years later.
3. Is there a map or guide of the formerly proposed Ithaca-region freeways?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on December 17, 2016, 05:43:36 PM
I've been going back and forth to New York in preparation for a move there next month. One of the routes I take is I-86 in the southern tier/Finger Lakes. Some questions:

1. Will the original service signs be replaced? The letters are not legible at night, and most of the service logos are not either.
2. Does rehabilitation of I-86 constitute the remainder of the circa 1989 segment that's in god-awful condition? It's interesting to compare the construction differences - tinning, joint spacing and barrier height, with the remainder of the Corning bypass that was built about ten years later.
3. Is there a map or guide of the formerly proposed Ithaca-region freeways?

Welcome to New York, well, an early welcome. I'll defer the I-86 related questions to others.

Regarding Ithaca, I've come across an article in the New York Times regarding the defeat in 1989 of a proposed four lane highway replacing NY 96 for three miles between downtown Ithaca and what was Tompkins Community Hospital (now Cayuga Medical Center). Ithaca is known for its traffic issues around the infamous Octopus, where a number of roads come together in town causing a choke point, but had even had issues in the same area of town 40+ years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/23/nyregion/opponents-kill-ithaca-highway-after-long-fight.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/23/nyregion/opponents-kill-ithaca-highway-after-long-fight.html)
There's also the environmental impact statement regarding this proposal: https://books.google.com/books?id=Dbw1AQAAMAAJ (https://books.google.com/books?id=Dbw1AQAAMAAJ)

During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a proposal to build part of the Appalachian Thruway along what is now NY 13 between Elmira and Cortland. Most of the Appalachian Thruway south of Corning is now part of I-99, but New York was trying to get the Elmira-Ithaca-Cortland corridor developed. Here's the environmental impact study, which includes some maps.
https://books.google.com/books?id=obo1AQAAMAAJ (https://books.google.com/books?id=obo1AQAAMAAJ)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 18, 2016, 07:54:08 AM
Exit numbers have been uncovered along the Taconic. Really strange going from no numbers to Exit 20 all of a sudden heading south.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 18, 2016, 01:41:33 PM
Exit numbers have been uncovered along the Taconic. Really strange going from no numbers to Exit 20 all of a sudden heading south.

Perhaps I missed this in the discussion, but why were the numbers covered even though the signs were up? What circumstance existed until just now that it was deemed inadvisable for the public to know the exit numbers?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on December 18, 2016, 08:37:33 PM
Perhaps I missed this in the discussion, but why were the numbers covered even though the signs were up? What circumstance existed until just now that it was deemed inadvisable for the public to know the exit numbers?

The signs were not put up all at once. It seems like they waited until all the signs were up to unbag the exit numbers so that you wouldn't have interchanges with an exit number on some signs but not others.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 18, 2016, 08:53:39 PM
Perhaps I missed this in the discussion, but why were the numbers covered even though the signs were up? What circumstance existed until just now that it was deemed inadvisable for the public to know the exit numbers?

The signs were not put up all at once. It seems like they waited until all the signs were up to unbag the exit numbers so that you wouldn't have interchanges with an exit number on some signs but not others.

Except all the signs aren't up. That's the thing. There are still a few tabs missing here and there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 18, 2016, 08:55:46 PM
I'm surprised DOT would even be concerned about that as an issue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 18, 2016, 10:10:04 PM
Perhaps I missed this in the discussion, but why were the numbers covered even though the signs were up? What circumstance existed until just now that it was deemed inadvisable for the public to know the exit numbers?

The signs were not put up all at once. It seems like they waited until all the signs were up to unbag the exit numbers so that you wouldn't have interchanges with an exit number on some signs but not others.

Except all the signs aren't up. That's the thing. There are still a few tabs missing here and there.

Yeah, I mean…they put at least a concerted effort into patching over the numerals–you knew it was now a numbered exit, you just didn't know which number it was. I guess I'm not seeing how not knowing what some of the numbers are means you shouldn't know what any of them are. Why is that detrimental enough that you should make a point of obscuring them?

(I'm not saying anyone here knows this answer; it's just what I'm wondering.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 18, 2016, 10:45:43 PM
Perhaps I missed this in the discussion, but why were the numbers covered even though the signs were up? What circumstance existed until just now that it was deemed inadvisable for the public to know the exit numbers?

The signs were not put up all at once. It seems like they waited until all the signs were up to unbag the exit numbers so that you wouldn't have interchanges with an exit number on some signs but not others.

Except all the signs aren't up. That's the thing. There are still a few tabs missing here and there.

Yeah, I mean…they put at least a concerted effort into patching over the numerals–you knew it was now a numbered exit, you just didn't know which number it was. I guess I'm not seeing how not knowing what some of the numbers are means you shouldn't know what any of them are. Why is that detrimental enough that you should make a point of obscuring them?

(I'm not saying anyone here knows this answer; it's just what I'm wondering.)

Perhaps they thought there might be some motorist freak out about the numbering scheme?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 19, 2016, 04:31:09 PM
Re: RTOR; here in Nassau County the advertised County policy is that you should count 3-5 seconds before making your right-on-red, to avoid a ticket. So far it has worked for me.
I wait at least 5 second... actually a little longer. People get pissed off about it, but it's their fault if they want me to get hit by an oncoming car or truck.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 19, 2016, 04:46:20 PM
Re: RTOR; here in Nassau County the advertised County policy is that you should count 3-5 seconds before making your right-on-red, to avoid a ticket. So far it has worked for me.
I wait at least 5 second... actually a little longer. People get pissed off about it, but it's their fault if they want me to get hit by an oncoming car or truck.
5 seconds is absolutely meaningless number. I would say this is as close to prohibiting turn on red as it can get without actually prohibiting it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 19, 2016, 05:25:48 PM
Re: RTOR; here in Nassau County the advertised County policy is that you should count 3-5 seconds before making your right-on-red, to avoid a ticket. So far it has worked for me.
I wait at least 5 second... actually a little longer. People get pissed off about it, but it's their fault if they want me to get hit by an oncoming car or truck.
5 seconds is absolutely meaningless number. I would say this is as close to prohibiting turn on red as it can get without actually prohibiting it.

It's not meaningless. If the intersection has a camera, this allows you to be certain you won't get ticketed. Much less and you might only think you stopped. Psychological thing here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 19, 2016, 07:24:00 PM
I refuse to move past the stop line at a red light camera. I don't care what people behind me want to do.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 19, 2016, 07:25:37 PM
I refuse to move past the stop line at a red light camera. I don't care what people behind me want to do.

Of course, that assumes there is a stop line. There are a bunch of camera intersections on NY 22 in Mount Vernon without stop lines.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 19, 2016, 08:08:10 PM
I agree with cl94's post and I disagree with kalvado, who thinks this effectively bans RTOR. As a resident of Nassau County who makes lots of RTOR's, many at camera equipped intersections, I think the 3-5 second wait is acceptable. The camera will take your picture, (because you crossed the stop-line while the light was red) but the person reviewing it can definitely see that you did stop for sure before making your turn. Works for me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 19, 2016, 08:19:47 PM
I agree with cl94's post and I disagree with kalvado, who thinks this effectively bans RTOR. As a resident of Nassau County who makes lots of RTOR's, many at camera equipped intersections, I think the 3-5 second wait is acceptable. The camera will take your picture, (because you crossed the stop-line while the light was red) but the person reviewing it can definitely see that you did stop for sure before making your turn. Works for me.

I think you nailed it. You change the way you drive not because law dictates something, not because of safety - but because of camera algorithms. Which is rather funny thing to defend.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on December 20, 2016, 12:44:32 AM
The camera will take your picture, (because you crossed the stop-line while the light was red) but the person reviewing it can definitely see that you did stop for sure before making your turn.

If it triggers the camera, I'm not doing it. I don't trust the revenue monkey reviewing these things to not rubber stamp them and say "eh, take it to court if you think it's not legit".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 20, 2016, 08:56:30 PM
Same here.  That's why I don't like the cameras.  I don't think I should have to adapt my behavior to the worst case scenario of how a camera may have been programmed.  That's one of the main reasons I'm against the cameras.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 20, 2016, 09:29:21 PM
Well (chuckle!) Duke doesn't have to worry, 'cause in NYC RTOR is illegal except where specifically permitted so it's a non-issue. But for the rest of us vdeane, the other alternative would be to go back to NYC's policy everywhere, like pre-1979. I would actually support that idea, since so many drivers abuse RTOR by not stopping and yielding and causing accidents. There seems to be a public misconception that RTOR is legal, period, without having to stop and yield as the law requires.

I still favor the cameras as long as the program is fairly and properly run which at least Nassau County's does seem to be. That means not shortening any yellow's and all yellows timed according to engineering criteria, not just to cause more violations. I have watched many red-light runners properly get "zapped" and rightly so.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 21, 2016, 09:11:39 AM
I do not support going back to having RTOR be illegal everywhere in NY.  It would be absolutely painful to sit at some of the traffic lights upstate with no legitimate reason to keep me from turning right.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 21, 2016, 10:22:54 AM
Maybe they should adopt something like NYC subway conductors have to do: pointing at a certain sign when the train stops, to ensure that they open the doors in the right spot. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 21, 2016, 12:24:51 PM
I do not support going back to having RTOR be illegal everywhere in NY.  It would be absolutely painful to sit at some of the traffic lights upstate with no legitimate reason to keep me from turning right.
It is not just that - in many cases RTOR is what was apparently used to calculate capacity at design stage. I can think of a few spots where eliminating RTOR would require adding extra turn lane to preserve the capacity.
But this all boils down to enforcement practices, when laws are enforced for the sake of revenue, not for safety.

 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on December 21, 2016, 03:25:00 PM
On the topic of red light cameras, Rochester city council voted yesterday to end their red light camera program effective December 31.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on December 21, 2016, 04:16:42 PM
Well (chuckle!) Duke doesn't have to worry, 'cause in NYC RTOR is illegal except where specifically permitted so it's a non-issue.

Yes, well, I was speaking to cameras in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, which is what prompted this particular subdiscussion. Just because I live in NYC doesn't mean I don't drive elsewhere, y'know. :P

Quote
so many drivers abuse RTOR by not stopping and yielding and causing accidents.

How often do crashes actually happen this way, though? I don't see this as being a major problem.

Quote
There seems to be a public misconception that RTOR is legal, period, without having to stop and yield as the law requires.

Yes, well, this is what we get for putting stop signs everywhere. Most of the stop signs in this country should be yield signs because it isn't actually necessary to come to a complete stop in order to determine that it's safe to proceed. So naturally, American drivers have been conditioned to interpret "stop" to mean "yield" and they do this when turning right on red as well.

And, to be fair, there are situations where it isn't necessary to come to a complete stop to determine that it's safe to turn right on red. But there is no signage differentiating these situations from the situations where a full stop is necessary, and the law always mandates a full stop even when it isn't necessary in practice.

So, I would go in the opposite direction with this and do two things:
- enact a law stating that no state, county, or city authority may install a stop sign without producing a report for each intersection demonstrating that it is warranted at that particular location. These reports would expire after 10 years and need to redone to justify the stop sign's continued existence. After some established compliance date, any stop sign that doesn't have a current report would be considered unenforceable and any tickets given for running it could be thrown out in court on those grounds. The same authorities, however, can freely install as many yield signs as they want so long as the MUTCD is followed.
- amend the RTOR statute to allow the use of flashing yellow right arrows when cross traffic has a green light. Traffic turning on a flashing yellow right arrow, like with a flashing yellow left arrow, would be required to yield but not to stop. The use of this setup should be encouraged wherever it may be determined feasible.

I would hypothesize that doing this would increase compliance with traffic laws and increase safety. Why? For the same reason that raising speed limits that no one follows does. People are not unreasonable and if compliance rates with a rule are low, that generally means there is something wrong with the rule. Give people rules to follow that are generally reasonable and most people will follow them because there won't be much motive to violate them. Give people unreasonable rules and most will disregard them, creating a culture where it is socially acceptable to do so, and the rules lose their meaning and effectiveness.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 21, 2016, 07:10:11 PM
How often do crashes actually happen this way, though? I don't see this as being a major problem.

When I was doing traffic counts, at least once a week at an intersection I was counting, often 2-3 times. And mind you, we only did counts Monday-Thursday. It is a huge problem in some places.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 21, 2016, 09:31:46 PM
A lot of interesting ideas here. I for one, would not agree with allowing RTOR without a complete stop. Reason being that the traffic-light's being there to begin with indicates a dangerous intersection. And allowing traffic to proceed past a red-light is a privilege that should only be done with the utmost care and careful checking for cross-traffic. I think that merits a complete stop in most if not all cases.

BTW empirestate, I liked your comparison with the NYC Subways. Being a railroad buff, I am familiar with the history that led to the rule about pointing to the "conductor's board" before opening the doors at each station-stop. But can you imagine trying to enforce such a rule with people driving cars who are far less disciplined than railroad employees who are indoctrinated in rigid adherence to their rulebook?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on December 21, 2016, 11:21:04 PM
When I was doing traffic counts, at least once a week at an intersection I was counting, often 2-3 times. And mind you, we only did counts Monday-Thursday. It is a huge problem in some places.

Interesting. What are the sight lines like at this intersection? Might it be appropriate to prohibit RTOR there?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 21, 2016, 11:28:19 PM
When I was doing traffic counts, at least once a week at an intersection I was counting, often 2-3 times. And mind you, we only did counts Monday-Thursday. It is a huge problem in some places.

Interesting. What are the sight lines like at this intersection? Might it be appropriate to prohibit RTOR there?

I worded that poorly. I saw an RTOR crash caused by someone turning that didn't yield at least once a week. Never two at the same location. Which meant I saw dozens over the course of a summer. I have witnessed a few at this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8802997,-78.6965427,3a,75y,272.6h,75.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjsH8M671__urPQ2GjyRptQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), generally people making rights from the left side of this image that slam into someone going straight or making a protected left. People in Buffalo are known for making "rolling stops".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 22, 2016, 06:57:54 PM
A lot of interesting ideas here. I for one, would not agree with allowing RTOR without a complete stop. Reason being that the traffic-light's being there to begin with indicates a dangerous intersection. And allowing traffic to proceed past a red-light is a privilege that should only be done with the utmost care and careful checking for cross-traffic. I think that merits a complete stop in most if not all cases.

BTW empirestate, I liked your comparison with the NYC Subways. Being a railroad buff, I am familiar with the history that led to the rule about pointing to the "conductor's board" before opening the doors at each station-stop. But can you imagine trying to enforce such a rule with people driving cars who are far less disciplined than railroad employees who are indoctrinated in rigid adherence to their rulebook?
A signal usually indicates traffic volumes during peak periods, not anything about intersection safety or traffic volumes off-peak necessarily. It can also indicate an arterial regardless of volume. In most cases, RTOR is perfectly safe and there are sufficient sightlines to do so without stopping. I would argue to use a flashing red arrow instead of flashing yellow, though. But I dislike FYAs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 22, 2016, 08:24:14 PM
Alps, I guess you've never been to Nassau County, Long Island where the traffic on our main roads is heavy all day long. Another factor I should have mentioned is that when making a RTOR, the cross-traffic has a green-light which gives them absolute right-of-way over vehicles facing a red light. That legal fact alone is enough to mandate a complete stop in most cases, in my opinion.

And cl94, those rolling-stops are not just a Buffalo problem, but probably nationwide. Here on Long Island many drivers see a stop sign or red light (re: RTOR) as just a casual suggestion. LOL
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 22, 2016, 09:18:46 PM
BTW empirestate, I liked your comparison with the NYC Subways. Being a railroad buff, I am familiar with the history that led to the rule about pointing to the "conductor's board" before opening the doors at each station-stop. But can you imagine trying to enforce such a rule with people driving cars who are far less disciplined than railroad employees who are indoctrinated in rigid adherence to their rulebook?

No, but I can imagine a world in which people driving cars are closer in discipline to railroad employees, or else they don't get to do it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 24, 2016, 12:36:33 AM
Alps, I guess you've never been to Nassau County, Long Island where the traffic on our main roads is heavy all day long. Another factor I should have mentioned is that when making a RTOR, the cross-traffic has a green-light which gives them absolute right-of-way over vehicles facing a red light. That legal fact alone is enough to mandate a complete stop in most cases, in my opinion.

And cl94, those rolling-stops are not just a Buffalo problem, but probably nationwide. Here on Long Island many drivers see a stop sign or red light (re: RTOR) as just a casual suggestion. LOL
No, I've never been to Nassau County. In fact, I live in my backyard.

Why do you feel the need to denigrate me to make your point? Anyway, you're wrong, because there are plenty of places in Nassau County where there is plenty of opportunity to turn right on red.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on December 24, 2016, 12:37:26 AM
In most cases, RTOR is perfectly safe and there are sufficient sightlines to do so without stopping. I would argue to use a flashing red arrow instead of flashing yellow, though. But I dislike FYAs.

But a flashing red light explicitly means "stop", equivalent to a stop sign. The reason for using flashing yellow is to permit the movement without a full stop.

Though yes, flashing yellow arrows do have the problem of being unintuitive since their meaning ("yield") is inconsistent with that of a flashing yellow ball ("caution").
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on December 24, 2016, 07:55:20 AM
Quote from: Duke87
But a flashing red light explicitly means "stop", equivalent to a stop sign. The reason for using flashing yellow is to permit the movement without a full stop.

Applicable to left turns against opposing traffic...FAR less applicable to right turns unless turning traffic gets its own lane or turning right onto the side road at a T-intersection.

In either case, it's still far safer for all modes involved to require a stop before the turn.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 24, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: Duke87
But a flashing red light explicitly means "stop", equivalent to a stop sign. The reason for using flashing yellow is to permit the movement without a full stop.

Applicable to left turns against opposing traffic...FAR less applicable to right turns unless turning traffic gets its own lane or turning right onto the side road at a T-intersection.

In either case, it's still far safer for all modes involved to require a stop before the turn.
But 5 second is still an overkill..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on December 24, 2016, 09:16:53 AM
Alps, I guess you've never been to Nassau County, Long Island where the traffic on our main roads is heavy all day long. Another factor I should have mentioned is that when making a RTOR, the cross-traffic has a green-light which gives them absolute right-of-way over vehicles facing a red light. That legal fact alone is enough to mandate a complete stop in most cases, in my opinion.

And cl94, those rolling-stops are not just a Buffalo problem, but probably nationwide. Here on Long Island many drivers see a stop sign or red light (re: RTOR) as just a casual suggestion. LOL
No, I've never been to Nassau County. In fact, I live in my backyard.

Why do you feel the need to denigrate me to make your point? Anyway, you're wrong, because there are plenty of places in Nassau County where there is plenty of opportunity to turn right on red.

Yeah, I grew up in Nassau County, and it's definitely not as congested as NYC.  I never had to go out to Suffolk to turn right on red.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 24, 2016, 08:20:25 PM
My apologies to Alps, if I "sounded" sarcastic or denigrating. That was definitely not my intent. I was only trying to say that even some suburban areas are congested during the middle of the day, not just during rush-hours.

Also I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't necessarily have RTOR in Nassau, only that I agree that a full-stop is necessary to adequately observe and yield to cross traffic that has the right-of-way.

Happy Holidays to all! :colorful: 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on December 25, 2016, 06:33:18 AM
Quote from: kalvado
But 5 second is still an overkill..

5 seconds is a rounding error given the length of most trips.  It's not going to kill you...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 25, 2016, 07:45:48 AM
Quote from: kalvado
But 5 second is still an overkill..

5 seconds is a rounding error given the length of most trips.  It's not going to kill you...
5 seconds means that, with associated waits for right-of-way traffic, you're looking at no more than 1 car per cycle makes RTOR. At which point it is probably easier to ban it altogether. Single traffic light wait  is a rounding error given the length of most trips.  It's not going to kill you...
However, I am more concerned about delay accumulation. Added right turning traffic during the green cycle may delay thrugh and left traffic - and at some point that added traffic can make a difference between LOS D and LOS F.  Depends on lane configuration and few other things.
But at some level I agree with you - roundabouts, which are essentially mandatory RTOR layout, are a bad idea in most cases.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeCL on December 25, 2016, 10:47:11 AM
A HAWK pedestrian crossing popped up at NY 324 and Logan Ave. in Tonawanda (between Ted's and Anderson's). I don't remember seeing it two weeks ago. Lots of honking horns as drivers try to figure out what to do during the flashing red phase.
I think they have these in downtown Stamford, CT it's a 3 light setup with two at the top and one under it? The flashing means to proceed if clear correct?


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 25, 2016, 02:38:55 PM
I do not understand the purpose of a HAWK signal vs. a standard traffic signal, except maybe to save money. I've never seen one except in the Manual and I think they will cause more confusion and possibly more accidents as a result.  :no:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 25, 2016, 03:07:42 PM
I do not understand the purpose of a HAWK signal vs. a standard traffic signal, except maybe to save money. I've never seen one except in the Manual and I think they will cause more confusion and possibly more accidents as a result.  :no:
Less light on time - less power consumption, less maintenance. No "stop and wait no matter what" requirement - higher throughput, you may go through if nobody is in crosswalk. Less of a problem in case of shorted button - road still active.

for 2-lane roads, I think button/motion activated flashers on crosswalk signs are equally efficient. I don't remember seeing them on 4-lane 55 MPH roads, though, not sure if they have enough visibility distance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on December 25, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
I don't remember seeing them on 4-lane 55 MPH roads, though, not sure if they have enough visibility distance.

There's one on MA 114 for Merrimack College, which is 4 lanes. (It has a 45 mph speed limit, though.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 25, 2016, 04:59:58 PM
I don't remember seeing them on 4-lane 55 MPH roads, though, not sure if they have enough visibility distance.

There's one on MA 114 for Merrimack College, which is 4 lanes. (It has a 45 mph speed limit, though.)

NY 324 in Tonawanda. 6 lanes. That one has just enough pedestrian traffic to mess things up quite a bit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on December 26, 2016, 12:19:31 AM
I don't remember seeing them on 4-lane 55 MPH roads, though, not sure if they have enough visibility distance.

There's one on MA 114 for Merrimack College, which is 4 lanes. (It has a 45 mph speed limit, though.)

NY 324 in Tonawanda. 6 lanes. That one has just enough pedestrian traffic to mess things up quite a bit.

And the funs of watching idiots dealing with it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeCL on December 26, 2016, 02:11:15 AM
A HAWK pedestrian crossing popped up at NY 324 and Logan Ave. in Tonawanda (between Ted's and Anderson's). I don't remember seeing it two weeks ago. Lots of honking horns as drivers try to figure out what to do during the flashing red phase.
I think they have these in downtown Stamford, CT it's a 3 light setup with two at the top and one under it? The flashing means to proceed if clear correct?


iPhone
Yep now that I'm home and just googled it Stamford has the same HAWK signal set up.. anyone have what the signals mean? They have it on the pole but I guess it's for the people crossing  I've been wanting to check it out but not enough to park and go walk and check it out


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 28, 2016, 04:50:48 PM
This one is going to be nasty: plans released for NY 78 reconstruction in Depew (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14522&p_is_digital=Y), including the removal of an old railroad bridge. Part of this will include a full closure with a lengthy detour. As part of the project, a dedicated left turn lane is being installed at George Urban Blvd complete with an FYA.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on December 28, 2016, 10:15:57 PM
This one is going to be nasty: plans released for NY 78 reconstruction in Depew (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14522&p_is_digital=Y), including the removal of an old railroad bridge. Part of this will include a full closure with a lengthy detour. As part of the project, a dedicated left turn lane is being installed at George Urban Blvd complete with an FYA.

This one has been needed for a while. The Lehigh Valley overpass is abandoned and Route 78 is a choke point for traffic. Dick Road and downtown Lancaster are going to see a big jump in traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 29, 2016, 03:46:24 AM
Vehicular bloodbath!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 29, 2016, 12:35:29 PM
Official detour will be Dick Road. The intersections with Walden and Broadway will be retimed and restriped for dual turn lanes. During most of the project, they will maintain one lane in each direction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on December 30, 2016, 08:39:26 AM
The real project that would be helpful for that choke point would be removing all 4 bridges and widening it to three lanes in each direction, but that is not going to happen because it would disrupt passenger and freight service along the former NY Central, Erie and Pennsylvania.
 
Ultimately, I cannot see this current project being the future, but we will have to get what we deal with.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on January 03, 2017, 11:01:52 PM
I was in Seneca County earlier today, and saw that a few projects had been done:
EDIT:
I forgot to mention that I noticed a weird quirk about signs in front of some of the stores.  Below the store name, there's a smaller sign that says "Seneca Falls".  I'm guessing that it's a code requirement, but I didn't see anything after a quick look at the town code.  The border between Seneca Falls and Waterloo isn't obvious, so that might be it.  I saw it on Advance Auto Parts (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9089661,-76.8371395,3a,18.1y,308.5h,95.93t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sI_RtrUzHQq4oWhJJQf2L5g!2e0), the Verizon store (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9069281,-76.8368393,3a,18.1y,219.79h,92.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sxRcfQzA9wJwMYPUHX2KQtw!2e0), and after looking around in Street View, I found ones on Walmart (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9082404,-76.8383713,3a,18.1y,278.31h,97.64t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scgY4djgb3FTnjZNWxsd6Zg!2e0) and Rite Aid (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9028317,-76.8367723,3a,20.5y,23.55h,95.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sN_uQU67KhsUFWzgjMmuMJw!2e0).  These are newer buildings, so it must be required on new construction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on January 04, 2017, 05:28:57 PM
I was in the Webster area today and I noticed NYSDOT is still signing NY404 as US404. New signs too. They've been making this error for the past 10 years or more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 05, 2017, 11:06:03 AM
Article in Buffalo Rising entitled "The Future of Buffalo Area Highways" (not mine):

https://www.buffalorising.com/2017/01/the-future-of-buffalo-area-highways/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 05, 2017, 02:23:36 PM
Article in Buffalo Rising entitled "The Future of Buffalo Area Highways" (not mine):

https://www.buffalorising.com/2017/01/the-future-of-buffalo-area-highways/
That actually belongs to fictional highway forum..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 05, 2017, 04:01:07 PM
Does anyone working at the DOT HQ building know the status of the Schodack Rest Area project? I drove by this morning and the sign was gone. No work has been done since July.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 05, 2017, 04:47:16 PM
Article in Buffalo Rising entitled "The Future of Buffalo Area Highways" (not mine):

https://www.buffalorising.com/2017/01/the-future-of-buffalo-area-highways/
That actually belongs to fictional highway forum..

It belongs to an Alanland fictional highway forum. So much lol.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on January 05, 2017, 09:45:14 PM
Here is an interesting question, why does the signs on the Bronx River Parkway directing US 1 North Traffic advise motorists to use Exit 6 over Exit 7E considering that Exit 7E is actually for the said route?

Look here and see/www.google.com/maps/@40.855891,-73.8723936,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZXmWVtxcQRP2iu4bbleJzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 05, 2017, 10:08:02 PM
Here is an interesting question, why does the signs on the Bronx River Parkway directing US 1 North Traffic advise motorists to use Exit 6 over Exit 7E considering that Exit 7E is actually for the said route?

Look here and see www.google.com/maps/@40.855891,-73.8723936,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZXmWVtxcQRP2iu4bbleJzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

To discourage people from getting off at 7E and trying to cut over to the left lane to immediately make a left.

That being said, nobody other than roadgeeks actually follows surface routes through the City. A bunch of them aren't even signed well. Good luck trying to find the southern end of NY 22 if you don't know where it is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on January 05, 2017, 10:33:04 PM
Yeah I saw that one, that no US 1 north shield exists on EB Pelham Parkway telling motorists to turn left at Boston Road.  In fact US 9 is signed badly leaving I-95 in Manhattan.  No shields on EB 178th Street telling motorists to turn left at Broadway either.  Plus no mention that US 9 enters the GWB from 179th Street and no typical NYCDOT overhead freeway entrance guide there (unless one was recently installed or at least after Google was there anyway).

Hey look how long it took for NYSDOT to sign US 1 at Webster Avenue on I-95.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 06, 2017, 10:36:39 AM
Talking about last year speed limit cut on Washington ave. in Albany: A set of wrapped signs, looks like speed limit signs, sits along Washington ave. ext. for a while, I believe since November. Anyone knows what is going on? I wouldn't be surprised if there is something going on between city of A. and DOT...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 06, 2017, 03:02:31 PM
Talking about last year speed limit cut on Washington ave. in Albany: A set of wrapped signs, looks like speed limit signs, sits along Washington ave. ext. for a while, I believe since November. Anyone knows what is going on? I wouldn't be surprised if there is something going on between city of A. and DOT...

Those the work zone signs or are they on Z-bars? That being said, most (if not all) of the extension should probably be 45. That area is to busy with the malls and office complexes for it to be 55.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 06, 2017, 03:10:49 PM
Talking about last year speed limit cut on Washington ave. in Albany: A set of wrapped signs, looks like speed limit signs, sits along Washington ave. ext. for a while, I believe since November. Anyone knows what is going on? I wouldn't be surprised if there is something going on between city of A. and DOT...

Those the work zone signs or are they on Z-bars? That being said, most (if not all) of the extension should probably be 45. That area is to busy with the malls and office complexes for it to be 55.
Looks like permanent set of signs. ROad work there seem to be completed - at least until poles start falling. Even traffic light sync seem to be somewhat functional.  And if anything, I would reorganize access to frontage roads and have local traffic use frontage to improve through flow, not the other way around.
Upd: If anything, descent pedestrian access between Crossgates Mall and Crossgates commons may improve safety, regardless of speed limit. But that is another story..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 06, 2017, 07:53:46 PM
Talking about last year speed limit cut on Washington ave. in Albany: A set of wrapped signs, looks like speed limit signs, sits along Washington ave. ext. for a while, I believe since November. Anyone knows what is going on? I wouldn't be surprised if there is something going on between city of A. and DOT...

Those the work zone signs or are they on Z-bars? That being said, most (if not all) of the extension should probably be 45. That area is to busy with the malls and office complexes for it to be 55.
Just drove past. Apparently, those are permanent 45 MPH signs, and 55 MPH ones are gone. Still strange to see new signs covered for almost 2 months..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 07, 2017, 06:42:00 PM
This is behind the Exit 26a sign on Cross Island Pkwy:

(http://i.imgur.com/6ROqQ7B.png)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 07, 2017, 08:03:29 PM
It's for Belmont Park. Either it is stating exit closed or all parking, whether or not the racetrack is open.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeCL on January 07, 2017, 08:06:15 PM
It's for Belmont Park. Either it is stating exit closed or all parking, whether or not the racetrack is open.
I remember too seeing that sign flipped around it was one of the first things that caught my eye.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 07, 2017, 08:32:21 PM
It's for Belmont Park. Either it is stating exit closed or all parking, whether or not the racetrack is open.
I remember too seeing that sign flipped around it was one of the first things that caught my eye.

99% of the time I pass exit 26A or D, it's closed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2017, 11:23:53 AM
Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State?  Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"?  I was out of the room and thought I heard that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 09, 2017, 01:05:53 PM
Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State?  Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"?  I was out of the room and thought I heard that.

That's one of the many "accepted" pronunciations. I have heard at least 5 and nobody can agree. We get around that in Albany by using another name for ours.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 09, 2017, 01:20:11 PM
Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State?  Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"?  I was out of the room and thought I heard that.

That's one of the many "accepted" pronunciations. I have heard at least 5 and nobody can agree. We get around that in Albany by using another name for ours.

It's absolutely ridiculous.  There's only one correct way to pronouce Kosciuszko (the National Park Service has been on a small rant about this as well at the National Memorial in Philadelphia):


Can't tell you how many idiots around here insist on saying "Kos-ee-yoos-ko."  Heard it's that way in Mississippi, too.  Dummies.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 09, 2017, 03:28:00 PM
NYSDOT Touring Route Log for 2017 out:

- NY 191 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015 (my 24th birthday)
- NY 456 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.
- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.
- NY 374's county-maintained western terminus lopped off.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on January 09, 2017, 06:12:31 PM
Quote
Can't tell you how many idiots around here insist on saying "Kos-ee-yoos-ko."  Heard it's that way in Mississippi, too.

I can confirm that this is how Mississippi pronounces theirs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 09, 2017, 07:21:41 PM
Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State?  Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"?  I was out of the room and thought I heard that.

That's one of the many "accepted" pronunciations. I have heard at least 5 and nobody can agree. We get around that in Albany by using another name for ours.

It's absolutely ridiculous.  There's only one correct way to pronouce Kosciuszko (the National Park Service has been on a small rant about this as well at the National Memorial in Philadelphia):


Can't tell you how many idiots around here insist on saying "Kos-ee-yoos-ko."  Heard it's that way in Mississippi, too.  Dummies.
Can confirm above from Polish coworker.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2017, 08:52:55 PM
Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State?  Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"?  I was out of the room and thought I heard that.

That's one of the many "accepted" pronunciations. I have heard at least 5 and nobody can agree. We get around that in Albany by using another name for ours.

I learned most of my NY geography as a little kid from Neil Bush in the WCBS chopper and even I know that's wrong.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 09, 2017, 09:38:21 PM
I'm used to Koss-key-oss-ko because that's what I raised on from television news in NYC. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 09, 2017, 10:00:58 PM
I'm used to Koss-key-oss-ko because that's what I raised on from television news in NYC. 
That's odd. I always hear "kosh-ewe-sko" on the radio.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 09, 2017, 10:33:26 PM
By far, Koss-key-oos-ko is the most common pronunciation I hear for both bridges. As far as Albany, that pronunciation is so ingrained in culture that you'll never change it. Never.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: briantroutman on January 09, 2017, 10:42:04 PM
Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State?  Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"?  I was out of the room and thought I heard that.

That's one of the many "accepted" pronunciations. I have heard at least 5 and nobody can agree. We get around that in Albany by using another name for ours.

That’s almost exactly the way Jackie Gleason pronounces it in The Honeymooners:
https://youtu.be/Fglkj32dP44?t=16m20s (https://youtu.be/Fglkj32dP44?t=16m20s)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 09, 2017, 10:52:00 PM
I'm used to Koss-key-oss-ko because that's what I raised on from television news in NYC. 
That's odd. I always hear "kosh-ewe-sko" on the radio.

The recorded anouncements on the J train pronounce it "kosh-ewe-sko" as well (in reference to Kosciuszko Street, not the bridge).

I say and also most commonly hear "Kos-kyoo-sko".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beeper1 on January 09, 2017, 11:27:26 PM
NYSDOT Touring Route Log for 2017 out:

- NY 191 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015 (my 24th birthday)
- NY 456 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.
- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.
- NY 374's county-maintained western terminus lopped off.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf

Wow.  Quite the route number massacre in Clinton County.   I'm surprised the county, which like most of the north country isn't in great economic shape, agreed to take on these roads.  I know they don't total up to a lot of mileage, but as connectors to/from I-87 to other state roads, seemed to make sense as part of the state network.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 10, 2017, 01:09:20 AM
Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State?  Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"?  I was out of the room and thought I heard that.

That's one of the many "accepted" pronunciations. I have heard at least 5 and nobody can agree. We get around that in Albany by using another name for ours.

Is it Co-see-you-sco? Edit: it isn't. But I grew up in WNY, not the capital region. When it doubt sound it out.

Also, I noticed that Corning is actually signed at the I-590/I-390 junction which I found interesting because of how far away it's signed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on January 10, 2017, 05:38:52 AM
Wow.  Quite the route number massacre in Clinton County.   I'm surprised the county, which like most of the north country isn't in great economic shape, agreed to take on these roads.  I know they don't total up to a lot of mileage, but as connectors to/from I-87 to other state roads, seemed to make sense as part of the state network.

Those roads have already been county-maintained for years. The only thing that changed is that they lost their state route designations.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 10, 2017, 06:21:39 AM
I'm used to Koss-key-oss-ko because that's what I raised on from television news in NYC. 
That's odd. I always hear "kosh-ewe-sko" on the radio.

When I became aware if it (late 70s/early 80s) I learned "koss-key-oss-ko" from the WCBS radio traffic reports.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 10, 2017, 08:10:13 AM
NYSDOT Touring Route Log for 2017 out:

- NY 191 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015 (my 24th birthday)
- NY 456 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.
- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.
- NY 374's county-maintained western terminus lopped off.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf

I noticed the 2012 version went missing from their site the other day. I guess now we know why!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on January 10, 2017, 10:33:45 AM
By far, Koss-key-oos-ko is the most common pronunciation I hear for both bridges. As far as Albany, that pronunciation is so ingrained in culture that you'll never change it. Never.
For us older folk, the Interstate 87 bridges over the Mohawk River are still called the Crescent Bridge (singular).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 10, 2017, 10:36:15 AM
By far, Koss-key-oos-ko is the most common pronunciation I hear for both bridges. As far as Albany, that pronunciation is so ingrained in culture that you'll never change it. Never.

(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121216060045/adventuretimewithfinnandjake/images/5/54/Annoying_no_gif.gif)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 10, 2017, 10:29:29 PM
By far, Koss-key-oos-ko is the most common pronunciation I hear for both bridges. As far as Albany, that pronunciation is so ingrained in culture that you'll never change it. Never.
For us older folk, the Interstate 87 bridges over the Mohawk River are still called the Crescent Bridge (singular).

Officially, that's the US 9 bridge located at Crescent.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 13, 2017, 02:13:08 PM
Talking about last year speed limit cut on Washington ave. in Albany: A set of wrapped signs, looks like speed limit signs, sits along Washington ave. ext. for a while, I believe since November. Anyone knows what is going on? I wouldn't be surprised if there is something going on between city of A. and DOT...
and some predictable news: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Albany-NYSDOT-campaign-seeks-to-reduce-10856037.php
Signs were still covered today in the morning. Why it took 2 months to uncover them still remains a question..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on January 13, 2017, 07:02:20 PM
NYSDOT Touring Route Log for 2017 out:

- NY 191 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015 (my 24th birthday)
- NY 456 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.
- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.
- NY 374's county-maintained western terminus lopped off.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf

Also, NY430's eastern terminus has been moved slightly southwest. It now follows Washington Street in the city of Jamestown to 5th Avenue (the intersection of NY60 and eastbound NY394) as opposed to following Fluvanna Avenue.

Signage appears to confirm this. As a result, the route has been extended approximately half a mile.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on January 13, 2017, 07:31:13 PM
NYSDOT Touring Route Log for 2017 out:

- NY 191 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015 (my 24th birthday)
- NY 456 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.
- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.
- NY 374's county-maintained western terminus lopped off.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf

Also, NY430's eastern terminus has been moved slightly southwest. It now follows Washington Street in the city of Jamestown to 5th Avenue (the intersection of NY60 and eastbound NY394) as opposed to following Fluvanna Avenue.

Signage appears to confirm this. As a result, the route has been extended approximately half a mile.

I noticed this when I was in the area in November. NY 430 now fully follows old NY 17's path to the intersection with old NY 17J.

When I lived in Jamestown in 87-88 and 90-91 I could never figure out why NY 430 didn't follow that route as it's signed today. It never made sense to follow Fluvanna to NY 60.  I'm happy that they had the routing make sense.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 13, 2017, 09:13:16 PM
Talking about last year speed limit cut on Washington ave. in Albany: A set of wrapped signs, looks like speed limit signs, sits along Washington ave. ext. for a while, I believe since November. Anyone knows what is going on? I wouldn't be surprised if there is something going on between city of A. and DOT...
and some predictable news: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Albany-NYSDOT-campaign-seeks-to-reduce-10856037.php
Signs were still covered today in the morning. Why it took 2 months to uncover them still remains a question..

Gah.  I liked the 55 mph limit from Fuller to New Karner.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 13, 2017, 10:25:40 PM
NYSDOT Touring Route Log for 2017 out:

- NY 191 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015 (my 24th birthday)
- NY 456 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.
- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.
- NY 374's county-maintained western terminus lopped off.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf

Also, NY430's eastern terminus has been moved slightly southwest. It now follows Washington Street in the city of Jamestown to 5th Avenue (the intersection of NY60 and eastbound NY394) as opposed to following Fluvanna Avenue.

Signage appears to confirm this. As a result, the route has been extended approximately half a mile.

I was wondering when I was in Jamestown why I saw this:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/304/32171702775_44d35d30e6_c.jpg)

Makes perfect sense now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 14, 2017, 12:39:02 AM
One could argue it's redundant to have two north-south state routes through Jamestown.  Personally I would have kept NY 430 on Fluvanna and rerouted NY 60 off of Washington (eliminating the NY 394 overlap).

In other news, a recent court case could have consequences for road design in NY: http://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/01/05/states-highest-court-holds-nyc-liable-for-injuries-on-streets-without-traffic-calming/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 15, 2017, 03:00:21 PM
So apparently, checking it again, NY 8 has been truncated to the northern end of the concurrency with NY 10 instead of running to NY 17, lopping off 2.16 miles.

NY 102 has been truncated by 2.5 miles from NY 24 to William Street. It was county-maintained as CR 106 west of the junction, so it makes sense.

NY 204 east of I-390 lopped off.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 16, 2017, 05:58:16 PM
NY 8 has been truncated to the northern end of the concurrency with NY 10 instead of running to NY 17, lopping off 2.16 miles.

While that concurrency was topologically unnecessary this is an odd decision. 8 is the lower number, the longer route, and also the route that is logically through at the point where the two formerly diverged (staying on 10 is a right turn, 8 was straight). I would have kept 8 and truncated 10. Curious to know what the thinking was behind this.

This also creates a quirky situation where 8 ends at 10 and 10 ends at 8.

(8 is even the shorter route, by a full 22 miles, between the two 8/10 junctions!)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on January 16, 2017, 07:27:05 PM
NY 8 has been truncated to the northern end of the concurrency with NY 10 instead of running to NY 17, lopping off 2.16 miles.

While that concurrency was topologically unnecessary this is an odd decision. 8 is the lower number, the longer route, and also the route that is logically through at the point where the two formerly diverged (staying on 10 is a right turn, 8 was straight). I would have kept 8 and truncated 10. Curious to know what the thinking was behind this.

This also creates a quirky situation where 8 ends at 10 and 10 ends at 8.

(8 is even the shorter route, by a full 22 miles, between the two 8/10 junctions!)

I was thinking exactly the same.  Maybe this was an oversight in the listing, because I drive through here very regularly and there have been no changes in signage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 16, 2017, 07:39:49 PM
NY 8 has been truncated to the northern end of the concurrency with NY 10 instead of running to NY 17, lopping off 2.16 miles.

While that concurrency was topologically unnecessary this is an odd decision. 8 is the lower number, the longer route, and also the route that is logically through at the point where the two formerly diverged (staying on 10 is a right turn, 8 was straight). I would have kept 8 and truncated 10. Curious to know what the thinking was behind this.

This also creates a quirky situation where 8 ends at 10 and 10 ends at 8.

(8 is even the shorter route, by a full 22 miles, between the two 8/10 junctions!)

I was thinking exactly the same.  Maybe this was an oversight in the listing, because I drive through here very regularly and there have been no changes in signage.

I doubt they will change signs. Unlike the other truncations, these are major through routes that would still warrant a "to" assembly. Might just be an internal change.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on January 24, 2017, 02:24:43 PM
Plan day at NYSDOT and a few of the highlights:

D263398 - Safety Improvements on the Harlem River Drive    link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263398

and

D263372 - NYC bridge maintenance repairs    link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263372
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 24, 2017, 09:51:46 PM
I found a lone Cuomo sign on I-88 EB between exits 2 and 3 yesterday.  Large sign only, nothing WB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 24, 2017, 11:21:08 PM
The proposed transportation plan in the budget is getting NYSDOT hopeful that SFY 17-18 will have a much larger capital program than in recent years.  The cash transfer essentially covers the listed accelerated projects, per my understanding.

https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/executive/eBudget1718/capitalPlan/CapPlan.pdf 

See pages 65-67.  As I've remarked in the I-86 conversion thread, there you have Woodbury Commons and nothing else.

(personal opinion expressed)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 24, 2017, 11:23:33 PM
The proposed transportation plan in the budget is getting NYSDOT hopeful that SFY 17-18 will have a much larger capital program than in recent years.  The cash transfer essentially covers the listed accelerated projects, per my understanding.

https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/executive/eBudget1718/capitalPlan/CapPlan.pdf 

See pages 65-67.  As I've remarked in the I-86 conversion thread, there you have Woodbury Commons and nothing else.

(personal opinion expressed)

And the NY 198 bullshit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 25, 2017, 09:04:07 AM
The proposed transportation plan in the budget is getting NYSDOT hopeful that SFY 17-18 will have a much larger capital program than in recent years.  The cash transfer essentially covers the listed accelerated projects, per my understanding.

https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/executive/eBudget1718/capitalPlan/CapPlan.pdf 

See pages 65-67.  As I've remarked in the I-86 conversion thread, there you have Woodbury Commons and nothing else.

(personal opinion expressed)

And the NY 198 bullshit.

They still can't figure out what to do with it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 02:07:18 PM
The proposed transportation plan in the budget is getting NYSDOT hopeful that SFY 17-18 will have a much larger capital program than in recent years.  The cash transfer essentially covers the listed accelerated projects, per my understanding.

https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/executive/eBudget1718/capitalPlan/CapPlan.pdf 

See pages 65-67.  As I've remarked in the I-86 conversion thread, there you have Woodbury Commons and nothing else.

(personal opinion expressed)

And the NY 198 bullshit.

They still can't figure out what to do with it.
Well, they're certainly going to throw a lot of money at it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: burgess87 on January 29, 2017, 12:41:36 PM
Living just off the 198 here in the Queen City, I get frustrated with the traffic quite a bit.  I think immediately lowering the speed limit to 30 was a knee-jerk reaction by Governor Cuomo.  It's rarely enforced, and people fly by me all the time doing 45-50 when I'm doing 35 (because I can't afford a speeding ticket right now). 

The DOT just held a public meeting regarding the plans for the 198 here, and a lot of people want more roundabouts in the plan.  I'm laughing incredibly hard here - Buffalonians can't handle Gates Circle on a daily basis. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on January 29, 2017, 02:13:18 PM
Gates Circle isn't a roundabout.  It's more like the traffic circles of old.  And yes, there are fundamental differences between traffic circles and roundabouts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 29, 2017, 04:38:34 PM
Gates Circle isn't a roundabout.  It's more like the traffic circles of old.  And yes, there are fundamental differences between traffic circles and roundabouts.

That being said, Buffalo people can't handle real roundabouts either. NYSDOT put in a few several years ago. People still can't figure out how to use them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 29, 2017, 07:58:59 PM
I can't imagine roundabouts on NY 198.  Latham Circle regularly jams up and it's a long wait to enter if you're coming from the US 9 ramps (especially the one with WalMart), and NY 198 has 2-4 times as much traffic, depending on section.

Honestly, I have to wonder what the people who want to remove the Scajaquada were expecting to get, considering the traffic counts.  They can't just wave their magic wand and undo the history of the area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 29, 2017, 08:15:12 PM
I have never had a problem getting through Latham Circle.  Must be a rush hour thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 29, 2017, 08:17:35 PM
I have never had a problem getting through Latham Circle.  Must be a rush hour thing.

I go through all the time during rush hour and have never had a problem. I avoid NY 7 like the plague during the PM rush in both directions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 30, 2017, 09:44:57 PM
It's not an issue from NY 2 EB; never tried WB.  The ramp from US 9 SB is hit or miss.  The ramp from US 9 NB, however, generally has rather long lines and it can take multiple minutes to get through, especially since everyone from WalMart uses it.  Thankfully, one silver lining from the end of First Niagara is that I'm no longer going that way on a regular basis (the branch near there had its hours cut, so I now use the one on Wolf Road; unfortunately, that has its own issues with trying to get on the Northway, so getting my laundry quarters is now much more inconvenient than it used to be overall).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 30, 2017, 09:47:51 PM
It's not an issue from NY 2 EB; never tried WB.  The ramp from US 9 SB is hit or miss.  The ramp from US 9 NB, however, generally has rather long lines and it can take multiple minutes to get through, especially since everyone from WalMart uses it.  Thankfully, one silver lining from the end of First Niagara is that I'm no longer going that way on a regular basis (the branch near there had its hours cut, so I now use the one on Wolf Road; unfortunately, that has its own issues with trying to get on the Northway, so getting my laundry quarters is now much more inconvenient than it used to be overall).

NY 2 is only an issue when people don't step on the damn gas. Occasionally, there's someone who thinks the circle must be empty before they can enter. There are ways around it if coming from US 9 and I generally use them unless I'm going through at night. NY 155 or 378 from the south, Miller Rd from the north.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 30, 2017, 10:46:20 PM
For NY 2 it sounds to me like, the same as most roundabouts in the US that have problems, it's the vehicular equivalent of a PEBKAC (PEBWAS?) situation. There's nothing wrong with the roundabout, people just don't know how to drive.

As for NY 198, I'm sure there are some who are concerned about safety who would argue that slow speeds resulting from congestion are a feature, not a bug, of a redesign involving roundabouts. Now, congestion is a safety hazard as well (in different ways from the existing road), as is the removal of grade separation... but good luck convincing the average layman to actually believe you when you try and explain this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 31, 2017, 09:22:48 PM
I think part of the NY 2 issue is that there's more traffic on NY 2 combined with it being a multi-lane roundabout with the US 9 ramps yielding to all lanes in the circle (but only one lane between the directions of NY 2 on each side).  As such, traffic on NY 2 keeps coming in, but traffic on the ramps has to wait for someone to turn across NY 2 (thereby blocking both of its lanes from entering) to enter.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 31, 2017, 09:37:01 PM
Correct. The big thing is the volume disparity. US 9 through traffic bypasses the circle. PHVs on NY 2 are 12-1300 EB (PM rush), likely similar WB. That doesn't leave a lot of room for vehicles to enter from US 9. CDTC doesn't release their intersection counts, so I can't provide a more thorough analysis.

If I were in charge, I'd rebuild that thing into a SPUI or build a bridge for NY 2 through traffic. No other unsignalized circle in the state comes close with regards to PHVs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 31, 2017, 09:49:50 PM
Yeah, and I have similar concerns for NY 198.  Note that the last "boulevard" proposal didn't actually remove the overpasses - it just realigned the ramps to be intersections with traffic lights instead.  If those became roundabouts, there would be a HUGE disparity.  Heck, even replacing the overpasses with roundabouts would likely have a big disparity.  IMO roundabouts work best when the disparity is low or when the flow is low enough that gaps aren't rare.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 31, 2017, 10:21:09 PM
Yeah, and I have similar concerns for NY 198.  Note that the last "boulevard" proposal didn't actually remove the overpasses - it just realigned the ramps to be intersections with traffic lights instead.  If those became roundabouts, there would be a HUGE disparity.  Heck, even replacing the overpasses with roundabouts would likely have a big disparity.  IMO roundabouts work best when the disparity is low or when the flow is low enough that gaps aren't rare.

(personal opinion emphasized)

I worked at that MPO. You're preaching to the choir.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on January 31, 2017, 10:37:23 PM
As for NY 198, I'm sure there are some who are concerned about safety who would argue that slow speeds resulting from congestion are a feature, not a bug, of a redesign involving roundabouts. Now, congestion is a safety hazard as well (in different ways from the existing road), as is the removal of grade separation... but good luck convincing the average layman to actually believe you when you try and explain this.

Try explaining the part I bolded to the people who think a boulevard in Syracuse is a good idea!  I think having a boulevard will actually make it harder than it is now for people to cross from downtown to the SU area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 01, 2017, 12:03:30 AM
Correct. The big thing is the volume disparity. US 9 through traffic bypasses the circle. PHVs on NY 2 are 12-1300 EB (PM rush), likely similar WB. That doesn't leave a lot of room for vehicles to enter from US 9. CDTC doesn't release their intersection counts, so I can't provide a more thorough analysis.

If I were in charge, I'd rebuild that thing into a SPUI or build a bridge for NY 2 through traffic. No other unsignalized circle in the state comes close with regards to PHVs.
What if you brought NY 2 and US 9 to a signalized intersection on the ground level, all turns prohibited, and kept the roundabout for all left and right turns? That might accommodate the capacities in question.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 01, 2017, 12:24:10 AM
Correct. The big thing is the volume disparity. US 9 through traffic bypasses the circle. PHVs on NY 2 are 12-1300 EB (PM rush), likely similar WB. That doesn't leave a lot of room for vehicles to enter from US 9. CDTC doesn't release their intersection counts, so I can't provide a more thorough analysis.

If I were in charge, I'd rebuild that thing into a SPUI or build a bridge for NY 2 through traffic. No other unsignalized circle in the state comes close with regards to PHVs.
What if you brought NY 2 and US 9 to a signalized intersection on the ground level, all turns prohibited, and kept the roundabout for all left and right turns? That might accommodate the capacities in question.

Circle is at ground level, US 9 is in a trench. You could build a trench for NY 2. It would probably have to continue east past Old Loudon Road, but that might not be a bad thing given how that signal backs up regularly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 01, 2017, 12:03:00 PM
I like the idea of a bridge over the circle, if only for how spectacular it would be. :D

Of course, ROW costs would be obscene for any major changes to the circle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 01, 2017, 01:53:07 PM
I like the idea of a bridge over the circle, if only for how spectacular it would be. :D

Of course, ROW costs would be obscene for any major changes to the circle.

Not necessarily. Vacant land on the SE side and if they trench it, it could be extended east to where ROW is no longer a concern.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 01, 2017, 02:43:05 PM
With the 198, there is an elephant in the room: what is to become of the T junction at I-190? The locals want it home but I don't know what the alternative would be.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: burgess87 on February 01, 2017, 10:37:37 PM
I just reviewed the DOT's plans for the 198 re-do, and I have to say that I like what I see.  Only one roundabout (on the southwest side of Grant St); more traffic signals/pedestrian signals (potentially HAWKs); and intersection improvements at Elmwood, Delaware, and Parkside.  Many here say it doesn't do enough for pedestrians; however, I feel they balanced the vehicles & pedestrians as best as they could without major disruptions in traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 02, 2017, 12:24:09 AM
I just reviewed the DOT's plans for the 198 re-do, and I have to say that I like what I see.  Only one roundabout (on the southwest side of Grant St); more traffic signals/pedestrian signals (potentially HAWKs); and intersection improvements at Elmwood, Delaware, and Parkside.  Many here say it doesn't do enough for pedestrians; however, I feel they balanced the vehicles & pedestrians as best as they could without major disruptions in traffic.
I say it should have just stayed as it originally was.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 02, 2017, 09:04:50 AM
I like the idea of a bridge over the circle, if only for how spectacular it would be. :D

Of course, ROW costs would be obscene for any major changes to the circle.

Not necessarily. Vacant land on the SE side and if they trench it, it could be extended east to where ROW is no longer a concern.
What, we are getting rid of the dry cleaners, or are they not there anymore? :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 02, 2017, 09:15:52 AM
I like the idea of a bridge over the circle, if only for how spectacular it would be. :D

Of course, ROW costs would be obscene for any major changes to the circle.

Not necessarily. Vacant land on the SE side and if they trench it, it could be extended east to where ROW is no longer a concern.
What, we are getting rid of the dry cleaners, or are they not there anymore? :D

I meant SW. Oops.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 02, 2017, 09:23:59 AM
I like the idea of a bridge over the circle, if only for how spectacular it would be. :D

Of course, ROW costs would be obscene for any major changes to the circle.

Not necessarily. Vacant land on the SE side and if they trench it, it could be extended east to where ROW is no longer a concern.
What, we are getting rid of the dry cleaners, or are they not there anymore? :D

I meant SW. Oops.
Isn't that now owned by the redevelopers of the mall?  Could still be a factor in price, couldn't it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 02, 2017, 08:16:47 PM
Yeah, I'm guessing the developers don't want to give up part of their brand new plaza's lot.

I just reviewed the DOT's plans for the 198 re-do, and I have to say that I like what I see.  Only one roundabout (on the southwest side of Grant St); more traffic signals/pedestrian signals (potentially HAWKs); and intersection improvements at Elmwood, Delaware, and Parkside.  Many here say it doesn't do enough for pedestrians; however, I feel they balanced the vehicles & pedestrians as best as they could without major disruptions in traffic.
I'm guessing that's the plan the activists are presently railing against.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 03, 2017, 11:05:31 PM
I-88 WB Wells Bridge rest area has indeed been renovated. Doors are locked, but I expect it'll open this spring.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: daver40 on February 06, 2017, 01:41:26 PM
Cool photo of US-11, NY-17, NY-7 all running down Court Street at Chenango Street in Binghamton circa 1960

(http://i1030.photobucket.com/albums/y364/daver40us/Court2_zpsxak4mwvt.png) (http://s1030.photobucket.com/user/daver40us/media/Court2_zpsxak4mwvt.png.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on February 07, 2017, 02:28:07 PM
D263370 - an I-81 sign rehab project includes some advance 2 mile notice signs for exits 14, 15, and 16 (and Cuomo signs)

Link - https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263370
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 07, 2017, 05:53:51 PM
New question;

US 9W in Kingston, NY at the north end of the bypass. Was that supposed to go northwest of NY 32 and connect to East Chester Street? Because I see an unfinished half diamond interchange at the end of it.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/41%C2%B055'30.0%22N+74%C2%B000'00.0%22W/@41.9411871,-73.9827342,2748m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d41.925!4d-74?hl=en

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on February 07, 2017, 06:18:12 PM
It was supposed to run behind the mall and connect with Route 199. This was cancelled because of an environmentally sensitive lake along the route's path. Frank Sottile Blvd which runs from Route 32 to US 9W was built in the 90's as an alternative.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on February 07, 2017, 06:43:31 PM
D263370 - an I-81 sign rehab project includes some advance 2 mile notice signs for exits 14, 15, and 16 (and Cuomo signs)

Whoever designed those signs needs to be in charge of designing signs for the entire state. Those look damn good...especially compared to some of the other monstrosities posted the last few years!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 07, 2017, 07:04:37 PM
D263370 - an I-81 sign rehab project includes some advance 2 mile notice signs for exits 14, 15, and 16 (and Cuomo signs)

Whoever designed those signs needs to be in charge of designing signs for the entire state. Those look damn good...especially compared to some of the other monstrosities posted the last few years!

NYSDOT R3 has always done the best job of freeway signage in the state.  There have been a few hiccups here and there over the years but their signing practices go above and beyond anything found elsewhere in the state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 07, 2017, 07:14:28 PM
D263370 - an I-81 sign rehab project includes some advance 2 mile notice signs for exits 14, 15, and 16 (and Cuomo signs)

Link - https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263370


Pretty sure those Cuomo signs are already there. Notes on the plans say to retain existing signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 07, 2017, 07:27:21 PM
It was supposed to run behind the mall and connect with Route 199. This was cancelled because of an environmentally sensitive lake along the route's path. Frank Sottile Blvd which runs from Route 32 to US 9W was built in the 90's as an alternative.
Wow. Environmental sensitivity aside, it doesn't really seem like the smartest idea  to put a whole new interchange so close between US 9W and NY 32.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 08, 2017, 08:02:33 AM
D263370 - an I-81 sign rehab project includes some advance 2 mile notice signs for exits 14, 15, and 16 (and Cuomo signs)

Whoever designed those signs needs to be in charge of designing signs for the entire state. Those look damn good...especially compared to some of the other monstrosities posted the last few years!

NYSDOT R3 has always done the best job of freeway signage in the state.  There have been a few hiccups here and there over the years but their signing practices go above and beyond anything found elsewhere in the state.
They had a Regional Director who was obsessed with overhead sign structures.  Tightened up inspection practices at NYSDOT overall, actually.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: civilmaher on February 08, 2017, 09:02:33 AM
It was supposed to run behind the mall and connect with Route 199. This was cancelled because of an environmentally sensitive lake along the route's path. Frank Sottile Blvd which runs from Route 32 to US 9W was built in the 90's as an alternative.
Wow. Environmental sensitivity aside, it doesn't really seem like the smartest idea  to put a whole new interchange so close between US 9W and NY 32.


That's what I was thinking! Five interchanges within three miles of each other.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 08, 2017, 12:20:16 PM
R3 and R6 have the best signage in the state. New signs in both are beautiful. Granted, R6 is done by a fellow roadgeek.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 08, 2017, 12:30:49 PM
R3 and R6 have the best signage in the state. New signs in both are beautiful. Granted, R6 is done by a fellow roadgeek.

Yes, I agree that R6's latest efforts are outstanding. R6 back in the 80s and 90s could be a little rough at times but they've held onto centered exit plaques the longest and I must applaud that.  :)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 09, 2017, 10:08:34 AM
That's what I was thinking! Five interchanges within three miles of each other.
I can accept it if they wanted to combined the US 9W and NY 32 interchanges as one on NY 199, extend the bypass north of NY 199 and extend the north end of US 209 to that, but not the way Snappyjack describes it.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 09, 2017, 08:25:11 PM
I always thought it was to meet up at the Enterprise Drive interchange.  In any case, NY is no stranger to close interchanges: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0407931,-75.9162726,14.75z
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 09, 2017, 10:50:23 PM
I always thought it was to meet up at the Enterprise Drive interchange.  In any case, NY is no stranger to close interchanges: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0407931,-75.9162726,14.75z
You know it.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Southern+State+Pkwy,+North+Merrick,+NY+11566/@40.6907787,-73.5693289,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e82d86197ae721:0x80a4ed55df6c70c!8m2!3d40.6901198!4d-73.5630203
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 09, 2017, 11:39:22 PM
I always thought it was to meet up at the Enterprise Drive interchange.  In any case, NY is no stranger to close interchanges: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0407931,-75.9162726,14.75z
That's plausible. 1956 NY historic aerial predates all freeways. 1963 doesn't show 9W, but it does show 199, and Enterprise Drive is already constructed. It would be difficult but conceivable to shoehorn a freeway in there, assuming the ellipsoid was meant as a traffic circle interchange. But with all that - why not just tie the freeway into the divided 9W at the 199 cloverleaf?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on February 10, 2017, 05:08:49 PM
While playing GeoGuessr yesterday afternoon, I came across this yellow on brown reference marker (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,45.3y,270.71h,66.38t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) in the Adirondack Park.  Is this normal for the Adirondack and Catskill parks or are they usually the normal white on green?

EDIT:  There's also some sort of marker on the guardrail (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,28.2y,343.04h,50.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) just before the reference marker.  I checked old Street View imagery to make sure it wasn't just something on the guardrail, but it's there at every time on the timeline.  It looks like a USGS survey marker, but there's nothing listed in the National Geodetic Survey Data Explorer.  In that case, I'm guessing it's a right of way marker.  Any ideas?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 10, 2017, 05:43:52 PM
While playing GeoGuessr yesterday afternoon, I came across this yellow on brown reference marker (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,45.3y,270.71h,66.38t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) in the Adirondack Park.  Is this normal for the Adirondack and Catskill parks or are they usually the normal white on green?

EDIT:  There's also some sort of marker on the guardrail (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,28.2y,343.04h,50.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) just before the reference marker.  I checked old Street View imagery to make sure it wasn't just something on the guardrail, but it's there at every time on the timeline.  It looks like a USGS survey marker, but there's nothing listed in the National Geodetic Survey Data Explorer.  In that case, I'm guessing it's a right of way marker.  Any ideas?

Yellow on brown is the new standard for Adirondack Park. Catskill Park is white on brown.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 12, 2017, 01:24:17 AM
While playing GeoGuessr yesterday afternoon, I came across this yellow on brown reference marker (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,45.3y,270.71h,66.38t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) in the Adirondack Park.  Is this normal for the Adirondack and Catskill parks or are they usually the normal white on green?

EDIT:  There's also some sort of marker on the guardrail (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,28.2y,343.04h,50.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) just before the reference marker.  I checked old Street View imagery to make sure it wasn't just something on the guardrail, but it's there at every time on the timeline.  It looks like a USGS survey marker, but there's nothing listed in the National Geodetic Survey Data Explorer.  In that case, I'm guessing it's a right of way marker.  Any ideas?

If you notice, it's also missing the support post underneath, leaving a gap in the pattern. I think it might have to do with that or the reference marker.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on February 12, 2017, 04:38:00 AM
While playing GeoGuessr yesterday afternoon, I came across this yellow on brown reference marker (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,45.3y,270.71h,66.38t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) in the Adirondack Park.  Is this normal for the Adirondack and Catskill parks or are they usually the normal white on green?

EDIT:  There's also some sort of marker on the guardrail (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,28.2y,343.04h,50.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) just before the reference marker.  I checked old Street View imagery to make sure it wasn't just something on the guardrail, but it's there at every time on the timeline.  It looks like a USGS survey marker, but there's nothing listed in the National Geodetic Survey Data Explorer.  In that case, I'm guessing it's a right of way marker.  Any ideas?

If you notice, it's also missing the support post underneath, leaving a gap in the pattern. I think it might have to do with that or the reference marker.

You can see the top of the post next to the mystery marker, and if you move back one click you can see the whole post. This appears to be a photo seam-stitching artifact, and a particularly deceptive one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 14, 2017, 12:47:28 PM
This is on "Trains Are Fun.com," but there were provisions on the Wantagh State Parkway to have a potential grade crossing just in case the LIRR decided to restore service on the Central Branch between Eisenhower Park and Bethpage Junction.  :-o

http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/centralbranch/lirrcentralbranch.htm

http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/centralbranch/22-Cent-Br-Remains-ROW-at-Grade-Wantagh%20Pky-Levittown-1955%20(Schneider-Keller).jpg

This is over by the Salisbury Park Drive bridge. I'm really glad they never built that.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on February 14, 2017, 08:07:30 PM
Interesting. I've driven/ridden that road a thousand times, and even back before it was paved over about 40 years ago, I never even noticed that as a kid. Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on February 14, 2017, 11:55:15 PM
Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.

Why not? Several NY parkways have grade level intersections with streets and even traffic lights. I totally believe they would have let there be a railroad crossing there.

...in the 1940s, at least. If LIRR had in fact reactivated that line I'm sure the grade crossing would have been eliminated by now. The question is how long it would have lasted.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 15, 2017, 12:23:08 AM
Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.

Why not? Several NY parkways have grade level intersections with streets and even traffic lights. I totally believe they would have let there be a railroad crossing there.

...in the 1940s, at least. If LIRR had in fact reactivated that line I'm sure the grade crossing would have been eliminated by now. The question is how long it would have lasted.

Please, there are plenty of Interstate-grade roads in this part of the country with grade crossings. Look at Utica and Vermont. Would that one have been grade separated at some point? Probably. But that doesn't mean it necessarily would have.

It is worth mentioning that I-87 had a temporary grade crossing just north of Albany between its opening and 1965.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 15, 2017, 12:53:15 AM
Interesting. I've driven/ridden that road a thousand times, and even back before it was paved over about 40 years ago, I never even noticed that as a kid. Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.
Well, that picture was from 1955, but I agree that they would've been better off with a bridge. Duke87 is right though, they might've felt it was okay to have one at the time. I wouldn't.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 15, 2017, 08:30:17 AM
This is on "Trains Are Fun.com," but there were provisions on the Wantagh State Parkway to have a potential grade crossing just in case the LIRR decided to restore service on the Central Branch between Eisenhower Park and Bethpage Junction.  :-o

http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/centralbranch/lirrcentralbranch.htm

http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/centralbranch/22-Cent-Br-Remains-ROW-at-Grade-Wantagh%20Pky-Levittown-1955%20(Schneider-Keller).jpg

This is over by the Salisbury Park Drive bridge. I'm really glad they never built that.

Those provisions are still visible today!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 15, 2017, 12:28:34 PM
Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.

Why not? Several NY parkways have grade level intersections with streets and even traffic lights. I totally believe they would have let there be a railroad crossing there.

...in the 1940s, at least. If LIRR had in fact reactivated that line I'm sure the grade crossing would have been eliminated by now. The question is how long it would have lasted.

Please, there are plenty of Interstate-grade roads in this part of the country with grade crossings. Look at Utica and Vermont. Would that one have been grade separated at some point? Probably. But that doesn't mean it necessarily would have.

It is worth mentioning that I-87 had a temporary grade crossing just north of Albany between its opening and 1965.

The NY 840 expressway was built in 2005 with a grade crossing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 15, 2017, 12:31:45 PM
Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.

Why not? Several NY parkways have grade level intersections with streets and even traffic lights. I totally believe they would have let there be a railroad crossing there.

...in the 1940s, at least. If LIRR had in fact reactivated that line I'm sure the grade crossing would have been eliminated by now. The question is how long it would have lasted.

Please, there are plenty of Interstate-grade roads in this part of the country with grade crossings. Look at Utica and Vermont. Would that one have been grade separated at some point? Probably. But that doesn't mean it necessarily would have.

It is worth mentioning that I-87 had a temporary grade crossing just north of Albany between its opening and 1965.

The NY 840 expressway was built in 2005 with a grade crossing.

Don't forget about the NY-49/365 crossing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 15, 2017, 12:59:20 PM
Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.

Why not? Several NY parkways have grade level intersections with streets and even traffic lights. I totally believe they would have let there be a railroad crossing there.

...in the 1940s, at least. If LIRR had in fact reactivated that line I'm sure the grade crossing would have been eliminated by now. The question is how long it would have lasted.

Please, there are plenty of Interstate-grade roads in this part of the country with grade crossings. Look at Utica and Vermont. Would that one have been grade separated at some point? Probably. But that doesn't mean it necessarily would have.

It is worth mentioning that I-87 had a temporary grade crossing just north of Albany between its opening and 1965.

The NY 840 expressway was built in 2005 with a grade crossing.

Don't forget about the NY-49/365 crossing.

I lumped both of those in with NY 5/12 as the Utica ones. Either way, the Wantagh wouldn't have been the only roadway like that in the state with a grade crossing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 15, 2017, 08:05:40 PM
It is worth mentioning that I-87 had a temporary grade crossing just north of Albany between its opening and 1965.
Yeah, in hindsight, that was probably a bad idea.  Now the Mohawk-Hudson Hike-Bike Trail needs to jog onto local streets to cross I-87 since the off-road trail is just the old rail ROW.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 15, 2017, 08:18:20 PM
It is worth mentioning that I-87 had a temporary grade crossing just north of Albany between its opening and 1965.
Yeah, in hindsight, that was probably a bad idea.  Now the Mohawk-Hudson Hike-Bike Trail needs to jog onto local streets to cross I-87 since the off-road trail is just the old rail ROW.

NYSDPW wanted New York Central to pay for the crossing. Line didn't have enough traffic to justify one, so they abandoned it once Schnectady got adequate highway infrastructure.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on February 15, 2017, 08:46:07 PM
Okay, re: the Wantagh Parkway again. It was built in 1938 and Long island was rural back then, so just maybe there was so little traffic that a grade crossing would have been considered realistic. Next time I drive that road, I will check if the potential crossing is still visible but I don't know how it could be. The Parkway was repaved with asphalt over the original concrete in about 1977. And it badly needs repaving again now, as that 40 year-old asphalt is falling apart.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 15, 2017, 08:56:06 PM
Okay, re: the Wantagh Parkway again. It was built in 1938 and Long island was rural back then, so just maybe there was so little traffic that a grade crossing would have been considered realistic. Next time I drive that road, I will check if the potential crossing is still visible but I don't know how it could be. The Parkway was repaved with asphalt over the original concrete in about 1977. And it badly needs repaving again now, as that 40 year-old asphalt is falling apart.

The ROW is still quite clear (at least it was last summer and from November GSV).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on February 15, 2017, 10:55:20 PM
Please, there are plenty of Interstate-grade roads in this part of the country with grade crossings. Look at Utica and Vermont. Would that one have been grade separated at some point? Probably. But that doesn't mean it necessarily would have.

I say unhesitatingly that it would have for one simple reason: all the surviving examples people have mentioned here are tracks with infrequent usage. Current service levels on the LIRR Ronkonkoma branch are 72 trains per day (36 inbound, 36 outbound), if we assume half of them would be using the Central branch instead of the mainline if it were reactivated, that's 36 times each day that grade crossing would have had the gates coming down, including 4 times between 7-8 AM and 3 times between 5-6 PM. Very different story with that kind of train traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 16, 2017, 12:45:34 AM
Bad news for AET. Upstate is last to get everything.

No plans for cashless tolling on Thruway in upstate, Cuomo administration says

Quote
ALBANY – There are no specific plans to bring a cashless toll system to the upstate portions of the Thruway even though it now operates at the Tappan Zee Bridge between Rockland and Westchester counties, a Cuomo administration official told lawmakers Wednesday.

“We’ve looked at it. We have no plans at the moment,’’ Bill Finch, the acting executive director of the Thruway Authority, testified during a joint legislative hearing looking into Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s budget plans for the state’s transportation programs.

In cashless tolling, tolls are either deducted from a driver's E-Z Pass or the license plate is photographed and you get a bill in the mail.

Cashless tolling is also being added at New York City bridge and tunnel crossings.

Finch said Thruway plazas in Western New York are areas “that would benefit from cashless tolling.’’ But he said the current plans are not to expand that toll collection system beyond downstate.

The “social costs are enormous” with cashless tolling, Finch said. They include less wait time at toll booths, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and fewer accidents.

Finch did not say why other areas of Thruway do not have plans to add the cashless tolling systems.

http://buffalonews.com/2017/02/15/no-plans-cashless-tolling-thruway-upstate/

I bet all of the CuomoSigns money could've been used for a partial conversion or study.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 16, 2017, 12:56:36 AM
Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.

Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 16, 2017, 08:45:17 AM
Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.
I don't fully buy that. It is totally possible to go toward highway-speed tolls for ezpass first.  Something like south Thruway terminus - that works just fine. I would say Exit B1 at the end of free I-90, B3 toward MA and Thruway 87 -> Northway  are prime spots for that with significant traffic and reasonable room for construction.
I am not sure if that wold be simple enough in Buffalo, but may be a good way to boost EZpass by giving apparent advantage to users. 5% - or that is lower? - is not really good stimulus any more since toll cost is not communicated to the user until way later (if they bother to read the statement at all)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 16, 2017, 07:26:51 PM
Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.

Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
But wouldn't having to staff toll booths and print paper tickets still cost more money in the long term?

Though, as I'm typing this, I do realize that automated toll booths that accept paper tickets do exists. The Mass Pike used to use them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 16, 2017, 07:47:27 PM
Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.

Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
But wouldn't having to staff toll booths and print paper tickets still cost more money in the long term?

Though, as I'm typing this, I do realize that automated toll booths that accept paper tickets do exists. The Mass Pike used to use them.
I think this is more about the outcry when locals who make short dashes along toll road would face $0.30 toll + $2.50 administrative fee for what used to be a quarter at the booth... 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 16, 2017, 08:00:36 PM
If they're not going to go AET on the ticket system any time soon, IMO they should at least provide ORT lanes for the barriers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 16, 2017, 08:02:06 PM
Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.

Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
But wouldn't having to staff toll booths and print paper tickets still cost more money in the long term?

Though, as I'm typing this, I do realize that automated toll booths that accept paper tickets do exists. The Mass Pike used to use them.
I think this is more about the outcry when locals who make short dashes along toll road would face $0.30 toll + $2.50 administrative fee for what used to be a quarter at the booth...

That is part of it. Western New York has horribly low E-ZPass rates and most non-truck trips are relatively short.

As to why they're not doing high-speed elsewhere, no place to put it in Albany without major additions due to the short merge area and B3 doesn't get enough traffic.

ORT for Buffalo was shot down for environmental reasons.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 16, 2017, 08:14:16 PM
What would be the feasibility of doing ORT at the existing Williamsville barrier, similar to what was done for Woodbury?  Granted, I-290 might complicate things.  I don't remember ORT even being considered for Lackawanna or the Grand Island bridges.  Ripley and Canan are less of an issue due to lower traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 16, 2017, 09:23:58 PM
Nowhere to put it on Grand Island. Toll booths are too close to the bridge for the merge to be safe.

As far as current Williamsville, again no space. You'd need to give up at least 4 current toll lanes for just one ORT lane in each direction. Being as they typically use 3 lanes at the moment for E-ZPass except during overnight hours (1 EB, 2 WB), it would be a net loss that would eliminate the gains from the additional cash lane they just added. Plus, one of the current E-ZPass lanes has no booth, so it's restricted to E-ZPass only. Can't widen anything because the plaza is already up against the noise walls.

Woodbury only worked because they generally had at least 6 E-ZPass lanes at any given time, which happens to be how much space they needed for 4 ORT lanes. In terms of space assigned for each mode, there's probably more assigned to cash on average now than there were before ORT even with losing 6 toll lanes for ORT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 17, 2017, 12:28:39 AM
All this talk of the Buffalo area has raised a question - It's fairly common knowledge that the best route from, say, New Jersey to Buffalo involves taking I-390 and cutting a diagonal toward the Thruway. Was a freeway ever proposed for this corridor? Is there justification to provide some sort of diagonal improved road here?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 17, 2017, 12:57:13 AM
All this talk of the Buffalo area has raised a question - It's fairly common knowledge that the best route from, say, New Jersey to Buffalo involves taking I-390 and cutting a diagonal toward the Thruway. Was a freeway ever proposed for this corridor? Is there justification to provide some sort of diagonal improved road here?

Yes. There have been proposals. Genesee County is very opposed to any improvements, while Wyoming County wants one to increase traffic (and thus business) through the area. Is there justification? Certainly. Heavy truck traffic (40-60%) that is only increasing. It's a good 15-20+ minutes faster than using existing expressways. I use this corridor quite often if I'm traveling between Albany and my parents in Buffalo and don't feel like paying a toll and there's always a constant stream of cars in both directions. Do we need a full freeway per se? Probably not. But a super-2 along the US 20A corridor with an alternating passing lane would do wonders.

A study was done several years ago and I have no idea if anything ever came from it. As of now, the only improvements to the corridor have been a minor realignment near Wyoming CR 16 and installation of flashing warning signs along US 20 west of NY 63.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region4/projects/route63-corridor-study
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on February 17, 2017, 11:14:17 PM
I just saw this on my Facebook News Feed:

WHEC - Cashless tolls are back on the table in Upstate (http://www.whec.com/news/cashless-tolls-upstate/4402889/?cat=565)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on February 18, 2017, 12:35:04 AM
If the issue is low E-Zpass adoption in Western NY, would it perhaps make sense to break the current main ticket system in two?

Find the easternmost exit along the I-90 section of the Thruway where E-Zpass usage drops below some threshold that's deemed viable for cashless tolling. Build a new toll plaza where customers can take a ticket/pay cash between that and the next exit to the east. Implement cashless east/south of there. Though, the need to build a new toll plaza will hurt the economics of this idea.



But yeah, if E-Zpass usage rates in WNY are really as low as 50%, I agree that the cash lanes need to remain in place until that goes up significantly. NYSTA is going to need to work on enticing more people to sign up for E-Zpass before it really makes sense over there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 18, 2017, 09:58:20 PM
Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.

Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
BTW, how old that "below 50%" data is?
I am looking at 2016 data, and exit 50 has 63% ezpass usage, 61% for exit 55 - well, still lower compared to 69.6% for exit 24...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 18, 2017, 10:17:33 PM
Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.

Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
BTW, how old that "below 50%" data is?
I am looking at 2016 data, and exit 50 has 63% ezpass usage, 61% for exit 55 - well, still lower compared to 69.6% for exit 24...

2015. And that doesn't include the Grand Island bridges. Once those go, you'll be hearing it from the groups trying to attract tourists because of how the rental car companies slap a fee on top of the camera charge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 18, 2017, 10:29:45 PM
Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.

Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
BTW, how old that "below 50%" data is?
I am looking at 2016 data, and exit 50 has 63% ezpass usage, 61% for exit 55 - well, still lower compared to 69.6% for exit 24...

2015. And that doesn't include the Grand Island bridges. Once those go, you'll be hearing it from the groups trying to attract tourists because of how the rental car companies slap a fee on top of the camera charge.
Well, mainline Thruway can do anything - and that wouldn't affect logistics of Grand Island....
As for camera surcharges - that is definitely one big reason why I think AET in its present form is a disaster. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 19, 2017, 12:55:16 AM
Okay, re: the Wantagh Parkway again. It was built in 1938 and Long island was rural back then, so just maybe there was so little traffic that a grade crossing would have been considered realistic. Next time I drive that road, I will check if the potential crossing is still visible but I don't know how it could be. The Parkway was repaved with asphalt over the original concrete in about 1977. And it badly needs repaving again now, as that 40 year-old asphalt is falling apart.
There's a bike trail next to it. Any chance you could use that?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 19, 2017, 02:03:53 AM
Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.

Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
BTW, how old that "below 50%" data is?
I am looking at 2016 data, and exit 50 has 63% ezpass usage, 61% for exit 55 - well, still lower compared to 69.6% for exit 24...

2015. And that doesn't include the Grand Island bridges. Once those go, you'll be hearing it from the groups trying to attract tourists because of how the rental car companies slap a fee on top of the camera charge.
Well, mainline Thruway can do anything - and that wouldn't affect logistics of Grand Island....
As for camera surcharges - that is definitely one big reason why I think AET in its present form is a disaster. 
The rental car model is a disaster. They should charge a flat fee of $5 for the entire rental period if you use their tag, and that's it. It's extortion right now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 19, 2017, 07:51:40 AM

The rental car model is a disaster. They should charge a flat fee of $5 for the entire rental period if you use their tag, and that's it. It's extortion right now.
it is not about rental, I am afraid. I would say this is about "they don't vote here" approach - out-of-state plates can also mean problems. Overcharging and fining those out of area is so easy. Both toll agencies and rental companies are at fault. Local governments also love to bite that cake...
 Illinois model of being able to pre-pay online at a reasonable rate is a step forward - but only a small step I would say. Some uniform regulations could help - but mandate for toll tags interoperability was successfully ignored, so I don't hold my breath.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on February 19, 2017, 09:28:16 AM
When it comes to the rental car companies, I agree with Alps.  It's extortion on the rental companies part, pure and simple.

One alternative for the customer, as the system currently exists, is to use their own EZPass (if they have one) in a rental vehicle.  I recently did this and had no problems.

One complication regarding "out of state plates" and rental cars is that you can still have a local who's stuck with out of state plates.  In my EZPass example above, I had a rental vehicle for almost a month with Pennsylvania plates, despite the fact that I both picked up and dropped off the rental vehicle in northern Vermont.  I can't imagine this is an isolated situation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 19, 2017, 09:43:32 AM
When it comes to the rental car companies, I agree with Alps.  It's extortion on the rental companies part, pure and simple.

One alternative for the customer, as the system currently exists, is to use their own EZPass (if they have one) in a rental vehicle.  I recently did this and had no problems.

One complication regarding "out of state plates" and rental cars is that you can still have a local who's stuck with out of state plates.  In my EZPass example above, I had a rental vehicle for almost a month with Pennsylvania plates, despite the fact that I both picked up and dropped off the rental vehicle in northern Vermont.  I can't imagine this is an isolated situation.

"Use your EZpass" is a good argument - IF nationwide tags would also be available for pickup in Mexico and Canada.
As it stands right now, I kept getting Florida tolls on my card for 3 or 4 months after the trip. God forbids I had to change that card for any reason. NY EZpass is  useless in FL..
And I suspect nothing would change until some federal thumbscrews are applied to local officials. Money from non-voters are a true free lunch!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 19, 2017, 04:14:38 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the rental terms were originally set with the idea that it was a premium service and charged accordingly, back when cash was still king with toll plazas and transponders were mainly a convenience for commuters and frequent users.  These days, transponders are king in many areas, but of course the rental terms are the same because the rental car companies don't want to give up a cash cow.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on February 20, 2017, 10:07:55 AM
When it comes to the rental car companies, I agree with Alps.  It's extortion on the rental companies part, pure and simple.

One alternative for the customer, as the system currently exists, is to use their own EZPass (if they have one) in a rental vehicle.  I recently did this and had no problems.
The key stipulation in your above-statement is (if they have one).  At present, only 16 states have E-ZPass and that number does not include states that have their own independent electronic tolling system (Florida's SunPass for example, which does not recognize E-ZPass accounts (my brother found that out the hard way a few years ago)).

A real-world scenario would be if a visitor from a non-E-ZPass state (& has no need to have an E-ZPass account) flies into a city and rents a car at or near the airport.  If they have to use an all-AET facility in their travels (& a toll-free alternative route is not easily available/accessible); they're still basically at the mercy of the rental car company in terms of (exorbitant) charges & fees.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on February 20, 2017, 07:03:47 PM
A real-world scenario would be if a visitor from a non-E-ZPass state (& has no need to have an E-ZPass account) flies into a city and rents a car at or near the airport.  If they have to use an all-AET facility in their travels (& a toll-free alternative route is not easily available/accessible); they're still basically at the mercy of the rental car company in terms of (exorbitant) charges & fees.

This doesn't necessarily help you if your trip is on short notice, but if you have the foresight you can always sign up for a local tag from the place you're going in advance of the trip.

Of course, the percentage of non-roadgeeks who think of this is probably small.

 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 20, 2017, 07:23:20 PM
A real-world scenario would be if a visitor from a non-E-ZPass state (& has no need to have an E-ZPass account) flies into a city and rents a car at or near the airport.  If they have to use an all-AET facility in their travels (& a toll-free alternative route is not easily available/accessible); they're still basically at the mercy of the rental car company in terms of (exorbitant) charges & fees.

This doesn't necessarily help you if your trip is on short notice, but if you have the foresight you can always sign up for a local tag from the place you're going in advance of the trip.

Of course, the percentage of non-roadgeeks who think of this is probably small.
SO I need to get Sunpass tag for $15 or $25, and again end up paying 3x tolls? Yes, I may reuse tag next time.. if I choose to return. But you know, Aruba doesn't have any toll roads, and in general much less of a hassle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on February 21, 2017, 09:14:42 AM
One complication regarding "out of state plates" and rental cars is that you can still have a local who's stuck with out of state plates.  In my EZPass example above, I had a rental vehicle for almost a month with Pennsylvania plates, despite the fact that I both picked up and dropped off the rental vehicle in northern Vermont.  I can't imagine this is an isolated situation.
It isn't.  I've rented vehicles in Massachusetts that had Virginia or Georgia plates; and one time, while in Pittsburgh, the rental vehicle I used had California plates on it.

That said, I don't see how having an out-of-state plate on a rental would make a difference regarding which E-ZPass toll rate is applied.  The transponders the rental car agencies offer would likely be from the state where one picks up/drops off the car; not what state license plate the vehicle has. 

The only issue I would see regarding rentals & transponders would be if one was doing a one-way rental (i.e. dropping a vehicle off at a different location than where it was picked up).  Last year, I did such while renting a vehicle in central Massachusetts and dropping it off where I live in PA.  For the tolls, I just paid cash since I didn't want to go through the hassle of adding/deleting a rental vehicle on my E-ZPass account.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 21, 2017, 12:57:29 PM
I don't think rentals even USE regular transponders like E-ZPass.  The one time I had a rental, it had a proprietary "PlatePass" system, so its acceptance may be different.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 21, 2017, 01:14:19 PM
I don't think rentals even USE regular transponders like E-ZPass.  The one time I had a rental, it had a proprietary "PlatePass" system, so its acceptance may be different.

The PlatePass box has an E-ZPass transponder if rented in the E-ZPass region. Don't open the box and the transponder won't be read.

In areas with AET, PlatePass activates automatically and the renter is charged the ridiculous service fees plus the cash toll rate. That right there is reason enough not to have AET in Buffalo given the region's heavily reliance on tourism.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on February 21, 2017, 01:19:58 PM
I don't think rentals even USE regular transponders like E-ZPass.  The one time I had a rental, it had a proprietary "PlatePass" system, so its acceptance may be different.
Such depends on the rental car agency & location.  One rental I had a few years ago (the facility was at an airport) actually had a transponder in the glove box; but using it (attaching it to the windshield) was subject to a fee so I left it in the glove box and paid cash for any tolls.

In areas with AET, PlatePass activates automatically and the renter is charged the ridiculous service fees plus the cash toll rate. That right there is reason enough not to have AET in Buffalo given the region's heavily reliance on tourism with no cash alternative at all.
FTFY.  :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 21, 2017, 01:36:02 PM
In areas with AET, PlatePass activates automatically and the renter is charged the ridiculous service fees plus the cash toll rate. That right there is reason enough not to have AET in Buffalo given the region's heavily reliance on tourism with no cash alternative at all.
FTFY.  :)
I can see easy non-cash alternatives for visitors who want to pay without long-term commitments - like pay via Internet a-la Illinois, pay at kiosk - at gas station near exit (they would LOVE people stopping by and entering the store), rest area, PC at hotel lobby and so on.
Failure to pay can still go old style via rental company with surcharge.
FOr me it is more about local officials willing to make visitor's life easy - as opposed to collecting a bit of admin fees.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on February 21, 2017, 03:25:08 PM
I can see easy non-cash alternatives for visitors who want to pay without long-term commitments - like pay via Internet a-la Illinois, pay at kiosk - at gas station near exit (they would LOVE people stopping by and entering the store), rest area, PC at hotel lobby and so on.
I don't think what you described has been implemented on a grand scale as of yet.  AET is still fairly new in most regions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 21, 2017, 07:03:13 PM
I can see easy non-cash alternatives for visitors who want to pay without long-term commitments - like pay via Internet a-la Illinois, pay at kiosk - at gas station near exit (they would LOVE people stopping by and entering the store), rest area, PC at hotel lobby and so on.
I don't think what you described has been implemented on a grand scale as of yet.  AET is still fairly new in most regions.
We're routinely discussing California-Hawaii interstates over here. Compared to that, relatively straightforward payment system should be seen as cheap and simple project barely worth any discussion!
On a serious note - I don't see a reason such add-ons to AET system cannot be implemented, assuming powers that be are interested in that. Moreover, I can see it as a precursor to nationwide toll interoperability, as we have tag compatibility issues - but license plates are more compatible.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on February 22, 2017, 09:29:20 AM
I don't see a reason such add-ons to AET system cannot be implemented, assuming powers that be are interested in that.
The key phrase/issue in your statement is shown in bold.  As mentioned earlier by vdeane; rental car agencies aren't going to willingly give up their cash cow in terms of transponder/plate-pass fees.

Moreover, I can see it as a precursor to nationwide toll interoperability, as we have tag compatibility issues
Electronic tolling of some type has been in existence for over 20 years; and while E-ZPass is the largest network (up to 16 states), there are still states/agencies to this date that use an independent/non-compatible electronic tolling system.

- but license plates are more compatible.
That could open up a whole other debate/can of worms.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 22, 2017, 02:12:35 PM
I don't see a reason such add-ons to AET system cannot be implemented, assuming powers that be are interested in that.
The key phrase/issue in your statement is shown in bold.  As mentioned earlier by vdeane; rental car agencies aren't going to willingly give up their cash cow in terms of transponder/plate-pass fees.

Moreover, I can see it as a precursor to nationwide toll interoperability, as we have tag compatibility issues
Electronic tolling of some type has been in existence for over 20 years; and while E-ZPass is the largest network (up to 16 states), there are still states/agencies to this date that use an independent/non-compatible electronic tolling system.

- but license plates are more compatible.
That could open up a whole other debate/can of worms.

Rental car companies have little say in how semi-government toll organization bills drivers. Admin fees those organization charge, however...
As for EZpass - as far as I understand, EZpass is old style expensive technology, hence adopting it is a step backward for many places. So if (when) unified toll system is created, it would likely be based on a different technology. As for plates.. Aren't AET in present form is working with probably 100 different standards - and actually handling with them?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 23, 2017, 10:32:49 PM
This will be a silly post, and probably wishful thinking as well. But if NYSDOT/TA wants to increase toll revenue to justify AET, building a rolled beltway around Buffalo (about 2-3 miles from NY-78 and interchange at I-90 1/2 mile east of Harris Hill) could probably raise funds because drivers will travel long distances.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on February 26, 2017, 08:31:28 AM
Given New York construction prices, I doubt such a beltway would be justifiable even as a toll road.  Despite perception otherwise, most Thruway traffic in the Buffalo area is local and not long-distance through traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 26, 2017, 10:19:43 AM
And, NYSDOT Region 5 is very open about Buffalo not having a significant traffic problem anyway.  They don't even have the usual rush hour humps on their daily traffic charts -- traffic in Buffalo actually peaks at lunch time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2017, 11:48:03 AM
And, NYSDOT Region 5 is very open about Buffalo not having a significant traffic problem anyway.  They don't even have the usual rush hour humps on their daily traffic charts -- traffic in Buffalo actuall peaks at lunch time.

Precisely. I laugh when people complain about Buffalo "traffic". Their worst is a typical Saturday in Albany.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on February 28, 2017, 03:12:38 PM
The mayor of Binghamton just announced some projects last night.  Route 363 is being torn down.  The initial plans call for it to be removed completely but there's an alternative to make it a two-lane grade level street.  Absolutely ridiculous.  The kowtowing to pedestrians in this country is sickening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 28, 2017, 04:07:01 PM
The mayor of Binghamton just announced some projects last night.  Route 363 is being torn down.  The initial plans call for it to be removed completely but there's an alternative to make it a two-lane grade level street.  Absolutely ridiculous.  The kowtowing to pedestrians in this country is sickening.

I'm not convinced it's necessary. The area is shrinking and the bridges need to be replaced anyway. Until I see plans, I can't make any informed comments about how it'll be. The main thing it'll do is move through traffic to NY 17 and NY 201, which isn't a bad thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 01, 2017, 03:57:18 AM
The state is moving forward on a $6m welcome center for Grand Island along I-190. I'm sure this will find itself in company with CuomoSigns.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on March 01, 2017, 08:45:28 AM
For information regarding its removal and the plan to revitalize Binghamton's long neglected waterfront, see this study (https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd-lwrp/LWRP/Binghamton_C/Original/BinghamtonSIV.pdf).

NY 363 does little to enhance the traffic flow for the city, other than speed it up through a residential neighborhood and downtown. It cuts off a revitalizing neighborhood and downtown from the Susquehanna River and impedes a long-proposed plan to incorporate a linear waterfront park along the Susquehanna and Chenango rivers.

The loop ramps with NY 434, each one block square, produce nothing for the city in terms of tax revenue. They are out of scale with the surrounding density and the land can be better reused for new mixed-use developments.

The removal of the NY 363 freeway only adds a few minutes to a commute out of downtown. Its transformation into a landscaped parkway with pedestrian crossings, buffered by a long needed park and new developments, will improve the aesthetics and tax base of the city.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 01, 2017, 02:20:28 PM
NY 363 carries about 23k vehicles there.  While it doesn't need to be a freeway, that would seem to be a bit much for a two lane road (either on the same alignment or diverting to US 11).

The state is moving forward on a $6m welcome center for Grand Island along I-190. I'm sure this will find itself in company with CuomoSigns.
The FHWA didn't complain about the Taste NY store on the Thruway near Lock 13, so we'll see.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 01, 2017, 02:22:54 PM
NY 363 carries about 23k vehicles there.  While it doesn't need to be a freeway, that would seem to be a bit much for a two lane road (either on the same alignment or diverting to US 11).

The state is moving forward on a $6m welcome center for Grand Island along I-190. I'm sure this will find itself in company with CuomoSigns.
The FHWA didn't complain about the Taste NY store on the Thruway near Lock 13, so we'll see.
I am not too sure that FHWA is totally accepting of the Taste of NY facilities.  I think the negotiations have just gone into the shadows.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 01, 2017, 02:34:12 PM
NY 363 carries about 23k vehicles there.  While it doesn't need to be a freeway, that would seem to be a bit much for a two lane road (either on the same alignment or diverting to US 11).

And of that, half is through traffic. The ramps between 363 and the bridge carry about 13K both directions combined. Those users can easily move to NY 201 if they want a limited-access route.

I am not too sure that FHWA is totally accepting of the Taste of NY facilities.  I think the negotiations have just gone into the shadows.

Let's just say that I've heard similar things through the grapevine, either firsthand or secondhand. Not saying anything more than that in public.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on March 01, 2017, 02:37:18 PM
There is adequate routes for NY 363 to divert to if there is that much of a need for through traffic. The proposal, at least from what I've read, does not yet call for a two-lane parkway. And it has been demonstrated that just because a freeway or a high capacity route is removed that congestion increases elsewhere; it merely disperses or gets shifted to other routes. Rush hour is not a concern for the area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 01, 2017, 02:41:33 PM
There is adequate routes for NY 363 to divert to if there is that much of a need for through traffic. The proposal, at least from what I've read, does not yet call for a two-lane parkway. And it has been demonstrated that just because a freeway or a high capacity route is removed that congestion increases elsewhere; it merely disperses or gets shifted to other routes. Rush hour is not a concern for the area.

I fully agree. This isn't NY 198. Studies will likely be done to determine the impact of a diet. NY 198's studies all showed LOS F if the speed limit went to 30 or lanes were removed. It's not like the alternate routes are at capacity and a good portion of the traffic is going to/from SUNY Binghamton.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on March 01, 2017, 03:42:34 PM
On a similar note, is there a reason for the NY 7 freeway to exist north of I-81? Now that the cloverleaf with I-81 is being removed in favor of a more conventional interchange, and I-88 (long) complete to I-81, the NY 7 freeway stands out as an outlier. It doesn't generate nor carry a lot of traffic, and its interchanges with Bevier and Phelps streets could be intersections without any loss of capacity or slow down in times.

I think at best, it would provide additional connectivity to NY 7 but I'm sure the improvements are not as high as, say, the NY 363 freeway-to-parkway conversion. It has a railroad to the immediate east and there is limited room for redevelopment opportunities.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 01, 2017, 04:00:22 PM
The only reason the NY 7 expressway exists is history. NY 7 was upgraded south of Exit 2 well before I-88 was even thought up and a bridge was built north of I-81. What remains as NY 7 alone is mostly at-grade, so I don't see much of a reason to get rid of it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 01, 2017, 04:12:30 PM
NY 363 carries about 23k vehicles there.  While it doesn't need to be a freeway, that would seem to be a bit much for a two lane road (either on the same alignment or diverting to US 11).

The state is moving forward on a $6m welcome center for Grand Island along I-190. I'm sure this will find itself in company with CuomoSigns.
The FHWA didn't complain about the Taste NY store on the Thruway near Lock 13, so we'll see.
I am not too sure that FHWA is totally accepting of the Taste of NY facilities.  I think the negotiations have just gone into the shadows.
Last thing I've seen in press was automatic checkout on existing facilities, no human cashier, no new facilities on non-tolled roads. I thought one on Thruway is OK as it is on a toll road?
As for Grand Island - where exactly that would go?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 01, 2017, 06:08:22 PM
NY 363 carries about 23k vehicles there.  While it doesn't need to be a freeway, that would seem to be a bit much for a two lane road (either on the same alignment or diverting to US 11).

And of that, half is through traffic. The ramps between 363 and the bridge carry about 13K both directions combined. Those users can easily move to NY 201 if they want a limited-access route.

I'd want to see an O/D study before I pronounce that they can shift corridors. Given the lights on 434 through Vestal, actual through traffic probably IS already using 201, meaning that much of the 13K is locally generated on one side of the bridge or the other. ***EDITED TO ADD: Brought to my attention that with 17/81 construction, traffic might currently be using 363-434 that would normally use 17-201 in the future. So we may not actually be able to rely on the counts.*** 23K needs at minimum a four-lane corridor, especially given how quiet nights are (meaning that a higher percentage of traffic is present at rush hours than, say, northern NJ). If this is brought to the surface, it needs to be a four lane expressway with corridor signal progression.
Let's also consider the State Street modifications that have been proposed. With State going down to a single lane, all the traffic dumping in on 434 needs to distribute. The current interchange and freeway provide that relief valve. You will - not could, will - see daily AM gridlock if both State and 363 are downgraded as proposed. Here are options:
* Rebuild Washington Street bridge (non-starter, IMO)
* Reroute 363 to the south side of the river through existing neighborhoods (non-starter, not just IMO)
* Reroute the existing 434 bridge to curve directly into 363 - no State Street interchange (doesn't free up shoreline and makes it harder to get downtown - also a non-starter)

I see only two possibilities. Convert 363 to an expressway with very favorable signal progression, squeeze it in a little and make some room against the water - or tunnel it from Exchange St. to Stuyvesant St. and build your park there. That would get my vote.

As for those loop ramps and "unused" land? Reconstruct the WB-SB loop into something tighter, then put a parking garage to its west, and put a building in the east loop, and connect them with a bridge over 434.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on March 01, 2017, 06:29:56 PM
For information regarding its removal and the plan to revitalize Binghamton's long neglected waterfront, see this study (https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd-lwrp/LWRP/Binghamton_C/Original/BinghamtonSIV.pdf).

NY 363 does little to enhance the traffic flow for the city, other than speed it up through a residential neighborhood and downtown. It cuts off a revitalizing neighborhood and downtown from the Susquehanna River and impedes a long-proposed plan to incorporate a linear waterfront park along the Susquehanna and Chenango rivers.

The loop ramps with NY 434, each one block square, produce nothing for the city in terms of tax revenue. They are out of scale with the surrounding density and the land can be better reused for new mixed-use developments.

The removal of the NY 363 freeway only adds a few minutes to a commute out of downtown. Its transformation into a landscaped parkway with pedestrian crossings, buffered by a long needed park and new developments, will improve the aesthetics and tax base of the city.

How familiar are you with Binghamton?  The area surrounding NY-363 is seedy and will not be improved by the removal of the highway.  There's no need for development -- all of the development in the last 10 years has been geared toward students and there was JUST an article in the paper the other day that three new private housing facilities for students about to open are having trouble getting tenants.

The weather here is terrible for the VAST majority of the year.  This, combined with the dangerous neighborhoods surrounding the new "park," will greatly diminish any usefulness.  It's ludicrous to anyone who lives here to suggest removing a road and building a park will bring anyone downtown.  Downtown Binghamton is where you go to deal with the government.  There will never again be a true reason to go there for entertainment.  Those days are long gone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 01, 2017, 07:32:09 PM
Heck, most restaurants in downtown Binghamton aren't even OPEN for much of the day.  There is virtually no housing for young professionals in the entire metro area, and most of what does exist is in the suburbs; everything else is run down or for students (the only apartment complex comparable to the stuff being built in major urban centers that doesn't have some severe problem is in Endicott, a half hour drive away).

I'm not convinced that everything could be absorbed into existing roads.  US 11 could take some of the traffic, but not all (only two lanes), or even most.  Anything going over that bridge would HAVE to use US 11; Shore Drive cannot have an at-grade intersection with NY 434, so it's that interchange or nothing.  Traffic that can use NY 201 probably already is, and that road is much like NY 85 in terms of construction, with more traffic.  It probably can't absorb much more without needing a widening.

NY 363 carries about 23k vehicles there.  While it doesn't need to be a freeway, that would seem to be a bit much for a two lane road (either on the same alignment or diverting to US 11).

The state is moving forward on a $6m welcome center for Grand Island along I-190. I'm sure this will find itself in company with CuomoSigns.
The FHWA didn't complain about the Taste NY store on the Thruway near Lock 13, so we'll see.
I am not too sure that FHWA is totally accepting of the Taste of NY facilities.  I think the negotiations have just gone into the shadows.
The news articles have mentioned complaints regarding the facility on the LIE and the one being constructed on free 90 in Schodack.  No mention of the one on at Lock 13 in any article, and that's the one to compare Grand Island to, since I-190 is part of the Thruway there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 01, 2017, 07:33:27 PM
It's ludicrous to anyone who lives here to suggest removing a road and building a park will bring anyone downtown.  Downtown Binghamton is where you go to deal with the government.  There will never again be a true reason to go there for entertainment.  Those days are long gone.

Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 02, 2017, 03:33:19 AM
I find it interesting that Utica decided to do a full scale upgrade for its downtown expressway instead of considering a downgrade like in the case here. Although at the same time, there's quite a bit of N/S traffic that goes through there so I don't think I know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 02, 2017, 12:34:01 PM
I find it interesting that Utica decided to do a full scale upgrade for its downtown expressway instead of considering a downgrade like in the case here. Although at the same time, there's quite a bit of N/S traffic that goes through there so I don't think I know what I'm talking about.

The original design of the N-S Arterial was to be above grade but the city fought against it in the 60s. There have been numerous pedestrian and other automobile related fatalities along the section being upgraded since that decision in the 60s was made. The city asked the state to reduce the speed limit to 25 shortly after the road was opened in the 60s and the state said no, they don't build 25 MPH four-lane roads.

The unfortunate thing about the N-S Arterial reconstruction is that they're doing only half the stretch of roadway, two traffic signals will remain for the foreseeable future (lack of funds, political clout). There has already been a fatality at one of the two lights within the past year and I can't see things getting any better since now there's basically only 1/4 mile of roadway with two lights with 55 MPH expressway on either side. Pedestrians are opting to ignore the new pedestrian bridge and are continuing to cross at the lights. I've observed many times when the crosswalk signals are ignored.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on March 07, 2017, 04:00:25 PM
D263387 - a project to improve the interchange with I-390, I-490, and Lyell Ave in the Rochester area.

Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263387
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on March 07, 2017, 04:41:37 PM
Uh oh.. US 22 makes an appearance in R8 for an I-684 pavement rehab project from Hardscrabble Rd north to I-84

Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263441
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 07, 2017, 05:39:23 PM
D263387 - a project to improve the interchange with I-390, I-490, and Lyell Ave in the Rochester area.

Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263387
I was honestly starting to wonder if that project would ever see the light of day.  Of course, this is SIGNIFICANTLY scaled back from what it once was.  Last I saw, it would have had more extensive interchange modifications, including express lanes.  Over 15 years ago, the plan was to completely rebuild the interchange and do a full depth reconstruction from there all the way to NY 104.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 07, 2017, 08:42:31 PM
I am fairly sure preliminary phases of the project have already been underway under different contracts. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 07, 2017, 10:12:20 PM
The intersection of Walden Ave and Galleria Dr. in Cheektowaga is an insidious one, that's for sure. If you're going southbound on Galleria Dr, there are 3 movements at the intersection: left,through and right.

People will turn left from the center lane, and someone almost collided with me in an attempt to cut across to the I-90 WB ramp. On paper, the vehicle should have continued straight to Anderson Rd. I was in the left turn lane, so I had the right of way to continue onto Walden Ave.

I wonder if the interchange reconstruction will correct these flaws. The best thing that can be done is the installation of a wire pylon with three "ONLY" shields indicating the movements.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on March 08, 2017, 12:38:10 AM
This has nothing to do with traffic safety--it has everything to do with ignorant, stupid drivers.  Most drivers need to pay attention and stay off the f'ing phones.  Remember when it was turning the radio dial that caused distracted driving?  Now it is texting and talking on phones that cause it.  Drivers just need to read the signs and be attentive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on March 08, 2017, 09:05:25 AM
D263387 - a project to improve the interchange with I-390, I-490, and Lyell Ave in the Rochester area.

Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263387
Is it me or do those LEFT EXIT tabs shown on the drawings for Exit 9B appear a bit too wide?   

On many of the proposed BGS', the tabs are so wide (& given NYSDOT's insistence on not having exit tabs mounted fully flush with the 'outer' edge of the main sign panel) that such doesn't appear to be left-justified at a glance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 08, 2017, 01:24:04 PM
I am fairly sure preliminary phases of the project have already been underway under different contracts. 
Quite possibly (the area of NY 390 to be reconstructed did receive an overlay after that version of the project was cancelled; it was originally to be done around the same time as the work on I-490 east of there; there was also a project in the works to reconstruct NY 590 from Norton Street to Lake Ontario, as I recall).  All I know is that they've been talking about this interchange since I was in elementary school, and the cost of the project has had some questioning whether the revived project (after the original was cancelled) would actually go through or not.  Kinda like the exit 4 flyover around here.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 08, 2017, 02:14:03 PM
Exit 4 Phase 1 was completed in 2015 with the bridge replacements. I know the rest is on CDTC's priority list, but failing bridges come first.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 08, 2017, 04:08:27 PM
Exit 4 Phase 1 was completed in 2015 with the bridge replacements. I know the rest is on CDTC's priority list, but failing bridges come first.

Now there's a project that came out of nowhere.  In my personal opinion, someone with major influence got phase 1 onto the letting schedule and completed.  That happened faster than with any other project to which I've been a witness.
Title: NYS 2017 Route Log
Post by: empirestate on March 09, 2017, 11:46:13 PM
I've been poring over this new route log, and also noticing a number of the Wikipedia articles have been updated based on it. But I'm not convinced that some of these updates reflect actual changes, so much as discrepancies between the route log and, say, NYSDOT inventory files. For example:

- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.

The 2004 route log shows the same terminus at NY 12. (I also have logs from 2009 and 2012, which I assume will also be the same.) However, the 2006 inventory file still shows the extension to CR 32 (the vets' home). The 2014 file (the most recent available) corroborates this. So either this was changed by 2004 and the inventory files are wrong, or–more likely–the route log isn't accurate.

Quote
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.

Again, the 2004 and 2017 logs show the same terminus, and it's Manitou Beach–east of the parkway. (The terminus is indicated by parentheses.)

Quote
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.

This is legit, and confirmed by GSV. However, I'm just struck by how short a route NY 314 is left as. Must be in the bottom 3 or 4 statewide!

So apparently, checking it again, NY 8 has been truncated to the northern end of the concurrency with NY 10 instead of running to NY 17, lopping off 2.16 miles.

NY 102 has been truncated by 2.5 miles from NY 24 to William Street. It was county-maintained as CR 106 west of the junction, so it makes sense.

NY 204 east of I-390 lopped off.

Again, none of these is a change in the log since 2004, and all are refuted by the most current inventory file. And turning back those few hundredths of a mile of NY 204 between I-390 and the city line would be very odd–who would take it over, the county?

I went ahead and reverted the WP pages for NY 96 and NY 80 that cited the 2017 log as a change, but in fact are cases where all recent route logs agree and are in conflict with the inventory file. My feeling is that the inventory files are more accurate, but is there another school of thought on this?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 10, 2017, 12:39:53 AM
NY 220's extension was signed as of a month ago. NY 8 was still signed to NY 17 last weekend.

The ONLY confirmed removals are in Region 7 and I, along with many others, have confirmed most personally. In cases where the log and inventory files disagree, inventory files trump.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on March 10, 2017, 09:04:34 AM
Uh oh.. US 22 makes an appearance in R8 for an I-684 pavement rehab project from Hardscrabble Rd north to I-84

Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263441

There's also a US 22 shield on NY 22 in North White Plains.
Title: Re: NYS 2017 route log
Post by: empirestate on March 10, 2017, 09:25:47 AM
NY 220's extension was signed as of a month ago. NY 8 was still signed to NY 17 last weekend.

The ONLY confirmed removals are in Region 7 and I, along with many others, have confirmed most personally. In cases where the log and inventory files disagree, inventory files trump.

That's always been my belief. It looks like what happened is that somebody looked at maintenance jurisdiction rather than posted numbering and thought, "Oh hey, that section isn't state maintained; it's county. Better remove it from the list."

(MODS: Possible to split off this side-topic?)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 10, 2017, 01:16:53 PM
What is interesting is that street view indicates that the signage DOES claim that NY 261 ends at the Parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 10, 2017, 11:04:36 PM
I-88 WB rest area in Sidney reopened at some point between last Saturday and today. All signage has been changed to reflect this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 11, 2017, 12:17:12 AM
What is interesting is that street view indicates that the signage DOES claim that NY 261 ends at the Parkway.

Yeah, but I seem to recall it's "always" been that way.

NY 96 is another example. It officially ends at Main St., but when was the last time you saw any markers west of Winton Road?

While on that subject, the route log gives the northern terminus of that route as "Inner Loop"–and I have a theory that they actually mean the western leg of the Inner Loop, back when it ran along Plymouth Ave.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 11, 2017, 05:05:12 PM
Signage on NY 96 just disappears (same for NY 404, even though it actually ends around NY 590; signage erroneously says it heads west and then vanishes).  NY 261 has an "END" shield prior to the LOSP, the ramps from the LOSP only snow NY 261 south, and coming from the county-maintained part there's a "JCT NY 261" sign on the same assembly as the "JCT LOSP" sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 11, 2017, 06:01:52 PM
Signage on NY 96 just disappears (same for NY 404, even though it actually ends around NY 590; signage erroneously says it heads west and then vanishes).  NY 261 has an "END" shield prior to the LOSP, the ramps from the LOSP only snow NY 261 south, and coming from the county-maintained part there's a "JCT NY 261" sign on the same assembly as the "JCT LOSP" sign.

This. I can name a handful of routes that just disappear under local maintenance. NY 261 is the only one I know of with an end sign. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. But it is curious. Stuff like NY 80 and US 9W just die out. Not 261.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 12, 2017, 12:13:58 AM
Signage on NY 96 just disappears (same for NY 404, even though it actually ends around NY 590; signage erroneously says it heads west and then vanishes).  NY 261 has an "END" shield prior to the LOSP, the ramps from the LOSP only snow NY 261 south, and coming from the county-maintained part there's a "JCT NY 261" sign on the same assembly as the "JCT LOSP" sign.

This. I can name a handful of routes that just disappear under local maintenance. NY 261 is the only one I know of with an end sign. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. But it is curious. Stuff like NY 80 and US 9W just die out. Not 261.

I don't know that 261 has always had END signage; that may indeed be a change. But even if it is, the route log doesn't reflect it. (Neither does the inventory, although that may have changed since 2014.)

This would not be the first case of a route's "official" alignment differing from its signed alignment. NY 15 was never "officially" overlapped onto I-390 and NY 17, but signage unambiguously said it was so for quite some time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 12, 2017, 12:21:29 AM
Signage on NY 96 just disappears (same for NY 404, even though it actually ends around NY 590; signage erroneously says it heads west and then vanishes).  NY 261 has an "END" shield prior to the LOSP, the ramps from the LOSP only snow NY 261 south, and coming from the county-maintained part there's a "JCT NY 261" sign on the same assembly as the "JCT LOSP" sign.

This. I can name a handful of routes that just disappear under local maintenance. NY 261 is the only one I know of with an end sign. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. But it is curious. Stuff like NY 80 and US 9W just die out. Not 261.

I don't know that 261 has always had END signage; that may indeed be a change. But even if it is, the route log doesn't reflect it. (Neither does the inventory, although that may have changed since 2014.)

This would not be the first case of a route's "official" alignment differing from its signed alignment. NY 15 was never "officially" overlapped onto I-390 and NY 17, but signage unambiguously said it was so for quite some time.

Certainly. It's still signed as overlapping. There are more NY 15 reassurance markers on that section than NY 17 ones.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 12, 2017, 12:45:01 AM
Signage on NY 96 just disappears (same for NY 404, even though it actually ends around NY 590; signage erroneously says it heads west and then vanishes).  NY 261 has an "END" shield prior to the LOSP, the ramps from the LOSP only snow NY 261 south, and coming from the county-maintained part there's a "JCT NY 261" sign on the same assembly as the "JCT LOSP" sign.

This. I can name a handful of routes that just disappear under local maintenance. NY 261 is the only one I know of with an end sign. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. But it is curious. Stuff like NY 80 and US 9W just die out. Not 261.

I don't know that 261 has always had END signage; that may indeed be a change. But even if it is, the route log doesn't reflect it. (Neither does the inventory, although that may have changed since 2014.)

This would not be the first case of a route's "official" alignment differing from its signed alignment. NY 15 was never "officially" overlapped onto I-390 and NY 17, but signage unambiguously said it was so for quite some time.
Touring Route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 12, 2017, 01:06:45 AM
This would not be the first case of a route's "official" alignment differing from its signed alignment. NY 15 was never "officially" overlapped onto I-390 and NY 17, but signage unambiguously said it was so for quite some time.
Touring Route.

Yes…??
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 18, 2017, 11:26:46 PM
Uh oh.. US 22 makes an appearance in R8 for an I-684 pavement rehab project from Hardscrabble Rd north to I-84

Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263441
I saw a US 9A shield in Riverdale at the Henry Hudson Parkway, and an NY 9 shield on Broadway at the George Washington Bridge early yesterday morning.

Yes, I'm home from my big road trip. It's not the worst I've ever been on, but it wasn't that great either.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 18, 2017, 11:30:32 PM
Hey, new idea (or maybe not so new);

Why won't the New York City DOT and Parks Department combine Exit 13 on the Major Deegan Expressway with the entrance to the northbound gas station?


Title: Re: New York
Post by: compdude787 on March 19, 2017, 02:07:09 AM
I'm surprised there even is a gas station on a free Interstate highway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 19, 2017, 06:44:42 AM
The Deegan predates the Interstate system and so the gas station was likely grandfathered in.

As for why they aren't combined, my guess would be Section 4(f) impacts on the park.  Because of the upgrade on the off-ramp and the narrow right-of-way, you wouldn't be able to get a proper (i.e. within standards) combination without impacting the park.  FHWA (and most other state and Federal agencies) doesn't look too kindly on taking away parkland for road projects.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 19, 2017, 05:33:44 PM
Hey, new idea (or maybe not so new);

Why won't the New York City DOT and Parks Department combine Exit 13 on the Major Deegan Expressway with the entrance to the northbound gas station?



Probably because they never thought of it, and they don't have a compelling reason to spend money to do it now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 19, 2017, 08:49:53 PM
I'm surprised there even is a gas station on a free Interstate highway.
I'm surprised people buy gas there to begin with.  Its always a dollar/dollar-fifty more than the city average.  Same thing goes with the one on the Hutch
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 19, 2017, 10:54:00 PM
I'm surprised there even is a gas station on a free Interstate highway.
I'm surprised people buy gas there to begin with.  Its always a dollar/dollar-fifty more than the city average.  Same thing goes with the one on the Hutch

Actually, when I lived there (2011-15) it tended to be competitive with, at least, the surrounding neighborhood.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 20, 2017, 08:02:26 AM
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane).  Premium is FAR more expensive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 20, 2017, 12:11:03 PM
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane).  Premium is FAR more expensive.

Well, you'd have to check GasBuddy between 2011-2015. I haven't looked into it recently since I'd don't live down there anymore.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 20, 2017, 12:34:37 PM
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane).  Premium is FAR more expensive.

Well, you'd have to check GasBuddy between 2011-2015. I haven't looked into it recently since I'd don't live down there anymore.

Upcharge is reasonable for an on-expressway station. Look at how much more gas stations on the Thruway charge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 20, 2017, 05:34:39 PM
I'm surprised there even is a gas station on a free Interstate highway.
I'm surprised people buy gas there to begin with.  Its always a dollar/dollar-fifty more than the city average.  Same thing goes with the one on the Hutch
Well, they buy other items there too, since many of them also have Dunkin' Donuts franchises.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 20, 2017, 06:42:57 PM
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane).  Premium is FAR more expensive.

Well, you'd have to check GasBuddy between 2011-2015. I haven't looked into it recently since I'd don't live down there anymore.

Upcharge is reasonable for an on-expressway station. Look at how much more gas stations on the Thruway charge.

Is the Thruway still bound to the rule that they can only raise their gas prices once a week? Back in the "Lower Fuel Prices In Effect" days I knew this to be the case but I thought that was outside of then Gov. Pataki trying to keep fuel prices down on the Thruway.

There are times when fuel is cheaper at the Schuyler and Oneida Service Plazas than the nearby stations at Exits 31 and 32.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 20, 2017, 07:01:42 PM
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane).  Premium is FAR more expensive.

Well, you'd have to check GasBuddy between 2011-2015. I haven't looked into it recently since I'd don't live down there anymore.

Upcharge is reasonable for an on-expressway station. Look at how much more gas stations on the Thruway charge.

Is the Thruway still bound to the rule that they can only raise their gas prices once a week? Back in the "Lower Fuel Prices In Effect" days I knew this to be the case but I thought that was outside of then Gov. Pataki trying to keep fuel prices down on the Thruway.

There are times when fuel is cheaper at the Schuyler and Oneida Service Plazas than the nearby stations at Exits 31 and 32.

I think they are still bound. Those plazas are generally the exception. The ones near Albany are always a good 10-15+ cents more than those on the surface. Mohawk and Patersonville are typically 2 of the 5 most expensive stations near Albany that aren't in the mountains (only more expensive stations right now are at B3 and one random station in Amsterdam and only by a couple cents). Angola is 50 cents more than gas at 57-58 (but those stations are tax-free). Prices in Massachusetts are 20 cents more in much of the state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 21, 2017, 08:18:36 AM
In my experience, MA gas prices are cheaper than NY's, not more expensive.

I used to commute every week between Amherst, MA and Albany, NY.  The gas savings in MA could be up to .25 a gallon.

That said, if you are talking about the first station on the Pike, that one is typically more expensive than off-Pike locations.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 21, 2017, 08:21:56 AM
Same experience as Rothman.  As a general rule, Massachusetts has the cheapest gas in New England.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on March 21, 2017, 09:40:14 AM
Same experience as Rothman.  As a general rule, Massachusetts has the cheapest gas in New England.

I thought New Hampshire was cheaper by a few cents.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 21, 2017, 09:42:45 AM
Not in my experience.  Your corner of New Hampshire might be cheaper so as to compete, but especially after the legislature raised the gas tax a couple years ago (in no small part to pay for widening I-93), New Hamsphire as a whole has been more expensive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on March 21, 2017, 09:11:23 PM
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane).  Premium is FAR more expensive.

Well, you'd have to check GasBuddy between 2011-2015. I haven't looked into it recently since I'd don't live down there anymore.

Upcharge is reasonable for an on-expressway station. Look at how much more gas stations on the Thruway charge.

Agreed with this. Same thing in NJ on the Turnpike and Parkway. As an example, currently the price for regular unleaded is 2.289 on the Turnpike (http://www.nj.gov/turnpike/fuel-prices.html). Price for regular unleaded at the Wawa right near Interchange 11 in Woodbridge is 2.149 (http://www.newjerseygasprices.com/Wawa_Gas_Stations/Woodbridge/155738/index.aspx).

In fact, according to gasbuddy, the average price in NJ is 2.279 right now. So while it might be a bit cheaper at a station not far off an exit, it's not totally out of line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SectorZ on March 21, 2017, 10:22:56 PM
Same experience as Rothman.  As a general rule, Massachusetts has the cheapest gas in New England.

I thought New Hampshire was cheaper by a few cents.

Greater Brockton and northern Worcester county are the two lowest priced areas for gas in New England. Some parts of NH compete with that as well.

However, gasbuddy.com has the info, avg. price for NH is $2.181/gallon, MA $2.240/gallon. You can find the cheapest gas in Mass, but places like the Cape, Islands, and Boston are so damn expensive that they skew that average upward hard. Only spots of NH that have ridiculous gas prices are in Coos County, and even so it's small mom and pop places that are very few and far between.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 21, 2017, 10:45:02 PM
Same experience as Rothman.  As a general rule, Massachusetts has the cheapest gas in New England.

I thought New Hampshire was cheaper by a few cents.

Greater Brockton and northern Worcester county are the two lowest priced areas for gas in New England. Some parts of NH compete with that as well.

However, gasbuddy.com has the info, avg. price for NH is $2.181/gallon, MA $2.240/gallon. You can find the cheapest gas in Mass, but places like the Cape, Islands, and Boston are so damn expensive that they skew that average upward hard. Only spots of NH that have ridiculous gas prices are in Coos County, and even so it's small mom and pop places that are very few and far between.
I've found the cheapest gas in MA to be along the I-195/US 6 corridor.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 21, 2017, 11:13:46 PM
Same experience as Rothman.  As a general rule, Massachusetts has the cheapest gas in New England.

I thought New Hampshire was cheaper by a few cents.

Greater Brockton and northern Worcester county are the two lowest priced areas for gas in New England. Some parts of NH compete with that as well.

However, gasbuddy.com has the info, avg. price for NH is $2.181/gallon, MA $2.240/gallon. You can find the cheapest gas in Mass, but places like the Cape, Islands, and Boston are so damn expensive that they skew that average upward hard. Only spots of NH that have ridiculous gas prices are in Coos County, and even so it's small mom and pop places that are very few and far between.
I've found the cheapest gas in MA to be along the I-195/US 6 corridor.
Springfield area. But we're getting off topic.
Title: Re: Southern State Pkwy. Lighting
Post by: SignBridge on March 22, 2017, 09:29:43 PM
On a different subject, has anyone else here on Long Island, noticed that large sections of lights are not working on the Southern State Pkwy. in Nassau County? Especially along the stretch from the Queens County line to the Meadowbrook Pkwy? I noticed it this evening and a friend tells me it's been that way for like months or years. Supposedly been reported to NYSDOT's Inform hot-line but no repairs have been made. Before any of us start writing letters to NYSDOT, does anyone have any info on what's going on? Like DOT maybe letting a contract for major cable replacement or something?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 23, 2017, 12:32:59 AM
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane).  Premium is FAR more expensive.

Well, you'd have to check GasBuddy between 2011-2015. I haven't looked into it recently since I'd don't live down there anymore.

Upcharge is reasonable for an on-expressway station. Look at how much more gas stations on the Thruway charge.

Yeah, that's why I was always surprised this one wasn't more expensive. Sounds like they've since caught on to the idea (although a 14-cent swing in prices really isn't all that extraordinary in the area; prices tend to vary pretty widely in the city).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 04, 2017, 11:05:23 PM
Another NY 22 question; How many rest areas exist on that road besides the two north of the Appalachian Trail Metro-North station? And should there be signage for that station?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 04, 2017, 11:37:20 PM
Another NY 22 question; How many rest areas exist on that road besides the two north of the Appalachian Trail Metro-North station? And should there be signage for that station?

Rest areas? You mean like parking areas? Not many. There's one in southern Columbia County and a few in the Adirondacks, mostly between Whitehall and Ticonderoga. That being said, the stretch of NY 22 from Amenia to Plattsburgh is one of the most desolate extended stretches of highway in the state. ~235 miles with little more than a gas station or two in some small towns (typically a Stewarts) and 2 McDonald's. For those of you who still need to clinch it, I recommend against trying to do it all at once for that reason.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 05, 2017, 12:32:28 AM
I wouldn't use Amenia as the starting point. Austerlitz or New Lebanon are probably better starting points for desolation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 05, 2017, 09:26:59 AM
I wouldn't use Amenia as the starting point. Austerlitz or New Lebanon are probably better starting points for desolation.

I wouldn't use any part of 22 as a starting point for desolation; it's remote, sure, but I find it a very attractive, appealing drive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 05, 2017, 10:49:31 AM
Have to agree.  NY 22 is quite scenic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 05, 2017, 11:24:17 AM
Agree.  I also wouldn't classify it as desolate as cl94 is claiming.  Ticonderoga has plenty of services (including a WalMart Supercenter) as does Whitehall, and there's a fair bit of traffic between Ticonderoga and Crown Point as well as some of the segments south of Whitehall.

The only part I'd call "desolate", and that's mainly because of the narrowness and the acute lack of traffic on it, is from Westport to where it meets US 9 (and I-87) south of Keeseville.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 05, 2017, 06:53:04 PM
Agree.  I also wouldn't classify it as desolate as cl94 is claiming.  Ticonderoga has plenty of services (including a WalMart Supercenter) as does Whitehall, and there's a fair bit of traffic between Ticonderoga and Crown Point as well as some of the segments south of Whitehall.

The only part I'd call "desolate", and that's mainly because of the narrowness and the acute lack of traffic on it, is from Westport to where it meets US 9 (and I-87) south of Keeseville.

As NYS goes, to me, US 20 is much more desolate across, say, Madison County and the central region. Far more desolate still would be Tug Hill, or eastern Oswego County. But the Taconics, and the Champlain Valley is comparatively lush.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 05, 2017, 08:35:08 PM
To be fair, the description of "little more than a gas station or two in some small towns (typically a Stewarts) and 2 McDonald's." is, taken literally, accurate. There may be quite a few of those small towns along the way, but south of Plattsburgh NY 22 does not pass directly through any medium or large towns until you get down into the NYC metro area. Because of this it makes a decent route to use for distance travel. I've used it as an alternative to the Taconic on a few occasions simply as a way to break the monotony without adding too much time.

But yeah, if you think that's "desolate", man you need to get out of the Northeast more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 05, 2017, 11:55:04 PM
But yeah, if you think that's "desolate", man you need to get out of the Northeast more.

That's definitely true.

But that being said, NY 22 is one of the few extended stretches of major highway in this state that has long portions without cell service. Except for Whitehall and Ticonderoga, most of the stretch from Cambridge to Keeseville is dead or intermittent.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 06, 2017, 01:17:27 PM
NY 22 in Washington and northern Rensselear Counties never struck me as desolate (also not from Ticonderoga to Port Henry), though I'll admit, the services are primarily small businesses, not chains, and even where the chains exist, they sometimes require exiting off NY 22 (Granville in particular; almost all the businesses are on NY 149, not NY 22).  If you're OK with eating at Stewarts, you'll be fine; if you're willing to get a slice of pizza from a random corner store, there's no issue; if you need McDonalds, then you had better look at Google Maps before you leave (I think Subway is more common, but not by much).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on April 06, 2017, 03:43:06 PM
New STIP includes for WNY SEIS for US 219 in Cattaraugus County and preliminary design for "cap" over Kensington Expwy along Humboldt Pkwy https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/stip/files/R5.pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/stip/files/R5.pdf)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 06, 2017, 10:18:05 PM
Another NY 22 question; How many rest areas exist on that road besides the two north of the Appalachian Trail Metro-North station? And should there be signage for that station?

Rest areas? You mean like parking areas? Not many.
Oh yeah. They do call them parking areas at that one.  But thanks for the info.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 08, 2017, 11:16:53 AM
New STIP includes for WNY SEIS for US 219 in Cattaraugus County and preliminary design for "cap" over Kensington Expwy along Humboldt Pkwy https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/stip/files/R5.pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/stip/files/R5.pdf)

Is the 219 thing related to the itty bitty stub they want to build in Salamanca?

Edit: never mind, it actually included the SEIS for the whole Peters to Salamanca!! I'll be 30 by the time it's built though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 09, 2017, 03:07:16 PM
Have to agree.  NY 22 is quite scenic.
Yes.  I just don't like getting stuck behind tourists going 10 under the limit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 09, 2017, 11:22:28 PM
Have to agree.  NY 22 is quite scenic.
Yes.  I just don't like getting stuck behind tourists going 10 under the limit.
I won't admit to passing on double yellows with plenty of sight distance to get around tourists.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 10, 2017, 11:25:27 AM
Have to agree.  NY 22 is quite scenic.
Yes.  I just don't like getting stuck behind tourists going 10 under the limit.
I won't admit to passing on double yellows with plenty of sight distance to get around tourists.

Tourist are much easier to handle when you picture each with a giant dollar sign above his head. Helps me get through Times Square when I have to. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 10, 2017, 11:47:24 AM
Tourist are much easier to handle when you picture each with a giant dollar sign above his head. Helps me get through Times Square when I have to. :-)
Great way of looking at things!  :bigass:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 10, 2017, 12:21:28 PM
Have to agree.  NY 22 is quite scenic.
Yes.  I just don't like getting stuck behind tourists going 10 under the limit.
I won't admit to passing on double yellows with plenty of sight distance to get around tourists.

Tourist are much easier to handle when you picture each with a giant dollar sign above his head. Helps me get through Times Square when I have to. :-)

Eh, having grown up in Lake George (which owes its existence to tourism), I still think they're morons. Traffic in the Adirondacks wouldn't be so bad if the tourists F-ing moved.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 10, 2017, 12:29:28 PM
Have to agree.  NY 22 is quite scenic.
Yes.  I just don't like getting stuck behind tourists going 10 under the limit.
I won't admit to passing on double yellows with plenty of sight distance to get around tourists.

Tourist are much easier to handle when you picture each with a giant dollar sign above his head. Helps me get through Times Square when I have to. :-)

Eh, having grown up in Lake George (which owes its existence to tourism), I still think they're morons. Traffic in the Adirondacks wouldn't be so bad if the tourists F-ing moved.

There would probably be no roads in Adirondack if tourists didn't show up... Maybe some unimproved logging dirt paths...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr_Northside on April 10, 2017, 03:48:41 PM
Is the 219 thing related to the itty bitty stub they want to build in Salamanca?

Edit: never mind, it actually included the SEIS for the whole Peters to Salamanca!! I'll be 30 by the time it's built though.


From the age given in your profile, that implies that it would be built within 10 years.
That's overly optimistic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 10, 2017, 04:41:32 PM
Have to agree.  NY 22 is quite scenic.
Yes.  I just don't like getting stuck behind tourists going 10 under the limit.
I won't admit to passing on double yellows with plenty of sight distance to get around tourists.

Tourist are much easier to handle when you picture each with a giant dollar sign above his head. Helps me get through Times Square when I have to. :-)

Eh, having grown up in Lake George (which owes its existence to tourism), I still think they're morons. Traffic in the Adirondacks wouldn't be so bad if the tourists F-ing moved.

I said it makes them easier to handle. I didn't say it makes me think they're not morons. ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on April 10, 2017, 09:02:54 PM
I'm not sure if this is programmed, but are they starting construction (rebuilding, practically) of I-88 for the first few miles from Binghamton? I can't believe it hasn't been rebuilt, much less patched, since it was completed and is easily one of the worst highways I've ever driven on.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 11, 2017, 02:13:03 PM
I'm not sure if this is programmed, but are they starting construction (rebuilding, practically) of I-88 for the first few miles from Binghamton? I can't believe it hasn't been rebuilt, much less patched, since it was completed and is easily one of the worst highways I've ever driven on.
It has been discussed at length at NYSDOT.  Not sure if it is part of the official program yet.  Sort of stuck like NY 85 was for a time, insofar as I can tell.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 11, 2017, 02:16:14 PM
I'm not sure if this is programmed, but are they starting construction (rebuilding, practically) of I-88 for the first few miles from Binghamton? I can't believe it hasn't been rebuilt, much less patched, since it was completed and is easily one of the worst highways I've ever driven on.
It has been discussed at length at NYSDOT.  Not sure if it is part of the official program yet.  Sort of stuck like NY 85 was for a time, insofar as I can tell.

Just be glad they're finally doing a couple stretches further north. Those have been bad since I was little.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: burgess87 on April 13, 2017, 07:52:02 PM
There's been some guide sign replacements on IH 190 near downtown Buffalo:  the old "Ballpark and Arena-Exit 6" signs have been replaced with:  "Coca-Cola Field and KeyBank Center - Exit 6".  One of the Seneca Street off-ramps off the Elm Street exit has had "Canalside" added to the exit sign.  The advance and exit signage for Route 5 (the Skyway) have been replaced with the Buffalo Outer Harbor and Lackawanna as the control cities.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 14, 2017, 02:15:23 PM
^^ The exit signs on the Thruway around Walden and William St. appear to be larger for some reason.

Also, what's the reasoning behind the decision to make Exit 57 an at grade interchange? I live not too far from it and it doesn't make sense at face value...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on April 23, 2017, 08:12:45 AM
I was reading various articles from google about NYSDOT and their plans for exit number conversion.  I got the pros and cons of the numbering.  The pros were what the FHWA claims about being better reference points, of course, but the cons are roads like I-278 where the average exit is less than a mile apart and what we see where the highest exit number is a larger number than overall mileage from NJ to the Bruckner Interchange and of course business users who rely on exit numbers for their customers  being accustomed to the existing numbers.

I also learned two things that seem to be contradictory such as NYSDOT saying its not mandatory to go mile based, but just optional and the fact that the feds want all new signs to be exit numbers in miles rather than consecutive.  Of course with US 15 going mile based I will believe the latter as the grandfather clause is in full effect where old signs can remain, but new signs must include the mile based numbering.

So what is the verdict and when can we see new exit numbers on the Thruway and free interstates and will it include the NY Parkways or are non interstates not required by FHWA MUTCD?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 23, 2017, 08:33:03 AM
There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary.  Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen. 

I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.

May I be proven wrong.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 23, 2017, 09:11:43 AM
There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary.  Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen. 

I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.

May I be proven wrong.

About five years ago I heard talk about NYSDOT trying a "new exit/old exit" numbering scheme but I don't know if that was just some random engineer musing out loud or if it was given some consideration.

I have always pushed NYSDOT to leave the exit numbering in the five boroughs alone and worry about upstate first with the conversion. It's upstate that would have improved safety benefits from distance based exit numbering, especially the Thruway. The Thruway could even leave everything below the Tappan Zee as is and move to mileage based above the Tappan Zee without confusing things too badly.

Some of the documentation of the conversion plan in NYSDOT has always had an Albany Airport exit along I-87 as exit 150. I went back and forth with them on how that should actually be exit 160 because I-87 doesn't start at the Thruway, there's 8.8 miles of it down to the Bruckner. They found that mind boggling.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 23, 2017, 09:36:13 AM
There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary.  Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen. 

I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.

May I be proven wrong.

About five years ago I heard talk about NYSDOT trying a "new exit/old exit" numbering scheme but I don't know if that was just some random engineer musing out loud or if it was given some consideration.

I have always pushed NYSDOT to leave the exit numbering in the five boroughs alone and worry about upstate first with the conversion. It's upstate that would have improved safety benefits from distance based exit numbering, especially the Thruway. The Thruway could even leave everything below the Tappan Zee as is and move to mileage based above the Tappan Zee without confusing things too badly.

Some of the documentation of the conversion plan in NYSDOT has always had an Albany Airport exit along I-87 as exit 150. I went back and forth with them on how that should actually be exit 160 because I-87 doesn't start at the Thruway, there's 8.8 miles of it down to the Bruckner. They found that mind boggling.
There have been minor spasms of planning regarding the conversion, but nothing has ever been actually programmed as part of the capital program, other than I-99 and the Taconic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 23, 2017, 09:58:00 AM
There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary.  Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen. 

I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.

May I be proven wrong.

About five years ago I heard talk about NYSDOT trying a "new exit/old exit" numbering scheme but I don't know if that was just some random engineer musing out loud or if it was given some consideration.

I have always pushed NYSDOT to leave the exit numbering in the five boroughs alone and worry about upstate first with the conversion. It's upstate that would have improved safety benefits from distance based exit numbering, especially the Thruway. The Thruway could even leave everything below the Tappan Zee as is and move to mileage based above the Tappan Zee without confusing things too badly.

Some of the documentation of the conversion plan in NYSDOT has always had an Albany Airport exit along I-87 as exit 150. I went back and forth with them on how that should actually be exit 160 because I-87 doesn't start at the Thruway, there's 8.8 miles of it down to the Bruckner. They found that mind boggling.
There have been minor spasms of planning regarding the conversion, but nothing has ever been actually programmed as part of the capital program, other than I-99 and the Taconic.

I was a little surprised when every guide sign on NY 400 in Region 5 was replaced a couple of years ago (in one project); that would have been a great opportunity to add exit numbers to that roadway.

I still think that NYSDOT should start with the freeways/expressways without interchange numbering right now, adding them as signs are replaced. It was weird to me that they covered up the exit numbers on the Taconic until some "big reveal". I know a lot of people treat Caltrans as the red headed step child of the U.S. but the way they have been implementing exit numbering has worked just fine (not necessarily the way they _post_ the numbers, though).

There are a few non-Interstate freeways in New York that could benefit from numbering - NY 33 (expressway portion) is 8 miles long with 14 interchanges and no numbers, nearby I-290 is 10 miles long with 8 interchanges and it has numbers. The only difference is the route number designation. NY 104 (Monroe County), NY 400, US 219, these are all decent freeways in length and are designed to interstate standards, but they don't have exit numbers. This would be a good place to start.

I'm encouraged by I-99, I-781 and the Taconic, especially the Taconic getting exit numbers after many decades.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 23, 2017, 01:50:13 PM
There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary.  Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen. 

I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.

May I be proven wrong.

About five years ago I heard talk about NYSDOT trying a "new exit/old exit" numbering scheme but I don't know if that was just some random engineer musing out loud or if it was given some consideration.

I have always pushed NYSDOT to leave the exit numbering in the five boroughs alone and worry about upstate first with the conversion. It's upstate that would have improved safety benefits from distance based exit numbering, especially the Thruway. The Thruway could even leave everything below the Tappan Zee as is and move to mileage based above the Tappan Zee without confusing things too badly.

Some of the documentation of the conversion plan in NYSDOT has always had an Albany Airport exit along I-87 as exit 150. I went back and forth with them on how that should actually be exit 160 because I-87 doesn't start at the Thruway, there's 8.8 miles of it down to the Bruckner. They found that mind boggling.
There have been minor spasms of planning regarding the conversion, but nothing has ever been actually programmed as part of the capital program, other than I-99 and the Taconic.

I was a little surprised when every guide sign on NY 400 in Region 5 was replaced a couple of years ago (in one project); that would have been a great opportunity to add exit numbers to that roadway.

I still think that NYSDOT should start with the freeways/expressways without interchange numbering right now, adding them as signs are replaced. It was weird to me that they covered up the exit numbers on the Taconic until some "big reveal". I know a lot of people treat Caltrans as the red headed step child of the U.S. but the way they have been implementing exit numbering has worked just fine (not necessarily the way they _post_ the numbers, though).

There are a few non-Interstate freeways in New York that could benefit from numbering - NY 33 (expressway portion) is 8 miles long with 14 interchanges and no numbers, nearby I-290 is 10 miles long with 8 interchanges and it has numbers. The only difference is the route number designation. NY 104 (Monroe County), NY 400, US 219, these are all decent freeways in length and are designed to interstate standards, but they don't have exit numbers. This would be a good place to start.

I'm encouraged by I-99, I-781 and the Taconic, especially the Taconic getting exit numbers after many decades.

The Taconic is also Region 8, which had exit numbers on almost everything but the Taconic.

It'll be at least 10 years or the FHWA withholding federal funding until they start changing things over. Need to get the old blood out of NYSDOT and for that to happen, the baby boomers basically need to retire.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 23, 2017, 01:55:24 PM

The Taconic is also Region 8, which had exit numbers on almost everything but the Taconic.

It'll be at least 10 years or the FHWA withholding federal funding until they start changing things over. Need to get the old blood out of NYSDOT and for that to happen, the baby boomers basically need to retire.
Good luck convincing Cuomo II to fund that. And after all.. it's not broken...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on April 23, 2017, 04:58:42 PM
The Major Deegan Expressway, the NYS Thruway, and the Northway exits should all be renumbered, by mileage, all the way from the Tri-boro Bridge to the Canadian frontier.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 23, 2017, 07:00:06 PM
NY 85 is a similar situation to NY 400: all the signs were replaced, but not exit numbers.  Main Office is insistent that the entire state should change at once (they probably get heartburn over the EXISTING mile-based roads!), so that's probably why.  Rumor mill says the only reason the Taconic sign replacement happened is because Cuomo (who regularly travels the road to/from NYC) thought the old signs were ugly.

Not sure how much waiting for the retirement wave will help.  There isn't much new blood to replace the old blood.  Most of the people who will still be around after the retirement wave in the next few years are only 10-15 years from retirement themselves.  There are very few young people in NYSDOT.

Honestly, at this point, I wouldn't mind remaining sequential until the Thruway goes AET.  Then I-87 and I-90 could be numbered based on their mileage with no compromises for the Thruway's ticket system.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on April 24, 2017, 05:53:06 AM
The Taconic now has exit numbers and new signs?  Cool.  I was on it in 12, and really it had only the typical NY freeway type of guides minus the exit numbers of course.

However, my old Exxon maps showed exit numbers on it using W prefixes for Westchester County exits and P prefixes for Putnam County exits.  I assume it at one time had them, and then it was removed sometime later.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 24, 2017, 08:50:10 AM
The Taconic now has exit numbers and new signs?  Cool.  I was on it in 12, and really it had only the typical NY freeway type of guides minus the exit numbers of course.

However, my old Exxon maps showed exit numbers on it using W prefixes for Westchester County exits and P prefixes for Putnam County exits.  I assume it at one time had them, and then it was removed sometime later.

I've heard of these but never actually seen them.  I was on the Taconic for the first time in 1998, and it didn't have any exit numbers back then, so if it actually had them, it must go back a while.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 24, 2017, 10:26:50 AM
Does anyone know if it is possible to find NYSDOT breakdown by the region? I am sure such breakdown should exist somewhere, but I cannot see anything...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on April 24, 2017, 11:20:56 AM
It could be they never had em in the field but in paperwork yes.  I seen an old NJDOT map show the US 1, NJ 27, CR 501, and Durham Avenue exits on I-287 in Edison, NJ have exit numbers using the never build Somerset Freeway mileage.  Yet I-287 never had them posted up until it was later decided to change the mile markers on I-287 which was in 1985, and then of course the exit numbers got erected in 1994 or so when NJDOT decided to change the signs south of N. Maple Avenue in Basking Ridge and give the interstate exit numbers from end to end.

Even some maps had Exit 12 listed on them for I-280 in East Orange, and it never had them for a long time.  So map makers use data collected not from sending out scouts to see first hand except for one company that did employ Alex here as his job was to scout roads to gather data for his map making employer, but I actually doubt RM or Hagstrom, who printed Exxons maps from the 70's and 80's.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 24, 2017, 05:35:22 PM
The Taconic now has exit numbers and new signs?  Cool.  I was on it in 12, and really it had only the typical NY freeway type of guides minus the exit numbers of course.

However, my old Exxon maps showed exit numbers on it using W prefixes for Westchester County exits and P prefixes for Putnam County exits.  I assume it at one time had them, and then it was removed sometime later.

I've heard of these but never actually seen them.  I was on the Taconic for the first time in 1998, and it didn't have any exit numbers back then, so if it actually had them, it must go back a while.

The Hortontown Hill Road P7 lives on. (https://goo.gl/maps/tTfL1pAAiGG2)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 24, 2017, 05:46:04 PM
Does anyone know if it is possible to find NYSDOT breakdown by the region? I am sure such breakdown should exist somewhere, but I cannot see anything...

http://nysroads.com/regions.php
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on April 24, 2017, 06:07:45 PM
Here is a list of the numbered exits on the Taconic State Parkway in Putnam County in 1972:

P1 Bryant Pond Road

P2 Bullet Hole Road

P4 Pudding Street

P7 Hortontown Hill Road

P8 Knapp Road
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 24, 2017, 06:13:02 PM
Does anyone know if it is possible to find NYSDOT breakdown by the region? I am sure such breakdown should exist somewhere, but I cannot see anything...

http://nysroads.com/regions.php
Oops, my keyword is missing in editing...
is possible to find NYSDOT budget breakdown by the region?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 24, 2017, 06:56:43 PM
The Taconic now has exit numbers and new signs?  Cool.  I was on it in 12, and really it had only the typical NY freeway type of guides minus the exit numbers of course.

However, my old Exxon maps showed exit numbers on it using W prefixes for Westchester County exits and P prefixes for Putnam County exits.  I assume it at one time had them, and then it was removed sometime later.

I've heard of these but never actually seen them.  I was on the Taconic for the first time in 1998, and it didn't have any exit numbers back then, so if it actually had them, it must go back a while.

The Hortontown Hill Road P7 lives on. (https://goo.gl/maps/tTfL1pAAiGG2)

Were they all signed like that and not with normal exit number tabs?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 24, 2017, 07:41:03 PM
Does anyone know if it is possible to find NYSDOT breakdown by the region? I am sure such breakdown should exist somewhere, but I cannot see anything...

http://nysroads.com/regions.php
Oops, my keyword is missing in editing...
is possible to find NYSDOT budget breakdown by the region?
No.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 01, 2017, 04:56:49 PM
There's a sign for US 265 on Grant St before Military Rd in Buffalo.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 04, 2017, 08:24:34 PM
So NYSDOT finally decommissioned NYS 102 west of Williams Street in Hempstead.

Just give me more reasons to hate the state I was born in, and life in general, Cuomo!


Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on May 04, 2017, 10:12:44 PM
So NYSDOT finally decommissioned NYS 102 west of Williams Street in Hempstead.

Just give me more reasons to hate the state I was born in, and life in general, Cuomo!

It was never signed past the Hempstead Village line anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 04, 2017, 10:28:53 PM
So NYSDOT finally decommissioned NYS 102 west of Williams Street in Hempstead.

Did they?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 04, 2017, 11:54:34 PM
So NYSDOT finally decommissioned NYS 102 west of Williams Street in Hempstead.

Did they?

It was dumped on the Route Log, which is probably his source. Of course, you'd never know NY 102 existed west of Williams Street
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on May 05, 2017, 02:36:06 AM
it was always maintained by the county in the village of Hempstead, same with 24. They had the yellow Nassau DPW traffic lights and everything. Both county maintained sections in Hempstead never had shields or refrence markers either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 05, 2017, 01:20:20 PM
So NYSDOT finally decommissioned NYS 102 west of Williams Street in Hempstead.

Did they?

It was dumped on the Route Log, which is probably his source. Of course, you'd never know NY 102 existed west of Williams Street

Well, that's what I'm wondering; it seems a lot of changes are being attributed to that route log that aren't reflected in other sources such as inventory files and traffic count reports. NY 102 is one of many cases where part of a signed touring route is county-maintained and where the route log seems to have been updated to remove the county portion, even though other sources still indicate its existence. But there are also some genuine decommissionings listed in the log, so I'm not always sure which ones are authentic (or what "authentic" would even mean).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 05, 2017, 01:48:37 PM
So NYSDOT finally decommissioned NYS 102 west of Williams Street in Hempstead.

Did they?

It was dumped on the Route Log, which is probably his source. Of course, you'd never know NY 102 existed west of Williams Street

Well, that's what I'm wondering; it seems a lot of changes are being attributed to that route log that aren't reflected in other sources such as inventory files and traffic count reports. NY 102 is one of many cases where part of a signed touring route is county-maintained and where the route log seems to have been updated to remove the county portion, even though other sources still indicate its existence. But there are also some genuine decommissionings listed in the log, so I'm not always sure which ones are authentic (or what "authentic" would even mean).

Exactly. Then you get the case of NY 220, which the log omits but is still signed up to the veterans' home.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 08, 2017, 12:12:24 PM
There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary.  Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen. 

I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.

May I be proven wrong.

Or raising the speed limit to something reasonable, like 70 MPH. At least it's consistent, unlike Pennsylvania, which jerks the limit back to 55 MPH whenever it's even remotely near a town.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 08, 2017, 01:38:42 PM
There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary.  Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen. 

I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.

May I be proven wrong.

Or raising the speed limit to something reasonable, like 70 MPH. At least it's consistent, unlike Pennsylvania, which jerks the limit back to 55 MPH whenever it's even remotely near a town.

PA is the result of a stupid state law. Any "urbanized area" has to be 55. Which gets us the ridiculousness of I-90 being 55 for 20 miles. None of the bordering states are so crazy about that. Hell, Ohio has some 70 sections inside Columbus city limits and 65 right up to downtown. New York has 65 inside Albany limits along the Thruway, but just about every other major city in the state has a drop to 55 at (Syracuse) or close to (most others) the border.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 08, 2017, 01:41:12 PM
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does.  There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 08, 2017, 02:12:54 PM
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does.  There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).

NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on May 08, 2017, 03:14:38 PM
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does.  There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).

NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.

It doesn't seem that long ago that "free" I-90 was 55 all the way from B1 to 24, but I'm sure it's been quite a few years by now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 08, 2017, 03:30:54 PM
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does.  There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).

NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.

It doesn't seem that long ago that "free" I-90 was 55 all the way from B1 to 24, but I'm sure it's been quite a few years by now.

I thought it was 55 the entire way. Wasn't the Northway 55 a bit further north as well?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 08, 2017, 05:03:06 PM
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does.  There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).

NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.

It doesn't seem that long ago that "free" I-90 was 55 all the way from B1 to 24, but I'm sure it's been quite a few years by now.

I thought it was 55 the entire way. Wasn't the Northway 55 a bit further north as well?

Whatever it worth... But "begin" tab on first  65 MPH sign northbound is clearly newer than the sign itself. My impression is that beginning of 65 was moved north a bit  fairly recently.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 08, 2017, 05:09:51 PM
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does.  There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).

NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.

It doesn't seem that long ago that "free" I-90 was 55 all the way from B1 to 24, but I'm sure it's been quite a few years by now.

I thought it was 55 the entire way. Wasn't the Northway 55 a bit further north as well?

Whatever it worth... But "begin" tab on first  65 MPH sign northbound is clearly newer than the sign itself. My impression is that beginning of 65 was moved north a bit  fairly recently.

65 started there since the early 2000s, if not earlier. The "begin" tab was added around 2010, probably to remind people that it's still 55 until then.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 08, 2017, 07:02:51 PM
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does.  There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).

NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.
According to the research I did for my site's 1999 rollback April Fool's Day prank, speed limits of 65 were controlled entirely by the legislature until they deferred authority to NYSDOT and made them like any other limit.  I don't recall an intermediate step where they were allowed in rural areas but not urban, unless it was a requirement the legislature was operating under (I didn't dig that far, I just wanted to make sure I got rid of any 65 zones in the exit lists that weren't around yet in April 1999).  I still have the prank around, for anyone who wants to see what the roads were like back then (the NY 17 exit list is particularly impressive): http://nysroads.com/1999/index.php

I recall I-81 being 55 up to Central Square, but I couldn't find any documentation to support it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on May 08, 2017, 08:27:46 PM
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does.  There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).

NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.
According to the research I did for my site's 1999 rollback April Fool's Day prank, speed limits of 65 were controlled entirely by the legislature until they deferred authority to NYSDOT and made them like any other limit.  I don't recall an intermediate step where they were allowed in rural areas but not urban, unless it was a requirement the legislature was operating under (I didn't dig that far, I just wanted to make sure I got rid of any 65 zones in the exit lists that weren't around yet in April 1999).  I still have the prank around, for anyone who wants to see what the roads were like back then (the NY 17 exit list is particularly impressive): http://nysroads.com/1999/index.php

I recall I-81 being 55 up to Central Square, but I couldn't find any documentation to support it.

Hmmm, I don't remember I-81 being 55 up to Central Square, I was pretty sure the SB reduction to 55 was between the I-481/NY 481 and Taft Road interchanges, at the former location of MP 92 (before everything was readjusted in the mid '00s).

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 09, 2017, 12:59:01 PM
Quite possibly.  Your memory of that time period is no doubt better than mine, and I would have only seen it on the drive to the Thousand Islands a few years anyways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 09, 2017, 02:08:18 PM
I was looking at an old Travel Vision Map by General Drafting of Florham Park, NJ of New York, and could not find the date of publication.  I did notice that NY 7 between Troy and I-87 was shown on it as ALT NY 7 and NY 2 from Troy to I-87 was mainline NY 7.  I am curious to know, was there another plan for the freeway there that had this for a short time, or was it an error as NYSDOT does not (to my knowledge) use ALT banners as you would think it would be NY 7A instead?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 09, 2017, 05:26:47 PM
I was looking at an old Travel Vision Map by General Drafting of Florham Park, NJ of New York, and could not find the date of publication.  I did notice that NY 7 between Troy and I-87 was shown on it as ALT NY 7 and NY 2 from Troy to I-87 was mainline NY 7.  I am curious to know, was there another plan for the freeway there that had this for a short time, or was it an error as NYSDOT does not (to my knowledge) use ALT banners as you would think it would be NY 7A instead?

ALT NY 7 was the original designation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 09, 2017, 10:30:40 PM
There are a bunch of brown signs up on NY 5 along Buffalo's Outer Harbor. Going westbound, there are 3 signs within about 30 feet of each other. Unless you were going at 20 MPH, you cannot read these comfortably.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 10, 2017, 12:10:17 AM
I was looking at an old Travel Vision Map by General Drafting of Florham Park, NJ of New York, and could not find the date of publication.  I did notice that NY 7 between Troy and I-87 was shown on it as ALT NY 7 and NY 2 from Troy to I-87 was mainline NY 7.  I am curious to know, was there another plan for the freeway there that had this for a short time, or was it an error as NYSDOT does not (to my knowledge) use ALT banners as you would think it would be NY 7A instead?

ALT NY 7 was the original designation.
It is still called ALT 7 in traffic reports.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 10, 2017, 12:28:29 AM
I was looking at an old Travel Vision Map by General Drafting of Florham Park, NJ of New York, and could not find the date of publication.  I did notice that NY 7 between Troy and I-87 was shown on it as ALT NY 7 and NY 2 from Troy to I-87 was mainline NY 7.  I am curious to know, was there another plan for the freeway there that had this for a short time, or was it an error as NYSDOT does not (to my knowledge) use ALT banners as you would think it would be NY 7A instead?

ALT NY 7 was the original designation.
It is still called ALT 7 in traffic reports.

I try to ignore that. I'd rather not encourage them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 10, 2017, 08:28:44 AM
Traffic reporters are not always that knowledgeable about proper names.

Anyway, looking at that edition of my Travelvision Map, and at the time it was printed NY 17 west of Lake Chautaupau was shown as a Super 2 along with the freeway near Salmanaca being incomplete as both US 219 and NY 17 were routed on what is now US 209 Business and NY 417.  That would explain why Hornell was originally used before Jamestown as a control city west of Corning on I-86 & NY 17. 

What interests me in reading this old map is that Travelvision used to denote all principal through routes and routes connecting freeway segments in red.  So when NY 17 ended at NY 426 just shy of the PA Line, NY 426 and PA 426 were not shown in red to connect the unfinished road to I-90 at all.  Instead NY 430 from Bemus Point north to Mayville, and then NY 394 north to Westfield was shown in red to connect NY 17 with I-90.

Also this is edition that shows exit numbers on the Taconic State Parkway such as Exit W20 for Baldwin Road in Yorktown and P1 for L Sector Road in Putnam Valley.  US 6, the orphaned section of the Bear Mtn. Pky, and US 202 are not shown to have numbers though.  Interesting that the never posted exit numbers used prefixes with the county name on them. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on May 10, 2017, 08:56:36 AM
.  So when NY 17 ended at NY 426 just shy of the PA Line, NY 426 and PA 426 were not shown in red to connect the unfinished road to I-90 at all.  Instead NY 430 from Bemus Point north to Mayville, and then NY 394 north to Westfield was shown in red to connect NY 17 with I-90.

NY 394 used to be NY 17, which terminated at the Thruway in Westfield, so that may be why it was the "major" route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 10, 2017, 09:00:45 AM
.  So when NY 17 ended at NY 426 just shy of the PA Line, NY 426 and PA 426 were not shown in red to connect the unfinished road to I-90 at all.  Instead NY 430 from Bemus Point north to Mayville, and then NY 394 north to Westfield was shown in red to connect NY 17 with I-90.

NY 394 used to be NY 17, which terminated at the Thruway in Westfield, so that may be why it was the "major" route.
I wonder why they did not make the red line on the west shore of the lake instead of using NY 430 on the east shore?  Being that all of NY 394 was old NY 17 it should have been, unless it had to do with that Lake Bridge being built later on with NY 17 being temporarily signed on NY 430 there which might make sense.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on May 10, 2017, 09:13:15 AM
.  So when NY 17 ended at NY 426 just shy of the PA Line, NY 426 and PA 426 were not shown in red to connect the unfinished road to I-90 at all.  Instead NY 430 from Bemus Point north to Mayville, and then NY 394 north to Westfield was shown in red to connect NY 17 with I-90.

NY 394 used to be NY 17, which terminated at the Thruway in Westfield, so that may be why it was the "major" route.

I should say "intersected" the Thruway. It probably terminated at NY 5.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 10, 2017, 01:45:06 PM
Also this is edition that shows exit numbers on the Taconic State Parkway such as Exit W20 for Baldwin Road in Yorktown and P1 for L Sector Road in Putnam Valley.  US 6, the orphaned section of the Bear Mtn. Pky, and US 202 are not shown to have numbers though.  Interesting that the never posted exit numbers used prefixes with the county name on them.

They were posted, once upon a time
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on May 10, 2017, 04:48:39 PM
Syracuse.com: NYDOT warns I-690 drivers of 'significant' travel impacts from bridge project (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/traffic_alert_work_begins_this_week_on_i-690_bridge_replacement.html)

This is from Sunday night, so the work has already begun.  It bugs me that the headline uses NYDOT instead of NYSDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 10, 2017, 07:13:45 PM
Syracuse.com: NYDOT warns I-690 drivers of 'significant' travel impacts from bridge project (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/traffic_alert_work_begins_this_week_on_i-690_bridge_replacement.html)

This is from Sunday night, so the work has already begun.  It bugs me that the headline uses NYDOT instead of NYSDOT.
Probably from Syracuse.com trying to marginalize "downstate" NYCDOT. (:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 11, 2017, 04:40:23 AM
Why do 3 different French Roads intersect Transit Road in Erie County?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 12, 2017, 08:09:46 AM
I was reading about the never completed Bear Mtn. State Parkway in Westchester County.  I see it was one of Robert Moses ideas to have NYC connected to Bear Mountain with a limited access facility using the Taoconic (then known as the Bronx River Parkway Extension) to this two lane parkway stemming west out of Yorktown.  However with construction of the the Thruway, changed things so it never got built due to the lack of demand.

Now, you have a short section that connects NY 35 & US 202 to the Taconic State Paarkway missing one movemen as you can't get NB from EB. in addition to the other part that acts as a bypass of Peekskill.  I did read, though, they could build the road with no eminent domain as a ROW was left behind so that the 1.8 mile segment could someday be completed.  There is talk of actually completing the parkway, but not as a parkway as it would allow trucks to use it.

How accurate is  those talks? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 12, 2017, 10:43:02 AM
I was reading about the never completed Bear Mtn. State Parkway in Westchester County.  I see it was one of Robert Moses ideas to have NYC connected to Bear Mountain with a limited access facility using the Taoconic (then known as the Bronx River Parkway Extension) to this two lane parkway stemming west out of Yorktown.  However with construction of the the Thruway, changed things so it never got built due to the lack of demand.

Now, you have a short section that connects NY 35 & US 202 to the Taconic State Paarkway missing one movemen as you can't get NB from EB. in addition to the other part that acts as a bypass of Peekskill.  I did read, though, they could build the road with no eminent domain as a ROW was left behind so that the 1.8 mile segment could someday be completed.  There is talk of actually completing the parkway, but not as a parkway as it would allow trucks to use it.

How accurate is  those talks?

Talk is correct, but it actually being done is another story altogether. BMP is currently the only parkway that allows trucks for its entire length, albeit with a weight restriction during the day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 12, 2017, 10:44:28 AM
There *WAS* talk of completing the parkway about 15 years ago (see http://web.archive.org/web/20041204040643/www.202and6.com/home.html), but more recent articles suggest it didn't have much support, and there was the sticking point of whether or not to allow trucks on the revamped BMP.

Though there is some right-of-way that NYSDOT still owns along the north side of 202/35, it appears they're more interested in improving 202/35 instead, like they did with part of the stretch a few years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 12, 2017, 08:30:07 PM
Though there is some right-of-way that NYSDOT still owns along the north side of 202/35, it appears they're more interested in improving 202/35 instead, like they did with part of the stretch a few years ago.

Which, realistically, is the more sensible option. If you're going to built two parallel two-lane road ways, you might as well make each of them one way and create a twinned expressway (by technical definition, not downstate NY parlance) out of it. Having two lanes of BMP seperated by a double yellow line parallel to two lanes of 202/35 also separated by a double yellow line is just silly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 13, 2017, 06:44:36 AM
I think that is sillier is the fact that BMP does not have access to the Taconic NB.  You would still have to use US 202 and NY 35 to complete that missing movement.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on May 13, 2017, 09:37:30 AM
I think that is sillier is the fact that BMP does not have access to the Taconic NB.  You would still have to use US 202 and NY 35 to complete that missing movement.

Also, where would the trucks go at the end if they allowed trucks?  I'm assuming they're not allowed on the Taconic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 13, 2017, 09:52:01 AM
I think that is sillier is the fact that BMP does not have access to the Taconic NB.  You would still have to use US 202 and NY 35 to complete that missing movement.

Also, where would the trucks go at the end if they allowed trucks?  I'm assuming they're not allowed on the Taconic.
I'm assuming trucks would not be allowed on the BMP.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 14, 2017, 07:53:22 AM
Whether or not to allow trucks on the BMP is one of the stumbling blocks that stopped the proposed extension 15 years ago.  The region and the parties involved could not come to a consensus.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 14, 2017, 08:56:34 AM
Whether or not to allow trucks on the BMP is one of the stumbling blocks that stopped the proposed extension 15 years ago.  The region and the parties involved could not come to a consensus.

I personally would've said no. And I'm usually the type who considers the needs of other types of vehicles besides cars when it comes to road improvements.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 14, 2017, 11:23:51 AM
What should be considered is how much truck traffic uses the existing US 202/NY 35 to determine that factor.

It could be changed from Parkway to Expressway, but is it written into NYS Law that Parkways have to be exclusive to passenger cars and motorcycles?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 14, 2017, 05:37:55 PM
I don't think so.  The Lake Ontario State Parkway used to allow trucks in Orleans County; I assume the reason they were since banned is due at least in part to the pavement condition.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 15, 2017, 11:45:06 AM
I don't think so.  The Lake Ontario State Parkway used to allow trucks in Orleans County; I assume the reason they were since banned is due at least in part to the pavement condition.
Ahh, yes. Lake Ontario State Parkway. Another parkway with a shitty gap that ought to be merged.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 15, 2017, 01:05:30 PM
Why?  There's literally nothing up there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on May 15, 2017, 01:06:56 PM
I don't think so.  The Lake Ontario State Parkway used to allow trucks in Orleans County; I assume the reason they were since banned is due at least in part to the pavement condition.

One of the bridges (over Oak Orchard Creek) had been reduced to one lane w/ barrels as well.  And yes, the pavement condition was (is still?) brutal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 15, 2017, 09:46:16 PM
Why?  There's literally nothing up there.
You mean Lake Ontario scenery, and direct connections between state parks are considered "nothing?"


Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 15, 2017, 09:59:54 PM
There *WAS* talk of completing the parkway about 15 years ago (see http://web.archive.org/web/20041204040643/www.202and6.com/home.html), but more recent articles suggest it didn't have much support, and there was the sticking point of whether or not to allow trucks on the revamped BMP.

Though there is some right-of-way that NYSDOT still owns along the north side of 202/35, it appears they're more interested in improving 202/35 instead, like they did with part of the stretch a few years ago.


That does make more sense in my mind. Those sections of 202, as well as US 6 to the north, that are already upgraded serve the area perfectly well. Filling in the non-upgraded gaps through Crompond (202) and Mohegan Lake (6) would probably be much more welcome than building a new route. The BMP, as it is, does serve fairly well as a Peekskill bypass, along with a direct route to the station area. In fact, the bypass is so heavily used that it makes the local streets of Peekskill serve as an attractive "anti-bypass": I will often choose a route through that city than mingle with the rest of the rat-racers on US 9 or the BMP. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 16, 2017, 07:36:58 AM
Why?  There's literally nothing up there.
You mean Lake Ontario scenery, and direct connections between state parks are considered "nothing?"


For the cost? You can just drive NY 18. It is a very sparsely populated area, and NY 18 is more than able to handle the low traffic volumes, even during mid-summer. Those state parks don't get a lot of traffic to even remotely warrant a two-lane limited-access parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 16, 2017, 08:10:13 AM
In the case of the BMP it is IFFY to whether or not to finish it or not.  I would say being its only a couple of miles they might as well fill it in, but I am not sure of the traffic situation either.  Plus the section of US 6 & 202 between US 9 and the Bear Mtn. Bridge is so windy it really can't become a major linking corridor between the TSP and the bridge. 

Another question is to be asked what will that and the Bear Mountain Bridge together link?  The PIP on the other side does not really have people wanting to cross the Hudson to get to the TSP.  Most traffic heading north on the PIP continue their journey on US 9W hence why north of the Bear Mountain Circle the US route is four lanes all the way up to Newburgh.  Hardly any traffic goes onto the bridge and treks to the TSP for further northward advancement.  If they did NY 9D up to I-84 or NY 52 would most likely be the way to go anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 16, 2017, 06:29:01 PM
Another question is to be asked what will that and the Bear Mountain Bridge together link?  The PIP on the other side does not really have people wanting to cross the Hudson to get to the TSP.  Most traffic heading north on the PIP continue their journey on US 9W hence why north of the Bear Mountain Circle the US route is four lanes all the way up to Newburgh.  Hardly any traffic goes onto the bridge and treks to the TSP for further northward advancement.  If they did NY 9D up to I-84 or NY 52 would most likely be the way to go anyway.

A large amount of the traffic is east-west from the NY 17 corridor. Cheaper than the Thruway (and occasionally faster) if traveling between there and the immediate NYC area. Hence why it really doesn't matter if there's no EB-NB ramp at the Taconic - anyone who would do that would cut the corner using US 6.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 16, 2017, 07:28:34 PM
What seicer said.  Despite "scenery" and "state parks", there just isn't the demand to spend 8-9 digits to connect the two segments of the Lake Ontario State Parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 16, 2017, 07:53:21 PM
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Region 4 was actually considering truncating the LOSP to NY 237.  That's the westernmost extent of current pavement/bridge maintenance.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 16, 2017, 09:05:27 PM
Hence why it really doesn't matter if there's no EB-NB ramp at the Taconic - anyone who would do that would cut the corner using US 6.

And anyone who knows better than that would skip much of 6 using local roads in Cortlandt and Yorktown, or even Peekskill Hollow. ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 16, 2017, 09:25:15 PM
Hence why it really doesn't matter if there's no EB-NB ramp at the Taconic - anyone who would do that would cut the corner using US 6.

And anyone who knows better than that would skip much of 6 using local roads in Cortlandt and Yorktown, or even Peekskill Hollow. ;-)

Shhh...don't give away my shortcuts  :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 16, 2017, 10:27:55 PM
This is really bad news for the road networks of New York. I suspect they'd never do something smart like eliminate the grade crossing for Saw Mill River Parkway at Grant Street in Pleasantville add a new interchange at Exit 27 in Thornwood.

 :thumbdown: :verymad:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 16, 2017, 11:17:11 PM
What is up with Lake Welch Drive and Lake Tiorati Road being closed during Winter?  I have always wondered since I was a kid why the placed a white cover over the former Exit 14A sign (now Exit 16, but I am sure that it may not be white) saying CLOSED FOR THE SEASON.   

My dad said its to avoid plowing snow, but back then snow was more often then it is post climate change, El nino or whatever.  However, to plow those two roads really was not that hard.  My guess is they are just too cheap and just using that to cut costs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 16, 2017, 11:32:44 PM
What is up with Lake Welch Drive and Lake Tiorati Road being closed during Winter?  I have always wondered since I was a kid why the placed a white cover over the former Exit 14A sign (now Exit 16, but I am sure that it may not be white) saying CLOSED FOR THE SEASON.   

My dad said its to avoid plowing snow, but back then snow was more often then it is post climate change, El nino or whatever.  However, to plow those two roads really was not that hard.  My guess is they are just too cheap and just using that to cut costs.

They close part of LOSP in the winter for the same reason. Allows them to run a couple fewer plow trucks. With fuel costs and what they make in hourly wages, it adds up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 17, 2017, 09:04:52 AM
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Region 4 was actually considering truncating the LOSP to NY 237.  That's the westernmost extent of current pavement/bridge maintenance.

https://goo.gl/maps/WQNtBnGQMLF2

(https://img.memesuper.com/695641ea6303e82e7078b358511918a8_meme-generator-doctor-evil-dr-evil-quotes-meme_550-402.jpeg)

"Maintenance"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 17, 2017, 07:23:25 PM
The section of LOSP from NY 237 to NY 19 will be paved next year.  The part between NY 18 and NY 237 may as well not exist as far as the capital program is concerned.

Another reason to close in winter is because road salt causes deterioration.  I'm pretty sure that is the reason why the LOSP is closed west of NY 98 in winter - the salt was destroying the bridges over Oak Orchard Creek.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 17, 2017, 09:25:58 PM
What is up with Lake Welch Drive and Lake Tiorati Road being closed during Winter?  I have always wondered since I was a kid why the placed a white cover over the former Exit 14A sign (now Exit 16, but I am sure that it may not be white) saying CLOSED FOR THE SEASON.   

My dad said its to avoid plowing snow, but back then snow was more often then it is post climate change, El nino or whatever.  However, to plow those two roads really was not that hard.  My guess is they are just too cheap and just using that to cut costs.

They close part of LOSP in the winter for the same reason. Allows them to run a couple fewer plow trucks. With fuel costs and what they make in hourly wages, it adds up.
Do you know where else they do this kind of thing? Mountain roads that go through isolated parkland, like in the Rockies and the Adirondacks. Roads like Lake Welch Parkway and Tiorati Brook Drive, and what not are the closest thing we've got to that in the suburbs of New York City.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 17, 2017, 10:01:43 PM
What is up with Lake Welch Drive and Lake Tiorati Road being closed during Winter?  I have always wondered since I was a kid why the placed a white cover over the former Exit 14A sign (now Exit 16, but I am sure that it may not be white) saying CLOSED FOR THE SEASON.   

My dad said its to avoid plowing snow, but back then snow was more often then it is post climate change, El nino or whatever.  However, to plow those two roads really was not that hard.  My guess is they are just too cheap and just using that to cut costs.

They close part of LOSP in the winter for the same reason. Allows them to run a couple fewer plow trucks. With fuel costs and what they make in hourly wages, it adds up.
Do you know where else they do this kind of thing? Mountain roads that go through isolated parkland, like in the Rockies and the Adirondacks. Roads like Lake Welch Parkway and Tiorati Brook Drive, and what not are the closest thing we've got to that in the suburbs of New York City.

Precisely. Happens in parts of Vermont and New Hampshire as well. The Adirondacks have very few seasonal roads that aren't dead-ends or access to observation points, mainly because nothing gets to a particularly high elevation and the road network is sparse.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 17, 2017, 10:33:34 PM
What seicer said.  Despite "scenery" and "state parks", there just isn't the demand to spend 8-9 digits to connect the two segments of the Lake Ontario State Parkway.

Maybe not now, but one could imagine a full upgrade to I-98 if the Niagara Peninsula economy explodes.

Or, a Super 2 connection like the ones you see on partially completed highways would be a cheap option.

But I agree, the demand definitely isn't there at this time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 22, 2017, 09:27:19 AM
It looks like I-88 for the first 2.5 miles (or thereabouts) is about to be rehabilitated near Binghamton.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 22, 2017, 10:20:23 AM
It looks like I-88 for the first 2.5 miles (or thereabouts) is about to be rehabilitated near Binghamton.
That' a good start. At 2.5 miles/year, it would take just 50 years for a full overhaul!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 29, 2017, 01:09:26 PM
New subject; Katonah.

On I-684 at NY 35 (Exit 6), there used to be a connecting ramp to Katonah Metro-North station from the southbound on ramp. Through a little Historic Aerials research, I found out that ramp was part of Lakeside Road and not only pre-dated the interstate, but the establishment of New York's state route system. Furthermore I found out that Deer Park Road east of the interchange used to be part of that road too, which means it was not only cut off by I-684, but by the realignment of NY 35. So, does anybody know when that ramp/bridge was closed, and should it be reopened?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 30, 2017, 08:22:42 PM
Oh hey there are a couple abandoned signs on that ramp!
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2627143,-73.6836489,3a,15y,214.07h,88.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9VcyAw7aMwqY82gNNDPsuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

GMSV is a bit too low res to read them but it looks like they are the same as these signs at the still open entrance to the same parking lot, albeit worse for wear:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.258942,-73.6834805,3a,15y,37.46h,86.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suQixWZZMxjfD-RG7rV2OfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

As for the history of the closure, I have not been able to locate anything about it in the online archives of the Journal News (a local paper). Looking at this forensically, the 1974 aerial shows the ramp clearly still open, 1993 and 1994 are too low res to tell, and 2004 shows it closed but much less overgrown than it is now. I would estimate based on its appearance then that it probably was closed in the late 90s.

And while I don't know why, it's probably a good guess that the bridge was deemed structurally unfit for traffic and not worth the cost of replacing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 30, 2017, 08:31:29 PM
Oh hey there are a couple abandoned signs on that ramp!
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2627143,-73.6836489,3a,15y,214.07h,88.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9VcyAw7aMwqY82gNNDPsuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

GMSV is a bit too low res to read them but it looks like they are the same as these signs at the still open entrance to the same parking lot, albeit worse for wear:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.258942,-73.6834805,3a,15y,37.46h,86.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suQixWZZMxjfD-RG7rV2OfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

As for the history of the closure, I have not been able to locate anything about it in the online archives of the Journal News (a local paper). Looking at this forensically, the 1974 aerial shows the ramp clearly still open, 1993 and 1994 are too low res to tell, and 2004 shows it closed but much less overgrown than it is now. I would estimate based on its appearance then that it probably was closed in the late 90s.

And while I don't know why, it's probably a good guess that the bridge was deemed structurally unfit for traffic and not worth the cost of replacing.


While you forensics are perfectly apt, around here I've noticed that things age much quicker than you'd expect. So if you're thinking late 90s, I'm going to guess approximately 2011. :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: goldfishcrackers4 on June 01, 2017, 09:21:24 PM
New overhead signs are up on the Utica NS Arterial.  They look nice, but seem a littie small. There are a few peculiarities. The sign northbound for Court St seems very small with a tiny little arrow. The overhead approaching the Downtown exit northbound  is a good distance back from the exit itself. They put on a strange arrow reminiscent of the NJ Turnpike old arrows. The gantry is also a good distance from the Court St exit southbound. I feel this gap could (should) be filled with a cantilevered overhead.  New signs southbound label "Arts District" and "Brewery District." Looks awesome.

I hope to see this continued past Noyes to Burrstone in my lifetime. Would be awesome

I have some "ok" pictures, but can't figure out how to load them. advice?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 7/8 on June 02, 2017, 03:19:57 PM
I have some "ok" pictures, but can't figure out how to load them. advice?

Make an account on either imgur or flickr and upload your photos there. Then you can use the bbcode links given for each photo and post the links in your post on AARoads.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 03, 2017, 02:47:23 PM
New overhead signs are up on the Utica NS Arterial.  They look nice, but seem a littie small. There are a few peculiarities. The sign northbound for Court St seems very small with a tiny little arrow. The overhead approaching the Downtown exit northbound  is a good distance back from the exit itself. They put on a strange arrow reminiscent of the NJ Turnpike old arrows. The gantry is also a good distance from the Court St exit southbound. I feel this gap could (should) be filled with a cantilevered overhead.  New signs southbound label "Arts District" and "Brewery District." Looks awesome.

I hope to see this continued past Noyes to Burrstone in my lifetime. Would be awesome

I have some "ok" pictures, but can't figure out how to load them. advice?

The new overhead signs on the new bridge at Court St look good, despite the R2 peculiarities that you mentioned. The new signs along that replaced the existing button copy signs in the area this week are another matter. I like that they added the Thruway trailblazer to the "To 90" notation, however, some signs show East 790 - To 90 - To Thruway on the top line and others say To 90 - To Thruway - East 790. I've been communicating with NYSDOT on this project since it began a few years ago and have been pushing hard to get the markers in the proper order. It seems like new signs followed this guidance but "replace in kind" signs just rearranged the order of the markers to their improper locations.

There's a pair of signs from NY 5/8/12 SB to NY 5A/NY 5S that have legend that is way too small for the size of the panel. It looks like someone just didn't know how to run GuidSIGN or when EMI fed the specs into their computer system they didn't it wrong.

I'm curious to see if APLs will appear on the stretch of the North-South Arterial north of the new Court St. interchange. Technically there should be an APL in each direction as there is an option lane drop at each split. I know there's one more new overhead sign installation going up just north of the new bridge. I'm interested to see what the panels end up looking like. R2's plans for the project letting are sometimes changed before the actual installation.

I'm also hoping they'll clean up some of the extraneous ground mounted signs in the area that repeat the information or are leftovers from the old configuration in the area, especially the ones with the THIS LANE and LEFT LANE legend, which no longer applies.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on June 09, 2017, 09:52:45 AM
These have appeared recently at the Thruway service areas I pass regularly.  This one's just before entering the parking area from the offramp to the Pattersonville service area WB between 26 and 27.

(http://www.teresco.org/~terescoj/temp/moveover.jpg)

A lot of VMS messages recently have also had the "Move Over" messages when they have nothing else to report.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 09, 2017, 12:52:17 PM
Nice signs, but they could be placed elsewhere. The service areas are terribly cluttered with signs - much like my disdain for cluttered exit ramps.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 09, 2017, 06:06:24 PM
These have appeared recently at the Thruway service areas I pass regularly.  This one's just before entering the parking area from the offramp to the Pattersonville service area WB between 26 and 27.

(http://www.teresco.org/~terescoj/temp/moveover.jpg)

A lot of VMS messages recently have also had the "Move Over" messages when they have nothing else to report.

While the signs are quite nice I question why the Thruway Authority posted them in service plazas. Most of these signs are at the gore point where cars and buses/trucks diverge coming into the plaza and these signs look like a directional sign for the split. Some western plazas have installed them beyond the pumps as you enter back onto the Thruway, which makes a little more sense.

Maybe the Cuomo signs should be in the service plazas and the Move Over signs should be on the mainline.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2017, 08:02:37 PM
Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 09, 2017, 08:27:04 PM
Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.
9.5 k traffic west of intersection, 26 k east. 2 out of 3 cars passing the intersection are going to a highway.
NYSDOT at its business as usual.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadsguy on June 09, 2017, 09:02:35 PM
Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.
9.5 k traffic west of intersection, 26 k east. 2 out of 3 cars passing the intersection are going to a highway.
NYSDOT at its business as usual.

The perfect ratio for a left-left-through setup and they do the opposite...

But since when is there a rule against option turning lanes?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2017, 09:04:25 PM
Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.
9.5 k traffic west of intersection, 26 k east. 2 out of 3 cars passing the intersection are going to a highway.
NYSDOT at its business as usual.

The perfect ratio for a left-left-through setup and they do the opposite...

But since when is there a rule against option turning lanes?

They require split phasing. Instead of changing the timing to make it split phasing, they changed lane assignments.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on June 09, 2017, 09:17:17 PM
Nice signs, but they could be placed elsewhere. The service areas are terribly cluttered with signs - much like my disdain for cluttered exit ramps.

This particular one is right in the middle of a group of 7 or 8 signs in a very short distance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Revive 755 on June 09, 2017, 09:28:44 PM
But since when is there a rule against option turning lanes?

They require split phasing. Instead of changing the timing to make it split phasing, they changed lane assignments.

Not always - it depends upon how open the agency with jurisdiction over the signal, and how open they are to effectively having a dual left with a permissive phase.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 09, 2017, 09:46:25 PM
As I understand it, dual left with a permissive phase requires dedicated left turn lanes.  Cannot be done with an option lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2017, 10:01:56 PM
As I understand it, dual left with a permissive phase requires dedicated left turn lanes.  Cannot be done with an option lane.

Don't feel like looking it up, but I think that's the case. Dual left with an option lane requires split phasing regardless.

Of course, the point of a dual permissive left at a NYSDOT signal is moot, because NYSDOT doesn't allow it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 10, 2017, 01:07:49 AM
Nice signs, but they could be placed elsewhere. The service areas are terribly cluttered with signs - much like my disdain for cluttered exit ramps.

If they can erect Cuomo Signs on the highway, I am sure these can be right next to them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: compdude787 on June 10, 2017, 02:43:24 AM
Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.

Yeah, they should probably make it so that only one lane continues straight. As it currently is, the second thru lane ends shortly west of this intersection, so that shouldn't be a big issue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on June 10, 2017, 08:33:04 AM
Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.

Is the former configuration at the Exit 19 location the same situation that exists on Everett Rd, where the middle lane northbound can go straight or turn left to enter I-90 West?  Or maybe the light cycles there make it a different case?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 10, 2017, 08:52:27 AM
Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.

Is the former configuration at the Exit 19 location the same situation that exists on Everett Rd, where the middle lane northbound can go straight or turn left to enter I-90 West?  Or maybe the light cycles there make it a different case?
Everett is a classic diamond, and exit19 is some flavor of parclo on that side, so they are seriously different. But that is a good point, we need to brace for Everett road exit  being screwed up pretty soon...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 10, 2017, 11:35:04 AM
Is it just me, or is the EZPass account website always inaccessible? Whenever I try to access my account it says "500 Internal Server Error."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 10, 2017, 12:09:01 PM
Is it just me, or is the EZPass account website always inaccessible? Whenever I try to access my account it says "500 Internal Server Error."
Just checked, https://www.e-zpassny.com/ works just fine for me....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 10, 2017, 04:51:44 PM
Is it just me, or is the EZPass account website always inaccessible? Whenever I try to access my account it says "500 Internal Server Error."
Just checked, https://www.e-zpassny.com/ works just fine for me....

Ok never mind, the account page is working now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on June 12, 2017, 01:12:16 AM
Drove past a new FYA setup on NY25A in Manhasset this evening. It's for w/b traffic turning left into the shopping center immediately east of Shelter Rock Rd. This replaces a PV signal setup that had a region 10 style doghouse (side-by-side) 

Didnt pay much attention since it was dark and traffic was moving fast.

GSV link with the old setup, the second signal in the background  (https://goo.gl/maps/oDsojG4kkNo)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 12, 2017, 05:28:02 PM
That makes at least two FYA's on NY 25A now, the other being at NY 107.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 12, 2017, 05:48:21 PM
Yeah, NYSDOT has been installing a ton of FYAs lately. Region 1 recently installed one on NY 7 at NY 142 in Brunswick. A bunch will be going up in Region 5 within the next year or two as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 13, 2017, 11:47:55 AM
A bunch will be going up in Region 5 within the next year or two as well.

Where?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 13, 2017, 01:05:45 PM
Another issue; Palisades Interstate Parkway and the Appalachian Trail. What's with the lack of bridges?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 13, 2017, 03:08:45 PM
A bunch will be going up in Region 5 within the next year or two as well.

Where?

Walden at Galleria Drive, NY 130 at NY 240 and NY 277, NY 78 at Tonawanda Creek Rd, among others.
Another issue; Palisades Interstate Parkway and the Appalachian Trail. What's with the lack of bridges?

My guess here is that, like the other parkways, it wasn't expected to be a major thoroughfare when the thing was built. Why they haven't since built overpasses is beyond me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 13, 2017, 11:26:13 PM
Looks like a significant chunk of the original concrete pavement on the Palisades is set to be asphalted. It received extensive concrete repairs earlier this year. It's rough and loud, and I'm looking forward to a new surface.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 20, 2017, 09:03:08 PM
Drove past a new FYA setup on NY25A in Manhasset this evening. It's for w/b traffic turning left into the shopping center immediately east of Shelter Rock Rd. This replaces a PV signal setup that had a region 10 style doghouse (side-by-side) 

Didnt pay much attention since it was dark and traffic was moving fast.

GSV link with the old setup, the second signal in the background  (https://goo.gl/maps/oDsojG4kkNo)

is the replacement of the PV style?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on June 22, 2017, 11:59:52 PM
Drove past a new FYA setup on NY25A in Manhasset this evening. It's for w/b traffic turning left into the shopping center immediately east of Shelter Rock Rd. This replaces a PV signal setup that had a region 10 style doghouse (side-by-side) 

Didnt pay much attention since it was dark and traffic was moving fast.

GSV link with the old setup, the second signal in the background  (https://goo.gl/maps/oDsojG4kkNo)

is the replacement of the PV style?

Looked like regular signals with the reflective yellow tape, but again it was dark out.

Also while we are on the subject of FYAs, this (https://goo.gl/maps/1QyawPjmHuE2) intersection on Jericho Turnpike just west of Brush Hollow Rd has replacement signals bagged and waiting to go into service, which probably include FYAs for left turns from Jericho Tpk

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 04, 2017, 05:08:15 PM
Couple of washouts on NY 7 in Hoosick from last weekend's storms. Down to 1 lane in two locations. Not a safe place to park and get a picture, but temporary signals have been installed. Given that NYSDOT blacked out and installed temporary markings, this will probably end up being a medium- to long-term partial closure.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 06, 2017, 05:43:42 PM
^ I've seen such temporary markings done for projects as short as a week-and-a-half.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 09, 2017, 10:49:07 AM
I don't know if it's just me, but I've been seeing a lot of local street blades being replaced throughout the Buffalo area, going from all caps to sentence case, and changing fonts. Even the few signs in my neighborhood that have been there for almost 20 years were recently replaced. I like them a lot.

What prompted this switch, if anyone knows?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 09, 2017, 02:32:18 PM
Mixed case is an MUTCD requirement.  Not sure about the font switch.

It also could be because of visibility/reflectiveness.  If the older signs weren't reflective (or reflective enough), I believe there's an MUTCD requirement for that as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 11, 2017, 11:29:57 PM
As I mentioned in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20130.msg2224275#msg2224275), when I was a little kid just entering school, I got so upset about the prospect of never seeing the roads of Upstate New York again, that I started crying on the school bus. Well, four years later when I finally got the chance to see it again, and yes the Sprain Brook Parkway was one of them. But at that time it ended at the Cross Westchester Expressway with the unfinished southbound lane and eastbound off-ramp, and all northbound traffic being forced to make a left turn into the westbound off-ramp, otherwise you'd drive straight into a mountain. I wouldn't mind seeing a picture of that stub. I keep thinking it had a big road closed sign or something like that blocking it too.

Also, I almost posted this on the NYSDOT photolog thread, but I changed my mind.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeCL on July 12, 2017, 09:10:51 PM
Looks like a significant chunk of the original concrete pavement on the Palisades is set to be asphalted. It received extensive concrete repairs earlier this year. It's rough and loud, and I'm looking forward to a new surface.
I was wondering from what I can remember the section of 95 from the CT to NYS how long was it concrete? I know it's paved now but to me I remember it lasting a long time before any repairs needed to be done
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 13, 2017, 09:37:28 PM
a few years ago they did something to the pavement, cut grooves in it and it doesnt have that loud concrete pavement sound anymore.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 13, 2017, 09:55:52 PM
Yeah, that concrete pavement on the New England Thruway part of I-95 in Westchester is very weird looking. Seems to me it's been that way since they rebuilt it some years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 17, 2017, 11:40:35 PM
NY 5 bridge crossing the canal in Buffalo, in 1973. I wonder why that bridge was destroyed. It was built in 1960 (and was probably great to drive over)...

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/THE_POLLUTED_BUFFALO_RIVER_FLOWS_INTO_LAKE_ERIE_-_NARA_-_549479.jpg/1280px-THE_POLLUTED_BUFFALO_RIVER_FLOWS_INTO_LAKE_ERIE_-_NARA_-_549479.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 18, 2017, 09:03:36 AM
Some notes from driving around New York in the past month:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 18, 2017, 11:46:12 AM
^ For some of that last one, probably because there's a section between Deposit and Hancock that is still at-grade, and New York doesn't allow speed limits above 55 on non-freeways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 18, 2017, 12:28:54 PM
Most of that 55 section is due to terrain and geometry.  NY 17 through the Catskills is probably the craziest non-parkway road in the northeast excluding the PA Turnpike. It simply isn't safe to have a higher limit with many of those curves.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 18, 2017, 01:14:33 PM
I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 18, 2017, 01:50:47 PM
The curves in New Hampshire aren't nearly as sharp as they are on the Quickway (i.e. NY 17 east of Binghamton), so you can throw out that comparison.  And IIRC the speed limit on the curvy section of the West Virginia Turnpike is 60.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadsguy on July 18, 2017, 01:56:18 PM
Most of that 55 section is due to terrain and geometry.  NY 17 through the Catskills is probably the craziest non-parkway road in the northeast excluding the PA Turnpike. It simply isn't safe to have a higher limit with many of those curves.

At least the Turnpike can mostly be safely driven at 70 (realistically 80), but it isn't nearly as curvy or hilly as that part of 17. I've never driven it, but from looking at it it seems just 65 is too much for it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 18, 2017, 02:19:42 PM
I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 18, 2017, 02:33:41 PM
I feel perfectly safe driving that section of NY 17 at 65.  Pity it isn't legal; it's hard to keep my speed down there.

There is some serious Corten (the steel that rusts) guardrail rot along NY 8 in the Adirondacks region, with entire sections and supports rusted apart. I know other states use Corten extensively as guardrails and have not seen this much rot - is it from a bad batch of steel? And speaking of that - there is a lot of inconsistency in the application of Corten and regular guardrails, with a mixture of both on many scenic roadways.
NYSDOT is currently replacing all rustic (Corten) rail with standard galvanized guiderail, so that's where the inconsistency comes from.  The rail literally rots from the inside out.  I can only assume that other states are OK with replacing guiderail every decade.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 18, 2017, 03:44:46 PM
Well, the argument -could- be made that NY 17 is still 55 MPH east of the intersections at Hale Eddy because it's a state highway, but remember that NY 17 elsewhere (and prior to I-86's introduction) was and is signed at 65 MPH. Those curves are no more sharp than what you would encounter on the West Virginia Turnpike (which is 60 MPH with many curves signed at 55 MPH and thereabouts) or I-79 (which is 70 MPH with plenty of 60 MPH curves). The argument that there are some curves therefore the entire 30 or so mile stretch of highway needs to be under-posted to 55 MPH is irrational.

It's also a speed trap. It's faster to travel to New York City via I-81/380/80 than it is to take I-86/NY 17 or I-81/I-84/NY 17 purely based on the speed limits and traffic.

That's not to say the entire state is under-posted at 65 MPH when 70 MPH or 75 MPH is realistic and safe. More progressive states have long switched to 70 MPH or even 75 MPH.

As for the guardrails - that's understandable. I just haven't seen the rot on Corten W-shaped guardrails - perhaps the salt is infiltrating inside the box beam and collecting inside?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 18, 2017, 06:26:51 PM
I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.

Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.

East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 18, 2017, 10:41:31 PM
I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.

Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.

East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.

The only other SRs I know of that have 65mph limits are NY 49 and NY 531.  I'm sure there's more though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 18, 2017, 10:48:01 PM
I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.

Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.

East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.

The only other SRs I know of that have 65mph limits are NY 49 and NY 531.  I'm sure there's more though.

5 west of Syracuse, 7 in Colonie, 400, 481, 690, 695, as well as US 219. All of these are generally built to 70s-90s Interstate standards (NY 7 was supposed to be I-88), unlike NY 17 east of Binghamton, which predates the Interstate system.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 19, 2017, 12:28:49 AM
Well, NY 17 is still 65 MPH further east in the Catskills, and was 65 MPH prior to I-86's introduction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on July 19, 2017, 12:41:46 AM
I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.

Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.

East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.

The only other SRs I know of that have 65mph limits are NY 49 and NY 531.  I'm sure there's more though.

5 west of Syracuse, 7 in Colonie, 400, 481, 690, 695, as well as US 219. All of these are generally built to 70s-90s Interstate standards (NY 7 was supposed to be I-88), unlike NY 17 east of Binghamton, which predates the Interstate system.
I'm not convinced NY 7 was meant to be I-88. I've seen various plans for I-88 and NY 7 is generally not in them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 19, 2017, 12:47:14 AM
I came across a document via Google Books that had the various routings proposed for I-88 in the Binghamton area. One was to the east via Fox Hollow, another was along NY 7 and the other was along its current alignment. I can't recall if there was one proposed north of Chenango Bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 19, 2017, 01:09:14 AM
I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.

Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.

East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.

The only other SRs I know of that have 65mph limits are NY 49 and NY 531.  I'm sure there's more though.

5 west of Syracuse, 7 in Colonie, 400, 481, 690, 695, as well as US 219. All of these are generally built to 70s-90s Interstate standards (NY 7 was supposed to be I-88), unlike NY 17 east of Binghamton, which predates the Interstate system.
I'm not convinced NY 7 was meant to be I-88. I've seen various plans for I-88 and NY 7 is generally not in them.

Regardless of what it became, it was in the general area where I-88 was planned to run, plus I-787's Exit 9 was built along with 787 for I-88. We know that from an Official Description sitting on my desk (east end of the Collar City Bridge was the listed end of I-88 until some point in the 80s). I-87's Exit 7 was likely reserved for the freeway that became I-88 and later NY 7. "Alternate 7" was an I-88 replacement. But we're getting off topic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 24, 2017, 02:38:26 PM
NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions (http://www.wbng.com/story/35954002/portion-of-route-17-in-tioga-county-closed-after-storm). Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 24, 2017, 02:54:09 PM
NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions (http://www.wbng.com/story/35954002/portion-of-route-17-in-tioga-county-closed-after-storm). Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.
I wonder if that would affect, to any extent, I-81 Syracuse discussion...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 24, 2017, 03:51:11 PM
This bridge: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.02391,-76.36201&z=17&t=H
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SGwithADD on July 24, 2017, 08:22:23 PM
Better photos of the damage to the NY 17 bridge (http://www.wicz.com/story/35956888/tioga-update-storm-damage-closes-8617-bridge-in-nichols)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 25, 2017, 10:55:56 AM
http://www.wbng.com/story/35945355/dot-says-rough-patch-of-route-88-will-be-repaired-by-fall

So the I-88 repair project in Port Crane at the southern terminus involves full-depth concrete repairs but not an asphalt overlay. The asphalt patches that are in place are temporary and are very rough. From the article, it seems that they will be replaced with concrete (and I hope the surface diamond ground).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 25, 2017, 05:25:33 PM
"STATE route 88"? What the heck!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 31, 2017, 11:21:31 PM
NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions (http://www.wbng.com/story/35954002/portion-of-route-17-in-tioga-county-closed-after-storm). Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.

I took a trip upstate last week and passed through the detour in both directions. Westbound, they dump you off at Lounsberry–which I'd always thought sounded like the name of some unwashed sleazy guy with a raspy voice, but turns out to be a quite pleasant little riverside settlement–and you follow East River Road into the village of Nichols. A temporary traffic signal is set up at the NY 282 junction, and you follow northbound 282 out of the village on West River Road.

For the westbound re-entry, there's a rather interesting arrangement: where West River Road meets the eastbound ramps of I-86, all traffic is forced to turn right (even traffic not re-joining the freeway) onto the eastbound entrance ramp. Then you cross the eastbound carriageway and make a U-turn through an ad hoc median break onto the westbound carriageway. Then, if you had intended to stay on West River Road (as I did, since I wanted to fill up at the Dandy mart just west of there), you can get right back off via the usual westbound exit for NY 282.

Looking at the map, I can see why they arranged it this way. If the westbound detour used the westbound onramp, that stream of traffic would have to cross the stream of traffic taking the eastbound detour, which would be turning left from the eastbound offramp. The principal drawback would be for local traffic, since you can't proceed straight through on West River Road going westbound (eastbound you can, and there's a temporary signal set up there as well).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 01, 2017, 11:14:04 AM
NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions (http://www.wbng.com/story/35954002/portion-of-route-17-in-tioga-county-closed-after-storm). Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.
temporary traffic signal

Speaking of these, does NY use them very much? I saw 3 in a row on my trip through Coudersport, via PA 44.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SectorZ on August 01, 2017, 08:10:57 PM
"STATE route 88"? What the heck!

Then they get it correct later. Something about consistency, hobgoblins, little minds, etc.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 01, 2017, 10:08:36 PM
NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions (http://www.wbng.com/story/35954002/portion-of-route-17-in-tioga-county-closed-after-storm). Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.
temporary traffic signal

Speaking of these, does NY use them very much? I saw 3 in a row on my trip through Coudersport, via PA 44.
They're pretty standard in Region 1 at least.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 02, 2017, 01:06:36 AM
NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions (http://www.wbng.com/story/35954002/portion-of-route-17-in-tioga-county-closed-after-storm). Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.
temporary traffic signal

Speaking of these, does NY use them very much? I saw 3 in a row on my trip through Coudersport, via PA 44.
They're pretty standard in Region 1 at least.

I wouldn't say "very much", but they're not vanishingly rare, either. I certainly wasn't at all taken aback at seeing them the other day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 02, 2017, 07:23:20 PM
Another NY 22 question, near the Appalachian Trail;

I saw an abandoned section of Quaker Hill Road (Dutchess CR 68) south of the trail crossing:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/41%C2%B035'34.4%22N+73%C2%B035'16.8%22W/@41.5900977,-73.5892479,700m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d41.5929!4d-73.588?hl=en

https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=12&lat=41.566667&lon=-73.6

So why no wye?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 02, 2017, 07:41:44 PM
Probably something to do with terrain. Looking at the topo for that area, there's a bit of a hill right where the wye would be.

It's worth noting that Quaker Hill Rd was part of the original alignment of NY 22. Zig-zagged quite a bit to connect to that section of Old 22 a little to the south.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 03, 2017, 09:59:25 AM
The 1947 thru 1960 topos give you your answer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 03, 2017, 06:29:36 PM
D263529 - a BIG project involving Rockland-Westchester Counties, features an errant US 303 shield volume 3, page 79, overall page 287.

Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263529
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 03, 2017, 06:38:34 PM
D263529 - also of note, new Average Travel Time sign plans (in color) on plans 16 of 19, page 49, overall page 1008.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 03, 2017, 08:42:56 PM
D263529 - a BIG project involving Rockland-Westchester Counties, features an errant US 303 shield volume 3, page 79, overall page 287.

Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263529

Summed up for everyone: this and another contract being let the same day are part of a huge corridor management plan for I-287 in New York.
- Ramp meters along the Thruway and Cross Westchester from Suffern to White Plains
- Bus priority on NY 59 and NY 119
- Improved speed/traffic tracking with Bluetooth, radar and other sensing technologies
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 03, 2017, 11:40:04 PM
D263529 - a BIG project involving Rockland-Westchester Counties, features an errant US 303 shield volume 3, page 79, overall page 287.

Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263529

Summed up for everyone: this and another contract being let the same day are part of a huge corridor management plan for I-287 in New York.
- Ramp meters along the Thruway and Cross Westchester from Suffern to White Plains
- Bus priority on NY 59 and NY 119
- Improved speed/traffic tracking with Bluetooth, radar and other sensing technologies
Glad they got it out. :D

I foresee a discussion with Region 8 when I return from vacation...

*personal opinion expressed*
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 04, 2017, 12:00:21 AM
D263529 - a BIG project involving Rockland-Westchester Counties, features an errant US 303 shield volume 3, page 79, overall page 287.

Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263529
Someone get a picture of it, just in case they go through with that error!

Too bad they're still not putting pedestrian bridges for the Appalachian Trail over the Palisades Interstate Parkway, or closing and/or replacing dangerous intersections on the parkways of Westchester with interchanges of linking the Bear Mountain Parkway gap.

The 1947 thru 1960 topos give you your answer.
They also show a small freight spur running behind "Native Landscaping Incorporated" as recently as 2000, though most of the aerial photographs available don't show the spur even existing in the Penn Central era.  Not that it has anything to do with that, it's just interesting.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SGwithADD on August 04, 2017, 04:52:52 PM
Looks like NYSDOT managed some quick work on the repairs from last week's flooding on Route 17.  They just opened two three lanes today (two EB, one WB), when they had originally predicted a closure until Labor Day.

Article from the Binghamton Press & Sun on the reopening (http://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/2017/08/04/lanes-reopen-state-route-17-between-nichols-and-lounsberry/540582001/)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: civilmaher on August 11, 2017, 02:12:07 PM
Does NYSDOT (or its regions) have conventions when it comes to minimum green time, yellow time, and all red time? Or should I just calculate according to ITE formulas.

I'm used to the guidance in the NJDOT Roadway Design Manual when it comes to creating signal timing directives (see below), but was wondering if NYSDOT had anything like this...

(https://content.screencast.com/users/matt-maher/folders/Snagit/media/454575e4-e686-41de-bf4c-07b58f662d2e/08.11.2017-14.11.18.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 11, 2017, 10:08:42 PM
Does NYSDOT (or its regions) have conventions when it comes to minimum green time, yellow time, and all red time? Or should I just calculate according to ITE formulas.

I'm used to the guidance in the NJDOT Roadway Design Manual when it comes to creating signal timing directives (see below), but was wondering if NYSDOT had anything like this...
note to self, competition does not have access to NYSDOT signal timing guidance
:D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 12, 2017, 06:37:10 AM
Does NYSDOT (or its regions) have conventions when it comes to minimum green time, yellow time, and all red time? Or should I just calculate according to ITE formulas.

I'm used to the guidance in the NJDOT Roadway Design Manual when it comes to creating signal timing directives (see below), but was wondering if NYSDOT had anything like this...
note to self, competition does not have access to NYSDOT signal timing guidance
:D
Yes, it is not wise to release guidelines on adjusting traffic cycle for  efficient operation of red light cameras.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 14, 2017, 04:11:47 PM
Can I-290 get any wider than it is now? This is one of the heaviest, if not the heaviest 3-di's upstate. In my opinion it could use a 4th lane in each direction, but between the power line ROW and the narrow parts in Tonawanda, I can't envision a scenario where this would be continuous.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on August 14, 2017, 10:56:08 PM
I was just on it last Monday (8/7) heading to and from Niagara Falls.  From what I saw, it is a busy freeway--but no busier than I-75 through Northern Kentucky and Cincinnati (when the Brent Spence Bridge over the Ohio River isn't being worked on).  I cannot see it being widened in the vicinity of Exit 3 (because of development) nor between Exits 6 & 7 (because of the power lines).  The only possible way that traffic could be alleviated would be to build express lanes over I-290--just like I-35 in Austin, TX.  We all also know that this will never happen in New York.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 14, 2017, 11:08:56 PM
I-290 isn't even too bad by Upstate standards. Almost everything in the Albany area has more traffic. Get stuck in the daily traffic on 87, 90 or 787 at some point and the traffic counts definitely agree.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 15, 2017, 01:15:52 AM
Yeah that I-35 thing would be DoA and ugly as well.

I-290 isn't even too bad by Upstate standards. Almost everything in the Albany area has more traffic. Get stuck in the daily traffic on 87, 90 or 787 at some point and the traffic counts definitely agree.

I checked the AADT map and I was surprised to see that I-390 was heavier in some places than I-290 and NY-33.

And yes I looked at Albany and many of those freeways have high average counts. I wonder what the rush hour stats are like.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 15, 2017, 12:54:13 PM
Feel free to click on the highway segment to open a window with links to open a detailed report (assuming you're using Traffic Data Viewer).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 15, 2017, 04:28:15 PM
Living about a 1/2 mile from I-290, it only really clogs on the eastern end (990 to 90). Western end is rarely traffic heavy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on August 26, 2017, 06:43:42 PM
Here's a couple of recent articles from Syracuse.com about I-690 near the state fairgrounds:

Federal Highway Administration approves I-690 on-ramp for NYS Fair traffic (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/there_have_been_120_crashes_on_i-690_near_nys_fair_grounds_in_three_years.html)

A first: Drones will fly at 2017 NY State Fair to help control traffic (http://www.syracuse.com/statefair/index.ssf/2017/08/a_first_drones_fly_at_2017_ny_state_fair_to_help_control_traffic.html)

As for the proposed ramp, I would design it as a RIRO ramp, like the nearby NY 5/NY 173 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.053438,-76.2497012,18z/data=!3m1!1e3).  There's enough room under the west to south bridge to add a deceleration lane, and the north to west bridge could be extended slightly.



Ever since going to a concert last weekend at the Lakeview Amphitheater and being forced to go to the Hiawatha Blvd exit and make a u-turn, I've been thinking about a better way to access the Orange Lot.  Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0784437,-76.2203203,15z/data=!3m1!1e3) a map of the area.  I came in using NY 297 to try to go under the bridge just east of the eastbound Exit 7 ramps on I-690.  I came this way because the Lakeview Amphitheater website mentioned the exit from eastbound I-690 to NY 297 would be closed (it wasn't).  When I got to the intersection to go under the I-690 bridge, there was a police officer directing traffic and temporary no left/right turn signs, one for each direction of State Fair Blvd.  I didn't have any problems at Hiawatha Blvd, but as I was getting back on I-690, I noticed a line of cars starting to back up onto the I-690 eastbound mainline.

I've tried to think of where to add ramps, but anything I come up with either hits an existing ramp, or has a short weaving distance.  Because I-690 and the surrounding area is on a waste bed with toxic chemicals, it's basically impossible to build any tunnels.  There's already weaving between traffic on eastbound I-690 wanting to get off at NY 297, and traffic entering from NY 695.  If someone on I-690 eastbound wants to exit at NY 297, they have to change one lane to the right to get into the first lane added from NY 695, then move to the right again to get to the exit lane.  The best idea I could come up with is that this weaving is why you could only access the Orange Lot from the east.  The NY 297 ramp has a branch that leads directly into the Pink Lot, and as far as I could tell, there were no closures, so the weaving theory doesn't make complete sense to me.

If the weaving isn't the issue, then it could be the fact that traffic has to cross State Fair Blvd twice, which could cause a backup onto the weaving area.  My solution to this would be to move local traffic onto the eastbound half of State Fair Blvd, and have two lanes of traffic from the end of the Exit 7 ramps to the connector under the bridge on I-690.  As traffic turns left onto the westbound side of State Fair Blvd, it would split into two lanes.  These two lanes could continue under the bridge and into the Orange Lot.  If for some reason there needs to be an exit from the Orange Lot at all times, there could be just a single lane, but because it wouldn't be crossing State Fair Blvd, there would be no need for it to stop until getting into the parking lot, plus there would be an additional area for stopped cars off of I-690.  Local traffic from NY 297 and/or State Fair Blvd could follow the regular lanes at the bridge, then merge into the line.  I only saw one other car going to the concert from State Fair Blvd, and I didn't see any others other than myself turning onto NY 297 leaving the concert.

If this would be too hard to do and/or a better ramp design can't be created, I would at a bare minimum put a Texas Turnaround under the bridge at Hiawatha Blvd.  A Texas Turnaround would also help with parking during the State Fair since making a u-turn at Hiawatha Blvd is the only way to access the Orange Lot during the fair, and it would be too busy to move traffic to one side of State Fair Blvd.  Although I beat the crowds, and had to wait for just a few seconds at a red light at the Hiawatha Blvd exit, the traffic that was starting to back up onto I-690 that I mentioned above would be eliminated if there were no lights to stop at.  According to the NYSDOT TDV, the affected section of State Fair Blvd has an AADT of 11,407 and Hiawatha Blvd has an AADT of 21,670.  The next segment to the west on State Fair Blvd has an AADT of 6,272, and the next segment to the east has an AADT of 3,104.  To me, it makes sense to have concert traffic use a road that normally isn't as busy as long as the State Fair isn't going on.  As for concerts during the fair, there's only 3 this year.

Lastly, they should cover the lane signs exiting the Orange Lot during concerts.  The signs read "Bridge St Left Lane/I-690 Right Lane".  I was in the right lane, which was divided with cones for quite a while before the signs.  Just after seeing the first sign, I saw a gap in the cones and a police officer waving his wand in a "keep moving" motion.  I stopped before the gap and turned on my blinker to "ask" if I could switch, but he angrily motioned with his whole body to stay in my lane.  Once I got onto State Fair Blvd, I was able to switch lanes, and there were 4 or so other cars switching too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2017, 08:07:16 PM
Here's a couple of recent articles from Syracuse.com about I-690 near the state fairgrounds:

A first: Drones will fly at 2017 NY State Fair to help control traffic (http://www.syracuse.com/statefair/index.ssf/2017/08/a_first_drones_fly_at_2017_ny_state_fair_to_help_control_traffic.html)
And I forgot my shotgun.
I went on Thursday, pre-drone, and got there early enough to park on the side street for free (not that $5 is exorbitant), so I didn't test the parking arrangement. It did smack of not enough signage in general for the various lots and entrances.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 29, 2017, 02:33:53 AM
So this Skyway deck project...will they actually repair/mill with longitudinal tinings like they did with several bridges on US-219 in Orchard Park? Or is this something different?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on August 29, 2017, 10:26:59 PM
Here's a couple of recent articles from Syracuse.com about I-690 near the state fairgrounds:

A first: Drones will fly at 2017 NY State Fair to help control traffic (http://www.syracuse.com/statefair/index.ssf/2017/08/a_first_drones_fly_at_2017_ny_state_fair_to_help_control_traffic.html)
And I forgot my shotgun.
I went on Thursday, pre-drone, and got there early enough to park on the side street for free (not that $5 is exorbitant), so I didn't test the parking arrangement. It did smack of not enough signage in general for the various lots and entrances.

It looks like the drones weren't that much of a help:
Drones no match for traffic jam on New York State Fair's record day
 (http://www.syracuse.com/statefair/index.ssf/2017/08/drones_no_match_for_traffic_jam_on_ny_state_fairs_record_day.html)'Excessive traffic backups' reported on I-690 by NYS Fair, 911 says (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/excessvie_traffic_backups_reported_on_i-690_by_nys_fair_911_says.html)

Here's a picture of Hiawatha Blvd looking westbound from the second article:
(http://image.syracuse.com/home/syr-media/width620/img/news/photo/2017/08/27/23311626-mmmain.jpg)



A few days ago, I came across some old EIS reports.  Unfortunately, it looks like the diagrams were only half scanned.  The first report was for the upgrade of I-690 between the Thruway and State Fair Blvd at Exit 5.  Here's (https://books.google.com/books?id=9Kc1AQAAMAAJ) the draft, and here's (https://books.google.com/books?id=FKg1AQAAMAAJ) the final report.  I was surprised to see that they were considering a set of C/D roads from State Fair Blvd to Jones Rd, with a trumpet that would have been where this warehouse (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1098488,-76.2577134,17z/data=!3m1!1e3) is.  After reading some of the report and looking at historic imagery, I was also surprised to find that the current I-690 eastbound bridge was originally NY 48 over the Thruway.

The other EIS report (https://books.google.com/books?id=tac1AQAAMAAJ) I found was for the northern extension of I-481 from the Thruway to I-81 in North Syracuse.  I got a kick out of comment 8 on page A3.  The comment is about opposition to I-481 since there are alternate 4-lane roads, including I-81.  I wonder what would have been proposed for the I-81 viaduct if there weren't an I-481 to potentially reroute I-81 onto.

With both reports, I was surprised to see that the style of the cover page is still the same today.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 30, 2017, 08:51:24 AM
Quote from: Michael
Unfortunately, it looks like the diagrams were only half scanned.

I emailed Google about this sort of thing a couple months ago.  Below is the relevant part of the response:

Quote from: Google Books
The image(s) or page(s) you are requesting was/were purposefully folded into the book at the time of the publication. Unfortunately, this book was scanned prior to our ability to scan these types of pages. The good news is that Google Books continues to improve our processes, and we are now able to scan many such images.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on August 30, 2017, 10:36:22 AM
Fair traffic and parking were horrible this year due in most part to them closing off access points to the Orange and Brown Lots due to saving spaces for concerts at the new amphitheater. On Saturday 8/26 when I was there, they had the Exit 7 entrance for the Orange Lot as the sole access point. The Exit 6 entrance which I normally use, was closed. Also, when turning around, the entirety of the Brown Lot was closed. When looping back to the Orange Lot, in the interim, the Exit 7 ramp was closed with no one telling you where to go. After an hour of looping around and waiting in traffic, I finally found a spot way over by the 695 bridge over the railroad tracks. I showed up at a decent time, around 1:30pm.. the same time I've shown up the previous 9 years I have gone to the fair, and this was by far the worst situation I have ever encountered. God help anyone who decides to come Labor Day weekend.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 11, 2017, 08:49:46 PM
A couple of Saratoga County notes:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 18, 2017, 08:50:13 AM
Something I didn't notice until I was looking at an aerial / topo today: https://historicaerials.com/location/42.413746086522806/-73.54805946350098/1971/16

The Taconic State Parkway had obvious stubs for an extension north for years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 18, 2017, 12:22:51 PM
Something I didn't notice until I was looking at an aerial / topo today: https://historicaerials.com/location/42.413746086522806/-73.54805946350098/1971/16

The Taconic State Parkway had obvious stubs for an extension north for years.

Oh yeah; they're still pretty obvious.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 18, 2017, 12:27:00 PM
Steve Anderson's site (once I finally got past its ads forever-loading) mentions the extension up to at least US 20, with some maps suggesting the NY 22/NY 67 vicinity or even the Canadian border as a previously-proposed terminus.  I haven't seen any of these maps, however.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on September 18, 2017, 02:19:06 PM
I remember as a teen (around 1970) that the TSP would be extended to US 4 at Whitehall if a state bond was passed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 18, 2017, 02:24:31 PM
Steve Anderson's site (once I finally got past its ads forever-loading) mentions the extension up to at least US 20, with some maps suggesting the NY 22/NY 67 vicinity or even the Canadian border as a previously-proposed terminus.  I haven't seen any of these maps, however.

I haven't seen anything detailed, but it is known that I-90 was originally supposed to parallel US 20 from Schodack Center to Lee via New Lebanon and Pittsfield, bypassing the Berkshire Spur entirely and entering the Mass Pike near Exit 2. Various Congressional documents reference this and it was canceled due to cost ("why do we need two parallel expressways?"). My guess is that the Taconic extension would have ended no further south than here.

I remember as a teen (around 1970) that the TSP would be extended to US 4 at Whitehall if a state bond was passed.

I have seen mentions of this, cannot confirm it myself. It would help explain why the US 4 expressway ends at the NY/VT border, as the Taconic extension would have likely been related.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 18, 2017, 02:49:37 PM
The Taconic (Eastern State Parkway) was supposed to go all the way north if memory serves me. However, after a while it was drawn back to Hoosick Falls (67) (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/13844902/taconic_hoosick_map_september_16_1961/) before being outright canned.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 18, 2017, 06:39:51 PM
Quote from: cl94
I have seen mentions of this, cannot confirm it myself. It would help explain why the US 4 expressway ends at the NY/VT border, as the Taconic extension would have likely been related.

Actually, that US 4 expressway was built in conjunction with the proposed "Central Corridor" for what some call the "I-92" proposal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 18, 2017, 07:08:30 PM
Quote from: cl94
I have seen mentions of this, cannot confirm it myself. It would help explain why the US 4 expressway ends at the NY/VT border, as the Taconic extension would have likely been related.

Actually, that US 4 expressway was built in conjunction with the proposed "Central Corridor" for what some call the "I-92" proposal.

I am well aware of I-92. I was more wondering if the NY section of it would have been tied to a Taconic extension as a means of getting traffic to it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 18, 2017, 09:39:29 PM
An FYA is in place at Delaware and Kenmore Aves in Buffalo...People won't know what it means, either.

I wonder why all of the latest traffic enhancements and technologies come to this state later. From what I understand, FYAs have been around for a number of years, right?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SectorZ on September 18, 2017, 10:26:13 PM
An FYA is in place at Delaware and Kenmore Aves in Buffalo...People won't know what it means, either.

I wonder why all of the latest traffic enhancements and technologies come to this state later. From what I understand, FYAs have been around for a number of years, right?

Rolled out for over a year to your east in Massachusetts. Oddly enough the first test in Mass was close to NY, on US 7/20 in Lenox, MA.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 18, 2017, 10:37:31 PM
Parts of NY have had FYAs for years. Region 4 has had them for few years now, Region 1 has been installing them exclusively for almost 2 years. Regions 3, 5, 8 and 9 have been the big holdouts (even though 9 has the state's test case).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on September 19, 2017, 07:53:54 AM
Parts of NY have had FYAs for years. Region 4 has had them for few years now, Region 1 has been installing them exclusively for almost 2 years. Regions 3, 5, 8 and 9 have been the big holdouts (even though 9 has the state's test case).

They're all over Region 9 at this point.  I've seen them in Broome, Tioga, Chenango, and Otsego Counties.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 19, 2017, 09:16:12 AM
What is a FYA?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on September 19, 2017, 10:04:26 AM
What is a FYA?

Flashing Yellow Arrow. Usually a left turn arrow, but a few right turn arrows exist in this form.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 19, 2017, 11:15:15 AM
Parts of NY have had FYAs for years. Region 4 has had them for few years now, Region 1 has been installing them exclusively for almost 2 years. Regions 3, 5, 8 and 9 have been the big holdouts (even though 9 has the state's test case).

They're all over Region 9 at this point.  I've seen them in Broome, Tioga, Chenango, and Otsego Counties.

That must be recent. R9 was still installing bimodals until pretty recently and I have not personally seen them outside of downtown Binghamton (of course, that doesn't mean they don't exist, but I clinched most of R9 within the last year).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on September 19, 2017, 07:35:15 PM
The first (and possibly only so far) FYA I've ever seen is this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0980398,-75.9707818,3a,66.8y,79.91h,87.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sAGWycWE1MO2Fo8SupyWmgg!2e0) near Binghamton.  I was last there in spring of 2015, so it's been there since at least then.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 19, 2017, 08:46:42 PM
Region-10 on Long Island was slow to adopt it but has now installed a number of them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on September 19, 2017, 11:22:37 PM
Parts of NY have had FYAs for years. Region 4 has had them for few years now, Region 1 has been installing them exclusively for almost 2 years. Regions 3, 5, 8 and 9 have been the big holdouts (even though 9 has the state's test case).

Region 2 has been adding more FYAs recently.  In the past month or so, FYAs have been activated in Little Falls (NY 5 east at NY 167 south) and Whitesboro (NY 69 in front of Whitesboro Middle School).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 20, 2017, 02:14:21 AM
So they're making headway, but I have yet to see one in action, anywhere.

I don't think I've ever seen a ramp meter in person, either. And I probably don't want to.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on September 20, 2017, 01:15:51 PM
Parts of NY have had FYAs for years. Region 4 has had them for few years now, Region 1 has been installing them exclusively for almost 2 years. Regions 3, 5, 8 and 9 have been the big holdouts (even though 9 has the state's test case).

Region 2 has been adding more FYAs recently.  In the past month or so, FYAs have been activated in Little Falls (NY 5 east at NY 167 south) and Whitesboro (NY 69 in front of Whitesboro Middle School).

The city is apparently in love with them. I've seen them all over Manhattan, especially in congested areas, such as several intersections leading to the Lincoln Tunnel.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on September 20, 2017, 04:41:56 PM
Parts of NY have had FYAs for years. Region 4 has had them for few years now, Region 1 has been installing them exclusively for almost 2 years. Regions 3, 5, 8 and 9 have been the big holdouts (even though 9 has the state's test case).

They're all over Region 9 at this point.  I've seen them in Broome, Tioga, Chenango, and Otsego Counties.

That must be recent. R9 was still installing bimodals until pretty recently and I have not personally seen them outside of downtown Binghamton (of course, that doesn't mean they don't exist, but I clinched most of R9 within the last year).

Aside from the one Michael linked, the other one I can pinpoint is at NY-96 and Talcott St. in Owego.  I know I've seen a couple others traveling but can't quite remember where.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 20, 2017, 08:07:01 PM
Re: their use in NYC, they've apparently found some creative applications for FYA's other than the original intended use, including protecting pedestrians in crosswalks and bicyclists in bike lanes from turning vehicles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 20, 2017, 08:18:45 PM
Re: their use in NYC, they've apparently found some creative applications for FYA's other than the original intended use, including protecting pedestrians in crosswalks and bicyclists in bike lanes from turning vehicles.

That is one of the uses listed in the MUTCD (Figure 4D-20). One of the MUTCD uses of FYAs, particularly the right turn ones, is to protect bikes/peds.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 20, 2017, 09:02:34 PM
Good point cl94. I have to admit I hadn't paid much attention to the Manual's sections re: right-turn FYA's. As I understood it the original purpose of the FYA to substitute for the green-ball in Dallas Phasing. But yes, it has found wider application as in the figure you noted.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on September 24, 2017, 01:27:04 PM
This is a bit meta, but I have just updated my NYSDOT construction plan downloader to take account of bid opening dates so that it marks down D-numbers for skipping after their bid opening dates have passed.

When I coded the original version of the downloader in 2013, soon after NYSDOT started systematically uploading plans and proposals to the Web, I didn't bother to block out past projects because at that time it was not clear whether NYSDOT would try to retain them online (as, e.g., Caltrans, Illinois DOT, and PennDOT do), or would simply sweep them off the Web once enough time had passed since bids were opened.  Up until about 2015 or so, NYSDOT did remove old projects, but as I write there is now what appears to be a complete archive of advertised projects back to April 2015.

As NYSDOT has added projects over the past couple of years, the time required to obtain a complete listing of documents for each project has increased, especially in the past few months.  At the end of 2015, it took 11 minutes to obtain all URLs for approximately 225 projects.  At the end of 2016, it took 24 minutes to obtain all URLs for approximately 483 projects.  The last run before script revision, a week ago tomorrow, took 2 hours 10 minutes to obtain all URLs for approximately 677 projects.  This is hockey-stick progression from about 3 seconds per project in 2015 and 2016 to approximately 12 seconds per project now.

I cannot completely eliminate causes local to me such as network congestion or memory leaks (possibly due to software bugs) that slow down findstr, which the script runs to extract URLs and block out old URLs from a given D-number listing before moving on to the next listing.  Nevertheless, it would not surprise me if NYSDOT's online plans and proposals have reached a breakout point in popularity (!), with consequent load on NYSDOT's servers.  The new script should zero in on just the ten or twenty projects that NYSDOT has under advertisement at any given time, and thus finish much more quickly while further limiting server load to downloading of fresh documents.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on September 27, 2017, 06:55:55 PM
JN, where did you find the archived plans?  I only saw the current plans.

While reading recent press releases, I found a list of FYA locations in this press release (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2017/2017-09-18).  I forgot about the one at the ramp to NY 481 from Soule Road!  I saw it active on November 6th of last year (thanks Facebook chat history!).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 27, 2017, 08:11:16 PM
That light is not active as of this afternoon (NY 384 at Kenmore). The masts with the lights covered up by garbage bags are there though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 30, 2017, 01:26:22 AM
Something I didn't notice until I was looking at an aerial / topo today: https://historicaerials.com/location/42.413746086522806/-73.54805946350098/1971/16

The Taconic State Parkway had obvious stubs for an extension north for years.
Now imagine the Northway paralleling the Thruway and the Taconic paralleling the Northway.  Talk about options.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 30, 2017, 03:41:26 PM
Taconic now has exit numbers up to Exit 45 in Lagrangeville. Some old signs without numbers still remain south of there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 01, 2017, 09:46:02 AM
Taconic now has exit numbers up to Exit 45 in Lagrangeville. Some old signs without numbers still remain south of there.

And at least one of the old "P-" suffix markers still stands in Putnam County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 01, 2017, 05:44:54 PM
I've stated this before. P7, Hortontown Hill Road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on October 02, 2017, 10:14:33 AM
Was in the Albany area this past weekend for a model railroading event.  Couldn't get over how truly bad the background panels for most of the LOGO signs along the Northway have become.  At night, all you can see on these panels are the LOGOs, which appear to be "hanging" in space.

Also, what genius decided that replacing the lights at Route 146 (Balltown Road) and Aqueduct Road with a 15 mph roundabout was a good idea?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 02, 2017, 11:05:48 AM
I live near that roundabout.  I have no problem with it.  Balltown Road, not Ballston, by the way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on October 02, 2017, 11:51:47 AM
I live near that roundabout.  I have no problem with it.  Balltown Road, not Ballston, by the way.

Thanks for the correction.  But, a 15 mph (ok, it's advisory) roundabout immediately after a blind curve at the bottom of a 1 1/2 mile downgrade posted at 45 mph.  Forgive me if I'm not convinced that's better than the traffic signal that was previously there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 02, 2017, 11:59:30 AM
Something I didn't notice until I was looking at an aerial / topo today: https://historicaerials.com/location/42.413746086522806/-73.54805946350098/1971/16

The Taconic State Parkway had obvious stubs for an extension north for years.
Now imagine the Northway paralleling the Thruway and the Taconic paralleling the Northway.  Talk about options.

I-87 was originally supposed to extend north from Elmsford and connect to I-84 at the missing Exit 14 before duplexing across the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge to join the Thruway at Exit 17. 

My dream would be extending I-684 northward along the NY 22 corridor to Exit B3 on the Berkshire Spur. Would fill a huge gap between I-84 and I-90 connectors that extends from the Taconic Parkway (I-87 for trucks) to I-91, since the NIMBYs won't allow CT/MA 8 as a full freeway north of Winsted.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 02, 2017, 06:37:25 PM
I live near that roundabout.  I have no problem with it.  Balltown Road, not Ballston, by the way.

Thanks for the correction.  But, a 15 mph (ok, it's advisory) roundabout immediately after a blind curve at the bottom of a 1 1/2 mile downgrade posted at 45 mph.  Forgive me if I'm not convinced that's better than the traffic signal that was previously there.
How is a red light immediately after a blind curve better than a roundabout?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 06:42:29 PM
I live near that roundabout.  I have no problem with it.  Balltown Road, not Ballston, by the way.

Thanks for the correction.  But, a 15 mph (ok, it's advisory) roundabout immediately after a blind curve at the bottom of a 1 1/2 mile downgrade posted at 45 mph.  Forgive me if I'm not convinced that's better than the traffic signal that was previously there.
How is a red light immediately after a blind curve better than a roundabout?

Coming from another local, it's a hell of a lot better than it used to be. Curve and bike path overpass blocked the light until you were on top of it. Roundabout has plenty of warning.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 02, 2017, 11:33:00 PM
I-87 was originally supposed to extend north from Elmsford and connect to I-84 at the missing Exit 14 before duplexing across the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge to join the Thruway at Exit 17. 

And I'm sure glad it didn't. Frustrating though it may occasionally be, much of the character I enjoy about where I live is due to its relative lack of connectivity.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 03, 2017, 12:07:37 AM
I live near that roundabout.  I have no problem with it.  Balltown Road, not Ballston, by the way.

Thanks for the correction.  But, a 15 mph (ok, it's advisory) roundabout immediately after a blind curve at the bottom of a 1 1/2 mile downgrade posted at 45 mph.  Forgive me if I'm not convinced that's better than the traffic signal that was previously there.
How is a red light immediately after a blind curve better than a roundabout?

Coming from another local, it's a hell of a lot better than it used to be. Curve and bike path overpass blocked the light until you were on top of it. Roundabout has plenty of warning.
Could they have given the same amount of warning to the signal?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on October 03, 2017, 07:26:54 AM
From a purely safety perspective (which seems to be the route Alps is taking), the roundabout would be still better than the signal because it A) forces traffic to slow down on approach, and B) fewer conflict points at the junction itself.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 03, 2017, 08:30:08 AM
From a purely safety perspective (which seems to be the route Alps is taking), the roundabout would be still better than the signal because it A) forces traffic to slow down on approach, and B) fewer conflict points at the junction itself.
As we figured out in the other thread, statement (A) describes design standards used, not actual driver behavior.
(B) is true, and apparently means that accident probability increases.

In case of specific roundabout, problem is that northbound driver coming out of blind curve must disperse attention to multiple areas - instead of primarily relying on a single traffic control device.
PS Yes, I drove through that thing maybe dozen times.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on October 03, 2017, 09:44:46 AM
From a purely safety perspective (which seems to be the route Alps is taking), the roundabout would be still better than the signal because it A) forces traffic to slow down on approach, and B) fewer conflict points at the junction itself.
Forcing traffic going 45 to slow down to 15 with no incremental step downs in the limit (especially on a downgrade) IMO is not a good design.  And I respectfully disagree that the roundabout has better advance warning than the signal did.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on October 03, 2017, 10:53:22 AM
I have been exploring the SR 146 Balltown Road/Aqueduct Road intersection in StreetView, which shows the roundabout still under construction.

*  The downgrade seems to be 1/2 mile, not 1 1/2 miles, in length.  It also seems steep enough that I would be shifting to a lower gear range and disengaging cruise control to avoid having the throttle open when the transmission is in a lower gear.  However, this is because my policy of not riding the brakes on downgrades is strict enough that I usually find myself to be the only car going downhill without brake lamps lighting up.

*  The intersection is quite close to the former railroad underpass/current bike path grade separation, to the extent that I question whether there was space to provide gradual deflection on approach.  (I have not actually looked up the construction plans to check--I am pretty sure I have them, but I do not have the D-number.)

On the whole, however, I think the roundabout is a better solution if the intersection cannot be moved, mainly because the grade separation ensures very poor visibility to an overhead signal and active solutions for warning drivers of an upcoming red signal cannot accommodate differences in dilemma zone location between vehicles.  I can see the potential for measures such as staggering the speed limit reduction, rumble strips or transverse stripes across the approach lane, etc. to secure further crash reductions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 03, 2017, 11:08:44 AM
New York doesn't do gradual reductions as a matter of policy. Massachusetts would drop the speed limit to 20 approaching the intersection. Issue with rumble strips is that it's a residential area. The only real signal warning you could provide is a "red signal ahead" blankout or similar. I don't think there have been any accidents at the roundabout since it was put in around a year ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 03, 2017, 01:25:08 PM
I just looked at the aerial which shows the old configuration. The signal was much farther from the overpass than the new roundabout. A Red Signal Ahead sign would solve visibility issues. I feel like with the bike path where it is and the approaching grade, this is an example of Malta syndrome: roundabouts for roundabouts' sake.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on October 03, 2017, 01:26:06 PM
I have been exploring the SR 146 Balltown Road/Aqueduct Road intersection in StreetView, which shows the roundabout still under construction.

*  The downgrade seems to be 1/2 mile, not 1 1/2 miles, in length.  It also seems steep enough that I would be shifting to a lower gear range and disengaging cruise control to avoid having the throttle open when the transmission is in a lower gear.  However, this is because my policy of not riding the brakes on downgrades is strict enough that I usually find myself to be the only car going downhill without brake lamps lighting up.

*  The intersection is quite close to the former railroad underpass/current bike path grade separation, to the extent that I question whether there was space to provide gradual deflection on approach.  (I have not actually looked up the construction plans to check--I am pretty sure I have them, but I do not have the D-number.)

On the whole, however, I think the roundabout is a better solution if the intersection cannot be moved, mainly because the grade separation ensures very poor visibility to an overhead signal and active solutions for warning drivers of an upcoming red signal cannot accommodate differences in dilemma zone location between vehicles.  I can see the potential for measures such as staggering the speed limit reduction, rumble strips or transverse stripes across the approach lane, etc. to secure further crash reductions.

Per GSV, the Hill sign has a tab that reads 'NEXT 1/2 MILES".  Which is probably why I thought 1 1/2 miles, not 1/2 mile, when writing my original post.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 03, 2017, 01:38:09 PM
I just looked at the aerial which shows the old configuration. The signal was much farther from the overpass than the new roundabout. A Red Signal Ahead sign would solve visibility issues. I feel like with the bike path where it is and the approaching grade, this is an example of Malta syndrome: roundabouts for roundabouts' sake.
You risk loosing your hand from me shaking it too hard...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 03, 2017, 03:54:48 PM
Fans of the last remaining button copy of the reflective background variety on I-684 near I-84 better enjoy it while you can.  The current repaving project in the area also calls for sign replacement. 

An interesting find is that the ramp from I-84 west to I-684 south will be restriped eliminating the lane drop for the ramp.  So, traffic on the ramp will no longer have to merge onto the mainline.  The mainline between I-84 off-ramp and the on-ramp will be striped as one lane allowing for it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on October 07, 2017, 05:45:23 PM
The new Gateway/Southern Tier Welcome Center(/Text Stop/Rest Area (brought to you by Geico)) has reopened just north of the NY/PA line. The relocated toilets, which had opened a while ago are now to the rear of the campus, and the TasteNY area has greatly expanded.

There is a playground for kids, which actually seems like a good idea, and other ample I ❤️ NY monuments to take pictures around.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 09, 2017, 03:01:37 PM
Something I didn't notice until I was looking at an aerial / topo today: https://historicaerials.com/location/42.413746086522806/-73.54805946350098/1971/16

The Taconic State Parkway had obvious stubs for an extension north for years.
I've known that for a few decades. The intention was to have it terminate around the intersections of NY 22 and 67 in Buskirk.

One other issue, I recently drove on the SO-CALLED "improved" section of NY 112 in Coram down to Granny Road. It's just as stupid as the one between Coram and Port Jefferson Station. 

HEY, NYSDOT! Two lanes with a divider is not an improvement for a road that needs no less than four lanes!

:angry:





Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on October 09, 2017, 04:56:43 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65
I've known that for a few decades. The intention was to have it terminate around the intersections of NY 22 and 67 in Buskirk.

Depending on what time (and who) you asked, that was one of three "intentions" that existed for a Taconic Extension north of the Berkshire Spur.  The other two were US 20 and all the way to the Canadian border.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 10, 2017, 10:05:45 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65
I've known that for a few decades. The intention was to have it terminate around the intersections of NY 22 and 67 in Buskirk.

Depending on what time (and who) you asked, that was one of three "intentions" that existed for a Taconic Extension north of the Berkshire Spur.  The other two were US 20 and all the way to the Canadian border.

Good point.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 10, 2017, 02:25:04 PM
We knew this one was coming: plans posted for the new I-190 rest area on Grand Island (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214615_tan17-44_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf). Exit 19 across from a certain "huge" car dealership. It will be New York's first "full" rest area not located directly on a freeway (I-81 in Alexandria Bay is seasonal and operated by the bridge authority). As NYSTA maintains this section of I-190, the retail area is not in violation of any federal laws and even if it would be, they're locating this thing off of the expressway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on October 10, 2017, 04:27:56 PM
We knew this one was coming: plans posted for the new I-190 rest area on Grand Island (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214615_tan17-44_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf). Exit 19 across from a certain "huge" car dealership. It will be New York's first "full" rest area not located directly on a freeway (I-81 in Alexandria Bay is seasonal and operated by the bridge authority). As NYSTA maintains this section of I-190, the retail area is not in violation of any federal laws and even if it would be, they're locating this thing off of the expressway.

It'll be HUUUUUGE, Grand Island, HUUUUUUGGGGGGEEEE..ah.  :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on October 10, 2017, 05:11:35 PM
We knew this one was coming: plans posted for the new I-190 rest area on Grand Island (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214615_tan17-44_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf). Exit 19 across from a certain "huge" car dealership. It will be New York's first "full" rest area not located directly on a freeway (I-81 in Alexandria Bay is seasonal and operated by the bridge authority). As NYSTA maintains this section of I-190, the retail area is not in violation of any federal laws and even if it would be, they're locating this thing off of the expressway.

When I flipped through the plans for this project earlier this morning, it brought back memories of my stop about a month ago at the (apparently) brand-new Mohawk rest area on the Thruway mainline, which also functions as a tourist information center with I ❤ NY branding and so is fully plugged into the Cuomosigns debacle, complete with vending machine hosting TasteNY boutique products that everyone was ignoring in favor of the free coffee.  (I liked being able to pick up a free NYS map but could have done without "iloveny.com [dot] I ❤ NY App" repeated until it became an earworm.)

Speaking of Cuomosigns, has anyone actually found a branding manual that explains how to confect them?  I have had a look on the NYSDOT website without success.  There are a couple of NYSDOT contracts for Cuomosigns with multiple examples of the "motherboard" and the signs that follow it, but they don't actually explain how to design the signs, much less deal with higher-level considerations such as how to choose attractions to list on signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 10, 2017, 05:19:49 PM
The sign manuals are not online, nor are any additional signs being installed, so most of those contracts for signs on surface roads are not happening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on October 10, 2017, 06:12:42 PM
The sign manuals are not online, nor are any additional signs being installed, so most of those contracts for signs on surface roads are not happening.

Probably as well. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.933279,-78.8763488,3a,44.4y,322.08h,88.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQrKNIq_jlKsrscCOunjyRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 11, 2017, 02:36:11 AM
Well, at least the rest area looks aesthetically pleasing.

region 5 has also had several improvements underway over the past several months. Off of the top of my head, longitudinal tining has been applied to small parts of I-190 and the 4-lane section of I-90 in West Seneca.

Part of Walden Avenue (west) is being reconstructed near the Exit 52b interchange. I don't know how far along they are but it's an active scene.

Also, the Thruway has been repaved within the Ontario section, but not from NY-400 to the Lackawanna toll barrier. I wonder if this is on the agenda.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 11, 2017, 11:53:02 AM
Well, at least the rest area looks aesthetically pleasing.

region 5 has also had several improvements underway over the past several months. Off of the top of my head, longitudinal tining has been applied to small parts of I-190 and the 4-lane section of I-90 in West Seneca.

Part of Walden Avenue (west) is being reconstructed near the Exit 52b interchange. I don't know how far along they are but it's an active scene.

Also, the Thruway has been repaved within the Ontario section, but not from NY-400 to the Lackawanna toll barrier. I wonder if this is on the agenda.

NY 400 to the Exit 55 tolls is being redone next year as part of bridge replacement/rehab projects on that stretch. No point in repaving it now if they'll have to tear half of it up next year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 11, 2017, 03:10:13 PM
Well, at least the rest area looks aesthetically pleasing.

region 5 has also had several improvements underway over the past several months. Off of the top of my head, longitudinal tining has been applied to small parts of I-190 and the 4-lane section of I-90 in West Seneca.

Part of Walden Avenue (west) is being reconstructed near the Exit 52b interchange. I don't know how far along they are but it's an active scene.

Also, the Thruway has been repaved within the Ontario section, but not from NY-400 to the Lackawanna toll barrier. I wonder if this is on the agenda.

NY 400 to the Exit 55 tolls is being redone next year as part of bridge replacement/rehab projects on that stretch. No point in repaving it now if they'll have to tear half of it up next year.

Interesting. I have to say, if they're doing bridge replacements (at least after the US-219 merge), why not wait until the eventual upgrade to 8 lanes?

Ever since the upgrade to 8 lanes on the section I described above (when I was 5 or 6), that 6 lane section has seemed dated, even in Cheektowaga.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beeper1 on October 11, 2017, 06:57:12 PM
Thruway recently put a project to convert the ramp tolls at Woodbury exit 16 to AET. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 12, 2017, 10:13:24 AM
We knew this one was coming: plans posted for the new I-190 rest area on Grand Island (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214615_tan17-44_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf). Exit 19 across from a certain "huge" car dealership. It will be New York's first "full" rest area not located directly on a freeway (I-81 in Alexandria Bay is seasonal and operated by the bridge authority). As NYSTA maintains this section of I-190, the retail area is not in violation of any federal laws and even if it would be, they're locating this thing off of the expressway.

It'll be HUUUUUGE, Grand Island, HUUUUUUGGGGGGEEEE..ah.  :)
You got that tagline from this guy, didn't you?
http://fuccillo.com/Dealership/Locations.cfm

Anyway, I think it sucks that they're not locating it directly on I-190. I really don't like this trend of building rest areas and service areas off of the roads they're intended for.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on October 12, 2017, 10:33:57 AM
We knew this one was coming: plans posted for the new I-190 rest area on Grand Island (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214615_tan17-44_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf). Exit 19 across from a certain "huge" car dealership. It will be New York's first "full" rest area not located directly on a freeway (I-81 in Alexandria Bay is seasonal and operated by the bridge authority). As NYSTA maintains this section of I-190, the retail area is not in violation of any federal laws and even if it would be, they're locating this thing off of the expressway.

It'll be HUUUUUGE, Grand Island, HUUUUUUGGGGGGEEEE..ah.  :)
You got that tagline from this guy, didn't you?
http://fuccillo.com/Dealership/Locations.cfm

Anyway, I think it sucks that they're not locating it directly on I-190. I really don't like this trend of building rest areas and service areas off of the roads they're intended for.




Indeed I did. His commercials make me laugh. One of those "it's so annoying it's actually comical" laughs...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 16, 2017, 08:17:29 PM
Looking at NY-5 east of Canandaigua, it begs the question: why is the ROW so wide? Was an expressway once planned there?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on October 16, 2017, 09:07:26 PM
Doubtful.  Probably setbacks that the town required of the retail areas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 16, 2017, 09:38:58 PM
Doubtful.  Probably setbacks that the town required of the retail areas.

Likely a combination of that, a place to put snow, and drainage. Canandaigua is in the snow belt and several of those wide areas contain retention basins. Several of the Finger Lakes are marshy at both ends.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on October 21, 2017, 10:30:04 PM
Doubtful.  Probably setbacks that the town required of the retail areas.

Likely a combination of that, a place to put snow, and drainage. Canandaigua is in the snow belt and several of those wide areas contain retention basins. Several of the Finger Lakes are marshy at both ends.

The travel lanes of US 20/NY 5 between Canandaigua and Geneva used to be incredibly wide.   It was in 1993 when they moved the edge striping *IN* to where it is now (For a few years, you could see both the old and "new" edge stripes...there was probably about a two or three foot separation between the two).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 23, 2017, 10:01:32 PM
The new U.S. 62 Bridges in S. Buffalo opened today. They're definitely wider and up to code, but since it was dark out I couldn't tell what they looked like altogether.

Also, NY 5 now has a 4 way intersection with Hoover Road in Hamburg, and the Walden Avenue reconstruction near Anderson Road is progressing along.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 29, 2017, 02:05:09 AM
Just give me more reasons to hate the state I was born in, and life in general, Cuomo!
Well, he just gave me another one.


https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/dot-lane-closures-for-jericho-turnpike-route-135-interchange-1.14650876

 :banghead:


Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 29, 2017, 01:05:07 PM
Just give me more reasons to hate the state I was born in, and life in general, Cuomo!
Well, he just gave me another one.


https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/dot-lane-closures-for-jericho-turnpike-route-135-interchange-1.14650876

 :banghead:

They're just closing the unnecessary ramps and the associated weave lane. No big issue here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 29, 2017, 03:18:59 PM
But I thought Cuomo was proposing to build the tunnel NY 135 would connect to?  You'd need that ramp if NY 135 were extended.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 29, 2017, 08:06:12 PM
I don't think that's going to happen........ :no: This is the first I've heard of this project in a very long time. I'm not aware of Cuomo try to re-introduce it recently.  Have you heard something that we didn't, here on Long Island?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 30, 2017, 12:12:11 PM
It's always struck me as odd that those ramps were actually opened to traffic in the first place. 25 is not a divided highway so there's no real need for the "Jersey U-turn" there. Typically in this sort of stub situation you'd expect those ramps to have been never used... or never even paved, just graded.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 30, 2017, 12:20:57 PM
It's always struck me as odd that those ramps were actually opened to traffic in the first place. 25 is not a divided highway so there's no real need for the "Jersey U-turn" there. Typically in this sort of stub situation you'd expect those ramps to have been never used... or never even paved, just graded.

Precisely. NY generally would have left these as ghost ramps (and this state certainly has its share of those). Only other NY examples I can think of are (or in one case, were) on Staten Island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 30, 2017, 04:56:55 PM
Sounds like a quirk of Region 10, then (since those ramps would have been built before Region 11 split off).

I don't think that's going to happen........ :no: This is the first I've heard of this project in a very long time. I'm not aware of Cuomo try to re-introduce it recently.  Have you heard something that we didn't, here on Long Island?
A 5 million dollar study is in the state budget.
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/politics-on-the-hudson/2017/08/04/westchester-long-island-tunnel-cuomo/104292586/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on October 30, 2017, 05:51:57 PM
On these new signs, what exactly are the fonts being used? These were installed recently on the southbound FDR. Did region 11 put them up, or was it NYCDOT?

Pics were taken this morning

(http://i.imgur.com/NUvR1mO.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/yUQxeSr.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 30, 2017, 07:37:35 PM
On these new signs, what exactly are the fonts being used? These were installed recently on the southbound FDR. Did region 11 put them up, or was it NYCDOT?

Pics were taken this morning

I want to say that's E regular.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 30, 2017, 10:46:11 PM
On these new signs, what exactly are the fonts being used? These were installed recently on the southbound FDR. Did region 11 put them up, or was it NYCDOT?

Pics were taken this morning

I want to say that's E regular.

The stroke is too wide for E regular. It's Series E modified but the spacing between the letters is a little off. Something is out of proportion. This is E regular (as confirmed with Region 4 a few years ago).

(http://upstatenyroads.com/public/brighton.png)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on October 30, 2017, 11:47:21 PM
On these new signs, what exactly are the fonts being used? These were installed recently on the southbound FDR. Did region 11 put them up, or was it NYCDOT?

Pics were taken this morning

I want to say that's E regular.

The stroke is too wide for E regular. It's Series E modified but the spacing between the letters is a little off. Something is out of proportion. This is E regular (as confirmed with Region 4 a few years ago).

(http://upstatenyroads.com/public/brighton.png)

It strikes me as something they stretched in a non-proportional way. It just feels... off.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 30, 2017, 11:58:49 PM
Compared to that E regular, it MIGHT be Series D. What it really looks like is the default GuidSign font, which does something strange to the lower-case s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 31, 2017, 01:28:12 AM
It's always struck me as odd that those ramps were actually opened to traffic in the first place. 25 is not a divided highway so there's no real need for the "Jersey U-turn" there.
It is here and at the interchange with NY 106 and 107. With the exception of the Caleb Smith State Park Preserve and the Smithtown area, it ought to be one as far east as Riverhead.


Also it was stupid for the Town of Oyster Bay to allow the "Eagle Rock Apartments at Woodbury" to be built on the site where the west to north ramp should've been built.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on October 31, 2017, 08:27:32 AM
It's always struck me as odd that those ramps were actually opened to traffic in the first place. 25 is not a divided highway so there's no real need for the "Jersey U-turn" there.
It is here and at the interchange with NY 106 and 107. With the exception of the Caleb Smith State Park Preserve and the Smithtown area, it ought to be one as far east as Riverhead.


Also it was stupid for the Town of Oyster Bay to allow the "Eagle Rock Apartments at Woodbury" to be built on the site where the west to north ramp should've been built.

The stretch by the park in Smithtown should be divided ... even with the safety improvements that stretch is still dangerous.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on October 31, 2017, 09:32:15 AM
Just give me more reasons to hate the state I was born in, and life in general, Cuomo!
Well, he just gave me another one.


https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/dot-lane-closures-for-jericho-turnpike-route-135-interchange-1.14650876

 :banghead:


Can we get a big eye roll for you? If this is what it takes to get you "triggered"...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on October 31, 2017, 09:38:14 AM
Having a go at typeface identification:

(http://i.imgur.com/NUvR1mO.jpg)

Series E Modified with reduced intercharacter spacing.

(http://i.imgur.com/yUQxeSr.jpg)

Series D.  In regard to Steve's comment, I don't think this is just the GuidSIGN version of Series D.  I think it is straight-up FHWA 2000 Series D as used in the current editions of the MUTCD and Standard Highway Signs.  Those fonts were produced on FHWA's behalf by URW.  Compare with the mixed-case guide sign drawings in the 2012 SHS supplement, which also use mixed-case Series D (especially the D1 example with placenames "Rochester" and "Lockport").
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on October 31, 2017, 02:24:04 PM
After traveling many of the same routes as described in a much earlier post - and then some, I've concluded that New York simply does not maintain its guardrails with any frequency - especially in comparison to other states. Some of the earlier guardrail rot, where the posts are simply disconnected from the rail itself, are very much prevalent in Corten and regular galvanized steel sections - 7 months after I initially complained about them.

It's gotten to the point that I am marking them on my GPS and relaying them to the local district but I have yet to receive a reply.

After driving I-86/NY 17 considerably, I've been noticing that many of the center guardrails have not been maintained, even after they have long been hit.

Is this something that I should continue to relay over to the local districts?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 31, 2017, 02:26:58 PM
After traveling many of the same routes as described in a much earlier post - and then some, I've concluded that New York simply does not maintain its guardrails with any frequency - especially in comparison to other states. Some of the earlier guardrail rot, where the posts are simply disconnected from the rail itself, are very much prevalent in Corten and regular galvanized steel sections - 7 months after I initially complained about them.

It's gotten to the point that I am marking them on my GPS and relaying them to the local district but I have yet to receive a reply.

After driving I-86/NY 17 considerably, I've been noticing that many of the center guardrails have not been maintained, even after they have long been hit.

Is this something that I should continue to relay over to the local districts?

Yes, because they're usually pretty good at doing repairs. There's often a temporary barrier or cones in front within 24 hours. I've seen a few of the residencies do repairs within a week.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on October 31, 2017, 10:46:51 PM
After traveling many of the same routes as described in a much earlier post - and then some, I've concluded that New York simply does not maintain its guardrails with any frequency - especially in comparison to other states. Some of the earlier guardrail rot, where the posts are simply disconnected from the rail itself, are very much prevalent in Corten and regular galvanized steel sections - 7 months after I initially complained about them.

It's gotten to the point that I am marking them on my GPS and relaying them to the local district but I have yet to receive a reply.

After driving I-86/NY 17 considerably, I've been noticing that many of the center guardrails have not been maintained, even after they have long been hit.

Is this something that I should continue to relay over to the local districts?

Registered letter to the district attorney.  If there's an accident and someone is hurt by it, they'll have a hard time claiming ignorance of the situation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 01, 2017, 09:52:05 PM
It's always struck me as odd that those ramps were actually opened to traffic in the first place. 25 is not a divided highway so there's no real need for the "Jersey U-turn" there.
It is here and at the interchange with NY 106 and 107. With the exception of the Caleb Smith State Park Preserve and the Smithtown area, it ought to be one as far east as Riverhead.


Also it was stupid for the Town of Oyster Bay to allow the "Eagle Rock Apartments at Woodbury" to be built on the site where the west to north ramp should've been built.

The stretch by the park in Smithtown should be divided ... even with the safety improvements that stretch is still dangerous.
Come to think of it, west of Brooksite Drive and Edgewood Avenue, and east of NY 111 and the NY 25A overlap would work just fine. I know there are a lot of historic structures on the north side of Route 25 east of NY 25A/111, so the focus of the construction should be on the south side of the road.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 07, 2017, 07:52:37 PM
Hey what is up with the latest name for the Robert Moses Parkway in Niagara County?  I thought Googlemaps made a mistake but Wikipedia confirms that in a few years back NYSDOT renamed the parkway (once freeway now super two) that was named for the famous city planner of NYC, to the Niagara River Scenic Parkway.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 07, 2017, 07:59:08 PM
Robert Moses is a racist rear mime.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 07, 2017, 08:16:17 PM
Hey what is up with the latest name for the Robert Moses Parkway in Niagara County?  I thought Googlemaps made a mistake but Wikipedia confirms that in a few years back NYSDOT renamed the parkway (once freeway now super two) that was named for the famous city planner of NYC, to the Niagara River Scenic Parkway.


It's the Niagara Scenic Parkway completely now, except for one sign in Joseph Davis State Park.

Cuomo and the area wanted the name gone because they felt it did no justice. Besides, at the rate things are going, there isn't much of a parkway left.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 07, 2017, 08:20:56 PM
Somehow I knew Cuomo was behind it. 

Yes as the part near the American Falls was the first when it was closed and then later demolished and of course the making of a super two as the SB lanes closed since.  I believe they tried to make a jogging and biking trail out of the former SB side, but have not been there since I was a kid.  Been to the Falls but twice I went to the Canadian side as that side is more lively as NY's side is pretty lame even when my parents took me there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 07, 2017, 08:30:03 PM
The name was also quite unpopular in the Buffalo area. Few things Buffalonians hate more than having something there named after someone from New York City.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on November 08, 2017, 04:21:57 PM
The Robert Moses Parkway is partly the reason why Niagara Falls was disconnected from its namesake park - and the rest of its riverfront. It's removal and replacement with a linear park and bike/hike trail is more than long overdue.

Robert Moses has become quite unpopular anywhere. He's a pretty well known racist.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 08, 2017, 04:52:54 PM
It's not overdue and the problem is it's just going to die at Devil's Hole. A good regional biking trail would involve in Lewiston as well. However, that won't happen
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 08, 2017, 07:25:49 PM
It's not overdue and the problem is it's just going to die at Devil's Hole. A good regional biking trail would involve in Lewiston as well. However, that won't happen
RMSP really never needed to be built in the first place. Unless it was going to connect with LOSP, it just wouldn't have any sort of volume using it to justify there being a parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 08, 2017, 07:51:24 PM
The Robert Moses Parkway is partly the reason why Niagara Falls was disconnected from its namesake park - and the rest of its riverfront. It's removal and replacement with a linear park and bike/hike trail is more than long overdue.

Robert Moses has become quite unpopular anywhere. He's a pretty well known racist.
  When I went there in the 70's as a kid, the road was closed in the park, but we walked to the observation deck via a foot bridge that no longer exists.

Yes in many places where a road severs a park it has become an issue to either remove it or cover it with a cut and cover.   

The problem is the Parkway there went nowhere.  It was just a freeway acting as a park road and you could not park along it.

I was not aware that Moses was unpopular as from what the old timers said he was a good man along with LaGuardia.  However, the old timers are gone and its the new generation taking over and if Obama can revert Mt. McKinley back to its original name, anything else could revert too. 

Side note.  Not saying that Obama was right or if he was wrong, just to say we live in a new world than the glorious 80's was.  The Baby Boomers run the world now and time moves forward.  New generations have  had different ideas since the cavemen era.

To me I could care less about the name, but it was just curious for me to know why a man who I was misinformed about being great was removed from the public eye.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on November 08, 2017, 09:17:35 PM
It's not overdue and the problem is it's just going to die at Devil's Hole. A good regional biking trail would involve in Lewiston as well. However, that won't happen

Not long overdue? The parkway was being studied for decommissioning in large segments as early as the 1970's. It wasn't well used when it was built, nor was it justified in its expense.

@Roadman65: Revising history has always happened. The name, Mt. McKinley, is only recent. It was historically referred to as Denali by the Koyukon people for centuries. It was only named Mt. McKinkley by a gold prospector in 1896 - to gain support of the president. The state changed the name of the mountain back to Denali back in 1975 - and the federal government finally changed it in 2015.

Moses was looked upon decades ago because he was successful in building parkways and expressways - and in building public housing projects that have had questionable success. His racism and xenophobia (among other things) was only more recently brought out. If you get a chance, read the Power Broker.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 09, 2017, 08:03:15 AM
Racist yes. That was an ingenious and xenophobic decision to lower bridges in an attempt to prevent city folk (black people) from taking the bus. One could argue it was to prevent commercial traffic, but given his other projects that argument is invalid.

Switching gears, Walden Avenue around Anderson Road is starting to look sharp. The new pole signals are in, and the FYA for northbound Anderson (I think) is on. However, I just wish the street blades were mounted horizontally on the top of the mast, something that seems to be rare in the suburbs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 11, 2017, 02:30:35 PM
That Parkway should really be an at grade arterial being (like you said) back in the 70's it never got to be used like planned.   Just as the Sheridan in the Bronx never got to be what it was intended (ironically planned by Moses) so its a highway also that is too big got its traffic as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 14, 2017, 02:11:11 PM
It's plan day at NYSDOT. While most of the projects are relatively run-of-the-mill, NY 481 is getting a superstreet at Oswego CR 45 in Volney. Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=18652&p_is_digital=Y).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 29, 2017, 01:53:10 PM
The miserable NB I-87 rest area in Queensbury is being replaced with a new facility. Plans should be out around 12/22 per the contract page's (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263652) Q & A. Letting notice makes it appear similar to the other recent rest area projects (improved tourist info, play area, etc.), but with a boat wash station and minus the retail area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2017, 10:02:14 AM
Major reconstruction/resigning project in Watkins Glen coming up next year (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263597)). If you look at the plans and sign face layouts, the signs were done by a fellow roadgeek, so this may be the first major NYSDOT project where I have seen no sign errors.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 05, 2017, 11:26:56 PM
Major reconstruction/resigning project in Watkins Glen coming up next year (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263597)). If you look at the plans and sign face layouts, the signs were done by a fellow roadgeek, so this may be the first major NYSDOT project where I have seen no sign errors.
That region does pretty well but I disagree with its lack of NY 15 signage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2017, 11:31:30 PM
Major reconstruction/resigning project in Watkins Glen coming up next year (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263597)). If you look at the plans and sign face layouts, the signs were done by a fellow roadgeek, so this may be the first major NYSDOT project where I have seen no sign errors.
That region does pretty well but I disagree with its lack of NY 15 signage.

Because NY 15 was officially truncated a while back. Any remaining NY 15 signage is errant (and the sign guy refuses to sign a route that no longer exists).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 06, 2017, 12:46:39 AM
Major reconstruction/resigning project in Watkins Glen coming up next year (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263597)). If you look at the plans and sign face layouts, the signs were done by a fellow roadgeek, so this may be the first major NYSDOT project where I have seen no sign errors.
That region does pretty well but I disagree with its lack of NY 15 signage.

Because NY 15 was officially truncated a while back. Any remaining NY 15 signage is errant (and the sign guy refuses to sign a route that no longer exists).
I'm just saying 15 and 15 should connect.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on December 07, 2017, 12:00:45 AM
Major reconstruction/resigning project in Watkins Glen coming up next year (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263597)). If you look at the plans and sign face layouts, the signs were done by a fellow roadgeek, so this may be the first major NYSDOT project where I have seen no sign errors.
That region does pretty well but I disagree with its lack of NY 15 signage.

Because NY 15 was officially truncated a while back. Any remaining NY 15 signage is errant (and the sign guy refuses to sign a route that no longer exists).
I'm just saying 15 and 15 should connect.

I'd rather decommission NY 15 and re-extend US 15 back to Rochester.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 07, 2017, 12:36:12 AM
I'm just saying 15 and 15 should connect.

I'd rather decommission NY 15 and re-extend US 15 back to Rochester.
I'd rather move 17 back onto surface roads wherever possible when I-86 is fully commissioned. I'd also rather extend US 46 and 22 onto Long Island and eat fine cuisine every day without having to work.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on December 07, 2017, 02:09:38 PM

Because NY 15 was officially truncated a while back. Any remaining NY 15 signage is errant (and the sign guy refuses to sign a route that no longer exists).
I'm just saying 15 and 15 should connect.

I'd rather decommission NY 15 and re-extend US 15 back to Rochester.

And I think that, between Rochester and Harrisburg, the freeway* ought to be I-83, and the old road* ought to be US 15. There is no good reason for anything more complicated than that.

*where it exists, to the maximum extent possible, with a goal of having both eventually be 100% complete.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on December 07, 2017, 08:06:43 PM
Major reconstruction/resigning project in Watkins Glen coming up next year (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263597)). If you look at the plans and sign face layouts, the signs were done by a fellow roadgeek, so this may be the first major NYSDOT project where I have seen no sign errors.
That region does pretty well but I disagree with its lack of NY 15 signage.



Because NY 15 was officially truncated a while back. Any remaining NY 15 signage is errant (and the sign guy refuses to sign a route that no longer exists).
I'm just saying 15 and 15 should connect.

I'd rather decommission NY 15 and re-extend US 15 back to Rochester.

When PA gets around to commissioning I-99 north of Williamsport, I'd rather truncate US 15 to Williamsport and leave NY 15 as is.
Really - I'd actually rather truncate US 15 to Camp Hill PA, leave US 11 as-is, and the piece of US 15 between Shamokin Dam and Williamsport can become PA 61.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 07, 2017, 08:13:55 PM
I'd rather decommission NY 15 and re-extend US 15 back to Rochester.

When PA gets around to commissioning I-99 north of Williamsport, I'd rather truncate US 15 to Williamsport and leave NY 15 as is.

And as much as I hate to say this, extend I-99 up to Rochester and dump I-390. Give the corridor one number.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on December 08, 2017, 03:21:21 AM
I'd rather decommission NY 15 and re-extend US 15 back to Rochester.

When PA gets around to commissioning I-99 north of Williamsport, I'd rather truncate US 15 to Williamsport and leave NY 15 as is.

And as much as I hate to say this, extend I-99 up to Rochester and dump I-390. Give the corridor one number.

The big problem with I-99 is that it doesn’t go anywhere. It goes to Altoona. Who the blazes wants to go to Altoona?

Meanwhile, the current plan for the major Baltimore-to-Rochester corridor is: take I-83 to I-81 to US 22&322 to US 11&15 to PA 147 to I-180 to I-99 to I-86 to I-390. That’s a slight:crazy: failure of “route number continuity” , which a 390-to-99 swap would not do enough to fix.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on December 08, 2017, 08:57:15 AM
It does go somewhere - the Turnpike north to I-86. It's pretty well traveled, and despite the disconnected segments, it would be nice to have a fully finished freeway that doesn't require two-lane jaunts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 08, 2017, 10:02:54 AM
The big problem with I-99 is that it doesn’t go anywhere. It goes to Altoona. Who the blazes wants to go to Altoona?

I'm not too sure what you mean by "doesn't go anywhere"…as one example, it goes from I-80 to US 22, and as such is a major component of my route to Pittsburgh. As another, it goes to State College, PA, a location where a small handful of students are known to congregate once or twice a year…

And as a third example, it goes to Altoona, where nearly fifty thousand people live just in the city limits, within a greater metro population of 127,000. I get that you're probably just making a joke about Altoona not being cool enough to warrant being on the road network, but of course we all know that's not really how road networks work. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on December 08, 2017, 11:37:08 AM
The big problem with I-99 is that it doesn’t go anywhere. It goes to Altoona. Who the blazes wants to go to Altoona?

For starters, just about any railfan who's even heard of Horseshoe Curve.

And you may hate the number, but I-99 is far better than the old two-lane US 220 out of Milesburg was.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 08, 2017, 12:06:42 PM
Staple Bend Tunnel is also out there somewhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on December 08, 2017, 12:40:27 PM
The point is that the traffic to Altoona via I-99 is minuscule compared to that headed to Harrisburg or Baltimore via the Susquehanna Valley number hodgepodge.

Sure, there may be a handful of people from Western NY headed to Altoona or Penn State. But the vast majority would be headed toward Harrisburg, because that’s where you connect to highways going to places like Philadelphia and Washington and the entire southeastern United States. Sorry, but Horseshoe Curve just doesn’t begin to compare in importance.

(And Rochester to Pittsburgh already has I-90 to I-79; I don’t see how I-99 to US 22 is that much of an improvement.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 08, 2017, 01:43:50 PM
While I would also like to see an interstate route connecting Rochester to everywhere (though Rochester-Philadelphia is already served by I-476 and I-81), I'm not sure how one would go about upgrading the middle portion.  US 11/15 was done not too long ago and has numerous at-grades with ROW constrained by a river.  Further, US 22/322 on Duncan Island has no ROW period.  Even without the businesses, I don't see how an interchange with PA 849 would even be possible.

Plus traffic from Rochester to DC and south is generally routed along US 15 and I-270, not I-83, so that would need to be upgraded too to provide an all-freeway connection.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 10, 2017, 08:29:18 PM
(And Rochester to Pittsburgh already has I-90 to I-79; I don’t see how I-99 to US 22 is that much of an improvement.)

Well, simply because from the greater NYC metro to Pittsburgh, Rochester is wayyyyy out of the way…
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 11, 2017, 12:51:10 AM
Plus traffic from Rochester to DC and south is generally routed along US 15 and I-270, not I-83, so that would need to be upgraded too to provide an all-freeway connection.

Wonder how the Wegmans trucks that I see on U.S. 15 travel once past Harrisburg?

It's about 265 miles from the U.S. 15 junction with the Pennsylvania Turnpike near Harrisburg to Rochester, and most of those miles, if routed with Google, are on non-freeway U.S. 15. 

But Wegmans also has a warehouse complex in Pottsville, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania off I-81 at PA-901 - less than 65 nearly all-freeway miles from the same location in Harrisburg, so maybe that's where most of the trucks I see on U.S. 15 are coming from or going to?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 11, 2017, 09:57:14 PM
Plus traffic from Rochester to DC and south is generally routed along US 15 and I-270, not I-83, so that would need to be upgraded too to provide an all-freeway connection.

Wonder how the Wegmans trucks that I see on U.S. 15 travel once past Harrisburg?

It's about 265 miles from the U.S. 15 junction with the Pennsylvania Turnpike near Harrisburg to Rochester, and most of those miles, if routed with Google, are on non-freeway U.S. 15. 

But Wegmans also has a warehouse complex in Pottsville, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania off I-81 at PA-901 - less than 65 nearly all-freeway miles from the same location in Harrisburg, so maybe that's where most of the trucks I see on U.S. 15 are coming from or going to?

They only have 1 warehouse to service all of its mid Atlantic territory.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 12, 2017, 09:47:34 AM
Plans for reconstruction of the I-90/NY 75 interchange (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214577_tab17-30_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf) in Hamburg were posted. Trumpet on the NY 75 half of the interchange is being removed and replaced with a signal. Some of the temp signals will have 3 up arrows, something I haven't seen in several years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 13, 2017, 03:11:26 PM
The LOSP should be re-named to NY 18 and NY 18 to NY 18A.  Give the western end a proper terminus instead of the dinky little stub it has now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on December 13, 2017, 11:10:55 PM
The LOSP should be re-named to NY 18 and NY 18 to NY 18A.  Give the western end a proper terminus instead of the dinky little stub it has now.

1. That's a complete waste of time. The LOSP is fine as its own.

2. NYSDOT has basically ended the practice of suffixed routes. If not, we'd probably have NY 207A instead of NY 747. :)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 14, 2017, 03:39:36 AM
Plans for reconstruction of the I-90/NY 75 interchange (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214577_tab17-30_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf) in Hamburg were posted. Trumpet on the NY 75 half of the interchange is being removed and replaced with a signal. Some of the temp signals will have 3 up arrows, something I haven't seen in several years.

I live down the street from that. I'll miss the trumpet interchange, but I understand the need to free up land on the other side and replace what is a structurally deficient bridge and ramps with little room to merge onto NY 75.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 19, 2017, 03:35:20 PM
Huge day for NYSDOT plans:

- NB I-87 rest area plans released. This will be similar to the other recent welcome centers, but in full compliance with federal regulations. Contract info here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263652). Some highlights:
   * Old building being demolished, temporary restrooms adjacent to truck parking will exist during construction.
   * Fenced playground being installed on north side of new building. Will feature a play structure designed to look like a fire tower and a zip line.
   * Chair swing using an old ski lift chair will be installed next to car parking.
   * Fenced dog area will be installed on south side of building.
   * Walk of fame will be installed at entrance, similar to the LI rest area and the upcoming Grand Island one.
   * Taste NY stuff will be entirely through vending machines, but with a prep area behind closed doors. No idea what will be in the machines, but as it's vending machines, it is 100% in compliance.
   * Seating area with Adirondack chairs
   * Floor map with tourist attractions

- Major sign replacements in New York City on most of the expressways/parkways in the outer boroughs that haven't received recent replacements. New shields for the Bronx River Parkway and Korean War Veterans Parkway (which is finally getting the "renamed" signs removed), Grand Central Parkway will have new shields installed along much of the length. That button copy sign on the Bruckner north of the Cross Bronx is safe for now. Contract info here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263530).

Edit: contract info added
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on December 20, 2017, 09:07:25 PM
Huge day for NYSDOT plans:

- NB I-87 rest area plans released. This will be similar to the other recent welcome centers, but in full compliance with federal regulations. Contract info here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263652). Some highlights:
   * Old building being demolished, temporary restrooms adjacent to truck parking will exist during construction.
   * Fenced playground being installed on north side of new building. Will feature a play structure designed to look like a fire tower and a zip line.
   * Chair swing using an old ski lift chair will be installed next to car parking.
   * Fenced dog area will be installed on south side of building.
   * Walk of fame will be installed at entrance, similar to the LI rest area and the upcoming Grand Island one.
   * Taste NY stuff will be entirely through vending machines, but with a prep area behind closed doors. No idea what will be in the machines, but as it's vending machines, it is 100% in compliance.
   * Seating area with Adirondack chairs
   * Floor map with tourist attractions

- Major sign replacements in New York City on most of the expressways/parkways in the outer boroughs that haven't received recent replacements. New shields for the Bronx River Parkway and Korean War Veterans Parkway (which is finally getting the "renamed" signs removed), Grand Central Parkway will have new shields installed along much of the length. That button copy sign on the Bruckner north of the Cross Bronx is safe for now. Contract info here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263530).

Edit: contract info added

How old are the ones being replaced on the LIE? They're not button copy and they don't look to be in terrible shape.

I do like the new BRP and KWVP shields. In fact, I like what they're doing with them overall. Will like to see some of the other parkways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 21, 2017, 12:03:11 AM
I do like the new BRP and KWVP shields. In fact, I like what they're doing with them overall. Will like to see some of the other parkways.

Is anybody compiling these shields anywhere (say, Wikipedia or such)?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 21, 2017, 08:03:33 AM
I do like the new BRP and KWVP shields. In fact, I like what they're doing with them overall. Will like to see some of the other parkways.

Is anybody compiling these shields anywhere (say, Wikipedia or such)?

If I find them, I could upload them.

Creating them is another story. The figure of the boat and bushes or whatever would take a while just to get right. I don't understand how people make these kinds of things in Inkscape anyways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 21, 2017, 10:32:50 AM
I do like the new BRP and KWVP shields. In fact, I like what they're doing with them overall. Will like to see some of the other parkways.

Is anybody compiling these shields anywhere (say, Wikipedia or such)?

If I find them, I could upload them.

Creating them is another story. The figure of the boat and bushes or whatever would take a while just to get right. I don't understand how people make these kinds of things in Inkscape anyways.

Yeah, the images in these sign plans are too low-res to copy digitally. Is there more in the plans that shows the design of the shields? Or elsewhere in NYSDOT documents?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on December 21, 2017, 12:06:28 PM
For Wikipedia purposes, I will have them ready ASAP.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on December 24, 2017, 12:10:04 AM
Unless I'm reading thr plans wrong, it looks like some of the LIE replacement signs still include references to toll booths at the tunnel, which were taken down almost a year ago
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 24, 2017, 04:12:32 PM
If you're referring to "last exit before toll", that is still correct.  The booths are gone, but the tunnels/bridges are not free; rather, those without E-ZPass will be mailed a bill based on their license plate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 24, 2017, 04:20:14 PM
If you're referring to "last exit before toll", that is still correct.  The booths are gone, but the tunnels/bridges are not free; rather, those without E-ZPass will be mailed a bill based on their license plate.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=19043&p_is_digital=Y
page 5. "toll booths 1 mile"
Same on page 7.

PS: oh, those are sign removal tables
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on December 24, 2017, 10:48:22 PM
If you're referring to "last exit before toll", that is still correct.  The booths are gone, but the tunnels/bridges are not free; rather, those without E-ZPass will be mailed a bill based on their license plate.

Moreso the reference of toll booths themselves. Same as what kalvado mentioned above.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on December 28, 2017, 05:11:23 PM
When I went through Elbridge on December 8th, I saw that the Hamilton Road left turn lane project was complete.  I looked on the NYSDOT site for the plans, and saw that along with the plans, there were some PDFs of plans for previous projects from East Brutus Street to downtown Elbridge.  Some of the plans date back to the late 1920s!  Here's (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263292) a link to the plans, but they may be taken down at some point, so the link may become dead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 02, 2018, 06:10:36 PM
Did anyone bring up the subject of the realigned section of Northbound Taconic State Parkway south of NY 301 yet?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TRACE_OF_ORIGINAL_ALIGNMENT,_PUTNAM_COUNTY_MILE_MARKER_109.6,_VIEW_NW._-_Taconic_State_Parkway,_Poughkeepsie,_Dutchess_County,_NY_HAER_NY,14-POKEP.V,1-18.tif

https://www.google.com/maps/place/41°25'44.4%22N+73°51'28.8%22W/@41.4542965,-73.8234984,1960m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d41.429!4d-73.858?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/place/41°25'44.4%22N+73°51'28.8%22W/@41.4542965,-73.8234984,1960m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d41.429!4d-73.858?hl=en)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on January 08, 2018, 08:05:24 PM
The Rooftop Highway through northern New York State is gaining some traction again, it appears.
http://northcountrynow.com/news/canton-meeting-will-update-public-route-11-upgrade-study-0225439 (http://northcountrynow.com/news/canton-meeting-will-update-public-route-11-upgrade-study-0225439)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 09, 2018, 03:01:51 AM
The Rooftop Highway through northern New York State is gaining some traction again, it appears.
http://northcountrynow.com/news/canton-meeting-will-update-public-route-11-upgrade-study-0225439 (http://northcountrynow.com/news/canton-meeting-will-update-public-route-11-upgrade-study-0225439)

Interesting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on January 09, 2018, 06:20:40 PM
State drops plan to convert the Scajaquada Expressway.

http://buffalonews.com/2018/01/08/state-pulls-plug-on-scajaquada-plan/ (http://buffalonews.com/2018/01/08/state-pulls-plug-on-scajaquada-plan/)

Quote
The state has put the brakes on a $101 million plan to convert the Scajaquada Expressway into a lower-speed boulevard after receiving public comments that were overwhelmingly in opposition.

The decision by the state Department of Transportation comes at the end of a long design process to reshape 2.2 miles of Route 198 between Parkside Avenue and Grant Street, which has been slowed to a 30 mph roadway. The state had been expected to announce later this year the start of a project to design additional traffic-calming measures, such as doubling the number of traffic signals, adding pedestrian crossings and installing wide medians at those crossings.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadsguy on January 10, 2018, 11:01:11 AM
Hopefully they go the other way and actually properly upgrade it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on January 10, 2018, 11:52:07 AM
Doubtful.  That'd require right-of-way that NYS can ill afford.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on January 10, 2018, 12:08:41 PM
And it's through an Olmstead designed park. Why do we have to ram freeeways through everything?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 10, 2018, 05:25:48 PM
And it's through an Olmstead designed park. Why do we have to ram freeeways through everything?
It's already there. Go find another windmill at which to tilt.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 11, 2018, 12:16:45 AM
Just take the $4 billion you plan to spend on an I-81 tunnel and do the same here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on January 22, 2018, 12:03:22 PM
When will NY convert to mileage-based exit numbers?
I know it has been officially proposed before  :pan: However, to my knowledge, I-99 and I-781 are the only current freeways with mileage based numbers. I'd like to see the whole state convert soon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 22, 2018, 01:16:18 PM
There's also I-890/NY 890 (assuming it still counts now that the exit numbers no longer match at exit 4), the NYSDOT part of I-95, and the Taconic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on January 22, 2018, 01:25:25 PM
There's also I-890/NY 890 (assuming it still counts now that the exit numbers no longer match at exit 4), the NYSDOT part of I-95, and the Taconic.
Right right. Forgot about I-890, and don't know if I ever knew about the downstate ones.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on January 22, 2018, 01:54:32 PM
When will NY convert to mileage-based exit numbers?
I know it has been officially proposed before  :pan: However, to my knowledge, I-99 and I-781 are the only current freeways with mileage based numbers. I'd like to see the whole state convert soon.

It won't happen until NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority have no choice but to comply with federal guidelines. They have said repeatedly that they'd rather use the money for something more important like bridge repairs, etc.

I had suggested several times that they introduce mileage based exit numbering to the expressways and freeways that currently have unnumbered interchanges while they do sign rehab projects, but there doesn't seem to be much interest.

There's also concern that the close proximity of interchanges in the five boroughs and Long Island will create confusion, though the other metropolitan areas in the country don't seem to struggle with this. There's nothing special about the spacing of interchanges in the city of New York or on Long Island when compared to interchanges in Chicago, Philadelphia or even St. Louis.


Any new expressways and freeways will have mileage based interchange numbering.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:25:24 PM
It will probably happen when hell freezes over. I am a strong proponent of mileage-based exits, although maybe I'm that way because Wisconsin has always been a mileage-based exit state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 22, 2018, 10:28:32 PM
I wonder if NY Thruway will go mile-based when the Thruway goes all-electronic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on January 22, 2018, 10:41:57 PM
I wonder if NY Thruway will go mile-based when the Thruway goes all-electronic.
[looks for :fingers crossed: emoji, but to no avail]
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on January 22, 2018, 11:32:59 PM
On NY110 going south, right after the Jericho Turnpike intersection, the route 110 sign was replaced with a US shield instead of a NYS shield. Must have been done in the past month.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 23, 2018, 12:38:54 AM
Wouldn't a simple solution to close mileage based exits be A/B/C exits, or N/S/E/W? Seems like a simple fix.

Also, what can the DOT do to make Niagara Falls Boulevard more efficient in Amherst? There probably isn't room for additional lanes, is there?

http://buffalonews.com/2018/01/22/amherst-tonawanda-to-jointly-study-future-of-niagara-falls-boulevard/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 23, 2018, 10:16:05 AM
When will NY convert to mileage-based exit numbers?
I know it has been officially proposed before  :pan: However, to my knowledge, I-99 and I-781 are the only current freeways with mileage based numbers. I'd like to see the whole state convert soon.

It won't happen until NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority have no choice but to comply with federal guidelines. They have said repeatedly that they'd rather use the money for something more important like bridge repairs, etc.

And I agree with their position. I've been all over the country, so I'm certainly familiar with the benefits of mileage-based numbering, but I also have never known the absence of it to result in any great hardship such that spending a lot of money, if any, is justified.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 23, 2018, 01:20:19 PM
If only somebody had told NY that Reagan would cancel the metric conversion, we would have had mile-based numbers by now.

I could see the Thruway converting with AET.  With no more toll tickets, the need for a distinct numbering system would be reduced.  Moving I-90 to the Berkshire Spur would also make conversion easier, since then the Spur could just continue I-90's mileage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 02:12:50 PM
If only somebody had told NY that Reagan would cancel the metric conversion, we would have had mile-based numbers by now.

I could see the Thruway converting with AET.  With no more toll tickets, the need for a distinct numbering system would be reduced.  Moving I-90 to the Berkshire Spur would also make conversion easier, since then the Spur could just continue I-90's mileage.

Would be interesting, in a theoretical I-87/I-90 multiplex, to see which set of exit numbers would be used on the overlap.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on January 23, 2018, 06:37:19 PM
If only somebody had told NY that Reagan would cancel the metric conversion, we would have had mile-based numbers by now.

I could see the Thruway converting with AET.  With no more toll tickets, the need for a distinct numbering system would be reduced.  Moving I-90 to the Berkshire Spur would also make conversion easier, since then the Spur could just continue I-90's mileage.

Would be interesting, in a theoretical I-87/I-90 multiplex, to see which set of exit numbers would be used on the overlap.

There has been many discussions with the Thruway Authority about this. One thought was to start with Ripley as Exit 1 and Hall Place as Exit 496 (number the exits west to east, north to south), keeping the Thruway numbering intact for the entire length of the mainline. The FHWA wants I-87 and I-90 numbered separately but the Thruway Authority is concerned about similar exit numbers not being anywhere near each other (for example Exit 108 at Saugerties on I-87 and Exit 106 at Batavia on I-90). I'm pretty sure the FHWA would win on this.

I know that if the change does take place, the Northway will start with Exit 159. Originally they were going to start it with Exit 150 (for NY 5 / Wolf Rd), but they were kindly reminded that there's 8.8 miles of I-87 prior to the start of the Thruway, so the I-87/I-90 interchange is actually at mile 157, not 148 as currently marked on the Thruway.

For the life of me I have never been able to figure out why the Northway and Free 90 start over with milepost 0 at the I-87/I-90 interchange. Even with sequential numbers this doesn't really make sense.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 23, 2018, 08:29:10 PM
For the life of me I have never been able to figure out why the Northway and Free 90 start over with milepost 0 at the I-87/I-90 interchange. Even with sequential numbers this doesn't really make sense.

You answered your own question. That is mile 0 of the Northway and mile 0 of "Free 90" - treating both as distinct roads rather than following the interstate designations they carry.

It's in violation of standard convention but it's not nonsensical.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 08:51:31 PM
For the life of me I have never been able to figure out why the Northway and Free 90 start over with milepost 0 at the I-87/I-90 interchange. Even with sequential numbers this doesn't really make sense.

You answered your own question. That is mile 0 of the Northway and mile 0 of "Free 90" - treating both as distinct roads rather than following the interstate designations they carry.

It's in violation of standard convention but it's not nonsensical.

Borderline nonsensical, IMO. Just because a designation passes through an interchange, the numbering scheme resets? Don't know of that happening anywhere else. And it would not have conflicted with the thruway in either case. Totally on NYSDOT :pan:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 23, 2018, 10:32:39 PM
Huh?  The Northway and Free I-90 are NYSDOT.  Makes sense due to the ownership change that the exits reset.  Take Exit 24 and you'll see that the designation does not simply pass through a simple interchange, but the engineering cluster**** that is Exit 24/Exit 1.

It is too bad the Thruway isn't a simpler setup like the Ohio Turnpike, but I always thought the Thruway could take the lessons learned from that changeover.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 10:41:45 PM
Huh?  The Northway and Free I-90 are NYSDOT.  Makes sense due to the ownership change that the exits reset.  Take Exit 24 and you'll see that the designation does not simply pass through a simple interchange, but the engineering cluster**** that is Exit 24/Exit 1.

It is too bad the Thruway isn't a simpler setup like the Ohio Turnpike, but I always thought the Thruway could take the lessons learned from that changeover.

I don't see what ownership has to do with it. There should be at least some degree of coordination, in that NYSDOT should acknowledge the existence of portions of those routes that they don't maintain. It seems to me the responsibility for continuing the numbering schemes was/is on them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 23, 2018, 11:29:22 PM
Huh?  The Northway and Free I-90 are NYSDOT.  Makes sense due to the ownership change that the exits reset.  Take Exit 24 and you'll see that the designation does not simply pass through a simple interchange, but the engineering cluster**** that is Exit 24/Exit 1.

It is too bad the Thruway isn't a simpler setup like the Ohio Turnpike, but I always thought the Thruway could take the lessons learned from that changeover.

I don't see what ownership has to do with it. There should be at least some degree of coordination, in that NYSDOT should acknowledge the existence of portions of those routes that they don't maintain. It seems to me the responsibility for continuing the numbering schemes was/is on them.
It is also cultural.  The Northway is considered an entirely separate highway to the point where I wonder how many people realize that the I-87 portions of the Deegan, Thruway and Northway are one route.

When I moved here, I didn't even know I-87 north of the Thruway was called the Northway and it is very ingrained in the community that way...along with "Alt 7," unfortunately.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 23, 2018, 11:33:21 PM
There should be at least some degree of coordination

In New York? You're asking a lot. :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on January 24, 2018, 08:26:39 AM
Huh?  The Northway and Free I-90 are NYSDOT.  Makes sense due to the ownership change that the exits reset.  Take Exit 24 and you'll see that the designation does not simply pass through a simple interchange, but the engineering cluster**** that is Exit 24/Exit 1.

It is too bad the Thruway isn't a simpler setup like the Ohio Turnpike, but I always thought the Thruway could take the lessons learned from that changeover.

It's interesting to note that the reference markers on the Northway in Region 1 show the "county count" for the entire length of I-87 but in Region 7 show the "county count" for only the Northway.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 24, 2018, 09:27:56 AM
Huh?  The Northway and Free I-90 are NYSDOT.  Makes sense due to the ownership change that the exits reset.  Take Exit 24 and you'll see that the designation does not simply pass through a simple interchange, but the engineering cluster**** that is Exit 24/Exit 1.

It is too bad the Thruway isn't a simpler setup like the Ohio Turnpike, but I always thought the Thruway could take the lessons learned from that changeover.

I don't see what ownership has to do with it. There should be at least some degree of coordination, in that NYSDOT should acknowledge the existence of portions of those routes that they don't maintain. It seems to me the responsibility for continuing the numbering schemes was/is on them.
It is also cultural.  The Northway is considered an entirely separate highway to the point where I wonder how many people realize that the I-87 portions of the Deegan, Thruway and Northway are one route.

When I moved here, I didn't even know I-87 north of the Thruway was called the Northway and it is very ingrained in the community that way...along with "Alt 7," unfortunately.
If you will, the way highways are interconnected in Albany, as well as legal ownership, it makes sense to consider NYC-Albany-Buffalo road as single highway (apparently that means bending I-90 to NYC), and Montreal-Albany-MA border as the other one, lets call it I-87*. Which would make it even more messy - and more fun as we can get few more I-X90's.
I am not sure if there are many examples of interstates making a 90 degree turn in cardinal direction - especially with such anticrossing as it would be in Albany - but it is less crazy than an interstate to Hawaii.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 24, 2018, 01:04:34 PM
Yes, it's very, very cultural.  Around here, the Thruway is the Thruway, I-90 is only the free part, and I-87 is only the Northway.  It's also worth noting that the current interchanges at exits 24 and 1 are only about as old as the modern Can of Worms.  Before then, exit 24 was a standard Thruway trumpet, and exit 1 was a cloverleaf.

It's interesting to note that the reference markers on the Northway in Region 1 show the "county count" for the entire length of I-87 but in Region 7 show the "county count" for only the Northway.
Not quite.  The Region 1 ones count Albany County twice - one for the Thruway, and one for the Northway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 24, 2018, 03:25:24 PM
And NOBODY calls it "Free 90" outside of the roadgeek community. Heck, a lot of people from here don't even know what I-87 is, because it's the Northway or the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on January 24, 2018, 06:46:49 PM
And NOBODY calls it "Free 90" outside of the roadgeek community. Heck, a lot of people from here don't even know what I-87 is, because it's the Northway or the Thruway.

So what do they call Free 90?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 24, 2018, 07:17:43 PM
And NOBODY calls it "Free 90" outside of the roadgeek community. Heck, a lot of people from here don't even know what I-87 is, because it's the Northway or the Thruway.

So what do they call Free 90?
It's just I-90.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 10:34:45 PM
Meh.  I have heard people refer to "Free 90"  for emphasis to make sure what road they were talking about.

Of course, there is my co-worker who grew up in Ravena that still gets confused between I-87, I-90 and I-787.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on January 30, 2018, 09:31:08 AM
Syracuse.com had two articles and videos about the I-690 Beach St and Teall Ave bridge construction last week:
State said I-690 lane detours to be gone by winter, they're still there: Why? (video) (http://www.syracuse.com/traffic/index.ssf/2018/01/delays_in_interstate_690_bridge_project_make_winter_driving_tricky_in_syracuse.html)
See bird's eye view of Interstate 690 bridge project in Syracuse (video) (http://www.syracuse.com/traffic/index.ssf/2018/01/see_birds_eye_view_of_interstate_690_bridge_project_video.html)

I drove through there on the 18th and 25th, and the snowbanks on the side made it even worse than it already is.  The first article and video mentions there's a 45 MPH speed limit, but I don't recall seeing any speed limit signs.  I feel comfortable only doing 45 MPH unless I'm in one of the wider sections.  In that case, 55 MPH is fine.  There are some lane markings heading eastbound that literally direct you toward a bridge rail until the last second, which isn't fun.  In addition to the narrow road, the section is the busiest road in the Syracuse area with an AADT of 124,917.

A few months ago, I found this picture (https://www.instagram.com/p/BaHWc3Lhg7E/) of the new retaining wall being built on Instagram while seeing if there were any posts tagged with the hashtag I690.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on January 31, 2018, 10:59:19 PM
On NY110 going south, right after the Jericho Turnpike intersection, the route 110 sign was replaced with a US shield instead of a NYS shield. Must have been done in the past month.

I’ll have to check that out, I’m currently on rotation with residency 10-5 in Melville that covers 110. I’ll be in the look out as there are no us routes on the island so it’s definitely a rare sight
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 01, 2018, 05:20:38 PM
^ That - was just about to chime in about how confusing many of the interchanges are because of the additions over the years.

--

In other news:

New York docked $14M for I Love NY highway signs (http://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/01/feds-dock-new-york-love-ny-signs/1087117001/)

The federal government has docked New York $14 million in highway funds for installing more than 500 I Love NY road signs that violate federal highway rules and state law.

The Federal Highway Administration unveiled the penalty in a letter Thursday to transportation officials in Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration, which installed the blue signs across the state in recent years despite a 2013 federal order prohibiting it from doing so.

The letter from Brandye Hendrickson, FHWA's acting administrator, gives the state until Sept. 30 to come into compliance with federal rules.

(Don't worry, if the state doesn't come into compliance, the $14 million penalty sticks. Otherwise, it will be refunded. But given the state won't install mile-based exit signs...)
They still should leave them up in Port Jefferson.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 01, 2018, 07:28:44 PM
Oh no!  Not $14m!  Why, God why?  Oh, NY will never recover!  Oh, the humanity!

(Great news story, but in the end, meaning very little given how federal aid works)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 01, 2018, 07:38:20 PM
Oh no!  Not $14m!  Why, God why?  Oh, NY will never recover!  Oh, the humanity!

(Great news story, but in the end, meaning very little given how federal aid works)
And given that installation is said to be $8M....
However - is that $14M a one-time fine, or recurring amount?  Can they increase the number next year if nothing changes?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 01, 2018, 08:36:41 PM
Oh no!  Not $14m!  Why, God why?  Oh, NY will never recover!  Oh, the humanity!

(Great news story, but in the end, meaning very little given how federal aid works)
And given that installation is said to be $8M....
However - is that $14M a one-time fine, or recurring amount?  Can they increase the number next year if nothing changes?
From what I am reading it is a one shot fine.

Here is the thing:  NY is nowhere near its threshold for advance construction unlike many other states and actually has to scramble to use up its obligation limitation by the end of the FFY.  So, NY advance constructs another $14m, which is like adding a penny to a jar, and it will fit into the obligation cycle just as other projects slip in and slip out of it.  It just is no big deal at all.

Now, what would hurt is if they said such highways were ineligible for federal aid.  That would probably get the signs removed, but I also don't know if such a disproportionate threat would stand up in court.  With the Wantagh, which is no longer eligible and that still hurts NYSDOT as far as I know, it was because of a contractor laying fiber optic cable in the ROW.  That was a dumb move, given that cost that was inflicted.

But a one-time $14m penalty to obligation limitation?  Pfft.  Other states lose that much and more for not having compliant open container and seat belt laws.

(personal opinions expressed)
Title: MOVED: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 03, 2018, 12:21:06 PM
The pages of long discussion of exit numbering have been moved to https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.0.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 05, 2018, 09:04:11 AM
The I Love New York highway signs on interstates (and I presume elsewhere) are coming down by this summer. The panels and such are supposedly reusable.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 05, 2018, 11:59:46 AM
Read somewhere that new ones will go up.

This whole situation is fakakta.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 08, 2018, 12:38:02 AM
The Short, Sad, Corrupt Life Of New York's Elevated West Side Highway (https://jalopnik.com/the-short-sad-corrupt-life-of-new-yorks-elevated-west-1822429885)

December 15, 1973, was a chilly and cloudy day in New York City. The city’s fortunes had already begun to take a downturn. A single dump truck, overloaded with more than nine tons of asphalt, rumbled down the old elevated West Side Highway, which promptly collapsed. And in a moment of almost hilarious corruption that typified the highway’s brief existence, that very truck’s construction company won a no-bid contract to clean up the wreck.

The West Side Highway began in 1913 as a faint idea in the nearly-all powerful city planner Robert Moses’s head before it was felled by that asphalt truck, coincidentally bound for repairs on a different section of the road.

--

A good read on what was an awful elevated highway (IMO). I'd wish they would have gone into detail of what the highway has become - a thoroughfare with bike lanes, pedestrian paths and connectivity.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 08, 2018, 01:13:15 AM
Why are you in a roads forum if you're anti-roads? The elevated highway was antiquated and not kept up, but look at FDR Drive (southern reaches), Lake Shore Drive, and other successful waterfront highways. Had WSH been maintained properly and modernized over time (gradually improving curves, merges, etc.), it could be a perfectly fine highway. It would certainly help with traffic if there weren't all those lights.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on February 08, 2018, 06:45:21 AM
Quote from: Alps
Why are you in a roads forum if you're anti-roads?

Given their postings elsewhere, I wouldn't call them anti-roads.

One can be pro-roads but not be for EVERY road.

Furthermore, it's good to get differing opinions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 08, 2018, 07:23:07 AM
It's just Steve being a dick against me for years. No big deal.

Not everyone has to be in supportive of every road project. I made it quite clear years ago that I was not in favour of highways that were rammed through inner cities, many of which were done under racial pretences. Robert Moses is one of the worst offenders of this, an outright racist, but many planners across the United States deliberately placed highways through the "worst" neighbourhoods for "slum clearances" and "urban renewal." Just look at the Kenyon-Barr neighbourhood of Cincinnati, 95% of which was destroyed for Interstate 75 and Queensgate. It took what was one of the densest 19th-century neighbourhoods - on the scale of Over-the-Rhine (the largest urban historic district in the nation) and killed it in favour of a very ugly highway, one-story industrial parks and projects. Mass displacement occurred which the city has never healed from.

What's amazing is that even after the West Side Highway was demolished, the impending chaos never materialised. Sure, the new roadway might be slower than if the six-lane freeway remained, but it's been augmented by better mass transit, more inclusive connectivity, and extensive bike paths. Not to say that it's now no longer a dingy, dank mess under the very wide viaduct.

People said the same thing for many one-way to two-way conversions. On a smaller scale, the conversion of four-lane one-way 3rd Avenue in downtown Huntington to one-lane each way was an urban planning success. It supported the rebirth of retail and restaurants on the street and aided in the pedestrian-friendly development Pullman Square on what was a multi-block parking lot. Traffic is slower, but who needs to speed through a pedestrian-heavy environment? And the congestion never materialised.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on February 08, 2018, 10:15:37 PM
Why are you in a roads forum if you're anti-roads?
What a fucking stupid question. People research and discuss Hitler without being a Nazi.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on February 09, 2018, 12:24:24 AM
The elevated highway was antiquated and not kept up, but look at FDR Drive (southern reaches), Lake Shore Drive, and other successful waterfront highways. Had WSH been maintained properly and modernized over time (gradually improving curves, merges, etc.), it could be a perfectly fine highway. It would certainly help with traffic if there weren't all those lights.

The state and city had an excellent plan with a completed NEPA process in the 1980s.  It was called Westway, would have replaced the West Side Highway with a 6-lane Interstate highway that was partially depressed and partially buried, 90% funded by FHWA Interstate funds.  Nixed by RE/T groups.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 09, 2018, 12:42:04 AM
Not all was lost. Funds for the Westway was reallocated for the $811 million replacement project and $1.7 billion to upgrade buses and subways throughout the city. That's probably as good, if not possibly better, of an outcome than one could have expected. How much would more funds have been expended for an EIS, lawyers and more court wrangling if the city and others continued to push for Westway? Some of the rationales for the cancellation of the Westway (striped bass between piers?) were silly, but much of the anger that came about was fueled from years of mistrust bourne out of the destruction wrought by Robert Moses and others (and that's not saying that all of what Robert Moses did was in malice or in poor taste). It's hard to blame them for having a distrust of the government.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 09, 2018, 12:42:10 AM
It's just Steve being a dick against me for years. No big deal.
Trying to figure out which years you're referring to. I actually saw you biking around Cincinnati a few years ago but didn't have the confidence to say anything. I'm not against you, just against the idea that the WSH is unnecessary.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 09, 2018, 12:47:23 AM
It's just Steve being a dick against me for years. No big deal.
Trying to figure out which years you're referring to. I actually saw you biking around Cincinnati a few years ago but didn't have the confidence to say anything. I'm not against you, just against the idea that the WSH is unnecessary.

No problem. I'm extending an olive branch to put this behind us. I have no hard or lingering feelings but I'm not anti-road in any sense. I am far from an eco-liberal - and more of a Tim Allen-moderate, if you will. Feel free to reach out and message me if you want to chat. And I'm more than glad to meet up - especially since I'm just a state over.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on February 09, 2018, 01:17:39 AM
Not all was lost. Funds for the Westway was reallocated for the $811 million replacement project and $1.7 billion to upgrade buses and subways throughout the city. That's probably as good, if not possibly better, of an outcome than one could have expected. How much would more funds have been expended for an EIS, lawyers and more court wrangling if the city and others continued to push for Westway? Some of the rationales for the cancellation of the Westway (striped bass between piers?) were silly, but much of the anger that came about was fueled from years of mistrust bourne out of the destruction wrought by Robert Moses and others (and that's not saying that all of what Robert Moses did was in malice or in poor taste). It's hard to blame them for having a distrust of the government.

Unlike some of the other expressways that went thru urban areas, the Westway would have had little in the way of negative urban impacts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 09, 2018, 08:02:07 AM
*shrugs*

I don't mind 9A the way it is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on February 09, 2018, 08:52:10 PM
I actually think the boulevard that evolved in place of Westway isn't a bad compromise. The legal battles would have dragged out for years if the City and State would have pushed it and it would have taken much longer to get as much as we did in the form of the modern boulevard type road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on February 09, 2018, 10:44:54 PM
*shrugs*

I don't mind 9A the way it is.

I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on February 09, 2018, 11:22:39 PM
*shrugs*
I don't mind 9A the way it is.
I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.

The West Side Highway had nowhere near the capacity of a modern freeway with the same number of lanes (6 in that case).   Ten foot wide lanes, no shoulders, very short accell and decell lanes.

As such the 8-lane arterial 12th Avenue probably has not much less capacity than the old West Side Highway.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 10, 2018, 09:18:34 AM
*shrugs*

I don't mind 9A the way it is.

I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.

I wonder what will happen to FDR and the east side highway once it reaches the end of its lifespan. Would a boulevard work better than the rather obsolete freeway that exists now?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 10, 2018, 10:26:53 AM
*shrugs*

I don't mind 9A the way it is.

I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.

I wonder what will happen to FDR and the east side highway once it reaches the end of its lifespan. Would a boulevard work better than the rather obsolete freeway that exists now?
Kind of hard to have a boulevard since the FDR is elevated above the East River.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 10, 2018, 01:36:37 PM
Fills have been occurring on both sides of Manhattan for some time. It's not out of the realm of possibility to see land added for a FDR Boulevard and park.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on February 10, 2018, 01:44:24 PM
I wonder what will happen to FDR and the east side highway once it reaches the end of its lifespan. Would a boulevard work better than the rather obsolete freeway that exists now?
Kind of hard to have a boulevard since the FDR is elevated above the East River.

I thought that the South Street Viaduct had a major rehab in the last 20 years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 10, 2018, 03:16:14 PM
*shrugs*

I don't mind 9A the way it is.

I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.

I wonder what will happen to FDR and the east side highway once it reaches the end of its lifespan. Would a boulevard work better than the rather obsolete freeway that exists now?
Nice trolling. Ever seen the 12 mile delays up there? Sure, that'll flow better with less capacity.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 10, 2018, 03:25:25 PM
It's just Steve being a dick against me for years. No big deal.
Trying to figure out which years you're referring to. I actually saw you biking around Cincinnati a few years ago but didn't have the confidence to say anything. I'm not against you, just against the idea that the WSH is unnecessary.

No problem. I'm extending an olive branch to put this behind us. I have no hard or lingering feelings but I'm not anti-road in any sense. I am far from an eco-liberal - and more of a Tim Allen-moderate, if you will. Feel free to reach out and message me if you want to chat. And I'm more than glad to meet up - especially since I'm just a state over.
You and froggie... I give him a lot of shit too, but we're still friends. I'm just gonna call you out when I gotta. (Like on FDR Drive...) It's a pretty big state over. I'll be driving by you again tomorrow on I-86. I mean NY 17. I mean the Quickway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 10, 2018, 03:30:05 PM
*shrugs*

I don't mind 9A the way it is.

I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.

I wonder what will happen to FDR and the east side highway once it reaches the end of its lifespan. Would a boulevard work better than the rather obsolete freeway that exists now?
Nice trolling. Ever seen the 12 mile delays up there? Sure, that'll flow better with less capacity.

Such stupid fact wouldn't stop decommissioning.
(urbanist hat on  :sombrero:)
Those money are better spent on improving public transportation, and not on fixing something that shouldn't be there to begin with. Improved river access, more walkable neighbourhood, quality of life, less parking demand...
(urbanist hat off  :angry:)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on February 10, 2018, 03:57:17 PM
Fills have been occurring on both sides of Manhattan for some time. It's not out of the realm of possibility to see land added for a FDR Boulevard and park.

The question is, why do this. The West Side Highway quite literally fell down, during a period in time where New York City was falling apart in general, and the money to replace it simply wasn't there.

The South Street section of the FDR Drive is not about to collapse anytime soon, so it's a very different story when your'e talking now about removing a perfectly good piece of infrastructure.

Improved river access, more walkable neighbourhood

Bullshit.

The South Street Viaduct allows pedestrians to walk under it at any cross street, and in some places where there isn't a cross street if you don't mind jaywalking, while the majority of vehicular traffic passes harmlessly overhead. Were it to be removed and replaced with a ground level boulevard, the option of crossing midblock would be lost in places where it currently exits, and at intersections pedestrians would have to contend with longer crosswalks and longer waits for the light to change (since FDR traffic would need more green time than South Street currently has, and you wouldn't feasibly be able to cross against the light anymore). You would also see an increase in the number of traffic injuries and fatalities (particularly to pedestrians and cyclists) since grade separation is an extremely effective method of preventing these things while wider intersections create more opportunities for them.

In what upside-down dimension does this represent improved river access and walkability? Looks an awful lot like a step backwards on both of those metrics to me.

What's actually happening here is that humans are insane and irrational creatures and, when confronted with a big elevated structure, they perceive it to be a barrier when really it isn't.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on February 10, 2018, 07:32:42 PM
(urbanist hat on  :sombrero:)
Those money are better spent on improving public transportation, and not on fixing something that shouldn't be there to begin with. Improved river access, more walkable neighbourhood, quality of life, less parking demand...
(urbanist hat off  :angry:)

Improved river access, more walkable neighbourhood

Bullshit.

The South Street Viaduct allows pedestrians to walk under it at any cross street, and in some places where there isn't a cross street if you don't mind jaywalking, while the majority of vehicular traffic passes harmlessly overhead. Were it to be removed and replaced with a ground level boulevard, the option of crossing midblock would be lost in places where it currently exits, and at intersections pedestrians would have to contend with longer crosswalks and longer waits for the light to change (since FDR traffic would need more green time than South Street currently has, and you wouldn't feasibly be able to cross against the light anymore). You would also see an increase in the number of traffic injuries and fatalities (particularly to pedestrians and cyclists) since grade separation is an extremely effective method of preventing these things while wider intersections create more opportunities for them.

In what upside-down dimension does this represent improved river access and walkability? Looks an awful lot like a step backwards on both of those metrics to me.

What's actually happening here is that humans are insane and irrational creatures and, when confronted with a big elevated structure, they perceive it to be a barrier when really it isn't.

As someone who lives near Syracuse, replace the word river with downtown, and that sounds awfully familiar. :D

I don't understand how people see a viaduct as a barrier since it's easier to cross than a grade level street or boulevard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 10, 2018, 07:33:13 PM
*shrugs*

I don't mind 9A the way it is.

I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.

I wonder what will happen to FDR and the east side highway once it reaches the end of its lifespan. Would a boulevard work better than the rather obsolete freeway that exists now?
Nice trolling. Ever seen the 12 mile delays up there? Sure, that'll flow better with less capacity.

Yes - I rarely take transit in NYC, despite the urbanist hat I wear here often. I don't enjoy lugging a 40 lb. camera backpack, tripod and gear all around the subway or bus - which also leaves me open to a lot of other vulnerabilities. I make do pretty well driving - even in those awful backups. I am down in NYC on a near-weekly basis and have the displeasure of driving in rush, at night, in rain, etc.

That said, I am not sure freeways are always the best solution in many cases. This is more of a thought than a wish - and to open the discussion to see what others think.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadsguy on February 10, 2018, 09:41:00 PM
I don't understand how people see a viaduct as a barrier since it's easier to cross than a grade level street or boulevard.

Feels before reals. :P
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 10, 2018, 10:23:03 PM
I don't understand how people see a viaduct as a barrier since it's easier to cross than a grade level street or boulevard.

Feels before reals. :P
And enough groups who think urban highway is a bad thing to begin with.
Makes me wonder if anyone has a coherent vision of NYC transportation in 2040...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 10, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
Actually, yes: https://www.nymtc.org/Required-Planning-Products/Regional-Transportation-Plan-RTP/RTP-2040
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 11, 2018, 01:50:54 PM
Actually, yes: https://www.nymtc.org/Required-Planning-Products/Regional-Transportation-Plan-RTP/RTP-2040
That's a great vision!
Is it just me, or that plan is basically stagnation with some regular upkeep?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 11, 2018, 05:01:29 PM
It's a plan, but the execution is another issue. When it costs several billion to build such a short section of the 2nd Avenue Subway - when it costs FAR less in other developed nations, you have to question the role of our bureaucratic quagmire, powerful public sector unions, and project management. After all, the majority of the costs went not to the tunnel itself but to the stations.

Then there is the issue of why it costs so much - and why it's so delayed, to upgrade the signals in the subway. And why it's so darn antiquated, to begin with. But this might be going towards a tangent that is more mass transit than highway. I'm not sure that the highway rebuilds or works in New York are ever so delayed or mired in cost overruns to the percentage that mass transit is in the NYC metro area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on February 11, 2018, 08:29:16 PM
It's a plan, but the execution is another issue. When it costs several billion to build such a short section of the 2nd Avenue Subway - when it costs FAR less in other developed nations, you have to question the role of our bureaucratic quagmire, powerful public sector unions, and project management. After all, the majority of the costs went not to the tunnel itself but to the stations.
Then there is the issue of why it costs so much - and why it's so delayed, to upgrade the signals in the subway. And why it's so darn antiquated, to begin with. But this might be going towards a tangent that is more mass transit than highway. I'm not sure that the highway rebuilds or works in New York are ever so delayed or mired in cost overruns to the percentage that mass transit is in the NYC metro area.

The above is mainly an NYC and an NYS issue.  Not a general U.S. issue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2018, 11:14:32 PM
Not everyone has to be in supportive of every road project. I made it quite clear years ago that I was not in favour of highways that were rammed through inner cities, many of which were done under racial pretences. Robert Moses is one of the worst offenders of this, an outright racist, but many planners across the United States deliberately placed highways through the "worst" neighbourhoods for "slum clearances" and "urban renewal."
Not this crap again. Did you ever think that Moses simply wanted to create a connection between the George Washington Bridge and the (future) Throgs Neck Bridge? Also the Cross Bronx Expressway goes through some non "slum" neighborhoods and if the Sheridan had been finished it would've done the same.

Meanwhile Port Morris and Mott Haven are nowhere near the Cross Bronx, so to blame Moses and that expressway for their decline is foolish.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 11, 2018, 11:42:36 PM
Not everyone has to be in supportive of every road project. I made it quite clear years ago that I was not in favour of highways that were rammed through inner cities, many of which were done under racial pretences. Robert Moses is one of the worst offenders of this, an outright racist, but many planners across the United States deliberately placed highways through the "worst" neighbourhoods for "slum clearances" and "urban renewal."
Not this crap again. Did you ever think that Moses simply wanted to create a connection between the George Washington Bridge and the (future) Throgs Neck Bridge? Also the Cross Bronx Expressway goes through some non "slum" neighborhoods and if the Sheridan had been finished it would've done the same.

Meanwhile Port Morris and Mott Haven are nowhere near the Cross Bronx, so to blame Moses and that expressway for their decline is foolish.

The part you're contesting is true, though. He absolutely believed in slum clearance, was unquestionably racist (parkways were low-bridges so that buses couldn't take blacks to beaches), and specifically routed I-95 the way he did because it was slightly shorter and was his idea, and did not see the value in saving that particular neighborhood because he considered it too slummy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 12, 2018, 12:32:40 AM
The Power Broker is a fantastic read. It explains the methodology behind Moses' planning, how and why he routed freeways and parkways through certain neighbourhoods, and so forth. There are listings out there (the link below has a comparison) of the comically absurd low bridge heights. They weren't done at 108 inches high for aesthetic purposes, you know.

A summary can be found via CityLab: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/how-low-did-he-go/533019/

Just a snippet: "Caro reveals that Moses ordered his engineers to build the bridges low over the parkway to keep buses from the city away from Jones Beach–buses presumably filled with the poor blacks and Puerto Ricans Moses despised. The story was told to Caro by Sidney M. Shapiro, a close Moses associate and former chief engineer and general manager of the Long Island State Park Commission."

It goes on, and on, and on. It's fascinating that someone who -didn't- drive, and someone who never held office, could hold such unchecked power. There are some fantastic projects that he was able to accomplish - the beaches on Long Island, for instance (which require tolls and are generally only accessible by automobile), and those scenic but now horribly congested/manipulated parkways (ignoring where they cut through).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 12, 2018, 09:42:40 AM
The part you're contesting is true, though. He absolutely believed in slum clearance, was unquestionably racist (parkways were low-bridges so that buses couldn't take blacks to beaches), and specifically routed I-95 the way he did because it was slightly shorter and was his idea, and did not see the value in saving that particular neighborhood because he considered it too slummy.
I'm not saying he didn't believe in slum clearance. I'm just saying it's not the primary reason he built any of the roads he built. Throgs Neck, and it's subsidiaries never went down the toilet the way Port Morris, Mott Haven, Highbridge, Morris Heights, Melrose, and Tremont did. The Cross Bronx doesn't even go near Port Morris, Mott Haven, Longwood, and Hunts Point. The Long Island Expressway didn't turn Fresh Meadows, Douglaston or Little Neck into slums. Meanwhile many of the neighborhoods that the Cross Brooklyn and Bushwick Expressways were supposed to go through became slums anyhow.


I've got another snippet from Seicer's link:
Quote
He gave Harlem a glorious pool and play center–now Jackie Robinson Park–one of the best public works of the New Deal era anywhere in the United States. A crowd of 25,000 attended the opening ceremony in August, 1936, the 369th Regiment Band playing “When the Music Goes ”˜Round and ”˜Round”  before Parks Commissioner Moses was introduced–to great applause–by Bill “Bojangles”  Robinson.


And contrary to a claim in The Power Broker, Moses clearly meant buses to serve his “little Jones Beach”  in the Rockaways–Jacob Riis Park. While oriented mainly toward motorists (the parking lot was once the largest in the world), it is simply not true that New Yorkers without cars were excluded. The original site plan included bus drop-off zones, and photographs from the era plainly show buses loading and unloading passengers. “Bus connections with the B.M.T. and I.R.T. in Brooklyn,”  reported the Brooklyn Eagle when the vast seaside playground opened 80 years ago this summer, “make the park easily accessible to non-motorists.”
Also, there are bus stops at Jones Beach too. And if Moses truly had his way, not only would the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway have gone up to the Bayville-Rye Bridge, but down to Wantagh State Parkway south of Merrick Road, providing access to those buses and trucks taking boats and other goods to the beach. Weird for someone who supposedly was so hell-bent on keeping minorities from using Jones Beach.

If I recall, Caro also mentioned the fact that the Suffolk County Ku Klux Klan, got pissed when they heard he wanted to build parkways into the county. They actually had a significant amount of power in the 1920's and briefly controlled the Republican Party. I want to believe the low bridges were some kind of compromise with them.




Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 12, 2018, 10:37:14 AM
I said "generally only accessible by automobile." Unless you live near the LIRR (which has a bus connection to Jones and Long - and I think another?), it's an extensive venture just to get down there.

While Moses didn't -create- the slums, he helped turn what were working class neighborhoods and ghettos (minority heavy area) into derelict districts. When you push a highway through an established neighborhood, one of the off-shoots is the decimation of the neighborhood-local population and the loss of the fabric of a community. And in Moses' instance, he chose routes that would provide the least resistance. Minorities were and are still underrepresented and are seen as push-overs. It's why and how major interstates were routed through some of the most minority-heavy neighborhoods: Cross Bronx, anything in Detroit, I-75 through the west end of Cincinnati.

This isn't me diminishing Moses' accomplishments. It's merely putting it into perspective.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 17, 2018, 11:02:57 AM
Actually, yes: https://www.nymtc.org/Required-Planning-Products/Regional-Transportation-Plan-RTP/RTP-2040
That's a great vision!
Unless it includes transforming NY 347, NY 454, NY 27 west of NY 109, and Suffolk CRs 83 and 97 into limited-access highways, I'd have to disagree with that. Don't get me wrong. There are certainly some good ideas in there.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: Stephane Dumas on February 17, 2018, 05:55:02 PM
A new residential area had popped up in Eastern Long Island resulting of a new traffic light on CR-46/William Floyd Parkway. :(
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=40.84433,-72.89692&z=16&t=H

However, looks like a on-ramp to I-495 from the C-D road/service road will be moved a bit further west.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 17, 2018, 11:33:30 PM
A new residential area had popped up in Eastern Long Island resulting of a new traffic light on CR-46/William Floyd Parkway. :(
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=40.84433,-72.89692&z=16&t=H

However, looks like a on-ramp to I-495 from the C-D road/service road will be moved a bit further west.
I saw that last time I was up there. The Town of Brookhaven would've been better off letting Suffolk County DPW revive that formerly proposed extension of Suffolk CR 101.

In the meantime, they should still add an interchange at William Floyd Parkway and Longwood Road. Diamond or SPUI, it doesn't matter which to me.

Regarding Central Westchester, I think I brought this up before, but despite the fact that the Hawthorne Circle between the Saw Mill and Taconic State Parkways was eliminated in 1971, another Hawthorne Circle was built along Taconic State Parkway just south of the northern terminus of the Sprain Brook Parkway. Why?



Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 18, 2018, 12:30:28 AM
Huh?  You talking about the emergency vehicle circle or Kensico Dam?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 18, 2018, 12:43:34 AM
It must be the emergency vehicle circle you're talking about, because this is northwest of Kensico Dam.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/41°06'34.3%22N+73°48'06.4%22W/@41.0972966,-73.7975495,711m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d41.109528!4d-73.801778?hl=en

I really wish I got the chance to post an image of this circle on imgur.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 20, 2018, 10:24:07 AM
Alright, who wants to email Region 8 to complain about the US 9A shields going up at the 9A/100C bridge replacement? I'd say I'm surprised, but given the amount of NY 202 shields in Region 8...

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=20302&p_is_digital=Y
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 20, 2018, 11:56:42 AM
Is this one still in Region 11?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_9A_Error_Sign_in_Spuyten_Duyvil-South_Riverdale,_Bronx.jpg

Because if so, we can e-mail them about it too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 20, 2018, 12:09:16 PM
Is this one still in Region 11?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_9A_Error_Sign_in_Spuyten_Duyvil-South_Riverdale,_Bronx.jpg

Because if so, we can e-mail them about it too.

Unless it's right at a ramp, probably a NYCDOT install if it still exists.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 21, 2018, 07:28:54 AM
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/14/love-ny-signs-state-wanted-swap-signs-almost-identical-ones/335041002/ (https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/14/love-ny-signs-state-wanted-swap-signs-almost-identical-ones/335041002/)

Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration has pledged to erect revamped I Love NY road signs to replace the current controversial ones, which are at the center of a years-long dispute that led the federal government to withhold $14 million in highway funding on Feb. 1.

But just days before, the state submitted a proposal calling for new signs nearly identical to the ones already lining the state's highways – with the same size, colors, tourism logos, web address and mobile application that are currently on display.

(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b0b4d67d83b0233a44949d3637de57e435d5e273/c=16-3-1116-830&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2018/02/13/Rochester/Rochester/636541389095835470-scan0007-copy.jpg)

-

I think that region based tourism signs are not a bad idea, but their latest proposal, before the feds nixed $14 million in highway funding, solved pretty much nothing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 21, 2018, 09:07:42 AM
A while back, I was wondering why much of NY 17/Future I-86 is 55 MPH when it's reasonable to drive 70 MPH - or at least the state maximum of 65 MPH. Curious, I decided to look up the 85th percentile speeds - also finding out that much of NY 17 through the Catskills, especially west of Liberty, are under 10,000 VPD.

* West of Deposit, the speeds top out at nearly 75 MPH for the 85th percentile whereas the speed limit is 65 MPH
* Just east of Deposit, the speeds top out at 76 MPH for the 85th percentile whereas the speed limit is 65 MPH
* There is no speed data on the (frustratingly) 55 MPH portion between Deposit and Horton
* East of Horton (Exit 90), the speeds top out at 74 MPH for the 85th percentile whereas the speed limit is 55 MPH (but shown in the logs as 65 MPH)
* West of Parksville, before the segment bypassing Parksville opened, the speeds topped out at 74 MPH whereas the speed limit was 55 MPH
* Around Monticello, the speeds top out at 72 MPH whereas the speed limit is (frustratingly) 55 MPH
* The downgrade/upgrade at Wurtsboro, the speeds top out at 76 MPH whereas the speed limit is (frustratingly) 55 MPH

My question on this is: how are speed limits set? The accident rate isn't any higher on the 55 MPH portions than any other segment of I-86/NY 17. The AADT is quite low and well within capacity. The lower speed limits aren't deterring people from driving a reasonable speed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 21, 2018, 09:20:07 AM
Geometry. The curve radii on the 55 section are too small for 65. The hairpin just east of Deposit has a 50 MPH advisory. Multiple other curves would require advisory speeds of 55 and I don't think I've ever seen an advisory below 60 on a 65 in New York. The area around the Shawangunk Ridge drops for a few 50-55 mph curves as well.

I also happen to know that, if an I-86 upgrade does happen, the 55 section minus the at-grades is mostly staying as-is. Qualifies for the mountainous area exemption.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 21, 2018, 09:54:09 AM
Yet West Virginia can go 70 MPH whereas the 85th percentile is hovering at 75 MPH?

There are sections of the West Virginia Turnpike that have such tight curves, yet it is signed at 60 MPH (and 65 MPH for those old enough to remember that).

Even with the upgrades at Hale Eddy, those curves are negotiable at speeds above 55 MPH. If they need advisory signs - which are just that, advisory and not enforceable, then just sign it and be done with it. West Virginia - and other states with hills and mountains, do this just fine.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on February 21, 2018, 01:32:06 PM
I thought this was slightly interesting, and figured if anyone else thought so too they're probably members of this forum who read this thread.  I just traveled NY 7B for the first time today and noticed that every reference marker I paid attention to was still a NY 7 marker.  Does New York not bother updating these or is the route, for the purposes of these markers, still "7", while the actual NY 7 through the area, concurrent with I-88, only "88I"?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 21, 2018, 01:47:48 PM
NY generally doesn't update reference markers.  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it's not supposed to.  Part of I-390 near Wayland still has 245 markers, and part of NY 151 and all of Third Ave Ext (a reference route) say 43.  Meanwhile, most markers in Wayne County (47) use county code 37, and Tioga (97) still uses 65.

The reason for this is because accident reports are tied to the reference marker, so the marker in the field needs to stay correlated with any past reports.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 21, 2018, 01:54:38 PM
Key word: generally. Region 5 hasn't gotten that memo.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 21, 2018, 07:37:47 PM
I thought this was slightly interesting, and figured if anyone else thought so too they're probably members of this forum who read this thread.  I just traveled NY 7B for the first time today and noticed that every reference marker I paid attention to was still a NY 7 marker.  Does New York not bother updating these or is the route, for the purposes of these markers, still "7", while the actual NY 7 through the area, concurrent with I-88, only "88I"?

NY generally doesn't update reference markers.  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it's not supposed to.  Part of I-390 near Wayland still has 245 markers, and part of NY 151 and all of Third Ave Ext (a reference route) say 43.  Meanwhile, most markers in Wayne County (47) use county code 37, and Tioga (97) still uses 65.

The reason for this is because accident reports are tied to the reference marker, so the marker in the field needs to stay correlated with any past reports.

Valerie's got it, exactly. And Jim's got it, too–this is the type of thing that always interested me and is why I set up a whole website on the topic. :cool:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on February 21, 2018, 08:41:34 PM
I read an article (http://www.syracuse.com/traffic/index.ssf/2018/02/traffic_alert_interstate_690_west_down_to_one_lane_in_syracuse.html) this morning on Syracuse.com that said I-690 westbound in Syracuse had only one lane open due to lane striping and emergency repairs.  I drove it around 1:45 this afternoon, and both lanes were already reopened.  I noticed that there's a new solid stripe between the lanes at the first lane shift, and a rumble strip has been added between the lanes throughout the work zone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 21, 2018, 10:42:59 PM
Yet West Virginia can go 70 MPH whereas the 85th percentile is hovering at 75 MPH?

There are sections of the West Virginia Turnpike that have such tight curves, yet it is signed at 60 MPH (and 65 MPH for those old enough to remember that).

Even with the upgrades at Hale Eddy, those curves are negotiable at speeds above 55 MPH. If they need advisory signs - which are just that, advisory and not enforceable, then just sign it and be done with it. West Virginia - and other states with hills and mountains, do this just fine.
Advisory speeds are for all vehicles. Your passenger car can go 70 around those curves but a truck better not exceed 55.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 21, 2018, 10:56:15 PM
Are speed advisory signs designed for a particular type of vehicle anyways? I can't remember the history behind it.

I was looking for photos of the large signs on the West Virginia Turnpike that show a truck tipping over along with the advisory speed for trucks, which is like the image below, just on a large yellow guide sign and flashing lights. For the curves that meet those needs, these would be more than adequate, especially given such a low traffic count and accident rate.

(https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/md/K/Truck-Falling-Graphic-Sign-K-9789.gif)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 21, 2018, 10:56:50 PM
New York will not go above 55 if all vehicles cannot go 65 nearly consistently. They won't. Neither will most other places in the Northeast. Stopping sight distance is also an issue here. It's not like 55 is actually enforced on this stretch. Nor do I think we'll ever see above 55 here, as the design speed is ~55.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 21, 2018, 11:58:28 PM
Uh, no.

Stopping sight distance isn't an issue on what will eventually become an interstate. It's a well-designed freeway for most of its length, although it is dated in several segments where NY 17 is well over 50 years old at this point. If sight distance has been an issue, it's one that has not been raised when segments have been upgraded or proposed for upgrading. This isn't that trecherous of a road that it's not different than similar facilities in other more mountainous states.

And yes, it is enforced. A lot. There has not been a time that I have driven it in the day or night and have spotted at a minimum two officers patrolling - even when it's 4 AM in the morning on a highway that receives practically no traffic at night. It's revenue generation, full stop. If it was for safety, we'd be seeing a high accident rate, but that's not the case. And the 85th percentile clearly shows that people disregard the speed limits as is.

And FWIW, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have significant portions at 70 MPH with Maine topping at 75 MPH. That's more than a few.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 22, 2018, 06:10:35 AM
Uh, no.

Stopping sight distance isn't an issue on what will eventually become an interstate. It's a well-designed freeway for most of its length, although it is dated in several segments where NY 17 is well over 50 years old at this point. If sight distance has been an issue, it's one that has not been raised when segments have been upgraded or proposed for upgrading. This isn't that trecherous of a road that it's not different than similar facilities in other more mountainous states.

And yes, it is enforced. A lot. There has not been a time that I have driven it in the day or night and have spotted at a minimum two officers patrolling - even when it's 4 AM in the morning on a highway that receives practically no traffic at night. It's revenue generation, full stop. If it was for safety, we'd be seeing a high accident rate, but that's not the case. And the 85th percentile clearly shows that people disregard the speed limits as is.

And FWIW, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have significant portions at 70 MPH with Maine topping at 75 MPH. That's more than a few.

Still, there's a difference between strict enforcement, and enforcement in general.  What is the 85th percentile speed anyway?

If the cops are pulling people over at 60 mph, then it's strict enforcement.  If they're pulling people over at 75, then there's not much to argue there if they're going people a 20 mph leeway. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 22, 2018, 07:35:32 AM
I posted the 85th percentile in the page prior to this, but it's well in the 70's.

Cops don't generate much revenue if it's anything below 10 MPH, and based on my last conversation with an officer when I was pulled over on I-88, he mentioned to just keep it at "10 over and below."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on February 22, 2018, 08:21:19 AM
NY generally doesn't update reference markers.  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it's not supposed to.  Part of I-390 near Wayland still has 245 markers, and part of NY 151 and all of Third Ave Ext (a reference route) say 43.  Meanwhile, most markers in Wayne County (47) use county code 37, and Tioga (97) still uses 65.

The reason for this is because accident reports are tied to the reference marker, so the marker in the field needs to stay correlated with any past reports.

Also, the 25C, 27A, and 904 reference markers on what are now unsigned reference routes on Long Island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 22, 2018, 11:17:27 AM
They don't enforce below 70 on that road. And the issue here is DESIGN SPEED, not 85th percentile speed. NYSDOT won't post a speed limit above the design speed. Design speed here is 55.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 22, 2018, 11:52:04 AM
I can personally vouch that they do enforce the speed limit. I received a ticket for travelling 65 in a 55 MPH zone in Hale Eddy, and that ticket was thrown out of court.

--

And yes, I heard your comments about design speed the first time - but the *entire highway* isn't designed to a 55 MPH speed limit. There are a handful sharper curves than normal, but as I explained earlier, that doesn't mean the *entire highway* should be signed for 55 MPH. If that was the case, West Virginia would have kept their interstates at 55 MPH, considering how many of their curves have advisory speeds of 55 MPH. And we know that many roads in the nation went to 55 MPH during the environmental/gas saving craze of the 1970's and never went back - just look how long it took New York to obtain 65 MPH speed limits, for instance.

The "design speed" is nothing more than engineering lingo that was broadly applied and is unfairly enforced. It's simply not based on any data that shows that accident rates are higher than other facilities of a similar nature; nor is it based on any data that shows virtually all travellers drive well above the "design speed" without incident.

Leaving it at this: We should be advocating for safe speed limits based on a variety of factors that includes not just a highway's design speed, but accident rate and the 85th percentile. If only a handful of curves prevents an entire highway from being signed at 70 MPH, then sign those curves appropriately and be done with it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on February 22, 2018, 12:35:33 PM
Question about design speed on NY 17:  are the values being tossed about the design speeds actually listed in the construction plans--usually on the title sheet, per FAPG 630(b) Supp.--or are they imputed design speeds based on the latest edition of the Green Book?  There is often a wide gap between the two, especially for older facilities.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 22, 2018, 12:42:05 PM
Interested in finding out more out of personal curiosity.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 22, 2018, 01:31:02 PM
Personally, I don't like the idea of setting speed limits for the lowest common denominator.  Why should I, driver of a Civic that can comfortably drive 70 if not 75 down that stretch of road, be restricted to 55 just because the trucks wouldn't be able to make some of the curves?  That's what advisory speeds are for.  Even going 60-65 feels quite slow on that road.  And yes, it IS crawling with cops.  This is definitely a road where it's hard to hold one's speed down.

(personal opinion)

Uh, no.

Stopping sight distance isn't an issue on what will eventually become an interstate. It's a well-designed freeway for most of its length, although it is dated in several segments where NY 17 is well over 50 years old at this point. If sight distance has been an issue, it's one that has not been raised when segments have been upgraded or proposed for upgrading. This isn't that trecherous of a road that it's not different than similar facilities in other more mountainous states.

And yes, it is enforced. A lot. There has not been a time that I have driven it in the day or night and have spotted at a minimum two officers patrolling - even when it's 4 AM in the morning on a highway that receives practically no traffic at night. It's revenue generation, full stop. If it was for safety, we'd be seeing a high accident rate, but that's not the case. And the 85th percentile clearly shows that people disregard the speed limits as is.

And FWIW, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have significant portions at 70 MPH with Maine topping at 75 MPH. That's more than a few.
Sight distance actually has been an issue with upgrading NY 17 to I-86.  There was a project part of the upgrade between NY 17K and I-84 to reconstruct the road, not because of pavement condition or to widen it, but to remove the bunny hops.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 22, 2018, 05:25:36 PM
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/14/love-ny-signs-state-wanted-swap-signs-almost-identical-ones/335041002/ (https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/14/love-ny-signs-state-wanted-swap-signs-almost-identical-ones/335041002/)

Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration has pledged to erect revamped I Love NY road signs to replace the current controversial ones, which are at the center of a years-long dispute that led the federal government to withhold $14 million in highway funding on Feb. 1.

But just days before, the state submitted a proposal calling for new signs nearly identical to the ones already lining the state's highways – with the same size, colors, tourism logos, web address and mobile application that are currently on display.

(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b0b4d67d83b0233a44949d3637de57e435d5e273/c=16-3-1116-830&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2018/02/13/Rochester/Rochester/636541389095835470-scan0007-copy.jpg)

-

I think that region based tourism signs are not a bad idea, but their latest proposal, before the feds nixed $14 million in highway funding, solved pretty much nothing.
I agree with you on this, but they still can't be everywhere, like they are now. I'm still okay with leaving the existing signs in Port Jefferson alone, since they're clearly meant for people coming off the ferry from Bridgeport.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 22, 2018, 05:56:01 PM
...
And yes, I heard your comments about design speed the first time - but the *entire highway* isn't designed to a 55 MPH speed limit. There are a handful sharper curves than normal, but as I explained earlier, that doesn't mean the *entire highway* should be signed for 55 MPH. If that was the case, West Virginia would have kept their interstates at 55 MPH, considering how many of their curves have advisory speeds of 55 MPH.

But the NYSDOT doesn't set the guidelines in West Virginia, or in any other state for that matter.  If West Virginia chooses to sign their roads higher than the design speed, that's their policy. NY's policy is different.  That goes for many other aspects of the roads and highways as well.  Other states allow 65 mph on 2 lane roads.  NYSDOT doesn't.  Again, there may be perfectly fine areas where 65 would work.  But just because Texas or Nevada allows it doesn't mean New York has to allow it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 22, 2018, 07:26:40 PM
Just because they're legally allowed to be different doesn't mean they SHOULD be.  That 55 stretch from Hale Edds to Roscoe is PAINFUL to drive because of the low speed limit and quite frankly I'm glad I live in an area where I don't have to deal with it.  There are also a few two lane roads that are painful to drive because the geometry is good enough for higher speeds (NY 12 north of Alexandria Bay comes to mind, and that road actually was designed such that an in-place upgrade to an interstate would be feasible).

Driving in New England is even worse.  I try to avoid non-interstates where possible especially in MA and CT.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 23, 2018, 07:40:57 AM
Apparently the ORT gantries on the GI bridges are in and ready to go by March. But the toll booths will still remain? So that means that you have to fly into these booths doing 55+ hoping you don't crash into the sides I guess.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 23, 2018, 08:37:35 AM
Just because they're legally allowed to be different doesn't mean they SHOULD be.  That 55 stretch from Hale Edds to Roscoe is PAINFUL to drive because of the low speed limit and quite frankly I'm glad I live in an area where I don't have to deal with it.  There are also a few two lane roads that are painful to drive because the geometry is good enough for higher speeds (NY 12 north of Alexandria Bay comes to mind, and that road actually was designed such that an in-place upgrade to an interstate would be feasible).

Driving in New England is even worse.  I try to avoid non-interstates where possible especially in MA and CT.

(personal opinion)

This is also where all-inclusive policies don't work well.  Just like zero-tolerance in schools, sometimes exceptions should be made based on circumstances. 

Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph.  Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.  When the NMSL was repealed, many of those highways could have their limits raised.  And in most states, they looked at the overall actual design to determine if the roadway could handle faster limits.  If there were exceptions, could they be handled by advisory postings, or was a lower limit for a longer stretch of roadway warranted. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on February 23, 2018, 10:52:59 AM
Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph.  Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.

I would dispute that.  FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.

I would not want to assert that a specific highway like NY 17 between Hale Edds and Roscoe was designed for a particular design speed without actually looking at the design speeds listed in the construction plans and pulling out the edition of the Green Book (or, if applicable, Blue Book) that was current at the time of design.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 12:20:23 PM
Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph.  Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.
I would dispute that.  FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.

I would dispute that as well.  AFAIK the normal rural Interstate standards remained at 70 mph from the 1970s onward.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 23, 2018, 12:37:37 PM
Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph.  Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.
I would dispute that.  FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.

I would dispute that as well.  AFAIK the normal rural Interstate standards remained at 70 mph from the 1970s onward.

Everything I can find supports that rural interstates outside of mountainous terrain had to be designed for 70+. Mountainous areas have always been 55 if higher speeds were cost-prohibitive. And yes, mountainous areas in other states are 55. Even in West Virginia, those curves have higher radii.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on February 23, 2018, 02:36:06 PM
^ Per AASHTO's Policy on Interstate System Design Standards, design speed in mountainous areas (and urban areas as well) can be dropped to 50 MPH.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 23, 2018, 03:49:48 PM
Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph.  Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.
I would dispute that.  FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.

I would dispute that as well.  AFAIK the normal rural Interstate standards remained at 70 mph from the 1970s onward.

Everything I can find supports that rural interstates outside of mountainous terrain had to be designed for 70+. Mountainous areas have always been 55 if higher speeds were cost-prohibitive. And yes, mountainous areas in other states are 55. Even in West Virginia, those curves have higher radii.

But the highways seicer is referencing aren't Interstate highways, so these 'disputes' aren't looking at the correct criteria.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 23, 2018, 04:09:55 PM
^ Per AASHTO's Policy on Interstate System Design Standards, design speed in mountainous areas (and urban areas as well) can be dropped to 50 MPH.

Guess I remembered wrong. Explains why I-70 around Glenwood Canyon is posted at 50.

By current standards, NY 17 would be a design speed of 50-55 for the Catskills and Shawangunk Ridge sections. I actually did run it against my copy of the Green Book a few years ago. Could NYSDOT raise it above 55 if they really wanted to? Certainly. But their current policy is to not go above 55 unless there is good geometry.

But the highways seicer is referencing aren't Interstate highways, so these 'disputes' aren't looking at the correct criteria.

Any upgrades made to NY 17 since the 70s have been to Interstate standards.

And going back to the higher speed limits thing:

- Maine's 75 section is relatively flat and straight. Gets virtually no traffic. I did not see another vehicle in my direction and relatively few in the other when I drove it in Summer 2016. It is one of the least-used sections of the Interstate system.
- New Hampshire's 70 sections are not particularly mountainous by northeast standards.
- PennDOT's 70 sections are I-79 between the Pittsburgh metro and Erie, I-80 between OH and Luzerne County, and much of I-99. That section of 79 is mostly flat and 99 is relatively new.
- PTC's 70 sections are almost everything away from the tunnels and toll plazas, outside the eastern climb to Allegheny Mountain. Generally built to high standards, even if shoulders are narrow.
- Nothing on WV Interstates that is 70 is as windy as NY 17 through the Catskills. And NY won't post 60, so 55 it is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on February 23, 2018, 09:12:54 PM
There have been Interstate standards since the early 1940's, long before there was dedicated funding for Interstates, let alone the Interstate Construction program with 90% federal match.  Where horizontal curvature is concerned, the original criteria are easy to remember:  desirable maxima of 3°, 4° 5°, and 5° 7° for 70 mph (flat terrain), 60 mph (rolling country), and 50 mph (mountainous terrain) respectively.  (Divide 5730 by degree of curvature to obtain radius in feet.)

Choice of design speed for a facility is determined largely by its location and purpose and has not changed much since the early days.  70 is still common for rural in flat country, 60 in the suburbs, etc.  However, the specific criteria associated with a design speed have evolved over time, generally in the direction of greater commodiousness.  And, because we Americans are weird, the maximum side friction demand a driver experiences at a given design speed varies according to the maximum superelevation chosen for design (4% superelevation, necessitated by frequent icing, is less forgiving than 6% or 8% superelevation).

Edit:  Criteria given above corrected to accord with diagram given in a later post.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 09:21:10 PM
There have been Interstate standards since the early 1940's, long before there was dedicated funding for Interstates, let alone the Interstate Construction program with 90% federal match.  Where horizontal curvature is concerned, the original criteria are easy to remember:  maxima of 3°, 4°, and 5° for 70 mph (flat terrain), 60 mph (rolling country), and 50 mph (mountainous terrain) respectively.  (Divide 5730 by degree of curvature to obtain radius in feet.)

I thought that the horizontal curvature maxima for 70 mph was 3 degrees and 30 minutes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on February 24, 2018, 12:37:06 AM
Actually, I need to apologize for posting incorrect information--I misremembered the following diagram:

(https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/thumb/a/a3/1944-interstate-horizontal-curve-radii.jpg/788px-1944-interstate-horizontal-curve-radii.jpg)

The source is D.W. Loutzenheiser, "Proposed design standards for interregional highways," Proceedings of the Highway Research Board, vol. 24 (1944), pp. 105-126.  It synopsizes the design criteria given as Appendix V of the 1944 Interregional Highways report.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 24, 2018, 09:40:15 AM


There have been Interstate standards since the early 1940's, long before there was dedicated funding for Interstates, let alone the Interstate Construction program with 90% federal match.

Heh.  Although the 90% match still exists, the fun part here is that the standards have now existed before the dedicated funding was established and now also after such funding dissipated with MAP-21 (albeit absorbed into NHPP).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on February 24, 2018, 01:30:37 PM
Apparently the ORT gantries on the GI bridges are in and ready to go by March. But the toll booths will still remain? So that means that you have to fly into these booths doing 55+ hoping you don't crash into the sides I guess.

Indeed; I drove over both Grand Island Bridges last weekend. I was ecstatic to see the gantries installed and seemingly ready for use.

I'm sure the long-term plan involves removal of the booths, does it not? Leaving them there would be detrimental to traffic flow on the approaches and pretty much defeat the purpose of the conversion.

Perhaps they'll pave a segment wide enough for two lanes so traffic can flow by at-speed until the booths are removed. Looking forward to going to Canada again mid-March and seeing how the booths are ultimately handled.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on February 24, 2018, 03:04:43 PM
Graphs of the current curve radii for various speeds and degrees of banking can be found in Chapter 5 of NYSDOT'S Highway Design Manual (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/chapt_5_final.pdf).  Look at pages 5-56 and 5-57 (pages 62 and 63 in the PDF) for graphs on skidding.  Pages 5-59 and 5-60 (pages 65 and 66 in the PDF) have graphs for avoiding truck rollovers.

Geometry. The curve radii on the 55 section are too small for 65. The hairpin just east of Deposit has a 50 MPH advisory. Multiple other curves would require advisory speeds of 55 and I don't think I've ever seen an advisory below 60 on a 65 in New York. The area around the Shawangunk Ridge drops for a few 50-55 mph curves as well.

There are two 55 MPH advisory curves I'm aware of (and a third I found while writing this post), all at both ends of NY 695.  One is on the NY 695 north to I-690 east ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0782176,-76.2264045,3a,66.8y,40.66h,85.88t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sqO5bVIez3bYOixM1IycIqA!2e0), another is on the NY 695 south to NY 5 east ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0586916,-76.2370592,3a,66.8y,188.49h,86.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seTPOhHRGkih81OoJCAumCA!2e0), and the one I found is on the NY 695 north to I-690 west ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0763439,-76.2280262,3a,66.8y,43.85h,87.66t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1suZ8O56wbvZfOS3P_tsHkIw!2e0).  The I-690 west to NY 695 south ramp isn't signed at all, but I feel like 60 is pushing it a bit on the curve.  I've also done 60 on the NY 695 north to I-690 east ramp, and I may have done a bit more while passing a slower car once.  60 is definitely pushing it on that curve, and when I was passing, I felt uncomfortable going so fast on that curve, but I wanted to get around the slower car to avoid being in their blind spot or right next to them for too long.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 24, 2018, 11:14:04 PM
Apparently the ORT gantries on the GI bridges are in and ready to go by March. But the toll booths will still remain? So that means that you have to fly into these booths doing 55+ hoping you don't crash into the sides I guess.

Indeed; I drove over both Grand Island Bridges last weekend. I was ecstatic to see the gantries installed and seemingly ready for use.

I'm sure the long-term plan involves removal of the booths, does it not? Leaving them there would be detrimental to traffic flow on the approaches and pretty much defeat the purpose of the conversion.

Perhaps they'll pave a segment wide enough for two lanes so traffic can flow by at-speed until the booths are removed. Looking forward to going to Canada again mid-March and seeing how the booths are ultimately handled.
My understanding is that there is a separate contract to remove the booths ready to be let.  Unlike the MassPike, the Thruway is not commiting to a specific date for when the booths will be removed, but I can't imagine it will be too long (especially since Thruway booths are easier to remove than MassPike booths... the Thruway uses crosswalks to get toll takers to the booths instead of tunnels).  Obviously, the Thruway can't remove the booths until the gantries go into effect (or were you hoping for free trips during the transition?).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on February 25, 2018, 11:13:14 AM
How did the Thruway handle removing the Black Rock and City Line barriers? I would assume they corralled traffic to one half of roadway and removed the barrier on the other half, but I didn’t see any of the process.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on February 25, 2018, 12:18:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane
Obviously, the Thruway can't remove the booths until the gantries go into effect (or were you hoping for free trips during the transition?).

I was hoping  :-D I've used the thruway enough that I've probably earned it. Although IMO, even one trip using AET is worth the potential savings :-P

How did the Thruway handle removing the Black Rock and City Line barriers? I would assume they corralled traffic to one half of roadway and removed the barrier on the other half, but I didn’t see any of the process.

I'm picturing something along those lines. Removing it in segments could probably work as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on February 25, 2018, 02:47:06 PM
My understanding is that there is a separate contract to remove the booths ready to be let.

It has already been let--bid opening was last January 31.  The contract in question is D214649 (TAN 18-8).

http://www.thruway.ny.gov/business/contractors/documents/index.shtml

(Plans will no longer be available at the above link after six months.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on February 25, 2018, 07:59:25 PM
My understanding is that there is a separate contract to remove the booths ready to be let.
It has already been let--bid opening was last January 31.

Thanks for that. Estimated date of completion June 29th of this year. No free tolls, I guess  :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 26, 2018, 10:02:23 AM
Graphs of the current curve radii for various speeds and degrees of banking can be found in Chapter 5 of NYSDOT'S Highway Design Manual (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/chapt_5_final.pdf).  Look at pages 5-56 and 5-57 (pages 62 and 63 in the PDF) for graphs on skidding.  Pages 5-59 and 5-60 (pages 65 and 66 in the PDF) have graphs for avoiding truck rollovers.

Geometry. The curve radii on the 55 section are too small for 65. The hairpin just east of Deposit has a 50 MPH advisory. Multiple other curves would require advisory speeds of 55 and I don't think I've ever seen an advisory below 60 on a 65 in New York. The area around the Shawangunk Ridge drops for a few 50-55 mph curves as well.

There are two 55 MPH advisory curves I'm aware of (and a third I found while writing this post), all at both ends of NY 695.  One is on the NY 695 north to I-690 east ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0782176,-76.2264045,3a,66.8y,40.66h,85.88t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sqO5bVIez3bYOixM1IycIqA!2e0), another is on the NY 695 south to NY 5 east ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0586916,-76.2370592,3a,66.8y,188.49h,86.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seTPOhHRGkih81OoJCAumCA!2e0), and the one I found is on the NY 695 north to I-690 west ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0763439,-76.2280262,3a,66.8y,43.85h,87.66t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1suZ8O56wbvZfOS3P_tsHkIw!2e0).  The I-690 west to NY 695 south ramp isn't signed at all, but I feel like 60 is pushing it a bit on the curve.  I've also done 60 on the NY 695 north to I-690 east ramp, and I may have done a bit more while passing a slower car once.  60 is definitely pushing it on that curve, and when I was passing, I felt uncomfortable going so fast on that curve, but I wanted to get around the slower car to avoid being in their blind spot or right next to them for too long.

Thanks for that - responding partly to


Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph.  Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.
I would dispute that.  FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.

I would dispute that as well.  AFAIK the normal rural Interstate standards remained at 70 mph from the 1970s onward.

Everything I can find supports that rural interstates outside of mountainous terrain had to be designed for 70+. Mountainous areas have always been 55 if higher speeds were cost-prohibitive. And yes, mountainous areas in other states are 55. Even in West Virginia, those curves have higher radii.

But the highways seicer is referencing aren't Interstate highways, so these 'disputes' aren't looking at the correct criteria.

I found no mention of NY 17 being built as part of some interstate plan in casual newspaper searches - other than it being an upgrade of existing NY 17 through the Catskills. As far as design speed, interstates during the NMSL era were not designed to 55 or 60 MPH - there are quite a few highways built during this era that had design speeds of 70 MPH or greater.

And my mention of West Virginia is just that - a mention of another state I am well versed with. It's not something that has to be replicated but only serves as an example of a state that has a lower design speed on some stretches of highway with it signed at a higher speed. There is no reason that other states could go around that with a variance and just sign the curves with advisories.

And yes, I am well aware that the Hale Eddy segment is not interstate grade - and I mentioned that earlier. I am pretty keen on its defencies and aware of its future upgrade. Interestingly enough, there is no speed data for that portion.

To throw an example from the weekend: 70 MPH on the Turnpike Extension in Pennsylvania with 60 MPH advisory speeds. and 70 MPH on the mainline Turnpike with 55 MPH advisory speeds. Even with the lowest signed advisory on NY 17/I-86, absent of the Hale Eddy segment, the biggest derivative between an advisory and maximum speed limit is within reason.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2018, 10:16:38 AM
New York generally won't sign an advisory speed below 60 MPH on a 65 MPH road outside of an interchange. They won't. Suggesting otherwise strays into fictional territory.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on February 26, 2018, 10:35:11 AM
I found no mention of NY 17 being built as part of some interstate plan in casual newspaper searches - other than it being an upgrade of existing NY 17 through the Catskills. As far as design speed, interstates during the NMSL era were not designed to 55 or 60 MPH - there are quite a few highways built during this era that had design speeds of 70 MPH or greater.

The Southern Tier Expressway, that being NY-17 west of I-81 and connecting to I-90 near Erie PA, got most its funding from being ADHS Corridor T which was authorized in 1964.

https://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/ADHSMap9-30-2017.pdf
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 26, 2018, 01:39:30 PM
I found no mention of NY 17 being built as part of some interstate plan in casual newspaper searches - other than it being an upgrade of existing NY 17 through the Catskills. As far as design speed, interstates during the NMSL era were not designed to 55 or 60 MPH - there are quite a few highways built during this era that had design speeds of 70 MPH or greater.

The Southern Tier Expressway, that being NY-17 west of I-81 and connecting to I-90 near Erie PA, got most its funding from being ADHS Corridor T which was authorized in 1964.

https://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/ADHSMap9-30-2017.pdf

It's funny how the Eastern section is called the "Quickway," when it's anything but.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 26, 2018, 02:03:04 PM
New York generally won't sign an advisory speed below 60 MPH on a 65 MPH road outside of an interchange. They won't. Suggesting otherwise strays into fictional territory.

What I did was compare what other states do to New York and voiced my displeasure. So who cares about what you believe? That would run against the purpose of a forum - to exchange new ideas, to voice opinions, and to gather new insights? Fin.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2018, 02:03:24 PM
I found no mention of NY 17 being built as part of some interstate plan in casual newspaper searches - other than it being an upgrade of existing NY 17 through the Catskills. As far as design speed, interstates during the NMSL era were not designed to 55 or 60 MPH - there are quite a few highways built during this era that had design speeds of 70 MPH or greater.

The Southern Tier Expressway, that being NY-17 west of I-81 and connecting to I-90 near Erie PA, got most its funding from being ADHS Corridor T which was authorized in 1964.

https://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/ADHSMap9-30-2017.pdf

It's funny how the Eastern section is called the "Quickway," when it's anything but.

Because former NY 17 through there was a 2-lane death trap with several hairpin curves. See this one near Hancock (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9560687,-75.241394,1629m/data=!3m1!1e3) and this one near Wurtsboro (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5730564,-74.4704381,1639m/data=!3m1!1e3).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on February 26, 2018, 02:05:59 PM
I've found upstate New York to be pretty good with surface road speed limits. Consistently 55 in places where Massachusetts would sign it at 35-40. My experience is from NY 206 and NY 79 from I-88 to Ithaca, but I also remember someone saying the speed limit changes dramatically on NY/MA 23 crossing the state border.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2018, 02:10:21 PM
I've found upstate New York to be pretty good with surface road speed limits. Consistently 55 in places where Massachusetts would sign it at 35-40. My experience is from NY 206 and NY 79 from I-88 to Ithaca, but I also remember someone saying the speed limit changes dramatically on NY/MA 23 crossing the state border.

It does. 55 in NY to 30 in MA. Not the only place a 15+ MPH jump happens at the eastern border, either. NY/MA 2 is 55/40, as is MA 295. The only places NY and MA speed limits match are NY/MA 43 (both 55) and I-90 (both 65).

What I did was compare what other states do to New York and voiced my displeasure. So who cares about what you believe? That would run against the purpose of a forum - to exchange new ideas, to voice opinions, and to gather new insights? Fin.

No, I'm stating facts and you're beating a dead horse.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 02:56:20 PM
It's funny how the Eastern section is called the "Quickway," when it's anything but.
The Quickway probably was considered quick before I-84 and I-81 were around.  It also provides access from NYC to the Catskills.

It does. 55 in NY to 30 in MA. Not the only place a 15+ MPH jump happens at the eastern border, either. NY/MA 2 is 55/40, as is MA 295. The only places NY and MA speed limits match are NY/MA 43 (both 55) and I-90 (both 65).
What's amazing is just how much the speed limits do match on the NY/VT border.  US 2 matches (though largely due to how short it is in NY... no point in posting 55 if you're just going to slow to 50 immediately afterwards), as does US 4 (because the VT side is limited access), NY 185/VT 17 (because of the historic stuff and a hamlet, both sides post it 30), and VT 279 (due to the Bennington Bypass).  I'd count NY 149, too - while the speed limit does change (30 to 40 entering VT), such is actually due to leaving the Village of Granville, and the change would still happen regardless of whether the state border happened to be there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2018, 03:12:35 PM
And even where NY and VT don't match, it's rarely more than a 5 MPH difference. I think VT 31/Washington CR 25 is the only jump of 10+ that doesn't involve a settlement (but you could argue that the NY side is overposted, as it drops to 30 a mile into New York).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 26, 2018, 03:48:22 PM
Massachusetts regulatory speed limits generally leave a lot to be desired. Whereas advisory signs would suffice, there was a road I was on that jumped around so many times that even Waze wasn't able to keep up with. 50 MPH down to 35 MPH? And 15 MPH around a curve? And then to 50 MPH only to drop to 30 MPH? And all without any of the required "Speed Limit XX Ahead" (and related) signs - so those abrupt drops in speed were instantaneous and sometimes enforced.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2018, 03:52:24 PM
Massachusetts regulatory speed limits generally leave a lot to be desired. Whereas advisory signs would suffice, there was a road I was on that jumped around so many times that even Waze wasn't able to keep up with. 50 MPH down to 35 MPH? And 15 MPH around a curve? And then to 50 MPH only to drop to 30 MPH? And all without any of the required "Speed Limit XX Ahead" (and related) signs - so those abrupt drops in speed were instantaneous and sometimes enforced.

The enforcement is precisely why it jumps around so much. Someone on here mentioned that they started doing that because somebody fought a ticket they got for exceeding the advisory speed but not the speed limit. So now the state just doesn't do advisory speeds, allowing them to ticket for exceeding what would otherwise be an advisory speed.. Is it annoying? It sure as hell is! MA 2 between the NY line and I-91 has a new speed limit almost every mile. And some of those drops are over 15 MPH with no warning.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 26, 2018, 07:02:00 PM
New York generally won't sign an advisory speed below 60 MPH on a 65 MPH road outside of an interchange. They won't. Suggesting otherwise strays into fictional territory.

What I did was compare what other states do to New York and voiced my displeasure. So who cares about what you believe? That would run against the purpose of a forum - to exchange new ideas, to voice opinions, and to gather new insights? Fin.
Who cares what you believe? Oh, wait, that's insulting. Do not insult other users.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 27, 2018, 12:30:23 AM
What is the purpose of this tunnel entrance along the south side of I-95 at Exit 2 under Amsterdam Avenue and West 178 Street?

(https://i.imgur.com/JRpGk33.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/hGIQ7hb.png)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on February 27, 2018, 12:45:10 AM
Steve Anderson has the details:

http://www.nycroads.com/roads/trans-manhattan/

Apparently the two tunnels (there is another at 179th St.) were built as bridge accesses prior to construction of the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: BamaZeus on February 27, 2018, 11:21:29 AM
I believe the tunnels in question are on this old video from the 40's of a GWB crossing.  It starts about the 1:38 mark going westbound toward NJ.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 27, 2018, 11:27:38 AM
Now that's pretty awesome. I passed by them last week - now it makes me wonder how accessible they are :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on February 27, 2018, 11:33:29 AM
I believe the tunnels in question are on this old video from the 40's of a GWB crossing.  It starts about the 1:38 mark going westbound toward NJ.


Great video! Too bad there wasn't a complete ride that didn't have a break into the tunnel part, but neat to see. Also crazy to see two-way tolling on the Bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on February 27, 2018, 11:47:47 AM
Steve Anderson's site says the Port Authority uses the tunnels as storage depots.  They are not suitable for use by traffic since the ventilation stacks have been removed.  The BAN MIS (executive summary still online; full study never placed online because few agencies were doing that back in 2004) mentioned the possibility of repurposing them to provide added capacity along the TME.  I am not sure how recently Anderson's site has been updated, but in the last decade the AHB has undergone major rehabilitation without the tunnels being pressed back into service, so I suspect those ideas have died.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 27, 2018, 11:49:32 AM
I'm not convinced Anderson's site has been updated in 15 years. A lot of that info is OLD.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 27, 2018, 12:28:24 PM
I believe the tunnels in question are on this old video from the 40's of a GWB crossing.  It starts about the 1:38 mark going westbound toward NJ.


And here's the topo map from that period, showing the same configuration. Note that it's only the 178th Street tunnel that's in use; it carries two-way traffic to and from the Harlem River Drive.

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/img4/ht_icons/Browse/NY/NY_Central%20Park_122894_1947_24000.jpg
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 27, 2018, 03:22:39 PM
I'm not convinced Anderson's site has been updated in 15 years. A lot of that info is OLD.
I'd say 10 years, but it's still a shame either way.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 27, 2018, 11:45:07 PM
Massachusetts regulatory speed limits generally leave a lot to be desired. Whereas advisory signs would suffice, there was a road I was on that jumped around so many times that even Waze wasn't able to keep up with. 50 MPH down to 35 MPH? And 15 MPH around a curve? And then to 50 MPH only to drop to 30 MPH? And all without any of the required "Speed Limit XX Ahead" (and related) signs - so those abrupt drops in speed were instantaneous and sometimes enforced.
They must be set that way so they can enforce them under actual speeding statues versus the basic speed law.  MA also has weird laws concerning authority to set speed limits.  In some cases local municipalities can set their own speed limits on SRs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 05, 2018, 10:11:54 PM
I said "generally only accessible by automobile." Unless you live near the LIRR (which has a bus connection to Jones and Long - and I think another?), it's an extensive venture just to get down there.

While Moses didn't -create- the slums, he helped turn what were working class neighborhoods and ghettos (minority heavy area) into derelict districts.
Again, I cite Throgs Neck, which also had the Cross Bronx built through it, and remained a working class neighborhood.

New topic; Does this map deceive me, or was there once an NY 276 along County Line Road between NY 27 and Merrick Road decades ago?

http://www.nycroads.com/history/1941_metro-6/

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on March 06, 2018, 12:27:30 PM
Carmans Mill Road. This is known, but for Wikipedia purposes, we're still working out the details.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on March 06, 2018, 08:21:25 PM
Might be 27A, not 276. Maybe it's a typo on that map?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SectorZ on March 06, 2018, 08:34:02 PM
Might be 27A, not 276. Maybe it's a typo on that map?

I think the map definitely says 276, especially since all the alphanumeric route numbers have the letter stacked under the number. Don't have any idea if it's correct, but my eyes see the same thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on March 06, 2018, 08:38:17 PM
I saw it too, but I think it's a mistake or a typo.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 06, 2018, 08:42:51 PM
I saw it too, but I think it's a mistake or a typo.

Not necessarily a typo. On multiple maps.

Carmans Mill Road. This is known, but for Wikipedia purposes, we're still working out the details.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 09, 2018, 04:39:29 PM
Why, with AADT of 15k, is Alternative 2 a good idea here?

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/bncore/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Route-20-options-e1485977262553.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 09, 2018, 05:47:18 PM
They've already settled on a diet, IINM. It's happening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 09, 2018, 06:51:38 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy
Why, with AADT of 15k, is Alternative 2 a good idea here?

Because, depending on side street/driveway frequency, you can have adequate operations for a 3-lane urban section up to a traffic level of around 20K vpd.  And that stretch of Route 20 does not have a whole lot of such frequency.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on March 09, 2018, 07:18:47 PM
Massachusetts regulatory speed limits generally leave a lot to be desired. Whereas advisory signs would suffice, there was a road I was on that jumped around so many times that even Waze wasn't able to keep up with. 50 MPH down to 35 MPH? And 15 MPH around a curve? And then to 50 MPH only to drop to 30 MPH? And all without any of the required "Speed Limit XX Ahead" (and related) signs - so those abrupt drops in speed were instantaneous and sometimes enforced.
They must be set that way so they can enforce them under actual speeding statues versus the basic speed law.  MA also has weird laws concerning authority to set speed limits.  In some cases local municipalities can set their own speed limits on SRs.

It has largely to do with the Massachusetts system of what I call "musical jurisdiction."  In short, a state (or US) number on a secondary roadway in Massachusetts does not automatically mean it's under state jurisdiction.  Many secondary numbered routes, even in isolated rural areas, are under local jurisdiction, and not MassDOT.   

In general, a posted regulatory speed limit, regardless of the jurisdiction of the road, must be reviewed by MassDOT and approved by both MassDOT and the Registry of Motor Vehicles - it's known as a special speed regulation (SSR).  The principal exception to this, which was recently enacted into law by the Legislature, is that a city or town can establish a city or town wide prima facie speed limit of 25 mph that applies to all local road within their jurisdiction that are not otherwise posted under a SSR.  As a condition of posting a blanket speed limit under this law, the city or town must install signs at the borders informing drivers of this blanket speed limit.  No MassDOT approval is required to adopt this regulation, however, MassDOT must be informed by the city or town that the regulation is in place.

A good summary of current Massachusetts speed regulations and speed zoning practices can be found at:

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/TrafficandSafetyEngineering/SpeedLimits/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx





Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on March 09, 2018, 09:04:13 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy
Why, with AADT of 15k, is Alternative 2 a good idea here?
Because, depending on side street/driveway frequency, you can have adequate operations for a 3-lane urban section up to a traffic level of around 20K vpd.  And that stretch of Route 20 does not have a whole lot of such frequency.

Where is it, is it a local arterial?  If it is and it has a low large truck percentage, then that could be an appropriate design.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on March 11, 2018, 10:00:53 AM
Might be 27A, not 276. Maybe it's a typo on that map?

I think the map definitely says 276, especially since all the alphanumeric route numbers have the letter stacked under the number. Don't have any idea if it's correct, but my eyes see the same thing.

My understanding is that it was the designation of Carman Mill Road back when NY 27A used to extend down Merrick Road to Rockville Centre (and even earlier into Queens and Brooklyn to the Williamsburg Bridge!).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on March 11, 2018, 08:17:32 PM
I drove that stretch of Carman Mill Rd. recently. It does look like an old New York State road. Three narrow concrete lanes the way NYS used to build them. NY-102 (Front St.) in East Meadow looked like that too back in the 1950's and 60's.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 14, 2018, 08:26:39 AM
Carmans Mill Road. This is known, but for Wikipedia purposes, we're still working out the details.
Yeah, I expected that. But the map made it look like County Line and Carmans Mill share the same intersection (and we all know that's not true).

I drove that stretch of Carman Mill Rd. recently. It does look like an old New York State road. Three narrow concrete lanes the way NYS used to build them. NY-102 (Front St.) in East Meadow looked like that too back in the 1950's and 60's.
The last time I was there, Montauk Highway still had that from East Patchogue to Brookhaven.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: jasonsk287 on March 17, 2018, 09:05:34 PM
Carmans Mill Road. This is known, but for Wikipedia purposes, we're still working out the details.
Yeah, I expected that. But the map made it look like County Line and Carmans Mill share the same intersection (and we all know that's not true).

I drove that stretch of Carman Mill Rd. recently. It does look like an old New York State road. Three narrow concrete lanes the way NYS used to build them. NY-102 (Front St.) in East Meadow looked like that too back in the 1950's and 60's.
The last time I was there, Montauk Highway still had that from East Patchogue to Brookhaven.




I live nearby and yes, though Montauk Highway is a county road, it is still concrete from East Patchogue to Brookhaven.

I remember NY-112 in the Medford area being original concrete for many years- it was only recently paved over!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 19, 2018, 12:03:03 PM
Here’s something interesting I noticed yesterday and have confirmed through GMSV. Every bridge on the thruway between Buffalo and Syracuse is wide enough for six lanes. Starting in Buffalo and heading east:
S Cayuga Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9519646,-78.7450253,3a,75y,114.26h,81.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1X7zcUCVCIH1H7Bs9nIPPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Aero Dr (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9511434,-78.7375377,3a,75y,102.65h,82.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUd6q6Cz84PgiW7qL_BgQGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DUd6q6Cz84PgiW7qL_BgQGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D332.8943%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)/Ellicott Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9506826,-78.7326794,3a,75y,108.38h,71.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssT88g1V2lG6b-_EWcHYoYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 78 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.949791,-78.6971936,3a,75y,112.18h,89.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEdUYGPifsRYH5-y8b1Z08A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Harris Hill Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9477112,-78.6774664,3a,75y,78.4h,83.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1k8X-fkBODi4x07FJXxzkA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 5 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9948235,-78.4275228,3a,89.9y,62.56h,78.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1styxoQEO3SncDMzXqXGcW7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Exit 48A (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0032728,-78.4128614,3a,75y,50.91h,89.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSy8Sp-4SVOkNWK5o21vwPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Tonawanda Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0128043,-78.3240679,3a,75y,86.98h,86.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNfrfZIvut8U8sibQOrxuOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Black Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0180387,-78.0812395,3a,75y,66.15h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGRFxA6JDFQ-_JZd1ZaEKfQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 383 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0434347,-77.7294554,3a,75y,119.97h,74.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTkh68U0L1sAQEE6kQAtHlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Genesee River (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0430948,-77.7272485,3a,75y,121.35h,73.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfUd7RDjbB_TfDkReugDwzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Unnamed Railroad, Henrietta (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0445472,-77.6809998,3a,75y,88.85h,75.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL324L48bPqGvKlIkT4wgng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Mendon Center Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0400716,-77.5421159,3a,75y,136h,75.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbfBSghU17ELgAmujFJ1oTQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 96 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0109491,-77.4445975,3a,75y,125.42h,73.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0zXAPhM6ls9nm3QXf4P83A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/(current six lane segment includes four bridges)/Flint Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9772674,-77.2159563,3a,75y,85.09h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss3qa5W6TcLtinAR0Vk6Akw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Rocky Run (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9729879,-77.1584039,3a,75y,91.07h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYFrnfKxUD4ROAzig-V4o4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 88 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9698551,-77.0762629,3a,75y,102.53h,79.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRJp_r4x0nr2EVijFBA42qg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Flint Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9685456,-77.0610704,3a,75y,115.54h,76.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saONGYL-f-D8kTmNuGwaV3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Ontario County 6 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9553185,-77.012898,3a,75y,96.96h,81.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syxalSpcqaLBJ3l5Y5iFiqg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Flint Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9548747,-76.9907624,3a,75y,76.25h,71.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1schOww2pFcIVmMx-koLwDYA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DchOww2pFcIVmMx-koLwDYA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D350.04123%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)/Exit 42 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9547974,-76.9823432,3a,75y,76.25h,71.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snUr89ty5yNJToNQwBw3hbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 14 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9547489,-76.9776286,3a,75y,118.75h,79.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLTUNX589rZWN7KUvwxMEiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Seneca River (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9974632,-76.7318147,3a,75y,103.4h,89.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smnlBKCTKP3MkVYDPCfMB6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Cayuga Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0407975,-76.6284184,3a,75y,46h,93.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFGEg86NZW_dX_UgRZu01pQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Unnamed Railroad, Port Byron (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0497803,-76.6127167,3a,75y,75.57h,67.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd76pNeoOLNgOHYKd08eNsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from all this is that it is in the long-term plans to widen the thruway. Since bridge widening would be a significant portion of the cost, this should simplify and hopefully expedite a potential large-scale widening (which I personally am an advocate of)!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on March 19, 2018, 12:56:31 PM
Here’s something interesting I noticed yesterday and have confirmed through GMSV. Every bridge on the thruway between Buffalo and Syracuse is wide enough for six lanes. Starting in Buffalo and heading east:
S Cayuga Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9519646,-78.7450253,3a,75y,114.26h,81.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1X7zcUCVCIH1H7Bs9nIPPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Aero Dr (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9511434,-78.7375377,3a,75y,102.65h,82.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUd6q6Cz84PgiW7qL_BgQGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DUd6q6Cz84PgiW7qL_BgQGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D332.8943%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)/Ellicott Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9506826,-78.7326794,3a,75y,108.38h,71.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssT88g1V2lG6b-_EWcHYoYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 78 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.949791,-78.6971936,3a,75y,112.18h,89.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEdUYGPifsRYH5-y8b1Z08A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Harris Hill Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9477112,-78.6774664,3a,75y,78.4h,83.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1k8X-fkBODi4x07FJXxzkA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 5 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9948235,-78.4275228,3a,89.9y,62.56h,78.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1styxoQEO3SncDMzXqXGcW7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Exit 48A (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0032728,-78.4128614,3a,75y,50.91h,89.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSy8Sp-4SVOkNWK5o21vwPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Tonawanda Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0128043,-78.3240679,3a,75y,86.98h,86.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNfrfZIvut8U8sibQOrxuOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Black Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0180387,-78.0812395,3a,75y,66.15h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGRFxA6JDFQ-_JZd1ZaEKfQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 383 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0434347,-77.7294554,3a,75y,119.97h,74.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTkh68U0L1sAQEE6kQAtHlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Genesee River (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0430948,-77.7272485,3a,75y,121.35h,73.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfUd7RDjbB_TfDkReugDwzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Unnamed Railroad, Henrietta (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0445472,-77.6809998,3a,75y,88.85h,75.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL324L48bPqGvKlIkT4wgng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Mendon Center Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0400716,-77.5421159,3a,75y,136h,75.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbfBSghU17ELgAmujFJ1oTQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 96 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0109491,-77.4445975,3a,75y,125.42h,73.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0zXAPhM6ls9nm3QXf4P83A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/(current six lane segment includes four bridges)/Flint Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9772674,-77.2159563,3a,75y,85.09h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss3qa5W6TcLtinAR0Vk6Akw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Rocky Run (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9729879,-77.1584039,3a,75y,91.07h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYFrnfKxUD4ROAzig-V4o4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 88 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9698551,-77.0762629,3a,75y,102.53h,79.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRJp_r4x0nr2EVijFBA42qg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Flint Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9685456,-77.0610704,3a,75y,115.54h,76.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saONGYL-f-D8kTmNuGwaV3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Ontario County 6 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9553185,-77.012898,3a,75y,96.96h,81.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syxalSpcqaLBJ3l5Y5iFiqg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Flint Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9548747,-76.9907624,3a,75y,76.25h,71.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1schOww2pFcIVmMx-koLwDYA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DchOww2pFcIVmMx-koLwDYA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D350.04123%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)/Exit 42 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9547974,-76.9823432,3a,75y,76.25h,71.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snUr89ty5yNJToNQwBw3hbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 14 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9547489,-76.9776286,3a,75y,118.75h,79.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLTUNX589rZWN7KUvwxMEiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Seneca River (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9974632,-76.7318147,3a,75y,103.4h,89.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smnlBKCTKP3MkVYDPCfMB6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Cayuga Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0407975,-76.6284184,3a,75y,46h,93.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFGEg86NZW_dX_UgRZu01pQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Unnamed Railroad, Port Byron (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0497803,-76.6127167,3a,75y,75.57h,67.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd76pNeoOLNgOHYKd08eNsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from all this is that it is in the long-term plans to widen the thruway. Since bridge widening would be a significant portion of the cost, this should simplify and hopefully expedite a potential large-scale widening (which I personally am an advocate of)!

Has it been widened yet all the way between NYC and Albany?  That would take priority given higher traffic volumes.

I have looked at the bridges between Buffalo and Rochester, and some looked old enough to be original construction, so that must have been foresight to build them with 3 lanes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 19, 2018, 01:12:01 PM
The traffic counts for I-87 south of Albany drop to 34k at the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge and increase to about 38k in the Catskills.  South of there, about 41k to at least I-84.  Rochester-Depew is 38-41k throughout.  Rochester-Geneva is 38-46k and Geneva-Syracuse is 33-35k.  This jumps during tourist season.

That said, I believe the Thruway was originally designed to accommodate the possibility of widening it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: signalman on March 19, 2018, 01:44:49 PM
Most of the problems that I've encountered south of Albany have been caused by left lane bandits.  I can't honestly say I've ever experienced delays due to volume on that section.  There is plenty of predatory speed enforcement by NY troopers though.  IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 19, 2018, 02:32:37 PM
Rochester-Geneva is 38-46k

Except for 490 to NY 332, which is 57k (and already six-laned).

Interestingly, the lowest AADT between Buffalo and Syracuse is between LeRoy and Henrietta. I would have though Henrietta to Victor would have much lower volumes (because westbound traffic originating from east of Rochester tends to get on at Henrietta, whereas eastbound traffic from the entire area gets on at Victor).

Quote
This jumps during tourist season.

I'd be interested to know by how much. Summer weekends, especially holidays, must be around a minimum of 50k from Syracuse to Buffalo.

IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.

While I agree, it's often hard to decide whether to blame high volumes overall or high volumes of left lane campers. The higher the volume, the easier it is to excuse left lane camping.

I tend to travel 10-15 mph over the posted limit, but I think on toll roads like the Thruway, you should be able to drive however fast you want, unrestricted by volume. This is one of my main arguments for six laning the Thruway (passing trucks are a large factor in this).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 19, 2018, 02:50:29 PM
The wide bridges may also just be there to allow for better MPT when maintenance is needed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 19, 2018, 02:55:39 PM
I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.

I've also had a different experience than signalman south of Albany....I have run into congestion several times, though these predominantly related to holidays or long weekends, and typically began around the Kingston exit when heading south.  Also in my experience, while state troopers are a regular presence along the Thruway, I haven't noticed them in any inordinate frequency compared to other states.  It's largely the volume that prevents heavy speeding.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 19, 2018, 03:16:57 PM
I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.

I've also had a different experience than signalman south of Albany....I have run into congestion several times, though these predominantly related to holidays or long weekends, and typically began around the Kingston exit when heading south.  Also in my experience, while state troopers are a regular presence along the Thruway, I haven't noticed them in any inordinate frequency compared to other states.  It's largely the volume that prevents heavy speeding.
Whatever it worth.. Different jurisdiction, but maybe same school of thinking?  Northway overpass near exit 4 was fully rebuilt few years ago. New bridges look to be designed for 4 lanes each, old ones were 3-lane  - I don't think old were wide enough for 2+2..
SPUI at exit 6 a bit down the road was also build just a few years ago, but looks like 4th lane is not really planned for. It may be shoehorned in, though... Maybe that is the actual plan?
Both locations get about same amount of traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on March 19, 2018, 04:44:41 PM
The traffic counts for I-87 south of Albany drop to 34k at the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge and increase to about 38k in the Catskills.  South of there, about 41k to at least I-84.  Rochester-Depew is 38-41k throughout.  Rochester-Geneva is 38-46k and Geneva-Syracuse is 33-35k.  This jumps during tourist season.

So fairly consistently in the 30s and some low 40s x1000 AADT on the rural sections.

That said, I believe the Thruway was originally designed to accommodate the possibility of widening it.

That is what it appeared, even in the 1950s some or maybe many bridges were built 3 lanes wide.  Surprising for back in those days as they probably wouldn't have forecast much more than 10,000 AADT for 20 years into the future.

They also were one of the pioneers for the rural freeway design with wide median and wide clear roadsides, at least in WNY I saw long sections with 100+ foot wide median and clear roadsides of 30+ feet.  Futuristic for the 1950s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 19, 2018, 07:48:20 PM
Whatever it worth.. Different jurisdiction, but maybe same school of thinking?  Northway overpass near exit 4 was fully rebuilt few years ago. New bridges look to be designed for 4 lanes each, old ones were 3-lane  - I don't think old were wide enough for 2+2..
SPUI at exit 6 a bit down the road was also build just a few years ago, but looks like 4th lane is not really planned for. It may be shoehorned in, though... Maybe that is the actual plan?
Both locations get about same amount of traffic.
It's worth noting that there is an another motivation behind the width of the exit 4 bridges: the need to maintain three continuous lanes each way on all work days throughout the entire construction period.

Interestingly, the lowest AADT between Buffalo and Syracuse is between LeRoy and Henrietta. I would have though Henrietta to Victor would have much lower volumes (because westbound traffic originating from east of Rochester tends to get on at Henrietta, whereas eastbound traffic from the entire area gets on at Victor).
Suburb-suburb commutes between Victor and Henrietta?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 19, 2018, 09:01:14 PM
Quote from: froggie
I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.

I hadn't considered that, but I'm sure that's a factor as well. Most of the bridges have been their current width for decades, so my finding, of course, isn't indicative of an impending widening by any means.

It does, however, mean that a widening would be much more convenient and less expensive than it would be otherwise, so I'm still hoping it gives a foothold of sorts to the prospect.

Quote from: vdeane
Quote from: webny99
Interestingly, the lowest AADT between Buffalo and Syracuse is between LeRoy and Henrietta. I would have though Henrietta to Victor would have much lower volumes (because westbound traffic originating from east of Rochester tends to get on at Henrietta, whereas eastbound traffic from the entire area gets on at Victor).
Suburb-suburb commutes between Victor and Henrietta?

Another possibility I hadn't considered, probably because I personally had never even used that stretch in my life until about two years ago. It doesn't "feel" like a commuter corridor, but I'm sure there are some commuters. Even Farmington/Canandaigua to Henrietta would be practical as a commute - and probably even preferred to commuting downtown.

Also, now that I think of it, northbound I-390 would contibute net volume to the eastbound thruway (since anyone heading west would use NY63 or US20A to cut the corner). All in all, I guess it was a bit foolish to think that volumes should increase heading towards LeRoy  :-P
Title: New York
Post by: Sam on March 19, 2018, 09:07:47 PM
Interestingly, the lowest AADT between Buffalo and Syracuse is between LeRoy and Henrietta. I would have though Henrietta to Victor would have much lower volumes (because westbound traffic originating from east of Rochester tends to get on at Henrietta, whereas eastbound traffic from the entire area gets on at Victor).
Suburb-suburb commutes between Victor and Henrietta?
I-490 isn’t always the shortest or fastest way to get where you’re going. If you’re coming from east of Victor, I-390 is a better route to Henrietta shopping, U of R/Strong Hospital, the airport, or really almost anywhere on the west side.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 20, 2018, 01:28:18 AM
I wonder if 8 lanes between Rochester and Buffalo would be a stretch in the future.

In any event, a 6 lane expansion shouldn't cost most that $100-200m, if that, right?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on March 20, 2018, 04:30:55 AM
I don’t think it’s just Buffalo to Syracuse. I haven’t looked at every bridge, but from what I can see, it’s the entire Mainline from Pennsylvania to at least Albany, and presumably down the Hudson. This includes the bridges over the Exit 29A ramps (Little Falls), which were originally built in the early 1970s. However, the Berkshire Section does not have extra-wide bridges. And I remember noticing the extra width when I rode on the Thruway in the late ’60s and early ’70s, so it’s not something added in the last 45 or 50 years.

I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.

But also notice that the original overpasses have piers that are located to allow for a third lane (using 1950s design standards; piers right up against the shoulder). This suggests that the original design was future-proofed for a third lane.

Parts of the Southern Tier Expressway (I-86) have a lesser provision for a third lane on the bridges. The steel and the bridge deck aren’t there, but the abutments have an extra “pocket”  ready to accept another girder. Example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3566631,-77.3479966,3a,75y,59.16h,86.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYXLhCbfAjJ62yThCDDHSOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)  This is found in Steuben County between I-390 and Campbell (the section east of Campbell is older); and I remember seeing it east of Elmira, but I don’t remember exactly where.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on March 20, 2018, 07:19:20 AM
I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.

On a turnpike built back in the 1950s?  I don't think anyone planned on when bridge rehabs would be needed, if they thought about it they might have thought 30 years or more into the future, and would not have made bridges wider than what was needed for at least 20 years, and back then that would have been an AADT of maybe 10,000, not remotely near 6-lane warrants.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 20, 2018, 08:49:30 AM
I'd bet the bridges were widened since the 1950s.

I am with froggie on this one.  As I also said above, wide bridges aren't an indication of planning for extra lanes (indeed, volumes were much lower back then, so that kind of added expense would not have been warranted based on that argument).  Rather, it is about enabling maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT) during construction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 20, 2018, 08:56:41 AM
I wonder if 8 lanes between Rochester and Buffalo would be a stretch in the future.
We make do with four now, so I'm going to go with yes, it would be a bit of a stretch  :-D
There really aren't very many long-distance interstates of more than six lanes total - the NJ turnpike being the most prominent example, and that is way busier than Rochester to Buffalo will ever be.

Quote
In any event, a 6 lane expansion shouldn't cost most that $100-200m, if that, right?
Well, that's the underlying point I was making; that a widening to six lanes really would not be that much of an expense. Given the obvious forethought of the original planners/designers, I'm a bit surprised a widening hasn't happened already (at least on the busier sections - certainly including Rochester to Buffalo).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 20, 2018, 08:56:57 AM
I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.
But also notice that the original overpasses have piers that are located to allow for a third lane (using 1950s design standards; piers right up against the shoulder). This suggests that the original design was future-proofed for a third lane.
When I was checking all the bridges, I made another relevant find: there are six or seven bridges like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0295302,-77.8601405,3a,75y,5.98h,85.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shqpGz8XwixPsRWCjF5tTQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), where there's a single bridge despite an unpaved median (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0297053,-77.8604326,3a,75y,112.65h,80.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAa6s_a-XV5JjcZvT0o6r2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). This supports the theory that future widening was considered when the thruway was being built.

Wide bridges aren't an indication of planning for extra lanes (indeed, volumes were much lower back then, so that kind of added expense would not have been warranted based on that argument).
How do you explain the above, then?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 20, 2018, 10:30:44 AM
I wonder if 8 lanes between Rochester and Buffalo would be a stretch in the future.
We make do with four now, so I'm going to go with yes, it would be a bit of a stretch  :-D
There really aren't very many long-distance interstates of more than six lanes total - the NJ turnpike being the most prominent example, and that is way busier than Rochester to Buffalo will ever be.

Quote
In any event, a 6 lane expansion shouldn't cost most that $100-200m, if that, right?
Well, that's the underlying point I was making; that a widening to six lanes really would not be that much of an expense. Given the obvious forethought of the original planners/designers, I'm a bit surprised a widening hasn't happened already (at least on the busier sections - certainly including Rochester to Buffalo).

I-40 between Greensboro and Raleigh is 8 lanes. That runs through arguably the middle of nowhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on March 20, 2018, 10:54:52 AM
I seem to recall from a handout from the state fair that part of the design, and its wide "central mall" was both a safety feature, and allowed for future expansion. I don't recall the bridges being mentioned.

This would have been a late-80s, early-90s handout, and I believe was trying to build support for the "final" toll increase before 1996. I was to find it online, but all that came back were people selling original handouts on Ebay; or handouts for the Thurway hotel in Albany.

What about the arch bridges like the Mendon Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/vji9mizSRkN2) overpass? Street view has this looking better than I recall it, so it is possible it is newer, but I don't think the real-estate is there for an easy three-lanes under each arch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 20, 2018, 01:33:43 PM
A few of these Thruway "bridges" look like they're actually culverts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 20, 2018, 01:53:03 PM
A few of these Thruway "bridges" look like they're actually culverts.

I'd say the majority of small streams use culverts. I didn't link to any for that reason.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 20, 2018, 02:09:52 PM
Everything I have seen, including NYSTA annual reports from very early on, indicates that the entire Thruway was planned for expansion to 6 lanes. Four sections were actually widened (23-24, 24-25A, 44-45, 53-55), while I think that south of Harriman was always 6 lanes (though that may have been an early widening), as was 50-53. In fact, some of these reports actually gave a reason for why the Berkshire Spur was NOT built for 6 lanes (I-90 was to use the US 20 corridor from Schodack Center to Lee).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 20, 2018, 02:14:29 PM
I hate double-posting, but in other unrelated news, the closed Schodack rest area is being reopened as a parking area/"truck inspection station" (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=20605&p_is_digital=Y).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 20, 2018, 02:37:55 PM
I hate double-posting, but in other unrelated news, the closed Schodack rest area is being reopened as a parking area/"truck inspection station" (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=20605&p_is_digital=Y).
Last year there was a beautiful sign "Building The Future! Governor Cuomo blah-blah". Last week that was a virgin snow field with the old building gone..
Now I know how the future looks like - it means no more restrooms but more oversight...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on March 20, 2018, 05:20:50 PM
What about the arch bridges like the Mendon Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/vji9mizSRkN2) overpass? Street view has this looking better than I recall it, so it is possible it is newer, but I don't think the real-estate is there for an easy three-lanes under each arch.

The peak of the arch looks like it’s over the current left lane, so I think it’s designed for for a third lane. Remember, we’re talking about 1950s design standards, so there wouldn’t be provision for a full-width left shoulder, and the pier would be closer to the shoulder than in a modern design.

As for its condition, I think I remember the concrete got a complete refinishing (maybe in the late ’80s or early ’90s?), but the basic structure is definitely original – it’s on the FHWA list of historic Interstate Highway bridges (https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/historic_pres/highways_list.aspx).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on March 20, 2018, 05:28:39 PM
I'd bet the bridges were widened since the 1950s.
I am with froggie on this one.  As I also said above, wide bridges aren't an indication of planning for extra lanes (indeed, volumes were much lower back then, so that kind of added expense would not have been warranted based on that argument).  Rather, it is about enabling maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT) during construction.

How long have you been observing highway planning and construction?  Mine was back to 1970, and I can assure that none of the engineers and planners were thinking about future bridge rehabs on new Interstate highways, or if any thought was that would be waaaaaaaaayy off in the future (as in decades) and not something they would build an extra lane for today.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 20, 2018, 05:37:22 PM
What about the arch bridges like the Mendon Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/vji9mizSRkN2) overpass? Street view has this looking better than I recall it, so it is possible it is newer, but I don't think the real-estate is there for an easy three-lanes under each arch.

The peak of the arch looks like it’s over the left current lane, so I think it’s designed for for a third lane. Remember, we’re talking about 1950s design standards, so there wouldn’t be provision for a full-width left shoulder, and the pier would be closer to the shoulder than in a modern design.

As for its condition, I think I remember the concrete got a complete refinishing (maybe in the late ’80s or early ’90s?), but the basic structure is definitely original – it’s on the FHWA list of historic Interstate Highway bridges (https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/historic_pres/highways_list.aspx).
Bridges in that area were some of the first, if not the first, constructed for the Thruway. Much of 44-46 was constructed initially as a NY 96 Victor bypass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 20, 2018, 10:55:41 PM
I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.
But also notice that the original overpasses have piers that are located to allow for a third lane (using 1950s design standards; piers right up against the shoulder). This suggests that the original design was future-proofed for a third lane.
When I was checking all the bridges, I made another relevant find: there are six or seven bridges like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0295302,-77.8601405,3a,75y,5.98h,85.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shqpGz8XwixPsRWCjF5tTQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), where there's a single bridge despite an unpaved median (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0297053,-77.8604326,3a,75y,112.65h,80.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAa6s_a-XV5JjcZvT0o6r2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). This supports the theory that future widening was considered when the thruway was being built.

Wide bridges aren't an indication of planning for extra lanes (indeed, volumes were much lower back then, so that kind of added expense would not have been warranted based on that argument).
How do you explain the above, then?
Links don't show what you are describing and I don't see how any form of wider bridge is some sort of omen that the entire Thruway is to be widened in the near future.

Building wider bridges for MPT was actually a policy and had little to do with adding lanes altogether.

ETA:  Tell you what:  Let's wait and see how long it is before your predicted widening is installed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 21, 2018, 10:17:24 AM
The NY 64 bridge seems ahead of its time. I feel like this is a common bridge style around the country, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 21, 2018, 12:54:09 PM
The NY 64 one actually looks like a culvert now that I think about it.  Note that there's grass on top.

I do recall reading that the Thruway built things to make widening easier (learning and applying the lessons from the PTC's restricted ROW).  Of course, that doesn't say anything about an imminent widening in the present, which I don't expect to happen.  Even it it did, I'd think it would cost quite a bit more than the estimates here.  Keep in mind the Thruway doesn't just slap some asphalt down next to the existing lanes - the usually do a full-depth reconstruction when they widen.  I'd think they would have added an extra lane to 39-40 when they rebuilt that section if there were any plans to widen west of Syracuse.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on March 21, 2018, 01:38:55 PM
When infrastructure is designed for future widening in mind, the construction plans often show the outlines of the proposed future widened facility.  Do the original construction plans for the Thruway include such tracings?  (The experience with recently completed rural freeways in Kansas that were initially staged in the 1970's as roadgeek Super Twos--two-lane highways with comprehensive grade separation--is that the infrastructure added later to achieve full build-out often does not fit neatly into the footprint reserved for it, often owing to changed design standards.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 21, 2018, 01:47:02 PM
The NY 64 one actually looks like a culvert now that I think about it.  Note that there's grass on top.

I do recall reading that the Thruway built things to make widening easier (learning and applying the lessons from the PTC's restricted ROW).  Of course, that doesn't say anything about an imminent widening in the present, which I don't expect to happen.  Even it it did, I'd think it would cost quite a bit more than the estimates here.  Keep in mind the Thruway doesn't just slap some asphalt down next to the existing lanes - the usually do a full-depth reconstruction when they widen.  I'd think they would have added an extra lane to 39-40 when they rebuilt that section if there were any plans to widen west of Syracuse.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't  widening between exits 23 and 24 include some creative shoehorning of lanes under the overpasses too narrow for that?..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on March 21, 2018, 01:51:18 PM
When infrastructure is designed for future widening in mind, the construction plans often show the outlines of the proposed future widened facility.  Do the original construction plans for the Thruway include such tracings?  (The experience with recently completed rural freeways in Kansas that were initially staged in the 1970's as roadgeek Super Twos--two-lane highways with comprehensive grade separation--is that the infrastructure added later to achieve full build-out often does not fit neatly into the footprint reserved for it, often owing to changed design standards.)

I don't want to sound contrary, but I find it hard to believe that anyone in 1950 (the approximate design approval date) ever envisioned a future need for a 6-lane Thruway, other than maybe for about 40 miles north of NYC.  Keep in mind the concept of even a 4-lane rural long distance freeway was still in question as to whether it would ever carry enough traffic to justify even that design. 

A 4-lane freeway was a massive capacity improvement over the pre-existing 2-lane rural nonlimited-access highways that routed traffic thru towns and cities.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 21, 2018, 01:53:45 PM
The NY 64 one actually looks like a culvert now that I think about it.  Note that there's grass on top.

I do recall reading that the Thruway built things to make widening easier (learning and applying the lessons from the PTC's restricted ROW).  Of course, that doesn't say anything about an imminent widening in the present, which I don't expect to happen.  Even it it did, I'd think it would cost quite a bit more than the estimates here.  Keep in mind the Thruway doesn't just slap some asphalt down next to the existing lanes - the usually do a full-depth reconstruction when they widen.  I'd think they would have added an extra lane to 39-40 when they rebuilt that section if there were any plans to widen west of Syracuse.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't  widening between exits 23 and 24 include some creative shoehorning of lanes under the overpasses too narrow for that?..

Yes, because none of the original bridges were designed to include shoulders. Standards were changed in the 60s-70s to require continuous shoulders across bridges and, because of that, you need an extra 40 feet for a 6-lane roadway (10' inside and outside shoulders).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on March 21, 2018, 02:54:18 PM
I don't want to sound contrary, but I find it hard to believe that anyone in 1950 (the approximate design approval date) ever envisioned a future need for a 6-lane Thruway, other than maybe for about 40 miles north of NYC.

I don't think it is implausible.  The spread in annual traffic estimates for the original length of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, prior to opening in 1940, was 260,000 to 1.3 million.  In the first few days it was open, about 27,000 vehicles used it per day, and annualized that is 8.1 million, or 6.2 times the high-end estimate.  Obviously the novelty effect tailed off, but actual usage in the first years was about 2.4 million a year, almost double the high-end estimate.

On the basis of this experience, it is not implausible that the Thruway Authority would have made provision for widening from four to six lanes, as an inexpensive hedge against traffic being significantly higher than projected.  Unlike the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the Thruway is a very easy crossing of the Appalachians and as such would have been very attractive to long-distance trucks, which count much more heavily against capacity than passenger cars.

If it turns out that the Thruway as-builts show the footprint of a six-lane facility, that will be a fairly definitive answer.  I don't know if they actually do or not.  My purpose in making the last post was really to plant the idea that it would be nice if the as-builts were available through an online repository of some kind.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on March 21, 2018, 03:30:10 PM
While looking up as to if the Thruway was designed for six lanes, I came across this gem from the Ithaca Journal, 21 Jul. 1952, page 7:

"Access will be possible through an estimated 52 interchanges. Most of these will be cornet or trumpet-shaped approaches through which all traffic will funnel like customers at a supermarket. A half-dozen, though, built in a day when the Thurway was supposed to be a free-way, are "clover-leaves." These take more toll-takers. They're like super-markets with four doors.

What portions were designed when the Thruway was to be free?

- NY 96 near Victor west to Rochester?

"There will be six lanes from New York to Suffern; four (with two extra hard-surface lanes for parking) from Suffern west.)"

--

And the answer, from the Elmira Advertiser, 27 Jan. 1951, page 12:

"Although parts of the superhighway will be made only four lanes at first, he said, the base is being constructed six lanes for its entire route from New York City to Buffalo and western points so that it can be increased to six lanes if the need develops later."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on March 21, 2018, 03:39:06 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/HSinPxr.png)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 21, 2018, 04:38:53 PM
The Victor bypass and Albany bypass were originally planned with cloverleafs. Only the Victor bypass was actually built before the decision to toll everything was made and Exit 45 was indeed a partial cloverleaf at first (ghost ramps remain). I'll be damned if I can find it again, but I did see a plan for the Albany area that showed a cloverleaf at Exit 25, with the SW leg tying into NY 146 and/or US 20.

I don't know if those articles included the interchanges south of Spring Valley, as Bronx-Spring Valley was always a barrier system with tolls at Yonkers and Tappan Zee. I think Buffalo was always planned to be free as well minus the barrier tolls on I-190.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on March 21, 2018, 06:31:10 PM
I don't want to sound contrary, but I find it hard to believe that anyone in 1950 (the approximate design approval date) ever envisioned a future need for a 6-lane Thruway, other than maybe for about 40 miles north of NYC.
I don't think it is implausible.  The spread in annual traffic estimates for the original length of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, prior to opening in 1940, was 260,000 to 1.3 million.  In the first few days it was open, about 27,000 vehicles used it per day, and annualized that is 8.1 million, or 6.2 times the high-end estimate.  Obviously the novelty effect tailed off, but actual usage in the first years was about 2.4 million a year, almost double the high-end estimate.

So actual usage in the first few years that is 6,575 AADT. 

VA I-64 over North Mountain is about 9,800 AADT today and that volume is an "almost empty" look on a rural freeway.

On the basis of this experience, it is not implausible that the Thruway Authority would have made provision for widening from four to six lanes, as an inexpensive hedge against traffic being significantly higher than projected.  Unlike the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the Thruway is a very easy crossing of the Appalachians and as such would have been very attractive to long-distance trucks, which count much more heavily against capacity than passenger cars.
If it turns out that the Thruway as-builts show the footprint of a six-lane facility, that will be a fairly definitive answer.  I don't know if they actually do or not.  My purpose in making the last post was really to plant the idea that it would be nice if the as-builts were available through an online repository of some kind.

The ultimate design plan sheets would show dashed lines at the edge of a future third lane, and the typical sections would show dashed lines outlining the third lane and extended cuts and fills.

Those as-builts should most definitely exist, if in paper form only, at the NYSTA central office.

Unless NYSTA was forecasting at least 30,000 AADT, I don't think they would have envisioned 400+ miles of 6-lane rural freeway.  And this was at a time when no legislation yet existed to fund and build the national segments of I-87 and I-90.

I can think of precious few original Interstates that were built with an extra lane across the bridges, actually the only one I am sure of is MD I-495 between MD-210 and MD-97, and it had the extra lane built later.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 21, 2018, 06:55:50 PM
It is interesting that seicer's map showed the Thruway going down into New Jersey apparently following Route 17 and then probably heading towards the GWB.  How nice it would be to have that direct connexion between the Thruway and the NJ Turnpike now.  Who would have been responsible for this change?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beeper1 on March 21, 2018, 07:25:35 PM
When the Mass Turnpike opened in 1957, it was 6 lanes from Route 128 west to Framingham (Exit 12) and 4 lanes the rest of the way.  But, the roadway grade and all the bridges/overpasses as far west as Sturbridge (Exit 9) were built to accommodate an added lane.   That lane was added in the late 60s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 21, 2018, 07:42:21 PM
It is interesting that seicer's map showed the Thruway going down into New Jersey apparently following Route 17 and then probably heading towards the GWB.  How nice it would be to have that direct connexion between the Thruway and the NJ Turnpike now.  Who would have been responsible for this change?

A northern extension of the NJ Turnpike was proposed until the 70s. Would have followed Teaneck Rd, Washington Ave, and NY 303 up to the Thruway with the only intermediate interchange being at the Palisades Parkway. Thing was stopped by NIMBYs and the cost of land.

As to why the Thruway crosses the Hudson at Tarrytown, NYSTA wanted control of the bridge. Any further south and it would have been within the Port Authority's sphere of influence.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on March 21, 2018, 09:57:20 PM
It is interesting that seicer's map showed the Thruway going down into New Jersey apparently following Route 17 and then probably heading towards the GWB.  How nice it would be to have that direct connexion between the Thruway and the NJ Turnpike now.  Who would have been responsible for this change?

I was specifically searching for answers to the six-lane question but did note references to NJ 17 and as to why that route wasn't chosen. I can compile a history of the Thruway - or at least go through the articles from the 1940's and 1950's for AARoads.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on March 21, 2018, 10:34:39 PM
When the Mass Turnpike opened in 1957, it was 6 lanes from Route 128 west to Framingham (Exit 12) and 4 lanes the rest of the way.  But, the roadway grade and all the bridges/overpasses as far west as Sturbridge (Exit 9) were built to accommodate an added lane.   That lane was added in the late 60s.

I am trying to recall whether the bridges on the 42-mile I-95 Northeastern Expressway in Maryland were built with 3 directional lanes.  It opened in 1963 with 4 lanes (2 each way) and was widened to 6 lanes (3 each way) in 1972.  I do recall that the Susquehanna River Bridge was built with 4 lanes and with 12-foot right shoulders, and only needed restriping to be used for 6 lanes.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/fallston-joppa/ph-ag-jfk-memorial-highway-turns-50-jpg-20131114-photogallery.html

The widening was near completion when I first drove on it in 1972.  I seem to recall that the other mainline bridges had to be widened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 22, 2018, 02:12:11 PM
How do you explain the above, then?
Links don't show what you are describing and I don't see how any form of wider bridge is some sort of omen that the entire Thruway is to be widened in the near future.

You misunderstand - it's not an omen at all; rather a feature the thruway happens to have, that would make a widening relatively easy. I do not see a widening in the near term. It would be nice, but I don't see it happening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on March 22, 2018, 03:48:21 PM
When the Mass Turnpike opened in 1957, it was 6 lanes from Route 128 west to Framingham (Exit 12) and 4 lanes the rest of the way.  But, the roadway grade and all the bridges/overpasses as far west as Sturbridge (Exit 9) were built to accommodate an added lane.   That lane was added in the late 60s.

I am trying to recall whether the bridges on the 42-mile I-95 Northeastern Expressway in Maryland were built with 3 directional lanes.  It opened in 1963 with 4 lanes (2 each way) and was widened to 6 lanes (3 each way) in 1972.  I do recall that the Susquehanna River Bridge was built with 4 lanes and with 12-foot right shoulders, and only needed restriping to be used for 6 lanes.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/fallston-joppa/ph-ag-jfk-memorial-highway-turns-50-jpg-20131114-photogallery.html

The widening was near completion when I first drove on it in 1972.  I seem to recall that the other mainline bridges had to be widened.
I was real young then, as it was either 71 or 72 when we rode it.  It was at night, but I do remember the lighting on the Jersey wall in the center of the Susqhuehenna Bridge as rather than pole lighting to illuminate the deck they chose that similar to New Jersey near Newark Airport that used them on bridge railings.

I also remember Maryland House was the only service area as Chesapeake House was not yet constructed.  I wish I saw  if it were 2 lanes each way or 3.  However, you brought back memories as the family was supposed to go to California, but my mom, my sister, and myself got to go, but I got sick and we had to return home  ahead of time and my dad got jipped on his vacation as he was join us there later.  Once I got better we done a road trip down to Roanoke, VA via the Blue Ridge mountains and Gettysburg, PA.  On the way back I saw DC for the first time and we drove home via the BW Parkway to the Harbor Tunnel Thruway into I-95 then home to Clark, NJ via the NJ Turnpike.

It was a nice trip and learned about roads particularly the original neon NJ Turnpike variable speed limit signs set for a red 60 mph. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on March 22, 2018, 05:49:08 PM
I am trying to recall whether the bridges on the 42-mile I-95 Northeastern Expressway in Maryland were
I was real young then, as it was either 71 or 72 when we rode it.  It was at night, but I do remember the lighting on the Jersey wall in the center of the Susqhuehenna Bridge as rather than pole lighting to illuminate the deck they chose that similar to New Jersey near Newark Airport that used them on bridge railings.
I also remember Maryland House was the only service area as Chesapeake House was not yet constructed.  I wish I saw  if it were 2 lanes each way or 3.  However, you brought back memories as the family was supposed to go to California, but my mom, my sister, and myself got to go, but I got sick and we had to return home  ahead of time and my dad got jipped on his vacation as he was join us there later.  Once I got better we done a road trip down to Roanoke, VA via the Blue Ridge mountains and Gettysburg, PA.  On the way back I saw DC for the first time and we drove home via the BW Parkway to the Harbor Tunnel Thruway into I-95 then home to Clark, NJ via the NJ Turnpike.

My memories of only one service plaza are vague.  I do clearly recall at that point in the early 1970s the only two freeway routes thru the Baltimore area were the 4-lane Harbor Tunnel Thruway, and 6-lane Baltimore Beltway west of the city.  I-95 between I-495 and I-695 had been opened in 1971, but was not yet built thru the city of Baltimore.  The Baltimore Beltway east of the city had not yet been built.  The Harbor Tunnel Thruway saved about 15 miles of travel over I-695 but both highways were pretty congested in peak hours.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on March 22, 2018, 07:23:55 PM
I had remembered a lot about I-95 too.  Not connecting to the Harbor Tunnel Thruway when it first opened between I-495 and I-695.  You had to cut east on I-695 and coming out of the tunnel you had to exit Harbor Tunnel Thruway at I-695 West (it was not yet signed I-895 until the early 80's). 

Back to New York we must as we are 2 states away. :bigass:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 28, 2018, 08:54:52 PM
Most of the problems that I've encountered south of Albany have been caused by left lane bandits.  I can't honestly say I've ever experienced delays due to volume on that section.  There is plenty of predatory speed enforcement by NY troopers though.  IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.
South of Albany? Really? West of Albany I always encounter left lane bandits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 28, 2018, 10:20:41 PM
Most of the problems that I've encountered south of Albany have been caused by left lane bandits.  I can't honestly say I've ever experienced delays due to volume on that section.  There is plenty of predatory speed enforcement by NY troopers though.  IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.
South of Albany? Really? West of Albany I always encounter left lane bandits.

Yeah, I'd agree with south of. As you go downstate, proper lane usage becomes less of a public priority.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 28, 2018, 10:37:52 PM
Most of the problems that I've encountered south of Albany have been caused by left lane bandits.  I can't honestly say I've ever experienced delays due to volume on that section.  There is plenty of predatory speed enforcement by NY troopers though.  IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.
South of Albany? Really? West of Albany I always encounter left lane bandits.

Yeah, I'd agree with south of. As you go downstate, proper lane usage becomes less of a public priority.

South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 29, 2018, 12:43:06 AM
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/bncore/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/grand_island_toll_plazas-e1522252343379.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 29, 2018, 02:07:24 AM
I wonder if NYSTA is going to leave the remaining pavement as state trooper speed traps.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 29, 2018, 01:34:54 PM
Most of the problems that I've encountered south of Albany have been caused by left lane bandits.  I can't honestly say I've ever experienced delays due to volume on that section.  There is plenty of predatory speed enforcement by NY troopers though.  IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.
South of Albany? Really? West of Albany I always encounter left lane bandits.

Yeah, I'd agree with south of. As you go downstate, proper lane usage becomes less of a public priority.

South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.

That's part of it, but also people are more used to passing in any available lane rather than primarily the left one. And that's largely because people tend to "keep middle" rather than "keep right". (The 3-lane sections of the Taconic are excellent examples of this.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: signalman on March 29, 2018, 01:40:23 PM
Most of the problems that I've encountered south of Albany have been caused by left lane bandits.  I can't honestly say I've ever experienced delays due to volume on that section.  There is plenty of predatory speed enforcement by NY troopers though.  IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.
South of Albany? Really? West of Albany I always encounter left lane bandits.

Yeah, I'd agree with south of. As you go downstate, proper lane usage becomes less of a public priority.

South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.

That's part of it, but also people are more used to passing in any available lane rather than primarily the left one. And that's largely because people tend to "keep middle" rather than "keep right". (The 3-lane sections of the Taconic are excellent examples of this.)
That isn't unique to the Taconic, nor is it unique to the Hudson Valley.  In my experiences, middle lane bandits pop up in any 6 laned section of freeway.  Also, in many of those jurisdictions, the middle lane camper is a LLB from a truck driver's perspective, since they aren't allowed to use the left lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 29, 2018, 01:46:03 PM
South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.

Despite this, I would agree with signalman and empirestate's claims about the prevelence of LLB's and lack of lane discipline in the Hudson Valley.  In my experience, it's a New York thing in general (one of the top three states for such).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 29, 2018, 01:48:22 PM
South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.

Despite this, I would agree with signalman and empirestate's claims about the prevelence of LLB's and lack of lane discipline in the Hudson Valley.  In my experience, it's a New York thing in general (one of the top three states for such).

Of course, New York is one of the few states where "keep right except to pass" is not a thing, nor is it signed. You'll see the occasional "slower traffic keep right" signs on hills, but that's it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 29, 2018, 01:56:06 PM
South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.

Despite this, I would agree with signalman and empirestate's claims about the prevelence of LLB's and lack of lane discipline in the Hudson Valley.  In my experience, it's a New York thing in general (one of the top three states for such).

Of course, New York is one of the few states where "keep right except to pass" is not a thing, nor is it signed. You'll see the occasional "slower traffic keep right" signs on hills, but that's it.

At one time the Thruway Authority had posted a lot of "Keep Right Except To Pass" signs, especially on bridge supports in the median. Have these disappeared?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 29, 2018, 02:04:51 PM
Don't know about NY being in the top three regarding LLBs, but I find it a much more prevalent epidemic in Ohio.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 29, 2018, 02:41:58 PM
South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.

Despite this, I would agree with signalman and empirestate's claims about the prevelence of LLB's and lack of lane discipline in the Hudson Valley.  In my experience, it's a New York thing in general (one of the top three states for such).

Of course, New York is one of the few states where "keep right except to pass" is not a thing, nor is it signed. You'll see the occasional "slower traffic keep right" signs on hills, but that's it.

At one time the Thruway Authority had posted a lot of "Keep Right Except To Pass" signs, especially on bridge supports in the median. Have these disappeared?

NYSTA has a handful. They're not particularly common. NYSDOT has zero that I know of.

Don't know about NY being in the top three regarding LLBs, but I find it a much more prevalent epidemic in Ohio.

YES. Columbus in particular is horrible (likely due to the amount of transplants).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 29, 2018, 02:51:52 PM
Don't know about NY being in the top three regarding LLBs, but I find it a much more prevalent epidemic in Ohio.

It's entirely dependent on your definition. The Ohio mentality is that the left lane of the Turnpike will move at or around 80 mph. Set the cruise, or pick another lane if you're not a bandwagon fan. It's certainly true that Ohioans are some of the "worst" left lane bandits, but at the same time, they're rarely disruptive to flow when they're doing it.

New York, on the other hand, tends to be worse overall, only because you can't guarantee consistency. Some people camp at 55, some at 65, some at 70, and they're all as bad as each other, especially when they don't attempt to maintain the pace set by the guy in front. The other thing is that, in eastern/southern areas of the state, no matter how densely packed a freeway is, you can guarantee the left lane will be moving faster on average than other lanes, even if there are left lane campers. In Western NY, people who left lane camp don't always set a reasonable pace like they do downstate, so they're more disruptive to flow.

FWIW, I tend to disagree that NY is not a "keep right except to pass" state. Every state, including NY, has a law of some form requiring motorists to keep right, and there are a decent amount of signs on the thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 29, 2018, 04:55:11 PM
South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.

That's part of it, but also people are more used to passing in any available lane rather than primarily the left one. And that's largely because people tend to "keep middle" rather than "keep right". (The 3-lane sections of the Taconic are excellent examples of this.)
That isn't unique to the Taconic, nor is it unique to the Hudson Valley.  In my experiences, middle lane bandits pop up in any 6 laned section of freeway.  Also, in many of those jurisdictions, the middle lane camper is a LLB from a truck driver's perspective, since they aren't allowed to use the left lane.

Right, the Taconic was an additional example of what we're discussing in the context of the Thruway, not a unique case. And it is, indeed, found throughout the state–it's very, very prominent in Rochester, for example. The difference there is that you don't get the passing on all sides, if only because Rochester drivers aren't as wont to try to win every race. But in Upstate areas, this seems to spill over less to the Thruway, maybe because the Thruway represents a whole different category of travel in those areas, whereas closer to NYC, it's often just another commuter highway.

FWIW, I tend to disagree that NY is not a "keep right except to pass" state. Every state, including NY, has a law of some form requiring motorists to keep right, and there are a decent amount of signs on the thruway.

Yeah, same here. I've never noticed any conspicuous absence of the philosophy in NYS; there are certainly signs posted statewide to that effect.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 29, 2018, 05:05:18 PM
I'm pretty sure the Thruway signs are a Thruway regulation, similar to the ones for using your flashers when traveling under 40 mph.

As for Rochester, passing on the right is a time-honored tradition.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 29, 2018, 05:52:21 PM
On the three lane section of the Ohio Turnpike there actually are overhead signs stating that slower traffic and trucks are to use the two right hand lanes.

Hence, driving in the left lane is the norm unless one is being overtaken by a faster vehicle.  Then one becomes "slower traffic" and moves over.

It seems odd, but that's the way itis done out there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 29, 2018, 05:59:55 PM
As for Rochester, passing on the right is a time-honored tradition.

Yep  :D
On six lane highways, its especially noticeable. We often have traffic flowing past the middle lane on both left and right. If the folks on the left would set a more reasonable pace, we wouldn't have this problem  :-P
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 29, 2018, 11:24:59 PM
Legally speaking is NYS a Slower Traffic Keep Right or Keep Right Except to pass state?  Also does it have an exemption for roads with 3 or more lanes?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 29, 2018, 11:52:50 PM
Legally speaking is NYS a Slower Traffic Keep Right or Keep Right Except to pass state?  Also does it have an exemption for roads with 3 or more lanes?

Slower traffic keep right, but it's not enforced, nor is it really signed away from hills. No exemption that I know of, as most signs on freeways are where a climbing lane makes a third lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 30, 2018, 02:23:12 AM
Legally speaking is NYS a Slower Traffic Keep Right or Keep Right Except to pass state?  Also does it have an exemption for roads with 3 or more lanes?

Slower traffic keep right, but it's not enforced, nor is it really signed away from hills. No exemption that I know of, as most signs on freeways are where a climbing lane makes a third lane.

Thruway signs say keep right except to pass, is that enforced?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 30, 2018, 10:12:18 AM
As for Rochester, passing on the right is a time-honored tradition.

Yep  :D
On six lane highways, its especially noticeable. We often have traffic flowing past the middle lane on both left and right. If the folks on the left would set a more reasonable pace, we wouldn't have this problem  :-P

Well, if you're in the right lane and there's nobody in front of you, you're not really "passing" anybody. You're just driving in the right lane. :-D

Legally speaking is NYS a Slower Traffic Keep Right or Keep Right Except to pass state?  Also does it have an exemption for roads with 3 or more lanes?

It is, and there's no exemption on 3-lane roads for keeping right. However, there's an exemption for those doing the passing; you can do that on the right on a 3-lane road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 30, 2018, 11:41:19 AM
It is, and there's no exemption on 3-lane roads for keeping right. However, there's an exemption for those doing the passing; you can do that on the right on a 3-lane road.
ANd here is something I don't understand. If we're talking about 3-lanes as 1+turning+1,  I don't  quite understand how NOT to keep right on those. If 3  lane is asymmetric  2+1, then it looks messy - but I can remember only very few of those, and they are often busy enough to have both lanes full.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on March 30, 2018, 11:45:21 AM
It is, and there's no exemption on 3-lane roads for keeping right. However, there's an exemption for those doing the passing; you can do that on the right on a 3-lane road.
ANd here is something I don't understand. If we're talking about 3-lanes as 1+turning+1,  I don't  quite understand how NOT to keep right on those. If 3  lane is asymmetric  2+1, then it looks messy - but I can remember only very few of those, and they are often busy enough to have both lanes full.
Three per direction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 30, 2018, 11:58:34 AM
It is, and there's no exemption on 3-lane roads for keeping right. However, there's an exemption for those doing the passing; you can do that on the right on a 3-lane road.
ANd here is something I don't understand. If we're talking about 3-lanes as 1+turning+1,  I don't  quite understand how NOT to keep right on those. If 3  lane is asymmetric  2+1, then it looks messy - but I can remember only very few of those, and they are often busy enough to have both lanes full.
Three per direction.
Quote from: NYS V&T law
S 1123. When overtaking on the right is permitted.
(a) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(...)
  2. Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction;
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 30, 2018, 05:54:37 PM
It is, and there's no exemption on 3-lane roads for keeping right. However, there's an exemption for those doing the passing; you can do that on the right on a 3-lane road.
ANd here is something I don't understand. If we're talking about 3-lanes as 1+turning+1,  I don't  quite understand how NOT to keep right on those. If 3  lane is asymmetric  2+1, then it looks messy - but I can remember only very few of those, and they are often busy enough to have both lanes full.
I'm saying three through lanes.  When there's three or more lanes are you required in NYS to keep right even if you are moving either at the speed limit of with the normal flow of traffic?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 31, 2018, 12:25:04 PM
I hate double-posting, but in other unrelated news, the closed Schodack rest area is being reopened as a parking area/"truck inspection station" (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=20605&p_is_digital=Y).
It's took a long time to show up.

On another topic, specifically Taconic State Parkway in Putnam County. The NYS Parks Department map of the Clarence Fahnestock State Park claims there's more parking spaces along the parkway that really exists. One of them is probably a closed overlook just south of Exit 25. Also north of NY 301 there's a big parking lot on the east side with one stub preceding it, which I later found out was for an old ski lodge within the park. The entrance to that was at-grade and had no southbound left-turn lane.


Last year there was a beautiful sign "Building The Future! Governor Cuomo blah-blah". Last week that was a virgin snow field with the old building gone..
Now I know how the future looks like - it means no more restrooms but more oversight...
At least they kept the buildings on I-684.

I stand by my previous statement (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21978.msg2292289#msg2292289) about NYSDOT vs. drivers in New York State.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 31, 2018, 02:25:31 PM
Don't know about NY being in the top three regarding LLBs, but I find it a much more prevalent epidemic in Ohio.

It's entirely dependent on your definition. The Ohio mentality is that the left lane of the Turnpike will move at or around 80 mph. Set the cruise, or pick another lane if you're not a bandwagon fan. It's certainly true that Ohioans are some of the "worst" left lane bandits, but at the same time, they're rarely disruptive to flow when they're doing it.

New York, on the other hand, tends to be worse overall, only because you can't guarantee consistency. Some people camp at 55, some at 65, some at 70, and they're all as bad as each other, especially when they don't attempt to maintain the pace set by the guy in front. The other thing is that, in eastern/southern areas of the state, no matter how densely packed a freeway is, you can guarantee the left lane will be moving faster on average than other lanes, even if there are left lane campers. In Western NY, people who left lane camp don't always set a reasonable pace like they do downstate, so they're more disruptive to flow.

FWIW, I tend to disagree that NY is not a "keep right except to pass" state. Every state, including NY, has a law of some form requiring motorists to keep right, and there are a decent amount of signs on the thruway.
Baloney.  It wouldn't be blocking if they didn't impede tracking.  Ohio is absolutely horrible for having slow people in the left lane.  If you are going so slow to slow me down, you should never be in the left lane. :D

Always dread driving through Ohio because of all the LLBs.  Never experience anything close to that in my native NY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 01, 2018, 11:25:09 AM
Don't know about NY being in the top three regarding LLBs, but I find it a much more prevalent epidemic in Ohio.

It's entirely dependent on your definition. The Ohio mentality is that the left lane of the Turnpike will move at or around 80 mph. Set the cruise, or pick another lane if you're not a bandwagon fan. It's certainly true that Ohioans are some of the "worst" left lane bandits, but at the same time, they're rarely disruptive to flow when they're doing it.

New York, on the other hand, tends to be worse overall, only because you can't guarantee consistency. Some people camp at 55, some at 65, some at 70, and they're all as bad as each other, especially when they don't attempt to maintain the pace set by the guy in front. The other thing is that, in eastern/southern areas of the state, no matter how densely packed a freeway is, you can guarantee the left lane will be moving faster on average than other lanes, even if there are left lane campers. In Western NY, people who left lane camp don't always set a reasonable pace like they do downstate, so they're more disruptive to flow.

FWIW, I tend to disagree that NY is not a "keep right except to pass" state. Every state, including NY, has a law of some form requiring motorists to keep right, and there are a decent amount of signs on the thruway.
Baloney.  It wouldn't be blocking if they didn't impede tracking.  Ohio is absolutely horrible for having slow people in the left lane.  If you are going so slow to slow me down, you should never be in the left lane. :D

Always dread driving through Ohio because of all the LLBs.  Never experience anything close to that in my native NY.

Having made the drive from Chicago to Syracuse, N.Y. on several occasions over the past year, I can safely say that Ohio is AWFUL to drive through because of the LLBs. Once you get Northeast of Cleveland it's not quite as bad, but I've driven across Ohio on 80/90, 70, 71, and 77 and there's more LLBs than any of the other 46 states I've driven in.

I've driven the entire length of the NYS Thruway numerous times, and south of Albany on I-87 has more LLBs than the I-90 portion, and it gets worse the closer you get to New York.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 01, 2018, 02:16:09 PM
Don't know about NY being in the top three regarding LLBs, but I find it a much more prevalent epidemic in Ohio.

It's entirely dependent on your definition. The Ohio mentality is that the left lane of the Turnpike will move at or around 80 mph. Set the cruise, or pick another lane if you're not a bandwagon fan. It's certainly true that Ohioans are some of the "worst" left lane bandits, but at the same time, they're rarely disruptive to flow when they're doing it.

New York, on the other hand, tends to be worse overall, only because you can't guarantee consistency. Some people camp at 55, some at 65, some at 70, and they're all as bad as each other, especially when they don't attempt to maintain the pace set by the guy in front. The other thing is that, in eastern/southern areas of the state, no matter how densely packed a freeway is, you can guarantee the left lane will be moving faster on average than other lanes, even if there are left lane campers. In Western NY, people who left lane camp don't always set a reasonable pace like they do downstate, so they're more disruptive to flow.

FWIW, I tend to disagree that NY is not a "keep right except to pass" state. Every state, including NY, has a law of some form requiring motorists to keep right, and there are a decent amount of signs on the thruway.
Baloney.  It wouldn't be blocking if they didn't impede tracking.  Ohio is absolutely horrible for having slow people in the left lane.  If you are going so slow to slow me down, you should never be in the left lane. :D

Always dread driving through Ohio because of all the LLBs.  Never experience anything close to that in my native NY.

Having made the drive from Chicago to Syracuse, N.Y. on several occasions over the past year, I can safely say that Ohio is AWFUL to drive through because of the LLBs. Once you get Northeast of Cleveland it's not quite as bad, but I've driven across Ohio on 80/90, 70, 71, and 77 and there's more LLBs than any of the other 46 states I've driven in.

I've driven the entire length of the NYS Thruway numerous times, and south of Albany on I-87 has more LLBs than the I-90 portion, and it gets worse the closer you get to New York.
How hard is it to get over? Seriously!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on April 01, 2018, 03:05:17 PM
I have driven in both New York and Ohio.  As someone who sets cruise control at or slightly below the speed limit and regards overtaking as an isolated activity, I have not been able to see a difference between either state in tendency to block the left lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 01, 2018, 06:18:21 PM
Baloney.  It wouldn't be blocking if they didn't impede tracking.  Ohio is absolutely horrible for having slow people in the left lane.  If you are going so slow to slow me down, you should never be in the left lane. :D

If you want to go faster than 80 mph, then I agree; lots of people who are comfortable at 80 and unwilling to move right. But the average driver does not want/need to travel that fast. In practice, this does not make the left-lane hogs obstructive to flow, even if they are numerous (and annoying).

Quote
Always dread driving through Ohio because of all the LLBs.  Never experience anything close to that in my native NY.

My experience (I-90 to Cleveland countless times, Turnpike to Toledo a handful of times, I-71 to Columbus twice) has not been reflective of that at all. There are definitely a lot of people who stay in the left lane obtusively, but aside from the isolated case, they seem to always be moving along pretty well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 01, 2018, 06:30:38 PM
I have driven in both New York and Ohio.  As someone who sets cruise control at or slightly below the speed limit and regards overtaking as an isolated activity, I have not been able to see a difference between either state in tendency to block the left lane.

Admittedly, it is both (1) easier to notice and (2) easier to find fault with a left-lane camper when you are the one that has to slow down or pass on the right.

I agree that the difference between the two (in particular, the difference between WNY and Northern Ohio) is negligible. Downstate NY is a different, and more aggressive, set of circumstances altogether, while my travels in Southern Ohio have been minimal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 02, 2018, 12:27:25 AM
It is, and there's no exemption on 3-lane roads for keeping right. However, there's an exemption for those doing the passing; you can do that on the right on a 3-lane road.
ANd here is something I don't understand. If we're talking about 3-lanes as 1+turning+1,  I don't  quite understand how NOT to keep right on those. If 3  lane is asymmetric  2+1, then it looks messy - but I can remember only very few of those, and they are often busy enough to have both lanes full.
I'm saying three through lanes.  When there's three or more lanes are you required in NYS to keep right even if you are moving either at the speed limit of with the normal flow of traffic?

Yes; as I say, there's no exemption in that instance.

How hard is it to get over? Seriously!

It isn't. However, that's not the question to ask–what gives drivers a hard time isn't the actual act of moving over, but rather of just putting that much thought into it in the first place.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 02, 2018, 08:59:17 PM
I think many LLB's are either senior citizens who just don't get that speed limits are not taken seriously.............and immigrants who naively believe that speed limits in America are for real.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 02, 2018, 09:17:14 PM
I think many LLB's are either senior citizens who just don't get that speed limits are not taken seriously.............and immigrants who naively believe that speed limits in America are for real.

Not necessarily. I've talked a lot of people who feel that, since they plan to be driving relatively fast, and expect to pass most of the vehicles in the right lane, the best approach is just to head directly for the left lane and stay there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 02, 2018, 09:25:02 PM
Hmm.......I might have used the wrong terminology. I'm talking about people who drive at the speed limit in the left lane causing traffic to back up behind them and have to pass on the right. If that's not what an LLB is then sorry, my mistake.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on April 02, 2018, 10:18:07 PM
I think many LLB's are either senior citizens who just don't get that speed limits are not taken seriously.............and immigrants who naively believe that speed limits in America are for real.

Can we get a big eye roll here? Immigrants? What about: drivers who were not properly educated because our driving laws and requirements are very lax? Some immigrants come from countries with far stricter driving standards, such as Germany. The fault isn't with either seniors or immigrants, but our entire drivers education system.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 02, 2018, 10:32:31 PM
You might be right.........but I doubt any of them are Germans because in Germany there is strict adherence to the idea of keeping right except to pass. It's a way of life there. They even have a phrase for it: Rechts Fahren It means: "drive right".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 02, 2018, 10:35:55 PM
Hmm.......I might have used the wrong terminology. I'm talking about people who drive at the speed limit in the left lane causing traffic to back up behind them and have to pass on the right. If that's not what an LLB is then sorry, my mistake.

That is an example of an LLB, but not the actual definition. In my books, it has nothing to do with speed; it has to do with whether they're obstructing flow.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on April 03, 2018, 12:15:04 AM
Rechts fahren, links überholen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 03, 2018, 01:43:07 AM
I think many LLB's are either senior citizens who just don't get that speed limits are not taken seriously.............and immigrants who naively believe that speed limits in America are for real.
Or, they could also be people who get into the left turn lanes, because they want to be able to get into the left-turn lanes that they're looking for.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 03, 2018, 09:00:04 AM
Quote from: webny99
That is an example of an LLB, but not the actual definition.

Keep in mind that there isn't an official or designated definition of such.  Given how you described your own definition, it's clear that people have different viewpoints on what constitutes an LLB.

Quote from: D-Dey65
Or, they could also be people who get into the left turn lanes, because they want to be able to get into the left-turn lanes that they're looking for.

Not applicable on freeways or the above-mentioned Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 03, 2018, 09:26:12 AM
Hmm.......I might have used the wrong terminology. I'm talking about people who drive at the speed limit in the left lane causing traffic to back up behind them and have to pass on the right. If that's not what an LLB is then sorry, my mistake.

It is, but it is also someone who drives at some speed other than the limit, causing traffic to back up behind them. An LLB's speed is pertinent only in how it pertains to other drivers, not to the speed limit.

Or, they could also be people who get into the left turn lanes, because they want to be able to get into the left-turn lanes that they're looking for.

Yes, or perhaps an exit-only lane, if they do it too soon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 03, 2018, 10:55:22 AM
You might be right.........but I doubt any of them are Germans because in Germany there is strict adherence to the idea of keeping right except to pass. It's a way of life there. They even have a phrase for it: Rechts Fahren It means: "drive right".

Probably because you can go at any speed you choose in the left lane on the Autobahn.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 03, 2018, 08:28:26 PM
There are speed limits on some sections of the Autobahns, especially in urban areas where traffic is heavier.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 05, 2018, 08:58:51 AM
Here's a picture I took of work under NY-5 Skyway. There always seems to be work going on with this bridge. What are they doing here?

(https://i.imgur.com/63KsnW3.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on April 05, 2018, 01:54:23 PM
Here's a picture I took of work under NY-5 Skyway. There always seems to be work going on with this bridge. What are they doing here?

Probably routine bridge inspections.  Call NYSDOT and check with them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 05, 2018, 03:21:12 PM
Here's a picture I took of work under NY-5 Skyway. There always seems to be work going on with this bridge. What are they doing here?

Probably routine bridge inspections.  Call NYSDOT and check with them.

They're drilling and stuff on the deck too though. I know they have a big project coming up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on April 05, 2018, 05:21:15 PM
Meanwhile on I-390:

(https://i.imgur.com/Bi3lVjz.jpg)

Quote
Early this afternoon, the New York state Department of Transportation reported that the contractor who installed the sign has fixed it. "An overlay has since been applied to the sign, at the contractor’s expense, with the correction," DOT public information officer Jordan M. Guerrein said in a statement.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2018/04/05/letchworth-misspelled-letchwroth-highway-sign-390-replaced-rochester-mount-morris/488813002/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 05, 2018, 06:08:26 PM
Here's a picture I took of work under NY-5 Skyway. There always seems to be work going on with this bridge. What are they doing here?

Probably routine bridge inspections.  Call NYSDOT and check with them.

They're drilling and stuff on the deck too though. I know they have a big project coming up.
Drilling +inspections = deck repairs with barrier pinned into the deck so it doesn't move.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 09, 2018, 05:07:28 PM
I posted this on the thruway thread by mistake, but another idiot brought a bus on the Southern State near Hempstead Lake State Park causing a serious accident.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/bus-strikes-long-island-overpass-injuring-high-school/story?id=54329727

This is why Sunrise Highway should've been converted into an expressway west of NY 109!

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 09, 2018, 08:26:26 PM
Yes! Sunrise Highway should have been converted to an expressway years ago when there was more room to do it. A real missed opportunity, like many in the New York Area.

However the bus driver who entered the restricted parkway near Kennedy Airport apparently ignored the posted signs. Also the commander of the State Police Troop said on the news that the driver was using a "non-commercial" type GPS which would not have indicated the parkway restriction. Common problem with truck and bus drivers coming to Long Island.

I've often thought that the signing is badly worded though. Instead of saying "No Commercial Vehicles" it might be clearer if it said "No Trucks or Busses". I think some of these drivers don't realize that "commercial vehicle" applies to them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on April 10, 2018, 09:35:47 AM
However the bus driver who entered the restricted parkway near Kennedy Airport apparently ignored the posted signs. Also the commander of the State Police Troop said on the news that the driver was using a "non-commercial" type GPS which would not have indicated the parkway restriction. Common problem with truck and bus drivers coming to Long Island.

I've often thought that the signing is badly worded though. Instead of saying "No Commercial Vehicles" it might be clearer if it said "No Trucks or Busses". I think some of these drivers don't realize that "commercial vehicle" applies to them.
This incident is eerily familiar to the bus crash (also carrying high school students) that occurred on Soldiers Field Road in Allston/Boston, MA over five years ago.  The overhead signs on the entrance ramps there read DANGER - LOW CLEARANCE with the truck head-banging warning sign symbol on them.  It may have also had the lower-hanging CARS ONLY banners.  If a vehicle touches the latter; it will not clear the lowest of overpasses along the road.

As far as the type of GPS being used is concerned: sadly, such a problem is not just limited to Long Island.  Additionally, one has to wonder if drivers in these incidents are just using ones that are on their phones rather than a separate unit or the ones in their vehicles if so equipped.

*Devil's Advocate Mode On*
One signage-related solution could be to mark the commercial vehicle route.  I.e. direct them where they should go in addition to where they shouldn't go.  Not every bus nor truck driver is from nor familiar with the area.
*Devil's Advocate Mode Off*

Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 10, 2018, 10:07:32 AM
I've often thought that the signing is badly worded though. Instead of saying "No Commercial Vehicles" it might be clearer if it said "No Trucks or Busses". I think some of these drivers don't realize that "commercial vehicle" applies to them.

Problem is, that's not quite accurate, since there are commercial vehicles other than trucks and buses that are prohibited on the parkways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 10, 2018, 10:39:12 AM
Yes! Sunrise Highway should have been converted to an expressway years ago when there was more room to do it. A real missed opportunity, like many in the New York Area.

However the bus driver who entered the restricted parkway near Kennedy Airport apparently ignored the posted signs. Also the commander of the State Police Troop said on the news that the driver was using a "non-commercial" type GPS which would not have indicated the parkway restriction. Common problem with truck and bus drivers coming to Long Island.
For people like this it certainly wouldn't prevent any truck or bus collisions with overpasses. But for people who know better and go there anyway thinking they can get away with it just because they don't want to put up with all the traffic lights on the current Sunrise Highway, it would certainly do some good. There were parts of Sunrise where room for improvements should've been set aside, but developers grabbed that land making sure that would never happen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 01:07:54 PM
I've often thought that the signing is badly worded though. Instead of saying "No Commercial Vehicles" it might be clearer if it said "No Trucks or Busses". I think some of these drivers don't realize that "commercial vehicle" applies to them.

Problem is, that's not quite accurate, since there are commercial vehicles other than trucks and buses that are prohibited on the parkways.

All of the parkways have the 7'10" clearance indicated clearly, as well as signs before any bridge under 10 feet. So the "no commercial vehicles" signs aren't an excuse here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: signalman on April 10, 2018, 01:14:33 PM
I loved hearing about this last night on the evening news.  I immediately dismissed the driver's claim of unfamiliarity as that's no excuse to not read signage and heed its warning.  I also particularly liked media's claim that the passengers didn't have a chance to warn the driver not to use the parkway.  It's not like it takes very long to say "Dude, stop! You can't use this road, exit immediately"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 10, 2018, 03:46:53 PM
I loved hearing about this last night on the evening news.  I immediately dismissed the driver's claim of unfamiliarity as that's no excuse to not read signage and heed its warning.  I also particularly liked media's claim that the passengers didn't have a chance to warn the driver not to use the parkway.  It's not like it takes very long to say "Dude, stop! You can't use this road, exit immediately"

Some councilman was on the news blaming the DOT because of lack of signs saying "the truck sign with the red line through it doesn't speak to bus drivers."  OK soooo what is the best way to word it?  "Passenger Cars Only?"  Oh gee I drive an SUV I guess I can't use the road then. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 06:42:34 PM
I loved hearing about this last night on the evening news.  I immediately dismissed the driver's claim of unfamiliarity as that's no excuse to not read signage and heed its warning.  I also particularly liked media's claim that the passengers didn't have a chance to warn the driver not to use the parkway.  It's not like it takes very long to say "Dude, stop! You can't use this road, exit immediately"

Some councilman was on the news blaming the DOT because of lack of signs saying "the truck sign with the red line through it doesn't speak to bus drivers."  OK soooo what is the best way to word it?  "Passenger Cars Only?"  Oh gee I drive an SUV I guess I can't use the road then.

Funny thing is that just about every "no trucks" sign has "passenger cars only" next to it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 10, 2018, 08:28:00 PM
Yes, I should have specified, that No Commercial Vehicles was the older way to sign parkway entrances and that newer signing often says Passenger Cars Only which is better I think. Maybe the bus driver thought a passenger bus was the same as a passenger car.  LOL

BTW, MergingTraffic, SUV's are passenger cars as long as they're not being used for commercial purposes or registered with commerical plates
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on April 11, 2018, 01:02:40 PM
How much would it cost to equip all vehicles over 8' tall with commercial type GPSs?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on April 11, 2018, 01:17:55 PM
How much would it cost to equip all vehicles over 8' tall with commercial type GPSs?
Such won't help if the driver's using the GPS on his/her smart-phone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 11, 2018, 02:22:25 PM
How much would it cost to equip all vehicles over 8' tall with commercial type GPSs?
Such won't help if the driver's using the GPS on his/her smart-phone.
I'm a bit surprised, though, that some GPS software guys wouldn't offer vehicle type option - possibly as a paid option.
Actually a remember Waze asking people on their forum if there is an interest in that - and there were quite a few suggestions. For now, they have "taxi", "electric" and "motorcycle" options - I am not sure how different are obtained directions. But looks like basic elements to add commercial vehicle option are there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 11, 2018, 03:02:36 PM
How much would it cost to equip all vehicles over 8' tall with commercial type GPSs?
Such won't help if the driver's using the GPS on his/her smart-phone.
I'm a bit surprised, though, that some GPS software guys wouldn't offer vehicle type option - possibly as a paid option.
Actually a remember Waze asking people on their forum if there is an interest in that - and there were quite a few suggestions. For now, they have "taxi", "electric" and "motorcycle" options - I am not sure how different are obtained directions. But looks like basic elements to add commercial vehicle option are there.

I wouldn't be surprised if Waze adds a commercial option. They added an E-ZPass option recently and that's quite nice.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 11, 2018, 04:04:32 PM
How much would it cost to equip all vehicles over 8' tall with commercial type GPSs?
Such won't help if the driver's using the GPS on his/her smart-phone.
I'm a bit surprised, though, that some GPS software guys wouldn't offer vehicle type option - possibly as a paid option.
Actually a remember Waze asking people on their forum if there is an interest in that - and there were quite a few suggestions. For now, they have "taxi", "electric" and "motorcycle" options - I am not sure how different are obtained directions. But looks like basic elements to add commercial vehicle option are there.

I wouldn't be surprised if Waze adds a commercial option. They added an E-ZPass option recently and that's quite nice.
It has to be an involved set  of options, ni\ot a single one, though - 53 vs 48 vs tandem or triple; hazmat, height.. But it is definitely doable..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2018, 12:22:48 AM
Commercial vehicles means ALL vehicles registered with commercial plates.  Has nothing to do with height.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 12, 2018, 06:21:07 AM
Commercial vehicles means ALL vehicles registered with commercial plates.  Has nothing to do with height.
Sure, no maintenance vehicles should be able to go on that road!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 12, 2018, 07:43:31 AM
^ Maintenance vehicles are typically government vehicles, not registered as commercial.  If it happens to be a case where a private firm is contracted out for the maintenance, I'm sure accommodations are made for their vehicle access.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 12, 2018, 08:09:23 AM
^ Maintenance vehicles are typically government vehicles, not registered as commercial.  If it happens to be a case where a private firm is contracted out for the maintenance, I'm sure accommodations are made for their vehicle access.
I am not sure that "no commercial vehicles" regulation makes sense. As far as I understand, this is one of Robert Moses' creations - and it is far from fair, some go as far as calling it racist.
And of course height limit due to road design is there (for better or worse) - and enforcing that limit is an obvious and logical thing. Same with weight limit.
Enforcing registration type, as it seems to me, creates confusion (13 types of vehicles not allowed on parkways) and does not really serve a good purpose - other than original Moses' idea of keeping undesirables who cannot afford a car away from relaxing middle class.
My impression is that relaxing regulations to height and weight limit on highway-worthy vehicles wouldn't change traffic pattern too much - but may reduce confusion and prevent situations like above.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on April 12, 2018, 08:30:14 AM
^ Maintenance vehicles are typically government vehicles, not registered as commercial.  If it happens to be a case where a private firm is contracted out for the maintenance, I'm sure accommodations are made for their vehicle access.

Even the Virginia Capital Trail appears built to handle occasional light truck usage, for maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles.  I have gone under a few of the bridges and while they have timber beams they are large enough and close enough that I would surmise that the bridge could handle an occasional 10 ton truck.  Decks are also about 16 feet wide.  The land trail is asphalt surfaced, I am not sure how deep but probably at least 4 inches and likewise able to handle occasional light truck usage.

The Virginia Capital Trail is a bicycle and pedestrian trail between Williamsburg, Jamestown and Richmond in Virginia.  It is 55 miles in length and largely parallels a highway, Virginia Route 5, a Virginia Scenic Byway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 12, 2018, 09:31:06 AM
Commercial vehicles means ALL vehicles registered with commercial plates.  Has nothing to do with height.

Actually, it doesn't quite mean that. NYSDOT has this definition for "commercial vehicle" (which doesn't address registration type):
Quote
(8) Commercial vehicle. Every type of motor-driven vehicle used for commercial purposes on the highways, such as the transportation of goods, wares and merchandise and motor coaches carrying passengers; including trailers and semitrailers and tractors when used in combination with trailers and semitrailers, and excepting such vehicles as are run only upon rails or tracks…

Note, interestingly, that trains are not prohibited on the NYS parkways… :spin:

^ Maintenance vehicles are typically government vehicles, not registered as commercial.  If it happens to be a case where a private firm is contracted out for the maintenance, I'm sure accommodations are made for their vehicle access.

Yes, and the DOT is authorized by law to make such accommodations (emphasis added):
Quote
§ 182.31 Restricted vehicles.

The following type vehicles, including those elsewhere defined in this Part, are not permitted
on the parkways within the parkway system, unless authorized under an agreement with the
department:

And of course, government-owned vehicles are exempt from restriction in the first place.

Finally, besides commercial vehicles, it is also unlawful to drive a vehicle with a name, logo, or sign displayed on it, except for taxis and government vehicles. (A name can be displayed for identification purposes only–i.e., not advertising–in letters no more than two inches tall.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 12, 2018, 04:52:57 PM
Are hire vehicles prohibited then? Is anyone measuring the sign size on Uber and Lyft? Is anyone pulling over pizza delivery cars?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 12, 2018, 07:44:38 PM
Are hire vehicles prohibited then?

Not apparently; taxicabs, which are not prohibited, are defined thus:
Quote
A motor vehicle having a seating capacity for passengers of not more than seven persons, in addition to the driver, and used in the business of transporting passengers for compensation.

Quote
Is anyone measuring the sign size on Uber and Lyft?

I don't think so; they don't customarily display signs, do they? In any case, since taxicabs (as defined above) are exempt from the prohibition against displaying logos, there'd be no reason to check the size of their signs.

Quote
Is anyone pulling over pizza delivery cars?

Unquestionably, yes. Whether for the purpose of enforcing the rules against commercial vehicles, however, I wouldn't know.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 12, 2018, 07:49:27 PM
I mean, my dad's stepfather was pulled over on one of the parkways in the 80s for having a box of catalogs for his used book store on the back seat. Using the parkway for commercial purposes. So if they're gonna be that strict, they can pull over anyone delivering anything.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 12, 2018, 08:37:35 PM
And just this morning I watched a Trooper pull over a van with very fancy commercial business lettering and logos on Northern State Parkway. In this case, a very obvious commercial vehicle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 12, 2018, 09:57:46 PM
You know, I always wondered whether they ever actually enforce the rule for those commercial vehicles that aren't physically precluded from using the parkways. In fact, there are days I wish it were possible to prohibit any non-recreational use of the parkways–I've kinda had my fill of battling all the maniacs who try to make their Poughkeepsie-Staten Island commute in as little time as possible. :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 12, 2018, 10:42:39 PM
Speaking of getting pulled over, I wish NY-5 (Hamburg Turnpike) was 50 MPH, not 40...

But back on the subject it's amazing how literal they take "commercial vehicle." Didn't know they go that far when I thought it was just for big vehicles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 13, 2018, 12:05:43 AM
But back on the subject it's amazing how literal they take "commercial vehicle." Didn't know they go that far when I thought it was just for big vehicles.

That's a very common misconception, given that it's almost always framed in terms of overpass clearances being insufficient for trucks and buses (even the DOT's own brochure on the subject focuses almost exclusively on the height restrictions). But the ban on commercial vehicles really stems from the parkways' purpose, rather than their physical configuration. Granted, the low clearances are generally thought to have been a means of enforcing the ban, but they're aren't the reason for it. The reason for the parkways was to give preferential treatment to a certain class of traffic–and many paragraphs have been written on whether that privileged class is something as innocent as pleasure traffic bound for the Moses state parks, or something more nefariously motivated.

The progenitor of the NYS parkways was the Long Island Motor Parkway, which was originally built as a private sporting facility and later served as a toll facility (priced at a premium for its day, to say nothing of the comparative rarity of motor vehicles before the 1920s). At around the same time, the Bronx River Parkway was developed in Westchester County, for the express purpose of preserving and appreciating the natural landscape of the Bronx River itself. Perhaps more than any other parkway, the Bronx River Parkways still serves much of its recreational function today, even so far as being closed to traffic at regular intervals for the exclusive enjoyment of bicyclists.

After that, of course, the system was greatly expanded as a network of roadways providing access to the state parks on Long Island and in the Hudson Valley; so, from its earliest days, the parkway system was conceived and built to suit the recreational needs of the motorist. Keep in mind, too, that motoring itself was largely a recreational pursuit in the early 20th century; not until the great post-war suburbanization boom did the parkways begin to see widespread use as commuter corridors while the dominance of trains and streetcars waned.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 13, 2018, 12:34:23 AM
I mean, my dad's stepfather was pulled over on one of the parkways in the 80s for having a box of catalogs for his used book store on the back seat. Using the parkway for commercial purposes. So if they're gonna be that strict, they can pull over anyone delivering anything.
How does one even NOTICE the catalogs at speed?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on April 13, 2018, 03:10:21 AM
Wouldn’t the Google Street View camera car be considered a “commercial vehicle” ?

And might the camera have trouble fitting under a Parkway bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6908594,-73.5874455,3a,60y,152h,174.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB_xjQ3hyeDnNRYSGeOhlfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 16, 2018, 09:47:46 PM
This was actually a thing?

(https://i.imgur.com/PEwLCjj.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on April 16, 2018, 10:00:48 PM
Yes - part of what I uncovered just briefly searching newspapers. Those were early routes on paper - nothing concrete. But I see that the Niagara Thruway got rerouted from what was (and still is) Buffalo's most vibrant and diverse neighborhood thankfully.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 17, 2018, 01:52:30 PM
I'm pretty sure I've told this story before, but in December 2005 I went to Long Island just before a blizzard hit the area, and after it was over, I rented a Ford Expedition as my rental car. Because the Expedition shares it's body with the F-150, I refused to bring it on any of the parkways, even though it would've been perfectly legal.

At the same time, I wouldn't mind driving a 4WD pickup with an extended cab, an aftermarket sleeper cab, and a bicycle rack in the back with some bikes, and brining that on the parkway, but I'm pretty sure that would be illegal.

As for something like an antique Chevrolet Sedan Delivery, I'd probably have to flip a coin over whether I could drive that there.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1957_Chevrolet_Sedan_Delivery_(5073185199).jpg

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 17, 2018, 11:35:10 PM
And might the camera have trouble fitting under a Parkway bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6908594,-73.5874455,3a,60y,152h,174.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB_xjQ3hyeDnNRYSGeOhlfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?

Eh, I wouldn't be too quick to jump to that conclusion. I followed that vehicle's steps back - it got on the Southern State at exit 21 after having made a left off Nassau Rd. Imagery from the same vehicle is intermittently present on Nassau Rd as far back as Greenfield Cemetery, although I cannot find any further back than that. The camera is equally askew though all this. So, who knows what actually broke it, but it was definitely broken before it got on the parkway (it could have been broken on a previous drive on a parkway, sure).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 18, 2018, 09:00:35 PM
I mean, my dad's stepfather was pulled over on one of the parkways in the 80s for having a box of catalogs for his used book store on the back seat. Using the parkway for commercial purposes. So if they're gonna be that strict, they can pull over anyone delivering anything.
How does one even NOTICE the catalogs at speed?

Yeah, I'd be skeptical (or perhaps "curious" is a better word) without some additional context as to how that happened...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on April 20, 2018, 10:39:13 AM
I just posted this in the "Crazy things you've found in Google StreetView" thread:
Here's something I've never seen in Street View before!  I just stumbled on a few trailers of new BGSes in a parking lot (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7994882,-76.124521,3a,24.1y,194.2h,84.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sg1lE-sKR_HKhzhVXyqS9Gg!2e0) on NY 80 just off of I-81 in Tully waiting to be installed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 20, 2018, 11:33:34 AM
Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 20, 2018, 04:12:08 PM
Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..
No, in New Jersey the yellow plates are all going slowly in the left lane, not giving way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 20, 2018, 04:26:14 PM
Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..
No, in New Jersey the yellow plates are all going slowly in the left lane, not giving way.
Yeah, over here you can tell NJ cars by the wake turbulence they leave behind as they try to get airborne....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 20, 2018, 08:41:36 PM
Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..

This is mostly thanks to Delta Sonic, at least around here, but I dont think it's specific to yellow plates. I believe unreadable plates are a ticketable offense... but I'd be less than happy about a ticket when the peeling was caused by a third party.

No, in New Jersey the yellow plates are all going slowly in the left lane, not giving way.

 :rofl: Only problem is that NY and NJ plates are both yellow now... so works both ways  :-P
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on April 20, 2018, 09:34:49 PM
The issue with the peeling plates was discovered a couple of years after the 2010 design was released, so it didn't shock me to see many F-series plates starting to peel after a few years.  I don't think the issue was corrected until the G-series was reached.

Meanwhile, my 13 year old D-series plate is still holding up nicely.

Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 20, 2018, 11:13:37 PM
Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..
No, in New Jersey the yellow plates are all going slowly in the left lane, not giving way.
Yeah, over here you can tell NJ cars by the wake turbulence they leave behind as they try to get airborne....
Someone stole my runway on the ride home. D:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 21, 2018, 01:04:20 AM
Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..

Yes actually, I saw a car with this today. I thought it was snow or something but that's impossible.

Very disappointing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 21, 2018, 02:30:10 PM
I have seen a lot of E** blue and whites with a decent amount of peeling (including one of my relatives).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 21, 2018, 02:36:09 PM
I have seen a lot of E** blue and whites with a decent amount of peeling (including one of my relatives).
There were quite a bit of complains about white plates peeling off; I believe that was related to different film manufacturers. Some of E series - but not all - are prone to peeling;  and actually my ED- is holding very well.
But now  I do see problems with yellow ones - which didn't get any complains before. And it is almost like someone turned a switch, none in a while -then quite a few in a month or so, as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on April 21, 2018, 03:02:20 PM
Our two ELR-xxxx plates issued late 2008 both peeled away completely a few years ago.  The yellow replacements GZM-xxxx replacements have made it through their first few winters looking good.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on April 30, 2018, 01:06:59 PM
Was on I-88 Saturday and could not believe how awful the pavement has gotten in just a year's time near Worcester and Richmondville: Video (https://www.facebook.com/seicer/videos/10105534696455860/). Most of the traffic was riding in the left lane, which is where I also camped out in after a quick video. Will this section be on the list for rehab this year?

Another section that was most recently rehabbed, from Central Bridge east to Duanesburg (north end) is also failing after being completed just late last year. Most of the joints have reappeared in the asphalt and potholes are already forming. What differs from this rehab from others along I-88 that are in excellent condition?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 30, 2018, 01:20:05 PM
Was on I-88 Saturday and could not believe how awful the pavement has gotten in just a year's time near Worcester and Richmondville: Video (https://www.facebook.com/seicer/videos/10105534696455860/). Most of the traffic was riding in the left lane, which is where I also camped out in after a quick video. Will this section be on the list for rehab this year?

Another section that was most recently rehabbed, from Central Bridge east to Duanesburg (north end) is also failing after being completed just late last year. Most of the joints have reappeared in the asphalt and potholes are already forming. What differs from this rehab from others along I-88 that are in excellent condition?

Cobleskill-Schenectady County was a single-course overlay. The others were full-depth reconstructions. The freeze-thaw cycle of this winter did a number to a lot of the overlays in the northeast.

The worst section of I-88 is being reconstructed in 2020-21.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on April 30, 2018, 01:30:26 PM
Gotcha. Thank you! I thought it was more than just an overlay but only saw the immediate before and after product.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 01, 2018, 01:59:49 AM
Information regarding the Skyway repairs. Looks like they're actually putting in a new deck, because when I drive by earlier the northbound side was completely ripped up.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263566
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 01, 2018, 07:30:21 AM
Skyway closures begin as two-year construction project starts (http://buffalonews.com/2018/04/30/skyway-closures-begin-as-two-year-construction-project-starts/)

So this project only extends the life of the bridge another 20 years. What happens at the end of its life cycle? Built in 1956, by the time it reaches that point, it will be 84 years old.

I've seen ideas - by politicians and groups all around Buffalo, that want to see it removed and I assume replaced with a grade level replacement with a drawbridge. How often is the river used by large boats anymore? Nearly all of the mills further east are closed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 01, 2018, 08:00:57 AM
Skyway closures begin as two-year construction project starts (http://buffalonews.com/2018/04/30/skyway-closures-begin-as-two-year-construction-project-starts/)
So this project only extends the life of the bridge another 20 years. What happens at the end of its life cycle? Built in 1956, by the time it reaches that point, it will be 84 years old.
I've seen ideas - by politicians and groups all around Buffalo, that want to see it removed and I assume replaced with a grade level replacement with a drawbridge. How often is the river used by large boats anymore? Nearly all of the mills further east are closed.

I see about 100 sailboats docked on the Buffalo River on satellite view.  Masts on some can exceed 50 feet in height.  A drawbridge would not be a good idea unless it was high enough to accommodate them without being opened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 01, 2018, 08:32:42 AM
I doubt a drawbridge would be a good idea considering the level of barge activity. I'm sure General Mills would oppose it.

Also by the way, I drove into downtown today and it was very awkward going northbound on the southbound side.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 01, 2018, 11:38:48 AM
Are any plans to expand the Welland Canal now totally mothballed?  I would imagine that would come into play as well in determining the consequences of a lower bridge?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 01, 2018, 04:16:54 PM
I doubt a drawbridge would be a good idea considering the level of barge activity. I'm sure General Mills would oppose it.

Also by the way, I drove into downtown today and it was very awkward going northbound on the southbound side.
Every detail sounds the same as the Pulaski Skyway  I sincerely hope your project does not extend as long.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 01, 2018, 08:24:05 PM
Future of Skyway looms with new construction (https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/traffic/future-of-skyway-looms-with-new-construction/71-547372506)

"...many drivers refuse to use during the winter months..."

Is this a thing? I knew it was a high structure and that during high winds/winter conditions can prompt its closure, but wow.

"As the current construction project continues, the state is simultaneously spending an additional $6 million to study long-term options for the Skyway's use."

So they are studying its replacement while rebuilding the deck. With EIS and planning taking an absurd amount of time these days, we could very well be seeing the Skyway needing to last another 20 years  ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 01, 2018, 09:40:23 PM
Another 20 years is a fine goal ... that is a long time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 01, 2018, 10:06:02 PM
Another 20 years is a fine goal ... that is a long time.

Yikes. If there's going to be political and environmental issues slowing it down (and there always is), they'll need the time. It can take years to even decide on a replacement alternative these days.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 01, 2018, 10:36:07 PM
Another 20 years is a fine goal ... that is a long time.
No it isn't, in the scheme of roads. If you're going to rebuild a structure, people are going to want to see at least 30 years out of it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 01, 2018, 10:58:34 PM
Another 20 years is a fine goal ... that is a long time.
No it isn't, in the scheme of roads. If you're going to rebuild a structure, people are going to want to see at least 30 years out of it.

Well, here is what the article said, "for at least two decades".  So that could be 3 or more, we need to find out what design year the DOT is using.

Few roads in Buffalo have as much history as the Skyway, which has towered over Lake Erie and the city's skyline since the mid-1950s.  On Monday, this portion of Route 5 entered a new era with the start of a $29 million reconstruction project.  The renovation will keep the Skyway viable for at least two decades, according to a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Transportation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 02, 2018, 12:15:14 AM
Another 20 years is a fine goal ... that is a long time.
No it isn't, in the scheme of roads. If you're going to rebuild a structure, people are going to want to see at least 30 years out of it.

Well, here is what the article said, "for at least two decades".  So that could be 3 or more, we need to find out what design year the DOT is using.

Few roads in Buffalo have as much history as the Skyway, which has towered over Lake Erie and the city's skyline since the mid-1950s.  On Monday, this portion of Route 5 entered a new era with the start of a $29 million reconstruction project.  The renovation will keep the Skyway viable for at least two decades, according to a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Transportation.
$29 million isn't all that much in the scheme of things. They could also be hedging their bets on the low end with a public statement. I feel a bit better about it now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 02, 2018, 02:02:33 AM
In the wintertime I will drive full speed, 55 MPH on this bridge. Even in high winds (okay maybe not 55). It just comes with having driven on it literally thousands of times.

They want to replace it with a drawbridge or a tunnel...that would break my heart as the scenery from the top is pretty much unparalleled, and a viable alternative for southtowns traffic is never discussed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 02, 2018, 07:15:06 AM
Well, here is what the article said, "for at least two decades".  So that could be 3 or more, we need to find out what design year the DOT is using.
Few roads in Buffalo have as much history as the Skyway, which has towered over Lake Erie and the city's skyline since the mid-1950s.  On Monday, this portion of Route 5 entered a new era with the start of a $29 million reconstruction project.  The renovation will keep the Skyway viable for at least two decades, according to a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Transportation.
$29 million isn't all that much in the scheme of things. They could also be hedging their bets on the low end with a public statement. I feel a bit better about it now.

What are the exact elements of the rebab project?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 02, 2018, 07:18:12 AM
In the wintertime I will drive full speed, 55 MPH on this bridge. Even in high winds (okay maybe not 55). It just comes with having driven on it literally thousands of times.
They want to replace it with a drawbridge or a tunnel...that would break my heart as the scenery from the top is pretty much unparalleled, and a viable alternative for southtowns traffic is never discussed.

I can't imagine the cost of a tunnel.  A drawbridge is probably going to need at least 65 feet of clearance when closed.  That is the height used for fixed bridges for pleasure boats and barges on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 02, 2018, 07:40:38 AM
Some nuggets I found at https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region5/repository/FinalReport-ExecutiveSummary10-20-08.pdf :

"With today’s technology, particularly if prefabricated deck units are utilized, 75 years of reliable service is a realistic expectation..."

How is this so? I am assuming this is ignoring every other aspect of the bridge, which would need overhaul far faster than a 75-year-old bridge deck. By then, this bridge would be well over 100 years old!

I can't find the article I was looking at last night, but it had statistics for the amount of traffic that enters the Buffalo River. I think that the river is down to just 2 customers that would be impacted if a drawbridge was built. But what if it was a higher elevation crossing - somewhere in between Michigan Avenue and the Skyway? The Skyway is already below capacity, and if openings could be minimized to just the largest of ships, that might be a decent compromise.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 02, 2018, 08:52:23 AM
I can't find the article I was looking at last night, but it had statistics for the amount of traffic that enters the Buffalo River. I think that the river is down to just 2 customers that would be impacted if a drawbridge was built. But what if it was a higher elevation crossing - somewhere in between Michigan Avenue and the Skyway? The Skyway is already below capacity, and if openings could be minimized to just the largest of ships, that might be a decent compromise.

Depends on the drawbridge clearance when closed.  Satellite view shows about 100 sailboats docked on the river.  Some sailboats have masts over 50 feet high.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 02, 2018, 10:18:56 AM
I can't find the article I was looking at last night, but it had statistics for the amount of traffic that enters the Buffalo River. I think that the river is down to just 2 customers that would be impacted if a drawbridge was built. But what if it was a higher elevation crossing - somewhere in between Michigan Avenue and the Skyway? The Skyway is already below capacity, and if openings could be minimized to just the largest of ships, that might be a decent compromise.

Depends on the drawbridge clearance when closed.  Satellite view shows about 100 sailboats docked on the river.  Some sailboats have masts over 50 feet high.

None of the boats there have particularly high masts, but you'd still need a clearance of 40-50 feet to avoid a ridiculous amount of openings.  A new crossing near Ohio Street might work (still movable). Main commercial customer on the river is General Mills, but there's commercial use down to Silo City right now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 02, 2018, 10:54:19 AM
If it ain't broke then don't fix it. Other than the current setup with the Skyway, I think the only way to keep the freeway configuration is by shifting it a little to the east between Katherine St and Louisiana St and then adding a SPUI with South Park ave., then joining I-190 with a Y interchange that only has northbound access. Southbound traffic would use the Smith St. exit.

A signature bridge with only a few piers, something like the Kosciuszko Bridge, would be perfect. 4-6 lane Interstate grade bridge with decent shoulders and 12 foot travel lanes with LED lighting shouldn't cost more than $100-200m.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 02, 2018, 11:44:43 AM
Is that even needed? The VPD counts for the Skyway are well below its designed capacity and isn't projected to grow. With the Thruway to the east, the notion that NY 5 is a through route is over - but it is still an important regional connector. I think outside of the question of the bridge type that's needed - is an expressway with the overly complicated ramp situation at its northern terminus necessary?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 02, 2018, 12:27:23 PM
Is that even needed? The VPD counts for the Skyway are well below its designed capacity and isn't projected to grow. With the Thruway to the east, the notion that NY 5 is a through route is over - but it is still an important regional connector. I think outside of the question of the bridge type that's needed - is an expressway with the overly complicated ramp situation at its northern terminus necessary?

AADT is around 40,000 with PHVs of 3,300 EB and 2,700 WB in 2013. You'd need a pretty beefy surface road to accommodate that and the Thruway doesn't have the capacity to take the overflow. NY 78 in Amherst/Lancaster/Clarence has similar AADT (but PHV peaks a little over half those on NY 5) and it's constantly congested save overnight hours. The big problem with NY 5 is the high peaks; it's the only major road in the Buffalo area that has highly-directional traffic to that extent.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 02, 2018, 01:04:13 PM
As a daily Skyway commuter I can attest to the fact that traffic will often get backed up to Ridge Road during morning rush hour and well past Ridge Road for the evening rush hour.

In addition, there's the potential for several big industrial parks to come online...the Lake Erie Industrial Park where Fedex is, Buffalo Lakeside Commerce Park adjacent to Tifft St, and the massive Bethlehem Steel industrial park that's in creation. All would feed into the Skyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 02, 2018, 03:12:40 PM
With coordinated signals and at least 60% green time for NY 5 through traffic a 6-lane arterial could handle that volume.  I'd probably stick with a 4-lane freeway, though.  40K is a bit high for a 4-lane arterial.  And despite Buffaboy's commutes, those PHV's don't really warrant 6 lanes and some congestion during peak commuting hours is to be expected anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 02, 2018, 03:22:07 PM
My main problem with that section of 5 is the stretch through Woodlawn, which is 40 mph. The rest of it is 55 from the Skyway and some parts southwest. Woodlawn is basically a choke point. There's no way to fix this, even if you jersey barriered the median.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 02, 2018, 04:09:28 PM
Well, I surmised the below capacity figures was because of the steel mill's closure.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 02, 2018, 04:18:18 PM
Depends on the drawbridge clearance when closed.  Satellite view shows about 100 sailboats docked on the river.  Some sailboats have masts over 50 feet high.
None of the boats there have particularly high masts, but you'd still need a clearance of 40-50 feet to avoid a ridiculous amount of openings.  A new crossing near Ohio Street might work (still movable). Main commercial customer on the river is General Mills, but there's commercial use down to Silo City right now.

Even small cruising sailboats of 25 feet in length can have masts 35 feet or more tall.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 02, 2018, 04:21:24 PM
With coordinated signals and at least 60% green time for NY 5 through traffic a 6-lane arterial could handle that volume.  I'd probably stick with a 4-lane freeway, though.  40K is a bit high for a 4-lane arterial.  And despite Buffaboy's commutes, those PHV's don't really warrant 6 lanes and some congestion during peak commuting hours is to be expected anyway.

Coordinated signals? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. This is NYSDOT Region 5 we're talking about. NY 78 supposedly has coordinated signals on the 6-lane section. Doesn't prevent me from getting stopped at every signal whenever I try to use it.

A 4 lane freeway is fine on NY 5.

My main problem with that section of 5 is the stretch through Woodlawn, which is 40 mph. The rest of it is 55 from the Skyway and some parts southwest. Woodlawn is basically a choke point. There's no way to fix this, even if you jersey barriered the median.

Agree. No easy way to fix that without grade separations. PHVs on that section are roughly the same as the Skyway, but AADT is slightly higher. Probably wouldn't shock anyone here to learn that NY 5 between NY 179 and the Skyway is one of the busiest surface roads Upstate (NY 104 in Rochester is slightly more, NY 5/8/12 in Utica and US 20 and NY 7 near Albany are slightly less). US 9 between I-84 and Poughkeepsie ranges from 30-60K and is the busiest in the Hudson Valley. The differences with US 9 are higher speed limit, MUCH higher green times for US 9, fewer signals, and medians (it's basically expressway-grade).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 02, 2018, 04:27:14 PM
Probably wouldn't shock anyone here to learn that NY 5 between NY 179 and the Skyway is one of the busiest surface roads Upstate (NY 104 in Rochester is slightly more, NY 5/8/12 in Utica and US 20 and NY 7 near Albany are slightly less). US 9 between I-84 and Poughkeepsie ranges from 30-60K and is the busiest in the Hudson Valley. The differences with US 9 are higher speed limit, MUCH higher green times for US 9, fewer signals, and medians (it's basically expressway-grade).

I'm not surprised by NY 5, but I am actually surprised by NY 104.
I wonder if there are any good Syracuse candidates. NY 252 in Henrietta has to be up there, too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 02, 2018, 04:28:52 PM

Coordinated signals? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. This is NYSDOT Region 5 we're talking about. NY 78 supposedly has coordinated signals on the 6-lane section. Doesn't prevent me from getting stopped at every signal whenever I try to use it.

I was driving on Washington ave ext in Albany every day while R1 had endeavor into synchronization of those 3 lights. I lost even residue of my faith in NYS engineering after that show.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on May 02, 2018, 05:45:45 PM
I wonder if there are any good Syracuse candidates. NY 252 in Henrietta has to be up there, too.

According to the TDV, NY 5/92 between I-481 and the eastern NY 5/92 split has an AADT of 53,577, and NY 5 north of Woodlawn has an AADT of 42,204.  The biggest backup on NY 5/92 is the westbound approach to the duplex on NY 5.  I'd say the wait at the red light is around 3 minutes or so.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 02, 2018, 09:11:59 PM
[NY-5 Skyway]
AADT is around 40,000 with PHVs of 3,300 EB and 2,700 WB in 2013. You'd need a pretty beefy surface road to accommodate that and the Thruway doesn't have the capacity to take the overflow.

Even for a local expressway those are volumes to where a pre-existing 4-lane freeway segment is warranted to remain in its current basic design.  If traffic had declined to 10,000 or 15,000 AADT then maybe discussions could be considered to downgrade the design.  But I would not be in favor of downgrading the design.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 02, 2018, 10:34:56 PM
My main problem with that section of 5 is the stretch through Woodlawn, which is 40 mph. The rest of it is 55 from the Skyway and some parts southwest. Woodlawn is basically a choke point. There's no way to fix this, even if you jersey barriered the median.

Yes! I was going into downtown a few weeks ago at 5 in the morning doing over 50. You can imagine what happened next.

Total speed trap, but my solution would be to widen it if possible, and then put in Jersey barriers. I think that would work, then they could have it at 50-55. This will never happen though.

The planners in the 50s and 60s did intend for NY-5 to be a full freeway to at least where Big Tree Road is. I never understood why it ends at Odell St, when it doesn't seem like there would have been vocal opposition to it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 03, 2018, 06:27:41 AM
Quote from: cl94
Coordinated signals? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. This is NYSDOT Region 5 we're talking about.

New York State in general...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 05, 2018, 07:02:36 PM
I found an old exit on the New England Thruway in Pelham just before the Hutchinson River Parkway;

https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=40.910556&lon=-73.8075

It's an RIRO interchange with Split Rock Road. Who has info on it?



Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on May 07, 2018, 07:45:12 AM
US 9 between I-84 and Poughkeepsie ranges from 30-60K and is the busiest in the Hudson Valley. The differences with US 9 are higher speed limit, MUCH higher green times for US 9, fewer signals, and medians (it's basically expressway-grade).

I drive it every day, it's tolerable except southbound through the village of Wappingers Falls when southbound traffic loses a lane (northbound is a consistent 3 lanes). Easily takes 10 minutes to go a mile. US 44/NY 55 (the Arterial) goes through Poughkeepsie one one-way couplets and the signals are coordinated. It's probably much easier to coordinate signals on one-way streets.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 07, 2018, 08:33:05 AM
^ I didn't say that.  Looks like cl94's quote.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 07, 2018, 08:42:27 AM
^ I didn't say that.  Looks like cl94's quote.

The clickable link above it takes you to your quote, which means it must have been done intentionally (or else something seriously screwy is going on).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 07, 2018, 08:57:14 AM
Benefit of the doubt:  given he has 3 posts total (as of this moment), he probably hasn't fully figured out the quoting function yet.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on May 07, 2018, 09:15:56 AM
Benefit of the doubt:  given he has 3 posts total (as of this moment), he probably hasn't fully figured out the quoting function yet.

Whoops, my bad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 11, 2018, 02:38:32 PM
You know, on my November 2017 trip to the Tri-State Area, I never saw a NYS 900A reference route marker anywhere along Main Street in Greenport, or a 900C reference route marker anywhere along the Orient Beach State Park Road:

http://www.empirestateroads.com/sr/refroute10.html

Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 11, 2018, 03:47:17 PM
You know, on my November 2017 trip to the Tri-State Area, I never saw a NYS 900A reference route marker anywhere along Main Street in Greenport, or a 900C reference route marker anywhere along the Orient Beach State Park Road:

http://www.empirestateroads.com/sr/refroute10.html

No, and since the invention of Street View, I've been able to confirm the existence or absence of actual markers much more easily. (I'm theoretically in the midst of updating all these pages, by the way.) But most of the info in that column is based on inventory products from NYSDOT, originally the Highway Sufficiency Ratings Manual, which lists reference marker legends at various points along the route. Where given, these are included in my tables, but in some cases they may be purely theoretical.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 11, 2018, 06:56:21 PM
You know, on my November 2017 trip to the Tri-State Area, I never saw a NYS 900A reference route marker anywhere along Main Street in Greenport, or a 900C reference route marker anywhere along the Orient Beach State Park Road:

http://www.empirestateroads.com/sr/refroute10.html

No, and since the invention of Street View, I've been able to confirm the existence or absence of actual markers much more easily. (I'm theoretically in the midst of updating all these pages, by the way.) But most of the info in that column is based on inventory products from NYSDOT, originally the Highway Sufficiency Ratings Manual, which lists reference marker legends at various points along the route. Where given, these are included in my tables, but in some cases they may be purely theoretical.

Lack of a reference marker means nothing. There are several reference routes that have no reference markers. 917A, 954L, and the two you mentioned still officially exist (and I know the first two are state-maintained), but there are no reference markers. Many routes are missing a 1000 and 900A is short enough to not have a 1001 (in fact, it is one of the 5 shortest reference routes that isn't a wye, ramp, or bypassed former alignment).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 11, 2018, 07:46:41 PM
Yeah, I'm not surprised those two don't have markers.  Very short reference routes seem to lack markers more often than not, and the state park road wouldn't be maintained by NYSDOT, so no markers there either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 11, 2018, 08:51:13 PM
No, and since the invention of Street View, I've been able to confirm the existence or absence of actual markers much more easily. (I'm theoretically in the midst of updating all these pages, by the way.) But most of the info in that column is based on inventory products from NYSDOT, originally the Highway Sufficiency Ratings Manual, which lists reference marker legends at various points along the route. Where given, these are included in my tables, but in some cases they may be purely theoretical.
Yes, Street View can do a lot of good, as long as it's kept up to date, and there's nothing preventing the visibilty of signs or other features (anything from blurring out signs, to zooming restrictions, trucks or other vehicles, or worse). The one thing I did encounter was a resurfacing project, not only on "NY 900A," but on the section of Main Street that NY 25 runs along. I had hoped against all hope that they might've been there but were taken down for the construction project, but I tend to know better than to keep my hopes up.

 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 11, 2018, 09:59:33 PM
Lack of a reference marker means nothing.

Well, it doesn't mean nothing when I have a whole column on my website supposedly listing the number as posted on reference markers. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on May 15, 2018, 07:38:34 PM
So on a trip to Saratoga Springs last week for work, I had the privilege (?) of driving through Malta.

Roundabouts officially need to go die in a fire.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 15, 2018, 09:33:50 PM
Complete topic switch, but with the Grand Island Bridges going AET, I wonder if I-190's Exit 17 is in for a full overhaul. It's got to be substandard as heck in both directions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 15, 2018, 11:31:40 PM
So on a trip to Saratoga Springs last week for work, I had the privilege (?) of driving through Malta.

Roundabouts officially need to go die in a fire.
I even heard NYSDOT's COO say "Good luck with that!" when they were being built in a speech at ITS-NY.  The US 9 one was terrible last I was there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on May 16, 2018, 12:00:59 AM
Complete topic switch, but with the Grand Island Bridges going AET, I wonder if I-190's Exit 17 is in for a full overhaul. It's got to be substandard as heck in both directions.

Looking at that interchange, I don't really see much room to do anything to it, especially on the southbound side.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 16, 2018, 02:58:53 AM
As far as that interchange is concerned, I've seen worse.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 16, 2018, 07:27:51 AM
So on a trip to Saratoga Springs last week for work, I had the privilege (?) of driving through Malta.

Roundabouts officially need to go die in a fire.
I even heard NYSDOT's COO say "Good luck with that!" when they were being built in a speech at ITS-NY.  The US 9 one was terrible last I was there.
There are a few more on the way to global which backup during commute. Overall Malta is exhibit 1 in the case  against roundabouts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on May 16, 2018, 12:55:13 PM
So on a trip to Saratoga Springs last week for work, I had the privilege (?) of driving through Malta.

Roundabouts officially need to go die in a fire.
I even heard NYSDOT's COO say "Good luck with that!" when they were being built in a speech at ITS-NY.  The US 9 one was terrible last I was there.
There are a few more on the way to global which backup during commute. Overall Malta is exhibit 1 in the case  against roundabouts.
I sat for several minutes just trying to get off the Northway waiting for an opening. Eventually I just had to floor it and go for it... getting honked at in the process.

On the way back the other direction, I told Google to send me another way...just so I wouldn't have to drive through those damn things again.

I fail to see how this is an improvement over well timed stoplights.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 16, 2018, 01:14:49 PM
The reason for the roundabouts at exit 12 was actually because turning lanes would have added significant extra width to the bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 16, 2018, 03:09:18 PM
The reason for the roundabouts at exit 12 was actually because turning lanes would have added significant extra width to the bridge.
Is that for all 7 of those roundabouts?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MNHighwayMan on May 16, 2018, 04:15:42 PM
The reason for the roundabouts at exit 12 was actually because turning lanes would have added significant extra width to the bridge.
Is that for all 7 of those roundabouts?

No. The others were built specifically to annoy people.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 16, 2018, 04:21:39 PM
The reason for the roundabouts at exit 12 was actually because turning lanes would have added significant extra width to the bridge.
Is that for all 7 of those roundabouts?

No. The others were built specifically to annoy people.
You may be more correct than you expect.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 16, 2018, 08:03:23 PM
The reason for the roundabouts at exit 12 was actually because turning lanes would have added significant extra width to the bridge.
Is that for all 7 of those roundabouts?

No. The others were built specifically to annoy people.
You may be more correct than you expect.
Pfft.  No.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 16, 2018, 08:18:42 PM
I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries. I would much prefer a well designed signalized intersection, anytime.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 16, 2018, 08:23:08 PM
Rotaries and roundabouts are two importantly different things.  Rotaries are those death traps that have drivers going in a circle at high speeds.  Roundabouts are smaller and always require entering traffic to yield to traffic already in the circle, making them considerably safer and less confusing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 16, 2018, 08:28:21 PM
Rotaries and roundabouts are two importantly different things.  Rotaries are those death traps that have drivers going in a circle at high speeds.  Roundabouts are smaller and always require entering traffic to yield to traffic already in the circle, making them considerably safer and less confusing.
Relax, it is 8.30 pm and you're off the clock. You don't have to quote those memos...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 16, 2018, 08:41:40 PM
I believe the right-of-way law is the same for both rotaries and roundabouts. Traffic entering must yield to traffic already circling. So if Vdeane's definition is correct, the only real difference between the two is the size of the circle and traffic speeds. And they're both terrible IMO.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 16, 2018, 08:46:26 PM
There are circles that have different yielding requirements, though I'm not familiar with all the distinctions between all the non-roundabout ones.

Regarding Malta, I've never had issues with the roundabouts there, though I'll admit that I've never driven on them in rush hour, and it can be annothing to drive through one after another after a while.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 16, 2018, 08:46:49 PM
Except it's true (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm). Why not just drive slower, especially in urban environments? And drive with regard to other motorists and other users of the roadway and space?

And no, rotaries and roundabouts are not the same, especially for yielding purposes. Here is a useful diagram (http://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/331). It's even codified as such in several states, so no, they are not the same.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 16, 2018, 08:48:25 PM
I believe the right-of-way law is the same for both rotaries and roundabouts. Traffic entering must yield to traffic already circling. So if V-deane's definition is correct, the only real difference between the two is the size of the circle and traffic speeds. And they're both terrible IMO.
We do have a separate thread for beating up roundabouts, feel free to join: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15546.0
Problems of Malta are somewhat unique, though: some engineer had his head spinning and ended up drawing a bunch of circles instead of straight lines. Or maybe that was DUI (Designing Under Influence)?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 16, 2018, 08:56:41 PM
There are circles that have different yielding requirements, though I'm not familiar with all the distinctions between all the non-roundabout ones.
You mentioned rotary vs roundabout.
Quote from: NYS V&T law
Sec. 1145. Vehicle approaching rotary traffic circle or island.  Except where a traffic control device directs otherwise, the driver of a
vehicle approaching or about to enter a rotary traffic circle or island shall yield the right of way to any vehicle already traveling on such circle or around such island.
There is no separate requirement for roundabouts in NYS V&T law you mentioned except the one I quoted above.
Roundabouts are smaller and always require entering traffic to yield to traffic already in the circle
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 16, 2018, 09:01:10 PM
Except it's true (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm). Why not just drive slower, especially in urban environments? And drive with regard to other motorists and other users of the roadway and space?

And no, rotaries and roundabouts are not the same, especially for yielding purposes. Here is a useful diagram (http://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/331). It's even codified as such in several states, so no, they are not the same.
Just another quote of the same old story. No, it is just high quality data massage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 16, 2018, 09:04:42 PM
Seicer's useful diagram made me dizzy as did the the fine print re: all the technical differences between a rotary and a roundabout. And if even I had trouble comprehending all that fine detail, you can be sure most drivers will never know or appreciate all those technical differences.

I can buy the idea that there are fewer serious accidents than with signalized intersections. Probably mostly sideswipes and low-speed rear-end collisions but the fact remains: rotaries and roundabouts are a friggin' nuisance to drive through.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 16, 2018, 09:14:54 PM
Seicer's useful diagram made me dizzy as did the the fine print re: all the technical differences between a rotary and a roundabout. And if even I had trouble comprehending all that fine detail, you can be sure most drivers will never know or appreciate all those technical differences.

I can buy the idea that there are fewer serious accidents than with signalized intersections. Probably mostly sideswipes and low-speed rear-end collisions but the fact remains: rotaries and roundabouts are a friggin' nuisance to drive through.
ANd for the sake of everyone's convenience:
Roundabout, or "modern roundabout", does NOT have a continious circulating lane. Think about bunch of threads, 1/4 to 3/4 turn long, spooled around a central island. Driver enters the lane which is usually a continuation of approach lane, stays in the same lane, and usually exits when lane ends. Example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9692402,-73.7929088,193a,35y,45t/data=!3m1!1e3
Think about regular intersection with dedicted turn lanes and slip ramps where a central point is inflated to 50 feet and signals are lost in process.
Rotary usually refers to a circular lane, where drivers are required to merge into the circulating lane on entry and leave that circulating lane on exit.  I don't have a good example handy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on May 16, 2018, 09:19:31 PM
I don't have a good example handy.

I-95/MA 128, exit 35: MA 38.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 16, 2018, 09:25:58 PM
Seicer's useful diagram made me dizzy as did the the fine print re: all the technical differences between a rotary and a roundabout. And if even I had trouble comprehending all that fine detail, you can be sure most drivers will never know or appreciate all those technical differences.

I can buy the idea that there are fewer serious accidents than with signalized intersections. Probably mostly sideswipes and low-speed rear-end collisions but the fact remains: rotaries and roundabouts are a friggin' nuisance to drive through.

To the motorist, there is no reason why they should care if it's a roundabout or a rotary. The message is in the roadway design and adequate signs. If they see a yield sign, then they should yield; if not, they should proceed (with caution). Tapering the road down and removing ambiguities also help contribute to a safer roadway.

To each their own on what defines nuisances, though. I find the awful number of traffic signals in Ithaca, New York to be unpleasant to drive through, especially near rush hour.

Except it's true (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm). Why not just drive slower, especially in urban environments? And drive with regard to other motorists and other users of the roadway and space?

And no, rotaries and roundabouts are not the same, especially for yielding purposes. Here is a useful diagram (http://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/331). It's even codified as such in several states, so no, they are not the same.
Just another quote of the same old story. No, it is just high quality data massage.

I can cite more studies, if you'd like. But you would refute them, just as you've refuted pretty much any analytical or scientific message that's come through on this forum. I won't bother.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 16, 2018, 09:35:28 PM

Except it's true (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm). Why not just drive slower, especially in urban environments? And drive with regard to other motorists and other users of the roadway and space?

And no, rotaries and roundabouts are not the same, especially for yielding purposes. Here is a useful diagram (http://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/331). It's even codified as such in several states, so no, they are not the same.
Just another quote of the same old story. No, it is just high quality data massage.

I can cite more studies, if you'd like. But you would refute them, just as you've refuted pretty much any analytical or scientific message that's come through on this forum. I won't bother.
OK, let me show where the flaw is in your reference.
We're  talking about a set of intersections which handle up to 50k vehicles per day. Your reference talks about
Quote
Roundabouts reduced injury crashes by 75 percent at intersections where stop signs or signals were previously used for traffic control
I am not sure about exact numbers, but if I remember correctly stop signs can handle something like 5k/day traffic(if that), 10 times less than what we're talking about.
As a result, we have one of those circles making into top 10 of regional most dangerous intersections.
There is a great discussion about 1x1 vs 1x2 vs 2x2 vs 2x3 roundaabouts and related hazards. Basically 1x1 work OK, but have throughput of stop signs. 2x3 are death traps.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 17, 2018, 08:06:07 AM
Quote from: kalvado
2x3 are death crash traps.

FTFY.  While there are indications that multi-lane roundabouts see more crashes in some cases, they are rarely deadly because of the slower speeds involved.  And even their fatality rate is less than signalized intersections.

BTW, since you mentioned capacity, a 1x1 roundabout has about 4 times the throughput of an all-stop-sign intersection.  They are not one and the same.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 17, 2018, 08:43:21 AM
Quote from: kalvado
2x3 are death crash traps.

FTFY.  While there are indications that multi-lane roundabouts see more crashes in some cases, they are rarely deadly because of the slower speeds involved.  And even their fatality rate is less than signalized intersections.

BTW, since you mentioned capacity, a 1x1 roundabout has about 4 times the throughput of an all-stop-sign intersection.  They are not one and the same.
Let me copy my own post from the other dreaded post:
What is the role of roundabouts in a grand scheme of things in terms of throughput? Where would you put roundabout in a list of intersection designs with increasing throughput - that is: 4-way stop, traffic light, grade separated?
I would say that roundabouts belong to busy 4-way stop/not-so-busy traffic light interval. We had some european guidelines here showing a 30K/daily limit for complex roundabout, which seems reasonable to slightly optimistic; and I know a (very busy) traffic light controlled intersection with 50k+ daily traffic.
Now you can increase traffic light throughput quite a bit by adding components, such as dedicated turn lanes or slip ramps - of course at a cost of footprint. And those upgrades can be fairly seamless, you don't have to bulldoze entire thing for an extra lane (although imminent domain of land is a pain..)
You can also upgrade stop signals to a traffic light.
Roundabout, however, is a solution with limited throughput which can NOT be easily upgraded to next tier - which is complex traffic light.
And that can easily become a problem: no upgrade short of increasing complexity beyond the reason OR total rebuild.... Or continue funneling traffic through intersection above design limit - and pretend problem doesn't exist.

And that is Malta's trap right now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 17, 2018, 08:48:12 AM
Ramps to roundabouts can be signalized if the traffic warrants are high enough.

All-way stop signs are an abomination.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 17, 2018, 08:52:40 AM
Ramps to roundabouts can be signalized if the traffic warrants are high enough.

All-way stop signs are an abomination.
Yeah, you can put signals on approaches and remove the central island for ultimate throughput. Requires some heavy construction, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 17, 2018, 10:09:00 AM
Ramps to roundabouts can be signalized if the traffic warrants are high enough.
Yeah, you can put signals on approaches and remove the central island for ultimate throughput. Requires some heavy construction, though.

I wasn't suggesting removing the central island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 17, 2018, 10:43:31 AM
I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries. I would much prefer a well designed signalized intersection, anytime.

Ah, you're just thinking of two different things, is all. The legacy traffic circles in Massachusetts, which they call "rotaries", are not designed the same as the modern "roundabout" that is usually referred to by that name in the US. Roundabouts, like any specific design choice, work well when applied to the right situation, and poorly when applied to the wrong one.

For more on the difference between the various terms, we've had lots of topics covering this, going way back into the m.t.r. days. Although the general public does still resist informing itself of what's actually going on with these things, we in this group at least can enjoy the comfort that we do understand the difference and how they're intended to work. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 17, 2018, 11:07:49 AM
Ramps to roundabouts can be signalized if the traffic warrants are high enough.
Yeah, you can put signals on approaches and remove the central island for ultimate throughput. Requires some heavy construction, though.

I wasn't suggesting removing the central island.
Yeah, it takes some time to accept that innovation. But you're OK with signals on approach, so you're half way there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 17, 2018, 01:14:29 PM
There are circles that have different yielding requirements, though I'm not familiar with all the distinctions between all the non-roundabout ones.
You mentioned rotary vs roundabout.
Quote from: NYS V&T law
Sec. 1145. Vehicle approaching rotary traffic circle or island.  Except where a traffic control device directs otherwise, the driver of a
vehicle approaching or about to enter a rotary traffic circle or island shall yield the right of way to any vehicle already traveling on such circle or around such island.
There is no separate requirement for roundabouts in NYS V&T law you mentioned except the one I quoted above.
Roundabouts are smaller and always require entering traffic to yield to traffic already in the circle

I wasn't commenting on anything specific to NYS traffic law.  I was talking on a general, nationwide basis.  Note that the post I was replying to was referring to Massachusetts:
I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries. I would much prefer a well designed signalized intersection, anytime.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 17, 2018, 01:18:39 PM
There are circles that have different yielding requirements, though I'm not familiar with all the distinctions between all the non-roundabout ones.
You mentioned rotary vs roundabout.
Quote from: NYS V&T law
Sec. 1145. Vehicle approaching rotary traffic circle or island.  Except where a traffic control device directs otherwise, the driver of a
vehicle approaching or about to enter a rotary traffic circle or island shall yield the right of way to any vehicle already traveling on such circle or around such island.
There is no separate requirement for roundabouts in NYS V&T law you mentioned except the one I quoted above.
Roundabouts are smaller and always require entering traffic to yield to traffic already in the circle

I wasn't commenting on anything specific to NYS traffic law.  I was talking on a general, nationwide basis.  Note that the post I was replying to was referring to Massachusetts:
I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries. I would much prefer a well designed signalized intersection, anytime.

OK, can you give an example of different yield arrangement in circulatory motion? I believe Russia used "circulating traffic yields" till 2003 or so, but that was changed; and we're talking US anyway. 
Any other examples?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 17, 2018, 02:02:05 PM
OK, can you give an example of different yield arrangement in circulatory motion? I believe Russia used "circulating traffic yields" till 2003 or so, but that was changed; and we're talking US anyway. 
Any other examples?
At least one in NJ (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1317915,-74.0654812,3a,75y,89.47h,80.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7RoLwvr5gxlHX7AmPB8UJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on May 17, 2018, 02:24:58 PM
OK, can you give an example of different yield arrangement in circulatory motion? I believe Russia used "circulating traffic yields" till 2003 or so, but that was changed; and we're talking US anyway. 
Any other examples?

IIRC, for many years the law in Connecticut for rotaries was "circulating traffic yields to entering traffic".  I remember my father cautioning me about this shortly after I got my driver's license as we were going to Hartford.   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 17, 2018, 02:38:53 PM
^^ Flemington Circle as well, which favors US 202 traffic.  Likely others in New Jersey.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 17, 2018, 03:01:03 PM
Ramps to roundabouts can be signalized if the traffic warrants are high enough.
Yeah, you can put signals on approaches and remove the central island for ultimate throughput. Requires some heavy construction, though.
I wasn't suggesting removing the central island.
Yeah, it takes some time to accept that innovation. But you're OK with signals on approach, so you're half way there.

No, I was just outlining the range of treatments that are possible depending on volume. 

Roundabouts can also be widened to 2 or 3 lanes, or built with that in the first place, if the design year volume warrants that.

The new roundabout at VA-144 and the I-95 ramps at Colonial Heights is that wide and has quite high capacity.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 17, 2018, 03:20:30 PM
Ramps to roundabouts can be signalized if the traffic warrants are high enough.
Yeah, you can put signals on approaches and remove the central island for ultimate throughput. Requires some heavy construction, though.
I wasn't suggesting removing the central island.
Yeah, it takes some time to accept that innovation. But you're OK with signals on approach, so you're half way there.

No, I was just outlining the range of treatments that are possible depending on volume. 

Roundabouts can also be widened to 2 or 3 lanes, or built with that in the first place, if the design year volume warrants that.

The new roundabout at VA-144 and the I-95 ramps at Colonial Heights is that wide and has quite high capacity.

And it is pretty well understood by now - except that understanding is still filtering down to design folks - that 3-lanes roundabouts are less than safe.
Besides, you really need to grow the circle quite a bit to increase lane count - and I don't think there is anything designed with 300 feet in mind..
(https://i.imgur.com/FiKKPn3.png)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 17, 2018, 03:54:57 PM
Roundabouts can also be widened to 2 or 3 lanes, or built with that in the first place, if the design year volume warrants that.
The new roundabout at VA-144 and the I-95 ramps at Colonial Heights is that wide and has quite high capacity.
And it is pretty well understood by now - except that understanding is still filtering down to design folks - that 3-lanes roundabouts are less than safe.

Technically it is 2 lanes, and there are channelization-separated bypass lanes.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-95_temple_ave.asp
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 17, 2018, 04:10:24 PM
Roundabouts can also be widened to 2 or 3 lanes, or built with that in the first place, if the design year volume warrants that.
The new roundabout at VA-144 and the I-95 ramps at Colonial Heights is that wide and has quite high capacity.
And it is pretty well understood by now - except that understanding is still filtering down to design folks - that 3-lanes roundabouts are less than safe.

Technically it is 2 lanes, and there are channelization-separated bypass lanes.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-95_temple_ave.asp
So what it has to do with thread title in general and Malta NY in particular?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 18, 2018, 07:05:12 AM
...it's just another example of proving your point is inadequate. TBH, this whole portion of the thread really could be moved into a roundabout / rotary thread because it has little to do with New York.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 18, 2018, 07:25:05 AM
...it's just another example of proving your point is inadequate. TBH, this whole portion of the thread really could be moved into a roundabout / rotary thread because it has little to do with New York.
OK, lets look at things at perspective.
Entire conversation started with a complain about a specific place, Malta NY  coming from the driver who actually went through the area (BTW, did you at least bother opening google map of Malta?). A big feature of Malta's roads is a chain of  7 (seven) roundabouts in a less than a mile stretch of a road through town core - crown jewel being a 50k circle squeezed literally into a middle of town.
Now I get examples of a study which covers completely different application - roundabouts as replacement of 4-way stop signs; and a 3-legged interchange in a wide open area as examples why that very different location - remember, 50k circle is one of 20 most crash prone intersections in the area - is great...
It is like saying that if certain medicine is good for me - especially coupled with some minor surgery! - then it should be good for you...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 18, 2018, 07:51:42 AM
Rotaries = Entering drivers must yield
Roundabouts = Entering drivers must yield

Diagram splits hairs.

Have no problem with either, although I am always amazed that the Concord Rotary in MA operates as well as it does.  Not as white knuckle as it seems.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 18, 2018, 07:54:37 AM
Yes, I've been through Malta on quite a few trips. I'm well familiar with those roundabouts - even in rush hour. And while there is congestion queueing, it's nothing out of the ordinary and nothing that didn't exist before the roundabouts were installed. You can't design these intersections to be free-flowing in all conditions, but the fact is, roundabouts are safer than traditional traffic signals in almost all applications, they are free-flowing in almost all instances, and they have lower long-term operating costs. Without providing specifics as to your original point, we then have to rely on the general consensus, backed by research and data, that these roundabouts are better in instances where it is properly applied. And there is nothing out of the ordinary about these roundabouts to signify that they were improper.

And what are you talking about with this "50k" number? AADT is only around 14,000-16,000 on SR 67. US 9 is around 11,000 to 15,000. Even rush hour statistics, pulled from NYSDOT, aren't out of the ordinary.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 18, 2018, 08:52:35 AM
Yes, I've been through Malta on quite a few trips. I'm well familiar with those roundabouts - even in rush hour. And while there is congestion queueing, it's nothing out of the ordinary and nothing that didn't exist before the roundabouts were installed. You can't design these intersections to be free-flowing in all conditions, but the fact is, roundabouts are safer than traditional traffic signals in almost all applications, they are free-flowing in almost all instances, and they have lower long-term operating costs. Without providing specifics as to your original point, we then have to rely on the general consensus, backed by research and data, that these roundabouts are better in instances where it is properly applied. And there is nothing out of the ordinary about these roundabouts to signify that they were improper.

And what are you talking about with this "50k" number? AADT is only around 14,000-16,000 on SR 67. US 9 is around 11,000 to 15,000. Even rush hour statistics, pulled from NYSDOT, aren't out of the ordinary.
So ALMOST is your keyword. They are not free flowing - but they are ALMOST always free flowing. They are ALMOST ALWAYS safer - but sometimes crashes are increased..  OK, we're not talking about city of Almost, SomeState, US- we're talking about Malta NY. 
And when I hear word "consensus", I know that means there is no proof behind.
As for science: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/32617
 
Quote
Despite this, when it comes to less severe crashes, multilane roundabouts fail to provide the same benefit. In many cases , they actually come with increased rates of crashes resulting in property damage only.

But after all we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 18, 2018, 09:10:52 AM
No intersection design is going to be perfectly safe or be perfectly capable of handling every type of scenario. That's why, during the planning process, alternatives are identified and scored. You may think that this is an arbitrary decision, but the roundabouts were installed after careful consideration of a variety of alternatives - including a "do nothing" which wouldn't have resolved the initial issues.

And while you posted a link to research that provides generalized information about multi-lane roundabouts, you've not yet provided one shred of evidence that these roundabouts have increased accidents of all types or reduced the level of service. But the fact remains that roundabouts, on the whole, are safer than other alternatives for certain scenarios. Are they applicable in every situation? No. But in this situation in Malta? Sure.

And again, what do you mean by "50k"? The AADT is nowhere near that figure. And we know there aren't "50k" crashes or incidents in Malta. Can you clarify?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 18, 2018, 09:59:28 AM
Rotaries = Entering drivers must yield

There's no such connotation with the term; while some states may define the term "rotary", it doesn't have a universal meaning (other than as a New England-centric term for "traffic circle").
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 18, 2018, 10:03:07 AM
Rotaries = Entering drivers must yield

There's no such connotation with the term; while some states may define the term "rotary", it doesn't have a universal meaning (other than as a New England-centric term for "traffic circle").
It is true for MA rotaries.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on May 18, 2018, 10:32:17 AM
I have actually been to Malta, on the Sunday of Labor Day weekend in 2017.  I am guessing that the roundabout drawing Kalvado's ire is at US 9/NY 67 in line with the Adirondack Northway interchange.  I passed through it three times:

*  In the morning, east to south, to access the Malta Diner at the southwest corner

*  In the morning, north to west, after I found there was a wait of indefinite length for a table at the Malta Diner, and left (I ended up having to get my breakfast at midafternoon in Saratoga Springs)

*  In the afternoon, north to west, en route to Ballston Spa, Amsterdam, and the Thruway, after I corrected a navigational error that put me on the Round Lake Bypass (the guide signing in the area is less than clear)

I did notice that Malta and the towns in its vicinity (Maltaville, Round Lake) had what appeared to be a superfluity of roundabouts.  I would worry about getting adequate life out of tires if I had to live there or commute through there, but I generally felt traffic flowed well through them even on this very busy weekend day, though there was a queue at the two-lane NY 67/US 9 roundabout both times I passed through it in the morning.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 18, 2018, 11:09:39 AM
Tires? Wouldn't you be driving at such a low speed - as the roundabouts are intended to entice drivers to do - that tire wear is not a factor? That's the first I've seen that come up. Having worked in Carmel, Indiana, where practically every major intersection is a roundabout, that's not something even on the radar.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on May 18, 2018, 12:12:25 PM
Yes, tires.  Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 18, 2018, 12:34:42 PM
Rotaries = Entering drivers must yield

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

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

By contrast, the term "roundabout" (in the U.S.) connotes a circular intersection with a specific set of design features, including the requirement to yield on the approaching legs. A circular intersection that doesn't have these design features would not be referred to as a roundabout.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on May 18, 2018, 12:52:20 PM
There's no such connotation with the term; while some states may define the term "rotary", it doesn't have a universal meaning (other than as a New England-centric term for "traffic circle").

Rotary as an engineering term goes back at least as far as the 1965 AASHO Blue Book, where it refers to a type of circular intersection where entering traffic is expected to merge with traffic already in the circulatory carriageway.  Intersections of this type were built outside the Northeast, notably at US 62/I-35 in Oklahoma City (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4931698,-97.465276,149m/data=!3m1!1e3) (the circulatory carriageway was removed in the early noughties but the bridges that carried it over I-35 remain in service as facilitated U-turns for the frontage roads).

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

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

The current approach to roundabout design arrived in the US in the 1990's and there has been a considerable amount of language policing by practitioners to try to restrict the use of the word roundabout to what are also called modern roundabouts, i.e. ones with yield on entry, inscribed circle diameters generally smaller than those of the old AASHO rotaries, and a concept of operation that does not rely on entering traffic merging at speed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 18, 2018, 01:11:22 PM
There's no such connotation with the term; while some states may define the term "rotary", it doesn't have a universal meaning (other than as a New England-centric term for "traffic circle").

Rotary as an engineering term goes back at least as far as the 1965 AASHO Blue Book, where it refers to a type of circular intersection where entering traffic is expected to merge with traffic already in the circulatory carriageway.  Intersections of this type were built outside the Northeast, notably at US 62/I-35 in Oklahoma City (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4931698,-97.465276,149m/data=!3m1!1e3) (the circulatory carriageway was removed in the early noughties but the bridges that carried it over I-35 remain in service as facilitated U-turns for the frontage roads).

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on May 18, 2018, 01:50:28 PM
Were there circular junctions built that were identical save for the yielding requirement, which were not referred to as rotaries?

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

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

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

To my mind, the key difference is in concept of operation, which is dictated largely by inscribed circle diameter.  I personally wouldn't call an AASHO rotary a roundabout even if it were in a jurisdiction with yield on entry as the default.  On the other hand, telling a person he is not correct to speak of a rotary as if it were the same thing as a modern roundabout does not go far toward persuading him of the advantages modern roundabouts offer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 18, 2018, 02:47:05 PM
Yes, tires.  Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.

How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 18, 2018, 02:49:39 PM
Yes, tires.  Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.

How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?

Or urban areas where one must make several 90-degree intersection turns?  I think it's splitting hairs to suggest that it would wear down tires that much or that quickly.  Heck, gravel roads do worse on tires than a roundabout.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 18, 2018, 02:52:16 PM
Yes, tires.  Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.

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

Tires are not an issue, but tie rod ends seem to be affected a bit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 18, 2018, 02:54:33 PM
Yes, tires.  Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.
How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?
Abundance. I go through a loop ramp twice a day for commute, and none on weekends. I go through roundabout 7 times a day for commute plus twice every time I need to get a gallon of milk or a toothbrush or just get anywhere.
Tires are not an issue, but tie rod ends seem to be affected a bit.

I don't go thru any roundabouts except on a very occasional basis.
YMMV.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on May 18, 2018, 03:02:43 PM
How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?

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

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

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

And before you all ask--no, I don't like stoplights either.  In cities I accept them as a necessary evil, but on through corridors in areas undergoing urbanization, I expect planning control to be used to keep stoplights to a minimum.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 18, 2018, 03:05:53 PM
How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?
Not at all.  I don't like loop ramps on freeways either.

Much better than a diamond interchange with signals at the ramp terminals.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 18, 2018, 04:29:04 PM
Were there circular junctions built that were identical save for the yielding requirement, which were not referred to as rotaries?

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sure it wouldn't. However, it should go a long way toward informing him that it is not the same thing as a roundabout. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 18, 2018, 08:13:09 PM
I just looked at Malta on Google Earth. What a mess! Especially at the I-87 interchange. Who built all these roundabouts? Was it all NYS DOT or were some done by the County or local municipality? And was this all the brainstorm of one particular engineer and/or was it some sort of regional experiment?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on May 18, 2018, 10:18:22 PM
Some casual Googling--search phrase {roundabouts Malta New York} without braces--suggests the first was built around 2005, with others being added later:  NY 67 by 2012 and the ones related to the Round Lake Bypass after 2014.  I actually think I have construction plans for at least one Malta roundabout in my NYSDOT plans collection, which is comprehensive for projects let after August 2013, but the D-numbers are not coming to mind.

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

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/automobiles/wheels/as-americans-figure-out-the-roundabout-it-spreads-across-the-us.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 20, 2018, 12:11:18 AM
I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 20, 2018, 06:33:37 PM
I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.

Fortunately, the subject is New York, so you haven't changed it at all! ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 20, 2018, 07:49:40 PM
I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.

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

You're right!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 21, 2018, 11:37:42 AM
I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.

Widening would have required a higher level of environmental review and permitting.  Basic reconstruction/repairing, up to and including upgrading to modern standards doesn't require much in the way of review as long as it does not add capacity.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 23, 2018, 01:31:55 PM
I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.

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

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

Staying in Buffalo, road diet for NY 954L (Broadway) is planned (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=21230&p_is_digital=Y). Being familiar with this section, I'm not too concerned about any capacity issues this would cause, as that street gets no traffic. All signals west of Fillmore Avenue are being replaced and a couple are being removed. The signal replacements will have permissive-only FYAs for Broadway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 23, 2018, 03:57:22 PM
(Should still be NY 130, but I digress.)

Broadway needs a lot more than a road diet. It needs a way to be turned into Buffalo's Harlem.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 26, 2018, 09:20:00 PM
I've been noticing around Rochester that there are a bunch of new interstate shields with 18'' numerals like is most of the rest of the country.  It really saddens me to see them invading here.  IMO, they're ugly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 26, 2018, 09:23:37 PM
I've been noticing around Rochester that there are a bunch of new interstate shields with 18'' numerals like is most of the rest of the country.  It really saddens me to see them invading here.  IMO, they're ugly.

I like the older designs better, as in the 1970s.  Those giant numbers that fill the whole lower part of the shield, are unattractive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 27, 2018, 10:52:10 PM
18" numerals are now standard in New York as part of the 2009 MUTCD adoption. Just took a few years for NYSDOT to a) incorporate them and b) get a decent amount of them posted.

Hey, at least they aren't doing Series B for 3DIs like Ohio did for a while. Now THOSE are butt-f'ing ugly. Many of those on BGSes replaced button copy shields, too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 28, 2018, 07:55:22 PM
Since when does the federal MUTCD require 18'' numerals?  NY switched 3di shields to series C a while ago, but I didn't see anything but 15'' numerals until this year.

Honestly, 18'' numerals make me want to puke.  Maybe I'll have to move to Florida to get away from them.  IMO they should be banned at the national level!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on May 28, 2018, 09:07:25 PM
Since when does the federal MUTCD require 18'' numerals?  NY switched 3di shields to series C a while ago, but I didn't see anything but 15'' numerals until this year.
Honestly, 18'' numerals make me want to puke.  Maybe I'll have to move to Florida to get away from them.  IMO they should be banned at the national level!

I didn't know how many inches tall they are, just that the numbers fill all the space on the lower part of the shield.  I don't like it one bit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 29, 2018, 12:32:41 PM
Today I was searching for a historic house in Upper Red Hook, New York named the "Lyle House" (which I still haven't found), when I stumbled upon this mysterious pull-off area on US 9 (Albany Post Road), next to Old Post Road:

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


As expected, I have to ask why that exists.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 29, 2018, 12:46:19 PM
That link doesn't work (it searches "42" on Google Maps, for some reason).
Correct link. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/42°00'46.0%22N+73°53'15.0%22W/@42.0343217,-73.8474367,175m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d42.012778!4d-73.8875?hl=en)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 29, 2018, 01:13:53 PM
Today I was searching for a historic house in Upper Red Hook, New York named the "Lyle House" (which I still haven't found), when I stumbled upon this mysterious pull-off area on US 9 (Albany Post Road), next to Old Post Road:

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


As expected, I have to ask why that exists.

Reminds me a similar area on NY 7: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7526776,-73.7223019,348m/data=!3m1!1e3
That one was explained as a "truck inspection area built before anyone knew how truck inspection area should look like"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on May 29, 2018, 04:58:56 PM
Both pull-off ramps have existed as long as I remember.  In the case of US 9, at least 50+ years and the one on NY 7 has been there since the road opened in 1986.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on May 29, 2018, 05:19:18 PM
I just saw an article (http://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/traffic-patterns-changing-along-i-690-at-teall-ave/1196877698) from NewsChannel 9 that said that the westbound I-690 lanes near Teall Ave in Syracuse will be transitioned to the new road today.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 29, 2018, 08:01:56 PM
I just saw an article (http://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/traffic-patterns-changing-along-i-690-at-teall-ave/1196877698) from NewsChannel 9 that said that the westbound I-690 lanes near Teall Ave in Syracuse will be transitioned to the new road today.

Forgive my ignorance... what's going on on I-690?
Didn't know of or see anything, so must be east of I-81.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on May 29, 2018, 08:16:40 PM
The viaduct just west of Teall Ave is being replaced with a berm and retaining wall.  It's about 3/4 of a mile east of I-81.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/i690beechteall (https://www.dot.ny.gov/i690beechteall)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 31, 2018, 08:35:50 PM
That link doesn't work (it searches "42" on Google Maps, for some reason).
Correct link. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/42°00'46.0%22N+73°53'15.0%22W/@42.0343217,-73.8474367,175m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d42.012778!4d-73.8875?hl=en)

Yeah, they do that to me a lot.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on May 31, 2018, 08:37:32 PM
That link doesn't work (it searches "42" on Google Maps, for some reason).
Correct link. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/42°00'46.0%22N+73°53'15.0%22W/@42.0343217,-73.8474367,175m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d42.012778!4d-73.8875?hl=en)

Yeah, they do that to me a lot.

I think it's the forum, not Google. It's caused by using a degree symbol as part of a link; if you use decimal degrees instead of degrees, minutes, and seconds, it will work fine.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 31, 2018, 08:37:37 PM
^ Largely because you're trying to post links that have special characters that the forum software doesn't recognize as part of a weblink.  There's ways around that, as webny99 showed, but posting raw Google Maps links as you tried just doesn't work.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 02, 2018, 04:29:55 PM
This afternoon I observed construction activity at I-90/Thruway exit 57 @ Camp Road. They are digging a trench to access utilities, striping the road, cones and construction vehicles are staged.

They are preparing to redo the interchange and tear down the bridge, bringing everything to grade. This is bittersweet because it's my "home" interchange, and waiting at a light for 30 seconds instead of taking a ramp will suck.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: AMLNet49 on June 02, 2018, 04:52:37 PM
This afternoon I observed construction activity at I-90/Thruway exit 57 @ Camp Road. They are digging a trench to access utilities, striping the road, cones and construction vehicles are staged.

They are preparing to redo the interchange and tear down the bridge, bringing everything to grade. This is bittersweet because it's my "home" interchange, and waiting at a light for 30 seconds instead of taking a ramp will suck.

Is it an “overpowered”  interchange
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 02, 2018, 06:50:09 PM
This afternoon I observed construction activity at I-90/Thruway exit 57 @ Camp Road. They are digging a trench to access utilities, striping the road, cones and construction vehicles are staged.

They are preparing to redo the interchange and tear down the bridge, bringing everything to grade. This is bittersweet because it's my "home" interchange, and waiting at a light for 30 seconds instead of taking a ramp will suck.

Is it an “overpowered”  interchange

Perhaps, but I think it's really just structurally deficient. There's holes in the substructure, you can see rebar in the bridge, etc.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on June 10, 2018, 06:48:21 PM
I drove from Auburn to the Chick-fil-A in Cicero yesterday afternoon, and there were a few things I noticed:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 12, 2018, 07:30:25 PM
Add Interstate 84 in New York to the routes converted to the mileage numbers. Rather than make you guys go through the full plans:

1 = 1
2 = 4
3 E/W = 15 A/B
4 E/W = 19 A/B
5 = 28
5A = 32
6 = 34
7 A/B = 36 A/B
8 = 37
10 = 39
11 = 41
12 = 44
13 = 46 (A&B westbound)
15 = 50 (Lime Kiln Road getting CR 27 shields)
16 S/N = 52 A/B
17 = 58 (Ludingtonville Road getting CR 43 shields)
18 = 61
19 = 65
20 S/N = 68 A/B
21 = 69

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=21436&p_is_digital=Y
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 12, 2018, 07:45:29 PM
This makes I-84 the first large-scale renumbering in New York. Possibly a test case for other conversions?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 12, 2018, 09:07:40 PM
Looks great but why the use of "I-XX" or "NYS XXX" on supplementary signs instead of their respective shields?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 12, 2018, 09:26:00 PM
Add Interstate 84 in New York to the routes converted to the mileage numbers.
Awesome! Is this complete, or when is it scheduled to be done?

Quote
Rather than make you guys go through the full plans:

Going through the plans is the fun part!
I really like the signage overall. Impressive. My only beef is the unwillingness to overlap signage for multiple exits. It seems foolish to have 2 mile advance signage for almost everything, including random county routes, but then only 3/4 mile advance signage for some of the exits that are actually important, like the westbound approach to I-684.

Speaking of 2 mile advance signs, when did NYSDOT start implementing them wholesale? Is this the first case of them being included as SOP at most exits? I like them, by the way, just curious as to what prompted NYSDOT to start using them.

This makes I-84 the first large-scale renumbering in New York. Possibly a test case for other conversions?

Are there plans for other conversions?
It seems likely that the thruway will be last... maybe I-390 next? or even I-81? I-190 would be an easy one, too; a bunch of the exit numbers could stay as-is through Niagara Falls.

I wonder if NYSDOT will replace/update all signage statewide when changing the exit numbers or if that's specific to the I-84 project.

Looks great but why the use of "I-XX" or "NYS XXX" on supplementary signs instead of their respective shields?

Just my opinion, but shields don't look right on mileage signs. It's too imbalanced, especially if there are lengthy city names beneath. IIRC, the MUTCD has a word on the subject too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on June 12, 2018, 10:02:17 PM
For I-684, westbound, a 2-mile advance would likely fall within or pretty close to Connecticut.  It could be combined with an overhead for the westbound-only exit before (US 6/202/New Salem). 

I do notice this project includes 1/2 mile advances, which aren't too common in NY.  Everywhere I've seen (in rural areas), there's a 1 mile advance, and an exit now, sometimes two (one ground, one overhead).

I really can't stand the "TO NEW YORK CITY" and "TO BREWSTER" for the I-684 exit.  And the continuation of the "86 West 17 West", but only "17 East". 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 12, 2018, 11:20:27 PM
The abrupt nature of the advance signs for interstates can extend to the rather abrupt signage for I-81 on I-88 southbound near Binghamton - which I think is now just a 1/2 mile guide sign with no guidance followed by the final guide sign around a curve.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on June 13, 2018, 01:59:38 AM
Add Interstate 84 in New York to the routes converted to the mileage numbers. Rather than make you guys go through the full plans:

1 = 1
2 = 4
3 E/W = 15 A/B
4 E/W = 19 A/B
5 = 28
5A = 32
6 = 34
7 A/B = 36 A/B
8 = 37
10 = 39
11 = 41
12 = 44
13 = 46 (A&B westbound)
15 = 50 (Lime Kiln Road getting CR 27 shields)
16 S/N = 52 A/B
17 = 58 (Ludingtonville Road getting CR 43 shields)
18 = 61
19 = 65
20 S/N = 68 A/B
21 = 69

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=21436&p_is_digital=Y

What projects were exit numbers 9 and 14 reserved for?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 13, 2018, 08:17:42 AM
Add Interstate 84 in New York to the routes converted to the mileage numbers. Rather than make you guys go through the full plans:

1 = 1
2 = 4
3 E/W = 15 A/B
4 E/W = 19 A/B
5 = 28
5A = 32
6 = 34
7 A/B = 36 A/B
8 = 37
10 = 39
11 = 41
12 = 44
13 = 46 (A&B westbound)
15 = 50 (Lime Kiln Road getting CR 27 shields)
16 S/N = 52 A/B
17 = 58 (Ludingtonville Road getting CR 43 shields)
18 = 61
19 = 65
20 S/N = 68 A/B
21 = 69

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=21436&p_is_digital=Y (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=21436&p_is_digital=Y)

What projects were exit numbers 9 and 14 reserved for?
EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_84_in_New_York#Exits_9_and_14
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 13, 2018, 08:28:46 AM
For I-684, westbound, a 2-mile advance would likely fall within or pretty close to Connecticut.  It could be combined with an overhead for the westbound-only exit before (US 6/202/New Salem).

Exactly; why the reluctance to overlap signage with the previous exit?

Quote
I really can't stand the "TO NEW YORK CITY" and "TO BREWSTER" for the I-684 exit.  And the continuation of the "86 West 17 West", but only "17 East".

I groaned about the latter, but I guess it's forgivable at this point given the state of I-86.
The former is just downright disgusting - why they'd include an ugly and unnecessary "TO" for those destinations is beyond me. :banghead:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 13, 2018, 09:38:31 AM
For I-684, westbound, a 2-mile advance would likely fall within or pretty close to Connecticut.  It could be combined with an overhead for the westbound-only exit before (US 6/202/New Salem).
Actually that exit's about 1 mile from the I-684/NY 22 interchange.

I do notice this project includes 1/2 mile advances, which aren't too common in NY.  Everywhere I've seen (in rural areas), there's a 1 mile advance, and an exit now, sometimes two (one ground, one overhead).
For some reason, there's always been limited advance-notice for the I-684 exit along westbound I-84 (& eastbound I-287 in White Plains).  Not sure why NYSDOT is/has always been reluctant to provide more advance signage for this interchange & highway. 

I really can't stand the "TO NEW YORK CITY" and "TO BREWSTER" for the I-684 exit.
The use of TO for such is indeed odd.  I guess whoever decided such want to clarify that neither I-684 & NY 22 actually enter/pass through those cities/towns.

Regarding exit/interchange number changes: could I-684 be next?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on June 13, 2018, 10:21:39 AM
...
Are there plans for other conversions?
It seems likely that the thruway will be last... maybe I-390 next? or even I-81? I-190 would be an easy one, too; a bunch of the exit numbers could stay as-is through Niagara Falls.

I wonder if NYSDOT will replace/update all signage statewide when changing the exit numbers or if that's specific to the I-84 project.
...

For I-81, Region 9 has replaced some signs as part of the Prospect Mountain area. Region 3 (at least Cortland and Onondaga counties) has also replaced much of the guide signs as well in the last year or so, all with existing sequential numbers. Whenever they convert I-81, I don't think it will be part of a road-wide full sign replacement.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 13, 2018, 02:06:26 PM
Region 3 did Oswego too.  Most everything on I-81 in R3 is now new, and includes 2 mile advance signs in rural areas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on June 13, 2018, 08:10:29 PM
The link to the plans for the I-84 project is 404ing to me.

I note looking through the numbers that NY is rounding all of the mileages down. The most extreme example is current exit 5A, at MP 32.99, which is becoming exit 32.
With the exception that they are not using exit 0. Exit 1, at MP 0.66, will remain exit 1.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 13, 2018, 08:25:43 PM
Entire site is down.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 13, 2018, 10:21:12 PM
NYSDOT?
Seems to be working fine for me...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 13, 2018, 10:31:35 PM
NYSDOT?
Seems to be working fine for me...

Construction Opportunities section
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on June 13, 2018, 11:42:01 PM
This I-84 sign replacement contract is D263712 and the documentation package does not seem to include SFLs.  I wonder if these will be uploaded later.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 14, 2018, 01:25:33 PM
Region 3 did Oswego too.  Most everything on I-81 in R3 is now new, and includes 2 mile advance signs in rural areas.

I think the 2 mile advance exit signs started with the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD, but wasn’t seen wide scale until the new signs on I-81 in Oswego County. There were 2 mile advance signs on I-88 around Exits 4 and 5, but they didn’t last very long for some reason.

I know I-81 is slated to be renumbered to distance-based exits whenever the Syracuse viaduct project happens. I think I-84 may have been done first because it’s the only primary interstate in the state maintained by only one region.

Edit: mistyped "sequential exits" and replaced with "distance-based exits"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 14, 2018, 01:30:24 PM
Region 3 did Oswego too.  Most everything on I-81 in R3 is now new, and includes 2 mile advance signs in rural areas.

I think the 2 mile advance exit signs started with the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD, but wasn’t seen wide scale until the new signs on I-81 in Oswego County. There were 2 mile advance signs on I-88 around Exits 4 and 5, but they didn’t last very long for some reason.

I know I-81 is slated to be renumbered to sequential exits whenever the Syracuse viaduct project happens. I think I-84 may have been done first because it’s the only primary interstate in the state maintained by only one region.

I-81 is also having all of its signs replaced in one shot. No other 2DI aside from I-99 is short enough to get that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 14, 2018, 01:56:27 PM
Region 3 did Oswego too.  Most everything on I-81 in R3 is now new, and includes 2 mile advance signs in rural areas.

I think the 2 mile advance exit signs started with the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD, but wasn’t seen wide scale until the new signs on I-81 in Oswego County. There were 2 mile advance signs on I-88 around Exits 4 and 5, but they didn’t last very long for some reason.

I know I-81 is slated to be renumbered to sequential exits whenever the Syracuse viaduct project happens. I think I-84 may have been done first because it’s the only primary interstate in the state maintained by only one region.

I-81 is also having all of its signs replaced in one shot. No other 2DI aside from I-99 is short enough to get that.

Hmmm, I think I-88 is shorter and probably could use a sign rehab at that. Region 9 likes to do funky things with lowercase letters.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 14, 2018, 03:31:57 PM
^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 14, 2018, 03:45:37 PM
I know I-81 is slated to be renumbered to distance-based exits whenever the Syracuse viaduct project happens.

Is there any information online on this?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 14, 2018, 07:19:42 PM
^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....

Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 14, 2018, 07:20:00 PM
I know I-81 is slated to be renumbered to distance-based exits whenever the Syracuse viaduct project happens.

Is there any information online on this?

It’ll probably be included when they announce whatever they’re going to do with the viaduct but I don’t think there’s anything online yet. The discussion I had with NYSDOT was that no matter what option they chose the interchange configuration would change, and they would take the opportunity to coordinate the renumbering with the three regions involved with I-81.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 14, 2018, 07:45:13 PM
^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....

Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound.  Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive.  Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on June 14, 2018, 07:54:53 PM
With this rehab project, will there be any signs remaining that were erected by the Thruway Authority? With the old milemarkers (mercifully) gone, there won't be much evidence of the former Thruway maintenance left on the highway...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 14, 2018, 08:36:32 PM
^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....

Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound.  Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive.  Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.

It's still a bit rough of a ride...and this is coming from a guy who lives 2.5 miles from the nearest pavement...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on June 14, 2018, 09:46:22 PM
^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....

Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound.  Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive.  Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.

It's still a bit rough of a ride...and this is coming from a guy who lives 2.5 miles from the nearest pavement...

The concrete on that stretch of I-88 between Oneonta and Cobleskill was subject to diamond grinding a little more than 10 years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 14, 2018, 10:37:10 PM
Bringing this back for relevance:

Was on I-88 Saturday and could not believe how awful the pavement has gotten in just a year's time near Worcester and Richmondville: Video (https://www.facebook.com/seicer/videos/10105534696455860/). Most of the traffic was riding in the left lane, which is where I also camped out in after a quick video. Will this section be on the list for rehab this year?

Another section that was most recently rehabbed, from Central Bridge east to Duanesburg (north end) is also failing after being completed just late last year. Most of the joints have reappeared in the asphalt and potholes are already forming. What differs from this rehab from others along I-88 that are in excellent condition?

As for the southernmost section, it was just rehabilitated. And by that, they just chunked out the worst aspects of it and replaced it with asphalt instead of doing full-depth concrete repairs, and then diamond grinded the whole thing. It is FAR smoother than before but still very much uneven. I've not seen pavement repairs done in such a manner, where asphalt is used instead of concrete for such repairs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 15, 2018, 09:37:46 AM
^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....

Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound.  Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive.  Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.

It's still a bit rough of a ride...and this is coming from a guy who lives 2.5 miles from the nearest pavement...

The concrete on that stretch of I-88 between Oneonta and Cobleskill was subject to diamond grinding a little more than 10 years ago.

Diamond grinding doesn't fix the problem, which is joints. That stretch needed a dowel bar retrofit in addition to the grinding. Of course, with the joints how they are now, it just needs to be torn out and reconstructed. That is, hands-down, the worst section of pavement on an Interstate in New York. Worse than the Thruway through the reservation, worse than I-684 in Westchester.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on June 15, 2018, 09:44:50 AM
I clinched I-88 a few years ago, and I don't remember it being that bad. (Obviously, I wasn't the one driving.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 15, 2018, 09:53:52 AM
^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....

Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound.  Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive.  Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.

It's still a bit rough of a ride...and this is coming from a guy who lives 2.5 miles from the nearest pavement...

The concrete on that stretch of I-88 between Oneonta and Cobleskill was subject to diamond grinding a little more than 10 years ago.

Diamond grinding doesn't fix the problem, which is joints. That stretch needed a dowel bar retrofit in addition to the grinding. Of course, with the joints how they are now, it just needs to be torn out and reconstructed. That is, hands-down, the worst section of pavement on an Interstate in New York. Worse than the Thruway through the reservation, worse than I-684 in Westchester.
I disagree.  I-86 through the Seneca Nation is much, much worse.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 15, 2018, 09:57:01 AM
^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....

Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound.  Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive.  Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.

It's still a bit rough of a ride...and this is coming from a guy who lives 2.5 miles from the nearest pavement...

The concrete on that stretch of I-88 between Oneonta and Cobleskill was subject to diamond grinding a little more than 10 years ago.

Diamond grinding doesn't fix the problem, which is joints. That stretch needed a dowel bar retrofit in addition to the grinding. Of course, with the joints how they are now, it just needs to be torn out and reconstructed. That is, hands-down, the worst section of pavement on an Interstate in New York. Worse than the Thruway through the reservation, worse than I-684 in Westchester.
I disagree.  I-86 through the Seneca Nation is much, much worse.

I-86 was reconstructed a few years ago. That's generally in great shape now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 15, 2018, 10:08:52 AM
^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....

Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound.  Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive.  Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.

It's still a bit rough of a ride...and this is coming from a guy who lives 2.5 miles from the nearest pavement...

The concrete on that stretch of I-88 between Oneonta and Cobleskill was subject to diamond grinding a little more than 10 years ago.

Diamond grinding doesn't fix the problem, which is joints. That stretch needed a dowel bar retrofit in addition to the grinding. Of course, with the joints how they are now, it just needs to be torn out and reconstructed. That is, hands-down, the worst section of pavement on an Interstate in New York. Worse than the Thruway through the reservation, worse than I-684 in Westchester.
I disagree.  I-86 through the Seneca Nation is much, much worse.

I-86 was reconstructed a few years ago. That's generally in great shape now.
All the way through?  Last time I was through there, I noted a reconstructed portion and started celebrating...and then hit a remaining stretch of the barely-above-macadam "pavement."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 15, 2018, 11:52:40 AM
With this rehab project, will there be any signs remaining that were erected by the Thruway Authority? With the old milemarkers (mercifully) gone, there won't be much evidence of the former Thruway maintenance left on the highway...

Maybe a couple signs at the rest areas and at ramps, but I don't think there will be anything left on the mainline. Maybe some reassurance shields.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on June 15, 2018, 12:04:14 PM
I-86 was reconstructed a few years ago. That's generally in great shape now.
All the way through?  Last time I was through there, I noted a reconstructed portion and started celebrating...and then hit a remaining stretch of the barely-above-macadam "pavement."

The part with the US-219 overlap was rehabbed and is excellent.  That is the only part I use.

What about US-219 south of I-86 to PA?  Old concrete pavement probably from the 1960s and in terrible condition, very bumpy.  When are they going to rehab that?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 15, 2018, 12:06:46 PM
I-86 was reconstructed a few years ago. That's generally in great shape now.
All the way through?  Last time I was through there, I noted a reconstructed portion and started celebrating...and then hit a remaining stretch of the barely-above-macadam "pavement."

The part with the US-219 overlap was rehabbed and is excellent.  That is the only part I use.

What about US-219 south of I-86 to PA?  Old concrete pavement probably from the 1960s and in terrible condition, very bumpy.  When are they going to rehab that?

Everything through Seneca land has been rehabbed within the past few years. I was on it last year and it was smooth.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 15, 2018, 12:40:23 PM
I-86 was reconstructed a few years ago. That's generally in great shape now.
All the way through?  Last time I was through there, I noted a reconstructed portion and started celebrating...and then hit a remaining stretch of the barely-above-macadam "pavement."

The part with the US-219 overlap was rehabbed and is excellent.  That is the only part I use.

What about US-219 south of I-86 to PA?  Old concrete pavement probably from the 1960s and in terrible condition, very bumpy.  When are they going to rehab that?

I-86 / NY 17 was built in 1980-1987 in the Salamanca area, whose construction was held up for years by the Senecas (for a variety of reasons). That pavement failed fairly quickly and was rehabilitated some two years ago after the project was delayed by the Senecas.

US 219 south of I-86 was twinned around the same time, so that concrete pavement is of the same age of I-86.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on June 15, 2018, 03:14:41 PM
The part with the US-219 overlap was rehabbed and is excellent.  That is the only part I use.
What about US-219 south of I-86 to PA?  Old concrete pavement probably from the 1960s and in terrible condition, very bumpy.  When are they going to rehab that?
I-86 / NY 17 was built in 1980-1987 in the Salamanca area, whose construction was held up for years by the Senecas (for a variety of reasons). That pavement failed fairly quickly and was rehabilitated some two years ago after the project was delayed by the Senecas.

US 219 south of I-86 was twinned around the same time, so that concrete pavement is of the same age of I-86.

Well, still it is horrendous and needs major rebab and resurfacing.  What are they waiting for - Hell to freeze over?

Pennsylvania did a major rebab and resurfacing and replacement of bridge decks on the 10-mile US-219 Bradford Expressway about 5 years ago.  I believe it was originally built in the 1970s.  It was in likewise poor condition and in some places the pavement was completely replaced.  Now it is in very fine condition.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 15, 2018, 05:33:57 PM
If it was anything like rehabilitating I-86 by Salamanca or even constructing it decades ago, it's probably a tall order. (e.g. http://www.salamancapress.com/news/senecas-state-continue-to-battle-over-i--work/article_4a23530e-dce4-11e1-992f-001a4bcf887a.html ; It's even over trivial matters, like reference numbers: http://www.salamancapress.com/news/new-york-state-dot-crews-replace-mile-markers-with-signs/article_372368a0-bd73-11e7-94ec-d7ce264572c4.html)

It's partly the reason why the Thruway's pavement is in such horrible shape (with a lowered speed limit, even) through the reservation west of Buffalo. It's to the point that the Seneca refuses to acknowledge the Thruway and its legality, and where a cigarette shop owner is constructing (with no success) his own ramp to the interstate.

It's also why the US 219 freeway is stalled south of Springville to I-86. Some 22 miles of the alignment goes through the Seneca lands.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 15, 2018, 09:02:00 PM
22 miles?  I thought it was just a mile or so near the NY 17 interchange.  The reservation is pretty narrow; basically just a mile or two on either side along NY 17.  More like new freeway construction isn't a priority in NY right now.  This is probably why some have advocated to build the NY 17 interchange next, since it will be the most difficult part to build because of the reservation; they probably think that getting that part out of the way will make the state more likely to fill in the gap.

As for the southernmost section, it was just rehabilitated. And by that, they just chunked out the worst aspects of it and replaced it with asphalt instead of doing full-depth concrete repairs, and then diamond grinded the whole thing. It is FAR smoother than before but still very much uneven. I've not seen pavement repairs done in such a manner, where asphalt is used instead of concrete for such repairs.
The Thruway does that between 44 and 45.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 15, 2018, 09:11:44 PM
Everything through Seneca land has been rehabbed within the past few years. I was on it last year and it was smooth.

Yep, I can confirm that, having driven I-86 from NY 36 to Allegany last October.
With the rehab complete, it's a really decent road from Exit 21 to Exit 23; lots of character and scenery; possibly even one of my favorite segments of I-86!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 15, 2018, 09:30:50 PM
US 219's freeway will terminate where the US 219 interchange is now, it seems. I haven't read all of this document (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CVnIxlbyTWkJ:https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region5/projects/us-route-219/repository/partial_build_report.txt+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) yet on it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 18, 2018, 12:18:30 AM
I found the 22 mile figure.  That number is actually for I-86, not US 219.  Looks like the reason it was to end at Snake Run Road was to minimize the impact to the remainder of the corridor until final approval could be given to the small portion in the Seneca Nation.  My understanding is that a new interchange (http://www.southerntierwest.org/pdf/reports/US%20Route%20219%20Planning%20Study.pdf) was to be built on I-86 (though still a diamond).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 22, 2018, 03:49:59 PM
The part with the US-219 overlap was rehabbed and is excellent.  That is the only part I use.
What about US-219 south of I-86 to PA?  Old concrete pavement probably from the 1960s and in terrible condition, very bumpy.  When are they going to rehab that?
I-86 / NY 17 was built in 1980-1987 in the Salamanca area, whose construction was held up for years by the Senecas (for a variety of reasons). That pavement failed fairly quickly and was rehabilitated some two years ago after the project was delayed by the Senecas.

US 219 south of I-86 was twinned around the same time, so that concrete pavement is of the same age of I-86.

Well, still it is horrendous and needs major rebab and resurfacing.  What are they waiting for - Hell to freeze over?

Pennsylvania did a major rebab and resurfacing and replacement of bridge decks on the 10-mile US-219 Bradford Expressway about 5 years ago.  I believe it was originally built in the 1970s.  It was in likewise poor condition and in some places the pavement was completely replaced.  Now it is in very fine condition.

The Bradford Expressway is 10 miles? That doesn't sound right.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr_Northside on June 22, 2018, 04:37:45 PM
The Bradford Expressway is 10 miles? That doesn't sound right.

True.   It looks to be about 5.5 miles.

https://goo.gl/maps/UKTdDmVes2U2

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 22, 2018, 09:06:34 PM
Maybe they're adding together both carriageways?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on June 22, 2018, 11:57:32 PM
The Bradford Expressway is 10 miles? That doesn't sound right.
True.   It looks to be about 5.5 miles.
https://goo.gl/maps/UKTdDmVes2U2

My point was that they did a nice job on the rehab.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on June 23, 2018, 10:09:27 AM
The current (2018) highway map issued by PENNDOT shows the Bradford to be ~5.5 miles in length.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on June 23, 2018, 02:42:25 PM
JN, where did you find the archived plans?  I only saw the current plans.

Apologies for the very late answer:  the archive is at the same place (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-notices) as the current plans.  883 projects are now available, all the way back to 2015-04-09.

I've fine-tuned my downloader still further since the revision discussed upthread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1487.msg2261030#msg2261030) still required one findstr call per project to determine whether it was blocked out.  One refinement includes a subroutine that does a simple date test to exclude all projects with bid opening earlier than the first day of the last month; at this point (late in the current month, so about fifty days away from cutoff date) this cuts the 883 projects down to about 50.  Time to confect a list of URLs to download is about the same, but the time gap between completion of the URL list and start of download (when checking old projects against the blockout list happens) should be shorter since only ~50 projects are being checked, not all 883.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on June 28, 2018, 10:37:29 PM
Reported by newsday that governor cuomo and NYSDOT are no longer pursuing a cross sound bridge or tunnel between Long Island and westchester or Connecticut. I’d say they realized the $50B price tag was ridiculous to even fathom when our roads are crumbling and there’s so many other priorities that could use funding first

https://www.newsday.com/long-island/long-island-sound-tunnel-state-dot-1.19476581 (https://www.newsday.com/long-island/long-island-sound-tunnel-state-dot-1.19476581)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on June 28, 2018, 11:25:53 PM
Reported by newsday that governor cuomo and NYSDOT are no longer pursuing a cross sound bridge or tunnel between Long Island and westchester or Connecticut. I’d say they realized the $50B price tag was ridiculous to even fathom when our roads are crumbling and there’s so many other priorities that could use funding first
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/long-island-sound-tunnel-state-dot-1.19476581 (https://www.newsday.com/long-island/long-island-sound-tunnel-state-dot-1.19476581)

Proposed a few months ago and now suddenly canceled?  Baalloooohhh-NEY!

That just proves my previous assessment that the $55 billion cost was a ridiculously over-pumped figure designed to kill the project before it even barely started.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 29, 2018, 07:46:32 AM
...politics too. Cuomo is running for governor and has presidential aspirations.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 29, 2018, 08:29:36 AM
Duh.

The study was just to appease another recent upswell for the idea.

It wasn't taken seriously before the study, during or after.  And, in the end, it became just another mechanism to line a contractor's pockets with cash.

A total waste all around that is a good example of the drawbacks of American democracy:  A small group of vocal rich idiots can cause tax dollars to be totally wasted through their disproportionate influence to the detriment of the entire society.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 29, 2018, 08:49:48 AM
And is another example of why these types of projects can cost $55 billion. Or why any project in that region can seemingly cost 3 to 4 times as much as anywhere else: politics and "studies."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 29, 2018, 08:53:14 AM
Well, I don't think the study has much to do with the tunnel's actual cost.

It was more of a waste in terms of it studying what was obvious to a whole lot of people.

Studies can be quite defensible in how to resolve complex issues with transportation infrastructure.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on June 29, 2018, 09:58:49 AM
How in-depth was this "study"?  Is it posted online? 

Or was it just a back-of-an-envelope thing intended to appease someone?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 29, 2018, 10:12:44 AM
I'm curious as to how it would cost $55 billion. Would the CBBT be anywhere near that cost in both the original construction dollars inflated for today's prices - and if the project was begun today instead of decades ago?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on June 29, 2018, 10:16:19 AM
And is another example of why these types of projects can cost $55 billion. Or why any project in that region can seemingly cost 3 to 4 times as much as anywhere else: politics and "studies."

Everything costs more here due to the government red tape, the costs of everything is higher from materials to transporting good to closing roads and labor unions that negotiate high wages for their workers (not against unions but it does add significant costs and time to projects as witnessed first hand such as a OE needs to be on site to turn on a generator at 7am and off at 330pm and sit in their vehicle sleeping all day getting paid full wage because they “claimed”  that equipment and other tradesmen cannot operate it.) its just a fact of life here

We all know the $55B price tag was just a conservative arbitrary number that would most likely get blown way out of the water like the tappan zee bridge or mta ESA project. Idk where cuomo thinks the money is coming from between the new tappan zee Bridge, the refurbishment of LaGuardia airport costing billions, the multiple lirr/may projects including ESA, 2nd ave subway, adding tracks on mainline w/ grade elimination, and now a $1.5B AirTrain for LaGuardia airport. When he announced this tunnel everyone just laughed

Also, this project was never going to happen with the opposition of residents in oyster bay with lots of money and political influence as well as enrinmental road blocks. The other option out of Kings park at north end of sunken meadow pkwy was a pipe dream too, you’d have to completely revamp the pkwy to interstate standards from I495 north to the new bridge/tunnel as well as deal with environmental issues there being you have sunken meadow state park and very popular beach front there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 29, 2018, 08:08:48 PM
The only way we could afford the price tag for this project would be with mostly Federal funding. I agree it's regrettable that a small number of affluent North Shore residents can politically stop a much needed project like this. Shame on them for being so shortsighted.

Personally I would rather see a bridge than a tunnel. Probably be less expensive to build and could easily be made aesthetically pleasing. And would be more interesting to drive. Can you imagine how boring the ride through such a long tunnel would be?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 29, 2018, 09:41:07 PM
The idea that this crossing is needed is poppycock.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 29, 2018, 10:24:30 PM
The idea that this crossing is needed is poppycock.

I happen to agree - the Throgs/Whitestone combo are adequate for western LI compared to many of the other regional roads. A crossing closer to I-91 would make much more sense.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 29, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
The only thing is, NYC is basically perpetual gridlock, at least during the day.  Even worse if the MTA decides to close a lane on every single one of their bridges at the same time.  Long Island has no good way to bypass this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on June 29, 2018, 10:52:42 PM
The idea that this crossing is needed is poppycock.

Really?  The NYSDOT study on the crossings says that there is a 2040 travel demand of 86,000 AADT for the western crossing.  Six lane freeway territory.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 29, 2018, 11:54:33 PM
2040.  How many governors is that far away?

22 years away.  I am sure there were studies 22 years ago that said we would have flying cars by now.

A new crossing will not be built in my lifetime.  That is all there is to it.  And come 2040, when I am in my mid-60s, I will come back to this thread and say, "Neener neener."

The fact the study was commissioned, that  assertion made therein and now a retreat by the Governor proves this was just an appeasement exercise.  Cling to its "findings" all you want.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on June 29, 2018, 11:59:56 PM
The fact the study was commissioned, that  assertion made therein and now a retreat by the Governor proves this was just an appeasement exercise.  Cling to its "findings" all you want.

That is what I already said.  They were playing games.  They weren't serious.

Although the travel demand metric is likely realistic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 30, 2018, 01:06:29 AM
The only hope of a crossing would be a speed ferry crossing for a reasonable price that would have to be heavily subsidized.

This won't happen, but the Port Jefferson and Orient Point ferries are absurdly priced to be of any use.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TML on June 30, 2018, 02:00:51 AM
I'd say the idea of a Long Island Sound crossing is down but not out.

Based on the timing of proposals, it seems to me that at least one proposal becomes active every generation. I think it is highly likely that within another generation we will have another serious discussion about another proposed LIS crossing, especially if the federal government decides to go ahead with a massive infrastructure plan with public financing (the Sanders model, not the Trump model).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on June 30, 2018, 07:35:34 AM
The crossing proposals to Connecticut and Rhode Island suffer from the fact that those states don't really have much incentive and benefit to connect to Long Island, especially given what is involved in building a fixed crossing 15 miles long or longer.

The crossing entirely within New York State would be logical given the incentive to improve access within the state and the fact that state controls the entire project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 30, 2018, 10:06:45 AM
The crossing proposals to Connecticut and Rhode Island suffer from the fact that those states don't really have much incentive and benefit to connect to Long Island, especially given what is involved in building a fixed crossing 15 miles long or longer.

The crossing entirely within New York State would be logical given the incentive to improve access within the state and the fact that state controls the entire project.
I fail to see the difference in terms of traffic demands. The incentive is that LIers can more easily get to and from New England and vice versa, improving comments in all of those states (LI counts as a state for this purpose :D).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on June 30, 2018, 10:17:02 AM
The crossing proposals to Connecticut and Rhode Island suffer from the fact that those states don't really have much incentive and benefit to connect to Long Island, especially given what is involved in building a fixed crossing 15 miles long or longer.

The crossing entirely within New York State would be logical given the incentive to improve access within the state and the fact that state controls the entire project.
I fail to see the difference in terms of traffic demands. The incentive is that LIers can more easily get to and from New England and vice versa, improving comments in all of those states (LI counts as a state for this purpose :D).

A crossing entirely within New York is much shorter than one into Connecticut, unless you're connecting the tip of Long Island (likely as an extension of CT 9).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 30, 2018, 10:43:54 AM
The fact the study was commissioned, that  assertion made therein and now a retreat by the Governor proves this was just an appeasement exercise.  Cling to its "findings" all you want.

That is what I already said.  They were playing games.  They weren't serious.

Although the travel demand metric is likely realistic.
I reserve the right to rant nonetheless.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on June 30, 2018, 12:21:01 PM
The crossing proposals to Connecticut and Rhode Island suffer from the fact that those states don't really have much incentive and benefit to connect to Long Island, especially given what is involved in building a fixed crossing 15 miles long or longer.
The crossing entirely within New York State would be logical given the incentive to improve access within the state and the fact that state controls the entire project.
I fail to see the difference in terms of traffic demands. The incentive is that LIers can more easily get to and from New England and vice versa, improving comments in all of those states (LI counts as a state for this purpose :D).

The NYSDOT report showed about the same travel demand for the western alignment (I-287 extension) as for the central alignment (Bridgeport-Kings Park).  2040 AADTs about 87,000.  My question is how much interest is there in the New England states for an alignment that they would have to help fund and build, presumably thru a CT-NY interstate compact.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 03, 2018, 08:06:54 PM
Today I rode on the Lockport Bypass for the first time. It's a very interesting highway–only a couple of miles long built like a Super 2 with very wide shoulders, Interstate-width travel lanes and wide drainage ditches. I have to wonder whether this has something to do with I-990, or what it's original purpose is. The way it ends at NY-93 leaves more questions than answers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on July 04, 2018, 12:55:53 AM
Today I rode on the Lockport Bypass for the first time. It's a very interesting highway–only a couple of miles long built like a Super 2 with very wide shoulders, Interstate-width travel lanes and wide drainage ditches. I have to wonder whether this has something to do with I-990, or what it's original purpose is. The way it ends at NY-93 leaves more questions than answers.
I don't think it was related to 990, despite one website that claims otherwise. My understanding is 990 would have passed south around Lockport.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 04, 2018, 10:06:51 AM
Today I rode on the Lockport Bypass for the first time. It's a very interesting highway–only a couple of miles long built like a Super 2 with very wide shoulders, Interstate-width travel lanes and wide drainage ditches. I have to wonder whether this has something to do with I-990, or what it's original purpose is. The way it ends at NY-93 leaves more questions than answers.
I don't think it was related to 990, despite one website that claims otherwise. My understanding is 990 would have passed south around Lockport.

Agree. The ROW isn't even wide enough for 4 lanes unless there was a Jersey barrier, and even then it would be tight.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2018, 12:35:11 AM
What I feel would be better than a N/S sound crossing would be one from Montauk to Narragansett or Montauk-Westerly.  But what do I know?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on July 18, 2018, 11:07:33 PM
Why does NY 33's freeway (Kensington Expressway) end on the south side of Genessee Street?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Buffalo+Niagara+International+Airport/@42.9316626,-78.7435025,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89d374c8ccbe865d:0xc0e27200bdc16a88!8m2!3d42.9397059!4d-78.7295067
I can see that maybe NYSDOT did not want a five way intersection with Dick Road, but the fact that WB NY 33 leaving the airport requires a left turn and then loops under Genessee is odd.  At least a directional interchange could have been built having no left turn WB, but a ramp departing from the right side.

I am wondering if there ever were plans to extend the Kensington further east and the fact the airport makes any kind of alignment north of the present arterial impossible that it would have run to the south to wherever it was (or could go).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 19, 2018, 02:24:17 PM
I assume it's to provide easy access to the airport by feeding directly into it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 24, 2018, 10:39:45 PM
The only thing is, NYC is basically perpetual gridlock, at least during the day.  Even worse if the MTA decides to close a lane on every single one of their bridges at the same time.  Long Island has no good way to bypass this.
Add that and the more recent attempts to make more neighborhoods walkable and add more exclusive bus lanes, and you end up making the existing roads within the city even more crowded. Not that I don't recognize the need for SBS lanes, but we can't expect them to solve every traffic problem in the city.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 24, 2018, 10:53:29 PM
I have not found NYC to be perpetual gridlock during the day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on July 25, 2018, 12:10:23 AM
The only thing is, NYC is basically perpetual gridlock, at least during the day.  Even worse if the MTA decides to close a lane on every single one of their bridges at the same time.  Long Island has no good way to bypass this.
Add that and the more recent attempts to make more neighborhoods walkable and add more exclusive bus lanes, and you end up making the existing roads within the city even more crowded. Not that I don't recognize the need for SBS lanes, but we can't expect them to solve every traffic problem in the city.


Where are we "solving every traffic problem in the city" by adding bus lanes? No one's claiming that.

Walkability improvements are a strange scapegoat. What are you talking about? LPIs? Refuge islands? The lowered speed limit? By and large these vision zero changes don't materially affect motor vehicle throughput–sidewalks aren't being widened (even in places where they 100% need to be, like 8 Av in midtown).

The number 1 reason for worsening congestion in NYC is the skyrocketing popularity of rideshare apps, which has been largely caused by the complete deterioration of reliable service in NYC's transit system.

You need to think about changes to street design on a person basis, not a vehicle basis. If BRT infrastructure is able to support significantly higher ridership at the cost of decreased speeds for other vehicles, on a person basis you are providing a good result for a majority of people. SBS in NYC has not been able to achieve that for a variety of reasons, mainly the city's complete ineptitude in any degree of bus lane enforcement, but I digress. There's no reason to prioritize the unimpeded movement of the most space-inefficient transportation method when we can be making massive improvements in modes that are much more efficient.

There is no excess capacity for single occupancy vehicles in Manhattan. Reducing congestion is only possible by changing the SOV mode share. The only practical way to do that is to make driving expensive. NYC's outrageous asymmetrical toll structure and abundant free street parking actually encourage driving into and through the Manhattan CBD, the last thing we want people doing unnecessarily when they could be going around the city or taking transit. Adopt a flat congestion charge for all entry into the Manhattan CBD and charge market rate for street parking. That's the only way short of paving over Manhattan (although I know the latter option sounds more appealing to some roadgeeks).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 25, 2018, 02:54:06 AM
Where are we "solving every traffic problem in the city" by adding bus lanes? No one's claiming that.
It's the false notion that getting everybody out of their cars is going to make getting around easier.

Walkability improvements are a strange scapegoat. What are you talking about? LPIs? Refuge islands? The lowered speed limit? By and large these vision zero changes don't materially affect motor vehicle throughput–sidewalks aren't being widened (even in places where they 100% need to be, like 8 Av in midtown).
Sure they do. They make it so cars can't use those streets and have to crowd up on others nearby.

The number 1 reason for worsening congestion in NYC is the skyrocketing popularity of rideshare apps, which has been largely caused by the complete deterioration of reliable service in NYC's transit system.
No, this would've been a problem even if those apps never existed.


You need to think about changes to street design on a person basis, not a vehicle basis. If BRT infrastructure is able to support significantly higher ridership at the cost of decreased speeds for other vehicles, on a person basis you are providing a good result for a majority of people. SBS in NYC has not been able to achieve that for a variety of reasons, mainly the city's complete ineptitude in any degree of bus lane enforcement, but I digress. There's no reason to prioritize the unimpeded movement of the most space-inefficient transportation method when we can be making massive improvements in modes that are much more efficient.

There is no excess capacity for single occupancy vehicles in Manhattan. Reducing congestion is only possible by changing the SOV mode share. The only practical way to do that is to make driving expensive. NYC's outrageous asymmetrical toll structure and abundant free street parking actually encourage driving into and through the Manhattan CBD, the last thing we want people doing unnecessarily when they could be going around the city or taking transit. Adopt a flat congestion charge for all entry into the Manhattan CBD and charge market rate for street parking. That's the only way short of paving over Manhattan (although I know the latter option sounds more appealing to some roadgeeks).
Driving is already expensive in New York, and you're wrong; street design does need to be thought of on a vehicle basis. The only difference between the 19th Century, and the 20th and 21st, is that the vehicles back then didn't have motors. Also I don't know where you get the idea that there's all this free parking anywhere in the city, let alone Manhattan. Whenever I go visit relatives in Queens, I have to find an available parking space on the street where they live, and try to be sure I'm not next to a fire hydrant or somebody else's driveway. Everywhere else is either a private parking lot, or you have to pay. And I already take mass transit while I'm there, so it's not like I don't know there's a need for it, but you'd be foolish if you suggested I bike all the way from Central Long Island or Florida to get to the Five Boroughs. As far as "paving over Manhattan," it's already paved.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Henry on July 25, 2018, 09:27:01 AM
I, for one, am glad that I've never lived in New York, given how insanely expensive everything is. I probably would've had to find another hobby, like sports or classic TV.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 25, 2018, 10:48:11 AM
Also I don't know where you get the idea that there's all this free parking anywhere in the city, let alone Manhattan.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I got that idea from living and working there for a number of years. On-street parking is, indeed, free and open to the public across much of the city, including Manhattan. There is metered parking on the avenues, and in commercial districts around the city, but the residential blocks are not metered. (And in Manhattan, those residential blocks are immediately adjacent to the metered areas along the avenues.)

Indeed, on a Sunday when most of the other parking restrictions and regulations aren't in effect, parking in Manhattan becomes no big deal whatsoever.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 25, 2018, 11:39:00 AM
Have to agree with empirestate.  I have parked for free right on Manhattan on weekends.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 25, 2018, 01:26:10 PM
I have not found NYC to be perpetual deadlock during the day.
Maybe not every milimeter, but it's definitely hard to get through.  I can count on one hand the number of trips I've had in the city where I didn't sit in stop and go (or worse!) traffic at least somewhere.  Particularly noteworthy was when I was trying to head back to upstate NY from the Long Island meet.  The Grand Central Parkway was essentially a parking lot all the way from LaGuardia all the way to the Triboro because the MTA closed a lane.  Well, I was looping there anyways to clinch Truck I-278 and the piece of the Whitestone Expressway connecting I-678 to Grand Central, so I looped back around and just crossed the Whitestone instead of looping back.  Turns out that was stop and go once I got past what would have been my turnaround point, because the MTA closed one of its lanes too!  At that point I headed down the Bruckner, since my plan was to get northbound photos of the Deegan, only to hit some traffic there as well and dealt with stop and go traffic basically the entire way up the Deegan due to construction.  I had planned some clinching in Rockland County, but cancelled it because by that point my patience was long gone and I just wanted to get home as quickly as possible (I don't remember eating lunch on that trip, so I may have cancelled that too in the name of getting home before rush hour).

Anyone trying to get from Long Island to New Jersey has it even harder: it's pay the extortionist toll on the Verrazano, deal with congestion approaching the George Washington, or take Manhattan surface streets.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 25, 2018, 01:29:51 PM
Yep, I have hit traffic in NYC, too.  But, perpetual gridlock every day all day?  Nah.
Other cities in the U.S. have worse traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 25, 2018, 02:00:32 PM
Yep, I have hit traffic in NYC, too.  But, perpetual gridlock every day all day?  Nah.
Other cities in the U.S. have worse traffic.
And would I willingly live in or near any of them?  Nope!  Traffic that's worse than what I deal with here is a deal-breaker for me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 25, 2018, 08:14:43 PM
You need to think about changes to street design on a person basis, not a vehicle basis. If BRT infrastructure is able to support significantly higher ridership at the cost of decreased speeds for other vehicles, on a person basis you are providing a good result for a majority of people. SBS in NYC has not been able to achieve that for a variety of reasons, mainly the city's complete ineptitude in any degree of bus lane enforcement, but I digress. There's no reason to prioritize the unimpeded movement of the most space-inefficient transportation method when we can be making massive improvements in modes that are much more efficient.
Making bus lanes at least to break even in terms of persons per hour is fairly difficult.
Traffic lane without signals can handle about 1 vehicle every 2 seconds, or 1800 per hour. Traffic light push the number down, but something like 1000 cars per hour is achievable
A packed bus can hold 100 people with comfort of sardines in a can, so dedicated bus lane needs a packed bus every 6 minutes, and every 3 minutes to allow passengers breathing out of sync - just to break even. 60 buses an hour would make it a good improvement - but I doubt that is possible logistics wise.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 26, 2018, 01:23:07 AM
Okay, but you have to admit it's not always easy to find a parking spot.

Yep, I have hit traffic in NYC, too.  But, perpetual gridlock every day all day?  Nah.
Other cities in the U.S. have worse traffic.
That's definitely true... unless somebody has evidence that NYC has surpassed LA and DC (not likely at this time).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 26, 2018, 09:46:53 PM
At least LA and DC don't require some of their suburbs to go through congested choke points to get to or from the entire rest of the world.  And if anything like another 9/11 happens, Long Island becomes completely isolated from the entire rest of the country, with no way on or off except for some slow and expensive ferries.

The problem is that fixing this costs far, far too much because infrastructure is very expensive in the US in general and downstate NY in particular.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 26, 2018, 10:30:10 PM
That's why we need another bridge across Long Island Sound. But it doesn't seem like that will happen in my lifetime.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 26, 2018, 11:28:57 PM
And never will.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 27, 2018, 08:36:34 PM
Never say never. Things change over time. Public attitudes change. At some point in the distant future public pressure may finally favor such a crossing. We simply can't predict the future.

Ten years ago the Long Island Railroad couldn't find enough public support to build a third track from Floral Park to Hicksville, and everyone thought that idea was dead. But ten years later now there is public support, largely from the business community and construction is slated to begin soon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 27, 2018, 09:04:52 PM
NEVER.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 27, 2018, 11:18:18 PM
Never say never. Things change over time. Public attitudes change. At some point in the distant future public pressure may finally favor such a crossing. We simply can't predict the future.

Ten years ago the Long Island Railroad couldn't find enough public support to build a third track from Floral Park to Hicksville, and everyone thought that idea was dead. But ten years later now there is public support, largely from the business community and construction is slated to begin soon.

Soon, the anti-freeway people will die off.  Those that were born when freeways were all the rage and were growing up during the anti-freeway crusade.  Younger people won't see what it's like to see suburban sprawl take place because they're already living in it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 28, 2018, 04:24:26 PM
^ I don't think you fully understand this younger generation, Mergingtraffic.  Not only are they smaller than the Baby Boomers who are starting to "die off", but it has been well demonstrated through drivers license and vehicle registration data that they are less interested in driving than older generations.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 28, 2018, 10:57:19 PM
I suspect that is far more economic than pundits claim.  Back when my generation first started graduating, they were little different than the boomers in terms of attitudes towards cars.  Trouble is, that was when the recession was at its worst, leaving many with a lot of debt and no job or one that didn't pay the bills... not exactly a situation amenable to getting a car.  If my generation ever became more economically sound, in the sense that the previous two generations take for granted, that might change.

Take my coworker, for example.  When she first started, she didn't have a car, and had no plans to buy one in her life.  She took the bus to work and Amtrak to visit family.  Trouble is, traveling by Amtrak with a cat isn't exactly easy, so she started renting cars for those trips... and the costs of the rentals eventually exceeded the cost of owning a car.  At that point, she bought a used Prius, though she planned to continue taking the bus to work.  She started driving in two days a week since parking was scarce on those days due to street cleaning and construction, discovered how nice it was to not have to worry about the unreliability in the bus schedule (or to have to walk a few blocks to/from the stop in winter when nobody plows their sidewalk in a timely fashion), and now drives in every day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 31, 2018, 11:23:30 AM
My observations from other parts of the country outside of Upstate New York are a bit different, Val, and more in line with what I had posted earlier.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 31, 2018, 11:35:12 AM
My observations from other parts of the country outside of Upstate New York are a bit different, Val, and more in line with what I had posted earlier.
Can also be "sour grapes" thing. Then it would look a bit different from inside than from the outside.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 01:54:04 PM
I see it as part of the larger trend of pundits blaming millennials for things and claiming we have different preferences while not factoring in the fact that our buying power is significantly less than what other generations had at our age.  It's as if they're trying doing everything possible to avoid this fact.  It's worth noting that the economic gains of recent years by and large have NOT trickled down to young people.  This single fact explains just about everything pundits try to pin on changing culture.

http://fortune.com/2014/08/29/millennial-car-buying/
Quote
It turns out that Millennials like cars as much as any previous generation. They just haven’t been able to afford them until now. The same applies to other life-changing events: They weren’t avoiding marriage and child-rearing, they were just putting them off until they could afford them. They were just being practical.

According the results of a new J.D. Power study that tracks buyer behavior reported last month in WardsAuto: “As Gen Y consumers enter new life stages, earn higher incomes and grow their families, their ability and desire to acquire new vehicles is increasing.”
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2018, 06:03:08 PM
N.Y. Times editorial: New York City Is Thriving. Why Is Transport Such a Nightmare? - The New York City Council considers a package of bills to freeze the number of Uber-type cars on city streets. But that’s at best a partial answer to a systemic crisis. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/opinion/editorials/new-york-city-uber-lyft-via-transportation.html)

Quote
New York is one of the most prosperous cities in the world, yet it has one of the world’s most dysfunctional transportation systems. Delays plague the subway a year after Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority promised to fix that mess. The roads, especially in Manhattan, are in not much better shape. Average traffic speeds south of 60th Street have fallen nearly 22 percent in the past seven years, according to the City Department of Transportation. At the same time, many taxi and livery drivers say that they can barely afford to make ends meet – six of them have killed themselves in recent months. One shot himself in front of City Hall to protest officials whom he accused of flooding the streets with for-hire cars and driving him to ruin.

Quote
The New York City Council will soon vote on a package of bills that lawmakers pledge would reduce congestion and improve the lives of taxi and Uber drivers. While the bills offer some important progress, they wouldn’t do nearly enough to address the city’s transportation woes.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 02, 2018, 10:17:41 AM
I have some neighbors. The husband is from Pittsburgh, the wife is from Brooklyn, and their kids were born in the Tampa Bay area. Recently, they came back from a drive to NYC, partially because they wanted the kids to see where their mother grew up, and give them tours of the Statue of Liberty, and possibly the 9/11 memorial, the latter of which they passed up. When they finally arrived the husband was overwhelmed by how bad the traffic was not only in the Tri-State area, but in Baltimore, Metro DC, and a few other regions. And this is a guy who thought traffic in Tampa was bad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2018, 04:36:43 PM
I saw on Wikipedia that Interstate 84 changed its exit sequence from sequential to mileage-based last month. Can someone confirm whether or not this is the case?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on August 14, 2018, 04:53:56 PM
I saw on Wikipedia that Interstate 84 changed its exit sequence from sequential to mileage-based last month. Can someone confirm whether or not this is the case?

Some people on Wikipedia are just too eager to change. I-195 in Rhode Island, RI 10, and RI 37 are also listed as having switched on Wikipedia, even though I don't think they have.

However, if you read the article on I-84 in New York:

These exits are numbered sequentially; however, NYSDOT has begun plans to convert its section of I-84 to mile-based exits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 14, 2018, 07:28:58 PM
I saw on Wikipedia that Interstate 84 changed its exit sequence from sequential to mileage-based last month. Can someone confirm whether or not this is the case?

It is the case. See NYSDOT plans D263712.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=21436&p_is_digital=Y
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on August 14, 2018, 09:30:30 PM
I'm looking at the NYSDOT projects page, and I never thought to ask this in this thread until now: Why does NYSDOT seem to be replacing stoplights that seem fine?  I just saw that this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.05886,-76.1808959,3a,75y,41.54h,92.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFh2kXW3aZNpmI0yfN2fLMQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DFh2kXW3aZNpmI0yfN2fLMQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D27.134157%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) signal is going to be replaced with a set of mast arms as a part of project D263544.  Here in Auburn, both the eastbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9323421,-76.5691667,3a,75y,56.9h,89.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDBSbz8v2pJVwbU_NtWOahA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and westbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9338056,-76.5695879,3a,75y,248.26h,84.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skDk9jmShah1ZTb1HAr3MMA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) lights on the Arterial at State St were replaced in 2016.  The current Street View images for both directions show both the old and new signals.  I don't recall ever seeing these replaced, but they didn't look that old.  My best guess is that they were replaced for better visibility, but then why were these (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9314849,-76.5760924,3a,75y,238.48h,95.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZQtfJ2E7M3V1NnvAg-wUmQ!2e0!5s20151101T000000!7i13312!8i6656) replaced?  I remember them being replaced as a kid in the mid 90s, and they were replaced again in 2013 or so.  I think both the signal heads and the poles were replaced in the 90s, so I don't think they would have been replaced because of weak poles.

As an aside, I saw an all text "WALK/DON'T WALK" signal in Rome a few weeks ago.  I think it was this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2187744,-75.427419,3a,16.3y,88.44h,90.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swjcX4eU7lNyE0uWXrR372Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2018, 05:03:01 AM
And never will.
It will happen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 15, 2018, 07:59:45 AM
^ You really don't understand Long Island if you think this is going to happen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on August 15, 2018, 09:21:31 AM
Despite having driven I-99 a lot, I just noticed the final service signs going northbound still read for Exit 4, when it's (long?) been Exit 13. (e.g. https://goo.gl/maps/9CLZcNQ1eFA2)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 15, 2018, 11:54:20 AM
Despite having driven I-99 a lot, I just noticed the final service signs going northbound still read for Exit 4, when it's (long?) been Exit 13. (e.g. https://goo.gl/maps/9CLZcNQ1eFA2)

Street View is 2013.

Also, sometimes they miss signage if it's still like that in 2018
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on August 15, 2018, 12:18:29 PM
It's based on my experience driving through last night that it still reads Exit 4A/B.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 15, 2018, 12:26:55 PM
Whoops. Known to happen. There were still loose exit NXX signs on I-190.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 17, 2018, 12:45:24 PM
I found a few maps from 1990 in my basement. Here's the cover of one:

(https://i.imgur.com/1cf7SLEh.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2018, 07:24:01 PM
^ You really don't understand Long Island if you think this is going to happen.
I don’t but I’m being optimistic here. Maybe eventually politics will change and this could be built despite opposition. We need to stop letting the few negatively impact the mass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 17, 2018, 10:02:28 PM
Thoughts on whether this should be replaced or not.  lol

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1817/44083944561_f8a0b5a878_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2aaxJRF)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 18, 2018, 12:57:06 AM
^ You really don't understand Long Island if you think this is going to happen.
I don’t but I’m being optimistic here. Maybe eventually politics will change and this could be built despite opposition. We need to stop letting the few negatively impact the mass.

You don't understand the power of the few here. The power of the few in the northeast probably has more sway than it does anywhere else in the country
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 18, 2018, 01:52:32 AM
Thoughts on whether this should be replaced or not.  lol

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1817/44083944561_f8a0b5a878_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2aaxJRF)
No. Our precious.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 18, 2018, 04:25:38 PM
Roadgeek Adam, you're right about the concentrated political power on the North Shore of Long Island but even within that realm things do change over the years.

As an example, in 1938 when Northern State Pkwy was being built, (before my time LOL) the old money on their estates in Old Westbury were able to get Robert Moses to divert the Parkway literally around their village which is why it bends south in Roslyn and then east again in Westbury.

But by about 1958 when the Long Island Expwy was coming thru, those people no longer had the clout to stop the Expwy from being built straight thru their village which you can see on the map today. I'm sure there was plenty of bitterness and consternation at the time. They did get certain concessions like no exits or entrances on the three mile stretch thru Old Westbury and a slight change of alignment to spare a large pond. And who knows what else behind the scenes?

So you see that in twenty years, the balance of power had shifted. Some day, probably not in my lifetime, the same thing could happen on the North Shore and you might yet see a bridge or tunnel across LI Sound. Let's hope so. Never say never.........
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 18, 2018, 09:54:27 PM
Listen, I'm from New York City, lived in Jersey most of my life. I've given up the hoot that freeway expansion in the northeast is going to happen. And honestly, NJ and NY need to focus on restoring what they have.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 18, 2018, 10:12:22 PM
Listen, I'm from New York City, lived in Jersey most of my life. I've given up the hoot that freeway expansion in the northeast is going to happen. And honestly, NJ and NY need to focus on restoring what they have.
It is important to restore what we have, yes, but that isn’t fixing another–arguably equal–problem which is managing congestion. Mobility is important and while improving mass transit and bike/pedestrian infrastructure will play an important part, increasing freeway capacity and adding new connections is a must!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 18, 2018, 10:20:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda
increasing freeway capacity and adding new connections is a must!

Not when you can't afford it.  Even if there was local support for a Long Island Sound crossing, $55 billion (yes, with a B) is no small chunk of change.  And to pay for that, the jurisdictions involved would have to give up on restoring what they already have for a number of years.  There's no way tolls would be sufficient enough to cover that level of cost.

Nevermind that "adding new connections" when you can't even maintain what you already have is ludicrous.  And in part why this nation has gotten into the infrastructure mess it's in.  This is something that far too many roadgeeks fail to understand.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 18, 2018, 11:25:59 PM
Not when you can't afford it.  Even if there was local support for a Long Island Sound crossing, $55 billion (yes, with a B) is no small chunk of change.  And to pay for that, the jurisdictions involved would have to give up on restoring what they already have for a number of years.  There's no way tolls would be sufficient enough to cover that level of cost.

That was dishonest how the state marketed that figure.  The whole idea was to discredit the project from the get go.  I read the official report from 2017, and that $55 billion appeared to be a figure for a tunnel between I-95/I-287 and I-495 on the western (NY to NY) corridor.

The figure for a highway and a bridge was $7.8 billion.  While that is a lot of money that is in the realm of affordability.  It also would carry 80,000 to 100,000 AADT, so the demand is there.  What the state should have done is to publicize that alternative and try to build consensus over time to get that approved.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 18, 2018, 11:32:20 PM
The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival.  People on the north shore don't want to look at one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 18, 2018, 11:34:27 PM
The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival.  People on the north shore don't want to look at one.

The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 19, 2018, 12:02:43 AM


The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival.  People on the north shore don't want to look at one.

The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.

Not really.  A multi-billion dollar project for a new addition to the system is just fiscally out of the question.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 19, 2018, 12:12:26 AM
The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival.  People on the north shore don't want to look at one.
The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
Not really.  A multi-billion dollar project for a new addition to the system is just fiscally out of the question.

Then get it on a long range plan.  Build consensus.  Maybe it takes 5 to 10 years, maybe more, to get it started.  The important thing is to make some progress even if it moves slowly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 19, 2018, 12:18:11 AM
The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival.  People on the north shore don't want to look at one.
The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
Not really.  A multi-billion dollar project for a new addition to the system is just fiscally out of the question.

Then get it on a long range plan.  Build consensus.  Maybe it takes 5 to 10 years, maybe more, to get it started.  The important thing is to make some progress even if it moves slowly.
The idea is broadly considered laughable.  Some squeaky wheels got a whole lot of money wasted on this last study, but there is really no political will to see this thing coming to fruition ever, especially when our existing infrastructure is eroding.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2018, 12:34:31 AM
The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival.  People on the north shore don't want to look at one.
The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
Not really.  A multi-billion dollar project for a new addition to the system is just fiscally out of the question.

Then get it on a long range plan.  Build consensus.  Maybe it takes 5 to 10 years, maybe more, to get it started.  The important thing is to make some progress even if it moves slowly.
The idea is broadly considered laughable.  Some squeaky wheels got a whole lot of money wasted on this last study, but there is really no political will to see this thing coming to fruition ever, especially when our existing infrastructure is eroding.

(personal opinion emphasized)
So the only goal is to restore what we have while other nations pass us up in creating adequate facilities that handle traffic flow get we're gridlocked because all we did was rebuilt what we currently have?

What we currently have can’t handle the demand, even if it is restored to its former glory. It’s a goose chase if that’s the only goal we have.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 19, 2018, 12:53:06 AM
The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival.  People on the north shore don't want to look at one.
The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
Not really.  A multi-billion dollar project for a new addition to the system is just fiscally out of the question.

Then get it on a long range plan.  Build consensus.  Maybe it takes 5 to 10 years, maybe more, to get it started.  The important thing is to make some progress even if it moves slowly.
The idea is broadly considered laughable.  Some squeaky wheels got a whole lot of money wasted on this last study, but there is really no political will to see this thing coming to fruition ever, especially when our existing infrastructure is eroding.

(personal opinion emphasized)
So the only goal is to restore what we have while other nations pass us up in creating adequate facilities that handle traffic flow get we're gridlocked because all we did was rebuilt what we currently have?

What we currently have can’t handle the demand, even if it is restored to its former glory. It’s a goose chase if that’s the only goal we have.
It is what NY can afford, keeping in mind that a huge chunk of funding for NYSDOT's capital program is now borrowed (I'd estimate about 20% per year now, on average). 

You want additional lanes paved?  Let's fully fund the program to stop conditions from declining first and then get more funding to do so. 

That means stop raiding gas taxes and then probably raising them.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 19, 2018, 02:03:14 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda
increasing freeway capacity and adding new connections is a must!


Not when you can't afford it.  Even if there was local support for a Long Island Sound crossing, $55 billion (yes, with a B) is no small chunk of change.  And to pay for that, the jurisdictions involved would have to give up on restoring what they already have for a number of years.  There's no way tolls would be sufficient enough to cover that level of cost.


Nevermind that "adding new connections" when you can't even maintain what you already have is ludicrous.  And in part why this nation has gotten into the infrastructure mess it's in.  This is something that far too many roadgeeks fail to understand.


Rebuilding the 495 viaduct costs $90 million. To which I say  :-D , but we'll see just where it actually comes in. And that is being rebuilt with full shoulders - so adding capacity is definitely affordable. Adding new connections, maybe not, but you can add capacity and improve existing connections for relatively cheaper.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 19, 2018, 08:18:27 AM
So the only goal is to restore what we have while other nations pass us up in creating adequate facilities that handle traffic flow get we're gridlocked because all we did was rebuilt what we currently have?
What we currently have can’t handle the demand, even if it is restored to its former glory. It’s a goose chase if that’s the only goal we have.

Let's not bring up the "what other countries are doing" argument.  Many areas in the U.S. are both maintaining and expanding their highway systems.

When it comes to unusually large and complex bridges and tunnels and their connecting highways, the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area recently upgraded and/or expanded 5 crossings (Elizabeth River and branch) at a total of $2.2 billion, has 2 under construction (I-64 Elizabeth River branch and CBBT) at a total of $1.3 billion, and another to be expanded (I-64 HRBT) at $3.4 billion starting in 2019.  The Third Hampton Roads Crossing (I-564 extension) is still in the long-range plan albeit is unfunded.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 19, 2018, 09:24:58 AM
^ However, the Hampton Roads area and TPTB are utilizing tolls for most of those expansions.  And cost of construction in Tidewater is considerably less than it is in New York.

I would also argue that, in those areas where they're expanding their systems, they've either added taxes or utilized tolls to do so or their existing systems are getting the short shrift.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 19, 2018, 10:47:06 AM
^ However, the Hampton Roads area and TPTB are utilizing tolls for most of those expansions.  And cost of construction in Tidewater is considerably less than it is in New York.

I would also argue that, in those areas where they're expanding their systems, they've either added taxes or utilized tolls to do so or their existing systems are getting the short shrift.
Amen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 19, 2018, 02:53:10 PM
^ However, the Hampton Roads area and TPTB are utilizing tolls for most of those expansions.  And cost of construction in Tidewater is considerably less than it is in New York.

The Hampton Roads metro area has 1.6 million population.  New York?  Just the NY portions alone?

The Hampton Roads metro area is a piker in the number of tolls and the size of the tolls, compared to the NYC area.

The $3.4 billion I-64 HRBT expansion has only 5% of the total cost funded by toll revenue bonds.  Only the HOT lanes will be tolled (dynamically), the four general purpose lanes will be toll-free.

I would also argue that, in those areas where they're expanding their systems, they've either added taxes or utilized tolls to do so or their existing systems are getting the short shrift.

Typically added taxes and/or tolls are part of the equation.  Delaying things can be a major part of the problem.  The Elizabeth River Tunnels project was estimated at $700 million in 2000, and the local officials choked at the thought of retolling the tunnels.  When they finally bit the bullet in 2012, it cost $1.4 billion.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2018, 04:46:50 PM
Nevermind that "adding new connections" when you can't even maintain what you already have is ludicrous.  And in part why this nation has gotten into the infrastructure mess it's in.  This is something that far too many roadgeeks fail to understand.

I take it you are opposed to all transit expansion for similar reasons? 

The maintenance backlog on transit in systems like the New York City Subway ($43 billion) (http://gothamist.com/2018/06/05/subway_fast_foward_cost.php), the Washington Metrorail system ($7 billion) (https://www.wmata.com/initiatives/plans/upload/CNI-full-report-and-appendices.pdf), Amtrak's Northeast Corridor ($38 billion) (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20170504/TRANSPORTATION/170509931/amtrak-maintenance-backlog-tops-38-billion-on-northeast-route) and BART ($10 billion) (http://www.newgeography.com/content/005632-rebuilding-americas-infrastructure) is epic.

Outside of New York City and nearby, the time has come to stop building new rail transit and  concentrate  the money on repairs and rehabilitation  of what is already there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2018, 06:21:20 PM
So the only goal is to restore what we have while other nations pass us up in creating adequate facilities that handle traffic flow get we're gridlocked because all we did was rebuilt what we currently have?
What we currently have can’t handle the demand, even if it is restored to its former glory. It’s a goose chase if that’s the only goal we have.

Let's not bring up the "what other countries are doing" argument.  Many areas in the U.S. are both maintaining and expanding their highway systems.

When it comes to unusually large and complex bridges and tunnels and their connecting highways, the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area recently upgraded and/or expanded 5 crossings (Elizabeth River and branch) at a total of $2.2 billion, has 2 under construction (I-64 Elizabeth River branch and CBBT) at a total of $1.3 billion, and another to be expanded (I-64 HRBT) at $3.4 billion starting in 2019.  The Third Hampton Roads Crossing (I-564 extension) is still in the long-range plan albeit is unfunded.
I understand there are places in the U.S. that are doing so. It is stil worth mentioning that we are being passed up by other nations or will be passed if we don’t do more than we are currently doing.

As a whole, our infrastructure is deteriorating and our cities are becoming grid locked due to lack of capacity and poor facilities. We shouldn’t be keeping up with countries, we should be an example, let alone have other countries build projects that seem too ambitious for us such as road tunnels. The few that we have shouldn’t be looked at in the negative light they have been. That’s all you seem to hear about them is how expensive they were and why you probably won’t see anymore anytime soon.

The “many areas”  we have that are investing in freeways and infrastructure isn’t enough.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2018, 06:22:13 PM
The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival.  People on the north shore don't want to look at one.
The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
Not really.  A multi-billion dollar project for a new addition to the system is just fiscally out of the question.

Then get it on a long range plan.  Build consensus.  Maybe it takes 5 to 10 years, maybe more, to get it started.  The important thing is to make some progress even if it moves slowly.
The idea is broadly considered laughable.  Some squeaky wheels got a whole lot of money wasted on this last study, but there is really no political will to see this thing coming to fruition ever, especially when our existing infrastructure is eroding.

(personal opinion emphasized)
So the only goal is to restore what we have while other nations pass us up in creating adequate facilities that handle traffic flow get we're gridlocked because all we did was rebuilt what we currently have?

What we currently have can’t handle the demand, even if it is restored to its former glory. It’s a goose chase if that’s the only goal we have.
It is what NY can afford, keeping in mind that a huge chunk of funding for NYSDOT's capital program is now borrowed (I'd estimate about 20% per year now, on average). 

You want additional lanes paved?  Let's fully fund the program to stop conditions from declining first and then get more funding to do so. 

That means stop raiding gas taxes and then probably raising them.

(personal opinion emphasized)
I completely agree with this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 19, 2018, 06:43:15 PM
The Northeast Corridor region needs rail transit. So does Chicago and LA. From there, its up in the air.

Regardless, the Northeast Corridor has some of the oldest infrastructure, not to mention the oldest roads in the country. While traffic in the northeast is bad in a lot of areas, the answers aren't cheap.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 19, 2018, 09:36:23 PM
I understand there are places in the U.S. that are doing so. It is stil worth mentioning that we are being passed up by other nations or will be passed if we don’t do more than we are currently doing.
As a whole, our infrastructure is deteriorating and our cities are becoming grid locked due to lack of capacity and poor facilities. We shouldn’t be keeping up with countries, we should be an example, let alone have other countries build projects that seem too ambitious for us such as road tunnels. The few that we have shouldn’t be looked at in the negative light they have been. That’s all you seem to hear about them is how expensive they were and why you probably won’t see anymore anytime soon.
The “many areas”  we have that are investing in freeways and infrastructure isn’t enough.

I don't doubt that more needs to be done in the U.S., but I still question that comparison to other countries.  If a factor was computed based on the number of miles of Interstate-standard highway and the average age of each mile, we would be far higher than any other county including China.  The same would be true for the number of major bridges and tunnels and the average age of each.

The average age of the Interstate mileage is high enough that just on rebab projects and major widening projects, that even in constant dollars we have basically paid for more than what the original system cost.  There are probably 2,000 to 3,000 miles of very needed but unfunded major widening projects.

Getting back to the subject of Long Island.  There needs to be at least a long-range plan to build a bridge sound crossing for northerly access, and to upgrade the Belt Parkway to an 8-lane freeway that can accomodate large trucks for modernized southerly access.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 19, 2018, 09:41:13 PM
I was saying thirty years ago that the Belt Parkway needed to be rebuilt ten lanes wide even if it meant charging a toll to pay for it, but get it built!

So today the original six lane parkway is being rebuilt a short section at a time, still only six lanes wide. How friggin' short sighted!  :angry:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 19, 2018, 10:03:15 PM
I was saying thirty years ago that the Belt Parkway needed to be rebuilt ten lanes wide even if it meant charging a toll to pay for it, but get it built!
So today the original six lane parkway is being rebuilt a short section at a time, still only six lanes wide. How friggin' short sighted!  :angry:

Well, there are space limitations in various places imposed by water bodies and neighborhoods.  Eight lanes with full right and left shoulders might be the most feasible, and a minimum design speed of 50 mph.  If it could handle mixed traffic of cars, trucks and buses, it would be a vast improvement over the current highway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Laura on August 19, 2018, 10:38:48 PM
What I find most amusing about this thread is that the people arguing for another crossing are not locals, while the people who are being realistic on why this will never happen are the locals....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 19, 2018, 11:31:52 PM
What I find most amusing about this thread is that the people arguing for another crossing are not locals, while the people who are being realistic on why this will never happen are the locals....

Many non-locals comment on Norfolk/Hampton Roads area highways, just to use the example I used upthread.

Besides, two of the "locals" you refer to are in Albany, I believe, and that is not local  to Long Island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 20, 2018, 12:44:27 AM
The AADT and hourly volume figures for the Whitestone and Throgs Neck are readily available online through the MTA's website. A perusal of those should convince you that another crossing is not fiscally responsible. Basically, there is not nearly enough congestion at those bridges to suggest a need for a third crossing. It would simply be a matter of convenience for those going from the Island straight to CT or I-287. I don't buy 100,000 ADT anytime soon - maybe 40 years down the road, but that's with continued growth.

Should it stay on the radar? Every proposal thus far has been killed, so no. Not for now. If those other two bridges become truly clogged, then reopen the discussion.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 20, 2018, 12:53:30 AM
The AADT and hourly volume figures for the Whitestone and Throgs Neck are readily available online through the MTA's website. A perusal of those should convince you that another crossing is not fiscally responsible. Basically, there is not nearly enough congestion at those bridges to suggest a need for a third crossing. It would simply be a matter of convenience for those going from the Island straight to CT or I-287. I don't buy 100,000 ADT anytime soon - maybe 40 years down the road, but that's with continued growth.
Should it stay on the radar? Every proposal thus far has been killed, so no. Not for now. If those other two bridges become truly clogged, then reopen the discussion.

The congestion problem isn't really the bridges themselves, but the 35+ miles of connecting highways that serve (poorly) in lieu of the unbuilt western crossing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on August 20, 2018, 09:06:40 AM
At least the toll booth removals have eliminated one of the biggest traffic bottlenecks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 20, 2018, 09:14:41 AM
Quote from: Beltway
Many non-locals comment on Norfolk/Hampton Roads area highways, just to use the example I used upthread.

If you're referring to me, recall that I was stationed there.  Twice.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 20, 2018, 09:47:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway
Many non-locals comment on Norfolk/Hampton Roads area highways, just to use the example I used upthread.
If you're referring to me, recall that I was stationed there.  Twice.

I was referring to a variety of ones that to my knowledge have never lived there.  I don't know the details of naval deployments but that they do spend part of the year in the ship's home port, i.e. live there.

For that matter, even though I live only about 100 miles from there, I can't say that am a local as I have never lived there even part time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on August 20, 2018, 09:57:15 AM
My response to the "what other countries are doing" argument is to ask what they will be doing beginning in twenty years when their currently almost brand-new infrastructure is beginning to wear out.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 20, 2018, 10:11:42 AM
My response to the "what other countries are doing" argument is to ask what they will be doing beginning in twenty years when their currently almost brand-new infrastructure is beginning to wear out.

Exactly.  Especially when it is 40 to 50 years old.  One of the reasons why the U.S. built so much turnpike and Interstate mileage so quickly (70% of the Interstate mileage was completed by 1970) is because in the first 15 or so years relatively little major maintenance is needed, and they removed the bulk of the traffic off of the old highway (in most cases) thereby removing the need to upgrade the old highway.

Nowadays much of the Interstate system has reached the total-rebuild age, and many of those old highways that were bypassed now carry heavy local traffic and need major upgrades of their own.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 20, 2018, 10:47:51 AM
My response to the "what other countries are doing" argument is to ask what they will be doing beginning in twenty years when their currently almost brand-new infrastructure is beginning to wear out.
I would twist it a bit differently.
What is percentage of total resources we are willing to dedicate to infrastructure? Resources as in man hours, tons of steel and concrete, barrels of oil for fuel and tar etc. What is the total production of those resources   and how efficiently they are used (I hear that procedures today make one man-hour today equal to 10 minutes worth compared to few decades ago); and how much maintenance is actually worth in terms of these resources.
I deliberately exclude money from discussion as it is meaningless to talk dollars when price of steel and cement is changing - possibly above inflation.
From the very basic point of view, it is possible to have a stable infrastructure at fixed number of road feet per person (currently we have 0.8 feet of interstate per person) with growth consistent with population size - that is currently 0.7%/year.
It may very well turn out that travel is more expensive than we think, and either travel has to be reduced, or percentage of spending on travel - and infrastructure in general - has to be increased compared to what we spend right now....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on August 20, 2018, 05:33:08 PM
"How much is enough?" is a very big question.  Another variable to consider is the extent to which we have to become carbon-negative (not only closing the carbon loop, but actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) to counteract the negative externalities of global warming.  There is a future for roads no matter what, and I believe there is also a future for powered POV travel even if autonomous cars propelled by renewable energy technologies become dominant, but our priorities for infrastructure investment are unlikely to remain what they are with current technology.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 20, 2018, 08:52:33 PM
Re: Laura's earlier comment on locals vs. out-of-towners arguing about a Long Island Sound crossing. I am a local, a senior-citizen who has lived in central Long Island my entire life and I believe there needs to be a Sound crossing (preferably a bridge) and that it might still happen someday, though probably not in my lifetime.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 21, 2018, 07:50:51 PM
Best bet for a new crossing would be from Narragansett to Montauk or Westerly to Montauk.  Get Boston and Providence-departing traffic away from I-95.  Next would be a crossing from the Rockaways to Sandy Hook and connect it to an extended NJ 18. Sunrise Highway (NY 27) could be brought up to Interstate Standards and designated I-995.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 21, 2018, 11:23:48 PM
Best bet for a new crossing would be from Narragansett to Montauk or Westerly to Montauk.  Get Boston and Providence-departing traffic away from I-95.  Next would be a crossing from the Rockaways to Sandy Hook and connect it to an extended NJ 18. Sunrise Highway (NY 27) could be brought up to Interstate Standards and designated I-995.
If you bet for that to happen, I will gladly bet against it. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 22, 2018, 12:22:00 AM
Best bet for a new crossing would be from Narragansett to Montauk or Westerly to Montauk.  Get Boston and Providence-departing traffic away from I-95.  Next would be a crossing from the Rockaways to Sandy Hook and connect it to an extended NJ 18. Sunrise Highway (NY 27) could be brought up to Interstate Standards and designated I-995.

I'm now on the floor laughing maniacally. This is as likely to happen as gravity reversing itself.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on August 22, 2018, 12:40:10 AM
The congestion problem isn't really the bridges themselves, but the 35+ miles of connecting highways that serve (poorly) in lieu of the unbuilt western crossing.

This. The Throggs Neck bridge is not a significant bottleneck because the rate limiting factors on its usage are congestion on I-95 on the Bronx side, and congestion on the narrow, curvy ramps connecting the Clearview and Cross Island to the LIE on the Queens side (as well as congestion on the LIE itself).

The Whitestone, likewise, is limited by capacity through the interchange with the Cross Island on the Queens side.

Improvements to these specific bottlenecks would enable more capacity to be extracted out of those two bridges. However these improvements are also unlikely to happen for similar reasons as a new crossing (would require the use of eminent domain and spending money New York doesn't have).

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 22, 2018, 01:02:52 AM
The congestion problem isn't really the bridges themselves, but the 35+ miles of connecting highways that serve (poorly) in lieu of the unbuilt western crossing.

This. The Throggs Neck bridge is not a significant bottleneck because the rate limiting factors on its usage are congestion on I-95 on the Bronx side, and congestion on the narrow, curvy ramps connecting the Clearview and Cross Island to the LIE on the Queens side (as well as congestion on the LIE itself).

The Whitestone, likewise, is limited by capacity through the interchange with the Cross Island on the Queens side.

Improvements to these specific bottlenecks would enable more capacity to be extracted out of those two bridges. However these improvements are also unlikely to happen for similar reasons as a new crossing (would require the use of eminent domain and spending money New York doesn't have).



You missed the richer part of Queens part. They'd fight tooth and nail. Plus, for rebuilding exit 16/36, holy mama that would probably in the billions, if not double digits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 22, 2018, 02:30:11 PM
Best bet for a new crossing would be from Narragansett to Montauk or Westerly to Montauk.  Get Boston and Providence-departing traffic away from I-95.  Next would be a crossing from the Rockaways to Sandy Hook and connect it to an extended NJ 18. Sunrise Highway (NY 27) could be brought up to Interstate Standards and designated I-995.

I'm now on the floor laughing maniacally. This is as likely to happen as gravity reversing itself.

I'm assuming this is merely a fictional proposal; the "best bet" wording is probably just a misleading figure of speech, rather than indicating the real probability of this happening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 22, 2018, 03:23:36 PM
Does anyone know if there's any construction going on in Lake Placid this summer?  Google Maps won't do any directions routing through town on NY 86 and I'm curious as to why.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 22, 2018, 08:37:25 PM
I'm not aware of anything, but it's peak tourist season, and NY 86 through Lake Placid tends to slow WAY down due to frequent pedestrian crossings, parking, etc.  Google will route there for me if I absolutely force it to, but since it defaults to whatever is fasted in the very moment you search, I'm not surprised it's trying to bypass downtown Lake Placid.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 22, 2018, 08:56:59 PM
I'm not aware of anything, but it's peak tourist season, and NY 86 through Lake Placid tends to slow WAY down due to frequent pedestrian crossings, parking, etc.  Google will route there for me if I absolutely force it to, but since it defaults to whatever is fasted in the very moment you search, I'm not surprised it's trying to bypass downtown Lake Placid.

Unless it's the offseason, I generally use CR 35 to bypass Lake Placid. But what Froggie is referring to is the section of NY 86 through the country club. Can't route through there unless you place a pin in there to force it. Waze is showing nada, so I have no clue what is going on.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 22, 2018, 09:06:41 PM
Google Maps usually gives a notification "this route avoids closure on Route X" or something like that. If it doesn't give that message, I'd assume the route you want is genuinely a lot slower, due to the factors vdeane mentioned, among others.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 23, 2018, 12:22:30 AM
Google Maps usually gives a notification "this route avoids closure on Route X" or something like that. If it doesn't give that message, I'd assume the route you want is genuinely a lot slower, due to the factors vdeane mentioned, among others.
It has to be the country club, because I just tried it at 0:22 and it still won't go. Oftentimes this happens due to a one-day or one-week event that Google never updates. They did an ironman in 2017 - maybe they did another this year?


Update: Got it to work by placing an intermediate destination at 62 Morningside Drive (right where the long,windy, NW-SE road crosses 86).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2018, 12:03:06 PM
N.Y. Times: A Single Road With Many Names, Traversing Many Worlds - No practical person would opt to drive the length of Route 25, the slow road out of New York. So we did it for you. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/nyregion/a-single-road-with-many-names-traversing-many-worlds.html)

Quote
Weekday mornings bring rush-hour chaos to the Queensboro Bridge.

Quote
“You have cars, trucks, cabs, and they’re all blowing their horns,”  said Oscar Vivar, whose sidewalk coffee cart on the Manhattan side of the bridge overlooks a battlefield, with traffic agents fighting gridlock, and drivers vying for tiny advances along clogged streets.

Quote
Amid the raging rat race, Mr. Vivar works his tiny grill making egg sandwiches next to a column of traffic inching onto the bridge and sees the lucky people headed out to lovely summer weekends on eastern Long Island.

Quote
“That’s the American dream,”  said Mr. Vivar, a Mexican immigrant whose wife, Sara Moran, works alongside him.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 26, 2018, 12:06:16 PM
N.Y. Times: A Single Road With Many Names, Traversing Many Worlds - No practical person would opt to drive the length of Route 25, the slow road out of New York. So we did it for you. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/nyregion/a-single-road-with-many-names-traversing-many-worlds.html)

Quote
Weekday mornings bring rush-hour chaos to the Queensboro Bridge.

Quote
“You have cars, trucks, cabs, and they’re all blowing their horns,”  said Oscar Vivar, whose sidewalk coffee cart on the Manhattan side of the bridge overlooks a battlefield, with traffic agents fighting gridlock, and drivers vying for tiny advances along clogged streets.

Quote
Amid the raging rat race, Mr. Vivar works his tiny grill making egg sandwiches next to a column of traffic inching onto the bridge and sees the lucky people headed out to lovely summer weekends on eastern Long Island.

Quote
“That’s the American dream,”  said Mr. Vivar, a Mexican immigrant whose wife, Sara Moran, works alongside him.

Eh, I've driven all of it. Long portions in one sitting, too! Like NY 27, it's a slog. Much easier in the middle of the night.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 26, 2018, 12:46:01 PM
What I find most amusing about this thread is that the people arguing for another crossing are not locals, while the people who are being realistic on why this will never happen are the locals....

Many non-locals comment on Norfolk/Hampton Roads area highways, just to use the example I used upthread.
When my father was stationed in the Hampton Roads area during the Korean War, he and everybody else couldn't stand having to wait for the ferry to get to the Delmarva Peninsula. So needless to say he would've loved it if the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel had been around at that time. If you think I would've been against another bridge over the Long Island Sound if I had lived in any of the communities they were supposed to have gone through, you've got another thing coming.

Title: Re: NYS 2017 route log
Post by: baugh17 on August 26, 2018, 10:34:28 PM
NY 220 is still signed east of Oxford to the Veterans Home as of 8/26/18.

NY 220's extension was signed as of a month ago. NY 8 was still signed to NY 17 last weekend.

The ONLY confirmed removals are in Region 7 and I, along with many others, have confirmed most personally. In cases where the log and inventory files disagree, inventory files trump.

That's always been my belief. It looks like what happened is that somebody looked at maintenance jurisdiction rather than posted numbering and thought, "Oh hey, that section isn't state maintained; it's county. Better remove it from the list."

(MODS: Possible to split off this side-topic?)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 29, 2018, 12:03:28 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/u4TEonCU94D2
Is NY 293 SB longer than NY 293 NB?

In the above photo you see US 6 EB use half the road in the image.  US 6 WB is on the ramp to the far left, as US 6 and NY 293 interchange at a trumpet where NY 293 is the main body and US 6 exits itself to become the Long Mountain Parkway.  I assume that NY 293 uses the left side of the double line and officially ends where US 6 merges behind the image here?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 29, 2018, 12:18:34 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/u4TEonCU94D2
Is NY 293 SB longer than NY 293 NB?

In the above photo you see US 6 EB use half the road in the image.  US 6 WB is on the ramp to the far left, as US 6 and NY 293 interchange at a trumpet where NY 293 is the main body and US 6 exits itself to become the Long Mountain Parkway.  I assume that NY 293 uses the left side of the double line and officially ends where US 6 merges behind the image here?

Officially, no. Reference marker 1000 is located at the split. Knowing how Region 8 does things and based on what I can see from the public shapefiles, that short two-way stretch of EB US 6 inside the trumpet is considered to be the EB side of a one-way pair and the WB side of that carries no designation. I'd need someone with access to internal NYSDOT files to confirm.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 29, 2018, 01:43:31 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/u4TEonCU94D2
Is NY 293 SB longer than NY 293 NB?

In the above photo you see US 6 EB use half the road in the image.  US 6 WB is on the ramp to the far left, as US 6 and NY 293 interchange at a trumpet where NY 293 is the main body and US 6 exits itself to become the Long Mountain Parkway.  I assume that NY 293 uses the left side of the double line and officially ends where US 6 merges behind the image here?

I don't think they get that specific. I think this road is just US 6 eastbound, even though it happens to be a two-way road. Similarly, the loop ramp of the trumpet ends at a two-way roadway that happens to carry only US 6 westbound.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 29, 2018, 01:13:44 PM
I would like to know who thought of this interchange in the first place.  Its really laid out wrongly.  US 6 should be the main body with 293 exiting. 

I am guessing that has to do with US 6 many years ago following what is now NY 293, and then later being re-routed to follow the Long Mountain Pky and PIP to the Beat Mountain Bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 29, 2018, 03:28:29 PM
Note that trucks are banned from the Long Mountain Parkway.  They have to take NY 293.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 30, 2018, 07:42:31 PM
Also note that the route through to West Point is via NY 293, so that may be another reason for it to have geometric priority (not that there's all that much materiel being moved on and off the post…).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 02, 2018, 12:42:50 AM
Note that trucks are banned from the Long Mountain Parkway.  They have to take NY 293.
Yes, but unfortunately, westbound trucks have to deal with a low, narrow bridge under US 9W and very little signage for US Truck Route 6 along US 9W.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on September 06, 2018, 09:51:07 AM
For those of you who predicted problems with the US 219 freeway south of Springville, with the soft soil. You were right. http://springvillejournal.com/News/Lane-closure-on-219-starts-today.html (http://springvillejournal.com/News/Lane-closure-on-219-starts-today.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 17, 2018, 03:56:09 PM
Does NYSDOT have any sort of set schedule for paving state highways?

I'm wondering when certain state routes in my area are scheduled to be paved and I'm having a hard time finding anything online.
Is it possible, if a highway has been pothole-filled and left without resurfacing for ~15 years, that it's a sign that they are waiting on funding to include major upgrades, new turning lanes, and so forth, with the resurfacing?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 17, 2018, 09:04:34 PM
Not by route.  Projects are chosen by a combination of what the bridge and pavement models spit out based upon conditions...and political pressures.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 19, 2018, 02:50:47 PM
Which is kind of what I thought.. and also what makes me wonder if they're waiting on funding for other, more large scale, improvements, and don't want to pave it twice within a short time frame.

If it was really based upon conditions, NY 286 would have been paved 5+, if not 10+, years ago. Yet they paved a tiny, 1/4 mile segment under NY 590 this summer, and left the rest of it (from there to NY 250) in its current state of disrepair. Interesting..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 20, 2018, 11:07:39 AM
It looks like all of the NY 13 guide signs from Ithaca north towards Lansing are being replaced. I don't think these signs are original - but may date to circa 1975? Crews are out drilling for new posts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 20, 2018, 10:49:59 PM
It looks like all of the NY 13 guide signs from Ithaca north towards Lansing are being replaced. I don't think these signs are original - but may date to circa 1975? Crews are out drilling for new posts.

The existing signs are from the late 90s/early 2000s. Signing dating to 1975 would be dark green, button copy, and most likely all-text.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 23, 2018, 10:35:53 PM
Work on the northbound Buffalo Skyway is appearing to wrap up. I drive by it nearly every day. The bridge deck is all new, it looks like they either sandblasted or painted the side barriers, and everything just looks spectacular. I can't wait to drive on it when it opens.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on September 23, 2018, 11:31:31 PM
I drove from Rome to Auburn last night using NY 46, NY 31, NY 298, I-481, I-690, NY 695, and NY 5, and here's a few things I noticed:

Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 24, 2018, 01:20:55 PM
It looks like all of the NY 13 guide signs from Ithaca north towards Lansing are being replaced. I don't think these signs are original - but may date to circa 1975? Crews are out drilling for new posts.

The existing signs are from the late 90s/early 2000s. Signing dating to 1975 would be dark green, button copy, and most likely all-text.

Now that I think about it, the original button copy signs along that stretch of NY 13 used to have some pretty nifty "ghost writing" where the button copy had been moved around once or twice. I wish I grabbed some photos back then, this would have been 1986-1992 when I would come through there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 29, 2018, 06:25:59 AM
And yet another round in Cuomo signs saga...
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Agreement-reached-on-NYS-tourism-signs-13267631.php
Is it just me, or "reached an agreement to launch an innovative experimental project to allow tourism signage" sounds like a new set of signs with a more innovative shade of blue and a truly innovative way of ignoring FHWA rules?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 29, 2018, 07:39:19 AM
I am interested to see what's been developed. I think that the tourism signs, while overkill with the quick succession signs, were ultimately successful. The gateway signs for particular regions are helpful, and work well in conjunction with New York's beautiful themed rest areas (take note, other states). I think that many of the issues have been resolved - such as the display of the website and app.

I hope those new signs that were used during the campaign - like New York State Parks, and Path Through History, are not reused - or used outside of those gateway signs. They were unreadable at highway speeds, much less anything slower. Too much text. What's wrong with the park/tree icon and the state park name under it that is/was used?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 29, 2018, 10:52:50 PM
How about one gateway sign, welcome to this region, see what we have at our rest stop in x miles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 30, 2018, 09:50:16 AM
I am interested to see what's been developed. I think that the tourism signs, while overkill with the quick succession signs, were ultimately successful. The gateway signs for particular regions are helpful, and work well in conjunction with New York's beautiful themed rest areas (take note, other states). I think that many of the issues have been resolved - such as the display of the website and app.

I hope those new signs that were used during the campaign - like New York State Parks, and Path Through History, are not reused - or used outside of those gateway signs. They were unreadable at highway speeds, much less anything slower. Too much text. What's wrong with the park/tree icon and the state park name under it that is/was used?
I wonder if there is any numerical measure for success. I don't know how many people end up in upstate without at least a vague idea of what they are doing and would have their plans changed because of signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 30, 2018, 07:16:39 PM
I am interested to see what's been developed. I think that the tourism signs, while overkill with the quick succession signs, were ultimately successful. The gateway signs for particular regions are helpful, and work well in conjunction with New York's beautiful themed rest areas (take note, other states). I think that many of the issues have been resolved - such as the display of the website and app.

I hope those new signs that were used during the campaign - like New York State Parks, and Path Through History, are not reused - or used outside of those gateway signs. They were unreadable at highway speeds, much less anything slower. Too much text. What's wrong with the park/tree icon and the state park name under it that is/was used?
Earlier articles about the negotiation said that the new signs would just be the main ones, not the smaller ones, and not have the URL or app on them.  Apparently the big impasse was over whether the word "experience" could be in italics or not.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 30, 2018, 09:01:18 PM
When most people think of famous Whipple's, they think of the local grocer that liked to squeeze toilet paper.  Well, there is actually a very famous and influential Whipple that revolutionized bridge building in the 1800s.  His name is Squire Whipple and when I lived in Albany I was able to find one of his remaining bowstring trusses. 

And as I researched for this blog entry, I found out that there are three additional Whipple Bridges in the Albany area.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-capital-regions-whipple-bridges.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: DJStephens on October 13, 2018, 07:47:21 PM
Any comments on the October 10th Schoharie Ford Excursion limousine crash, that killed 20?  One has to wonder if driver impairment was to blame here.   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MNHighwayMan on October 13, 2018, 08:03:44 PM
Any comments on the October 10th Schoharie Ford Excursion limousine crash, that killed 20?  One has to wonder if driver impairment was to blame here.

You may want to try the dedicated thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23759.0) on the subject.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 19, 2018, 04:36:01 PM
This is an interesting place to put signs

(https://i.imgur.com/BI4NeOIh.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 26, 2018, 01:49:06 PM
A small question.. There is some road work on I-87 southbound, between exits 10 and 9. Just 1 truck and 1 bulldozer - but it goes on for the second week if not more. It really looks like they are putting in a driveway to the interstate.
Any idea what that is?
 
UPD: actually a bit further north, and there is already something like a driveway there on google maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9116943,-73.7941708,3a,75y,220.27h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQtQrjuhLc92AP5gCkEMHqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on October 27, 2018, 03:29:41 AM
A small question.. There is some road work on I-87 southbound, between exits 10 and 9. Just 1 truck and 1 bulldozer - but it goes on for the second week if not more. It really looks like they are putting in a driveway to the interstate.
Any idea what that is?
 
UPD: actually a bit further north, and there is already something like a driveway there on google maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9116943,-73.7941708,3a,75y,220.27h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQtQrjuhLc92AP5gCkEMHqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Might just be some sort of DOT dumping area. They put one in on I-390 just south of exit 10 some years ago. I thought it looked like a driveway, too. Is it directly opposite the U-turn?
Aerial (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8938429,-77.6955637,397m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8944326,-77.6950112,3a,90y,225.28h,82.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNtBo5o84gRzW3hbSYtymVA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on October 31, 2018, 05:46:16 AM
Just drove on Skyway. Can confirm longitudinal tining and new signage throughout.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 07, 2018, 01:25:08 AM
What road is busier, Transit Rd or Niagara Falls Blvd?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 07, 2018, 08:47:18 PM
https://gis3.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=tdv

Both have segments over 25K, but Transit Road has high volumes sustained for much longer distances, and certainly has more regional importance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on November 08, 2018, 07:24:09 AM
This is an interesting place to put signs

(https://i.imgur.com/BI4NeOIh.jpg)

Where is that, Buffaboy?

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on November 08, 2018, 03:40:10 PM
This is an interesting place to put signs

(https://i.imgur.com/BI4NeOIh.jpg)

Where is that, Buffaboy?

ixnay

NY 5 at Tifft St
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on November 13, 2018, 01:16:55 AM
NYSDOT region 10 long island  is holding a public meeting 11/28 in regards to the oakdale merge on ny-27 sunrise hwy which is a horrible bottle neck in both directions. State is seeking public opinions about issues and possible solutions. There is a short term fix contract already let which is scheduled to begin in the spring including ramp meters, closing some ramps and opening up median barrier to allow emergency vehicles to cross over. I’ve seen some of the long term plans which include stacking the highway as the dot is pretty constrained with donated land for state park and arboretum bordering both sides. Either way, it’s going to cost a fortune and take forever to finish and the public is gonna be pissed either way. I plan on attending just to see what’s happening there as most of us at dot are left in the dark about these things.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2018/2018-11-13 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2018/2018-11-13)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 13, 2018, 03:38:39 PM
Has there been any discussion about the upcoming reconstruction of the Interstate 278 Promenade structure in Brooklyn? This page has 156 pages and I don't have time to go through all of them. I have a feeling this project will be a long, difficult one. Does anyone have any ideas about this project?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 13, 2018, 08:06:39 PM
I want to say yes, but I don't recall specifically.  It would be more likely to be in the NYC Roads thread, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 13, 2018, 11:46:05 PM
Has there been any discussion about the upcoming reconstruction of the Interstate 278 Promenade structure in Brooklyn? This page has 156 pages and I don't have time to go through all of them. I have a feeling this project will be a long, difficult one. Does anyone have any ideas about this project?
They haven't settled on what they're doing yet. Still trying to sort through all the community feedback.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: bob7374 on November 28, 2018, 02:30:46 PM
The first media report has appeared about the changing of the exit numbers along I-84 (this is in response to a memo sent out to all 'stakeholders' along the route by NYSDOT a couple weeks ago, posted on the Facebook group Northeast Roads, preliminary work has started, the numbers, and new signs, won't start going up until the spring). It's not by a talk or news outlet, but a rock station.  http://i95rock.com/all-of-i-84-in-the-hudson-valley-to-get-new-exit-numbers/ (http://i95rock.com/all-of-i-84-in-the-hudson-valley-to-get-new-exit-numbers/)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 28, 2018, 03:16:03 PM
Are any other highways in New York that currently have sequencial exit numbers planning a mileage-based conversion in the near future?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on November 28, 2018, 05:56:19 PM
Are any other highways in New York that currently have sequencial exit numbers planning a mileage-based conversion in the near future?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/about-nysdot/faq/nys-interstate-exit--system-sequential-or-milepost-system

Per the link I posted:

“Is New York State planning to change its Interstate exit numbering system from a sequential system to a distance-based milepost system?

At this time, the Department does not have immediate plans to adopt the mileage based exit numbering system although strong consideration has been given to the idea. The use of both consecutive and milepost exit numbering systems is approved by the Federal Highway Administration. While many states have converted to the milepost exit numbering system, New York is one of several states in the Northeast that still numbers freeway exits using the consecutive numbering system.

Actually, New York was an early pioneer in converting exit numbers from a consecutive order (e.g. Exit 1, Exit 2, Exit 3, ...) to a system based on distance (miles or kilometers). In the 1970's, New York unsuccessfully experimented with the mileage based system in New York City and Schenectady. The milepost system works best when exits are separated by more than a mile. Unfortunately, in some of New York's urban areas, exit spacing is less than a mile.

The Department released a report in January 2003 regarding the feasibility of converting exit numbers on freeways from a consecutive numbering system to a milepost exit numbering system. The conclusion was that although the change is technically possible, it would be quite costly and would have to compete with other worthwhile projects for consideration of scarce resources. Since the Federal Highway Administration has not made adopting the reference post marking system a mandate, but rather an option; New York will likely defer the changeover until it becomes a requirement or additional funding is available to implement the plan.”

As others pointed out, it’s dated. As far as I know, here on Long Island there are no plans to change the exit numbers. There’s a few sign jobs but none involve exit numbers from what I saw.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 28, 2018, 05:59:30 PM
Quote
Since the Federal Highway Administration has not made adopting the reference post marking system a mandate, but rather an option;

This was the case in 2003.  However, the 2009 MUTCD mandated it, though FHWA has not set a hard end-date on when all states must conform.  At one point, there was a soft date during this current year (2018).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 28, 2018, 08:16:30 PM
Are any other highways in New York that currently have sequencial exit numbers planning a mileage-based conversion in the near future?

https://www.dot.ny.gov/about-nysdot/faq/nys-interstate-exit--system-sequential-or-milepost-system

Is New York State planning to change its Interstate exit numbering system from a sequential system to a distance-based milepost system?

At this time, the Department does not have immediate plans to adopt the mileage based exit numbering system although strong consideration has been given to the idea. The use of both consecutive and milepost exit numbering systems is approved by the Federal Highway Administration. While many states have converted to the milepost exit numbering system, New York is one of several states in the Northeast that still numbers freeway exits using the consecutive numbering system.

Actually, New York was an early pioneer in converting exit numbers from a consecutive order (e.g. Exit 1, Exit 2, Exit 3, ...) to a system based on distance (miles or kilometers). In the 1970's, New York unsuccessfully experimented with the mileage based system in New York City and Schenectady. The milepost system works best when exits are separated by more than a mile. Unfortunately, in some of New York's urban areas, exit spacing is less than a mile.

The Department released a report in January 2003 regarding the feasibility of converting exit numbers on freeways from a consecutive numbering system to a milepost exit numbering system. The conclusion was that although the change is technically possible, it would be quite costly and would have to compete with other worthwhile projects for consideration of scarce resources. Since the Federal Highway Administration has not made adopting the reference post marking system a mandate, but rather an option; New York will likely defer the changeover until it becomes a requirement or additional funding is available to implement the plan.



Keep in mind that this page hasn't been updated in more than a decade.  Since then, I-781 was built with mileage-based numbers, US 15 was converted, the Taconic gained numbers, and the I-84 conversion was designed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 29, 2018, 05:19:05 PM
Maybe someday, all the highways in New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Delaware, and elsewhere will conform to the 2009 mandate over mileage-based exits. Of course, I realize this will continue to be a long, slow process. I also realize that universal public acceptance of mileage-based exit numbers can never be mandated.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 29, 2018, 05:27:05 PM
I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 29, 2018, 05:31:00 PM
I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.

That and I-90, because Thruway.

I don't care how long it takes as long as it actually happens and gets done properly (meaning one set of numbers for I-90, and one set for I-87).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on November 29, 2018, 05:59:09 PM
I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.

I think I-495 on Long Island or any of the initeratates in nyc will be last. There is no funding to change exit signs on Long Island with too many other areas that are priority like trying to get our 10K+ curb ramps to be federal ADA PROWAG compliant (I’m stuck on the curb ramp specialist team, I still can’t belive the amount of time and money being wasted on some of these esp those that failed by 0.2% slopes.) also, I believe down here will be last as the link I provided state that many of our exits are closer than a mile together which starts messing up the mileage based exits scheme.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 29, 2018, 10:48:55 PM
I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.

I think I-495 on Long Island or any of the initeratates in nyc will be last. There is no funding to change exit signs on Long Island with too many other areas that are priority like trying to get our 10K+ curb ramps to be federal ADA PROWAG compliant (I’m stuck on the curb ramp specialist team, I still can’t belive the amount of time and money being wasted on some of these esp those that failed by 0.2% slopes.) also, I believe down here will be last as the link I provided state that many of our exits are closer than a mile together which starts messing up the mileage based exits scheme.
I bet NYCDOT will ask the FHWA for some kind of exemption to stick to sequential exit numbers.  That would mean that I-87, I-95, I-495 and I-78 would have their Exit 0's outside the Five Boroughs, then count down the closer you got to Manhattan.  Forget the SRs and Parkways, those will probably stay sequential forever.

I also think you're gonna end up with a situation where all Thruway ROW stays sequential and then the continuing Interstates will have their exits be milage based.  The Berkshire Extension portion of I-90 and Free I-90 would both be milage-based as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 30, 2018, 08:21:43 AM
^ Some states up here have already asked FHWA for exemptions and waivers.  I know Vermont did a few years ago.  They were politely told "no".

As for the Thruway...given the typical distance between exits, there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't make the Thruway exit numbers mileage-based.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on November 30, 2018, 09:16:56 AM
I think once the Thruway goes all electronic for its tolling, the notion of having separate exit numbers for I-90 and I-87 will be a lot easier.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on November 30, 2018, 12:10:09 PM
I also think you're gonna end up with a situation where all Thruway ROW stays sequential and then the continuing Interstates will have their exits be milage based.  The Berkshire Extension portion of I-90 and Free I-90 would both be milage-based as well.
Such would likely mean that the CWE portion of I-287's current MM CW 0 at I-87/NYS Thruway would become MM 20.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 30, 2018, 12:25:12 PM
I think once the Thruway goes all electronic for its tolling, the notion of having separate exit numbers for I-90 and I-87 will be a lot easier.

Somewhat easier. You still have institutional inertia, which is a real thing in New York.

^ Some states up here have already asked FHWA for exemptions and waivers.  I know Vermont did a few years ago.  They were politely told "no".

Precisely. It's going to happen whether people like it or not. There is no reason to not change other than people being reluctant to change. If a slow change is what's necessary to make people warm up to it, so be it. Better than MA, which planned a change and then had to back down due to public outcry.

Quote
As for the Thruway...given the typical distance between exits, there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't make the Thruway exit numbers mileage-based.

The mainline has no exits closer than a mile north of Westchester County. Even then, you could fudge some numbers to make only a couple of A/B pairs necessary.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 01, 2018, 03:59:08 PM
I think once the Thruway goes all electronic for its tolling, the notion of having separate exit numbers for I-90 and I-87 will be a lot easier.

Somewhat easier. You still have institutional inertia, which is a real thing in New York.

^ Some states up here have already asked FHWA for exemptions and waivers.  I know Vermont did a few years ago.  They were politely told "no".

Precisely. It's going to happen whether people like it or not. There is no reason to not change other than people being reluctant to change. If a slow change is what's necessary to make people warm up to it, so be it. Better than MA, which planned a change and then had to back down due to public outcry.


I still think they should number the interchanges by distance on the longer non-Interstates (US 219, NY 400, NY 33, NY 104 in Rochester area, NY 49 in Utica-Rome) to get motorists used to the idea.  R5 missed the boat when they recently replaced every guide panel on NY 400.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 01, 2018, 07:24:48 PM
I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 02, 2018, 01:55:09 AM
I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.
Negative. Not required.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on December 02, 2018, 03:47:35 AM
I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.

It’s not required which is why NY has taken a lackadaisical approach to switching. Until it’s mandated and/or federal govt provides the funding to do so NY will continue to allocate limited funds to other priorities. In the states eyes, the sequential exits work fine and it’s a case of “if it ain’t broke then don’t fix it”
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 02, 2018, 07:08:23 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if upstate regions are a little more interested in switching than Regions 10/11.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 02, 2018, 09:06:47 PM
I believe you folks are mistaken. In the 2009 Manual's Section 2E - Freeways and Expressways, Sec. 2E.31.04 states: Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used. The Manual does not show any distinction on this requirement between Interstate vs. U.S. or State freeways and expressways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 02, 2018, 10:03:09 PM
I believe you folks are mistaken. In the 2009 Manual's Section 2E - Freeways and Expressways, Sec. 2E.31.04 states: Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used. The Manual does not show any distinction on this requirement between Interstate vs. U.S. or State freeways and expressways.

But the feds only care about Interstates (at least as far as conversions go). See Georgia and Pennsylvania, which changed Interstates but not non-Interstate freeways. Those states have no real plan to change over the non-Interstates. I could swear there's another state or two that uses sequential for non-Interstates and distance-based for Interstates, but I may be mistaken.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Revive 755 on December 02, 2018, 10:14:41 PM
^ The MUTCD applies to almost all roads.  If FHWA wanted to, they could withhold federal funding for any projects on a roadway using non-MUTCD compliant exit numbering, or even withhold all federal funds for Georgia and Pennsylvania until a conversion plan was established.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on December 02, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
I could swear there's another state or two that uses sequential for non-Interstates and distance-based for Interstates, but I may be mistaken.

You're probably thinking of Virginia, which is more of a mixed bag. I-264, I-664, and VA 267 are sequential (although I-264 is close to mile-based due to luck), while many of its other non-Interstate freeways are unnumbered.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 02, 2018, 10:28:33 PM
^ The MUTCD applies to almost all roads.  If FHWA wanted to, they could withhold federal funding for any projects on a roadway using non-MUTCD compliant exit numbering, or even withhold all federal funds for Georgia and Pennsylvania until a conversion plan was established.

Could they? Certainly. Will they? Doubtful, as they have shown that they don't care as much about non-Interstates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 02, 2018, 10:38:10 PM
Well I have no real knowledge of what the FHWA's priorities are and it may well be true that they concentrate their enforcement efforts on Interstate highways. I'm just saying what the official Manual rule is. That exit numbering is required to be mileage based on all freeways and expressways. Period. That's the standard.

 Some of you were insisting in earlier posts that this was not the rule when in fact it is. So let's keep our facts straight and accurate as much as possible.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 02, 2018, 11:46:50 PM
The FHWA requires mile-based exit numbers on Interstates. They do not require ANY exit numbers on non-Interstates. Yes, if you use them, they must be mile-based as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on December 03, 2018, 09:04:50 AM
Could be worse. Ohio's non-interstates are the luck of the draw with mileage-based exits. Will it be unsigned? Or signed in accordance with the statewide mileage total? Or countywide mileage total? Find out on Route 2!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 03, 2018, 09:46:43 AM
Could be worse. Ohio's non-interstates are the luck of the draw with mileage-based exits. Will it be unsigned? Or signed in accordance with the statewide mileage total? Or countywide mileage total? Find out on Route 2!

Or US 33. Exits in District 6 are signed by statewide mileage, but those in Athens County are county mileage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on December 03, 2018, 11:05:26 AM
I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.

Negative. Not required.

Really?

Quote from: FHWA, in MUTCD 2009 § 2E.31.02
Standard:  Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit.  Interchange exit numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide Sign, Exit Direction Sign, and Exit Gore sign.

I am pretty sure the NPRM and NFR for the 2009 MUTCD make it clear that it is FHWA's intention to extend the requirement to provide exit numbering to non-Interstate freeways as well as Interstates.  In the MUTCD itself, the preceding paragraph in § 2E.31 makes it clear that the only scenario in which FHWA envisions exit numbering not being provided on freeways or expressways is AASHTO expressways with a mixture of flat intersections and grade separations.  And even there provision of exit numbering is urged if there is "appreciable continuity of interchange facilities."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on December 03, 2018, 11:41:42 AM
Could be worse. Ohio's non-interstates are the luck of the draw with mileage-based exits. Will it be unsigned? Or signed in accordance with the statewide mileage total? Or countywide mileage total? Find out on Route 2!

Or US 33. Exits in District 6 are signed by statewide mileage, but those in Athens County are county mileage.

At least there are interchange numbers, considering the complexity of the exits there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 03, 2018, 08:57:29 PM
JNW hit the nail on the head with his quote from Sec. 2E-31. The MUTCD does not seem to distinguish between Interstate freeways and Non-Interstate freeways. The standards are the same for all freeways. And a freeway is defined as any highway with full control of access vs. an Expressway which is partial control of access.

And again, I'm not saying the FHWA enforces the standards equally among all freeways. I'm not sure what their priorities and policies are. I'm only saying how the Manual actually reads.

Our friend Mr. Alps would do well to read the Manual before making repeated mis-statements of fact concerning what the Manual does and doesn't say.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 04, 2018, 01:09:33 AM
I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.

Negative. Not required.

Really?

Quote from: FHWA, in MUTCD 2009 § 2E.31.02
Standard:  Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit.  Interchange exit numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide Sign, Exit Direction Sign, and Exit Gore sign.

I am pretty sure the NPRM and NFR for the 2009 MUTCD make it clear that it is FHWA's intention to extend the requirement to provide exit numbering to non-Interstate freeways as well as Interstates.  In the MUTCD itself, the preceding paragraph in § 2E.31 makes it clear that the only scenario in which FHWA envisions exit numbering not being provided on freeways or expressways is AASHTO expressways with a mixture of flat intersections and grade separations.  And even there provision of exit numbering is urged if there is "appreciable continuity of interchange facilities."
The MUTCD says that, but the FHWA has since stated that they are not enforcing it to many state agencies. Which makes it odd that MA hinged its exit renumbering on the sentiments of Cape Cod re: US 6.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 04, 2018, 01:10:00 AM
JNW hit the nail on the head with his quote from Sec. 2E-31. The MUTCD does not seem to distinguish between Interstate freeways and Non-Interstate freeways. The standards are the same for all freeways. And a freeway is defined as any highway with full control of access vs. an Expressway which is partial control of access.

And again, I'm not saying the FHWA enforces the standards equally among all freeways. I'm not sure what their priorities and policies are. I'm only saying how the Manual actually reads.

Our friend Mr. Alps would do well to read the Manual before making repeated mis-statements of fact concerning what the Manual does and doesn't say.
I'm a professional engineer whose job involves the MUTCD. I'm well aware what's inside. What are you?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on December 04, 2018, 01:41:18 AM
The MUTCD says that, but the FHWA has since stated that they are not enforcing it to many state agencies. Which makes it odd that MA hinged its exit renumbering on the sentiments of Cape Cod re: US 6.

Is there any indication that FHWA will remove this requirement from the MUTCD?  If they don't, then I take the view that agencies that don't currently number exits on non-Interstate freeways are on borrowed time.

From the late 1960's to about 1980, it took fifteen years to institute exit numbering on Interstates.  The pattern at the start with Interstates was similar to what it is now with non-Interstate freeways:  some early adopters (Georgia back then, North Carolina now) made advance provision, while others delayed.  By 1980, the last holdouts (like Kansas) finally caved in.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 09:08:37 AM
I could swear there's another state or two that uses sequential for non-Interstates and distance-based for Interstates, but I may be mistaken.
Granted it's only highway in this particular state but the NJ Turnpike still uses sequential-based interchange numbering.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 04, 2018, 09:29:05 AM
JNW hit the nail on the head with his quote from Sec. 2E-31. The MUTCD does not seem to distinguish between Interstate freeways and Non-Interstate freeways. The standards are the same for all freeways. And a freeway is defined as any highway with full control of access vs. an Expressway which is partial control of access.

And again, I'm not saying the FHWA enforces the standards equally among all freeways. I'm not sure what their priorities and policies are. I'm only saying how the Manual actually reads.

Our friend Mr. Alps would do well to read the Manual before making repeated mis-statements of fact concerning what the Manual does and doesn't say.
I'm a professional engineer whose job involves the MUTCD. I'm well aware what's inside. What are you?

Alps knows more about the MUTCD and its priorities than anybody else on that forum due to his professional activities. I can almost guarantee that. Guy is part of NCUTCD for crying out loud.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on December 04, 2018, 11:21:27 AM
^ I'd make a case for Mike Tantillo knowing more than Alps (IIRC, Mike has been on NCUTCD longer than Steve), but that's because goat...🙃

If Richard Moeur were on this forum, he'd have everyone beat hands down.  I defer to him on all things signage (though we often disagree about off-street bike paths).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on December 04, 2018, 12:24:50 PM
NCUTCD?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 04, 2018, 12:27:59 PM
^ I'd make a case for Mike Tantillo knowing more than Alps (IIRC, Mike has been on NCUTCD longer than Steve), but that's because goat...🙃

If Richard Moeur were on this forum, he'd have everyone beat hands down.  I defer to him on all things signage (though we often disagree about off-street bike paths).

Tantillo isn't active any more, so Steve wins by default. But yes, if Tantillo were still active on the forum, he'd win.

NCUTCD?

National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. They basically write the MUTCD.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 02:33:06 PM
Tantillo isn't active any more, so Steve wins by default. But yes, if Tantillo were still active on the forum, he'd win.
Tantillo's most recent post is from this past Nov. 29.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 04, 2018, 07:42:09 PM
If Alps is a Professional Engineer who is regularly involved with the MUTCD, then why has he repeatedly made factual mis-statements about its standards? If anything, he should be the most knowledgable among us and should be able to explain the Manual correctly and accurately.

I may not be a P.E. but I can read and understand the English language and quote it correctly. Sorry if I find it annoying to be misinformed by professional people who I assumed would state the facts correctly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on December 04, 2018, 09:23:19 PM
Okay guys, I hate to get into a flaming war here, but if Alps is a Professional Engineer who is regularly involved with the MUTCD, then why has he repeatedly made factual mis-statements about its standards? If anything, he should be the most knowledgable among us and be able to explain the Manual correctly and accurately.

But what the heck, I've known defensive driving instructors who were misinformed about state traffic laws too so I guess this problem permeates many professions.

Even the best experts are not immune from error, I have seen that in the past.

I may not be a P.E. but I can read and understand the English language and quote it correctly. My apologies for this long winded post, but I really hate being lied to by professional people who should know better.

Why do you assume that someone "lied" rather than was possibly incorrect about something?  I am not an MUTCD expert so I can't weigh in on that matter.  I have met Steve several times at roads meets, including before he was an engineer and afterward.  Based on my interactions with him there and for many years on online highways forums, he always seems very sincere and knowledgeable about these highway topics.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on December 04, 2018, 10:28:55 PM
While the MUTCD may require such mileage-based exit numbers, the FHWA does not deem it be of high importance and does not enforce it. There is bigger fish to fry than to require a state to completely re-sign its highway exits at a high cost when there is no demonstrable benefit to the motoring public, versus having something that's phased in in a more cost-effective manner, such as what's been done with I-99 and now I-84.

SignBridge, your statement that the MUTCD requires mileage-based exit numbers is correct. But Steve also agrees upon that point, and is very much right in that the FHWA won't strictly enforce that particular MUTCD requirement because of legitimate issues. I wish that you would tone down your rhetoric of your own doing. Steve isn't lying or even misrepresenting, and he certainly is a Professional Engineer. That's a fact.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 04, 2018, 10:49:01 PM
My apologies for coming on a little too strong. I've modified my previous post to make it a little less abrasive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 05, 2018, 12:26:47 AM
My apologies for coming on a little too strong. I've modified my previous post to make it a little less abrasive.
It's still abrasive. To teach you a little more about how the MUTCD works, we design to the standards in Sections 2-4 (most typically), but there are plenty of times that state agency policies supersede or even contradict what's in the MUTCD. As far as the standards, I will beat you every time. As far as how they're applied by each state and enforced by the FHWA, you could catch me on that only because the FHWA's enforcement depends on their own policy, which depends on who's calling the shots. So no, they're not going to remove requirements about all exit numbering being mile-based, but they've made it very clear that is not their current enforcement policy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 05, 2018, 05:57:42 PM
Okay, thanks to Alps and Seicer for your informative posts. I do appreciate your explaining some of how things actually work between state DOTs and the FHWA. I've often been curious about that sort of thing. Good inside info that you can't get just from reading the Manual. So thanks again.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 08, 2018, 10:25:08 PM
Image from John Hickey/The Buffalo News

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/bncore/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/1011827486-LOCAL-Intersecti-750x445.jpg)

Imagine turning these intersections into roundabouts.

Quote
In a roundabout way, the Town of Tonawanda wants to make it easier for drivers, bus passengers and bicyclists to travel one of the main east-west thoroughfares in the Northtowns.

Town officials are discussing a host of changes to Sheridan Drive as it runs from Niagara Falls Boulevard to the Niagara River.

The wish list includes shrinking the number of driving lanes, creating dedicated bicycle lanes, bringing express bus service to the road and adding "smart" traffic signals.

And, yes, they envision installing a trio of roundabouts at the three-headed intersection of Sheridan Drive, Niagara Falls Boulevard and Eggert Road on the Tonawanda-Amherst border.

https://buffalonews.com/2018/12/08/rethinking-sheridan-drive-bike-lanes-smarter-traffic-signals-and-roundabouts/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 08, 2018, 11:19:57 PM
Image from John Hickey/The Buffalo News

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/bncore/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/1011827486-LOCAL-Intersecti-750x445.jpg)

Imagine turning these intersections into roundabouts.

Quote
In a roundabout way, the Town of Tonawanda wants to make it easier for drivers, bus passengers and bicyclists to travel one of the main east-west thoroughfares in the Northtowns.

Town officials are discussing a host of changes to Sheridan Drive as it runs from Niagara Falls Boulevard to the Niagara River.

The wish list includes shrinking the number of driving lanes, creating dedicated bicycle lanes, bringing express bus service to the road and adding "smart" traffic signals.

And, yes, they envision installing a trio of roundabouts at the three-headed intersection of Sheridan Drive, Niagara Falls Boulevard and Eggert Road on the Tonawanda-Amherst border.

https://buffalonews.com/2018/12/08/rethinking-sheridan-drive-bike-lanes-smarter-traffic-signals-and-roundabouts/

Just from bare numbers, it is going to be a cluster. two roads with 25-30k daily, plus 8 k on a smaller one... Is this going to be the first 5-lane roundabout ever?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 09, 2018, 12:54:08 AM
Here's a 3 lane roundabout...which I would suspect is uncommon

(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10030/images/image012.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 09, 2018, 08:46:55 AM
Here's a 3 lane roundabout...which I would suspect is uncommon
looks more like 4-lane with essentially slip lanes between the arms. And a nice touch from a roundabout design company:  poor placement of crosswalks requiring crossing guard being deployed.
Anyway, seems like a critical mass of evidence showing 3+ lane not being a viable design is out there, so my condolences to people of Buffalo area... Use them as needed after construction is complete.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on December 09, 2018, 10:46:38 AM
Some thoughts:

- Eggert Rd (the smaller road with 7-8.5K daily traffic) could easily see a 4-to-3 road diet.

- While the two intersections with Eggert Rd could easily become roundabouts, they're too close to the Sheridan Dr/Niagara Falls Blvd intersection, so it would have to be an all-or-naught.  I'm not certain that a roundabout is the right idea for that intersection.

- Sheridan especially is what I would alternatively call a "traffic sewer" or "retail hell".  Way too many driveways and private access points for efficient traffic flow, and all those driveways add to the safety risk not just for bikes/pedestrians but drivers as well.

- Looking at the volumes along Sheridan and Niagara Falls, while upper 20s may seem high, its not out of the question for a 4-lane roadway.  We have 4-lane roadways in suburban D.C. that handle mid-30s fairly well, even during rush hour.  Especially on Sheridan to the east where there's a median, I think they could drop a lane without too much issue.  The problem with using it for buses or bikes, though, is the aforementioned multitude of driveways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on December 09, 2018, 11:32:31 AM
Access management with driveway consolidation is an option.  I can see why roundabouts are considered attractive given intersection angles and spacing that presumably make it difficult to achieve "green wave" signal progression, but I have grave doubts about using them with volumes above 20,000 VPD, even with the use of ring junctions (similar to the Magic Roundabout in Swindon) to increase throughput or approach signalization to ensure traffic will continue to be processed under conditions that would otherwise result in lockup.

I can see the engineers going for a ring junction just to claim this-side-of-the-Atlantic bragging rights (the inverse of the not-invented-here syndrome).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on December 09, 2018, 11:46:17 AM
I've lived on Sheridan Drive just west of here.

Roundabouts aren't going to fix things. Only way to fix this interchange is to raise Sheridan to an overpass and have NF Boulevard go under it. The problem with that is no one is going to pay that kind of money. There is not a single intersection along Sheridan that is roundaboutable.

Eggert cannot get a road diet, people already park on the curbside lane of Eggert, reducing it to two lanes. A road diet makes it one lane effectively.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on December 09, 2018, 11:55:04 AM
^ I thought about an overpass for Sheridan but it would require additional right-of-way, especially at the west end west of Eggert where it transitions back to the existing grade and where the existing right-of-way is narrower than it is at Niagara Falls.

Didn't realize that parking was allowed on Eggert.  Still seems like some improved delineation could be done on Eggert, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on December 09, 2018, 12:00:04 PM
Sheridan would also benefit from better timed lights. Lights should favour Sheridan. Driving down the stretch, you hit usually no less than 5 lights between Colvin and Niagara Falls Boulevard. This keeps rush hour absolutely nuts.

Right now I live just north of the Sheridan Drive/Transit Road interchange, which itself is also a mess because of questionable ramps. Sheridan Drive was built in the 1920s by Erie County, which really affects the design.

Outside of an overpass, I don't think there's a serious fix here.   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on December 10, 2018, 05:04:55 PM
Here is a new article concerning the forthcoming renumbering of the exits on I-84:

https://www.recordonline.com/news/20181209/state-will-convert-current-i-84-exit-signs-to-mileage-based-numbers
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 10, 2018, 08:00:45 PM
Interesting mention of the Hutch... is that just a quip, or are there actually plans to renumber it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on December 10, 2018, 11:14:56 PM
Quote
“It’s the decline in reflectivity that’s prompting the replacement,″ said Doug Cotton, the design manager for the I-84 project.

Okay. Tell that to the Thruway Authority who, until recently, put up non-compliant (and possibly illegal) signs that are not visible in the night at all 😂
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on December 11, 2018, 09:09:35 AM
Quote
“It’s the decline in reflectivity that’s prompting the replacement,″ said Doug Cotton, the design manager for the I-84 project.

Okay. Tell that to the Thruway Authority who, until recently, put up non-compliant (and possibly illegal) signs that are not visible in the night at all 😂
Even more ironic, the remaining roughly 30+ year old signs out there are still readable at night.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on December 11, 2018, 10:09:09 AM
I always wondered what test is done for reflectivity. WVDOH did a massive sign replacement along I-79 and US 50 a year or so ago because the signs were generally all put up at the same time - guide signs, regulatory signs, etc. But not all - some had been replaced as signs were knocked down over the years and as some faded out.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 11, 2018, 10:36:47 AM
I always wondered what test is done for reflectivity. WVDOH did a massive sign replacement along I-79 and US 50 a year or so ago because the signs were generally all put up at the same time - guide signs, regulatory signs, etc. But not all - some had been replaced as signs were knocked down over the years and as some faded out.

There's several methods prescribed in the MUTCD for this (section 2A.08, paragraph 4), but the general gist is that you can either go by visual inspection by a trained engineer, by measurement with a retroreflectometer and compare the result to a table of accepted values, or just set a timeline and replace it once the expected lifetime (as suggested by the manufacturer of the sheeting, for example) is reached.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on December 11, 2018, 01:42:41 PM
NYSDOT Long Island NY-27 “Oakdale Merge”  public information meeting with concepts. Design phases and construction are a LONG ways off of it even happens at all.

General link:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/OakdaleMerge (https://www.dot.ny.gov/OakdaleMerge)

Presentation including the various concepts:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region10/projects/005928-Home/005928-Repository/0059.28%20-%20Oakdale%20Merge_PIM%20Presentation_21%20Nov%202018%20Reduced%20Size.pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region10/projects/005928-Home/005928-Repository/0059.28%20-%20Oakdale%20Merge_PIM%20Presentation_21%20Nov%202018%20Reduced%20Size.pdf)

currently as it’s setup, ny-27 EB and WB each have a 3 mainline- 2 service lane setup east and west of the oakdale merge. As NY-27 enters he merge, the service roads end and merge into the three mainline lanes causing major bottleneck delays during rush hours that backs up for miles. Also, NY-27A/ CR-85 comes to a meeting spot next to NY-27 with an alghment running next to NY-27 lanes separated by a jersey barrier with glare fins. Access to ny-27A/CR-85 is only permitted from eb lanes at exit 46a. Also constricting NY-27 it’s horroble setupmcurrently besides having my-27a/cr-85 to its south, there’s connectquot state park to the north with a bike path butting against the highway, and south of ny-27a is wetlands and waterways and LIRR tracks.  Going forward, NYSDOT is going to have to deal with the highway alignment, environmentally sensitive areas, and maintaining heavy traffic through an already horrendous bottleneck if and when construction occurs and keep costs to a minimum as this region seems to always be at a shortfall when it comes to highway construction projects.

I can see either the DOT going with. Do nothing approach or one of the reversible lane appreciates which will not really solve anything as it is the most cost effect and environmentally least intrusive. The only true solution is somehow carry the 2-3-3-2 lane setup through the merge while also maintaining NY-27a as well on separate alignment.

Region 10 has been beyond the point of any new road construction since probably the 80s with the last major project being the ny-27 conversion to limited access hey in Suffolk county. The oakdale merge fix could be the biggest project region 10 sees since that conversion and for decades to come.

Starting in spring there is a “bandaid”  contract that will be occurring here including resurfacing, installing ramp meters, opening the median barrier to allow emergency vehicle cross over, and installing glare fins on median barrier (much needed, glare through here is horrendous). We’re already brwcing for public outrage when they think this project is suppose to be the concepts presented at the pibmicninfo meeting for their long term study.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 11, 2018, 05:04:17 PM
I have never heard of this junction (never been to LI), but judging by the aerial photos, it looks like a mess with that double merge.

It is interesting to see that all options are on the table in those cutaways. I doubt 75% of them will be considered.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on December 11, 2018, 05:19:04 PM
I have never heard of this junction (never been to LI), but judging by the aerial photos, it looks like a mess with that double merge.

It is interesting to see that all options are on the table in those cutaways. I doubt 75% of them will be considered.

It’s a total cluster, there’s no alternatives through here.  NY-27A basically merges into NY-27 here and traffic in PM rush backs up for miles on 27a through great river and east Islip, cr-50 backs up as it terminates on ny27a just west of the merge. Eb Southern state pkwy backs up for miles as traffic enters ny27 onto the jammed service road west of the merge in which the service road ends and merged into the mainline just east of there.  Can’t send traffic north to I495 as that is a parking lot already and would double if not more than double your commute time. The oakdale merge has been one of region 10 biggest headaches for decades, it will definitely be interesting to see what gets built and what solution they could come up with, hopefully before my retirement in 2058 or before I’m forced to move off Long Island as it’s too expensive and crowded to live here. I can pretty much guarantee the viaduct concept will never see light of  day between the environmental impacts, nimbys, and the astronomical costs (the largest viaduct option which is also the best option to minimize ROW impacts and carries the 3-3 mainline above and 2-2 service lanes below had price tag of $700+ mil which would be well over $1B when finally constructed and all the claims etc)

Also, I see the “do nothing”  approach being the only thing they can do. The logistics of WZTC and maintaining the already horrible traffic loads through here  will be a nightmare as well as preventing local residents from being trapped by having the local streets choked with detoured traffic. The population and vehicle volume load is just so bad it would be a multi year headache for DOT, emergency services, and residents.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 11, 2018, 07:45:35 PM
Question: where is this Truck NY 27 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7472515,-73.1534263,3a,15y,293.25h,88.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swqFHLDQwhMa1_wW3qXnJ_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that I found while looking at the area?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on December 11, 2018, 08:08:35 PM
Following NY27A, the signed route to NY27 involves using the Heckscher Parkway... which is closed to trucks. Hence, the "truck" banner appears to be used to denote the truck route to NY27.

Not the only place in the state where the "truck" banner is being used to denote a route trucks are allowed on as opposed to being a separate signed route...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 11, 2018, 08:16:22 PM
Looks like Region 10 has their banners in the wrong order.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on December 11, 2018, 08:43:43 PM
Following NY27A, the signed route to NY27 involves using the Heckscher Parkway... which is closed to trucks. Hence, the "truck" banner appears to be used to denote the truck route to NY27.

Not the only place in the state where the "truck" banner is being used to denote a route trucks are allowed on as opposed to being a separate signed route...

I’ve never seen the ny27 truck sign, but there is a ny25 truck sign that is concurrent with CR-48 middle rd in mattituck on the north fork.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181212/b66fd37abd5ebcd8e987483d9ccb9cfd.jpg)

I’m not aware of any other truck routes on Long Island except maybe ny135 which isn’t signed as truck but it’s just a given being that it’s the only limited access north-south route in Nassau county besides parkways.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on December 12, 2018, 08:06:26 AM
Here is a link to an article on the reconstruction of Exit 131 on Route 17 in Orange County:

https://www.recordonline.com/news/20181211/exit-131-project-expected-to-alter-traffic-patterns
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 12, 2018, 01:46:29 PM
There's another Truck NY 25 (partially concurrent with that one) out near Greenport on Moores Lane.  The only other one I know of on (geographic) Long Island is Truck NY 27 in Brooklyn.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: zachb on December 27, 2018, 09:17:43 PM
I was driving on NY110 and came across this sign. As awesome as it would be to have a US Route on Long Island, I don't think that sign is correct :spin:

(https://i.imgur.com/nmnjLBb.jpg)
Title: New York
Post by: Mccojm on December 27, 2018, 11:53:16 PM
I was driving on NY110 and came across this sign. As awesome as it would be to have a US Route on Long Island, I don't think that sign is correct :spin:

(https://i.imgur.com/nmnjLBb.jpg)

In Huntington on ny-25a:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181228/ee7f10da85eff4645fbd7582d41c1bb8.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: zachb on December 28, 2018, 06:25:47 AM
I was driving on NY110 and came across this sign. As awesome as it would be to have a US Route on Long Island, I don't think that sign is correct :spin:

(https://i.imgur.com/nmnjLBb.jpg)

In Huntington on ny-25a:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181228/ee7f10da85eff4645fbd7582d41c1bb8.jpg)


iPhone

I guess you can say NY110 is having an identity crisis...

Although from what it looks like in your pic I think theres black tape on the border of the sign, hiding the NY shield and making look more like a CT shield.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 28, 2018, 12:46:26 PM
Are they outsourcing sign production to Tonawanda now?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on December 28, 2018, 03:29:11 PM

I guess you can say NY110 is having an identity crisis...

Although from what it looks like in your pic I think theres black tape on the border of the sign, hiding the NY shield and making look more like a CT shield.

Working for region 10 DOT, the US-110 shield has appeared up and down ny-110 time and time again. Idk how us shield signs even ended up here as closest us route is in nyc which doesnt have a maintenance unit with NYSDOT, it just showed up at sign shop randomly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 28, 2018, 05:58:27 PM
Are they outsourcing sign production to Tonawanda now?
Yes to the Tonawanda transmission plant for General Motors.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on January 06, 2019, 10:39:17 PM
On Friday afternoon, I was driving westbound on Erie Blvd in Syracuse instead of I-690 for something different, and a bit before Teall Ave, I decided to use the new ramp from Teall Ave to I-690 westbound.  Teall Ave really needed to be repaved based on looking at old Street View images, and it has been repaved and new signs have been installed all the way to Erie Blvd.  New signals are up at both intersections at the I-690 interchange but there are bags over them.

The turn from Teall Ave northbound to I-690 westbound is now a double left, with new turn lane/I-690 shield combo signs.  The double left wasn't obvious until the last minute since the new signs were blocked by the current signals.  It was a few minutes after 5:00, and there were cars in the southbound left turn lane onto I-690 blocking the northbound left turn onto I-690, but there was a gap I was able to use since I was in the right left turn lane.  As I was turning, I heard someone honk their horn, and I looked behind me to see where the honk came from.  I saw a car that wasn't the one I had been waiting for a gap next to trying to use the same gap I was already turning into.  I don't know if it was that car or another one honking, but if it was them, they should have waited since they were behind me.  Seeing this congestion makes me wonder if they should have used a SPUI instead of a diamond.

After turning, the ramp's right lane ends, and they used a merge sign instead of a lane ends sign.  After the ramp becomes the acceleration lane, the markings were so worn that I couldn't see any of the lane lines.  Since I've never driven that ramp myself (and I don't know if I've ever been on it in the past), I wasn't sure if the lane was an added lane or not.  It's not (and never was) an added lane, so I ended up using the entire length of the lane, and was surprised as it ended since there wasn't a lane ends sign on I-690.  I was looking at the right edge of the pavement to follow it, and as I realized I was switching lanes unexpectedly, I looked behind me, and thankfully, the car in the next lane was far enough back so I could get in.  It was so sudden that I didn't even have time to turn on my blinker!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 07, 2019, 04:00:41 AM
Question: where is this Truck NY 27 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7472515,-73.1534263,3a,15y,293.25h,88.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swqFHLDQwhMa1_wW3qXnJ_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that I found while looking at the area?

There is another Truck 27 in Brooklyn off the Prospect Expressway

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.660929,-73.9877453,0a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scL247Hbfw_GJD64zzHqbSw!2e0

Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on January 07, 2019, 09:12:15 AM
Is anyone going to see the (old) Tappan Zee Bridge being exploded on January 12 at 9:30 AM? Remember to take photos!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on January 07, 2019, 09:55:29 AM
Is anyone going to see the (old) Tappan Zee Bridge being exploded on January 12 at 9:30 AM? Remember to take photos!
If a weather system hits the area this Saturday as predicted; such might be postponed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 07, 2019, 03:48:45 PM
Is anyone going to see the (old) Tappan Zee Bridge being exploded on January 12 at 9:30 AM? Remember to take photos!

If it occurs to me to catch that early of a train to work, I'll have the perfect view!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 07, 2019, 11:30:39 PM
Is anyone going to see the (old) Tappan Zee Bridge being exploded on January 12 at 9:30 AM? Remember to take photos!
If a weather system hits the area this Saturday as predicted; such might be postponed.
Fingers crossed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on January 10, 2019, 05:02:19 PM
Is anyone going to see the (old) Tappan Zee Bridge being exploded on January 12 at 9:30 AM? Remember to take photos!
If a weather system hits the area this Saturday as predicted; such might be postponed.
Fingers crossed.
Postponed, no new date set as of yet. (https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/rockland/tappan-zee/2019/01/10/tappan-zee-bridge-demolition-explosives-postponed/2539336002/?fbclid=IwAR0HBiemQj0_D5pymNZYyvXQ1aDQSqUnv_7dN86o2fi9X6904DLLLoSOC5k)

Quote from: lohud.com Article
"The sustained winds caused delays to the preparatory work of the planned demolition operation," read a statement from Tappan Zee Constructors. "We appreciate the patience of the local community, and once we have rescheduled the operation we will provide an update."
________________________________________

Update: Tuesday Jan. 15 is now the rescheduled date; however, the time has not yet been determined.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 14, 2019, 05:08:13 PM
Is anyone going to see the (old) Tappan Zee Bridge being exploded on January 12 at 9:30 AM? Remember to take photos!
If a weather system hits the area this Saturday as predicted; such might be postponed.
Fingers crossed.
Postponed, no new date set as of yet. (https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/rockland/tappan-zee/2019/01/10/tappan-zee-bridge-demolition-explosives-postponed/2539336002/?fbclid=IwAR0HBiemQj0_D5pymNZYyvXQ1aDQSqUnv_7dN86o2fi9X6904DLLLoSOC5k)

Quote from: lohud.com Article
"The sustained winds caused delays to the preparatory work of the planned demolition operation," read a statement from Tappan Zee Constructors. "We appreciate the patience of the local community, and once we have rescheduled the operation we will provide an update."
________________________________________

Update: Tuesday Jan. 15 is now the rescheduled date; however, the time has not yet been determined.

10:00 AM.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 19, 2019, 12:54:37 AM
I have never heard of this junction (never been to LI), but judging by the aerial photos, it looks like a mess with that double merge.

It is interesting to see that all options are on the table in those cutaways. I doubt 75% of them will be considered.
It's a total disaster that NYSDOT knows they could've avoided, but they wanted to build it in a way that didn't piss off the environmental lobby. Plan V-3 is the best of them, but even that needs some modifications. One of which is to have the west end of Montauk Highway and the entrance to Connetquot River State Park in an intersection with the service roads. The other is to reduce the number of on and off ramps between Connetquot Avenue and Locust Avenue. NY 27A/Connetquot River State Park and Suffolk CR 85 should strictly be Exit 47. There should be no Exit 46A, no Exit 47A, and no unnumbered exits to minor roads and local businesses.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 19, 2019, 02:27:34 PM


And all the button copy remaining at the I-684, I-84 JCT has now been replaced.  So this is gone.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1797/42849065465_16dd72b39e_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28hqEjM)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on January 22, 2019, 01:57:43 PM
One thing that has always amazed me is that 3 unique "French Roads" intersect with Transit Road (NY 78) in Erie County. There's French Road in Depew, French Road in Cheektowaga, and North French Road in Amherst.

(https://i.imgur.com/qoOTSC0.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/xlug3QT.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/EjwWzL6.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on January 30, 2019, 09:57:21 PM
One of my friends posted this video on Facebook from 1939 of snowplowing in the Tug Hill area and a couple of towns east of Syracuse:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on January 31, 2019, 09:36:07 AM
Awesome video! Even a cast iron marker for New Boston on NY 177!  :awesomeface:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 31, 2019, 02:01:03 PM
So that's why they call them snow plow "riders"!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 13, 2019, 02:31:54 PM
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7872/47053378041_4da3ce58e3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2eFWRYD)

I never realized this sign was that old going back to the non-reflective days.
Yonkers, NY
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on February 26, 2019, 08:10:36 PM
Yesterday, one of my friends posted this video (https://www.facebook.com/groups/fromoswego/permalink/3029746923784128/) of a mast arm in Oswego bouncing in the wind.  Based on the fact that the signal head is 3 feet tall, I'd say the end of the mast arm is moving at least 6 feet.  I'm surprised it didn't break off!

A few days ago, I also saw this video (https://www.facebook.com/2onyourside/videos/1096112797264830/) of a set of lights falling off a span wire in Williamsville.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 27, 2019, 07:22:03 AM
I am seeing a movement to what I thought were over-engineered mast-arm lights around this district in upstate, but after seeing the winds batter them yesterday (and seeing them flex more than 3 feet), they seem to be doing the job well. I wonder what the tolerance is? (Steve may know?)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on February 28, 2019, 01:42:33 PM
Apparently $100k has been put towards a design competition for a Buffalo Skyway replacement.

I have no idea what this would entail or how they will pull it off. Are they really going to funnel all of these cars onto Main Street with a drawbridge?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 28, 2019, 02:14:17 PM
Perhaps. The Buffalo River just doesn't see that much traffic anymore, with most of the mills long abandoned. (Is there such a page to view the number of openings of a bridge per year?) And I suspect the bridge will still be elevated to allow for pleasure craft to still move about without having to open the drawbridge for most instances.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 28, 2019, 06:40:17 PM
Ah, yes, replace the deck and perform major maintenance, then announce a replacement a few months later. This is political more than anything. If it was intended to be more of a band-aid fix, they'd have used modular deck panels that could be used elsewhere like was done with Tappan Zee.

As far as river traffic, anything they put in will have to accommodate barges serving General Mills and the crapton of sailboats calling the former ship canal home. Furthermore, the marina and General Mills property extend under the Skyway, which currently sees 42K vehicles/day (busier than NY 198, which had a diet forced through as well). Pre-Skyway, NY 5 used Michigan Avenue to cross the river. I want to say that part of the former alignment (west of Ganson St) was taken over by General Mills and the Ship Canal bridge was removed in the 60s. Furthermore, there are a ton of freight/rail movements in that area which would frequently tie up traffic.

I get wanting to remove the elevated highway, but those 42K cars need to go somewhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 01, 2019, 08:16:17 AM
As a daily user of this bridge, literally at all times of the day, I don't see removal as a possibility. I also don't think putting the traffic into surface streets is necessarily the right way to go. Maybe a tunnel of some $ort is the option, or shifting everything to the east.

If you ask the amateurs at Reddit in r/buffalo, they seem to believe the only reason to remove it would be to implement Buffalo's version of the High Line. That's incredibly short slighted and silly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on March 01, 2019, 12:18:39 PM
This project would result in needing to rebuild exit 7 of I-190 southbound. If they wanted to go with an arterial boulevard with a drawbridge in the middle, I get it, but I don't think it will work as well as one would think.

My proposal of a new boulevard would include a NFTA extension of the Metro, but the problem is that it won't get us anywhere. Also, any new proposal should involve upgrading 5 through Woodlawn, resulting in the 40 mph speed limit going away.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 02, 2019, 10:07:53 PM
I was going to post this message on the thread on bridge with unusually high clearances, but I gave up trying to find it, so I'll have to post my message here:


Does anybody see this LIRR bridge (no, it's not over Manhasset Bay):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NB_Suffolk_CR_4_crosses_under_LIRR_Port_Jeff_Bridge.jpg

Would I have to send an e-mail to MTA about the clearence, or the Suffolk County Department of Public Works? Because I also wanted to ask the MTA about the height of this bridge for pedestrians:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BMT_Franklin_Line_over_Park_Place.JPG

The height for trucks and buses is already there, so I don't need to ask about that one.




Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on March 03, 2019, 12:30:39 AM
Regarding the first bridge, I would say email the MTA as it is maintained by them. I used to drive under that bridge daily, amazing how high it is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 03, 2019, 01:26:03 AM
Regarding the first bridge, I would say email the MTA as it is maintained by them. I used to drive under that bridge daily, amazing how high it is.
Looks about 27'-31' tall based on the roadway lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 26, 2019, 04:28:07 PM
When did NY start using reflective button copy?  I saw old sign plans from 1979 or so showing a reflective button copy exit tab to be added on top of non-reflective button copy signs on the BRP.
CT phased it in around 1984 or so.


Pic is one of two button copy signs on Staten Island (the other is a non-reflective BAY ST sign coming of the VZB)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7819/46558686305_d65169ef6f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dWermM)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 26, 2019, 06:58:51 PM
NYS has used button copy since at least the original signs on the Thruway. I know button copy was phased out sometime between 1989 and 1992. Button copy signs were installed in 89 in the Utica area, but in 92 it was all reflective sheeting in the Syracuse area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on March 28, 2019, 09:48:51 PM
A few nights ago, I came across this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0009429,-77.1340878,3a,15y,70.26h,91.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgWsYCrC1bjCO2wc6kn7xtQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) sign on US 15 northbound at the NY border.  What's the point of making radar detectors illegal for just bigger vehicles?  I couldn't find anything about the law on Google.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on March 28, 2019, 10:01:54 PM
The first button-copy I ever saw on Long Island (Region-10) was in the early 1960's on the L.I. Expwy when it was built as far east as Route 110 in Suffolk County. ..............The last button-copy sign project here was in 1984 when the entire length of Northern State Pkwy. in Nassau & Suffolk Counties was completely re-signed. And many of those have been replaced by now. New sign projects done on other Long Island Parkways in the late 1980's did not use button-copy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 28, 2019, 10:10:24 PM
A few nights ago, I came across this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0009429,-77.1340878,3a,15y,70.26h,91.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgWsYCrC1bjCO2wc6kn7xtQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) sign on US 15 northbound at the NY border.  What's the point of making radar detectors illegal for just bigger vehicles?  I couldn't find anything about the law on Google.

I noticed THIS sign on G.S.V. which was close to yours: https://goo.gl/maps/umm5qb5U6KM2

Now I hope that it happened to be the day the newer blue sign had gone up!  :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 29, 2019, 08:23:08 AM
A few nights ago, I came across this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0009429,-77.1340878,3a,15y,70.26h,91.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgWsYCrC1bjCO2wc6kn7xtQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) sign on US 15 northbound at the NY border.  What's the point of making radar detectors illegal for just bigger vehicles?  I couldn't find anything about the law on Google.
I noticed THIS sign on G.S.V. which was close to yours: https://goo.gl/maps/umm5qb5U6KM2
Now I hope that it happened to be the day the newer blue sign had gone up!  :-D

Hey, thanks for posting that! I've been waiting for years for Street View to drive the new segment of I-99 -- I used to check every so often but hadn't in ages.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 29, 2019, 09:56:03 AM
A few nights ago, I came across this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0009429,-77.1340878,3a,15y,70.26h,91.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgWsYCrC1bjCO2wc6kn7xtQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) sign on US 15 northbound at the NY border.  What's the point of making radar detectors illegal for just bigger vehicles?  I couldn't find anything about the law on Google.
As far as I understand:
- radio transmissions are tightly regulated. Bands, frequencies, powers, all that.
-reception of any transmission for legal personal purposes is legal. It comes from Supreme Court decision during WWII when the government tried to block or prohibit German propaganda, and Supreme Court said it is a freedom of speech issue
-reception for illegal purposes is illegal; you cannot listen to police frequency and make sure no officers are nearby to do something bad. Not sure how it works, most likely if you're charged with that bad thing, and they can prove you used radio for that - it is another count.
-When you're driving for work - that is, you need a CDL to do what you do, etc - you're no longer just a private person using constitutional rights. It is much more regulated. I would assume it is difficult to draw a line - e.g. contractors may drive the same pickup truck to the customer and to the grocery store; so it is weight limit.

I may be wrong, but that is my understanding.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on March 29, 2019, 11:37:19 AM
The case of Virginia--where use of radar detectors is banned for all drivers, not just commercial vehicle drivers--suggests that there is a way around the constitutional right to receive radio transmissions, probably by classifying the detectors themselves as tools of criminal facilitation (analogous to the doctrine that allows the police to arrest you for carrying burglar's tools).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on March 29, 2019, 08:02:06 PM
Looking at that I-99 GSV, it looks like NYSDOT converted that roadway to mileage based exits (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0827753,-77.1531059,3a,21.9y,9.71h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqhjJnHtLte74hyTiIGFm4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Is this just one of those fits and starts things depending on region?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on March 29, 2019, 08:13:06 PM
A few nights ago, I came across this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0009429,-77.1340878,3a,15y,70.26h,91.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgWsYCrC1bjCO2wc6kn7xtQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) sign on US 15 northbound at the NY border.  What's the point of making radar detectors illegal for just bigger vehicles?  I couldn't find anything about the law on Google.

I noticed THIS sign on G.S.V. which was close to yours: https://goo.gl/maps/umm5qb5U6KM2

Now I hope that it happened to be the day the newer blue sign had gone up!  :-D

I noticed that too, but I wasn't sure what thread it would best fit in, so I didn't post it.

Hey, thanks for posting that! I've been waiting for years for Street View to drive the new segment of I-99 -- I used to check every so often but hadn't in ages.

I've been anxiously waiting and checking every so often too!  I think I might have looked at the updated Street View once before within the past few months, but I can't remember for sure.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 29, 2019, 09:03:35 PM
Looking at that I-99 GSV, it looks like NYSDOT converted that roadway to mileage based exits (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0827753,-77.1531059,3a,21.9y,9.71h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqhjJnHtLte74hyTiIGFm4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Is this just one of those fits and starts things depending on region?
I heard from someone that it was required so the road could be designated/signed as I-99.

The Taconic has also added mile-based numbers and I-84 is converting this year.  As for if/when anything else will convert, who knows.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on March 29, 2019, 09:08:15 PM
Looking at that I-99 GSV, it looks like NYSDOT converted that roadway to mileage based exits (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0827753,-77.1531059,3a,21.9y,9.71h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqhjJnHtLte74hyTiIGFm4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Is this just one of those fits and starts things depending on region?
I heard from someone that it was required so the road could be designated/signed as I-99.

The Taconic has also added mile-based numbers and I-84 is converting this year.  As for if/when anything else will convert, who knows.

(personal opinion)

Is this really recent? Google Maps still shows sequential exits on the map itself.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 29, 2019, 09:43:20 PM
Looking at that I-99 GSV, it looks like NYSDOT converted that roadway to mileage based exits (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0827753,-77.1531059,3a,21.9y,9.71h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqhjJnHtLte74hyTiIGFm4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Is this just one of those fits and starts things depending on region?
I heard from someone that it was required so the road could be designated/signed as I-99.

The Taconic has also added mile-based numbers and I-84 is converting this year.  As for if/when anything else will convert, who knows.

(personal opinion)

Is this really recent? Google Maps still shows sequential exits on the map itself.
I-84 has not yet begun to convert.  Sign plans were released a few months ago.

US 15/I-99 converted at least five years ago.  Why Google still has exit 11 as exit 3, I have no idea.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 31, 2019, 12:05:28 PM
Looking at that I-99 GSV, it looks like NYSDOT converted that roadway to mileage based exits (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0827753,-77.1531059,3a,21.9y,9.71h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqhjJnHtLte74hyTiIGFm4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Is this just one of those fits and starts things depending on region?
I heard from someone that it was required so the road could be designated/signed as I-99.

The Taconic has also added mile-based numbers and I-84 is converting this year.  As for if/when anything else will convert, who knows.

(personal opinion)

I'm still thinking the next Interstate New York will see convert to mileage based interchanges will be I-81. Talking with Region 3 a couple of years ago, they said that whatever the outcome of I-81 reconstruction through Syracuse will require a renumbering of exits, and it will be coordinated with all three regions involved to renumber the exits in tandem with that project.

Honestly, I'm surprised I-88 hasn't been renumbered yet. The vast majority of it is in Region 9 and it seems like R9 should be able to handle that, with R1 renumbering their handful of interchanges along that roadway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 31, 2019, 09:04:34 PM
Who knows if/when that will actually begin construction, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on April 30, 2019, 09:40:18 PM
https://www.truckersnews.com/i-84-exit-numbers-changing-in-new-york/
It looks like I-84 is beating I-81 out as they are getting the new numbers as we speak.  Someone said Rand McNally got them in the next edition already.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2019, 01:49:26 PM
If the New York Thruway ever gets mileage-based exits, no matter which direction the exits increase, the exit sequence along the NYT and the Major Deegan Expressway should be continuous. If the exit sequence starts at the Pennsylvania border, the MDE's exits should continue the numbering of the NYT, and/or vice versa.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 01, 2019, 02:21:52 PM
https://www.truckersnews.com/i-84-exit-numbers-changing-in-new-york/
It looks like I-84 is beating I-81 out as they are getting the new numbers as we speak.  Someone said Rand McNally got them in the next edition already.

Yeah, we've known about this for a while. Plans were posted about a year ago and it was known internally well before that. I-84 was the first large-scale conversion because it's entirely within a single region.

If the New York Thruway ever gets mileage-based exits, no matter which direction the exits increase, the exit sequence along the NYT and the Major Deegan Expressway should be continuous. If the exit sequence starts at the Pennsylvania border, the MDE's exits should continue the numbering of the NYT, and/or vice versa.

Any new exit numbers will likely be distinct for I-87 and I-90. FHWA does NOT like the idea of one route's numbers decreasing as one heads north/east. They have also made it clear that they want I-87 and I-90 to each have one set of numbers in the state instead of three.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 01, 2019, 02:26:00 PM
https://www.truckersnews.com/i-84-exit-numbers-changing-in-new-york/
It looks like I-84 is beating I-81 out as they are getting the new numbers as we speak.  Someone said Rand McNally got them in the next edition already.

Yeah, we've known about this for a while. Plans were posted about a year ago and it was known internally well before that. I-84 was the first large-scale conversion because it's entirely within a single region.

If the New York Thruway ever gets mileage-based exits, no matter which direction the exits increase, the exit sequence along the NYT and the Major Deegan Expressway should be continuous. If the exit sequence starts at the Pennsylvania border, the MDE's exits should continue the numbering of the NYT, and/or vice versa.

Any new exit numbers will likely be distinct for I-87 and I-90. FHWA does NOT like the idea of one route's numbers decreasing as one heads north/east. They have also made it clear that they want I-87 and I-90 to each have one set of numbers in the state instead of three.
I wonder if they would feel better if the map was mirrored, and there could be a continuous increase going south->north->east?
Purely hypothetical question, though
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 01, 2019, 02:29:22 PM
If the New York Thruway ever gets mileage-based exits, no matter which direction the exits increase, the exit sequence along the NYT and the Major Deegan Expressway should be continuous. If the exit sequence starts at the Pennsylvania border, the MDE's exits should continue the numbering of the NYT, and/or vice versa.
Any new exit numbers will likely be distinct for I-87 and I-90. FHWA does NOT like the idea of one route's numbers decreasing as one heads north/east. They have also made it clear that they want I-87 and I-90 to each have one set of numbers in the state instead of three.

There will be a lot less confusion surrounding the issue of changing the Thruway's exit numbers once the ticket system is no longer.
At one point, AET was supposed to be implemented by the end of 2020, but who knows if it will materialize. In any case, it wouldn't shock me if we hear exit numbers are changing once AET is in place.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 01, 2019, 02:37:52 PM
At one point, AET was supposed to be implemented by the end of 2020, but who knows if it will materialize. I wouldn't at all be surprised if we hear exit numbers are changing once AET is in place.

It's gonna happen. Some of the infrastructure is already in place. Minor exits will simply involve mounting equipment in existing booths, as has been done in PA. Exit 22 is ready to go (GSV caught them installing equipment last summer (https://goo.gl/maps/d85kEgh5Qy7T8ynD9)). They've started moving long-term employees from toll booths to other positions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 01, 2019, 03:06:02 PM
It's gonna happen. Some of the infrastructure is already in place. Minor exits will simply involve mounting equipment in existing booths, as has been done in PA. Exit 22 is ready to go (GSV caught them installing equipment last summer (https://goo.gl/maps/d85kEgh5Qy7T8ynD9)).

Interesting; so they may not even bother with removing the booths. Not exactly how I thought it would be implemented, but I guess it works!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 01, 2019, 10:11:54 PM
^ Removing booths may be a future endeavor.  Look at the Mass Pike for an example...those booths didn't exactly come down in a day once they switched their AET on.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 01, 2019, 10:13:25 PM
Ugh, and at West Stockbridge, a lower work zone speed limit sat there much longer than necessary.

Might even still be there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 02, 2019, 12:20:56 AM
Ugh, and at West Stockbridge, a lower work zone speed limit sat there much longer than necessary.

Might even still be there.

I was through a little less than a month ago and the work zone limit was finally gone. Only took 2+ years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 02, 2019, 12:38:24 AM
Ugh, and at West Stockbridge, a lower work zone speed limit sat there much longer than necessary.

Might even still be there.
By statute it isn't enforceable unless people are there working.  This isn't MD.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 02, 2019, 06:08:15 AM
^ Removing booths may be a future endeavor.  Look at the Mass Pike for an example...those booths didn't exactly come down in a day once they switched their AET on.
Unlike Masspike, where equipment is away from booths, image above shows cameras on booth island. So even if building itself is gone, road layout with split into individual lanes separated by islands and associated requirement to slow way down will stay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 02, 2019, 07:17:06 AM
It's probably for cost savings and to expedite the project for now. I can't imagine why they would leave the booths - a liability.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 02, 2019, 07:59:30 AM
Ugh, and at West Stockbridge, a lower work zone speed limit sat there much longer than necessary.

Might even still be there.
By statute it isn't enforceable unless people are there working.  This isn't MD.
Not sure if that is true in MA and I wouldn't put it past a Statie to think otherwise.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 02, 2019, 08:22:45 PM
^ Removing booths may be a future endeavor.  Look at the Mass Pike for an example...those booths didn't exactly come down in a day once they switched their AET on.
Let's hope, but at least with the MassPike demolition started very shortly before conversion, and it was known it would well before then.  With this, we have no way of knowing if eventual demolition is in the plans, and if it is, I'm guessing it's on a longer timespan because they put the equipment in the booths themselves instead of erecting a gantry.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 02, 2019, 10:41:24 PM
I do not see now why they just don't convert the old trumpet T or trumpet to trumpets as diamonds or even SPUI set ups as now without the tickets the present interchanges serve no purpose.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on May 03, 2019, 09:02:21 AM
I do not see now why they just don't convert the old trumpet T or trumpet to trumpets as diamonds or even SPUI set ups as now without the tickets the present interchanges serve no purpose.
Guess on my part, but the reasoning as towards why all the interchanges aren't converted is money.  Only the ones where there's either high traffic volumes and/or the removal of the booths create more dangerous weaving problems (due to vehicles no longer stopping) will undergo a conversion.

Personally, plus seeing how the AET conversion worked out along the Mass Pike (I-90) thus far; I would prefer placing the AET gantries along the NYS Thruway mainline between interchanges rather than the interchanges themselves.  This option eliminates the expense of relocating ramp AETs or erecting additional ones should an interchange be reconfigured.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on May 04, 2019, 03:31:51 PM
I came across this video while looking for Syracuse road videos on YouTube, and I thought it was a good overview of reference markers:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 06, 2019, 12:03:42 AM
Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 06, 2019, 12:05:40 AM
Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.
Heh.  I think I have done all of those except I-87 in a day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 06, 2019, 08:00:49 AM
Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.
Heh.  I think I have done all of those except I-87 in a day.

It's because the person I was driving with was insistent on shunpiking the Thruway from Saratoga to Buffalo, so we did just that. But going into Saratoga we took the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 06, 2019, 08:01:24 AM
Thruway doesn't go to Saratoga. :D :spin:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 06, 2019, 05:26:00 PM
^ Kinda need the Thruway to avoid slogging through Schenectady...😌
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 06, 2019, 10:08:41 PM
Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.
No I-81?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 06, 2019, 10:40:50 PM
I do not see now why they just don't convert the old trumpet T or trumpet to trumpets as diamonds or even SPUI set ups as now without the tickets the present interchanges serve no purpose.
Guess on my part, but the reasoning as towards why all the interchanges aren't converted is money.  Only the ones where there's either high traffic volumes and/or the removal of the booths create more dangerous weaving problems (due to vehicles no longer stopping) will undergo a conversion.

Personally, plus seeing how the AET conversion worked out along the Mass Pike (I-90) thus far; I would prefer placing the AET gantries along the NYS Thruway mainline between interchanges rather than the interchanges themselves.  This option eliminates the expense of relocating ramp AETs or erecting additional ones should an interchange be reconfigured.
It would make sense to put mainline gantries between each interchange charging the distance between them.

The NE Extension in PA does that with the cash tolls near Scranton as they have two barriers south of Clarks Summit and Keyser Avenue where no ramp tolls are needed (though one may argue that Clarks Summit is a ramp as it once was the former Exit 39 Ramp plaza), but travel south from the northern terminus, exit at Keyser, and reenter again and the toll is the same charged in the same places.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 07, 2019, 11:34:35 AM
It would make sense to put mainline gantries between each interchange charging the distance between them.
I know that is done in other cases, and things would be complicated for Thruway. A stupid historical-political reason.
There is a lot of commuter traffic on Thruway in urban areas - Albany, Syracuse etc. Thruway deals with that by selling commuter plans with first XX (40?) miles included in a fee, which makes commuting on toll road more manageable cost-wise.
Switching from end-to-end tolling to mainline gantry tolling will require a system of "logic tickets", which may be error prone. Changing to  commuter plan program are dangerous since may lead to Buffalo scenario where residents got portion of road through the city toll free. Masspike effectively did make portions near cities toll free with switch to gantry tolling, but I am not sure Thruway is willing to give up on any revenue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 07, 2019, 01:42:45 PM
Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.
No I-81?

Actually yes, technically I was on I-81 too. That makes 6.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 07, 2019, 02:02:01 PM
Personally, plus seeing how the AET conversion worked out along the Mass Pike (I-90) thus far; I would prefer placing the AET gantries along the NYS Thruway mainline between interchanges rather than the interchanges themselves.  This option eliminates the expense of relocating ramp AETs or erecting additional ones should an interchange be reconfigured.

That very well may be a future endeavor. Right now, NYSTA just wants to get AET up and running, and that's easiest if they just put equipment in the existing booths. I want to say that 23-25A, inclusive, will be untolled with mainline gantries on either side of the segment. For exits east of Herkimer, the only ones with booths being removed as part of the initial conversion are 17, 23, 24, 25, and 25A. All of these are major freeway-freeway interchanges.

Regarding the issue of reconfiguration, several interchanges lack the ROW for a good reconfiguration. At I-84, for example, the NE and SW quadrants are developed. Many of the trumpets are constrained. I do expect discussion of a reconfiguration at Exit 24 to happen almost immediately, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 07, 2019, 02:25:54 PM
How will they work the free ride in if they add them between interchanges in the Schnectady area?

Remember the NYSTA does not charge to travel from I-88 to I-87, at least with the ramp toll gantries it can be calculated as through motorists do pay tolls between 25A and 24.  Lets say  you go from I-81 at Syracuse to I-87 in Albany you do have to pay for the 25A to 24 segment that those driving between those two exits are waived.

So the in between gantries won't work for that application.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on May 07, 2019, 02:31:30 PM
When I've driven the Mass Pike since the conversion, my NYSTA E-ZPass statement has one entry per trip, not per gantry.  Consolidating trips is not a hard problem, you just see the series of entries in sequence at appropriate times and merge them. So there's no reason NYSTA couldn't do the same and have free vs. not free trips between 24 and 25A just as now.  If you only traveled that segment, no charge.  If you traveled beyond, you pay.

Bottom line, they know where you got on and off by which gantries you passed through.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 07, 2019, 02:53:06 PM
When I've driven the Mass Pike since the conversion, my NYSTA E-ZPass statement has one entry per trip, not per gantry.  Consolidating trips is not a hard problem, you just see the series of entries in sequence at appropriate times and merge them. So there's no reason NYSTA couldn't do the same and have free vs. not free trips between 24 and 25A just as now.  If you only traveled that segment, no charge.  If you traveled beyond, you pay.

Bottom line, they know where you got on and off by which gantries you passed through.
That is if everything goes perfectly. Once one gantry goes offline for whatever reason, consolidation may start getting funny. Also stop on travel plasa vs exit and re-entry may mean something, e.g. for I-87/88 transfer as mentioned above.

This are certainly very resolvable issues in general , but this is NYS...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on May 07, 2019, 03:09:06 PM
When I've driven the Mass Pike since the conversion, my NYSTA E-ZPass statement has one entry per trip, not per gantry.  Consolidating trips is not a hard problem, you just see the series of entries in sequence at appropriate times and merge them. So there's no reason NYSTA couldn't do the same and have free vs. not free trips between 24 and 25A just as now.  If you only traveled that segment, no charge.  If you traveled beyond, you pay.

Bottom line, they know where you got on and off by which gantries you passed through.
That is if everything goes perfectly. Once one gantry goes offline for whatever reason, consolidation may start getting funny. Also stop on travel plasa vs exit and re-entry may mean something, e.g. for I-87/88 transfer as mentioned above.

This are certainly very resolvable issues in general , but this is NYS...

Right - the information you lose is whether someone exited and re-entered.  In the context of the current commuter plan, this matters.  If I exit and get back on, the 30-mile trip resets and I am traveling "free" for a while again.  And yes, NYS does have a way of not getting things right..

On pretty much every Mass Pike ride, I stop at Exit 5 for local minimum gas prices and for Chick-fil-A.  Even with the typical 15-45 minutes in Chicopee, my charge is consolidated as if it was all a single trip with no exit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: DrSmith on May 07, 2019, 04:34:17 PM
The Mass Pike simply doesn't have gantries where there is no toll charged between exits 4-7 and 10-10A-11 where the goal is to encourage local trips on the Pike in the Springfield and Worcester areas.  In Newton, a gantry was added between Route 16 and Newton Corner to split the previous barrier system into a "ticket" system to reduce previous free rides between the two exits. Furthermore, on my ez-pass, the tolls are split between those inside/outside of Route 128 to reflect the set-up of the Mass Pike intricacies.

All the logic is worked out fine. For local commuter plans, there can be logic that captures time between gantries that accounts for reasonable stops and also local speed/travel conditions. If there is some distance based accounting into how far the discount plans are done, then no charge gantries may be required, albeit it at additional cost. Alteration to the commuter plans may be a better way to achieve the same goals.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 07, 2019, 07:56:27 PM
You could use distance-based tolling on the Mainline and then exit-based tolling on the Berkshire extension. The New England Thruway really just needs one gantry where the current plaza is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 18, 2019, 12:28:59 PM
What is this so-called "special event?"

(https://i.imgur.com/LDx0NT1.mp4)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 19, 2019, 07:14:14 PM
https://www.truckersnews.com/i-84-exit-numbers-changing-in-new-york/
It looks like I-84 is beating I-81 out as they are getting the new numbers as we speak.  Someone said Rand McNally got them in the next edition already.

Yeah, we've known about this for a while. Plans were posted about a year ago and it was known internally well before that. I-84 was the first large-scale conversion because it's entirely within a single region.

If the New York Thruway ever gets mileage-based exits, no matter which direction the exits increase, the exit sequence along the NYT and the Major Deegan Expressway should be continuous. If the exit sequence starts at the Pennsylvania border, the MDE's exits should continue the numbering of the NYT, and/or vice versa.

Any new exit numbers will likely be distinct for I-87 and I-90. FHWA does NOT like the idea of one route's numbers decreasing as one heads north/east. They have also made it clear that they want I-87 and I-90 to each have one set of numbers in the state instead of three.
This is part of the reason I'm not the biggest fan of mileage based exit numbers in New York. It erodes the distinction of the Thruway. I'm okay with doing it on I-95, I-84, I-81, I-86, I-88, and even (Ugh!) I-99 if it gets extended along I-390. But other than that, for most limited access roads in the state, I'll pass. You can remind me that I-95 is part of the New York Thruway system in Westchester County, but I can point out that until 1958 it was the New England Thruway, thus making it a separate entity.

Add to that interchanges that should be built, and extensions that should be built, and you're just creating exit numbers that are in the wrong places all over the state.

Speaking of proposed interchanges, who's got info on the planned Taconic State Parkway interchange with Dutchess CR 29?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 19, 2019, 07:50:01 PM
D-dey65, the New England Thruway was built circa 1958. Before that it didn't exist. And I think it was always part of the New York Thruway Authority system.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 19, 2019, 07:53:44 PM
I just want mileage-based exit numbers in NY.  If OH was able to do it with its Turnpike, there should be no problem in NY doing the same.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 19, 2019, 08:11:21 PM
The problem with NY Thruway exit numbering is that the road is part of three separate Interstate routes, 87, 287, and 90. And some of it runs north/south and some runs east/west. Also, not all of some of those routes is part of the Thruway. So it gets unusually complicated.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 19, 2019, 08:29:51 PM
Nah.  Do it by route as the MUTCD dictates.

Ohio Turnpike is a couple of different routes and they figured it out.  So can NY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 19, 2019, 08:38:22 PM
The problem with NY Thruway exit numbering is that the road is part of three separate Interstate routes, 87, 287, and 90. And some of it runs north/south and some runs east/west. Also, not all of some of those routes is part of the Thruway. So it gets unusually complicated.
That and the 287 part is an overlap with I-87.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 19, 2019, 08:39:15 PM
The problem with NY Thruway exit numbering is that the road is part of three separate Interstate routes, 87, 287, and 90. And some of it runs north/south and some runs east/west. Also, not all of some of those routes is part of the Thruway. So it gets unusually complicated.
That and the 287 part is an overlap with I-87.
MUTCD has guidance on it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 19, 2019, 08:43:40 PM
D-dey65, the New England Thruway was built circa 1958. Before that it didn't exist. And I think it was always part of the New York Thruway Authority system.
They still had their own distinct signs, and no direct connection to the rest of the thruway system.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 19, 2019, 09:00:34 PM

The original exit signs on the New England T'way. were the same dark blue as the Mainline, though they may have been formatted slightly different. However the entrance signs were distinctive to the New England Section, being yellow with black lettering if I remember right.

True that there was originally no direct connection to the Mainline of the Thruway, though since around 1991 they are connected by the Cross Westchester Expwy. which became part of the Thruway System after having been a NYSDOT highway since it was built circa 1960.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on May 19, 2019, 10:59:16 PM
I basically agree with Rothman about mileage-based exit numbering on the Thruway, but given the looooooong discussion we had about that in this very thread, I just say, "Next year in Jerusalem."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on May 20, 2019, 01:52:23 PM
There is nothing special about the Thruway to warrant non-standard interchange numbering. I-90 gets numbered west to east across the entire state. I-87 gets numbered south to north the length of the state. Any similar numbers along the Thruway portion would be so far apart mileage wise that it wouldn’t make much difference to the average motorist. (Maybe Batavia and Coxsackie would be close in numbering?).  I-287’s exit numbers would pick up west to east from I-87, with however far it is in mileage from where I-287 entered New York. The Berkshire section would simply get I-90’s numbers; I would just remove the number from Exit 21A.

Other states handle this type of numbering just fine (Ohio, Illinois come to mind), New York should just do the same.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 20, 2019, 02:51:00 PM
Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84.  New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47831997592_a697eeaf7d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fSKurE)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on May 20, 2019, 04:22:10 PM
There is nothing special about the Thruway to warrant non-standard interchange numbering. I-90 gets numbered west to east across the entire state. I-87 gets numbered south to north the length of the state. Any similar numbers along the Thruway portion would be so far apart mileage wise that it wouldn’t make much difference to the average motorist. (Maybe Batavia and Coxsackie would be close in numbering?).  I-287’s exit numbers would pick up west to east from I-87, with however far it is in mileage from where I-287 entered New York. The Berkshire section would simply get I-90’s numbers; I would just remove the number from Exit 21A.

Other states handle this type of numbering just fine (Ohio, Illinois come to mind), New York should just do the same.

What would've been special, and potentially confusing for some, is if the Thruway exits were numbered by mileage and the ticket system was still in play.  If the ticket system was sticking around, I would've split the mainline into two ticket systems and construct two new barriers... one south of present Exit 21A and one somewhere out past Schenectady.  This would've made travel in the Albany area free, would have permitted some work to the Exit 24 mess, and would have permitted two separate ticket systems that didn't matter on the exit numbers of two separate interstates.  This would also permit the Canaan plaza on the Berkshire Spur to be converted to an open-road fixed-rate toll and allowed removal of toll barriers at Exit B1 and B2. 

But its all moot.  Exits can be numbered according to mileage of the two separate interstates.  Of course you're gonna have to change out 350+ miles of mile markers for I-90 and some 300+ miles for I-87. 

For I-287, I'd prefer to see one of the I-287's renumbered, then you could maintain Exit 1 at its present location.  Or, renumber I-287 e/w to I-86. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 20, 2019, 09:08:36 PM
I know it would be confusing but I would prefer the Thruway mainline exits to be numbered based on mileage from Yonkers to Ripley.  The extant Interstates could be numbered based on mileage on their non-Thruway portions.  So,

Exit 1 on the Northway would be come Exit 148 (or 149).  This would require a re-numbering of I-87's mileposts since they reset at the split.

Exit 13 on the Deegan becomes exit 8

Exit B3 on the Berkshire Extension becomes Exit 23.

From Albany west MPs for the Thruway Mainline and I-90, respectively, could be installed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ben114 on May 20, 2019, 09:43:37 PM
I know it would be confusing but I would prefer the Thruway mainline exits to be numbered based on mileage from Yonkers to Ripley.  The extant Interstates could be numbered based on mileage on their non-Thruway portions.  So,

Exit 1 on the Northway would be come Exit 148 (or 149).  This would require a re-numbering of I-87's mileposts since they reset at the split.

Exit 13 on the Deegan becomes exit 8

Exit B3 on the Berkshire Extension becomes Exit 23.

From Albany west MPs for the Thruway Mainline and I-90, respectively, could be installed.
Not a bad idea. I'd say ignore the Thruway mileposts and go off the I-87 / I-90 mileposts.

Mile 0 on I-87 would be at I-278, and on I-90 it would be the PA line.

Major Exits:
Thruway Exit 1 (Yonkers) - exit 9
Thruway Exit 24 (I-87 / I-90 switch) - exit 156 (I-87) / exit 345 (I-90)
Northway Exit 1 - exit 156
Northway Exit 43 (last in US) - exit 332
Berkshire Exit B1 - exit 367
Berkshire Exit B3 (last in NY) - exit 373
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 22, 2019, 08:54:17 AM

The original exit signs on the New England T'way. were the same dark blue as the Mainline, though they may have been formatted slightly different. However the entrance signs were distinctive to the New England Section, being yellow with black lettering if I remember right.

True that there was originally no direct connection to the Mainline of the Thruway, though since around 1991 they are connected by the Cross Westchester Expwy. which became part of the Thruway System after having been a NYSDOT highway since it was built circa 1960.

Okay, but even after the Thruway Commission got a hold of it, it was a free road. The same goes for I-84 when they grabbed that. But the Berkshire Spur, the Garden State Parkway connector, and the former Niagara Thruway are connected to the main line. The New England Thruway isn't.


Hey, did they tear down that toll plaza yet in New Rochelle? Maybe they should replace it with a service area.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 22, 2019, 08:41:46 PM
D-dey65, I'm not sure which road you're saying was a free road. The Cross Westchester Expwy was yes; but the New England Twy. always had the New Rochelle toll barrier from the time it was built circa 1959. Toll was 25 cents back then, both directions. LOL
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on May 23, 2019, 04:27:04 AM
Nah.  Do it by route as the MUTCD dictates.

Ohio Turnpike is a couple of different routes and they figured it out.  So can NY.
The issue is the Thruway goes north-south then west-east.  The Ohio Turnpike is just east-west.  I'm not saying it cannot be done; the debate is with how to number the exits on the north-south section and on the east-west section.  Should it be done as one entity starting from the Bronx/Westchester line to the PA line or have it done as the two separate Interstate highways they are?  IMHO, I prefer the exit numbers to line up with the current mile markers that are on the Thruway (slightly less cost in replacing the mile markers and the tenth mile markers), however, the prevailing opinion is to "do it by the route as the MUTCD dictates" (Rothman).  If any exit numbers on the north-south section potentially have the same as one on the west-east section, one of them could be off by 1--just like Exit 56 (Lehigh Valley Interchange) on the Northeast Extension of the PA Tpk.  That interchange is actually at milepost 57, however, on the mainline there is an Exit 57 (Pittsburgh Interchange) so the PA Turnpike Commission decided not to show two Exit 57's on the toll ticket and made the Lehigh Valley Interchange, Exit 56.  Yes, I know Exit 56 is on I-476 and not on the mainline but the toll tickets show what you would pay on the entire system.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on May 23, 2019, 04:30:25 AM
There is nothing special about the Thruway to warrant non-standard interchange numbering. I-90 gets numbered west to east across the entire state. I-87 gets numbered south to north the length of the state. Any similar numbers along the Thruway portion would be so far apart mileage wise that it wouldn’t make much difference to the average motorist. (Maybe Batavia and Coxsackie would be close in numbering?).  I-287’s exit numbers would pick up west to east from I-87, with however far it is in mileage from where I-287 entered New York. The Berkshire section would simply get I-90’s numbers; I would just remove the number from Exit 21A.

Other states handle this type of numbering just fine (Ohio, Illinois come to mind), New York should just do the same.
I see you have changed your user name, as you wished.  How are things in Chicago?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on May 23, 2019, 01:51:54 PM
Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84.  New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47831997592_a697eeaf7d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fSKurE)

Are the foundations in the photo for a replacement Park & Ride sign?  If so, it seems like overkill to have three posts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 23, 2019, 02:27:58 PM
Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84.  New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47831997592_a697eeaf7d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fSKurE)

Are the foundations in the photo for a replacement Park & Ride sign?  If so, it seems like overkill to have three posts.

I believe they are rearranging the sign locations.  I think the new "1 Mile" advance sign is going in that spot and the Park & Ride sign is being moved further west of here.  There will also be a 2 mile and "right lane" advance signs for this exit.  Current exit 15 future exit 50.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on May 23, 2019, 05:09:39 PM
Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84.  New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47831997592_a697eeaf7d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fSKurE)

Are the foundations in the photo for a replacement Park & Ride sign?  If so, it seems like overkill to have three posts.

I believe they are rearranging the sign locations.  I think the new "1 Mile" advance sign is going in that spot and the Park & Ride sign is being moved further west of here.  There will also be a 2 mile and "right lane" advance signs for this exit.  Current exit 15 future exit 50.

I figured that was the case.  However, this is NYSDOT, so anything's possible.  Curious if the new signs are going to have any destinations.  If they are going to just read 'Brick Kiln Rd' like the current signs do, it doesn't appear to me that the sign width justifies the expense and potential hazard of adding the center post.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 23, 2019, 07:48:00 PM
Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84.  New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.


Are the foundations in the photo for a replacement Park & Ride sign?  If so, it seems like overkill to have three posts.

I believe they are rearranging the sign locations.  I think the new "1 Mile" advance sign is going in that spot and the Park & Ride sign is being moved further west of here.  There will also be a 2 mile and "right lane" advance signs for this exit.  Current exit 15 future exit 50.

I figured that was the case.  However, this is NYSDOT, so anything's possible.  Curious if the new signs are going to have any destinations.  If they are going to just read 'Brick Kiln Rd' like the current signs do, it doesn't appear to me that the sign width justifies the expense and potential hazard of adding the center post.

A county route shield is added Duchess County 27 Lime Klin Rd Exit 50. 

Current exit 17 (future exit 58) Ludingtonville Rd will also get Putnam County route shield 43 on it's BGSs as well.

At the I-684 interchange US-6/US-202 are dropped from the signs going EB according to the plans I saw. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on May 24, 2019, 09:15:21 AM
At the I-684 interchange US-6/US-202 are dropped from the signs going EB according to the plans I saw.
If you're referring to I-84 eastbound; the main current signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3937551,-73.6004948,3a,75y,169.98h,71.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPQdCt_a1SLvkYMEnD4fsEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) didn't have US 6/202 shields on them.  Such is likely why the upcoming replacement signs don't have them either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on May 24, 2019, 10:49:54 AM

A county route shield is added Duchess County 27 Lime Klin Rd Exit 50.   

Increases height, but a shield shouldn't affect the width of the sign panel.  2 vs 3 posts is normally based on panel width, not overall area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2019, 08:35:07 PM
If you're referring to I-84 eastbound, the main current signs didn't have US 6/202 shields on them. Such is likely why the upcoming replacement signs don't have them either.

Was that "TO" added next to "New York City" after the fact?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 25, 2019, 11:39:27 AM
D-dey65, I'm not sure which road you're saying was a free road. The Cross Westchester Expwy was yes; but the New England Twy. always had the New Rochelle toll barrier from the time it was built circa 1959. Toll was 25 cents back then, both directions. LOL
Cross Westchester, of course.

At the I-684 interchange US-6/US-202 are dropped from the signs going EB according to the plans I saw.
If you're referring to I-84 eastbound; the main current signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3937551,-73.6004948,3a,75y,169.98h,71.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPQdCt_a1SLvkYMEnD4fsEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) didn't have US 6/202 shields on them.  Such is likely why the upcoming replacement signs don't have them either.
I don't see them either eastbound or westbound. The only US 6/202 shields I see are northbound on I-684 itself at the north-to-westbound ramp. Well, that and westbound I-84 at Exit 21.

Speaking of the Brewster area roads.

*Is it just me, or is it high time the southeast quadrant of that interchange gets rebuilt, with the east-to-north ramp given more of a curve, and the north-to-east ramp relocated around it?
*Why are their two matching signs along each lane for westbound I-84 between Exits 21 and 20?
*Shouldn't the Exit 21 signs read "NY 121 To US 6-US 202, North Salem, Brewster?"


Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 26, 2019, 02:17:16 AM
*Is it just me, or is it high time the southeast quadrant of that interchange gets rebuilt, with the east-to-north ramp given more of a curve, and the north-to-east ramp relocated around it?

It's high time something got done there–I'm not worried about the east-to-north ramp, but the north-to-east ramp is a constant bottleneck, due to its sharp curves (due largely, I think, to the Star Ridge Rd overpass) and the merge into two lanes of I-84. Then again, I-84 is one huge fustercluck from there pretty much all the way to Hartford, so fixing the Brewster interchange might be like felling a redwood with a fly swatter.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: abqtraveler on May 26, 2019, 08:07:48 AM
*Is it just me, or is it high time the southeast quadrant of that interchange gets rebuilt, with the east-to-north ramp given more of a curve, and the north-to-east ramp relocated around it?

It's high time something got done there–I'm not worried about the east-to-north ramp, but the north-to-east ramp is a constant bottleneck, due to its sharp curves (due largely, I think, to the Star Ridge Rd overpass) and the merge into two lanes of I-84. Then again, I-84 is one huge fustercluck from there pretty much all the way to Hartford, so fixing the Brewster interchange might be like felling a redwood with a fly swatter.

I recall that NYSDOT was planning to straighten the I-684 NB to I-84 EB ramp, which would include replacing the Star Ridge Road overpass.  That was several years ago, so I'm not sure if that's still the case or if NYSDOT decided to put their money elsewhere.  In the longer term, NYSDOT wants to eventually add a third lane in each direction from I-684 to the Connecticut state line.  The recently-replaced bridges over Dingle Ridge Road are wide enough to accommodate a third lane if and when NYSDOT gets around to constructing the additional lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 26, 2019, 10:29:49 AM
Speed limit was reduced from 55 to 45 on the Cherry Ave Extension (NY 140) In Bethlehem (connects Slingerlands to Delmar).

I sort of grudgingly accept it.  Although I enjoyed wasting gas speeding up on that short section of highway, the short length sort of made 55 mph unreasonable, given that it is sandwiched between a 30 mph limit on one side and 45 mph on the other anyway.

Still, can't help but wonder what exactly was behind the change.  Perhaps those few left-lane blockers complained to the town or something.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 26, 2019, 12:37:11 PM
Still, can't help but wonder what exactly was behind the change.  Perhaps those few left-lane blockers complained to the town or something.
I seem to recall a message from a concerned citizen regarding that road making the rounds through Region 1 a while back.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 26, 2019, 04:49:34 PM
I know it would be confusing but I would prefer the Thruway mainline exits to be numbered based on mileage from Yonkers to Ripley.  The extant Interstates could be numbered based on mileage on their non-Thruway portions.  So,

Exit 1 on the Northway would be come Exit 148 (or 149).  This would require a re-numbering of I-87's mileposts since they reset at the split.

Exit 13 on the Deegan becomes exit 8

Exit B3 on the Berkshire Extension becomes Exit 23.

From Albany west MPs for the Thruway Mainline and I-90, respectively, could be installed.
Not a bad idea. I'd say ignore the Thruway mileposts and go off the I-87 / I-90 mileposts.

Mile 0 on I-87 would be at I-278, and on I-90 it would be the PA line.

Major Exits:
Thruway Exit 1 (Yonkers) - exit 9
Thruway Exit 24 (I-87 / I-90 switch) - exit 156 (I-87) / exit 345 (I-90)
Northway Exit 1 - exit 156
Northway Exit 43 (last in US) - exit 332
Berkshire Exit B1 - exit 367
Berkshire Exit B3 (last in NY) - exit 373

My #'s are slightly different (added in a few significant junctions).  I do not give exit #'s to the TOTSO's for the mainline route, rather for the connection to the other route.  Example: Thruway Exit 24 number is assigned to unsigned reference route carrying traffic continuing on the Thruway.

I-87
Thruway Exit 1: Exit 8B (NB)/8 (SB).  I have McLean Ave NB as 8A; and 8 SB is for McLean and Hall PL
I-287: Exit 19A and Exit 38
GSP: Exit 31B
NY 17 (Future I-86): Exit 53
I-84: Exit 68
I-787: Exit 150
Current Exit 24: Exit 156 (signed NB only for I-90 West). 
Northway Exit 1: Exit 157 A-B.  157A for Western Ave connector, 157B for I-90 East.  (Signed SB only)
NY 7 East: Exit 163
Last US Exit: Exit 333 (I factor in some mileage for the Thruway/Northway connection)

I-90
I-190: Exit 70
I-290: Exit 75B (EB), Exit 75 (WB)
I-490: Exit 117 & 145
I-390: Exit 133
I-690: Exit 207
(Current) I-81: Exit 213
I-481 (Future I-81?): Exit 219
I-790: Exit 262
I-890: Exit 333 & 342
I-88: Exit 337
I-87 South: Exit 347 (signed EB only; similar to I-87 N to I-90 W)
Western Ave connector: Exit 348 (EB); 348A (WB)
I-87 North: Exit 348B (numbered WB only)
I-787: Exit 354
Exit B1: Exit 368.  Number is assigned 3 ways: 90 East to Spur WB, 90 West for thru traffic on Spur; Spur East to 90 WB
Exit B3: Exit 385
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 27, 2019, 04:42:29 PM
*Is it just me, or is it high time the southeast quadrant of that interchange gets rebuilt, with the east-to-north ramp given more of a curve, and the north-to-east ramp relocated around it?

It's high time something got done there–I'm not worried about the east-to-north ramp, but the north-to-east ramp is a constant bottleneck, due to its sharp curves (due largely, I think, to the Star Ridge Rd overpass) and the merge into two lanes of I-84. Then again, I-84 is one huge fustercluck from there pretty much all the way to Hartford, so fixing the Brewster interchange might be like felling a redwood with a fly swatter.

I recall that NYSDOT was planning to straighten the I-684 NB to I-84 EB ramp, which would include replacing the Star Ridge Road overpass.  That was several years ago, so I'm not sure if that's still the case or if NYSDOT decided to put their money elsewhere.  In the longer term, NYSDOT wants to eventually add a third lane in each direction from I-684 to the Connecticut state line.  The recently-replaced bridges over Dingle Ridge Road are wide enough to accommodate a third lane if and when NYSDOT gets around to constructing the additional lane.


They did soften the I-684 NB ramp to I-84 EB.  It's still a sharp curve but not as bad as before.  I'm not really sure how they did it but it didn't involve any bridges but it is softer now. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 27, 2019, 08:55:31 PM
Soften...meaning changing the ramp's grade, angle or both?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on May 28, 2019, 10:14:50 AM
Speaking of the I-84/684 interchange: I'm not exactly liking the new striping treatment along the southbound mainline overpass approaching the I-84 eastbound exit ramp.  What used to be two through-lanes and an exit lane (see older GSVs) is now one through lane & one exit lane with a lot of white gore-hatch striping.  This configuration creates a needless traffic backup along the southbound mainline; most of the traffic is heading south for I-684.  Judging by the brand-new overhead signs (each sign with a downward arrow for the corresponding lane); such is planned to be a permanent condition.

Aerial view of Exhibit A (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brewster,+NY+10509/@41.3886664,-73.5995682,162m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89dd4d7e6d52dd23:0xa325bd3b313503b3!8m2!3d41.3973163!4d-73.6170721)

The above-observations were from yesterday (Memorial Day)... late afternoon/early evening.  I only noticed this while bypassing the two-mile long backup along I-84 westbound approaching I-684 (the parallel US 6/202 was fine).  I-684 southbound traffic beyond the I-84 interchange was fine.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 28, 2019, 10:56:29 AM
I recall that NYSDOT was planning to straighten the I-684 NB to I-84 EB ramp, which would include replacing the Star Ridge Road overpass.  That was several years ago, so I'm not sure if that's still the case or if NYSDOT decided to put their money elsewhere.  In the longer term, NYSDOT wants to eventually add a third lane in each direction from I-684 to the Connecticut state line.  The recently-replaced bridges over Dingle Ridge Road are wide enough to accommodate a third lane if and when NYSDOT gets around to constructing the additional lane.


They did soften the I-684 NB ramp to I-84 EB.  It's still a sharp curve but not as bad as before.  I'm not really sure how they did it but it didn't involve any bridges but it is softer now. 

Aerial imagery shows what might be a more curved ROW, but the ramps have never occupied that area. Comparing Historic Aerials, it appears that the ramp was moved very slightly to the left in 2015.

Speaking of the I-84/684 interchange: I'm not exactly liking the new striping treatment along the southbound mainline overpass approaching the I-84 eastbound exit ramp.  What used to be two through-lanes and an exit lane (see older GSVs) is now one through lane & one exit lane with a lot of white gore-hatch striping.  This configuration creates a needless traffic backup along the southbound mainline; most of the traffic is heading south for I-684.  Judging by the brand-new overhead signs (each sign with a downward arrow for the corresponding lane); such is planned to be a permanent condition.

The need, we can be sure, was to allow two full lanes to flow in from the two directions of I-84, acknowledging in a way that the "mainline" isn't really the straight-thru roadway that comes from NY 22, but actually the Interstate-to-Interstate traffic. While there are still occasional backups exiting off of I-84, the merge into I-684 itself seems to work just fine.

Quote
The above-observations were from yesterday (Memorial Day)... late afternoon/early evening.  I only noticed this while bypassing the two-mile long backup along I-84 westbound approaching I-684 (the parallel US 6/202 was fine).  I-684 southbound traffic beyond the I-84 interchange was fine.

And that makes me wonder if you just experience highly unusual traffic patterns, because that's what there was at that time and date. At the same time, the MNR train out of Poughkeepsie was what can only be described as "standing room only" (and inaccurately so, since there was no "room"), which happens a statistically negligible number of times per year. (The local train out of Croton was dead empty.)

I don't traverse this interchange terribly often, since I prefer to avoid I-84 altogether, but my sense is that there's rarely a need for more than a single lane coming from NY 22 into I-684.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 28, 2019, 03:22:10 PM
And that makes me wonder if you just experience highly unusual traffic patterns, because that's what there was at that time and date. At the same time, the MNR train out of Poughkeepsie was what can only be described as "standing room only" (and inaccurately so, since there was no "room"), which happens a statistically negligible number of times per year. (The local train out of Croton was dead empty.)

Not to get too off topic, but it's ridiculous how terrible the service is on the Upper Hudson line considering Dutchess & Putnam county residents pay the same MTA taxes as everyone else downstate. Once you leave electrified territory MNR just doesn't seem to care–Upper Hudson line trains are usually packed, peak and off-peak, but there's never been any push to improve service. The diesel coaches are also the worst out of the entire fleet (with no replacement in the foreseeable future) and the locomotives are very mechanically problematic. There's clearly high demand on the line, weekend trains are frequently standing room only, especially on holidays and when the weather's nice, but running the bare minimum in service just pushes people to drive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 28, 2019, 03:31:16 PM
And that makes me wonder if you just experience highly unusual traffic patterns, because that's what there was at that time and date. At the same time, the MNR train out of Poughkeepsie was what can only be described as "standing room only" (and inaccurately so, since there was no "room"), which happens a statistically negligible number of times per year. (The local train out of Croton was dead empty.)

Not to get too off topic, but it's ridiculous how terrible the service is on the Upper Hudson line considering Dutchess & Putnam county residents pay the same MTA taxes as everyone else downstate. Once you leave electrified territory MNR just doesn't seem to care–Upper Hudson line trains are usually packed, peak and off-peak, but there's never been any push to improve service. The diesel coaches are also the worst out of the entire fleet (with no replacement in the foreseeable future) and the locomotives are very mechanically problematic. There's clearly high demand on the line, weekend trains are frequently standing room only, especially on holidays and when the weather's nice, but running the bare minimum in service just pushes people to drive.

It's interesting that you mention that, since as I alluded to before, I haven't observed service issues to be the norm at all (and my regular commute involves the Poughkeepsie trains up to Peekskill). The biggest headaches usually involves crowds heading to Yankee games and other special events, but not because they fill the train, only because they are the opposite of tranquil. Still, the typical Poughkeepsie train is miles above the Harlem and New Haven lines in availability of seating, and compared to the LIRR or NJT, well… :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: DJStephens on May 28, 2019, 08:19:33 PM
Soften...meaning changing the ramp's grade, angle or both?

It sure appears as if the 684 NB to 84EB ramp has had significant lengthening of the acceleration lane.  The transverse slab joints are visible on the mainline, while the newer acceleration lane has no such joints visible.   The deceleration lane for the 84WB to 684SB flyover appears to be the same as it's early seventies construction.   Remember the old concrete pavement in that area, believe it was overlaid in the mid to late nineties.  Used to think the noise made by tires going over the joints was super cool as a kid.   Can understand now why these pavements are often overlaid - much quieter for the abutters!   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 29, 2019, 01:02:16 PM
Aerial imagery shows what might be a more curved ROW, but the ramps have never occupied that area. Comparing Historic Aerials, it appears that the ramp was moved very slightly to the left in 2015.

Really? Because I'm looking at the aerial pics from both GSV and Historic Aerials, and I don't notice that much of a difference. I look at the thing, and the only thing preventing a smooth continuous curve from eastbound I-84 towards NY 22 is the northbound ramp from northbound I-684 to eastbound I-84. I'd almost like to suggest bowing that curve out, then closing the north to west loop ramp and converting the north-to-east ramp into a single off-ramp with a westbound flyover or flyunder leading to the south-to-westbound ramp. The keyword in that sentence is "almost," because I'm a little concerned about the impact it would have on the viaduct. As for Star Ridge Road, wouldn't it just be easier to build a third bridge under that for the ramp?


Come to think of it, there are a couple of parkways on Long Island that could use new bridges for ramps to other roads. I'm specifically referring to Seaman's Neck Road over the Southern State Parkway and the extended ramps to and from NY 135, and Indian Head Road over an extension of the west to north ramp from Northern State Parkway to Sunken Meadow State Parkway.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 29, 2019, 07:55:48 PM
Aerial imagery shows what might be a more curved ROW, but the ramps have never occupied that area. Comparing Historic Aerials, it appears that the ramp was moved very slightly to the left in 2015.

Really? Because I'm looking at the aerial pics from both GSV and Historic Aerials, and I don't notice that much of a difference.

Yep–like I said, "very slightly" (or as you said, not "that much of a difference"). Note the proximity of the travel lane to the median guide rail in the cloverleaf.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ipeters61 on June 03, 2019, 07:16:35 PM
I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20).  That one threw me off.  I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY.  Are any other roads being converted?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on June 03, 2019, 08:30:44 PM
I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20).  That one threw me off.  I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY.  Are any other roads being converted?
I guess the Taconic, but NYSDOT is really stalling on that one. Other than that, no other roads pop out of me as being converted.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 03, 2019, 08:34:09 PM
I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20).  That one threw me off.  I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY.  Are any other roads being converted?

Don't see any others at this time. My guess is either I-81 or I-88 would be next, since they're less traveled than roads that pass near NYC and would be easier to relearn the exit numbers.  I lean I-88 given the uncertainty of the Syracuse situation with I-81
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 03, 2019, 09:25:02 PM
I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20).  That one threw me off.  I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY.  Are any other roads being converted?
I guess the Taconic, but NYSDOT is really stalling on that one. Other than that, no other roads pop out of me as being converted.
Given that the Taconic didn't have exit numbers, whether "converted" is the right word is debatable.  In any case, the exit numbers on it now extend all the way to NY 295, so that project is done.

I-99 also converted when it was designated.  I-781 technically did, between when plans were first drawn up and when the signs did (it was originally going to be 1 for I-81, 2 for US 11, and 3 for Fort Drum).  I-890 is arguable mile-based (whether it still qualifies with 4A missing is debatable), as is the NYSDOT portion of I-95.

I-81 is set to convert when the viaduct is removed.  I'm not aware of specific plans for anything else at this time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: abqtraveler on June 04, 2019, 09:51:28 PM

I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20).  That one threw me off.  I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY.  Are any other roads being converted?
I guess the Taconic, but NYSDOT is really stalling on that one. Other than that, no other roads pop out of me as being converted.

Exits on the Taconic used to be numbered sequentially by county. IIRC, exit numbers would have a letter prefix indicating the county. Exit numbers increased heading north, but reset at each county line.  Last year, NYSDOT replaced all the signs on the Taconic and applied mile based numbering for the entire length of the parkway.  There was an article about the I-84 renumbering that stated that NYSDOT plans to replace signs and renumber exits on the Hutch in the near future. Here is a link to that article.

https://www.recordonline.com/news/20181209/state-will-convert-current-i-84-exit-signs-to-mileage-based-numbers
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 04, 2019, 11:14:28 PM

I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20).  That one threw me off.  I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY.  Are any other roads being converted?
I guess the Taconic, but NYSDOT is really stalling on that one. Other than that, no other roads pop out of me as being converted.

Exits on the Taconic used to be numbered sequentially by county. IIRC, exit numbers would have a letter prefix indicating the county. Exit numbers increased heading north, but reset at each county line.  Last year, NYSDOT replaced all the signs on the Taconic and applied mile based numbering for the entire length of the parkway.  There was an article about the I-84 renumbering that stated that NYSDOT plans to replace signs and renumber exits on the Hutch in the near future. Here is a link to that article.

https://www.recordonline.com/news/20181209/state-will-convert-current-i-84-exit-signs-to-mileage-based-numbers
That's a very ancient used to.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 05, 2019, 01:07:10 AM
Exits on the Taconic used to be numbered sequentially by county. IIRC, exit numbers would have a letter prefix indicating the county. Exit numbers increased heading north, but reset at each county line.

That's a very ancient used to.

Well, except for Knapp Road, which was still marked as P8 even until last year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 05, 2019, 12:09:28 PM
What's happening at the region 5 substation in Hamburg? A whole lane of US 20 is coned off for a bunch of random cars and trucks to park. I've seen this before but never knew what it was.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 05, 2019, 12:55:35 PM

I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20).  That one threw me off.  I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY.  Are any other roads being converted?
I guess the Taconic, but NYSDOT is really stalling on that one. Other than that, no other roads pop out of me as being converted.

Exits on the Taconic used to be numbered sequentially by county. IIRC, exit numbers would have a letter prefix indicating the county. Exit numbers increased heading north, but reset at each county line.  Last year, NYSDOT replaced all the signs on the Taconic and applied mile based numbering for the entire length of the parkway.  There was an article about the I-84 renumbering that stated that NYSDOT plans to replace signs and renumber exits on the Hutch in the near future. Here is a link to that article.

https://www.recordonline.com/news/20181209/state-will-convert-current-i-84-exit-signs-to-mileage-based-numbers
The Hutch-Merritt Parkway exit configurations make no sense at all. I mentioned in an earlier post that I was iffy about a lot of the mileage-based exit numbers, but in this case I'm looking forward to them a lot more. I vaguely remember reading something about why Connecticut starts off with Exit 27 on Merritt Parkway after Exit 30 on the NY-CT State Line, but I forgot what it was.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the spur to I-684 gets an exit number in the process as well.

 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 05, 2019, 01:04:38 PM
The Hutch-Merritt Parkway exit configurations make no sense at all. I mentioned in an earlier post that I was iffy about a lot of the mileage-based exit numbers, but in this case I'm looking forward to them a lot more. I vaguely remember reading something about why Connecticut starts off with Exit 27 on Merritt Parkway after Exit 30 on the NY-CT State Line, but I forgot what it was.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the spur to I-684 gets an exit number in the process as well.

New York renumbered exits after a few were added to eliminate some As. Connecticut did not renumber.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 05, 2019, 01:22:46 PM

I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20).  That one threw me off.  I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY.  Are any other roads being converted?
I guess the Taconic, but NYSDOT is really stalling on that one. Other than that, no other roads pop out of me as being converted.
I still wish we could have had a joint venture between CT and NY where the milage doesn't reset at the border and thus neither do the exit numbers.

Exits on the Taconic used to be numbered sequentially by county. IIRC, exit numbers would have a letter prefix indicating the county. Exit numbers increased heading north, but reset at each county line.  Last year, NYSDOT replaced all the signs on the Taconic and applied mile based numbering for the entire length of the parkway.  There was an article about the I-84 renumbering that stated that NYSDOT plans to replace signs and renumber exits on the Hutch in the near future. Here is a link to that article.

https://www.recordonline.com/news/20181209/state-will-convert-current-i-84-exit-signs-to-mileage-based-numbers
The Hutch-Merritt Parkway exit configurations make no sense at all. I mentioned in an earlier post that I was iffy about a lot of the mileage-based exit numbers, but in this case I'm looking forward to them a lot more. I vaguely remember reading something about why Connecticut starts off with Exit 27 on Merritt Parkway after Exit 30 on the NY-CT State Line, but I forgot what it was.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the spur to I-684 gets an exit number in the process as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 05, 2019, 01:51:26 PM
...I wouldn't be surprised if the spur to I-684 gets an exit number in the process as well.
Speaking of which & a side bar: it appears that Goggle Maps erred (https://www.google.com/maps/place/White+Plains,+NY/@41.0268931,-73.7272253,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c29422e2a335d9:0x541404101a5bfc6c!8m2!3d41.0339862!4d-73.7629097) in terms of what's I-684 vs. the spur/Hutchinson River Parkway Connector.

I guess someone there thought the existence of an interchange at Manhattanville Rd. meant that particular road was I-684 instead of the actual I-684 Goog has it undesignated).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 05, 2019, 08:24:48 PM
Here's what I would think the Hutch numbering would look like:

Exit 1A: Bruckner Blvd WEST (NB); TO I-95 SOUTH/I-278 WEST Bruckner Blvd (SB)
Exit 1B: East Tremont Ave/Westchester Ave
Exit 2 A-B: Pelham Parkway East/West
Exit 3A (SB ONLY): I-95 SOUTH TO I-695/I-295 Throgs Neck Br//Stillwell Ave
Exit 3B (SB ONLY): Baychester Ave//TO I-95 NORTH New Haven
Exit 4: Shore Rd Orchard Beach/City Island
Exit 5 (NB ONLY): I-95 NORTH New Haven
Exit 6 (6A SB): US 1 Pelham Manor(/New Rochelle SB)
Exit 6B (SB ONLY): Sandford Blvd Pelham Manor/Mt Vernon
Exit 7A: Wolfs Land Mt Vernon/Pelham (NB); East 3rd St Mt Vernon/Pelham (SB)
Exit 7B: East Lincoln Ave Pelham/Mt Vernon
Exit 8A (NB ONLY): Cross County Parkway WEST TO Saw Mill Parkway Yonkers
Exit 8B (NB ONLY): Pelhamdale Ave/New Rochelle Rd New Rochelle
Exit 9 (SB ONLY): Cross County Parkway WEST TO Saw Mill Parkway Yonkers/GW Bridge
Exit 10A: Webster Ave New Rochelle (NB); Mill Rd EAST New Rochelle (SB)
Exit 10B: North Ave New Rochelle/Eastchester (NB); Mill Rd WEST Eastchester (SB)
Exit 11 (SB ONLY): Wilmot Rd
Exit 12: NY 125 Scarsdale/New Rochelle
Exit 13: Mamaroneck Rd Scarsdale/Mamaroneck
Exit 14 A-B: Mamaroneck Ave SOUTH/NORTH
Exit 16: NY 127 White Plains/Harrison
Exit 17A: Westchester Ave EAST//TO I-287 EAST Rye
Exit 17B: Westchester Ave WEST//TO I-287 West Tappan Zee Br (yes, I left the old name)
Exit 17C (NB ONLY): I-684 NORTH Brewster
Exit 18A: NY 120 TO Westchester Co Airport  Purchase St
Exit 18B: Lincoln Ave Rye Brook/Harrison
Exit 19: North Ridge St Rye Brook
Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1.  GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 05, 2019, 08:59:24 PM
Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1.  GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)
Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number.  If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 06, 2019, 12:56:48 AM
Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1.  GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)
Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number.  If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
Who's going to win that political battle though? I would sooner bet on 20/1 than either state conceding.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 06, 2019, 01:00:40 AM
Exit 2 A-B: Pelham Parkway East/West
Exit 3A (SB ONLY): I-95 SOUTH TO I-695/I-295 Throgs Neck Br//Stillwell Ave
Exit 3B (SB ONLY): Baychester Ave//TO I-95 NORTH New Haven
Personally, I want to see them do a serious overhaul of the Hutch-Pelham-I-95 triangle. And I still want disconnected service roads from Pelham Bay Park Subway station to Co-Op City along I-95.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 06, 2019, 11:39:18 AM
Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1.  GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)
Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number.  If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
Who's going to win that political battle though? I would sooner bet on 20/1 than either state conceding.
This is precisely why the milage shouldn't reset at the border.  The highway historically leads to Boston, the numbers should be continuous.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 06, 2019, 05:49:48 PM
Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1.  GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)
Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number.  If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
Who's going to win that political battle though? I would sooner bet on 20/1 than either state conceding.
I always assumed that the only reason it was different in the first place was because CT didn't feel like renumbering CT 15 when the Hutch was renumbered.  Given that it's with NY 120A, I would think a NY number would be most logical, but if numbering it 1 for CT is what would allow a consistent number if CT ever renumbers CT 15 to mile-based, I'll take it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 07, 2019, 12:14:15 AM
Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1.  GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)
Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number.  If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
Who's going to win that political battle though? I would sooner bet on 20/1 than either state conceding.
This is precisely why the milage shouldn't reset at the border.  The highway historically leads to Boston, the numbers should be continuous.
*Sturbridge
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 07, 2019, 08:33:31 AM
This is precisely why the mileage shouldn't reset at the border.  *snipped*...the numbers should be continuous.
If such philosophy were applied to every highway in the country; there would be some very high-numbered interchanges in the northeastern part of the country.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 07, 2019, 10:37:01 AM
This is precisely why the mileage shouldn't reset at the border.  *snipped*...the numbers should be continuous.
If such philosophy were applied to every highway in the country; there would be some very high-numbered interchanges in the northeastern part of the country.
Once above 100 - which is normal for a mileage-based approach - it shouldn't really matter.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 07, 2019, 11:26:58 AM
This is precisely why the mileage shouldn't reset at the border.  *snipped*...the numbers should be continuous.
If such philosophy were applied to every highway in the country; there would be some very high-numbered interchanges in the northeastern part of the country.
Once above 100 - which is normal for a mileage-based approach - it shouldn't really matter.

Until you hit 1000... but we would be well into the thousands for roads like I-90 and even I-95.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 07, 2019, 11:42:31 AM
This is precisely why the mileage shouldn't reset at the border.  *snipped*...the numbers should be continuous.
If such philosophy were applied to every highway in the country; there would be some very high-numbered interchanges in the northeastern part of the country.
Once above 100 - which is normal for a mileage-based approach - it shouldn't really matter.

Until you hit 1000... but we would be well into the thousands for roads like I-90 and even I-95.
So what? I don't think exit 28-05 sounds much worse than exit 355. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 07, 2019, 02:42:34 PM
I can see it now:

Exit 3017A: South Station
Exit 3017B: I-93 North
Exit 3017C: I-93 South
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ipeters61 on June 07, 2019, 04:08:47 PM
I can see it now:

Exit 3017A: South Station
Exit 3017B: I-93 North
Exit 3017C: I-93 South
"Come visit our new location at South Station!  Exit 3017A off the Mass Pike."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 07, 2019, 04:39:34 PM
I can see it now:

Exit 3017A: South Station
Exit 3017B: I-93 North
Exit 3017C: I-93 South
"Come visit our new location at South Station!  Exit 3017A off the Mass Pike."
Exit thirty-seventeen A off Masspike. Or call one-eight hundred - seven-six-four-...
Is there a real problem?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 07, 2019, 05:57:50 PM
This is precisely why the mileage shouldn't reset at the border.  *snipped*...the numbers should be continuous.
If such philosophy were applied to every highway in the country; there would be some very high-numbered interchanges in the northeastern part of the country.
Once above 100 - which is normal for a mileage-based approach - it shouldn't really matter.
Until you hit 1000... but we would be well into the thousands for roads like I-90 and even I-95.
So what? I don't think exit 28-05 sounds much worse than exit 355.

So... it does matter if you care about the extra digit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 07, 2019, 08:09:44 PM
Remember, at a certain point, it becomes harder for people to memorize numbers.  Four digits plus a possible suffix is pushing it.

Also, imagine if I-90 were realigned with Washington or something, affecting the mileage.  Then every state to the east would also have to replace mile markers and exit numbers.  I doubt that would go over well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 07, 2019, 08:38:11 PM
This is precisely why the mileage shouldn't reset at the border.  *snipped*...the numbers should be continuous.
If such philosophy were applied to every highway in the country; there would be some very high-numbered interchanges in the northeastern part of the country.
Once above 100 - which is normal for a mileage-based approach - it shouldn't really matter.
Until you hit 1000... but we would be well into the thousands for roads like I-90 and even I-95.
So what? I don't think exit 28-05 sounds much worse than exit 355.

So... it does matter if you care about the extra digit.
Yeah, I agree that sequencial exit numbers are better. But unfortunately....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on June 08, 2019, 09:11:40 AM
NYSDOT installed the first of the mile-based exits on 84: (https://i.imgur.com/PNlXXA1.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 08, 2019, 05:56:24 PM
So they didn't change Exit 20N into Exit 68B yet?

And what will Exit 21 be?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 08, 2019, 09:11:49 PM
So they didn't change Exit 20N into Exit 68B yet?

And what will Exit 21 be?

Exit 69.

If you were to continue mileage based into CT, almost everything would remain unchanged through Danbury up to Exit 8 except Exit 1 would become Exit 1A, and Exit 2 would become 1B EB and 1 C-B WB. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 09, 2019, 07:06:16 AM
I'm guessing space is one reason, but is there a reason why Exit 21 (69?) is a "half" exit? (westbound off and eastbound on)? Maybe that road couldn't handle the extra traffic it would pick up?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 09, 2019, 05:28:33 PM
NYSDOT installed the first of the mile-based exits on 84: (https://i.imgur.com/PNlXXA1.jpg)

I’m surprised the contractor isn’t using the latest standards for exit tab design.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on June 09, 2019, 07:52:56 PM
I’m surprised the contractor isn’t using the latest standards for exit tab design.

It's NY. They don't have standards anymore.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 09, 2019, 08:16:18 PM
I feel like this photo captures the current standards for exit signage fairly well (aside from the centered NY 55 shield) (at least for participating regions/projects): http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=tsp&state=NY&file=101_9117.JPG
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on June 10, 2019, 07:22:11 AM
So they didn't change Exit 20N into Exit 68B yet?

And what will Exit 21 be?

I drove through about two days later, and the 20N exit was replaced with 68 B. Exit 69 (NY 121) has also been replaced.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on June 10, 2019, 07:23:44 AM
NYSDOT installed the first of the mile-based exits on 84: (https://i.imgur.com/PNlXXA1.jpg)

I’m surprised the contractor isn’t using the latest standards for exit tab design.

Which standards to you mean?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on June 10, 2019, 09:22:08 AM
NYSDOT installed the first of the mile-based exits on 84: (https://i.imgur.com/PNlXXA1.jpg)

I’m surprised the contractor isn’t using the latest standards for exit tab design.

Which standards to you mean?

NYSDOT's standard sheets (https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/engineering/cadd-info/drawings/standard-sheets-us-repository/645-09_050213_e2.pdf). In this case, the contractor has followed NYSDOT's standards for mounting exit tabs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on June 10, 2019, 09:57:41 AM
Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, NYCDOT or NYSDOT replaced these signs a few weeks ago and with a 295 shield in place of a 278 shield. (http://i.imgur.com/XR1Ao6g.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 10, 2019, 12:01:13 PM
I feel like this photo captures the current standards for exit signage fairly well (aside from the centered NY 55 shield) (at least for participating regions/projects): http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=tsp&state=NY&file=101_9117.JPG

Also, WEST should be on the other side of the NY 55 shield.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 10, 2019, 01:57:07 PM
I feel like this photo captures the current standards for exit signage fairly well (aside from the centered NY 55 shield) (at least for participating regions/projects): http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=tsp&state=NY&file=101_9117.JPG

Also, WEST should be on the other side of the NY 55 shield.
Actually, the entire 55 WEST legend should be more centered with respect to the below-control city legend; see the exit ramp BGS further down as an example.  I'm guessing that such a fabrication error and the WEST legend was an overlooked entity that was placed on at the last moment before the panel left the shop.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 10, 2019, 08:34:18 PM
I feel like this photo captures the current standards for exit signage fairly well (aside from the centered NY 55 shield) (at least for participating regions/projects): http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=tsp&state=NY&file=101_9117.JPG

Also, WEST should be on the other side of the NY 55 shield.
Actually, the entire 55 WEST legend should be more centered with respect to the below-control city legend; see the exit ramp BGS further down as an example.  I'm guessing that such a fabrication error and the WEST legend was an overlooked entity that was placed on at the last moment before the panel left the shop.
Yeah, the whole "NY 55 West" legend should be centered, rather than the NY 55 shield.  Unfortunately I didn't clarify that properly in my post.  Not sure why "West" would be on the left.  That would actually be an oddity.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 10, 2019, 08:48:12 PM
The compass direction can be mounted on either side or above the route-shield as per the MUTCD. Different agencies seem to have different preferences and practices on that. I personally prefer the direction to almost always be to the right of the shield. I'd like to see that as the uniform standard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 10, 2019, 09:04:28 PM
I think NY is right more often than not, with some on top, especially if there are a lot of shields needing direction banners on a sign.  I don't see left too often, here or elsewhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 10, 2019, 11:22:30 PM
Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, NYCDOT or NYSDOT replaced these signs a few weeks ago and with a 295 shield in place of a 278 shield.
Since no one has said anything yet - thank you. Wish I lived on that side of the river to check it out.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 10, 2019, 11:23:17 PM
The compass direction can be mounted on either side or above the route-shield as per the MUTCD. Different agencies seem to have different preferences and practices on that. I personally prefer the direction to almost always be to the right of the shield. I'd like to see that as the uniform standard.

I agree, except in the case of where you have " ROUTE X DIRECTION TO ROUTE Y (DIRECTION).  In that case, the directions belong on top of the shield.  If it's a case of "ROUTE X TO ROUTE Y DIRECTION, then the direction can either go to the right or on top depending on the size of the shield and the room left going across. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 10, 2019, 11:25:10 PM
I think NY is right more often than not, with some on top, especially if there are a lot of shields needing direction banners on a sign.  I don't see left too often, here or elsewhere.

Region 2 has a habit of putting the cardinal direction over the route marker, even when there’s plenty of room to either side of the marker. I found R2 does it more than other regions.

The centered NY 55 marker is not surprising; that is has been happening more and more over the past couple of years, almost like GuidSIGN is putting it there and then the designer is adding the cardinal direction in afterwards by hand.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 10, 2019, 11:27:24 PM
I think NY is right more often than not, with some on top, especially if there are a lot of shields needing direction banners on a sign.  I don't see left too often, here or elsewhere.

Back before 2009 it was the practice to put the cardinal direction to the left of the marker for left side direction and to the right for right side direction.

WEST 17         81 NORTH
  Elmira            Syracuse
(left arrows)  (right arrows)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 11, 2019, 08:59:47 AM
The compass direction can be mounted on either side or above the route-shield as per the MUTCD.
The only times I've seen such displayed in the MUTCD is for left side/lane movements/exits and/or on diagrammatic signs for left side/lane movements.  Not for cloverleaf interchanges like the fore-mentioned NY 55/Taconic State Parkway interchange.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 11, 2019, 09:54:55 AM
Not sure why "West" would be on the left.  That would actually be an oddity.

Doesn't the MUTCD say that the direction should be on whichever side of the shield the route goes? In other words, NY 55 West is a left turn, so WEST should be on the left. NY 55 East is a right turn, so EAST should be on the right. If I recall correctly, this is supposed to help drivers visualize their movement - west is this way, east is that way.

Here is one such example on I-390 at I-490 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1524328,-77.6790523,3a,38.7y,351.3h,90.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqw1H8elNqUjM9m15yVFEjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 11, 2019, 10:33:34 AM
In other words, NY 55 West is a left turn, so WEST should be on the left.
Incorrect, the NY 55/Taconic State Parkway interchange is a cloverleaf type.  The ramp to NY 55 westbound is the next immediate right (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6701018,-73.7885171,3a,75y,12.7h,86.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2lhwkT6MnMeFTEcblPMTiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) after the Parkway crosses over NY 55.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 11, 2019, 11:30:59 AM
In other words, NY 55 West is a left turn, so WEST should be on the left.
Incorrect, the NY 55/Taconic State Parkway interchange is a cloverleaf type.  The ramp to NY 55 westbound is the next immediate right (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6701018,-73.7885171,3a,75y,12.7h,86.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2lhwkT6MnMeFTEcblPMTiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) after the Parkway crosses over NY 55.

Whoa, sorry for the misunderstanding. Obviously, the exit is to the right. I should have said left movement. To a motorist on the northbound Taconic, NY 55 West itself heads left from the junction, so if the shield was on the left, that would be a visual cue of such.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on June 11, 2019, 11:45:28 AM
When I mock up an exit direction sign (such as the ones being talked about for NY 55 off the Taconic), I generally build the legend block first and then align the arrow to it in a manner that is plausible for the agency (vertically centered to the right for "Winkler's Bureau of Traffic Design," often identifiable through the use of routes and destinations that cannot possibly exist in the US; bottom right-justified for TxDOT; bottom center-justified for Montana DOT; etc.).  Within the legend block itself, I typically integrate route shield and corresponding cardinal direction into a sub-block or nest of sub-blocks that is aligned to the placename block (generally horizontally centered above it, but sometimes vertically centered to the left or right if I am aping Caltrans).  But I am working only with computer screen surface area, which comes to me at negligible marginal cost.  On plan sheets and in the field I see many alignment styles, some of them quite oddball.

*  In an apparent bid to save sign panel surface area, Nebraska DOT often puts the shield and arrow in a block that is horizontally centered above the destination.  (Looks ugly!)

*  Kansas DOT often puts the destination and arrow in a block at the bottom of the sign and horizontally centers the route above it.

As regards stippled-arrow diagrammatics, they are a bit of a special case.  It aids interpretation of the sign if the graphic element (the shield) is the closest thing to the arrowhead, and cardinal direction word to the left of the shield for the left movement falls out of that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 11, 2019, 02:13:02 PM
In other words, NY 55 West is a left turn, so WEST should be on the left.
Incorrect, the NY 55/Taconic State Parkway interchange is a cloverleaf type.  The ramp to NY 55 westbound is the next immediate right (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6701018,-73.7885171,3a,75y,12.7h,86.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2lhwkT6MnMeFTEcblPMTiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) after the Parkway crosses over NY 55.

Whoa, sorry for the misunderstanding. Obviously, the exit is to the right. I should have said left movement. To a motorist on the northbound Taconic, NY 55 West itself heads left from the junction, so if the shield was on the left, that would be a visual cue of such.
To my knowledge, cloverleaf interchanges are never signed per your description.  Such IMHO would cause more not less confusion due to the possibility of a motorist thinking that the second ramp is indeed on the left.  See page 229 in the MUTCD  (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf) for appropriate sign legends for cloverleaf interchanges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 11, 2019, 03:11:34 PM
To my knowledge, cloverleaf interchanges are never signed per your description.  Such IMHO would cause more not less confusion due to the possibility of a motorist thinking that the second ramp is indeed on the left.  See page 229 in the MUTCD (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf) for appropriate sign legends for cloverleaf interchanges.

Well, I didn't just dream it up. Perhaps I am thinking of left exits.

To me, it seems intuitive to match the signage with the cardinal direction. It is already assumed that exits are on the right, and there are plenty of other ways to clarify when a left exit occurs. Having WEST point in the actual west direction would be a nice cue, but I get that many other motorists are not as attuned to that kind of thing as I am.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 11, 2019, 03:17:02 PM
Have to say I don't agree with the idea that you should put a direction to the left because that direction is to the left.  Seems more likely it would be a slight pull to the actual left when the ramp is on the right.  That doesn't strike me as desirable and probably why the MUTCD doesn't have that format in there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 11, 2019, 03:20:04 PM
I should have kept my mouth shut (or fingers in my pockets, as the case may be).
For some reason, I was so certain that it was the standard, yet every example I can find of the direction on the left is at a left exit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 11, 2019, 05:47:09 PM
New signage in CT still has the direction to the right, even for a left hand exit.  Here's an example a gantry with consecutive left exits, one with the direction to the right, and the other with the direction over the route shield with a TO

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7861/47112618031_91a1d85fdc_n.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 11, 2019, 07:37:45 PM
Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, NYCDOT or NYSDOT replaced these signs a few weeks ago and with a 295 shield in place of a 278 shield.
Since no one has said anything yet - thank you. Wish I lived on that side of the river to check it out.
I'm looking everywhere on Google Maps from Astoria to Corona, and I still can't figure out where these signs are supposed to be. And I walked from the 65th Street Subway Station on the IND Queens Boulevard Line to the St. Michael's Cemetery in the BQE-GCP Triangle in April, so I should've recognized the signposts if they were along the way.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 11, 2019, 07:55:34 PM
New signage in CT still has the direction to the right, even for a left hand exit.  Here's an example a gantry with consecutive left exits, one with the direction to the right, and the other with the direction over the route shield with a TO

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7861/47112618031_91a1d85fdc_n.jpg)
To be honest, I had to scour the MUTCD for guidance on this not too long ago, and there is nothing that specifies whether the direction comes before or after the shield. Something I'll make a mental note of to comment on the next NPA.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 11, 2019, 09:06:23 PM
I believe Alps is correct on that. I noticed too that the Manual doesn't specify where the cardinal should be, only requiring that it be displayed. But seeing also, that the many sign diagrams in the Manual show the cardinal both right, left and above the route shields, I deduce that the intent was to permit whichever format the designer finds appropriate.

Again I would like to see a uniform standard of displaying the cardinal to the right of the shield as I find that to be the most easily understandable, route number followed by direction. Even in cases where two or three shields and cardinals are shown on one sign I still prefer that format even if it requires a much wider sign face. I think it would be worth it for easier readability.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 11, 2019, 09:21:58 PM
There are cases where I prefer to find the cardinal direction above the shield. Two or more shields on the same BGS, for starters.

Imagine how intense it would be if you had three or four shields on one sign with all the cardinals on the right. The middle one(s) would have a cardinal on both sides, a recipe for confusion. Legend and shield sizes would have to decrease just to fit the sign over the road.
Or you could stack the shields vertically, but then think about how tall the sign would be. There would be no space allotment left to include the destinations.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 11, 2019, 09:29:22 PM
Many agencies do place the cardinal above the shields in those cases, but I always found it awkward to read the cardinal before the route number. I guess everyone's visual/reading preference is different.

I find it interesting that on the German Autobahns they only display city names and route shields. No cardinal directions are used. Eliminates the whole problem (chuckle!) But I believe the American practice is better, more informative.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on June 11, 2019, 09:30:09 PM
Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, NYCDOT or NYSDOT replaced these signs a few weeks ago and with a 295 shield in place of a 278 shield.
Since no one has said anything yet - thank you. Wish I lived on that side of the river to check it out.
I'm looking everywhere on Google Maps from Astoria to Corona, and I still can't figure out where these signs are supposed to be. And I walked from the 65th Street Subway Station on the IND Queens Boulevard Line to the St. Michael's Cemetery in the BQE-GCP Triangle in April, so I should've recognized the signposts if they were along the way.

It's roughly at Astoria Blvd EB and 30th St. Looks like the old sign on the right did not have a 278 shield. The new one has an erroneous "295 West." https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7698262,-73.9164171,3a,78y,98.63h,100.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siza4Ero15GQl-WyVY-Hjvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 11, 2019, 09:42:56 PM
Interestingly enough, the newer signs (http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i390&state=NY&file=101_9338.JPG) in the area of webny99's example also have the direction on the right, even though it was on the left.

There are cases where I prefer to find the cardinal direction above the shield. Two or more shields on the same BGS, for starters.

Imagine how intense it would be if you had three or four shields on one sign with all the cardinals on the right. The middle one(s) would have a cardinal on both sides, a recipe for confusion. Legend and shield sizes would have to decrease just to fit the sign over the road.
Or you could stack the shields vertically, but then think about how tall the sign would be. There would be no space allotment left to include the destinations.
Depends on the sign.  I think I recall an image of an APL in Alabama that had the directions on top even though all that did was add to the sign height since there was ample horizontal space.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 11, 2019, 09:52:07 PM
And there's this APL in CT (about 2 miles from my other pic) with both on the right

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4479/37898964222_169fde206b_n.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 11, 2019, 10:14:47 PM
Interestingly enough, the newer signs (http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i390&state=NY&file=101_9338.JPG) in the area of webny99's example also have the direction on the right, even though it was on the left.

Shoot, I hadn't noticed that yet. I did notice this (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Unnamed+Road,+Brighton,+NY+14610/@43.1413961,-77.5422679,3a,75y,342.79h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-a8CXjBL2rHbDGnQXBN5yQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89d6ca8c5e7a0b01:0xe2b7c85e3e940a2a), where SOUTH flipped from the left on the past install to the right on this one. Obviously, I preferred it when SOUTH was on the left - now it looks weird as heck. Like the arrow is pointing to the I-590 shield or something.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on June 11, 2019, 10:28:13 PM
The first BGSes that came to mind while reading the discussion about cardinal direction alignment were these (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0624204,-76.2361588,3a,50.8y,183.9h,98.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2dqZP_dl4l7aIWW9CSIFnA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the southern end of NY 695.  I always thought of it as a subtle way of saying which direction the ramp goes.  I figured I'd look at more BGSes in Syracuse and CNY, and most of the ones I looked at are aligned with the ramp direction.  I never paid attention to the ones at the northern end of NY 695, but the old signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0749623,-76.2297531,3a,50.4y,36.29h,98.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTTWlC9sv1esr-LZud_w8lw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) were aligned with the ramp direction, but the new ones (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0745892,-76.2301597,3a,48.6y,40.73h,93.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spMH3sFvcYj2XZz_nKu7J2Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) aren't.

A unique setup I came across is I-81 northbound at NY 370.  Both of the BGSes before the ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0687241,-76.1670965,3a,27y,341.29h,101.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9_oTE2M5u0OAl2thnSk4Cg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) have the direction after the NY 370 shield, but after you get on the ramp, the directions on the BGSes (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0705018,-76.1683983,3a,49.2y,348.59h,98.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxT--LhUyqSe4SvXzSICBfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) are aligned with the direction of the ramp split.

As for which order they should be in, I see it as saying (using my first links) "east NY 5" or "NY 5 west".  To me, there isn't really a difference.

As for putting directions on the right, just imagine trying that on these signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1897312,-75.452434,3a,75y,84.6h,96.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfjjzxk6DWVBM3-3YJVagYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on NY 26/365 near Rome.  You'd end up with something like this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8781238,-78.8361039,3a,30.2y,158.06h,106.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saneCKDeUmB-4_W-Yv_9-jA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in NC!  The old signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1897591,-75.4524088,3a,75y,88.7h,91.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s28jzOtBXugmM2uyxy7YBHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on NY 26/365 combined shields, but the shields look too small, and the signs look too cramped.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 12, 2019, 04:17:47 PM
According to Wikipedia, the easternmost five exits on Interstate 84 have received mileage-based exit numbers (17 is now 58; 18 is now 61; 19 is now 65; 20 is now 68; and 21 is now 69). Can anyone confirm this, as Wikipedia has been known to be unreliable?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 12, 2019, 08:31:39 PM
Michael, I'm sure the writers of the MUTCD would say that the signs in your links are overloaded with way too many route shields. My answer would be to drop some of them or relocate some to supplemental signs so as not to overload a driver's ability to read and understand excessive sign info. The format I suggested might work if the number of shields and cardinal directions are kept to a reasonable number per sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 12, 2019, 09:57:27 PM
I'm wondering about I-84...is Exit 1 the only exit which can remain as is?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on June 12, 2019, 10:39:29 PM
Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, NYCDOT or NYSDOT replaced these signs a few weeks ago and with a 295 shield in place of a 278 shield.
Since no one has said anything yet - thank you. Wish I lived on that side of the river to check it out.
I'm looking everywhere on Google Maps from Astoria to Corona, and I still can't figure out where these signs are supposed to be. And I walked from the 65th Street Subway Station on the IND Queens Boulevard Line to the St. Michael's Cemetery in the BQE-GCP Triangle in April, so I should've recognized the signposts if they were along the way.

It's roughly at Astoria Blvd EB and 30th St. Looks like the old sign on the right did not have a 278 shield. The new one has an erroneous "295 West." https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7698262,-73.9164171,3a,78y,98.63h,100.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siza4Ero15GQl-WyVY-Hjvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Did they only do the one on the right? The previous signs looked to be of a fairly recent vintage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 12, 2019, 11:19:01 PM
I'm wondering about I-84...is Exit 1 the only exit which can remain as is?

In NY, yes.  Exit 2 is going to be Exit 5, and Exit 3 E/W will be 15 A/B.  In CT,  1 would become 1A, and in MA, 1 would become 3.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 13, 2019, 09:43:49 AM
In CT,  1 would become 1A
Unless there's an official set of plans/documents stating such; that could be open for debate.  Should CTDOT adopt the use of Exit 0; the current Exit 1 would change to that given that it's adjacent to the NY border.

If not (adopting the use of Exit 0) and given the proximities to their respective mile-markers; there's enough of a fudge factor cushion along the westernmost 8 miles of I-84 in CT to keep the current Exits 1 through 8 as is.  PA did a similar move with I-95 in Delaware County, PA through Exit 10 when it converted nearly two decades ago.  That said, the first/westernmost exit number change along I-84 in CT would likely be Exit 9; such would become Exit 11.

in MA, 1 would become 3.
Agreed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 13, 2019, 11:20:58 AM
The only differences up to 8 in CT would be making Exit 2 into 1B EB and 1 B-C WB, since it falls within the 1 MP.  The only time I would use Exit 0 in figuring exits is when there are  more than 2 exits in the 0 or 1 MP eastbound or northbound, and exits south/westbound that don't correspond.  A NY example would be the last 3 exits SB on I-87.  The I-278 exits would be 0 A-B and Brook Ave would be 0C because you have Willis Ave (1A) both north and southbound, and East 138th St (1B) both north and south.  All of this falls between MP 0.0 and MP 1.9.  CT examples would be I-91 (0A for Downtown New Haven and 0B for 95 North because you have Hamilton, Trumbull, and State as 1A-1C north and south); and CT 9 (the I-95's SB are 0 A-B because you have Ferry Point as 1A and CT 154 as 1B NB)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 13, 2019, 02:30:54 PM
The only differences up to 8 in CT would be making Exit 2 into 1B EB and 1 B-C WB, since it falls within the 1 MP. NB)
After looking through GSVs, the mainline I-84 overpass for Exit 2/2B-A is located between MM 1.0 and 1.2; so rounding up to the next whole number is not out of the ordinary.  PA did similar for the I-95/PA 320/352 interchange in Chester; Exit 6 despite the overpasses being located at MM 5.4.  Usually MM X.5 at the center of the interchange/crossing is the decider for rounding up to the next whole number (i.e. Exit X+1).

Since it's usually not desirable/preferable to have a suffixed exit only in one direction for a separate interchange ramp; the options I see without resorting to such along that stretch of I-84 would be to either change Exit 1 to Exit 0 and Exits 2 (EB)/2B-A (WB) to 1 (EB)/1B-A (WB) or just leave them as they presently as they are despite current Exits 2/2B-A's location with respect to the mileposts for the reasons earlier noted.

Again, using the earlier-mentioned PA I-95 example; PA originally planned to change one or two of I-95's interchanges along its southernmost 10 miles in PA due to its actual milepost locations.  However, such changes never happened and the southernmost ten interchange numbers remained as is (to this day).  Path of least resistance being in play here (i.e., the less changes, the better).

That said, leaving the westernmost eight I-84 interchange numbers in CT as they are; would be the path of least resistance in terms of the changes.  A similar argument could be made for the southernmost 11-12 miles of I-93 in MA as well; but that's another topic/state for another thread.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: zachb on June 14, 2019, 03:37:19 PM
Does anybody know what's going on at the Meadowbrook Parkway SB at Exit M10 (Loop Pkwy)? It looks like they're redoing the pavement there, as theyre making everyone take the exit and merge back onto the parkway to continue south to the Ocean Parkway and Jones Beach.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on June 14, 2019, 05:27:35 PM
Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, NYCDOT or NYSDOT replaced these signs a few weeks ago and with a 295 shield in place of a 278 shield.
Since no one has said anything yet - thank you. Wish I lived on that side of the river to check it out.
I'm looking everywhere on Google Maps from Astoria to Corona, and I still can't figure out where these signs are supposed to be. And I walked from the 65th Street Subway Station on the IND Queens Boulevard Line to the St. Michael's Cemetery in the BQE-GCP Triangle in April, so I should've recognized the signposts if they were along the way.

It's roughly at Astoria Blvd EB and 30th St. Looks like the old sign on the right did not have a 278 shield. The new one has an erroneous "295 West." https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7698262,-73.9164171,3a,78y,98.63h,100.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siza4Ero15GQl-WyVY-Hjvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I think this is an appropriate place to say that I have always found the use of E-W cardinal directions along I-278 in Brooklyn and Queens to be highly confusing.  The roadway is basically along the largely N-S BQE and Gowanus Expy.  Entering Brooklyn from the western end (Verrazano) traveling in the eastern direction you essentially are following "grid" north along Ft Hamilton and 7 Ave, west along 65th, north along 3rd Ave, northwest along Hamilton, north to Downtown Brooklyn, east for about a mile, then northeast until about Queens Blvd, then northwest till you meet the GCP, and then finally west until the Triboro Bridge.  A lot of directional changes.  For the most part, it is far easier to think about this as a N-S road, especially on signs that do not list control cities (or control bridges).  This particular sign referenced above is placed as a direction for I-278 west (toward Brooklyn and SI), but you are actually travelling "grid" east.

E-W is OK in NJ, SI, and Bronx.

Since it is a 3di, there should be no problem with signing the roadway as eastbound from US 1-9 and NJTP, eastbound through SI, then northbound through Brooklyn and Queens and through the Triboro Bridge, and then finally eastbound along the Bruckner Expy.  (Many circular beltways change compass directions to what makes sense.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 14, 2019, 09:07:10 PM
Zachb, the Meadowbrook Pkwy. toll plaza at Exit-M10 was recently torn down and the road is being rebuilt to a new configuration. The routing that you described must be a temporary detour.

Mrsman, I completely agree with you that I-278 in Brooklyn and Queens should be signed North-South. I've felt that way for the last fifty years since I was a kid and I've never understood why it is signed as East-West. So you're not alone in your thinking! LOL
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 15, 2019, 07:24:53 PM
Jones Beach has switched over to what is essentially AET for parking fee.  The toll plazas are going bye-bye and the trumpet interchange with the Loop Pkwy is going to be improved upon.  I am assuming that the plaza on the WSP will be going away soon too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on June 16, 2019, 02:48:05 PM
Zachb, the Meadowbrook Pkwy. toll plaza at Exit-M10 was recently torn down and the road is being rebuilt to a new configuration. The routing that you described must be a temporary detour.

Mrsman, I completely agree with you that I-278 in Brooklyn and Queens should be signed North-South. I've felt that way for the last fifty years since I was a kid and I've never understood why it is signed as East-West. So you're not alone in your thinking! LOL

Indeed.  There are plenty of examples of this type of thing all over the country.  Some other areas have taken a bit of a more direct approach to solving the directional conundrum.

US 41 is nationally a N-S highway, but at its southern end, in the Miami area, it is due E-W following 8th Street (Calle Ocho).  In the Miami area it is routinely signed as E-W, even though it is N-S in other parts of Florida (and the US).

See:

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7613403,-80.4814036,3a,75y,211.79h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s46zP2Jgq2gheb3rDY-8c0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7609381,-80.3858928,3a,75y,69.18h,86.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU7d3J12Arq-X8zsrjD1rzA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

No good reason the same could not be done on I-278. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 16, 2019, 08:26:36 PM
This is a common issue. Check out the debate on the Penn Tpke./I-95 Interchange thread re: I-295's cardinal directions.  LOL

And as I mentioned possibly on that board, one way to solve this whole issue would be to follow the German Autobahn practice of using route shields and cities only, with no cardinal directions shown.  But seriously, I believe the U.S. practice is better and more informative.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 16, 2019, 08:57:15 PM
And that makes me wonder if you just experience highly unusual traffic patterns, because that's what there was at that time and date. At the same time, the MNR train out of Poughkeepsie was what can only be described as "standing room only" (and inaccurately so, since there was no "room"), which happens a statistically negligible number of times per year. (The local train out of Croton was dead empty.)

Not to get too off topic, but it's ridiculous how terrible the service is on the Upper Hudson line considering Dutchess & Putnam county residents pay the same MTA taxes as everyone else downstate. Once you leave electrified territory MNR just doesn't seem to care–Upper Hudson line trains are usually packed, peak and off-peak, but there's never been any push to improve service. The diesel coaches are also the worst out of the entire fleet (with no replacement in the foreseeable future) and the locomotives are very mechanically problematic. There's clearly high demand on the line, weekend trains are frequently standing room only, especially on holidays and when the weather's nice, but running the bare minimum in service just pushes people to drive.

It's interesting that you mention that, since as I alluded to before, I haven't observed service issues to be the norm at all (and my regular commute involves the Poughkeepsie trains up to Peekskill). The biggest headaches usually involves crowds heading to Yankee games and other special events, but not because they fill the train, only because they are the opposite of tranquil. Still, the typical Poughkeepsie train is miles above the Harlem and New Haven lines in availability of seating, and compared to the LIRR or NJT, well… :-)
Maybe this part of the thread should be moved to the Metro-North thread that I started a while back, and considered merging into the general LIRR/NJT and other commuter railroad thread because it was being ignored.


https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19127.0


Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on June 17, 2019, 12:00:25 PM
This is a common issue. Check out the debate on the Penn Tpke./I-95 Interchange thread re: I-295's cardinal directions.  LOL

And as I mentioned possibly on that board, one way to solve this whole issue would be to follow the German Autobahn practice of using route shields and cities only, with no cardinal directions shown.  But seriously, I believe the U.S. practice is better and more informative.

US practice is certainly better.  But even better would be to sign both cardinal direction and destination, especially where direction is somewhat ambiguous.  Utilizing control cities wherever possible could certainly mitigate any of the confusion involving cardinal directions.  For this part of Astoria the best control cities would be:

I-278 East (north preferred)  RFK (Triboro) Bridge.  [If must use cities Bronx and/or Harlem can be used].
I-278 West (south preferred) Verrazano Narrows Bridge.  [If must use cities use Brooklyn and/or Staten Island].
GCP East Eastern Long Island.  [If a city is needed use Hauppauge, which is the control on the Northern Pkwy in Nassau and Suffolk County.]

Small signs with LGA and JFK can guide people towards the Airports as needed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 18, 2019, 12:53:58 PM
NYSDOT installed the first of the mile-based exits on 84: (https://i.imgur.com/PNlXXA1.jpg)
While riding along I-84 westbound towards the I-684 interchange last night (June 17); I noticed that the old BGS' (w/the sequential exit numbers) for Exits 69/21 & 68/20 are still on the premises; laying face-up in most instances adjacent the signposts/gantries.

Anybody got a large flat-bed truck?  :sombrero:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 18, 2019, 01:00:24 PM
All I want to know is when the other regions are gonna follow suit with R8....  I can see highways like I-88, I-787, and possibly the Northway section of I-87 going after those two.

I also wonder if a conversion may be planned for I-86 soon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 18, 2019, 05:48:49 PM
Any news on the Rooftop Highway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 18, 2019, 06:10:02 PM
Any news on the Rooftop Highway?
You kidding?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadsguy on June 18, 2019, 08:45:49 PM
Any news on the Rooftop Highway?

Yes:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 18, 2019, 08:59:23 PM
Any news on the Rooftop Highway?

 :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

When pigs fly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 19, 2019, 07:33:50 AM
Any progress report on how far down I-84 they've gotten with this project? I've only heard about the 5 easternmost exits so far.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 19, 2019, 01:14:42 PM
Any news on the Rooftop Highway?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on June 19, 2019, 02:01:54 PM
Any progress report on how far down I-84 they've gotten with this project? I've only heard about the 5 easternmost exits so far.

I drove the eastern-most leg of I-84 on Saturday; the 684/22 interchange remains the only renumbered interchange.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 19, 2019, 02:59:31 PM
Any progress report on how far down I-84 they've gotten with this project? I've only heard about the 5 easternmost exits so far.
I drove the eastern-most leg of I-84 on Saturday; the 684/22 interchange remains the only renumbered interchange.
As of this past Monday, at the latest, the partial interchange (former-Exit 21) between I-684 and the CT State Line was renumbered to Exit 69.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 20, 2019, 09:02:50 AM
One thing I noticed about the new mileage-based exit signs in New York is that there are no Old Exit Number tabs.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 20, 2019, 09:22:58 AM
One thing I noticed about the new mileage-based exit signs in New York is that there are no Old Exit Number tabs.

Maybe an add after the fact?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 20, 2019, 09:28:59 AM
One thing I noticed about the new mileage-based exit signs in New York is that there are no Old Exit Number tabs.


Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 20, 2019, 09:37:55 AM
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.

They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 20, 2019, 09:53:46 AM
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.

Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ipeters61 on June 20, 2019, 09:56:21 AM
One thing I noticed about the new mileage-based exit signs in New York is that there are no Old Exit Number tabs.

Maybe an add after the fact?
I'm pretty sure I vaguely remember them being at the I-84/I-684 interchange, below the sign.

One thing I noticed about the new mileage-based exit signs in New York is that there are no Old Exit Number tabs.
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
:spin:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 20, 2019, 10:11:27 AM
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.

Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.

Good point
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 20, 2019, 10:42:57 AM
One thing I noticed about the new mileage-based exit signs in New York is that there are no Old Exit Number tabs.
Actually, separate OLD EXIT XX panels are placed below the new main panels on the ground-mounted signs.  I'm not sure whether similar panels were/will be placed near the elevated signs.  The only one I saw in my recent travels was the cantilevered I-684 BGS just prior to the exit ramp from westbound I-84.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on June 20, 2019, 11:17:14 AM
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.

Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.

US 15 has numbers, those were renumbered, and there are "FORMERLY EXIT XX" signs placed there. Streetview still shows them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 20, 2019, 11:56:44 AM
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.
Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.
US 15 has numbers, those were renumbered, and there are "FORMERLY EXIT XX" signs placed there. Streetview still shows them.

It would seem that you are referring to NY. However, we were talking about PA, which did not have numbers on US 15 prior to getting the I-99 numbers in the last couple years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 20, 2019, 07:52:36 PM
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.

Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.

US 15 has numbers, those were renumbered, and there are "FORMERLY EXIT XX" signs placed there. Streetview still shows them.

I recently had a discussion with a fellow road geek about this, “FORMERLY EXIT XX”  or “OLD EXIT XX” , as with the I-84 project NYSDOT has now used both. The first time I saw “FORMERLY EXIT XX”  in New York was on NY 17 in the Elmira area. I know Massachusetts used “FORMERLY EXIT XX”  along MA 128 back in the 80s.  Some states use one, some states use the other, are there any other states that use both FORMERLY and OLD?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 20, 2019, 11:22:44 PM
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.

Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.

US 15 has numbers, those were renumbered, and there are "FORMERLY EXIT XX" signs placed there. Streetview still shows them.

I recently had a discussion with a fellow road geek about this, “FORMERLY EXIT XX”  or “OLD EXIT XX” , as with the I-84 project NYSDOT has now used both. The first time I saw “FORMERLY EXIT XX”  in New York was on NY 17 in the Elmira area. I know Massachusetts used “FORMERLY EXIT XX”  along MA 128 back in the 80s.  Some states use one, some states use the other, are there any other states that use both FORMERLY and OLD?
Someone on this forum used FORMERLY but the MUTCD standard is OLD. Shorter and gets the point across.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on June 21, 2019, 08:26:45 AM
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.
Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.
US 15 has numbers, those were renumbered, and there are "FORMERLY EXIT XX" signs placed there. Streetview still shows them.

It would seem that you are referring to NY. However, we were talking about PA, which did not have numbers on US 15 prior to getting the I-99 numbers in the last couple years.

Yes, I was referring to NY's portion of US 15.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ben114 on June 21, 2019, 10:32:29 AM
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.

Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.

US 15 has numbers, those were renumbered, and there are "FORMERLY EXIT XX" signs placed there. Streetview still shows them.

I recently had a discussion with a fellow road geek about this, “FORMERLY EXIT XX”  or “OLD EXIT XX” , as with the I-84 project NYSDOT has now used both. The first time I saw “FORMERLY EXIT XX”  in New York was on NY 17 in the Elmira area. I know Massachusetts used “FORMERLY EXIT XX”  along MA 128 back in the 80s.  Some states use one, some states use the other, are there any other states that use both FORMERLY and OLD?
I believe MA 25 uses FORMERLY, but RI uses OLD
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 21, 2019, 11:20:11 AM
I recently had a discussion with a fellow road geek about this, “FORMERLY EXIT XX”  or “OLD EXIT XX” , as with the I-84 project NYSDOT has now used both. The first time I saw “FORMERLY EXIT XX”  in New York was on NY 17 in the Elmira area. I know Massachusetts used “FORMERLY EXIT XX”  along MA 128 back in the 80s.  Some states use one, some states use the other, are there any other states that use both FORMERLY and OLD?
I believe MA 25 uses FORMERLY, but RI uses OLD
Massachusetts has always used FORMERLY when interchange numbers were revised in the past. 

The only exceptions to such was when a direction-cardinal suffix changed to A-B but not the number itself.  No formerly signs were posted when the MA 128/1A or the MA 128/114 interchanges changed from Exits 20N-S and 25E-W to 20A-B and 25A-B respectively.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 21, 2019, 12:31:09 PM
Google Maps hasn't updated the new I-84 numbers where the signs have been replaced.  On the same token, they haven't even put the exit numbers in for the Taconic.

OSM has a good rule about not putting in the new numbers until the whole road has been converted, however they had the Taconic done almost immediately.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 21, 2019, 08:40:07 PM
OSM has a good rule about not putting in the new numbers until the whole road has been converted, however they had the Taconic done almost immediately.
In that case, there were no old numbers - the exits were unnumbered prior to getting mile-based exit numbers, so it's not really a "conversion".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on June 22, 2019, 12:43:37 PM
Regarding Google Maps updates, I have a friend in NC who moved into a new house in an expansion of an existing development in the beginning of January.  Her street didn't show up until a couple months ago, and it wasn't labeled until a couple weeks ago.



I was using the TDV a few nights ago, and noticed they now have historic PDFs of traffic data.  When you click "View Reports", a pane now shows up on the left with options for the available years and data types.  Some links are broken, so I'm assuming they're in the process of uploading the reports.

As an aside, I find a bit odd that the data for the I-81 viaduct doesn't even show up on the map.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 22, 2019, 04:21:40 PM
That happens when there's no recent report for a station.  You can click on the area where the line would be and it will show up, with a report from 2001.  I'm guessing it went a long time without being counted - something that tends to happen with the interstates, especially given that it's a viaduct.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 22, 2019, 06:40:46 PM
Albany published overview of red light camera program.
There is some (quite unimpressive) reduction of accidents, zero revenue for the city (aka drivers are much better than city though) and about $20k in fines collected per eliminated accident - more than the cost of non-injury crash.
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Albany-s-red-light-camera-venture-brings-mixed-13813902.php
Title: Re: New York
Post by: abqtraveler on June 24, 2019, 01:23:34 PM
I picked up the 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas last week.  It has the new mile-based exit numbers listed for I-84 through New York, but it doesn't list exit numbers for the Taconic Parkway even though the Taconic received mile-based exit numbers a year or two ago.  It still lists I-95 through Rhode Island as a "free" limited access highway, even though Rhode Island started collecting tolls on trucks last summer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 24, 2019, 01:45:48 PM
It still lists I-95 through Rhode Island as a "free" limited access highway, even though Rhode Island started collecting tolls on trucks last summer.
Given that those tolls only applies towards trucks and not passenger cars/vehicles; Rand McNally probably felt justified in not showing the truck-tolled stretches as a full-blown toll facilities since the majority of their customers are in passenger vehicles.

If truck-only tolls becomes more prevalent elsewhere; Rand McNally, AAA, et al will have to assign a new color for such on their maps & atlases.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 24, 2019, 08:30:06 PM
General road atlases are aimed at passenger cars.  I believe there are special truck atlases where showing I-95 as tolled would be appropriate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: abqtraveler on June 26, 2019, 09:26:04 PM
General road atlases are aimed at passenger cars.  I believe there are special truck atlases where showing I-95 as tolled would be appropriate.

Even on routes with tolled lanes (HOT, express, etc.) Rand McNally depicts them with a blue line, which corresponds to the route being "free" according to their map legend, so I agree they need to come up with another color to indicate a "mixed" route that coule either be free or tolled under certain conditions.

On a related note, it'll be interesting to see how Rand McNally and other mapmakers handle the tolling of all vehicles going into parts of Manhattan. To me, it looks lime they'll need to come up with another color legend to depict tolled streets.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 26, 2019, 10:27:50 PM
I miss the old days where Rand McNally distinguished by color between the "free" and tolled sections of highways with barriers (e.g., Garden State).

Rand McNally has used text boxes in the past for special cases; they could indicate congestion priced Manhattan that way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 27, 2019, 08:30:05 AM
General road atlases are aimed at passenger cars.  I believe there are special truck atlases where showing I-95 as tolled would be appropriate.

Even on routes with tolled lanes (HOT, express, etc.) Rand McNally depicts them with a blue line, which corresponds to the route being "free" according to their map legend, so I agree they need to come up with another color to indicate a "mixed" route that coule either be free or tolled under certain conditions.
Current and past Rand McNally (RMN) editions would show the single-corridored VA 267 & the Dulles (Airport) Access Road in dual colored free/toll line (such was usually shown wider.  I believe RMN shows I-95 north of Baltimore, where the centered Express-Toll lanes are located, as dual-colored as well. 

On a related note, it'll be interesting to see how Rand McNally and other mapmakers handle the tolling of all vehicles going into parts of Manhattan. To me, it looks lime they'll need to come up with another color legend to depict tolled streets.
Is that actually going to take place?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on June 27, 2019, 08:33:32 AM
On a related note, it'll be interesting to see how Rand McNally and other mapmakers handle the tolling of all vehicles going into parts of Manhattan. To me, it looks lime they'll need to come up with another color legend to depict tolled streets.

Is that a hint for which color to use?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on June 27, 2019, 10:51:06 PM
Some awful new roundabout guide signage posted by NYSDOT on their twitter page. Black arrows? Seriously?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-FFJzeWwAEe_ya.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-FFLfNWsAADr5b.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Verlanka on June 28, 2019, 05:43:05 AM
On a related note, it'll be interesting to see how Rand McNally and other mapmakers handle the tolling of all vehicles going into parts of Manhattan. To me, it looks lime they'll need to come up with another color legend to depict tolled streets.

Is that a hint for which color to use?
Probably. :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 28, 2019, 06:18:56 PM
Some awful new roundabout guide signage posted by NYSDOT on their twitter page. Black arrows? Seriously?
While we're at it, the last arrow shouldn't be there. The roundabout should end in a stub since there's no destination associated with the U-turn.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 29, 2019, 10:58:25 AM
That's an incredibly silly replacement. The former signs were only a few years old. They hadn't faded, peeled or been damaged.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on June 30, 2019, 07:18:26 PM
I was on I-690 westbound earlier today, and I saw that the median work, signs, and final striping has been completed on the Teall Ave bridge project.  It seemed to take quite a long time to do the work.  The markings finally look like they'll be visible at night.  This (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0525508,-76.1250934,3a,75y,230.57h,103.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgqXKBpxWedlupb_U0_jfUQ!2e0!5s20110701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) diagrammatic sign has been replaced with what looked like a carbon copy.  I was driving and actually paying attention to the road, so I didn't pay that much attention to the sign.  I was beginning to think it wasn't going to be replaced since there hasn't been a sign there for so long.  I was also surprised it wasn't replaced with an APL because of the option lane for I-81 south, but maybe it's OK since there's a deceleration lane for the ramp that isn't shown on the sign.  The sign on the left in this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0515948,-76.1296522,3a,56y,265.93h,101.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sC75gBTxF85XvatD0XtNNaA!2e0!5s20140501T000000!7i13312!8i6656) Street View image has been replaced with one that has a yellow "LEFT" banner above it and "EXIT 2000 FEET instead of "NEXT LEFT".  I think the sign on the right was a carbon copy, but I was paying more attention to the new sign on the left.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that on this past Wednesday, I saw Carrier Circle the busiest I've ever seen it.  The circle was full of cars, and I had to wait in a line that stretched from the yield sign at the circle to the median turn ramp at Old Court St on the left side of this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0872718,-76.0929019,171m/data=!3m1!1e3) image.  I saw a line of cars waiting at Thompson Rd too.  I was driving through during rush hour, which I've never done before.  This was the first time I've ever seen a line of cars waiting at the circle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 30, 2019, 08:44:23 PM
Maybe they didn't want to design a whole new sign when it won't be around for long.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 01, 2019, 12:43:53 PM
I see NYSDOT region 2 (Utica) is getting rid of quite a few overhead sign gantries and replacing them with ground mounted signs. They’re also adding control cities for NY 49 and I-790/NY 5 as appropriate.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=25984&p_is_digital=Y
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TonyTrafficLight on July 01, 2019, 03:34:53 PM
I see NYSDOT region 2 (Utica) is getting rid of quite a few overhead sign gantries and replacing them with ground mounted signs. They’re also adding control cities for NY 49 and I-790/NY 5 as appropriate.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=25984&p_is_digital=Y

Thats a lot of signs getting replaced there. It is quite the confusing area to drive through if you're unfamiliar with it..
Looks like quite a lot of paving there too. I didn't think it was that bad last time I drove it but I'm no engineer.

My main drive Rt. 233 was totally reconstructed in 1999 (during Woodstock) and I'm still waiting for it to be repaved.
It chunks up during the winter and get patched each spring.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 01, 2019, 04:10:44 PM
I picked up the 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas last week.  It has the new mile-based exit numbers listed for I-84 through New York, but it doesn't list exit numbers for the Taconic Parkway even though the Taconic received mile-based exit numbers a year or two ago.
Anything else mile-based in New York, beside I-84 and I-95?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on July 01, 2019, 04:40:05 PM
Anything else mile-based in New York, beside I-84 and I-95?
:confused: When did I-95 in NY convert?  To my knowledge, the only recent change there was the AET conversion along the New England Thruway portion.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 01, 2019, 05:14:07 PM
Anything else mile-based in New York, beside I-84 and I-95?
:confused: When did I-95 in NY convert?  To my knowledge, the only recent change there was the AET conversion along the New England Thruway portion.

The NYSDOT portion of I-95 went distance when the New England Thruway was renumbered at least a couple decades ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: abqtraveler on July 01, 2019, 06:08:55 PM

I picked up the 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas last week.  It has the new mile-based exit numbers listed for I-84 through New York, but it doesn't list exit numbers for the Taconic Parkway even though the Taconic received mile-based exit numbers a year or two ago.
Anything else mile-based in New York, beside I-84 and I-95?

I-99/US-15, I-781 and the Taconic Parkway are mile-based. The Hutch is slated to convert to mile-based exits next year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 01, 2019, 08:28:32 PM
Don't forget I-890/NY 890.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 01, 2019, 10:43:14 PM

I picked up the 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas last week.  It has the new mile-based exit numbers listed for I-84 through New York, but it doesn't list exit numbers for the Taconic Parkway even though the Taconic received mile-based exit numbers a year or two ago.
Anything else mile-based in New York, beside I-84 and I-95?

I-99/US-15, I-781 and the Taconic Parkway are mile-based. The Hutch is slated to convert to mile-based exits next year.
Yes, but you said they didn't show it on the Road Atlas.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 01, 2019, 10:51:40 PM
Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1.  GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)
Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number.  If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
Can't we just use I-95 at South of the Border as an example?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on July 01, 2019, 10:53:52 PM
Maybe they get the color scheme right on the new Paris Hill pulloff signs this time.

I see NYSDOT region 2 (Utica) is getting rid of quite a few overhead sign gantries and replacing them with ground mounted signs. They’re also adding control cities for NY 49 and I-790/NY 5 as appropriate.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=25984&p_is_digital=Y
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 02, 2019, 08:04:14 AM
So much low hanging fruit for exit number conversions: all the I-x90s (890 is already), I-787, I-495, I-86, I-88, I-81...

I did see y'all thinking out loud about I-81 going once they figure out the viaduct boondoggle.  Personally, I'd love to see them keep the viaduct rather than pushing all the traffic to I-481.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 02, 2019, 01:34:51 PM
Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1.  GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)
Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number.  If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
Can't we just use I-95 at South of the Border as an example?
Well, that interchange is mostly in NC, and the roadway continues into both states.  NY 120A, though it dips into CT, is a NY state touring route and both directions ultimately head to NY.

So much low hanging fruit for exit number conversions: all the I-x90s (890 is already), I-787, I-495, I-86, I-88, I-81...

I did see y'all thinking out loud about I-81 going once they figure out the viaduct boondoggle.  Personally, I'd love to see them keep the viaduct rather than pushing all the traffic to I-481.
I-787 is interesting because it averages one exit per mile.  Might even be easier to just leave them as-is.  If it were to convert, it would likely look like this:
1->1A
2->1B
3B (SB)->1C
3 (NB)/3A (SB)->1D
4 (NB)->1E
4B (SB)->2A
4A (SB)->2B
5->3
6->4
7E/W->6A/B
8 (no change)
9E/W->9A/B

I-590 is an interesting case that is effectively mile-based already by coincidence... or it would be, if it didn't have a shared mileage/exit numbering system with NY 590, which is most definitely sequential.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 02, 2019, 03:18:47 PM
My I-787 list (2A would come before 2B SB)

Exit 1A: US 9W Southern Blvd (NB); Albany (SB)
Exit 1B: Vine St/Port of Albany (NB); I-87 (NYT) TO I-90 NYC/Buffalo
Exit 1C (SB ONLY): NY 32 S Pearl St
Exit 2A: US 9 SOUTH/US 20 East Rensselaer//Empire Plaza
Exit 2B: US 9 NORTH/US 20 WEST Clinton Ave/Broadway (NB); US 20 WEST Madison Ave/POA (SB)
Exit 2C (SB ONLY): US 9 NORTH Clinton Ave
Exit 2D (SB ONLY): Colonie St/Columbia St
Exit 3:  I-90 Boston/Buffalo
Exit 4: NY 32 Menands
Exit 6A: NY 378 EAST South Troy (NB); Troy (SB)
Exit 6B: NY 378 WEST Watervliet (NB); Loudonville/Menands (SB)
Exit 8: TO NY 2 Watervliet/Green Island
Exit 9A: NY 7 EAST Troy/Bennington
Exit 9B: NY 7 WEST TO I-87 (Northway) Schenectady/Saratoga Springs

My I-590 would go 1, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 6, 7, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C NB; and 9, 7, 6, 5B, 5A, 3C, 3B, 3A, 1C, and 1 B-A SB, with 1B for 390 North and 1A for 390 South.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 02, 2019, 09:48:00 PM
NY uses the "round down" method recommended in the MUTCD.  Historically we didn't generally number termini, but that may be changing, because I-781 and I-99 do (I avoided it in the interest of sanity, and because I personally prefer unnumbered termini).  NY 31 crosses under I-590 between miles 2.9 and 3 (the 3 mile marker is just north of the bridge), so I figured it was close enough to avoid alphabet soup.

If I had to do I-590/NY 590:
1 (no change)
2 (NB)/2A-B (SB) (no change)
3 (NB) (no change)
4 (SB) (no change)
5->5A
6->5B
7->6
8->7
9 (NB)->8
10A/B (NB)->9A/B
11->9C
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 03, 2019, 07:44:42 AM
I'm waiting for the bellyaching to start when you have exit 178 for Ballston Spa, 186 for Saratoga Springs, 202 for Glens Falls, 100 for Kingston, 310 for Plattsburgh, 357 for East Greenbush....

It'll be a fun show to watch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on July 06, 2019, 01:05:34 PM
For those curious, the I-84 renumbering has made it west to East Fishkill at the Taconic. 16 N-S is now 52 A-B.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 09, 2019, 07:19:03 AM
Any ideas when I-86 will finally be signed between the state line in Waverly to the Tioga/Broome line?  Also, I think it's time to take down the "TO" banners for I-86 around Vestal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 09, 2019, 12:48:58 PM
Possibly with the completion of the work in Binghamton if there are plans for it.  I think there might be some minor work in Vestal needed, however.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 09, 2019, 01:09:48 PM
Possibly with the completion of the work in Birmingham if there are plans for it.  I think there might be some minor work in Vestal needed, however.

Saw the huge trench by Nichols yesterday.  I also see some of the new ramps are now surfaced at the interchange between I-81 and I-86.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on July 09, 2019, 03:38:38 PM
Possibly with the completion of the work in Birmingham if there are plans for it.  I think there might be some minor work in Vestal needed, however.

Can I see this official plan of I-81 taking over I-59?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 09, 2019, 05:47:00 PM
vdeane meant Binghamton. Honestly, extending Interstate 81 down Interstate 59 would be an intriguing Fictional Highways thread.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 09, 2019, 08:21:32 PM
I swear Chrome's spell check is getting worse every year.  Or maybe it's just Windows.  Or incognito.  It recognized "Binghamton" on my desktop at home at least, but doesn't elsewhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 10, 2019, 12:00:39 PM
The font looks really wrong on the NY I-99 signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on July 11, 2019, 03:21:11 PM
vdeane meant Binghamton. Honestly, extending Interstate 81 down Interstate 59 would be an intriguing Fictional Highways thread.
IMHO, it's something that should happen.  Practically a straight line diagonal from Canada to the Gulf.  And no new construction needed, just signage.   :clap:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on July 12, 2019, 04:25:10 PM
Found this in downtown Rochester.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1527095,-77.6061667,3a,15y,267.29h,86.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQKoTE2a11mD4vawabZc_4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

The shield for I 490 is painted on the pavement. I wonder how long that will last.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on July 12, 2019, 04:32:14 PM
Found this in downtown Rochester.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1527095,-77.6061667,3a,15y,267.29h,86.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQKoTE2a11mD4vawabZc_4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

The shield for I 490 is painted on the pavement. I wonder how long that will last.




Looks to me to be a preformed thermoplastic shield.  Based on the installations I've seen in Massachusetts and other states, they tend to be fairly durable.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 12, 2019, 05:37:06 PM
I'm looking forward to the Hutchinson River Parkway (and hopefully, many other New York roads) having its exit numbers converted from sequential-to-milepost in 2020. Please post to this thread when the conversion occurs, and if any other New York roads also receive such a conversion.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 12, 2019, 06:08:54 PM
Found this in downtown Rochester.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1527095,-77.6061667,3a,15y,267.29h,86.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQKoTE2a11mD4vawabZc_4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

The shield for I 490 is painted on the pavement. I wonder how long that will last.




Looks to me to be a preformed thermoplastic shield.  Based on the installations I've seen in Massachusetts and other states, they tend to be fairly durable.
Whatever it worth:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6997624,-73.8442652,3a,75y,5.56h,86.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP49axWy59-tPqBgnQElc7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on July 12, 2019, 11:07:36 PM
I'm looking forward to the Hutchinson River Parkway (and hopefully, many other New York roads) having its exit numbers converted from sequential-to-milepost in 2020. Please post to this thread when the conversion occurs, and if any other New York roads also receive such a conversion.

I've been curious about that as well. I saw that article from about a year ago mentioning the HRP conversion once I-84 is done. The HRP needs new signs generally speaking, they're in bad shape in Westchester. It'll be interesting to see since roads in NYC don't have mile markers (but do have NYSDOT reference markers). Personally, I've been interested in seeing them do the Palisades Parkway; another interesting case since the mile markers don't reset at the NY/NJ line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 12, 2019, 11:53:29 PM
Post 4098 on page 164 has my exit list for the HRP mileage based conversion. The NYC exits are not exact, but I used GSV for the Westchester County mileposts.

As for the Palisades, here is what I have.  For the NY exits, the numbers in parentheses would represent the exit numbers and MP's resetting at the state line.

Exit 1A (SB ONLY): I-95/US 1/US 9 NORTH  GW Bridge/New York City
Exit 1B (SB ONLY): Hudson Terrace
Exit 1C (SB ONLY): US 9W TO I-95 SOUTH/I-80 WEST/ US 1  & 9 SOUTH/US 46 WEST/NJ 4 WEST Fletcher Ave/Fort Lee
Exit 2: CR 505 (Palisade Ave) Englewood/Englewood Cliffs
Exit 7: US 9W Alpine/Closter
Exit 9 (VIA U-TURN NB): US 9W (no controls)
Exit 10: US 9W (no controls)
Exit 13A (Exit 2A): NY 303 NORTH Orangeburg
Exit 13B (Exit 2B): NY 303 SOUTH Tappan
Exit 14A (Exit 3A) CR 20 (Orangeburg Rd) EAST Orangeburg
Exit 14B (Exit 3B): CR 20 (Orangeburg Rd) WEST Pearl River/Montvale
Exit 17 (Exit 6): CR 42 Town Line Rd/Nanuet
Exit 18A (Exit 7A): NY 59 EAST Nyack
Exit 18B (Exit 7B): NY 59 WEST Spring Valley
Exit 19A (Exit 8A): I-87 SOUTH/I-287 EAST (NY Thruway) White Plains (/New York City SB ONLY)
Exit 19B (Exit 8B): I-87 NORTH/I-287 WEST (NY Thruway) Albany
Exit 20 (Exit 9): North Middletown Rd New City/Nanuet
Exit 22 (Exit 11): CR 80 New Hempstead/New City
Exit 24 (Exit 13): NY 45 New Hempstead/Spring Valley
Exit 25 (Exit 14): US 202 (/CR 47 SB ONLY) Haverstraw/Suffern
Exit 27 (Exit 16): CR 98 Willow Grove Rd
Exit 28 (Exit 17): CR 106 Gate Hill Rd/Stony Point
Exit 30 (Exit 19): Lake Welch Parkway SOUTH Lake Welch/Sebago Beach
Exit 33 (Exit 23A): Anthony Wayne Recreation Area
Exit 34 (Exit 23B): US 6 WEST /Seven Lakes Dr WEST TO [Future I-86]/I-87 (NY Thruway) NY 17 Central Valley
Exit 35 (Exit 24): Seven Lakes Dr EAST Perkins Memorial Dr/Bear Mountain SP
END PARKWAY AT TRAFFIC CIRCLE WITH US 9W/US 202
 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: abqtraveler on July 14, 2019, 03:35:49 PM
Any ideas when I-86 will finally be signed between the state line in Waverly to the Tioga/Broome line?  Also, I think it's time to take down the "TO" banners for I-86 around Vestal.

There have been I-86 signs posted along 17 from I-84 through Middletown for years now, but they are still covered up.  Any idea when they will be uncovered?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on July 15, 2019, 03:38:44 PM
Not worth its own thread, so I'll post here: Friday afternoon was an absolute disaster for the entire road network on Rochester's east side, thanks to the closure of the NY 104 ramp between the Irondequoit and the Bay Bridge. A lot of people either didn't realize the Bay Bridge itself was open, or decided to backtrack using Empire or Browncroft, instead of the posted detour using 590 North. The ramp is going to remain closed for about a month, and there's already a dedicated Facebook group - you can tell we're not used to traffic!  :-P

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2019/07/15/bay-bridge-project-route-104-east-ramp-closure-facebook-group-webster-rochester-ny/1733330001/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on July 15, 2019, 04:33:31 PM
Not worth its own thread, so I'll post here: Friday afternoon was an absolute disaster for the entire road network on Rochester's east side, thanks to the closure of the NY 104 ramp between the Irondequoit and the Bay Bridge. A lot of people either didn't realize the Bay Bridge itself was open, or decided to backtrack using Empire or Browncroft, instead of the posted detour using 590 North. The ramp is going to remain closed for about a month, and there's already a dedicated Facebook group - you can tell we're not used to traffic!  :-P

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2019/07/15/bay-bridge-project-route-104-east-ramp-closure-facebook-group-webster-rochester-ny/1733330001/
I encountered that Friday afternoon and used Browncroft/Atlantic mainly because the on ramp to Empire was such a cluster.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on July 16, 2019, 09:09:10 AM
I encountered that Friday afternoon and used Browncroft/Atlantic mainly because the on ramp to Empire was such a cluster.

Yesterday (Monday) was just as bad as Friday. I can only imagine the mid-week days will be worse.

I found out about the closure about a week or so in advance. I had a gut feeling that the impact on Browncroft and Blossom would be monstrous, but I never told anyone, because it seems so absolutely absurd that there would even be any impact. So now, everyone else is wondering what is the deal with all the traffic? I can explain the ramp closure, but making the connection between a closure on 104 and the traffic so much further south is a stretch, even for the most intuitive folks.

It is really a multi-dimensional problem with applications far beyond the area directly affected. I can only say I vastly, vastly, underestimated the volume of traffic crossing the Bay Bridge and heading south to their east side destination. Much of the traffic exiting at Empire is choosing not to head north; instead detouring via Empire or Atlantic, given that their destination may indeed be south of Empire!
Prior to this, I basically assumed that the Bay Bridge, regardless of your origin, was a viable route only for points north of NY 404. I now realize how many people, coming from 104, use it to head south to their Penfield or West Webster destination. With the closure, there is simply not enough capacity on the other routes across Irondequoit Creek to accommodate the additional traffic. Yet, as soon as people start taking the posted detour, 590 North instantly backs up. The single lane ramp to 104, clogged enough on a good day, simply can't handle all 32,000 vehicles headed for the Bay Bridge. So now you have people from 104 East and 590 North (the two peak directions in the afternoon), detouring onto Empire and Browncroft, and, once those back up, also Blossom. Intersections all over the east side that usually function well even at peak times start failing, with disastrous effects.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on July 16, 2019, 06:05:37 PM
I encountered that Friday afternoon and used Browncroft/Atlantic mainly because the on ramp to Empire was such a cluster.

Yesterday (Monday) was just as bad as Friday. I can only imagine the mid-week days will be worse.

I found out about the closure about a week or so in advance. I had a gut feeling that the impact on Browncroft and Blossom would be monstrous, but I never told anyone, because it seems so absolutely absurd that there would even be any impact. So now, everyone else is wondering what is the deal with all the traffic? I can explain the ramp closure, but making the connection between a closure on 104 and the traffic so much further south is a stretch, even for the most intuitive folks.

It is really a multi-dimensional problem with applications far beyond the area directly affected. I can only say I vastly, vastly, underestimated the volume of traffic crossing the Bay Bridge and heading south to their east side destination. Much of the traffic exiting at Empire is choosing not to head north; instead detouring via Empire or Atlantic, given that their destination may indeed be south of Empire!
Prior to this, I basically assumed that the Bay Bridge, regardless of your origin, was a viable route only for points north of NY 404. I now realize how many people, coming from 104, use it to head south to their Penfield or West Webster destination. With the closure, there is simply not enough capacity on the other routes across Irondequoit Creek to accommodate the additional traffic. Yet, as soon as people start taking the posted detour, 590 North instantly backs up. The single lane ramp to 104, clogged enough on a good day, simply can't handle all 32,000 vehicles headed for the Bay Bridge. So now you have people from 104 East and 590 North (the two peak directions in the afternoon), detouring onto Empire and Browncroft, and, once those back up, also Blossom. Intersections all over the east side that usually function well even at peak times start failing, with disastrous effects.
Irondequoit Bay Bridge carries around 67K vehicles per day according to wiki.

I do new home construction so my job requires me to drive all over the place. I often use 104 to access developments and new homes being built off of Five Mile Line, Shoecraft and Jackson Rd (and other North/South roads) in Webster and N. Penfield. This includes East/West roads such as State and Plank Rds. All this is south of NY 404. That's where much of the traffic using the Bay Bridge coming from points west is heading to in the afternoon. Browncroft/Atlantic serves these areas just as well.

EDIT TO ADD: The ramp from NY 590 to 104 east needs to be two lanes and has needed that for years.

Also, I expect already crowded NY 441 is being impacted by this as well with drivers using Five Mile Line Rd. and NY 250 to reach points north.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 16, 2019, 08:18:47 PM
EDIT TO ADD: The ramp from NY 590 to 104 east needs to be two lanes and has needed that for years.
The way it's striped suggests that it was at one time and was removed to eliminate a short merge lane on the left.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on July 16, 2019, 11:21:41 PM
EDIT TO ADD: The ramp from NY 590 to 104 east needs to be two lanes and has needed that for years.
The way it's striped suggests that it was at one time and was removed to eliminate a short merge lane on the left.

Actually, it should be the right lane of the NY 104 ramp that ends, and 590 should contribute two through lanes. Not only would that match westbound, it would create one lane ending on each side, since it's a left lane that ends beyond Bay Rd.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on July 16, 2019, 11:42:55 PM
Irondequoit Bay Bridge carries around 67K vehicles per day according to wiki.

That's 33,500 per direction, so my guess of 32,000 was close - actually a tad low.

Quote
Also, I expect already crowded NY 441 is being impacted by this as well with drivers using Five Mile Line Rd. and NY 250 to reach points north.

Yeah, NY 441 at Five Mile is always bad, including yesterday and today. It didn't seem to be much worse than normal though; it's enough further south, and it doesn't have the good northbound connections like Creek and Scribner, generally making it less practical as a detour. Anyone heading from Irondequoit/Greece to that part of Penfield is already going to be using 590/490/441 - not the Bay Bridge.

Seems to be Empire and Browncroft that are most affected, with the intersection of Browncroft, Blossom, and Creek St. getting the absolute worst of it. Plank and Creek St. was really bad too, but they've obviously retimed it to give Plank more green time (which made Creek back up, but I think that's the lesser of two evils at this point).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 18, 2019, 08:19:12 AM
Anyone remember that in the early-1980's when all the old wooden park signs along the Southern State Parkway were replaced, they replaced them all with overhead Big Brown Signs in Nassau County, and then later on in the decade, they replaced them with Big Green Signs to be MUTCD-compliant? They left the brown signs for Valley Stream State Park behind.

I actually convinced them to do that, because it was an exit for a park.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on July 18, 2019, 10:21:19 AM
I miss the original blue Thruway signs on both the mainline and NE Thruway.  I even remember that US 1 was texted as Route 1 at one interchange in New Rochelle and Exit 14 near Spring Valley was signed as Route 59 up until the late 80's when the NYSTA replaced the signs with the current overhead guides in Rockland County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 18, 2019, 02:47:17 PM
I miss the original blue Thruway signs on both the mainline and NE Thruway.  I even remember that US 1 was texted as Route 1 at one interchange in New Rochelle and Exit 14 near Spring Valley was signed as Route 59 up until the late 80's when the NYSTA replaced the signs with the current overhead guides in Rockland County.

I remember very dark green signs saying "ROUTE 59", and "ROUTE 98 / Batavia" (separate lines) as late as 1987, but I don't remember any of the original 1950s blue signs being up that long.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on July 18, 2019, 03:05:33 PM
News just came out that NYSDOT will be doing some temporary striping this weekend at 590N and 104E to provide 2 lanes on the ramp. Makes sense, considering there's no merging traffic right now with the closed ramp. Honestly, I'm surprised it wasn't done sooner. This will provide massive relief for Empire, Browncroft, and Blossom.

My guess is that about 50% of traffic is using the posted detour now, and that will increase to about 75% with the widened ramp. Because the detour uses both sides of the same highway, anybody detouring via 590 South can clearly see what's happening on 590 North. So if that's backing up, they're going to start considering their alternatives. In short, reducing northbound backups gives drivers the all-clear signal to use that leg of the posted detour, so more are going to start doing so.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 18, 2019, 04:10:00 PM
I miss the original blue Thruway signs on both the mainline and NE Thruway.  I even remember that US 1 was texted as Route 1 at one interchange in New Rochelle and Exit 14 near Spring Valley was signed as Route 59 up until the late 80's when the NYSTA replaced the signs with the current overhead guides in Rockland County.
Care for some old blue Thruway signage from a movie?
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_308513-Plymouth-1957.html

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_308530-Chevrolet-Nomad-1958.html


Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on July 18, 2019, 05:45:14 PM
I remember when the older section of Lake Ontario State Parkway had white on black guide signs made of wood. Some lasted into the 80's.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 18, 2019, 08:54:00 PM
I too miss the old blue Thruway (and Connecticut Turnpike) signs. I've seen that movie that was linked above. I believe that first photo was on the Mainline at the interchange of I-287, the Cross-Westchester Expwy. Note the median island with no barrier protection as originally built. Steel guide rails wouldn't be built there until the late 1960's after many serious crossover crashes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 18, 2019, 11:19:33 PM
I wish I could've found more for you besides those... and from real life too.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on July 19, 2019, 07:03:11 PM
Anyone remember that in the early-1980's when all the old wooden park signs along the Southern State Parkway were replaced, they replaced them all with overhead Big Brown Signs in Nassau County, and then later on in the decade, they replaced them with Big Green Signs to be MUTCD-compliant? They left the brown signs for Valley Stream State Park behind.

I actually convinced them to do that, because it was an exit for a park.

That’s pretty cool, there also brown sign for Belmont lake state park e/b southern state pkwy. All of the overhead signs on Robert Moses Causeway south of the GSB bridge are brown as well recently put up. There use to be a brown sign for e/b heckscher pkwy on w/b sunrise hwy service rd too but has been changed to green when the bridge deck was relaxed couple years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on July 19, 2019, 09:01:59 PM
While looking at roads around Irondequoit after reading the discussion about the NY 104 detour, I came across this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1759508,-77.5261922,3a,75y,288.4h,85.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swgrsoWssji9gSEJsabC_wA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) interesting bridge on NY 404.  The rail on the eastbound side is the original 1960s rail, and the rail on the westbound side is 2000s style rail.  Normally, NYSDOT replaces all old rail with the 2000s style rail, and has been replacing a lot of bridge rails over the past several years.  My best guess is that the new rail is because of the sidewalk on that side of the bridge, but I find it interesting that they only replaced one side.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 21, 2019, 12:20:16 PM
I just discovered this planning map from the 1960s today...

It makes me wonder, is there still a chance of an I-190/NY-400 direct connection?

(https://preview.redd.it/wbppxbopthb31.png?auto=webp&s=45b6c4aa82e37a1a467af8982f207b73cc3f9bf8)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 21, 2019, 02:17:14 PM
Anyone remember that in the early-1980's when all the old wooden park signs along the Southern State Parkway were replaced, they replaced them all with overhead Big Brown Signs in Nassau County, and then later on in the decade, they replaced them with Big Green Signs to be MUTCD-compliant? They left the brown signs for Valley Stream State Park behind.

I actually convinced them to do that, because it was an exit for a park.

That’s pretty cool, there also brown sign for Belmont lake state park e/b southern state pkwy. All of the overhead signs on Robert Moses Causeway south of the GSB bridge are brown as well recently put up. There use to be a brown sign for e/b heckscher pkwy on w/b sunrise hwy service rd too but has been changed to green when the bridge deck was relaxed couple years ago.
Those were later additions, but they need more of them in the vicinity of Belmont Lake State Park. I also remember recommending them in that area. In fact, I think they should have them for Hempstead Lake State Park as well, or at least a split brown and green one for that. If I recall, there was an old proposal to upgrade the interchange at Exit 18 with some ramps for Eagle Avenue and other strictly for the park. Had this been built, separately colored signs would've been a good idea there instead.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 22, 2019, 02:27:30 AM
I just discovered this planning map from the 1960s today...

It makes me wonder, is there still a chance of an I-190/NY-400 direct connection?


Is there a reason? Getting to I-190 from 400 is really quick on 90. It makes no difference and would be incredibly redundant. Yes, that stretch of 16 can be slow. Incredibly slow at times.

Also, this would involve demolishing houses, Tim Russert Park and an active freight line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on July 22, 2019, 11:16:30 AM
I just discovered this planning map from the 1960s today...
It makes me wonder, is there still a chance of an I-190/NY-400 direct connection?
Is there a reason? Getting to I-190 from 400 is really quick on 90. It makes no difference and would be incredibly redundant. Yes, that stretch of 16 can be slow. Incredibly slow at times.
Also, this would involve demolishing houses, Tim Russert Park and an active freight line.

I agree; of all the cases of driving two sides of a triangle, I have never been annoyed by that one in particular. It's already an all-freeway connection, and that stretch of I-90 has 8 lanes.

I imagine the connector was supposed to create a situation like I-270 at the Beltway in DC, where the connections between I-190 and I-90 would have been split between the 2 points. The current ramps between I-190 and the Thruway to and from the west would be eliminated in favor of those connections being available at Exit 54. Basically, Exit 54 would become a full four-direction interchange, while Exit 53 would be scaled back to a half-interchange with just 2 ramps. That's not to say it's needed; just fantasizing as to what the intention was.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on July 22, 2019, 02:04:37 PM
I wonder if the "Legislated Expressways" that weren't built still have that authorization? Or were they removed officially from statute? I don't think we'll see any of them, just curious.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on July 25, 2019, 10:52:07 PM
News just came out that NYSDOT will be doing some temporary striping this weekend at 590N and 104E to provide 2 lanes on the ramp. Makes sense, considering there's no merging traffic right now with the closed ramp. Honestly, I'm surprised it wasn't done sooner.

As of today, the VMS on NY 590 northbound at Exit 7 reads "TRAFFIC CONGESTION NEXT 3 MILES / EXPECT DELAYS".

To be honest, I have never seen such a poorly executed road closure / detour by NYSDOT. They made a number of signal modifications after the original setup turned out to be a disaster, then restriped the NY 590 N to NY 104 E ramp to provide two lanes, and since that hasn't improved the northbound backups, they have now resorted to simply acknowledging the mess and telling motorists to deal with it. Yikes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 26, 2019, 01:16:44 PM
Yeah, I was scratching my head when it was announced, especially with the Driver's First initiative.  They say that they can't safely do the project without a full closure, but I've been wondering if it could have been done by having a single, narrow lane with no shoulders and a jersey barrier.  The narrow lane might be narrow enough to still require a truck detour, and they would probably still need weekend closures, and the project would probably take a year instead of a month, but it seems like that wouldn't have had the same traffic impacts as what we're seeing now.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on July 26, 2019, 07:37:47 PM
Even a single lane between noon and 8 PM might have been feasible, and would have significantly reduced backups on 590 North and the other routes across Irondequoit Creek.

I heard today that they are studying the option of making the 590NB to 104EB ramp two lanes permanently. I hope it happens, as the discrepancy vs. the WB to SB ramp has always been irksome to me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 27, 2019, 09:24:31 PM
Welp... that didn't take long.  The new Exit 58 gore sign on I-84 westbound has been taken out.

Barely a month?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 29, 2019, 06:35:53 PM
Welp... that didn't take long.  The new Exit 58 gore sign on I-84 westbound has been taken out.

Barely a month?
You don't think it was targeted, do you? Or was it just another drunk, stoned, or distracted driver that plowed into it?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: abqtraveler on August 01, 2019, 07:39:43 PM
Welp... that didn't take long.  The new Exit 58 gore sign on I-84 westbound has been taken out.

Barely a month?
You don't think it was targeted, do you? Or was it just another drunk, stoned, or distracted driver that plowed into it?

Probably a stereotypical East Coast motorist who has no clue on how to drive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on August 02, 2019, 11:46:07 AM
Welp... that didn't take long.  The new Exit 58 gore sign on I-84 westbound has been taken out.

Barely a month?

When it was still Exit 17, the gore sign went missing for a few weeks, then it was replaced with an Exit sign with "17" patched onto where the number was supposed to go. Lime Kiln Road (new Exit 50) and US 9 (new Exit 46 AB) are now installed. The Exit 50 sign says CR 27/Lime Kiln Rd/iPark Blvd
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on August 05, 2019, 08:01:32 AM
Welp... that didn't take long.  The new Exit 58 gore sign on I-84 westbound has been taken out.

Barely a month?
You don't think it was targeted, do you? Or was it just another drunk, stoned, or distracted driver that plowed into it?

Would not surprise me....  if it was the winter I would bet it was someone who lost control because of the conditions.

Targeted?  No.  The sign was twisted around.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 08, 2019, 09:40:45 PM
Googlemaps show the removal of the WB NY 17 ramp from NY 32 SB in Woodbury, NY.  For traffic heading west from NY 32 now has another ramp at US 6.  Is that a permanent thing, or is that a temporary ramp during the NY 17 & 32 Bridge replacement?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 09, 2019, 12:21:39 AM
Googlemaps show the removal of the WB NY 17 ramp from NY 32 SB in Woodbury, NY.  For traffic heading west from NY 32 now has another ramp at US 6.  Is that a permanent thing, or is that a temporary ramp during the NY 17 & 32 Bridge replacement?
everything is temporary right now
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 09, 2019, 09:21:02 PM
I believe the final configuration will be a DDI.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 09, 2019, 11:15:56 PM
Correct https://www.exit131ny.com/#!  It will indeed be one slated for the Fall to be completed.

Also this bridge will conform to the interstate standards that NY 17 must conform to in order for I-86 to be implemented here.   The web link above says that NY 17 will be lowered 4 feet in order to increase the overhead clearance needed to be at minimum height for an interstate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 13, 2019, 11:29:01 AM
Boy, a DDI and two new roundabouts? Gonna be a lot of confused drivers in that area!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 13, 2019, 12:58:18 PM
Considering that in nearby NJ they have been getting rid of them (or they were in the 1990's anyway) and now they want to make the same mistakes as their neighbor did.

Heck if Florida did not learn what over developing did from New Jersey's mistake, why cannot New York either from other mistakes like this. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 13, 2019, 01:04:58 PM
Considering that in nearby NJ they have been getting rid of them (or they were in the 1990's anyway) and now they want to make the same mistakes as their neighbor did.

Heck if Florida did not learn what over developing did from New Jersey's mistake, why cannot New York either from other mistakes like this. 
A modern roundabout and an old-style NJ traffic circle are two completely different things.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 13, 2019, 01:26:44 PM
Boy, a DDI and two new roundabouts? Gonna be a lot of confused drivers in that area!

Reading and comprehending signs and other markings should not be an exception to standard motorist behavior.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 13, 2019, 01:51:10 PM
Boy, a DDI and two new roundabouts? Gonna be a lot of confused drivers in that area!

Reading and comprehending signs and other markings should not be an exception to standard motorist behavior.
Yeah, as engineers unlearn how to design, users have to put more effort into compensating for deficiencies..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 13, 2019, 09:02:56 PM
Vdeane, I recall that there are technical differences between an old-style traffic-circle and a roundabout. Could you briefly summarize the differences in layman's terms?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 13, 2019, 10:13:50 PM
A circle is a circle no matter how big the circumference is.  Yes its my opinion, but so is it varying from state to state. In Massachusetts a NJ circle is a Rotary.  Anyway, they function the same regardless as they bring a bunch of roads together around a circle.  In NJ they caused accidents hence why they were considered being removed.   

Yes I know what you mean as basically a roundabout is a small island in the middle of an intersection where a circle is wide across the diameter and the road around constitutes a roadway itself.

Just so you know where US 9W and US 6 meet at Bear Mountain its a circle by NJ standards but whoever wrote about it in Wikipedia calls it a roundabout.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 14, 2019, 09:49:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65
In Massachusetts a NJ circle is a Rotary.  Anyway, they function the same regardless as they bring a bunch of roads together around a circle.

No they don't.  In Massachusetts, *ALL* rotaries have traffic entering the circle yielding to traffic already in the circle, much as is the case for a roundabout.  Several of the New Jersey circles give right-of-way to the entering traffic instead....Flemington and Somerville being two examples.  This results in VERY DIFFERENT operational functions.  And it isn't the first time you've been told this on this forum.

To SignBridge:  roundabouts are designed with a smaller radii than traffic circles and flared entrances to reduce right-of-way requirements and reduce entering speeds (and thus reduce crash severity).  As I noted above, traffic already inside the roundabout has right-of-way over entering traffic, while the opposite is true of many New Jersey circles.  Roundabouts also don't have traffic signals, while many traffic circles (especially in D.C.) do.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 14, 2019, 10:21:44 AM
Quote from: roadman65
In Massachusetts a NJ circle is a Rotary.  Anyway, they function the same regardless as they bring a bunch of roads together around a circle.

No they don't.  In Massachusetts, *ALL* rotaries have traffic entering the circle yielding to traffic already in the circle, much as is the case for a roundabout.  Several of the New Jersey circles give right-of-way to the entering traffic instead....Flemington and Somerville being two examples.  This results in VERY DIFFERENT operational functions.  And it isn't the first time you've been told this on this forum.

To SignBridge:  roundabouts are designed with a smaller radii than traffic circles and flared entrances to reduce right-of-way requirements and reduce entering speeds (and thus reduce crash severity).  As I noted above, traffic already inside the roundabout has right-of-way over entering traffic, while the opposite is true of many New Jersey circles.  Roundabouts also don't have traffic signals, while many traffic circles (especially in D.C.) do.
You may add lane design, where at certain exits of roundabout outer lane is an exit-only lane, making inner lane  an outer one. So exit from inner lane is not an issue. Lane designation for certain exits and especially communicating that information to drivers is a weak point of many roundabouts, though 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 14, 2019, 10:55:44 PM
Boy, a DDI and two new roundabouts? Gonna be a lot of confused drivers in that area!

Reading and comprehending signs and other markings should not be an exception to standard motorist behavior.

And a plethora of news articles every time a new one goes in. However, lest the specifics detract from my underlying point, I'll offer a revision of your response:

Quote

Reading and comprehending signs and other markings should not be an exception to standard motorist behavior.

Or to put it another way: having once (or twice, or a zillion times) been given a piece of information, to what extent should we be reasonably expected to have, comprehend and retain that information?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 14, 2019, 11:50:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65
In Massachusetts a NJ circle is a Rotary.  Anyway, they function the same regardless as they bring a bunch of roads together around a circle.

No they don't.  In Massachusetts, *ALL* rotaries have traffic entering the circle yielding to traffic already in the circle, much as is the case for a roundabout.  Several of the New Jersey circles give right-of-way to the entering traffic instead....Flemington and Somerville being two examples.  This results in VERY DIFFERENT operational functions.  And it isn't the first time you've been told this on this forum.

To SignBridge:  roundabouts are designed with a smaller radii than traffic circles and flared entrances to reduce right-of-way requirements and reduce entering speeds (and thus reduce crash severity).  As I noted above, traffic already inside the roundabout has right-of-way over entering traffic, while the opposite is true of many New Jersey circles.  Roundabouts also don't have traffic signals, while many traffic circles (especially in D.C.) do.

Who cares the technical terms.  They exist!  This is not an exam at MIT where we must know the technical term.  It's like  Chef and a Kitchen Manager in a Restaurant are both the same function, though one went to school and receives not only the title but the respect to have him addressed as "Chef" and not by name.  Yet both manage a kitchen staff.

I lived in NJ and we call them circles even though the Pole Tavern one is more of roundabout then a circle.  When I took my drivers ed in high school, the NJ circle by default had the traffic entering the circle yield to those inside it.  Now I see yield signs in many places inside the circle giving the traffic entering the right away.  Like Jeff once said, since I left a lot of traffic laws changed since then ( I am out of NJ for 29 years now)so what I saw then is not the case now.

What is in a name?  Yes non road geeks do not count here but long as we call what we see and not call a bridge a tunnel or so forth.  However, circles and roundabouts may be different technically they both act pretty much the same.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 15, 2019, 12:27:44 AM

No they don't.  In Massachusetts, *ALL* rotaries have traffic entering the circle yielding to traffic already in the circle, much as is the case for a roundabout.

Errr... no, not even close to ALL. There are several smaller rotaries, off the state highway system, where there is basically a free-for-all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on August 15, 2019, 01:09:20 AM
Vdeane, I recall that there are technical differences between an old-style traffic circle and a roundabout. Could you briefly summarize the differences in layman's terms?

These days, practitioners use traffic circle as a general term for circular intersections that do not have yield on entry, roundabout being reserved for those that do.

The AASHO Blue Book (forerunner to the current Green Book) used to lay out criteria for circular intersections called rotaries.  These had large-diameter central islands because the expectation was that entering traffic would merge at relatively high speed.  Whether there was a priority rule was a legal matter for the jurisdiction involved, and yield on entry was not considered an essential feature of the design.

Research later carried out in the UK and Australia showed it was more efficient to have smaller central islands with a yield-on-entry rule.  Current-generation roundabouts in the US are of this type.

Most of the Northeastern traffic circles/rotaries are closer in design to the traditional AASHO rotary.  Some have been retrofitted with a yield-on-entry rule; the original roundabout research from the UK showed this improved operational efficiency even with large central islands.

Just to make sure everything is clear as mud, traffic circle and roundabout themselves have passed into laymen's language and are not necessarily used in the sense intended by practitioners.  In the UK, for example, the word roundabout (originally invented in the 1920's by an American working for the BBC) is applied to circular intersections regardless of whether yield on entry applies (some have a different priority rule for site-specific reasons).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 15, 2019, 06:39:50 AM

No they don't.  In Massachusetts, *ALL* rotaries have traffic entering the circle yielding to traffic already in the circle, much as is the case for a roundabout.

Errr... no, not even close to ALL. There are several smaller rotaries, off the state highway system, where there is basically a free-for-all.
Where?  The smaller rotaries I can think of still expect entering drivers to yield.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 15, 2019, 08:42:04 AM
Steve, please cite examples so that we can notify the proper authorities, since Title 14, Chapter 89, Section 8 (https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titlexiv/chapter89/section8) of Massachusetts state law states that Any operator of a vehicle entering a rotary intersection shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle already in the intersection.


To roadman65:  technicality has nothing to do with it.  It's how they operate and how the law is written.  Perhaps in your area of New Jersey, traffic entering the traffic circle yielded, but I know from my own experience over the past 2 decades that there are several traffic circles in Jersey where that is not the case.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 15, 2019, 09:02:08 AM
Boy, a DDI and two new roundabouts? Gonna be a lot of confused drivers in that area!

Reading and comprehending signs and other markings should not be an exception to standard motorist behavior.

And a plethora of news articles every time a new one goes in. However, lest the specifics detract from my underlying point, I'll offer a revision of your response:

Quote

Reading and comprehending signs and other markings should not be an exception to standard motorist behavior.

Or to put it another way: having once (or twice, or a zillion times) been given a piece of information, to what extent should we be reasonably expected to have, comprehend and retain that information?
An interesting question about reading and comprehending.
Twice a year  I have to adjust some clocks - I assume you also have to. Some of my clocks (computers, phones) do that on their own. Some require pressing a few buttons. There is one clock where you have to know the trick (press unlock button 5 times)- which I happen to remember after doing it once
Up until lately, I had a clock (on the mp3 player in a car) where I had to find an appropriate section in the manual to adjust - EVERY SINGLE TIME. Even then, it wasn't an easy task.  You may say that it is me being an idiot, who has problems here - but I tend to blame that design.
Same with the road design. Lots of things are intuitive. Most speed limits are intuitive. Traffic lights, once learned, are pretty much intuitive. Problems occur when bad designs (even with best intentions) come into play - FYA (which requires reading about it once, as it is against the basic flashing yellow concept - but within the limits) or HAWK, where nobody exactly sure what those mean, or lane reduction with plenty of legal contradiction.
Some designs just tend to bring the mess to the extreme...  Designing things to be intuitive requires a lot of effort - something lacking in certain places...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 15, 2019, 09:05:46 PM
I don't find such things to be unintuitive at all.  Proper pavement markings (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6457273,-73.8518233,3a,75y,230.88h,94.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smYfjlI2NXZtY1bxIDPJSIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) go a long way (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.106734,-77.5762945,3a,75y,353.56h,71.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-dR1uj3F4xFi-QNgvyg5yg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-dR1uj3F4xFi-QNgvyg5yg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D154.60045%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).  In these examples, the roundabout lane assignment is just like a turning lane, and going the wrong way through the DDI would be a clear right turn.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 16, 2019, 01:23:14 AM

No they don't.  In Massachusetts, *ALL* rotaries have traffic entering the circle yielding to traffic already in the circle, much as is the case for a roundabout.

Errr... no, not even close to ALL. There are several smaller rotaries, off the state highway system, where there is basically a free-for-all.
Where?  The smaller rotaries I can think of still expect entering drivers to yield.
Maybe you expect it, but the signs tend to go missing. Now, is this veering off topic?
https://goo.gl/maps/6JwCGjsAJYRDEZ9dA - functions as an elongated rotary
https://goo.gl/maps/HQ6viZcxM8ntVNum8 - there's a yield sign there NOW, but in 2007 and earlier...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 16, 2019, 10:20:03 AM
I don't find such things to be unintuitive at all.  Proper pavement markings (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6457273,-73.8518233,3a,75y,230.88h,94.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smYfjlI2NXZtY1bxIDPJSIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) go a long way (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.106734,-77.5762945,3a,75y,353.56h,71.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-dR1uj3F4xFi-QNgvyg5yg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-dR1uj3F4xFi-QNgvyg5yg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D154.60045%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).  In these examples, the roundabout lane assignment is just like a turning lane, and going the wrong way through the DDI would be a clear right turn.
Intuitive is an antithesis to "proper marking".  And yes, they go a long way:  https://imgur.com/a/15r4ynE  (https://imgur.com/a/15r4ynE) - actually on that particular circle I see cars going wrong way on the circle - a head-on approach happens to me approximately every other year. Either I am pretty lucky, or that should  happen a few times a week at that location.
Proper pavement marks can get worn out or covered with snow. THink about multilane roads maintaining most of their functionality in those cases - this is what I mean by intuitive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 16, 2019, 10:46:58 AM
Tappan Zee Bridge signs being patched:

https://hosted.ap.org/republicanherald/article/8c6b66e40c6a4c8f8d9f742153bb115e/ny-fixing-new-bridge-signs-due-ex-govs-missing-initial (https://hosted.ap.org/republicanherald/article/8c6b66e40c6a4c8f8d9f742153bb115e/ny-fixing-new-bridge-signs-due-ex-govs-missing-initial)

Edit: replaced with a link to the full AP version of the article.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 16, 2019, 10:50:27 AM
Tappan Zee Bridge signs being patched:

https://hosted.ap.org/republicanherald/article/8c6b66e40c6a4c8f8d9f742153bb115e/ny-fixing-new-bridge-signs-due-ex-govs-missing-initial (https://hosted.ap.org/republicanherald/article/8c6b66e40c6a4c8f8d9f742153bb115e/ny-fixing-new-bridge-signs-due-ex-govs-missing-initial)

Edit: replaced with a link to the full AP version of the article.
When I saw the title for the first time, I thought they are patching " Gov. Cuomo bridge" to "Gov. M. Cuomo bridge"
Not that would be fun.
 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hbelkins on August 16, 2019, 02:29:08 PM
It's good to know that New York has all its potholes patched and can afford to grant Gov. Cuomo his little ego trip. Of all the things to get worked up over, the missing middle initial is hardly worthy of consideration.


[SA: Edited out political slur]
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 16, 2019, 03:20:08 PM
Who cares the technical terms[?]

Presumably, the member who expressly asked for them to be explained.

That said, they are indeed irrelevant to my point, which you were originally responding to, and which could apply to any Thing of which a person has repeatedly been made aware, and yet remains unaware.

Problems occur when bad designs (even with best intentions) come into play[…]

Perhaps they do, but they are not the problem I'm thinking of.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on August 17, 2019, 05:56:37 PM
A few nights ago, I noticed that 511ny.org now has live video feeds on the traffic cameras!  The video is a bit grainy, but it's not too bad.  When I was at a Super Bowl party this past February, I thought I'd try to find traffic cameras in Atlanta.  Their traffic cameras were 720p HD streams, and I was really impressed!  I hope NY upgrades someday.



Another thing I found a few nights ago was that there will be a ramp built from the State Fairgrounds Orange Lot to I-690 eastbound.  When I first read the project page (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=350652) several months ago (maybe even last year), I only saw that there would be a new pedestrian bridge.  Looking at the plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263767) shows a new ramp that will merge between I-690 and the current NY 695 northbound ramp.  I'm not a fan of the design since the right lane of NY 695 will merge into the left lane, and that lane will become the exit lane for NY 297.  The new ramp will become an added lane on I-690 instead of the current left lane on NY 695.  After thinking about it a bit more, I thought maybe it wouldn't be an issue after all since a lot of traffic would be exiting onto NY 297 during the state fair anyway.  I drove into Syracuse using NY 695 yesterday afternoon during rush hour, and I think my initial thought was correct.  Traffic was pretty heavy without the additional traffic the state fair will bring, and I thought I wasn't going to be able to change lanes and be forced to exit onto NY 297, but I found a gap.  I was able to see some grading for the new ramp, and it looked like at least the southern abutment for the bridge over I-690 has been built, but it was hard to see around the bridge for the I-690 westbound to NY 695 southbound ramp.



Last night, I found a video on the r/syracuse subreddit (https://old.reddit.com/r/Syracuse/comments/crg3zx/the_thruway_and_syracuse_tomorrow_1951/) from the Thruway Authority about its construction in the Syracuse area:

Here's a few things I noticed in the video:
5:24: The lock at Port Byron, along with construction in the area
8:11: The US 11 bridge over the Thruway
8:40: A model of a depressed freeway along the current Erie Blvd
9:32: Old signs for NY 5, NY 20SY, and NY 57 (This has to be a ways from NY 57 since it only went to Wolf St at the current end of NY 370)
9:55: Aerial and ground-level shots of the Thruway by what's now Lockheed Martin
10:13: "broad arterial thoroughfares" such as Electronics Parkway were part of the Thruway plans
10:26: "improving arterial thoroughfares" such as Erie Blvd was part of the Thruway plans
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 17, 2019, 09:55:08 PM
*drools*

A living NY 20SY shield in any source.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 03:30:39 PM
It's good to know that New York has all its potholes patched and can afford to grant Gov. Cuomo his little ego trip. Of all the things to get worked up over, the missing middle initial is hardly worthy of consideration.
During my recent trip to New England last week; I already saw at least two overhead BGS' that now have the initial.  One of them replaced an older sign listing Tappan Zee Bridge along I-287 westbound approaching the merge w/the Thruway/I-87.  Note: As of this past Friday (Aug. 16), only the left BGS was replaced. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0594155,-73.827602,3a,75y,267.09h,84.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syf9i6lSGwPl16XXO9hzi6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on August 20, 2019, 05:00:48 PM
It's good to know that New York has all its potholes patched and can afford to grant Gov. Cuomo his little ego trip. Of all the things to get worked up over, the missing middle initial is hardly worthy of consideration.
During my recent trip to New England last week; I already saw at least two overhead BGS' that now have the initial.  One of them replaced an older sign listing Tappan Zee Bridge along I-287 westbound approaching the merge w/the Thruway/I-87.  Note: As of this past Friday (Aug. 16), only the left BGS was replaced. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0594155,-73.827602,3a,75y,267.09h,84.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syf9i6lSGwPl16XXO9hzi6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

There is one surviving, conspicuous TZB sign in Westchester but I'm almost afraid to reveal where it is haha.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 20, 2019, 06:13:41 PM
Good Golly, NYTA forgot the initial. :poke:

Back on track, who ever referred to Mario as Mario M?   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 20, 2019, 07:41:08 PM
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design

I chose plate 1 because it's simple.

Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on August 20, 2019, 07:42:47 PM
The I-84 exit numbers are now all mileage based east of the Hudson.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 20, 2019, 08:45:13 PM
The I-84 exit numbers are now all mileage based east of the Hudson.
  Wow!  That is a big step now that all that is started.  Who would ever think that NY would go mileage.  I mean I-99 is, but only a short distance and so new, but an existing highway to be renumbered.  Wonder what one will be the next?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: odditude on August 20, 2019, 09:24:04 PM
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design

I chose plate 1 because it's simple.

Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.

my vote would be for plate 1 using plate 5's "NEW YORK" and "EXCELSIOR" text design.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 20, 2019, 09:45:32 PM
Plate 5 all the way, particularly because they plan on replacing the Blue and White Empire plates with them. The past 2 designs were simple and timeless, but the 1986 Liberty plates are still the best.

I don't know why New York has such an obsession with re-plates. NJ has plenty of plates that are older than 2002 (NY's last forced re-plate) on the road still.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 20, 2019, 10:13:31 PM
I don't understand why they're changing from the current "new" plate, the blue and orange. Why not just standardize that design instead of always having at least two different color plates for the same state?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 20, 2019, 10:14:53 PM
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design

I chose plate 1 because it's simple.

Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.
I choose neither, because they're all too white.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 20, 2019, 10:20:54 PM
The I-84 exit numbers are now all mileage based east of the Hudson.
  Wow!  That is a big step now that all that is started.  Who would ever think that NY would go mileage.  I mean I-99 is, but only a short distance and so new, but an existing highway to be renumbered.  Wonder what one will be the next?

I’m pretty sure I-81 will be the next of the 2dis to be renumbered in New York, regardless of what they do with the viaduct in Syracuse it’s going to require a reconfiguration and engineers in R3 have always said that’s when they’ll renumber the interchanges for the entire length of the route. Coordination between the other two involved regions has already been discussed.

I’m surprised I-88 hasn’t been renumbered. Aside from two interchanges, it’s entirely in the Binghamton Region and there’s not that many interchanges to begin with.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 20, 2019, 11:39:17 PM
For 3di's, I-684 would seem to be a logical choice for conversion sooner than later.  Seeing that its parent is being converted and the nearby Taconic just received mileage based numbers, plus it has exits that are spread out enough that you wouldn't have much of an alphabet city except at the endpoints, it wouldn't be that hard to do. You'd have:

Exit 1 (NB): Manhattanville Rd
Exit 1 A-B (SB): I-287 East/West
Exit 1C (SB): Hutch Parkway SOUTH
Exit 4: NY 120
Exit 7 (A-B NB): NY 22
Exit 12: NY 172
Exit 17 (SB ONLY): Saw Mill Pkwy SOUTH
Exit 18: NY 35
Exit 20 (NB ONLY): NY 22 TO NY 138
Exit 22 (NB ONLY): NY 116 TO NY 22
Exit 24: Hardscrabble Rd
Exit 28 A-B: I-84 East/West
Exit 28C: US 6/202/NY 22 SOUTH

If the 287 exits are unnumbered, the Hutch becomes Exit 1
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 21, 2019, 12:51:00 AM
Just so you know where US 9W and US 6 meet at Bear Mountain its a circle by NJ standards but whoever wrote about it in Wikipedia calls it a roundabout.
Because on Wikipedia, they forced the name "roundabout" on all of them.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on August 21, 2019, 08:19:59 AM
I don't know why New York has such an obsession with re-plates. NJ has plenty of plates that are older than 2002 (NY's last forced re-plate) on the road still.

$$$$$$$$$

Also number 5 for me. It's the only one whose design reflects all of New York State, not just NYC.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SectorZ on August 21, 2019, 08:26:54 AM
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design

I chose plate 1 because it's simple.

Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.

my vote would be for plate 1 using plate 5's "NEW YORK" and "EXCELSIOR" text design.

I see the state's egomaniac-in-chief had to get "Dad's Bridge" on one of the designs?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 21, 2019, 08:47:12 AM
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design

I chose plate 1 because it's simple.

Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.

my vote would be for plate 1 using plate 5's "NEW YORK" and "EXCELSIOR" text design.

I see the state's egomaniac-in-chief had to get "Dad's Bridge" on one of the designs?
On the winning design, which will be selected based on public opinion and expert reviews.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: signalman on August 21, 2019, 09:40:31 AM
Plate 5 all the way, particularly because they plan on replacing the Blue and White Empire plates with them. The past 2 designs were simple and timeless, but the 1986 Liberty plates are still the best.

I don't know why New York has such an obsession with re-plates. NJ has plenty of plates that are older than 2002 (NY's last forced re-plate) on the road still.
Currently NJ plates issued as far back as 1959 are still valid so long as the registration never lapsed. Old straw plates (issued 1959-1979) are still kicking around. Less and less all the time for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 21, 2019, 01:18:02 PM
I don't understand why they're changing from the current "new" plate, the blue and orange. Why not just standardize that design instead of always having at least two different color plates for the same state?
The original intent for the Empire Gold plates WAS to replace the Empire Blue plates in their entirety, as a way to raise money during the Great Recession.  Massive public backlash resulted in the plan being scrapped (not only did people object to paying the fees, the design was hated).  However, the plates had already been manufactured by then, so they were used for new plates going forward.  I'm guessing the contest and only forcing plate changes on 10+ year old plates are ways of trying to avoid that backlash.

As for why we're changing, making it easier to read plates on toll gantries seems to be a major motivation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 21, 2019, 01:54:41 PM
Let's just name it the Mario Tappan Cuomo Zee Oh Look At The Pretty Hudson River Bridge and call it a day!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on August 21, 2019, 02:37:04 PM
As for why we're changing, making it easier to read plates on toll gantries seems to be a major motivation.

Gov. Cuomo supposedly said as much, in announcing the "contest."  He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 21, 2019, 05:32:36 PM
Let's just name it the Mario Tappan Cuomo Zee Oh Look At The Pretty Hudson River Bridge and call it a day!
What's in a name?  You think many call Washington National Airport as Reagan National?  Does anyone call the RFK Bridge by that name?  Is the Hugh Carey Tunnel yet called by its latest name?

How many still call Denali, Mount McKinley? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 21, 2019, 05:59:33 PM
As for why we're changing, making it easier to read plates on toll gantries seems to be a major motivation.

Gov. Cuomo supposedly said as much, in announcing the "contest."  He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.
Looks like a detail is coming up - plates older than 10 years are to be replaced. Which is somewhat meaningful, as 10 years take toll on plates. My set is almost 12, if I remember correctly, and they start to show the age. Saying that worn out plates are not read properly is almost reasonable.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on August 21, 2019, 06:02:35 PM
As for why we're changing, making it easier to read plates on toll gantries seems to be a major motivation.

Gov. Cuomo supposedly said as much, in announcing the "contest."  He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.
Looks like a detail is coming up - plates older than 10 years are to be replaced. Which is somewhat meaningful, as 10 years take toll on plates. My set is almost 12, if I remember correctly, and they start to show the age. Saying that worn out plates are not read properly is almost reasonable.

Green Massachusetts plates (30 years!) are still legible.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 21, 2019, 06:10:24 PM
As for why we're changing, making it easier to read plates on toll gantries seems to be a major motivation.

Gov. Cuomo supposedly said as much, in announcing the "contest."  He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.
Looks like a detail is coming up - plates older than 10 years are to be replaced. Which is somewhat meaningful, as 10 years take toll on plates. My set is almost 12, if I remember correctly, and they start to show the age. Saying that worn out plates are not read properly is almost reasonable.

Green Massachusetts plates (30 years!) are still legible.
I looked around the parking lot this morning. There are still some A**-**** plates on the lot, and those were issued during first half mandatory replacement, i.e.  in 2001-early 2002. They are still readable, but definitely show the age.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on August 21, 2019, 06:17:43 PM
A**-****

You don't have to censor yourself.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 21, 2019, 07:23:29 PM
Let's just name it the Mario Tappan Cuomo Zee Oh Look At The Pretty Hudson River Bridge and call it a day!
What's in a name?  You think many call Washington National Airport as Reagan National?  Does anyone call the RFK Bridge by that name?  Is the Hugh Carey Tunnel yet called by its latest name?

How many still call Denali, Mount McKinley?

Probably a few that still call JFK Idlewild. And how many people call the 59th Street bridge by its official full name?  And of course, there’s the whole 128 thing in MA.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 21, 2019, 07:57:58 PM
A**-****
You don't have to censor yourself.

Ha. It actually happens to be a perfect match for a-hole, but he meant plates in the A- series.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 21, 2019, 08:03:56 PM
Let's just name it the Mario Tappan Cuomo Zee Oh Look At The Pretty Hudson River Bridge and call it a day!
What's in a name?  You think many call Washington National Airport as Reagan National?  Does anyone call the RFK Bridge by that name?  Is the Hugh Carey Tunnel yet called by its latest name?
How many still call Denali, Mount McKinley?
Probably a few that still call JFK Idlewild. And how many people call the 59th Street bridge by its official full name?  And of course, there’s the whole 128 thing in MA.
I am old enough to remember it being called Idlewild.  Seriously, do you thing anyone still calls it that?

I am fine with the Reagan name, but I still call it Washington National Airport or just National Airport, as do a lot of other people.

Denali, Mount McKinley?  Unofficial, never approved by Congress.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on August 21, 2019, 08:13:44 PM
[
 He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.

Really? Because easier recognition was the reason they gave for going to the Empire Gold in the first place.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 21, 2019, 09:09:28 PM
[
 He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.

Really? Because easier recognition was the reason they gave for going to the Empire Gold in the first place.
The transition to Empire Gold did not involve a mandatory replacement.  Even now, close to 10 years after Empire Gold became our plate design, there are still a large number of vehicles with the older Empire Blue plates.  Note that the Empire Gold design was unpopular and NY allows people to hang onto plates when they change vehicles, so many people have done just that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 21, 2019, 09:16:43 PM
Why is the Empire Gold plate not popular? I think it looks fine. And which plates are the ones not being read properly by toll cameras? The gold or the older blue/white plates?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 21, 2019, 09:21:30 PM
Why is the Empire Gold plate not popular? I think it looks fine. And which plates are the ones not being read properly by toll cameras? The gold or the older blue/white plates?
Empire Blue is more aesthetically pleasing than Empire Gold.
https://patch.com/new-york/harrison/not-everyone-happy-with-new-nys-license-plates
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 21, 2019, 09:31:14 PM
Well I'm glad that's all the public has to worry about. Interestingly, in neighboring New Jersey, they have had the same dull looking beige license plates with black lettering since at least the 1960's if not longer. Though it does look to be a slightly brighter shade in recent years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 21, 2019, 09:34:17 PM
A**-****
You don't have to censor yourself.

Ha. It actually happens to be a perfect match for a-hole, but he meant plates in the A- series.

Kramer had the best plate in the A series.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2019, 09:35:44 PM
Well I'm glad that's all the public has to worry about. Interestingly, in neighboring New Jersey, they have had the same dull looking beige license plates with black lettering since at least the 1960's if not longer. Though it does look to be a slightly brighter shade in recent years.

Wrong on all acounts.

There was a blue plate for many years between the original beige plate and the current yellow plate. The current plate has been in existence for over 25 years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 21, 2019, 10:06:12 PM
Thanks J&N. I had completely forgotten about the blue plates. Do you remember what years they were used? And yes I guess the new plate is a light-yellow as compared to the original beige. But still a very no-frills design compared to New York's various plates over the years. (chuckle)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 21, 2019, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway
Denali, Mount McKinley?  Unofficial, never approved by Congress.

Doesn't need to be approved by Congress.  The Board of Geographic Names has that authority and, barring any action by the Board, the Secretary of the Interior also has authority.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 21, 2019, 10:21:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway
Denali, Mount McKinley?  Unofficial, never approved by Congress.
Doesn't need to be approved by Congress.  The Board of Geographic Names has that authority and, barring any action by the Board, the Secretary of the Interior also has authority.
Not.  They did an end run around the legitimate process.

Name-change efforts led by Alaskan politicians continued to be thwarted by Congress until President 0bama and Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell took action in 2015 to restore the name Denali to the mountain.   Jewell cited a 1947 law that empowers the Secretary of Interior to use authority when the USBGN “does not act within a reasonable time”  (yeah sure uh-huh) as a justification to make the change.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 21, 2019, 10:22:49 PM
The legitimate process still does not require Congressional approval.

Meanwhile, if that's what Alaskans want to name it (a state, mind you, that has generally voted the same as your party), let them.  Would you want Alaskans to rename Richmond to something else?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 21, 2019, 10:24:03 PM
The legitimate process still does not require Congressional approval.

It was an illegitimate way to change the name of a nationally known location.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 21, 2019, 11:27:52 PM
I’m surprised about the 10 year replacement expectation of the NY plates, as I recall during my lifetime:
Gold on Blue: ???-1973
Blue on Gold: 1973-1986 (13 years)
Liberty Plates: 1986-2001 (14 years)
Empire Blue: 2001-2009 (8 years, originally mandatory replacement but rescinded)
Empire Gold: 2009-present (10 years)

If I still lived in New York I’d still have my Empire Blue plates and they were holding up just fine. The Empire Gold plates were to replace the Empire Blue due to them “too illegible” , but the Empire Blue plates held up much better than the Empire Gold plates. Some “E”  series blue plates and plenty of Empire Gold plates are peeling, something that rarely happened before the “E”  series Empire Blue plates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 22, 2019, 12:45:38 AM
As for why we're changing, making it easier to read plates on toll gantries seems to be a major motivation.

Gov. Cuomo supposedly said as much, in announcing the "contest."  He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.
Looks like a detail is coming up - plates older than 10 years are to be replaced. Which is somewhat meaningful, as 10 years take toll on plates. My set is almost 12, if I remember correctly, and they start to show the age. Saying that worn out plates are not read properly is almost reasonable.

Green Massachusetts plates (30 years!) are still legible.
I dispute that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: signalman on August 22, 2019, 07:41:24 AM
Thanks J&N. I had completely forgotten about the blue plates. Do you remember what years they were used? And yes I guess the new plate is a light-yellow as compared to the original beige. But still a very no-frills design compared to New York's various plates over the years. (chuckle)
The blue plates were issued from 1979-1992.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: bemybear on August 22, 2019, 08:19:30 AM
The legitimate process still does not require Congressional approval.

It was an illegitimate way to change the name of a nationally known location.

I worked a summer in Denali National Park back in about 1996 and believe me, the Denali name was overwhelmingly dominant already.  I worked at the 'Parks Hotel Denali' not 'Parks Hotel McKinley' etc.  One of the few times when a name change is embraced more quickly by much of the public than by the bureaucracy. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: bemybear on August 22, 2019, 08:35:19 AM
Vdeane, I recall that there are technical differences between an old-style traffic-circle and a roundabout. Could you briefly summarize the differences in layman's terms?

I was surprised there wasn't another response answering your question yet so here goes...

The NJ traffic circles (such as Somerville and Flemington and others) generally are very large diameter sort of round traffic islands.  ONE direction of one of the roads (usually the dominant road and only in one direction of it) gets to come flying into the circle with nothing more restrictive than ad advisory speed.  In fact, the posting of the advisory speed is usually the best before you get there clue that you are on the leg of the circle that doesn't yield. 

No matter how you get into the circle (from the no stop dominant road or you dart out into a gap from one of the other yielding roads), you don't yield or stop for anything until and unless you make it back around to the dominant road.  I believe the circle has stops at that point but in practice you'd have to stop almost all the time anyway because these are busy places even off hours.

In my opinion (was a NJ resident for 3 years) the circles aren't such a terrible thing but they are VERY intimidating to the uninitiated.  Really though the main stress with them comes from them being so large and busy with multiple lanes, some of which often are forced to exit at a certain leg.  That one direction doesn't stop isn't that challenging to deal with and keeps at least that one leg from almost ever backing up too much.  Some circles (Somerville being one) have a stop light about 500 feet from one of the non favored legs of the circle which helps to create gaps in the onslaught of people coming from that leg and that helps keep the circle moving. 

Really, the circles are an industrial strength intersection that are nothing anybody would choose to build unless they had a 6 way intersection and a crap load of traffic.  But for those unfortunate intersections with NJ's unfortunate volume of traffic, they are about the only way to do what they do that allow all roads to connect to all others at that point.

Some of them have been modified recently to allow the dominant road to go around or even completely over the circle making the circle more of an 'exit to the circle' option for non-through traffic on the dominant road...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on August 22, 2019, 10:10:10 AM
Green Massachusetts plates (30 years!) are still legible.
I dispute that.
The green-on-white MA plate on my mother's 2001 Escort that she had since 1992 was still legible through 2016... when she totaled it hitting a tree (she was 79 at the time).  Her driving days ended after that & the plate was since turned in to the RMV.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on August 22, 2019, 11:20:30 AM
Vdeane, I recall that there are technical differences between an old-style traffic-circle and a roundabout. Could you briefly summarize the differences in layman's terms?

I was surprised there wasn't another response answering your question yet so here goes...

The NJ traffic circles (such as Somerville and Flemington and others) generally are very large diameter sort of round traffic islands.  ONE direction of one of the roads (usually the dominant road and only in one direction of it) gets to come flying into the circle with nothing more restrictive than ad advisory speed.  In fact, the posting of the advisory speed is usually the best before you get there clue that you are on the leg of the circle that doesn't yield. 

No matter how you get into the circle (from the no stop dominant road or you dart out into a gap from one of the other yielding roads), you don't yield or stop for anything until and unless you make it back around to the dominant road.  I believe the circle has stops at that point but in practice you'd have to stop almost all the time anyway because these are busy places even off hours.

In my opinion (was a NJ resident for 3 years) the circles aren't such a terrible thing but they are VERY intimidating to the uninitiated.  Really though the main stress with them comes from them being so large and busy with multiple lanes, some of which often are forced to exit at a certain leg.  That one direction doesn't stop isn't that challenging to deal with and keeps at least that one leg from almost ever backing up too much.  Some circles (Somerville being one) have a stop light about 500 feet from one of the non favored legs of the circle which helps to create gaps in the onslaught of people coming from that leg and that helps keep the circle moving. 

Really, the circles are an industrial strength intersection that are nothing anybody would choose to build unless they had a 6 way intersection and a crap load of traffic.  But for those unfortunate intersections with NJ's unfortunate volume of traffic, they are about the only way to do what they do that allow all roads to connect to all others at that point.

Some of them have been modified recently to allow the dominant road to go around or even completely over the circle making the circle more of an 'exit to the circle' option for non-through traffic on the dominant road...

Traffic circles are perfectly fine traffic control devices when the volume isn't too severe. This is why circles lasted in a lot of areas of NJ that were much more suburban or rural until the mid to late 80s in most places. However, it does bear pointing out that there's also a reason NJDOT has invested in either eliminating or updating so many of them in the past 30-40 years. Once traffic volumes get much higher, they become much more dangerous and cause more problems than they solve. Somerville is probably the worst example of a traffic circle that one could ever give these days. The best option would be for it to finally be completely eliminated, but geometry, the need for land, and other factors make that impractical at best. Flemington should probably be eliminated as well, but they have done the work over there to move a lot of thru traffic on 202 out of the circle itself with the bypass roads.

Roundabouts are designed for smaller intersections to not need a traffic light and can better manage traffic than stop signs and the like.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: odditude on August 22, 2019, 12:24:38 PM
What's in a name?  You think many call Washington National Airport as Reagan National?
in NOVA, i regularly hear the airports referred to as "Reagan" and "Dulles" - so that's a yes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 22, 2019, 01:11:39 PM
The legitimate process still does not require Congressional approval.

It was an illegitimate way to change the name of a nationally known location.

I worked a summer in Denali National Park back in about 1996 and believe me, the Denali name was overwhelmingly dominant already.  I worked at the 'Parks Hotel Denali' not 'Parks Hotel McKinley' etc.  One of the few times when a name change is embraced more quickly by much of the public than by the bureaucracy. 
The hotel was probably named after the park rather than the mountain.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 22, 2019, 03:30:48 PM
I worked a summer in Denali National Park back in about 1996 and believe me, the Denali name was overwhelmingly dominant already.  I worked at the 'Parks Hotel Denali' not 'Parks Hotel McKinley' etc.  One of the few times when a name change is embraced more quickly by much of the public than by the bureaucracy. 
Two different entities.

The Denali National Park and Preserve encompasses 6 million acres (9,375 square miles) of Alaska’s interior wilderness.  Its contains the 20,310-ft.-high Denali aka Mount McKinley, North America’s tallest mountain peak.

This mountain is the highest mountain peak of North America.  It is the third-most topographically prominent and third-most topographically isolated summit on Earth after Mount Everest (in Tibet) and Aconcagua (in Argentina).

So it is not that simple to say, in effect, "the locals should rule and be able obtain a name change."  The mountain is world-renown.

The mountain was officially named for a prominent president for over 100 years.

Also, why just "Denali" and not "Mount Denali"?  To give it a human or spirit name?

I also question what name is in common usage, perhaps both are --

MOUNT MCKINLEY is the highest peak in North America with a summit at 20,329 ft (6,196 m). Located in the 600-mi- (965-km-) long Alaskan Mountain Range, it is approximately 150 mi (246 km) south of Fairbanks, ALASKA.
Mount McKinley is located near the center of the 6-million-acre Denali National Park and Wildlife Preserve.
http://geography.name/mckinley-mount/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2019, 04:36:20 PM
Vdeane, I recall that there are technical differences between an old-style traffic-circle and a roundabout. Could you briefly summarize the differences in layman's terms?

I was surprised there wasn't another response answering your question yet so here goes...

The NJ traffic circles (such as Somerville and Flemington and others) generally are very large diameter sort of round traffic islands.  ONE direction of one of the roads (usually the dominant road and only in one direction of it) gets to come flying into the circle with nothing more restrictive than ad advisory speed.  In fact, the posting of the advisory speed is usually the best before you get there clue that you are on the leg of the circle that doesn't yield. 

No matter how you get into the circle (from the no stop dominant road or you dart out into a gap from one of the other yielding roads), you don't yield or stop for anything until and unless you make it back around to the dominant road.  I believe the circle has stops at that point but in practice you'd have to stop almost all the time anyway because these are busy places even off hours.

In my opinion (was a NJ resident for 3 years) the circles aren't such a terrible thing but they are VERY intimidating to the uninitiated.  Really though the main stress with them comes from them being so large and busy with multiple lanes, some of which often are forced to exit at a certain leg.  That one direction doesn't stop isn't that challenging to deal with and keeps at least that one leg from almost ever backing up too much.  Some circles (Somerville being one) have a stop light about 500 feet from one of the non favored legs of the circle which helps to create gaps in the onslaught of people coming from that leg and that helps keep the circle moving. 

Really, the circles are an industrial strength intersection that are nothing anybody would choose to build unless they had a 6 way intersection and a crap load of traffic.  But for those unfortunate intersections with NJ's unfortunate volume of traffic, they are about the only way to do what they do that allow all roads to connect to all others at that point.

Some of them have been modified recently to allow the dominant road to go around or even completely over the circle making the circle more of an 'exit to the circle' option for non-through traffic on the dominant road...

Traffic circles are perfectly fine traffic control devices when the volume isn't too severe. This is why circles lasted in a lot of areas of NJ that were much more suburban or rural until the mid to late 80s in most places. However, it does bear pointing out that there's also a reason NJDOT has invested in either eliminating or updating so many of them in the past 30-40 years. Once traffic volumes get much higher, they become much more dangerous and cause more problems than they solve. Somerville is probably the worst example of a traffic circle that one could ever give these days. The best option would be for it to finally be completely eliminated, but geometry, the need for land, and other factors make that impractical at best. Flemington should probably be eliminated as well, but they have done the work over there to move a lot of thru traffic on 202 out of the circle itself with the bypass roads.

Roundabouts are designed for smaller intersections to not need a traffic light and can better manage traffic than stop signs and the like.

The airport circle near Camden, NJ also received the overpass-while-keeping-the-circle treatment several decades ago.  A relatively more recent update took out a bit of the circle feel to it, especially on US 130 north.

Going back to bemybear's points...one other thing about the traditional Jersey traffic circle was, even though there were multiple lanes within the circle, they weren't marked lanes.  People just instinctively drove 2 or 3 cars wide.  Sometimes there were yield signs, sometimes there weren't.  Even written in the state's DMV handbook was that there's no official rules for a traffic circle in NJ.  Slightly amusing is the dual Brooklawn Circles...one was recently updated to have the feel of a modern roundabout, with the exception of US 130 South having the right of way entering the circle, with traffic within the circle still required to yield.  However, the 2nd circle (officially called but very rarely referred to as the Forbidden Circle, which I never understood the origins of) was not given any similar updates.  1 of the 3 legs has traffic yielding upon entry; the other conflict points have no yield signs whatsoever.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: odditude on August 22, 2019, 04:47:10 PM
Also, why just "Denali" and not "Mount Denali"?  To give it a human or spirit name?

for this point, I provide Haleakalā as relevant precedent (the largest mountain on the island of Maui). it may not be common in English, but it's plenty common in other languages.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on August 22, 2019, 09:16:34 PM
Also, why just "Denali" and not "Mount Denali"?  To give it a human or spirit name?
for this point, I provide Haleakalā as relevant precedent (the largest mountain on the island of Maui). it may not be common in English, but it's plenty common in other languages.

Good point; the aforementioned Aconcagua in the Andes is similar in that regard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 23, 2019, 06:32:53 AM
Or the Matterhorn in the Alps.

Here in Vermont, we have a mountain that's simply called Camel's Hump.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 23, 2019, 08:24:29 AM
Or the Matterhorn in the Alps.

Here in Vermont, we have a mountain that's simply called Camel's Hump.
That's actually a satisfying short hike (Camel's Hump).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 23, 2019, 01:50:45 PM
Or the Matterhorn in the Alps.
Here in Vermont, we have a mountain that's simply called Camel's Hump.
That's actually a satisfying short hike (Camel's Hump).

If it's comparable to or easier than Bald Mtn, I might be up for it this fall.
Hoping to get to Vermont sometime in late Sept. or Oct.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 23, 2019, 10:27:34 PM
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design

I chose plate 1 because it's simple.

Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.

Honestly, CT and MA have the nation's blandest plates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: abqtraveler on August 24, 2019, 11:29:40 AM
Any new pics for the I-84 sign replacement and exit conversion?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 25, 2019, 01:32:17 AM
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design

I chose plate 1 because it's simple.

Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.

Honestly, CT and MA have the nation's blandest plates.
Delaware asks you to hold its Dogfish Head.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 25, 2019, 02:55:00 AM
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design

I chose plate 1 because it's simple.

Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.

Honestly, CT and MA have the nation's blandest plates.
Delaware asks you to hold its Dogfish Head.
Even though it is about to be acquired by a company in one of the aforementioned bland states?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: signalman on August 25, 2019, 06:14:38 AM
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design

I chose plate 1 because it's simple.

Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.

Honestly, CT and MA have the nation's blandest plates.
Texas has had a black on white color scheme since 2012.  I'd say that's quite bland.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on August 26, 2019, 09:04:11 PM
Syracuse.com: This will be the last NYS Fair with that traffic signal on I-690 (https://www.syracuse.com/statefair/2019/08/this-will-be-the-last-nys-fair-with-that-traffic-signal-on-i-690.html)

I'm a bit disappointed that a unique Interstate quirk won't be in my local area anymore.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2019, 11:13:53 PM
Syracuse.com: This will be the last NYS Fair with that traffic signal on I-690 (https://www.syracuse.com/statefair/2019/08/this-will-be-the-last-nys-fair-with-that-traffic-signal-on-i-690.html)

I'm a bit disappointed that a unique Interstate quirk won't be in my local area anymore.
This'll also mean the end of the button copy flip signs, if they aren't already gone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 27, 2019, 03:42:28 PM
Syracuse.com: This will be the last NYS Fair with that traffic signal on I-690 (https://www.syracuse.com/statefair/2019/08/this-will-be-the-last-nys-fair-with-that-traffic-signal-on-i-690.html)

I'm a bit disappointed that a unique Interstate quirk won't be in my local area anymore.

It's probably for the better.  Ramps keep everybody moving.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 27, 2019, 03:58:29 PM
Has that traffic signal on Interstate 690 been there since the Interstate first opened? Would it have been possible to provide a connection that did not need at-grade access (possibly like what they are planning to do now)?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 27, 2019, 07:31:06 PM
Syracuse.com: This will be the last NYS Fair with that traffic signal on I-690 (https://www.syracuse.com/statefair/2019/08/this-will-be-the-last-nys-fair-with-that-traffic-signal-on-i-690.html)

I'm a bit disappointed that a unique Interstate quirk won't be in my local area anymore.
This'll also mean the end of the button copy flip signs, if they aren't already gone.

They’re all still there, saw them last Saturday. I was thinking they had been replaced when all the ground mounted signs in the area were replaced, but the button copy signs remained intact. They’re the only signs that still have patches over the exit numbers when the exits were renumbered in the late 1980s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 27, 2019, 09:09:00 PM
Syracuse.com: This will be the last NYS Fair with that traffic signal on I-690 (https://www.syracuse.com/statefair/2019/08/this-will-be-the-last-nys-fair-with-that-traffic-signal-on-i-690.html)

I'm a bit disappointed that a unique Interstate quirk won't be in my local area anymore.
This'll also mean the end of the button copy flip signs, if they aren't already gone.

They’re all still there, saw them last Saturday. I was thinking they had been replaced when all the ground mounted signs in the area were replaced, but the button copy signs remained intact. They’re the only signs that still have patches over the exit numbers when the exits were renumbered in the late 1980s.
When's the last day of the fair? If my car is fixed soon I might head that way to get a look at it.  I've never seen it before.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 27, 2019, 09:54:46 PM
Syracuse.com: This will be the last NYS Fair with that traffic signal on I-690 (https://www.syracuse.com/statefair/2019/08/this-will-be-the-last-nys-fair-with-that-traffic-signal-on-i-690.html)

I'm a bit disappointed that a unique Interstate quirk won't be in my local area anymore.
This'll also mean the end of the button copy flip signs, if they aren't already gone.

They’re all still there, saw them last Saturday. I was thinking they had been replaced when all the ground mounted signs in the area were replaced, but the button copy signs remained intact. They’re the only signs that still have patches over the exit numbers when the exits were renumbered in the late 1980s.
When's the last day of the fair? If my car is fixed soon I might head that way to get a look at it.  I've never seen it before.

The last day of the fair is Labor Day. I haven’t been in a few years (just drove by while visiting family this past weekend) but I hear it’s still quite good, plus road geek goodness!

Noting they had replaced all the ground mounted BGSes along NY 690 and I-690, I was disappointed to see they didn’t renumber the exits (again) to correspond with the new mileposts they put up a few years ago. That would have been super nifty of Region 3.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on August 28, 2019, 10:59:10 PM
Has that traffic signal on Interstate 690 been there since the Interstate first opened? Would it have been possible to provide a connection that did not need at-grade access (possibly like what they are planning to do now)?

Before the current alignment of I-690, there was a wide median with parking in the middle and a few left side exit and entrance ramps.  Check out this (https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:203331) aerial image from 1966.  It appears that at the time, what's now the Orange Lot was still an active waste bed.  The bridges that went over the eastbound lanes of I-690 now go over a parking lot access road that I've never seen actually used.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on August 29, 2019, 04:31:31 PM
Any new pics for the I-84 sign replacement and exit conversion?

Here's Exit 50 (old 15) https://i.imgur.com/JIlIuSL.jpg
And Exit 68 (old 20) https://i.imgur.com/8H41s5J.jpg

The signs are replaced east of the Hudson, haven't been to Newburgh in a few weeks but I imagine it's made its way to Orange County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 02, 2019, 07:53:56 PM
Looks like the SB Thruway at I-787 was a major choke point today. As I've complained in the past, it's too bad they didn't continue the six lanes down to the Berkshire Spur.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 02, 2019, 10:38:53 PM
Looks like the SB Thruway at I-787 was a major choke point today. As I've complained in the past, it's too bad they didn't continue the six lanes down to NY 17.
FTFY
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 03, 2019, 11:04:58 AM
Looks like the SB Thruway at I-787 was a major choke point today. As I've complained in the past, it's too bad they didn't continue the six lanes down to NY 17.
FTFY

Granted, it needs it. But given that won't happen in the near-term, the Berkshire Spur seems like a lot more logical spot for a lane drop than I-787.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 03, 2019, 11:36:57 AM
Looks like the SB Thruway at I-787 was a major choke point today. As I've complained in the past, it's too bad they didn't continue the six lanes down to NY 17.
FTFY

Granted, it needs it. But given that won't happen in the near-term, the Berkshire Spur seems like a lot more logical spot for a lane drop than I-787.
I would disagree.
There is a lot  commuter traffic on 787.  Albany (area, not city) grows west and north, a bit to the east - but very little commuter traffic goes south. So 200 days a year that lane drop at 787 is perfectly meaningful. Large traffic to NYC on summer weekends - 25 days a year, maybe - falls into <10% category. What you saw is a twice a year rush, with long weekend traffic towards NYC going out of scale.
Berkshire connector sees much less traffic - official numbers are 14-15k, and I would bet mostly truck (official numbers show only 10% trucks, but those are not too consistent). When I happen to drive there, I barely see any traffic in connector.  I assume only a small fraction of weekend traffic goes there. Adirondacks or finger lakes are not the hot spot for Boston or Hartford,  and Albany beach traffic likely uses free I-90...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 03, 2019, 12:07:50 PM
^ His point was there's enough of a typical traffic drop at the Berkshire Spur to where it would make the next logical termini for a Thruway widening.  Sure, it may only see 14-15K, but the vast majority of that 14-15K is coming from the north.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 03, 2019, 12:40:19 PM
Eh, I see LOS D or worse more often than not during daylight hours between Harriman and Albany. Weekends, it's often LOS E over that stretch with recurrent morning/evening congestion south of Kingston. One little fender bender shouldn't cause a 20 mile backup, yet that's what happens on the Thruway south of Albany. The congestion this weekend wasn't "holiday weekend only", it is MOST weekends. Some states would widen for weekend tourist traffic (see: Colorado and I-70 west of Denver). An extra lane south of Albany would definitely not hurt and ~50K is where most agencies would widen. Heck, the Ohio Turnpike has generally 6-laned anything with an AADT over 30K! Surely a toll facility should provide better traffic flow than a free facility. NY is lacking here.

I'd be willing to bet that a widening south of Kingston would have the side benefit of taking some traffic off of US 9W. That's where a lot of people (myself included) bail to if flow is remotely unstable. If I'm gonna be stop and go, may as well not pay a toll for doing so.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 03, 2019, 12:54:29 PM
^ His point was there's enough of a typical traffic drop at the Berkshire Spur to where it would make the next logical termini for a Thruway widening.  Sure, it may only see 14-15K, but the vast majority of that 14-15K is coming from the north.
Not sure about that, especially for holiday traffic. As I mentioned, that stretch really feels desolate pretty much every time I drive there - people don't really use that, even when Masspikje traffic is good. For me the prime reason to use Berkshire connector is to bypass commute or road work on free I-90. None of those are an issue on Labor day. In particular, backup on 787 interchange should trigger free I-90 routing on most navigators.

Problem of Berkshire bypass is that it adds extra toll AND (in most cases)  extra mileage for Albany (except some south Albany and Delmar) and points to the west or north. Nice idea it bypass the city, but often no real reason for that


Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 03, 2019, 12:58:21 PM
Eh, I see LOS D or worse more often than not during daylight hours between Harriman and Albany. Weekends, it's often LOS E over that stretch with recurrent morning/evening congestion south of Kingston. One little fender bender shouldn't cause a 20 mile backup, yet that's what happens on the Thruway south of Albany. The congestion this weekend wasn't "holiday weekend only", it is MOST weekends. Some states would widen for weekend tourist traffic (see: Colorado and I-70 west of Denver). An extra lane south of Albany would definitely not hurt and ~50K is where most agencies would widen. Heck, the Ohio Turnpike has generally 4-laned anything with an AADT over 30K! Surely a toll facility should provide better traffic flow than a free facility. NY is lacking here.

I'd be willing to bet that a widening south of Kingston would have the side benefit of taking some traffic off of US 9W. That's where a lot of people (myself included) bail to if flow is remotely unstable. If I'm gonna be stop and go, may as well not pay a toll for doing so.
That is @Alps' point - either 6-lane all the way, or an extra exit of 6-lane highway is just a feel-good. While we all know what would work best, I doubt  Thruway is going to have resources for that as everything went towards Daddy's Bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 03, 2019, 01:10:30 PM
Eh, I see LOS D or worse more often than not during daylight hours between Harriman and Albany. Weekends, it's often LOS E over that stretch with recurrent morning/evening congestion south of Kingston. One little fender bender shouldn't cause a 20 mile backup, yet that's what happens on the Thruway south of Albany. The congestion this weekend wasn't "holiday weekend only", it is MOST weekends. Some states would widen for weekend tourist traffic (see: Colorado and I-70 west of Denver). An extra lane south of Albany would definitely not hurt and ~50K is where most agencies would widen. Heck, the Ohio Turnpike has generally 4-laned anything with an AADT over 30K! Surely a toll facility should provide better traffic flow than a free facility. NY is lacking here.

I'd be willing to bet that a widening south of Kingston would have the side benefit of taking some traffic off of US 9W. That's where a lot of people (myself included) bail to if flow is remotely unstable. If I'm gonna be stop and go, may as well not pay a toll for doing so.
This year, it seemed to be that way the whole system.  I haven't had a drive from Rochester to Albany where there wasn't some section of stop and go (or worse, completely stopped) even though such used to be rare on the portion I travel.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 03, 2019, 08:35:00 PM
There is a lot  commuter traffic on 787.  Albany (area, not city) grows west and north, a bit to the east - but very little commuter traffic goes south. So 200 days a year that lane drop at 787 is perfectly meaningful.

Looking at it on a map, I would assume I-787 contributes to the southbound Thruway. Since there's limited sprawl to the south, maybe it's closer to break-even. That's still not an ideal spot for a lane drop when traffic getting on roughly equals traffic getting off.

^ His point was there's enough of a typical traffic drop at the Berkshire Spur to where it would make the next logical termini for a Thruway widening.  Sure, it may only see 14-15K, but the vast majority of that 14-15K is coming from the north.

Yep, exactly. I-787 isn't a major net contributor one way or the other, but there's a significant southbound net loss, and northbound net gain, at the Berkshire Spur.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 03, 2019, 08:55:59 PM
The congestion this weekend wasn't "holiday weekend only", it is MOST weekends. Some states would widen for weekend tourist traffic (see: Colorado and I-70 west of Denver).

I don't think it's just weekends. Sure, Friday and Sunday afternoons are worst, but it's really needed throughout the entire summer season. Some of the worst Thruway traffic I've seen has been on Saturdays, and truck traffic is heaviest on weekdays.

Quote
Heck, the Ohio Turnpike has generally 4-laned anything with an AADT over 30K! Surely a toll facility should provide better traffic flow than a free facility. NY is lacking here.

Very much agree with that. The Thruway bridges are all built for six lanes anyways, so why not pave and stripe the lane for a better traveler experience? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Yet there's a systemic failure to acknowledge that congestion can and does occur north of the Catskills. New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state; yet it is truly baffling when you see that we have more existing bridges with capacity for such than any other state!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 03, 2019, 09:02:15 PM
I've been commuting weekly to Syracuse from Albany for a while now (coming back to Albany on weekends).  The traffic on the Thruway has been more than tolerable.  The only slower part has been between Syracuse and NY 13 on the way back on Fridays and it isn't that much of a slowdown.

Now that left-hand merge from I-690 EB to I-481 NB on the other hand is just a little dicey. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 03, 2019, 09:07:15 PM
This year, it seemed to be that way the whole system.  I haven't had a drive from Rochester to Albany where there wasn't some section of stop and go (or worse, completely stopped) even though such used to be rare on the portion I travel.

It seems like Rochester to Syracuse is becoming worse than Rochester to Buffalo these days.
There was simply no end of slowdowns and delays between Exit 44 and Exit 39 this past weekend. It's to the point where the single-lane on-ramp from I-490 is the only restraint preventing backups at the Exit 44 lane drop. Similarly, I can only imagine westbound traffic getting worse during & after the State Fair once they remove the infamous traffic signal and I-690 traffic can flow unrestrained onto the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 03, 2019, 09:13:00 PM
I've been commuting weekly to Syracuse from Albany for a while now (coming back to Albany on weekends).  The traffic on the Thruway has been more than tolerable.  The only slower part has been between Syracuse and NY 13 on the way back on Fridays and it isn't that much of a slowdown.

Yeah, I personally would say that Syracuse to I-88 is one of the lower priorities, and of that, I-481 to NY 365 is really the only segment that needs widening.

Quote
Now that left-hand merge from I-690 EB to I-481 NB on the other hand is just a little dicey. :D

Congestion, lack of merge lane, or both?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 03, 2019, 10:36:28 PM
Not really congestion, more like people travelling at inconsistent speeds on I-481.  Makes things a little interesting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MNHighwayMan on September 04, 2019, 09:08:53 AM
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state

I bet the Dakotas have less.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on September 04, 2019, 09:12:29 AM
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state

I bet the Dakotas have less.

I was thinking Rhode Island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: signalman on September 04, 2019, 10:05:52 AM
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state

I bet the Dakotas have less.
I immediately thought of Wyoming.  I can't think of anything that's 6 lanes there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MNHighwayMan on September 04, 2019, 10:42:37 AM
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state
I bet the Dakotas have less.
I immediately thought of Wyoming.  I can't think of anything that's 6 lanes there.

I was hesitant to suggest mountain states due to the possibility of truck or acceleration lanes on grades. I figured the safest bet was the least populated, relatively flat states.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 04, 2019, 10:46:56 AM
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state

I bet the Dakotas have less.

Vermont says hi...we don't even have URBAN 6-lane highways...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 04, 2019, 12:12:23 PM
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state
I bet the Dakotas have less.
Vermont says hi...we don't even have URBAN 6-lane highways...

OK, of any state with both true rural areas AND several significant population centers (250k +).

Also, unlike the Dakotas, Wyoming, Vermont, Rhode Island, etc., the Thruway literally has more bridges than you can count sitting there with space for an extra lane. Some states are actually designating funding for widening projects, while NYSTA wouldn't even have to do that, hardly. A Thruway widening would probably be the cheapest interstate widening in US history.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 04, 2019, 12:49:19 PM
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state
I bet the Dakotas have less.
Vermont says hi...we don't even have URBAN 6-lane highways...

OK, of any state with both true rural areas AND several significant population centers (250k +).

Also, unlike the Dakotas, Wyoming, Vermont, Rhode Island, etc., the Thruway literally has more bridges than you can count sitting there with space for an extra lane. Some states are actually designating funding for widening projects, while NYSTA wouldn't even have to do that, hardly. A Thruway widening would probably be the cheapest interstate widening in US history.
Thruway has Daddy's bridge as a monster money sink. AET transition will not be free as well. 

Besides, road is getting old. When they widened Albany section, there was a full rebuilt with old pavement ripped down all the way to dirt. I suspect real widening would have to follow the same pattern as well.
Not to mention that unlike Mohawk valley section, Hudson valley part goes through some rocky areas where significant blasting may be required....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 04, 2019, 07:50:06 PM
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state
I bet the Dakotas have less.
Vermont says hi...we don't even have URBAN 6-lane highways...

OK, of any state with both true rural areas AND several significant population centers (250k +).

You're moving the goalposts...😌

Quote
Also, unlike the Dakotas, Wyoming, Vermont, Rhode Island, etc., the Thruway literally has more bridges than you can count sitting there with space for an extra lane. Some states are actually designating funding for widening projects, while NYSTA wouldn't even have to do that, hardly. A Thruway widening would probably be the cheapest interstate widening in US history.

I agree with Kalvado.  A Thruway widening basically anywhere east of about Utica would require a fair bit of blasting, and especially south of Albany.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 04, 2019, 07:52:19 PM
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state
I bet the Dakotas have less.
Vermont says hi...we don't even have URBAN 6-lane highways...

OK, of any state with both true rural areas AND several significant population centers (250k +).

You're moving the goalposts...

Quote
Also, unlike the Dakotas, Wyoming, Vermont, Rhode Island, etc., the Thruway literally has more bridges than you can count sitting there with space for an extra lane. Some states are actually designating funding for widening projects, while NYSTA wouldn't even have to do that, hardly. A Thruway widening would probably be the cheapest interstate widening in US history.

I agree with Kalvado.  A Thruway widening basically anywhere east of about Utica would require a fair bit of blasting, and especially south of Albany.
Also keep in mind the grades around Little Falls.  Check out how the ramps were built for that interchange, now for a community for which no one knows why it exists.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 04, 2019, 09:03:04 PM
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state
I bet the Dakotas have less.
Vermont says hi...we don't even have URBAN 6-lane highways...
OK, of any state with both true rural areas AND several significant population centers (250k +).
You're moving the goalposts...😌

True, only to exclude the states that don't have the population to be relevant to the six-laning discussion in the first place.

Quote
A Thruway widening basically anywhere east of about Utica would require a fair bit of blasting, and especially south of Albany.

I think we've established that it's not needed east of Utica anyways. I'm not as familiar with the stretch south of Albany, but I can't identify any big issues offhand; it's relatively flat, with room for two more lanes in the median. And of course, there are zero barriers to widening between Buffalo and Syracuse.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 04, 2019, 09:09:13 PM
This is a good example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2462148,-73.8891464,3a,40.8y,241.18h,82.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK_EDgHcWMH7ZMzawT5i6_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for the Albany-Harriman section.  Narrower median, more rock cuts, steeper grades, etc.  It's only really flat north of exit 21B.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 04, 2019, 09:32:44 PM
This is a good example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2462148,-73.8891464,3a,40.8y,241.18h,82.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK_EDgHcWMH7ZMzawT5i6_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for the Albany-Harriman section.  Narrower median, more rock cuts, steeper grades, etc.  It's only really flat north of exit 21B.

Maybe I'm naive, but it looks to me like striping for a third lane is literally all that's needed at that particular point. It's definitely a narrower median and more rock cuts than I'm used to seeing, but isn't there's still enough room in the median without having to go outwards? Especially if the guide rail was replaced with a Jersey barrier; the bridge over NY 94 is another prime example of a re-striping being all that's needed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 04, 2019, 09:44:32 PM
^ Without being too blunt, yes.  You read too much into that specific location and not into the example Val was showing...that type of rock ledge along the edge of the Thruway is a common occurrence between the Berkshire Spur and 287.  Similar ledges exist in the median where the carriageways separate.

But since we're reading into Val's example, I can spot two things offhand.  First, the rock ledge on both sides does not meet current clear-zone standards outside the right shoulder.  Second, the median in that particular spot would need to be widened by about 6 feet to meet full standards for a 6-lane urban section (as this would be classified given the fully paved median with Jersey barrier).  It technically would meet minimum standards, but it wouldn't meet FHWA's preference for a full left shoulder with 6 lanes.

Here's a better example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2076593,-73.916468,3a,75y,15.3h,89.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skmULpT5YRu-oUDg3_IMB4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) showing the type of blasting that would be necessary, and also an example of the median rock ledges I mentioned above.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on September 04, 2019, 11:30:24 PM
Here's a better example showing the type of blasting that would be necessary, and also an example of the median rock ledges I mentioned above.

Or this, recent construction at Christiansburg Mountain, VA --
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1685972,-80.3128452,3a,75y,253.43h,91.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1surDWkxO1glHqLVI3ZxoW1g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 04, 2019, 11:50:58 PM
Why add a third lane when you can just tell cars to use the Taconic?  That's what I would do.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 05, 2019, 12:52:37 AM
Why add a third lane when you can just tell cars to use the Taconic?  That's what I would do.

The southern portions of the Taconic, from Southern Dutchess and down, are already deficient at their heaviest volumes (weekend vacation traffic). Trying to enter the road from a stop sign during the peak few hours on Friday evening or Sunday is especially bad, and when people are forced to wait too long for a gap, they make unsafe decisions. With the road's safety issues (at-grade intersections in Dutchess, general narrowness and curviness in Putnam) where a single crash will frequently cripple traffic for hours, I don't think sending more traffic down the Taconic is a great idea.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 05, 2019, 07:57:22 AM
But since we're reading into Val's example, I can spot two things offhand.  First, the rock ledge on both sides does not meet current clear-zone standards outside the right shoulder.  Second, the median in that particular spot would need to be widened by about 6 feet to meet full standards for a 6-lane urban section (as this would be classified given the fully paved median with Jersey barrier).  It technically would meet minimum standards, but it wouldn't meet FHWA's preference for a full left shoulder with 6 lanes.

OK, I see that now. I was on mobile, so I tried to approximate the location on the Google Maps app instead, and ended up much closer to NY 23 itself. Now that I pan closer to the Exit 21 ramps and look backwards, I can see the issue.

Quote
Here's a better example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2076593,-73.916468,3a,75y,15.3h,89.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skmULpT5YRu-oUDg3_IMB4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) showing the type of blasting that would be necessary, and also an example of the median rock ledges I mentioned above.

This confirms what I had been wondering. It seems like the sections with a wider median, could end up being the biggest problems.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on September 06, 2019, 07:57:39 AM
Why add a third lane when you can just tell cars to use the Taconic?  That's what I would do.

The southern portions of the Taconic, from Southern Dutchess and down, are already deficient at their heaviest volumes (weekend vacation traffic). Trying to enter the road from a stop sign during the peak few hours on Friday evening or Sunday is especially bad, and when people are forced to wait too long for a gap, they make unsafe decisions. With the road's safety issues (at-grade intersections in Dutchess, general narrowness and curviness in Putnam) where a single crash will frequently cripple traffic for hours, I don't think sending more traffic down the Taconic is a great idea.

As a frequent traveler of the Taconic to shunpike the Thruway getting to NYC/LI, I can say the best portion of the Taconic so far is between I-84 and I-90.  I would agree about the section of the parkway by Lake Carmel and DJT State Park.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on September 06, 2019, 07:48:12 PM
Here’s New York’s new license plate design (https://www.wwnytv.com/2019/09/06/heres-new-yorks-new-license-plate-design/)

I like this quite a bit, actually, and it was easily my favorite of the five. Still not a fan of the mandatory fee involved with their replacement, but the new design is still far better than the butt-ugly Empire Gold plates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 06, 2019, 08:05:34 PM
Meanwhile, some people here are tired of our gradient blue design here in Connecticut. My only problem with them was when we started issuing 7 character plates. The letter/number font was quite narrow and hard to read from a distance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 06, 2019, 08:16:16 PM
I actually like the blue and orange plates. I think they have good readability and I'll be sorry to see them get phased out. The new plate is nice too and the winning design would have been my second choice.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on September 06, 2019, 09:34:17 PM
Here’s New York’s new license plate design (https://www.wwnytv.com/2019/09/06/heres-new-yorks-new-license-plate-design/)

I like this quite a bit, actually, and it was easily my favorite of the five. Still not a fan of the mandatory fee involved with their replacement, but the new design is still far better than the butt-ugly Empire Gold plates.

Reminds me a lot of the older blue and white plates that these are actually going to replace.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ipeters61 on September 09, 2019, 09:15:10 AM
Here’s New York’s new license plate design (https://www.wwnytv.com/2019/09/06/heres-new-yorks-new-license-plate-design/)

I like this quite a bit, actually, and it was easily my favorite of the five. Still not a fan of the mandatory fee involved with their replacement, but the new design is still far better than the butt-ugly Empire Gold plates.
I really like the design, too.  I think it does a nice job showcasing the state.  Funny thing is, one of my neighbors has NY plates and they still have the mid/late-2000s blue and white plate.

Meanwhile, some people here are tired of our gradient blue design here in Connecticut. My only problem with them was when we started issuing 7 character plates. The letter/number font was quite narrow and hard to read from a distance.
I personally felt kind of meh about Connecticut's plate design (though I always liked the Preserve the Sound plates).  Maryland has a special plate that actually looks similar to the CT plate from a distance so I'd get excited to see someone from home down here in DE, but then I see it's MD and feel slightly disappointed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 09, 2019, 01:52:50 PM
Then there were people who complained when Maine added the lobster on some of their plates in 1987 or so. Some locals think it looked like a giant cockroach. Anyways, I'm OK with the re-do for New York. It's better than the old blue/white design they had, I think.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on September 09, 2019, 03:25:40 PM
Then there were people who complained when Maine added the lobster on some of their plates in 1987 or so. Some locals think it looked like a giant cockroach.
IIRC, the complaints regarding the lobster on those plates was because the color of it was shown as red; a color that's associated with a lobster after it's boiled (i.e. dead).  The majority color for live lobsters is usually black.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 09, 2019, 06:27:10 PM
Black?  Nah.  They usually are called "greenish brown" or similar when live.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 09, 2019, 06:41:51 PM
Black?  Nah.  They usually are called "greenish brown" or similar when live.
I prefer the blue ones. Rare lobsters taste better.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on September 09, 2019, 10:20:11 PM
Here’s New York’s new license plate design (https://www.wwnytv.com/2019/09/06/heres-new-yorks-new-license-plate-design/)

I like this quite a bit, actually, and it was easily my favorite of the five. Still not a fan of the mandatory fee involved with their replacement, but the new design is still far better than the butt-ugly Empire Gold plates.
I really like the design, too.  I think it does a nice job showcasing the state.  Funny thing is, one of my neighbors has NY plates and they still have the mid/late-2000s blue and white plate.

Meanwhile, some people here are tired of our gradient blue design here in Connecticut. My only problem with them was when we started issuing 7 character plates. The letter/number font was quite narrow and hard to read from a distance.
I personally felt kind of meh about Connecticut's plate design (though I always liked the Preserve the Sound plates).  Maryland has a special plate that actually looks similar to the CT plate from a distance so I'd get excited to see someone from home down here in DE, but then I see it's MD and feel slightly disappointed.

And you have Jersey, which still looks like a smeared egg thrown against a wall, which hasn't changed since 1992 (or 93, can't remember which). they embraced digital printing of the plates now, it would be nice if they embraced a new design.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 11, 2019, 04:39:06 PM
I'm wondering if the last remaining button copy on I-287 near I-684 and the Hutch are maintained by the county of Westchester.  There's no reason for them not to be replaced.  This button copy sign on the WB service road does have a stamp on it that says "County of Westchester" on it. 
(https://live.staticflickr.com/884/26166552187_11eccdc3d3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FSfqkv)


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48718269478_ae811156d2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2he4Scq)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on September 11, 2019, 08:14:09 PM
I was at the state fair on the night of August 29th, and I saw that all the button copy signs heading from State Fair Blvd onto I-690 east were still there.  I also got a better look at the new Orange Lot ramp, and I saw that grading on the south side of I-690 is done, and rebar and forms for concrete for the south abutment were in place.  A few weeks earlier, I was on I-690 west and saw that this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0628942,-76.1916789,3a,21.7y,337.39h,91.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s45QjCUVNEhBww7ePPWYLEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) sign was still there and opened.

On a side note, were any of you at the DOT booth at around 10 PM that night?  I saw a guy wearing a blue shirt with an I-690 shield on it, and wondered if he was a member on here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 11, 2019, 09:06:53 PM
Speaking of I-690 near the Fair, I've long wondered... is there any reason why this ramp to I-690 east (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.081809,-76.2243502,3a,75y,87.95h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHB3Oik3C3bgkYF5Vfy2T7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is closed?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 12, 2019, 07:30:53 AM
What is with the ghost ramp along I-690:

1956 view showing the lack of ghost ramps but the location of a wide path that appears to be a former railroad grade (but no topo map can confirm this): https://www.historicaerials.com/location/43.10688868558635/-76.24458230353763/1956/16

1960 topo showing the ghost ramps: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/43.10471703398228/-76.24035867617145/T1960/16

1972 view showing the never finished ramps and what appears to be a single lane underpass: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/43.104727253843635/-76.24038577079773/1972/16
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 12, 2019, 01:08:15 PM
Speaking of I-690 near the Fair, I've long wondered... is there any reason why this ramp to I-690 east (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.081809,-76.2243502,3a,75y,87.95h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHB3Oik3C3bgkYF5Vfy2T7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is closed?

I guess I wonder, does it really serve any purpose when the Fair isn't going?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 12, 2019, 01:44:40 PM
Getting away from Syracuse for a bit...any progress on the I-84 renumbering project? Are they west of the Hudson with it now?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on September 12, 2019, 04:05:43 PM
And you have Jersey, which still looks like a smeared egg thrown against a wall,

Does New Jersey's *flag* do the same thing, storm? I think neither flag nor tag do nor have they ever (Idt).  Rather, I always thought NJ's plates were a tribute to the state banner color wise.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Flag_of_New_Jersey.svg/300px-Flag_of_New_Jersey.svg.png)

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 12, 2019, 09:14:10 PM
Speaking of I-690 near the Fair, I've long wondered... is there any reason why this ramp to I-690 east (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.081809,-76.2243502,3a,75y,87.95h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHB3Oik3C3bgkYF5Vfy2T7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is closed?

I guess I wonder, does it really serve any purpose when the Fair isn't going?
Aren't the Fair parking lots used for concerts in the Amphitheater?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 12, 2019, 09:26:02 PM
Getting away from Syracuse for a bit...any progress on the I-84 renumbering project? Are they west of the Hudson with it now?

Wikipedia is saying it is complete east of the Hudson. I cannot confirm this personally.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 12, 2019, 11:15:24 PM
It has been independently confirmed by other members of this site.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SGwithADD on September 13, 2019, 11:26:49 PM
Speaking of I-690 near the Fair, I've long wondered... is there any reason why this ramp to I-690 east (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.081809,-76.2243502,3a,75y,87.95h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHB3Oik3C3bgkYF5Vfy2T7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is closed?

I guess I wonder, does it really serve any purpose when the Fair isn't going?

Oddly enough, it looks open in satellite/3D view (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.0818281,-76.2243822/43.0817869,-76.2243745/@43.0819586,-76.2253568,54a,35y,105.94h,69.56t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0)...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 14, 2019, 07:50:22 PM
Came across a pretty interesting license plate. Can you get more geeky than that?
https://imgur.com/a/6DYBy4p
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 15, 2019, 10:41:30 AM
Now if somebody in CT does "I84EX35"? (Exit 35 for CT Route 72 East, crossing from Plainville into New Britain.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on September 15, 2019, 06:49:24 PM
What is with the ghost ramp along I-690:

1956 view showing the lack of ghost ramps but the location of a wide path that appears to be a former railroad grade (but no topo map can confirm this): https://www.historicaerials.com/location/43.10688868558635/-76.24458230353763/1956/16

1960 topo showing the ghost ramps: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/43.10471703398228/-76.24035867617145/T1960/16

1972 view showing the never finished ramps and what appears to be a single lane underpass: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/43.104727253843635/-76.24038577079773/1972/16

Are you referring to the wide light colored patch of land, or the more north-south dark line on the 1956 image?  The light line looks to be a field, but if you follow the dark line northbound, it curves to the west a bit north of the Thruway and if you keep going west, you can see old supports for a bridge over the current rail line.  Closer to Baldwinsville, it eventually merges with the current rail line.

I always thought the ramps were for a park that was going to be built but never was.  I found a Draft EIS (https://books.google.com/books?id=9Kc1AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) a while ago for the project that moved the Thruway ramps to the west, and I skimmed through it, but I didn't see any mention of the ramps.  The single-lane underpass you mentioned is currently part of the trails along the lake.

On a side note, I thought it was just the Thruway interchange that was at-grade, but I see that State Fair Blvd/Van Vleck Rd and Walters Rd were at-grade too.



Speaking of I-690 near the Fair, I've long wondered... is there any reason why this ramp to I-690 east (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.081809,-76.2243502,3a,75y,87.95h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHB3Oik3C3bgkYF5Vfy2T7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is closed?

I guess I wonder, does it really serve any purpose when the Fair isn't going?

Oddly enough, it looks open in satellite/3D view (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.0818281,-76.2243822/43.0817869,-76.2243745/@43.0819586,-76.2253568,54a,35y,105.94h,69.56t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0)...

It's only open during the State Fair.  My best guess is that it's to help traffic at the ramps at NY 297/State Fair Blvd.  When the ramp is open, it makes a pair of merges fairly close together on I-690 east, so maybe the ramp is closed to eliminate the double merge.  Maybe NYSDOT thinks having a double merge on I-690 during the fair is less dangerous than having all the traffic get on I-690 at NY 297.  Google Earth shows the month and year the imagery was taken (it used to have the exact day), but it's being glitchy.  For a split second, it's showing 9/19 and I see the fair, so I'm assuming that's the same imagery you're seeing.



Speaking of I-690 near the Fair, I've long wondered... is there any reason why this ramp to I-690 east (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.081809,-76.2243502,3a,75y,87.95h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHB3Oik3C3bgkYF5Vfy2T7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is closed?

I guess I wonder, does it really serve any purpose when the Fair isn't going?
Aren't the Fair parking lots used for concerts in the Amphitheater?

The Orange Lot is the main amphitheater lot, but the Brown and Pink lots are used too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 16, 2019, 02:30:13 PM
A suggestion had come up in the "what would you do with 40 lane miles?" thread, regarding I-590 SB, where a through lane from I-490 WB (overtaking the existing lane contributed by I-490 EB) would provide massive relief during the AM peak hour. I had contacted NYSDOT with my suggestion, and below is the response I got, which was certainly not a definite "no"; I found it both positive and eye-opening:

Quote
Thank you for contacting the Department of Transportation regarding the I590/I490 interchange. As part of our project development process, we look for operational improvement opportunities, such as the one you have suggested below. We have reviewed your concept for changing the ramp configuration and estimate it would cost close to $1 Million for highway reconstruction to make the 490 WB ramp its own lane onto 590 SB and create a new ramp lane for 490 EB to 590 SB.  Since the interchange has space constraints and Interstate standards (i.e. taper lengths and shoulder widths) must be maintained, this concept would require construction of a new through lane from 490 WB and ramp lane from 490 EB. Furthermore, new embankment retaining structures, drainage and highway lighting relocation, and new guide rail installation would likely be needed.

We currently have a resurfacing project programmed for this interchange in 2021. We will evaluate this and other operational and safety improvements during design of this project and pursue implementing them if funding levels and regional priorities permit. Thanks for your suggestion and interest in improving the highway system.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 16, 2019, 02:49:57 PM
t was announced along with a bunch of other freight improvement projects (https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/ny-announces-206m-in-new-freight-related-projects/45896) (first entry for the Mid-Hudson Region).

I know I'm cross posting this from the "NY 17/I-86" thread, but I thought it would be relevant here as well, and just wanted to ask if anyone has any additional info on the below:

Quote
- $10.1 million toward construction of a new travel lane from the Interstate 90 interchange at Route 78 to Route 33 (Genesee Street) in the town of Cheektowaga (new)

What is this referring to? At first, I assumed it's the Thruway that's getting the new travel lane. But then I realized it could be referring to NY 78. Given the price tag, the fact that it's "freight-related", and my estimation of the priorities in the area, I'm certainly hoping it is indeed the Thruway!

If so, then what is going on with stretch from NY 33 to I-290? It must be westbound only that's getting a new lane? I certainly don't see a need for a sixth eastbound lane, but westbound could certainly use an auxiliary lane between Cleveland Dr. and NY 33 WB, with said lane exiting at NY 33 WB, and the fourth (current rightmost) lane continuing to NY 33 EB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 16, 2019, 07:15:14 PM
You would think that a freight improvement project would include rail transportation improvements, like maybe a new bridge across the Hudson south of Poughkeepsie so trains aren't stuck deciding between Spuyten Duyvil or the Selkirk bridge.  They're 100mi apart from each other.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 16, 2019, 07:46:45 PM
The I-84 exit for US 9W in Newburgh still bears the number "10".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 16, 2019, 08:50:22 PM
t was announced along with a bunch of other freight improvement projects (https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/ny-announces-206m-in-new-freight-related-projects/45896) (first entry for the Mid-Hudson Region).

I know I'm cross posting this from the "NY 17/I-86" thread, but I thought it would be relevant here as well, and just wanted to ask if anyone has any additional info on the below:

Quote
- $10.1 million toward construction of a new travel lane from the Interstate 90 interchange at Route 78 to Route 33 (Genesee Street) in the town of Cheektowaga (new)

What is this referring to? At first, I assumed it's the Thruway that's getting the new travel lane. But then I realized it could be referring to NY 78. Given the price tag, the fact that it's "freight-related", and my estimation of the priorities in the area, I'm certainly hoping it is indeed the Thruway!

If so, then what is going on with stretch from NY 33 to I-290? It must be westbound only that's getting a new lane? I certainly don't see a need for a sixth eastbound lane, but westbound could certainly use an auxiliary lane between Cleveland Dr. and NY 33 WB, with said lane exiting at NY 33 WB, and the fourth (current rightmost) lane continuing to NY 33 EB.

Based on the description, I'm guessing NY 78.  NY 33 and Genesee Street are very much separate where they cross the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 16, 2019, 10:06:52 PM
A suggestion had come up in the "what would you do with 40 lane miles?" thread, regarding I-590 SB, where a through lane from I-490 WB (overtaking the existing lane contributed by I-490 EB) would provide massive relief during the AM peak hour. I had contacted NYSDOT with my suggestion, and below is the response I got, which was certainly not a definite "no"; I found it both positive and eye-opening:

Quote
Thank you for contacting the Department of Transportation regarding the I590/I490 interchange. As part of our project development process, we look for operational improvement opportunities, such as the one you have suggested below. We have reviewed your concept for changing the ramp configuration and estimate it would cost close to $1 Million for highway reconstruction to make the 490 WB ramp its own lane onto 590 SB and create a new ramp lane for 490 EB to 590 SB.  Since the interchange has space constraints and Interstate standards (i.e. taper lengths and shoulder widths) must be maintained, this concept would require construction of a new through lane from 490 WB and ramp lane from 490 EB. Furthermore, new embankment retaining structures, drainage and highway lighting relocation, and new guide rail installation would likely be needed.

We currently have a resurfacing project programmed for this interchange in 2021. We will evaluate this and other operational and safety improvements during design of this project and pursue implementing them if funding levels and regional priorities permit. Thanks for your suggestion and interest in improving the highway system.

Congrats! You're now valued.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 17, 2019, 11:00:30 AM
Quote
- $10.1 million toward construction of a new travel lane from the Interstate 90 interchange at Route 78 to Route 33 (Genesee Street) in the town of Cheektowaga (new)
What is this referring to? At first, I assumed it's the Thruway that's getting the new travel lane. But then I realized it could be referring to NY 78. Given the price tag, the fact that it's "freight-related", and my estimation of the priorities in the area, I'm certainly hoping it is indeed the Thruway!
Based on the description, I'm guessing NY 78.  NY 33 and Genesee Street are very much separate where they cross the Thruway.

On the other hand, there's no way a mere 1/2 mile of new pavement could cost $10.1 million. Even $1 million sounds steep for that short stretch of NY 78.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 17, 2019, 12:44:48 PM
Quote
- $10.1 million toward construction of a new travel lane from the Interstate 90 interchange at Route 78 to Route 33 (Genesee Street) in the town of Cheektowaga (new)
What is this referring to? At first, I assumed it's the Thruway that's getting the new travel lane. But then I realized it could be referring to NY 78. Given the price tag, the fact that it's "freight-related", and my estimation of the priorities in the area, I'm certainly hoping it is indeed the Thruway!
Based on the description, I'm guessing NY 78.  NY 33 and Genesee Street are very much separate where they cross the Thruway.

On the other hand, there's no way a mere 1/2 mile of new pavement could cost $10.1 million. Even $1 million sounds steep for that short stretch of NY 78.
It's probably part of a wider project.  I don't think I've ever heard of a widening being done on its own in NY - typically there's significant rehabilitation/reconstruction accompanying it.  Think of Jefferson Road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 17, 2019, 12:49:12 PM
That section of NY 78 needs a rehab. Much of it to the north was rehabbed ~10 years ago. There would be a new bridge involved and probably some property taking at the south end of the project. I could totally see it running $10 million or more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 17, 2019, 02:15:42 PM
Sad day for the Buffalo Skyway. NYS has announced it will be transformed into a linear park with no freeway compliment eastward or tunnel to I-190.

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/bncore/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/City-of-Lights-4.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 17, 2019, 02:36:40 PM
This is going to be a long time from actually happening. There will be lawsuits. Lots of lawsuits. I for one was hoping for the road/rail hybrid.

That said, if it goes through as proposed, there is going to be a ton of traffic headaches.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 17, 2019, 03:03:17 PM
This is going to be a long time from actually happening. There will be lawsuits. Lots of lawsuits. I for one was hoping for the road/rail hybrid.

That said, if it goes through as proposed, there is going to be a ton of traffic headaches.

I too wanted the road/rail hybrid. It's a regressive decision.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 05:48:30 PM
Sad day for the Buffalo Skyway. NYS has announced it will be transformed into a linear park with no freeway compliment eastward or tunnel to I-190.

So they are going to spend $600 million for … nothing?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 17, 2019, 11:31:30 PM
$600 million to get rid of the Skyway as a functional road/bridge. Exit 7 on I-190 southbound will cease to exist.

Welcome to a world where NY 198 has been neutered and the Skyway will become a park........and no upgrade in public transit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 18, 2019, 12:17:32 AM
$600 million to get rid of the Skyway as a functional road/bridge. Exit 7 on I-190 southbound will cease to exist.

Welcome to a world where NY 198 has been neutered and the Skyway will become a park........and no upgrade in public transit.
Who needs Buffalo when we've got Toronto as the regional economic driver?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on September 18, 2019, 12:57:19 AM
I can't help but wonder. If they do end up going through with removing the Skyway (which itself probably isn't the best idea; it would remove a major route to/from the Southtowns), how will they realign NY 5?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 18, 2019, 07:53:03 AM
The I-84 exit for US 9W in Newburgh still bears the number "10".

Speaking of exit 10, ever notice how lane striping doesn’t permit any traffic from east of Beacon to use it? The right lane of the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge is formed by the ramp entering from NY 9D, and has a solid/dashed line that allows merging out of but not into it. West of the bridge it becomes just a solid line, reinforced by “Stay in Lane”  signs, until after you pass exit 10S.

So what’s the “official”  route for east-of-Beacon traffic bound for Newburgh/US 9W? :-)


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 18, 2019, 01:03:13 PM
The I-84 exit for US 9W in Newburgh still bears the number "10".

Speaking of exit 10, ever notice how lane striping doesn’t permit any traffic from east of Beacon to use it? The right lane of the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge is formed by the ramp entering from NY 9D, and has a solid/dashed line that allows merging out of but not into it. West of the bridge it becomes just a solid line, reinforced by “Stay in Lane”  signs, until after you pass exit 10S.

So what’s the “official”  route for east-of-Beacon traffic bound for Newburgh/US 9W? :-)


iPhone
The street view shows a short section west of the bridge with a dashed line before it becomes a solid line, but whether construction has changed that since, I don't know.  Another question would be, what is the rationale for restricting lane changes on the bridge?  I could see having that striping for a short distance, but not the whole way across!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 18, 2019, 02:08:28 PM
After Interstate 84's sequential-to-mileage-based exit renumbering is completed, and the Hutchinson River Parkway converts next year, are there any other roads in New York that have a set date for the same conversion? Or do all the rest of the freeways/tollways and parkways in New York State have no conversion date set yet?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on September 18, 2019, 02:18:55 PM
After Interstate 84's sequential-to-mileage-based exit renumbering is completed, and the Hutchinson River Parkway converts next year, are there any other roads in New York that have a set date for the same conversion? Or do all the rest of the freeways/tollways and parkways in New York State have no conversion date set yet?
IMHO, I-684 would be a logical candidate for such.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 18, 2019, 02:50:21 PM
The I-84 exit for US 9W in Newburgh still bears the number "10".

Speaking of exit 10, ever notice how lane striping doesn’t permit any traffic from east of Beacon to use it? The right lane of the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge is formed by the ramp entering from NY 9D, and has a solid/dashed line that allows merging out of but not into it. West of the bridge it becomes just a solid line, reinforced by “Stay in Lane”  signs, until after you pass exit 10S.

So what’s the “official”  route for east-of-Beacon traffic bound for Newburgh/US 9W? :-)


iPhone

The striping question is really a two part question - on the bridge and west of the bridge.

On the bridge, the right lane is frequently closed.  The dashed lines are there to permit Route 9D traffic to get out of the right lane when it is closed.  Through traffic could never enter the right lane on the bridge; there was dashed striping just west of the bridge to permit that move.

West of the bridge a big reconstruction project is being wrapped up.  There is a sign about repaving.  I would think that the striping there now is temporary.  During the construction, right lane traffic had to get off at Exit 10N.  I assume that when the project is finished dashed striping will be there from west of the bridge.  Until then one just has to cross the solid line to use Exit 10S.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 18, 2019, 03:15:33 PM
After Interstate 84's sequential-to-mileage-based exit renumbering is completed, and the Hutchinson River Parkway converts next year, are there any other roads in New York that have a set date for the same conversion? Or do all the rest of the freeways/tollways and parkways in New York State have no conversion date set yet?
IMHO, I-684 would be a logical candidate for such.

I agree. And since Region 8 seems to be taking the lead here, I wouldn't be shocked if that or the Sprain is the next major route to change. But there is no official conversion date for anything else.

On the bridge, the right lane is frequently closed.  The dashed lines are there to permit Route 9D traffic to get out of the right lane when it is closed.  Through traffic could never enter the right lane on the bridge; there was dashed striping just west of the bridge to permit that move.

You say that like people follow the striping when the right lane is open. But since the right lane is only open for the PM rush or when the left lane is closed for something, it's rarely a concern.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 18, 2019, 11:10:44 PM
You say that like people follow the striping when the right lane is open. But since the right lane is only open for the PM rush or when the left lane is closed for something, it's rarely a concern.

Ah so that's the deal. It's open during rush hours.

I do recall back in the late 90s there were three lanes open across the bridge in both directions at all times. I guess at some point in the range of 10-20 years ago someone at NYSBA decided the bridge should have a lane normally closed for shoulder's sake.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 19, 2019, 02:32:13 PM
An interesting photo in today's Times Union:
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/00/16/66/16838025/3/975x0.jpg
Photo is said to be from 1978. Apparently both directions are on a single span, pavement marking is weird, and speed limit is 40. Is there some work going on on the other span? Is 40 the work zone limit?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on September 19, 2019, 03:43:02 PM
After Interstate 84's sequential-to-mileage-based exit renumbering is completed, and the Hutchinson River Parkway converts next year, are there any other roads in New York that have a set date for the same conversion? Or do all the rest of the freeways/tollways and parkways in New York State have no conversion date set yet?
IMHO, I-684 would be a logical candidate for such.

I agree. And since Region 8 seems to be taking the lead here, I wouldn't be shocked if that or the Sprain is the next major route to change. But there is no official conversion date for anything else.

On the bridge, the right lane is frequently closed.  The dashed lines are there to permit Route 9D traffic to get out of the right lane when it is closed.  Through traffic could never enter the right lane on the bridge; there was dashed striping just west of the bridge to permit that move.

You say that like people follow the striping when the right lane is open. But since the right lane is only open for the PM rush or when the left lane is closed for something, it's rarely a concern.

I'm interested to see how the HRP conversion goes since R11 doesn't post mile markers in NYC. The lowest posted mm is 6.x at the Bronx/Wch line. They need to be replaced, some of the guide signs aren't even legible at night. Plus it'd be nice if the I-684 exit got a number. The Sprain's signs seem fine to me, but then again so did the Taconic's before they got replaced.

I asked NYSDOT about when the Palisades Parkway is getting new signs, and if when that time comes, will the exit numbers be converted. I was told there is no current project, but the exits would be posted "in accordance with current federal standards" regarding exit numbers. The PIP's signs are showing their age.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on September 19, 2019, 06:18:37 PM
An interesting photo in today's Times Union:
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/00/16/66/16838025/3/975x0.jpg
Photo is said to be from 1978. Apparently both directions are on a single span, pavement marking is weird, and speed limit is 40. Is there some work going on on the other span? Is 40 the work zone limit?

Is that the Twin Bridges on the Northway just north of Albany? 

Looks like the solid white line is the demarcation between the two temporary lanes, with the weird pavement markings being the permanent lane markings for a normal width 3 lane bridge. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 19, 2019, 07:42:14 PM
An interesting photo in today's Times Union:
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/00/16/66/16838025/3/975x0.jpg
Photo is said to be from 1978. Apparently both directions are on a single span, pavement marking is weird, and speed limit is 40. Is there some work going on on the other span? Is 40 the work zone limit?

Is that the Twin Bridges on the Northway just north of Albany? 

Looks like the solid white line is the demarcation between the two temporary lanes, with the weird pavement markings being the permanent lane markings for a normal width 3 lane bridge.
Yes, the second bridge can be seen through the fog
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 20, 2019, 10:48:09 AM
I wish there was a vantage point to photograph this bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 20, 2019, 01:28:08 PM
Local roads are good for that (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7921686,-73.7624802,3a,75y,127.51h,82.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svFI68u05LXMsJNgCL57wdA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DvFI68u05LXMsJNgCL57wdA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D188.60709%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 20, 2019, 02:02:25 PM
Odd. I think I was looking up on the bluff but had the view impeded by a power line and not closer to the river.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 20, 2019, 02:45:46 PM
Odd. I think I was looking up on the bluff but had the view impeded by a power line and not closer to the river.

Yeah, you're not getting anything up on the bluff.

Planes that use Runway 1/19 in/out of ALB generally have an excellent bird's-eye view of the bridges, too. I didn't get a good picture when I flew out last month due to lighting, but I have gotten excellent pictures in the past.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 20, 2019, 10:25:59 PM
The north span of the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge will be re-decked, tolls will be increased, and all electronic tolling will begin.

Read all about it:  https://www.recordonline.com/news/20190919/newburgh-beacon-bridge-to-be-redecked-in-20-tolls-to-rise
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 21, 2019, 02:40:14 AM
Quoting myself here for ease of access.

Here's what I would think the Hutch numbering would look like:

Exit 1A: Bruckner Blvd WEST (NB); TO I-95 SOUTH/I-278 WEST Bruckner Blvd (SB)
Exit 1B: East Tremont Ave/Westchester Ave
Exit 2 A-B: Pelham Parkway East/West
Exit 3A (SB ONLY): I-95 SOUTH TO I-695/I-295 Throgs Neck Br//Stillwell Ave
Exit 3B (SB ONLY): Baychester Ave//TO I-95 NORTH New Haven
Exit 4: Shore Rd Orchard Beach/City Island
Exit 5 (NB ONLY): I-95 NORTH New Haven
Exit 6 (6A SB): US 1 Pelham Manor(/New Rochelle SB)
Exit 6B (SB ONLY): Sandford Blvd Pelham Manor/Mt Vernon
Exit 7A: Wolfs Land Mt Vernon/Pelham (NB); East 3rd St Mt Vernon/Pelham (SB)
Exit 7B: East Lincoln Ave Pelham/Mt Vernon
Exit 8A (NB ONLY): Cross County Parkway WEST TO Saw Mill Parkway Yonkers
Exit 8B (NB ONLY): Pelhamdale Ave/New Rochelle Rd New Rochelle
Exit 9 (SB ONLY): Cross County Parkway WEST TO Saw Mill Parkway Yonkers/GW Bridge
Exit 10A: Webster Ave New Rochelle (NB); Mill Rd EAST New Rochelle (SB)
Exit 10B: North Ave New Rochelle/Eastchester (NB); Mill Rd WEST Eastchester (SB)
Exit 11 (SB ONLY): Wilmot Rd
Exit 12: NY 125 Scarsdale/New Rochelle
Exit 13: Mamaroneck Rd Scarsdale/Mamaroneck
Exit 14 A-B: Mamaroneck Ave SOUTH/NORTH
Exit 16: NY 127 White Plains/Harrison
Exit 17A: Westchester Ave EAST//TO I-287 EAST Rye
Exit 17B: Westchester Ave WEST//TO I-287 West Tappan Zee Br (yes, I left the old name)
Exit 17C (NB ONLY): I-684 NORTH Brewster
Exit 18A: NY 120 TO Westchester Co Airport  Purchase St
Exit 18B: Lincoln Ave Rye Brook/Harrison
Exit 19: North Ridge St Rye Brook
Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1.  GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)

As for the Palisades: only question is will the numbers reset at the NY line or will everything be from Fort Lee?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 26, 2019, 01:39:48 PM
Any new pics for the I-84 sign replacement and exit conversion?

Here's Exit 50 (old 15) https://i.imgur.com/JIlIuSL.jpg
And Exit 68 (old 20) https://i.imgur.com/8H41s5J.jpg

The signs are replaced east of the Hudson, haven't been to Newburgh in a few weeks but I imagine it's made its way to Orange County.
The one for Exit 68 even has an Old Exits 20 S-N supplement sign. Not the standard square tab, but still impressive.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 26, 2019, 04:19:13 PM
Why doesn't the Exit 50 sign not have an old 15 sign? Did they forget to install it? Did it fall off?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 26, 2019, 08:41:55 PM
They might not be putting them on every sign.  If I remember right, when I-395 in CT converted, only the first advance sign got the "old exit XX" tab.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: abqtraveler on September 28, 2019, 11:37:23 PM
They might not be putting them on every sign.  If I remember right, when I-395 in CT converted, only the first advance sign got the "old exit XX" tab.
Connecticut is placing the "Old Exit" placard on the first advanced guide sign and the exit sign in the ramp gore.  As was the case with I-395 and Route 2A, CONNDOT is taking the same approach when it replaces signs and renumbers exits on Route 72 next year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on October 01, 2019, 10:11:52 PM
Speaking of I-84 (NY), I was in R8 this past weekend and noticed sign posts just past exit 2 eastbound in the median right at a No U Turn location. Any idea what they are for? Obviously a sign install, but I am not sure what kind.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 02, 2019, 03:42:42 PM
I was with a friend on Tuesday, traveling to a baseball game in Central Islip, Suffolk County. Anyways, I saw all the construction at the I-95/I-297 interchange (Exit 21) in Port Chester/Rye. I don't know if the ramp from I-287 East to I-95 North was a temporary ramp or the existing one with temporary structures attached to either side. I do know the Grace Church Street bridge nearby also had rebuild going on.

As a fun question: When they removed the old toll plaza on I-95 in New Rochelle, what did they do with that HUGE I-95 shield that was on it? :)

Lastly, a part fun/part confusing question: Why are there seemingly a million parkways all over Nassau and Suffolk County? The only parkways in Connecticut are with Route 15 and two distinct sections: The Merritt from the Housatonic River south/west to the NY border and the Wilbur Cross from the Housatonic River north/east to the I-91 junction in Meriden.  :hmmm:

Coming over the Sikorsky Bridge southbound, from Milford into Stratford (10/1/2019)
(https://i.imgur.com/G6cfPOz.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 02, 2019, 07:51:17 PM
That's because Connecticut didn't have Robert Moses.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 03, 2019, 12:44:03 AM
1) CT also has the Milford Parkway and a bunch of secondary highway beach connectors.
2) One of the two I-95 shields is preserved somewhere. It should eventually be on display somewhere else. The other is either a political gift or scrap metal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on October 04, 2019, 06:39:26 AM
I saw this morning while bringing my folks to the airport, that the new Northway "exit 3" southbound on ramp is open, and the old exit 4 on ramp is closed.  What's the planned finishing timeframe for that mess?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 04, 2019, 07:46:07 AM
I saw this morning while bringing my folks to the airport, that the new Northway "exit 3" southbound on ramp is open, and the old exit 4 on ramp is closed.  What's the planned finishing timeframe for that mess?
Those ramps are open for a week at least. But it will be worse before becoming better. Repavement of main road is apparently being planned, and that will be interesting. Flyover ramp seems to require a bit more work.
I would speculate that southbound portion may be done on 2 -3 weeks, but northbound may go on hold till next season
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on October 04, 2019, 08:14:28 AM
KEVIN_224, that sign should be blue and say (in best Ryan Seacrest style) THIS IS THE MERRITT PARKWAY in button copy.

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 04, 2019, 01:24:09 PM
Ha ha! No Ryan Seacrest for me, thank you! :p

Yes, I forgot about the Milford roadway. I looked at that as more of a connector road, if anything.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 04, 2019, 01:48:12 PM
Speaking of I-84 (NY), I was in R8 this past weekend and noticed sign posts just past exit 2 eastbound in the median right at a No U Turn location. Any idea what they are for? Obviously a sign install, but I am not sure what kind.
Probably a VMS sign.  I know more of those are being installed around the state.

I saw this morning while bringing my folks to the airport, that the new Northway "exit 3" southbound on ramp is open, and the old exit 4 on ramp is closed.  What's the planned finishing timeframe for that mess?
There's more discussion on that project here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24292.0).

I saw this morning while bringing my folks to the airport, that the new Northway "exit 3" southbound on ramp is open, and the old exit 4 on ramp is closed.  What's the planned finishing timeframe for that mess?
Those ramps are open for a week at least. But it will be worse before becoming better. Repavement of main road is apparently being planned, and that will be interesting. Flyover ramp seems to require a bit more work.
I would speculate that southbound portion may be done on 2 -3 weeks, but northbound may go on hold till next season
There was repaving when the bridges were replaced too, and that wasn't bad.  I can't imagine there would be lane closures during rush hour.

A lot of the northbound work is probably dependent on how long it takes to finish the sound wall and overhead sign structures.  The lane shifts are already gone.  Southbound, there are still lane shifts, and grading/paving needs to be done for the new exit 3 and 4 off ramps as well as the exit 5 on ramp (which is only barely visible from NY 155 and not visible from I-87 or the existing exit 4 ramp at all).

I don't know what the timetable is, but it's not unprecedented for NYSDOT to open things as late as December (when I-781 opened).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 04, 2019, 02:44:17 PM

There was repaving when the bridges were replaced too, and that wasn't bad.  I can't imagine there would be lane closures during rush hour.

A lot of the northbound work is probably dependent on how long it takes to finish the sound wall and overhead sign structures.  The lane shifts are already gone.  Southbound, there are still lane shifts, and grading/paving needs to be done for the new exit 3 and 4 off ramps as well as the exit 5 on ramp (which is only barely visible from NY 155 and not visible from I-87 or the existing exit 4 ramp at all).

I don't know what the timetable is, but it's not unprecedented for NYSDOT to open things as late as December (when I-781 opened).

There is plenty of heavy machinery on southbound shoulder, some seem to be trucked in in a past few days. There is a lot of gravel being compacted on the shoulder of southbound mainline. An overpass on northbound is milled so that geotextile is sticking out. Pretty good indications of at least some pavement work being planned.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 04, 2019, 09:13:22 PM

There was repaving when the bridges were replaced too, and that wasn't bad.  I can't imagine there would be lane closures during rush hour.

A lot of the northbound work is probably dependent on how long it takes to finish the sound wall and overhead sign structures.  The lane shifts are already gone.  Southbound, there are still lane shifts, and grading/paving needs to be done for the new exit 3 and 4 off ramps as well as the exit 5 on ramp (which is only barely visible from NY 155 and not visible from I-87 or the existing exit 4 ramp at all).

I don't know what the timetable is, but it's not unprecedented for NYSDOT to open things as late as December (when I-781 opened).

There is plenty of heavy machinery on southbound shoulder, some seem to be trucked in in a past few days. There is a lot of gravel being compacted on the shoulder of southbound mainline. An overpass on northbound is milled so that geotextile is sticking out. Pretty good indications of at least some pavement work being planned.

I didn't say that pavement work wasn't being planned.  But southbound still needs a lot of work - grading for the remainder of the exit 3 ramp only began this week after the on ramp was moved, and work can't proceed on the new exit 4 off ramp and exit 5 on ramp until that is open.  I also think the resurfacing of the northbound lanes causing carmageddon for several weeks like you seems to be implying is overblown.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 05, 2019, 07:29:09 AM
I still don't understand why they got rid of the shoulders on Albany-Shaker Road.  I actually broke down on that stretch by the airport a couple of years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 05, 2019, 10:35:43 PM
I actually took a drive down there to see what's going on with that.  My guess would be to minimize ROW costs for the multi-use path and/or traffic calming.  It matches the stretch along the airport parking, so it's less noticeable than I thought it would be.

Meanwhile, NB Northway paving has begun.  Contrary to Kalvado's predictions, traffic was flowing freely, no carmageddon in sight.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 05, 2019, 10:58:08 PM
I actually took a drive down there to see what's going on with that.  My guess would be to minimize ROW costs for the multi-use path and/or traffic calming.  It matches the stretch along the airport parking, so it's less noticeable than I thought it would be.

Meanwhile, NB Northway paving has begun.  Contrary to Kalvado's predictions, traffic was flowing freely, no carmageddon in sight.
Wait until Monday... It takes no specific reason to have a parking lot on that highway, and with paving.... Maybe I'll be back home by 8,  as I usually wait until traffic clears
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 06, 2019, 11:25:23 AM
I actually took a drive down there to see what's going on with that.  My guess would be to minimize ROW costs for the multi-use path and/or traffic calming.  It matches the stretch along the airport parking, so it's less noticeable than I thought it would be.

Meanwhile, NB Northway paving has begun.  Contrary to Kalvado's predictions, traffic was flowing freely, no carmageddon in sight.
I don't think the tradeoff for that stupidly wide multiuse path for no shoulder is a good one.  They put a curb in, so if a car has issues, they have to just park in the lane.  Seems just stupid from a safety standpoint.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 06, 2019, 05:54:03 PM
And whatever it worth... Times Union article says the estimated completion date of Exit 3 project is December 20th.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on October 15, 2019, 07:27:37 PM
While looking at train videos on YouTube a couple nights ago, I came across a few interesting road-related clips.

This video shows the Can of Worms construction in Rochester in 1987 starting at 7:55 (look behind the yellow trailer):

This video shows the Can of Worms construction in 1989 starting at 5:58 (look behind the same yellow trailer):

This video shows the old and new Bridge Street bridges in East Syracuse:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on October 16, 2019, 09:57:19 PM
While looking at train videos on YouTube a couple nights ago, I came across a few interesting road-related clips.

The two Rochester videos appear to be the same video.

The Can of Worms reconstruction project began in March 1988.  Judging by the progress that I am able to see...and some patches of snow on the ground, I would say this was recorded maybe early 1990 (The project was completed in 1991).

Also of note (Timestamps correspond to the first video)...

1:14  I-490/Inner Loop interchange in downtown Rochester
7:51  Winton Rd.
9:18  Lincoln Rd. in East Rochester
9:49  Main St. (NY 250) in Fairport
10:31 Wayneport Rd. in Macedon (?)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 20, 2019, 04:02:49 PM
I was through the NY 17 Exit 131 construction today and it is (finally) operating as a DDI. This is likely new within the last couple of weeks and none of the online map platforms show it. It's a 2-lane exit from I-87 with an option lane. Detour ramp to 6/17 WB remains in place, don't think the new WB entrance ramp is open yet. Didn't get pictures thanks to the cops hanging out in the median on the bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on October 20, 2019, 10:52:14 PM
Traveled the length of I-84 in New York state today on a trip from CT to Ohio.  Sign replacement project on I-84 has reached the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge.  New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up.  The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge. 

I will be travelling eastbound later in the week and hope to get the pics up by next weekend.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 20, 2019, 10:55:41 PM
New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up.  The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.

Several new VMSes are going up across the state. I-87 is getting them up to the Adirondack Park boundary, formerly only portables existed north of Saratoga Springs. I-88 has a bunch of poles/equipment boxes in the median, too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on October 21, 2019, 08:03:50 AM
I have noticed them along I-81 and at areas along I-86.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 21, 2019, 07:11:29 PM
Traveled the length of I-84 in New York state today on a trip from CT to Ohio.  Sign replacement project on I-84 has reached the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge.  New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up.  The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge. 

I will be travelling eastbound later in the week and hope to get the pics up by next weekend.

I can also report that the weird striping situation I reported on earlier (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1487.msg2444425#msg2444425) has been remedied.

EDIT: Also, I noticed yesterday that new sign supports are in place in the vicinity of exit 10, suggesting that new, renumbered signs are soon to appear.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 27, 2019, 09:50:45 AM
For decades, I've advocated closing the Meadowbrook Road interchange along Southern State Parkway duet to it's close proximity between the Meadowbrook State Parkway and Merrick Avenue. Now I've also decided that the northbound on-ramp from Harris Avenue to the Saw Mill River Parkway ought to be closed, because the on-ramp for NY 117 is close enough.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 27, 2019, 08:20:38 PM
I agree about closing the Meadowbrook Rd. Interchange. That stretch of Southern State Pkwy. is badly antiquated. Too many entrances and exits. And the S.S. Pkwy/Meadowbrook Pkwy. Interchange is badly in need of reconstruction to bring it up to modern standards.

Think anyone at NYS DOT is paying attention?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 27, 2019, 09:49:33 PM
I remember a letter to Newsday advocating a new interchange between the Meadowbrook State Parkway and Jerusalem Avenue! Thank God nobody in NYSDOT was listening to them. The only thing that should happen with Jerusalem Avenue is that it should be extended as NY 105 west of NY 106.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: nysdot_employee on October 29, 2019, 10:10:21 AM
New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up.  The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.

Several new VMSes are going up across the state. I-87 is getting them up to the Adirondack Park boundary, formerly only portables existed north of Saratoga Springs. I-88 has a bunch of poles/equipment boxes in the median, too.

Yes, there is another Governor-Initiated project to install VMS and cameras along major corridors throughout upstate to improve communication during snow and ice season. Its a good project to improve our ITS infrastructure, but the upper management's personal interest in everything being complete by Nov 1, is bordering on obsessive. The Chief of Staff is personally driving around to verify installations for some reason so he can report to the Gov's Chamber. The politics have gotten out of control.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on October 30, 2019, 03:15:10 AM
New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up.  The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.

Several new VMSes are going up across the state. I-87 is getting them up to the Adirondack Park boundary, formerly only portables existed north of Saratoga Springs. I-88 has a bunch of poles/equipment boxes in the median, too.

Yes, there is another Governor-Initiated project to install VMS and cameras along major corridors throughout upstate to improve communication during snow and ice season. Its a good project to improve our ITS infrastructure, but the upper management's personal interest in everything being complete by Nov 1, is bordering on obsessive. The Chief of Staff is personally driving around to verify installations for some reason so he can report to the Gov's Chamber. The politics have gotten out of control.

Another type of VMS installation:
On the 4-lane divided section of NY 36 north of Hornell, about a half-mile before I-86 on each side, there are brand-new plain concrete slabs at ground level, for use as (semi-?)permanent parking spots for portable VMS’s. Is this a new NYSDOT thing?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: goldfishcrackers4 on October 30, 2019, 06:14:37 AM
Anyone have any ideas what this new barrier will be? I can't find anything further.

https://www.uticaod.com/news/20191029/dot-arterial-drainage-to-be-addressed

SM-G960U

Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on October 30, 2019, 08:19:46 AM
Probably some sort of guiderail guardrail instead of a Jersey barrier.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on October 30, 2019, 10:27:07 AM
What determines what type of guardrail is installed in New York state?

NYSDOT is replacing guardrails along NY 13 and they are using all of the available types:
* W-Beam with close and far-spaced channel posts
* Cable Barriers
* Box Beam with close and far-spaced square posts

There doesn't seem to be any pattern for the installation or selection of guardrail types. For instance, a W-Beam was used on a section with a moderate drop-off with close-spaced channel posts, but a box-beam was used elsewhere with far-spaced square posts. It's not a criticism, but is there a document from NYSDOT that explains their usage?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 30, 2019, 01:36:39 PM
Basically, there's a ton of factors that need to be weighed when selecting the type of guide rail (which is apparently two words, you learn something new every day!) to use.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/chapt_10.pdf
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 30, 2019, 05:25:56 PM
An update on I-84: about half of the signs between at least NY 17K and the river have been converted to the new exit numbers. Notable exceptions remain at (old) exits 7 and 10 (and 11).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on October 30, 2019, 09:22:28 PM
Basically, there's a ton of factors that need to be weighed when selecting the type of guide rail (which is apparently two words, you learn something new every day!) to use.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/chapt_10.pdf
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm

Thank you! It still just seems weird to see basically every guide rail type used within a two-mile section of NY 13 whereas before it was basically all cable and box-beam barriers. Or if it was in a state like Kentucky, it'd be all W-shaped guide rails.

I'm still sour on their discontinuance of Corten guide rails.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on October 31, 2019, 01:46:37 PM
New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up.  The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.

Several new VMSes are going up across the state. I-87 is getting them up to the Adirondack Park boundary, formerly only portables existed north of Saratoga Springs. I-88 has a bunch of poles/equipment boxes in the median, too.

Yes, there is another Governor-Initiated project to install VMS and cameras along major corridors throughout upstate to improve communication during snow and ice season. Its a good project to improve our ITS infrastructure, but the upper management's personal interest in everything being complete by Nov 1, is bordering on obsessive. The Chief of Staff is personally driving around to verify installations for some reason so he can report to the Gov's Chamber. The politics have gotten out of control.

Another type of VMS installation:
On the 4-lane divided section of NY 36 north of Hornell, about a half-mile before I-86 on each side, there are brand-new plain concrete slabs at ground level, for use as (semi-?)permanent parking spots for portable VMS’s. Is this a new NYSDOT thing?

I’ve seen a few of these lately, there’s another on Route 17 between Johnson City and Vestal.  Interesting approach.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 31, 2019, 05:12:21 PM
New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up.  The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.

Several new VMSes are going up across the state. I-87 is getting them up to the Adirondack Park boundary, formerly only portables existed north of Saratoga Springs. I-88 has a bunch of poles/equipment boxes in the median, too.

Yes, there is another Governor-Initiated project to install VMS and cameras along major corridors throughout upstate to improve communication during snow and ice season. Its a good project to improve our ITS infrastructure, but the upper management's personal interest in everything being complete by Nov 1, is bordering on obsessive. The Chief of Staff is personally driving around to verify installations for some reason so he can report to the Gov's Chamber. The politics have gotten out of control.

Another type of VMS installation:
On the 4-lane divided section of NY 36 north of Hornell, about a half-mile before I-86 on each side, there are brand-new plain concrete slabs at ground level, for use as (semi-?)permanent parking spots for portable VMS’s. Is this a new NYSDOT thing?

A number of years ago the exit ramp sign for Exit 37 on I-81 NB was knocked over in an accident and the sign was destroyed instead of replacing the sign, NYSDOT R3 poured a concrete slab and placed a portable VMS that alternated with

SANDY
CREEK
LACONA
-----
EXIT
37
--->

for over a year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on October 31, 2019, 10:02:26 PM
New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up.  The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.

Several new VMSes are going up across the state. I-87 is getting them up to the Adirondack Park boundary, formerly only portables existed north of Saratoga Springs. I-88 has a bunch of poles/equipment boxes in the median, too.

Yes, there is another Governor-Initiated project to install VMS and cameras along major corridors throughout upstate to improve communication during snow and ice season. Its a good project to improve our ITS infrastructure, but the upper management's personal interest in everything being complete by Nov 1, is bordering on obsessive. The Chief of Staff is personally driving around to verify installations for some reason so he can report to the Gov's Chamber. The politics have gotten out of control.

Another type of VMS installation:
On the 4-lane divided section of NY 36 north of Hornell, about a half-mile before I-86 on each side, there are brand-new plain concrete slabs at ground level, for use as (semi-?)permanent parking spots for portable VMS’s. Is this a new NYSDOT thing?

The slabs may be new, but I can think of a couple portable VMSes that have been in a single location for several years:
All dates are based on Street View.  Even though the VMSes are portable, they're on the 511 site.  I recall seeing portable VMSes being used for the State Fair on the 511 site too, but they were actually temporary.  For the I-81 VMS, it's been "temporary" for over 10 years!  Is it cheaper to use a portable VMS for that long instead of installing a permanent one?  For the ones on NY 370, I'm surprised they used temporary VMSes when they installed an overheight warning system.  There's plans to improve the system, so I wonder if there will be permanent VMSes installed when that happens.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 31, 2019, 10:42:18 PM
On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 02, 2019, 01:42:59 PM
On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.
given the proliferation of cameras all over the place, I still have two questions:
1. Why only some of them?
2. Where can I view those feeds?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 02, 2019, 10:02:38 PM
On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.
given the proliferation of cameras all over the place, I still have two questions:
1. Why only some of them?
2. Where can I view those feeds?
1) Don't know.
2) You can't.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on November 19, 2019, 08:57:22 AM
Has there been any discussion on other interstates in NY getting their exit numbers converted next year or so?  I see MA is finally going to start as of next year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 19, 2019, 09:07:18 AM
Has there been any discussion on other interstates in NY getting their exit numbers converted next year or so?  I see MA is finally going to start as of next year.
Not on the ones that really matter (I-90/I-87).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on November 19, 2019, 09:35:22 AM
Has there been any discussion on other interstates in NY getting their exit numbers converted next year or so?  I see MA is finally going to start as of next year.
Not on the ones that really matter (I-90/I-87).

Christ.  I don't see it being very difficult to do, just time consuming.  I think I speak for most NYers when I say I'm sick of having three sets of exit numbers for both highways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 19, 2019, 09:37:53 AM
Unfortunately, your perception of the majority of NYers is off.  As long as I've lived in NY, people see messing with exit numbers as unneeded.  Even on the Northway, people use the numbers for navigation (Up at Exit 19...or whatever).

Most drivers don't care.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on November 19, 2019, 09:41:51 AM
Unfortunately, your perception of the majority of NYers is off.  As long as I've lived in NY, people see messing with exit numbers as unneeded.  Even on the Northway, people use the numbers for navigation (Up at Exit 19...or whatever).

Most drivers don't care.

I guess we'll have to see what happens.  If I-84 and I-99 were successful, then that perception might change.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 19, 2019, 12:52:00 PM
Most people think of the Northway and Thruway as separate roads around here.  Meanwhile, most around Rochester don't navigate by exit numbers, and my aunt and uncle keep asking when NY will join "the rest of the world" and go distance-based.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on November 19, 2019, 03:05:12 PM
Unfortunately, your perception of the majority of NYers is off.
On the high side or on the low side?   :-/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on November 19, 2019, 03:58:02 PM
Most people think of the Northway and Thruway as separate roads around here.

To many in that area, the route number is secondary to the road name. Having spent many summers at Lake George growing up, if we were to give someone directions, it would be "Thruway Exit 24, then the Northway to Exit 20", not "I-87 exit 24, then I-87 exit 20". So no confusion because the exit numbers are specific to the road name most people used. Having lived through the days when I-87 going south at Newburgh magically jumped across the river to head down what is now I-684, you just never thought of that section of the Thruway as I-87 because you weren't following I-87, you were following the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2019, 05:49:37 PM
I believe Interstate 86/NY 17 could have a sequential-to-milepost conversion without too much trouble (or protest). That would eliminate the first exit being Exit 4 (becoming Exit 1), and would eliminate the need to use the numerous missing exits numbers along the corridor. 1, 2, 3, 5, 22, 55, 85 and 86 (when/if the missing link around Hale Eddy is built), as well as the missing numbers 88, 91, 95, as well as former 117 would all be rendered redundant if the Interstate 86/NY 17 corridor had such a conversion.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 19, 2019, 07:16:21 PM
I believe Interstate 86/NY 17 could have a sequential-to-milepost conversion without too much trouble (or protest). That would eliminate the first exit being Exit 4 (becoming Exit 1), and would eliminate the need to use the numerous missing exits numbers along the corridor. 1, 2, 3, 5, 22, 55, 85 and 86 (when/if the missing link around Hale Eddy is built), as well as the missing numbers 88, 91, 95, as well as former 117 would all be rendered redundant if the Interstate 86/NY 17 corridor had such a conversion.

86/17 would be the hardest remaining route not called I-87 or I-90 due to the coordination required. 4 NYSDOT regions. Region 8 (the easternmost of the 4 involved) has been taking the lead on this, but they're trying to stick to stuff within a single region at this point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 19, 2019, 07:57:28 PM
Has there been any discussion on other interstates in NY getting their exit numbers converted next year or so?  I see MA is finally going to start as of next year.
Not on the ones that really matter (I-90/I-87).

Christ.  I don't see it being very difficult to do, just time consuming.  I think I speak for most NYers when I say I'm sick of having three sets of exit numbers for both highways.
Wait until they go all-electronic ORT. Once you don't need tickets, the exit renumbering becomes much easier.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on November 20, 2019, 07:13:31 AM
I believe Interstate 86/NY 17 could have a sequential-to-milepost conversion without too much trouble (or protest). That would eliminate the first exit being Exit 4 (becoming Exit 1), and would eliminate the need to use the numerous missing exits numbers along the corridor. 1, 2, 3, 5, 22, 55, 85 and 86 (when/if the missing link around Hale Eddy is built), as well as the missing numbers 88, 91, 95, as well as former 117 would all be rendered redundant if the Interstate 86/NY 17 corridor had such a conversion.

I heard that the first exit being exit 4 was from some wackadoo idea that because it ended with exit 3 in PA, that they had to continue with exit 4.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 20, 2019, 01:16:23 PM
Close, but not quite.  The numbers are a continuation of PA's, but why they start at 4 is a mystery - current PA exit 3 was exit 2 back when they were still sequential!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 20, 2019, 01:57:36 PM
How about New York City's or Long Island's exit numbers? Outside of the Hutchinson River Parkway's proposed conversion, how much resistance would be encountered to renumber all of their routes' exits to mileage-based? I would speculate that it might be easier to renumber exits in upstate New York than in New York City and Long Island. Am I wrong in making such an assumption?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 20, 2019, 02:11:59 PM
How about New York City's or Long Island's exit numbers? Outside of the Hutchinson River Parkway's proposed conversion, how much resistance would be encountered to renumber all of their routes' exits to mileage-based? I would speculate that it might be easier to renumber exits in upstate New York than in New York City and Long Island. Am I wrong in making such an assumption?

Yes and no. Most Downstate freeways are already close to 1 exit per mile and the change would be minimal. For that reason, I'd argue that some roads do not need to be converted. However, Regions 10 and 11 don't post standard mile markers, so the distance thing won't mean much unless they decide to milepost everything, and good luck getting that to happen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 20, 2019, 02:53:19 PM
Although I do want NY to switch over to mileage-based exit numbers, I do like the directional suffixes and the weirdo Long Island prefixes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on November 20, 2019, 09:51:53 PM
Close, but not quite.  The numbers are a continuation of PA's, but why they start at 4 is a mystery - current PA exit 3 was exit 2 back when they were still sequential!

How far fetched would it be to suggest that an old (presumably abandoned) plan was to link it with a slightly realigned Bayfront Connector?

Keeping the comment on topic, I predict I-88 will be the next to switch to mileage based exits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 20, 2019, 10:40:24 PM
Although I do want NY to switch over to mileage-based exit numbers, I do like the directional suffixes and the weirdo Long Island prefixes.
Yeah, I'm gonna miss if they ever get rid of the prefixes. I bet they'll make the argument about having so many freeways in a small space to keep them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on November 21, 2019, 01:20:08 PM
How about New York City's or Long Island's exit numbers? Outside of the Hutchinson River Parkway's proposed conversion, how much resistance would be encountered to renumber all of their routes' exits to mileage-based? I would speculate that it might be easier to renumber exits in upstate New York than in New York City and Long Island. Am I wrong in making such an assumption?

The Cross-Bronx/Bruckner parts of 95 are all already mileage based. Naturally the NE Thruway part isn't, but that's NYSTA for you. They at least started their numbering to match the mileage based numbers from the city. Also, the Port Authority still signs their exit numbers sequentially since there was a move to change 95 back to sequential numbering during the early aughts which is why the HH Parkway exit is 1 going NB, and the HRD exit is 2 instead of being 1A and 1B respectively (but they are going SB since NYSDOT maintains them).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 21, 2019, 01:28:45 PM
Is it likely that the portion of Interstate 95 between Exits 8C and 22 (which used to be Exits 1 through 13) will ever have their exits renumbered to mileage-based? It's true there would only be minor number adjustments to the corridor if it was done, but I think when they got rid of the previous exits from the Pelham Parkway onward, they should have Interstate 95's exit numbers mileage-based like the portion from the state line to Orchard Beach/City Island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on November 21, 2019, 02:18:32 PM
Is it likely that the portion of Interstate 95 between Exits 8C and 22 (which used to be Exits 1 through 13) will ever have their exits renumbered to mileage-based? It's true there would only be minor number adjustments to the corridor if it was done, but I think when they got rid of the previous exits from the Pelham Parkway onward, they should have Interstate 95's exit numbers mileage-based like the portion from the state line to Orchard Beach/City Island.

It's doubtful. It's also not super helpful since NYSTA's mile markers here are for their own mileage only (so they're NE1, NE2, etc.) and not 95's overall mileage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 21, 2019, 06:25:04 PM
If the New England Thruway numbers were to be changed...

9→8D
10→9A
11→9B
12→10A
13→10B
14→11
15→13
16→14
17→15
18A→17
18B→18
19→20
20→22A
21→22B
22→23

This is by the method "always round down", which is what NY seems to have generally decided they are doing and is how the existing numbers on the NYSDOT portion are assigned.

All of that is close enough to what exists for the change to be more confusing than helpful. So, yeah, it'd be sensible to leave alone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 21, 2019, 08:57:51 PM
The last few numbers there don't match the calculated mileage I have for my I-95 exit list, but if anything mine only illustrates the point even more:
-9-19: same as Duke87
-20: 21
-21: 22A
-22: 22B

Exits 13 and 14 being off by 3 is more than I'd personally like, and there's a 2.5 mile gap between exits 18 and 19, but I-295 in ME has a 3.3 mile gap between exits 9 and 10, so it's not unprecedented.  At least it's not as bad as I-664 in VA.  And, of course, there's the mileage issue (which I-287 shares).

Given how the MA conversion is going, I would think that it would be possible for the NE Thruway, Belt/Cross Island, Meadowbrook (but please get rid of those prefixes), Robert Moses Causeway (ditto), Sagtikos/Sunken Meadow (though I'd prefer they be given continuous numbering like FDR/Harlem River Drive; ditto on the prefixes), the first three exits of the Wantagh, I-787, I-590/NY 590, and I-990 (possibly NY 440 too, depending on whether you consider the mileage to be continuous with NJ or not; I personally do) to retain the existing numbers even if they're not exact.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 21, 2019, 09:46:28 PM
A note on the LI parkways: the Meadowbrook and Wantaugh would have to be numbered in reverse as to what they are now: exits would go up from Jones Beach instead of from the Northern State.  I would figure there would also be no reset between the Belt and Cross Island, as well as the Grand Central and Northern State.  I did figure a reset between the Sagitkos and Sunken Meadow. 

As for I-95 in NY State, here is what I have:

Exit 1A: US 9 NORTH/NY 9A (HHP) (US 9 signage NB Only)
Exit 1B: Amsterdam Ave/University Ave/Harlem River Dr (NB); University Ave (SB)
Exit 1 C/D: I-87
Exit 2A (2 SB): Jerome Ave
Exit 2B (NB ONLY): US 1 NORTH Webster Ave
Exit 3 (SB ONLY): TO US 1 NORTH Third Ave/Webster Ave
Exit 4A (NB ONLY) NY 895 SOUTH TO I-278 WEST
Exit 4B (4 SB): TO Bronx River Pkwy/Rosedale Ave
Exit 5A (5 SB): White Plains Ave/Westchester Ave
Exit 5B (NB ONLY): Castle Hill Ave
Exit 6A: I-678 SOUTH
Exit 6B: I-295 SOUTH (NB); I-278 WEST (SB)
Exit 7 (NB): Country Club Rd/Pelham Bay Park
Exit 7A (SB): I-695 SOUTH TO I-295 SOUTH
Exit 7B (SB): East Tremont Ave
Exit 8A (SB ONLY): Westchester Ave
Exit 8 (8B SB): Shore Rd
Exit 8C (SB ONLY): Pelham Pkwy WEST
Exit 9A (9 SB): Hutch Pkwy NORTH
Exit 9B (NB ONLY): Gun Hill Rd
Exit 10A (10 SB): Bartow Rd/Co-Op City Blvd
Exit 10B (NB ONLY): Baychester Ave
Exit 11 (11A SB): Connor St (/Baychester Ave SB)
Exit 11B (SB ONLY): Hutch Pkwy SOUTH
Exit 13: US 1
Exit 14: North Ave/Cedar St
Exit 15 (NB ONLY): Chatsworth Ave
Exit 18A: Fenimore Ave (NB); Mamaroneck Ave SOUTH (SB)
Exit 18B: Mamaroneck Ave (NORTH SB)
Exit 21: Playland Pkwy
Exit 22A (NB ONLY): US 1
Exit 22B (22 SB): I-287 WEST
Exit 23 (NB ONLY): Midland Ave
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 22, 2019, 10:07:38 PM
I think I speak for most NYers when I say I'm sick of having three sets of exit numbers for both highways.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you're the only person (New Yorker or otherwise) I've ever heard say so. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 23, 2019, 01:16:40 AM
I think I speak for most NYers when I say I'm sick of having three sets of exit numbers for both highways.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you're the only person (New Yorker or otherwise) I've ever heard say so. :-)
I've heard many.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 23, 2019, 08:51:07 PM
I think I speak for most NYers when I say I'm sick of having three sets of exit numbers for both highways.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you're the only person (New Yorker or otherwise) I've ever heard say so. :-)
I've heard many.

With my one and your many against 19.5 million, I'm still comfortable with the odds. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on November 24, 2019, 10:48:42 PM
The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 24, 2019, 11:37:41 PM
The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.
Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 26, 2019, 11:10:35 AM
The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.
Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.

What would be the criteria used to declare this project a success?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 27, 2019, 12:38:07 AM
The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.
Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.

What would be the criteria used to declare this project a success?
From an engineering perspective, no unusual circumstances proffer themselves (large cracks, misaligned joints, etc.) and everything is built to plan. From a public policy perspective, it comes in within budget and on time (and I believe it's actually a little early).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 27, 2019, 06:17:26 AM
The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.
Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.

What would be the criteria used to declare this project a success?
From an engineering perspective, no unusual circumstances proffer themselves (large cracks, misaligned joints, etc.) and everything is built to plan. From a public policy perspective, it comes in within budget and on time (and I believe it's actually a little early).
does traffic flow comes into play at any point?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 27, 2019, 08:36:30 PM
The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.
Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.

What would be the criteria used to declare this project a success?
From an engineering perspective, no unusual circumstances proffer themselves (large cracks, misaligned joints, etc.) and everything is built to plan. From a public policy perspective, it comes in within budget and on time (and I believe it's actually a little early).
does traffic flow comes into play at any point?
Well before the project hits the ground.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 27, 2019, 09:07:59 PM
The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.
Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.

What would be the criteria used to declare this project a success?
From an engineering perspective, no unusual circumstances proffer themselves (large cracks, misaligned joints, etc.) and everything is built to plan. From a public policy perspective, it comes in within budget and on time (and I believe it's actually a little early).
does traffic flow comes into play at any point?
Well before the project hits the ground.
We'r about "success" criteria. What if project engineering works great, it is built on time and on budget - but causes new traffic backups and/or crashes. Would that be a success?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 28, 2019, 01:48:11 AM
The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.
Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.

What would be the criteria used to declare this project a success?
From an engineering perspective, no unusual circumstances proffer themselves (large cracks, misaligned joints, etc.) and everything is built to plan. From a public policy perspective, it comes in within budget and on time (and I believe it's actually a little early).
does traffic flow comes into play at any point?
Well before the project hits the ground.
We'r about "success" criteria. What if project engineering works great, it is built on time and on budget - but causes new traffic backups and/or crashes. Would that be a success?
That is a failure in project scope, not a failure of the project itself.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on November 28, 2019, 06:12:53 AM
We'r about "success" criteria. What if project engineering works great, it is built on time and on budget - but causes new traffic backups and/or crashes. Would that be a success?
That is a failure in project scope, not a failure of the project itself.
That could be a failure in the traffic engineering aspect of the project.

The civil engineering and the construction engineering could be 100% successful, but the project itself could fail in other ways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on November 28, 2019, 10:23:16 PM
It seems like the Onondaga Lake Parkway bridge is becoming our 11foot8.  Recently, I saw two more articles about it.  This article (https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/nysdot-to/) mentions that NYSDOT wants to narrow the parkway to one lane in each direction, add a median barrier, and lower the speed limit.  This article (https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/nysdot-lays-out-proposed-parkway-changes-but-what-about-the-bridge/) mentions the changes as well, but also mentions that CSX is willing to raise the bridge if NY pays for it.  I noticed in the embedded tweet in the article that there's an APL shown for the intersection of NY 370 and Old Liverpool Rd in Liverpool.  I don't think I've ever seen an APL for a surface street before.

Regarding the talk about cameras and VMSes earlier, I saw this article (https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/additional-electronic-message-signs-cameras-deployed-across-major-highways-in-ny-including-central-new-york/) yesterday.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 28, 2019, 11:27:23 PM
The first article does not state that "NYSDOT wants to" implement the road diet, although the second does -- I believe incorrectly.  Rather, my understanding is that it is actually Onondaga County that is the sponsor of the project while NYSDOT is assisting by implementing it.

(personal opinion expressed)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 30, 2019, 05:23:34 PM
That makes sense - I was wondering about it since NYSDOT's threshold for considering a road diet is 15k and the FHWA threshold 20k, and the AADT of Onondaga Lake Parkway exceeds both.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on December 03, 2019, 02:55:22 PM
Anyone notice that the new (I know they're two years old now) exit signs on the Taconic north of Westchester have very small arrows?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5910471,-73.7648862,3a,75y,13.38h,81.78t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7kBGiE1DVp4rzWdLwZvl7Q!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4061155,-73.7875167,3a,47.7y,26.01h,81.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqeLGL2fbuBDz8p92L-1HKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on December 05, 2019, 06:47:07 PM
Coming up on Saturday, December 14 (start time is 5 PM ET), my YouTube channel & I will be co-hosting a special *live* 'webinar' event (alongside a few members of this forum) a general discussion and video tour of the three-digit (auxiliary) interstates of northern/western New York State. As is typical with my *live* work, attendees will be able to chime in and interact with us throughout the course of the afternoon.

We look forward to your company; links to the presentation can be found below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7EbK9XNfZI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7EbK9XNfZI)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 05, 2019, 06:49:45 PM
Huh.  It's unfortunate your tour of I-690 wasn't delayed a little bit.  The Bridge Street project supposedly will be all done quite soon (end of this week?)..except I still need to complain about the exit only arrow on the Bridge St sign over the option lane headed EB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 05, 2019, 11:28:39 PM
Huh.  It's unfortunate your tour of I-690 wasn't delayed a little bit.  The Bridge Street project supposedly will be all done quite soon (end of this week?)..except I still need to complain about the exit only arrow on the Bridge St sign over the option lane headed EB.

It's not live on the road. It's a video recap.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on December 06, 2019, 06:48:01 AM
Come check out the Roosevelt Island Bridge, which as the only vehicular access to New York City's Roosevelt Island...
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/12/roosevelt-island-bridge.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/12/roosevelt-island-bridge.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on December 06, 2019, 09:15:53 AM
Huh.  It's unfortunate your tour of I-690 wasn't delayed a little bit.  The Bridge Street project supposedly will be all done quite soon (end of this week?)..except I still need to complain about the exit only arrow on the Bridge St sign over the option lane headed EB.

The footage to be featured in this presentation was documented on/around October 20 of this year; recent enough so that folks get an accurate idea of the system as it stands at this time. Of course there may be minor ongoing projects in some locations but for our purposes, they're not a significant collective obstacle to showcasing each highway in the series.

Due to time constraints, it will not be possible to go through the videos of every highway we profile; the viewers who tune in to the live stream will be able to influence the direction of this element of the broadcast.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 06, 2019, 09:46:33 AM
Oh, I understand the issue with timing -- you have to get the video done when you're available to get it.  But, the I-690/Bridge Street project has been anything but minor.  I'll be back through there on Sunday to see if they got done what they said they'd get done.

Just being wistful about what the video could have been, that's all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 09, 2019, 03:31:36 PM
Is the NY 17/32 interchange done? According to Google Maps, it is. Opinions on it/does it seem to solve the traffic problem?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3175718,-74.1371128,16z
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 09, 2019, 05:56:27 PM
...and the ramp from Bridge Street to I-690 east is still closed.  Wonder what happened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 09, 2019, 06:08:58 PM
...and the ramp from Bridge Street to I-690 east is still closed.  Wonder what happened.
Isn't I-690 being demolished along with I-81 in downtown Syracuse?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 09, 2019, 06:32:30 PM
...and the ramp from Bridge Street to I-690 east is still closed.  Wonder what happened.
Isn't I-690 being demolished along with I-81 in downtown Syracuse?

For starters, nothing is being done in Downtown Syracuse yet. We're gonna have a long string of legal battles before anything happens. I wouldn't be shocked if the I-81 viaduct falls down before shovels hit the ground.

All proposals for I-81 keep I-690 in place as-is, except with revised connections to/from the south. That road is going nowhere.

(Personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 09, 2019, 08:18:30 PM
Exactly: I-690 stays with even some ramp reconfigurations/additions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 09, 2019, 11:10:21 PM
Is the NY 17/32 interchange done? According to Google Maps, it is. Opinions on it/does it seem to solve the traffic problem?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3175718,-74.1371128,16z
I just went through it. I think the signal timings are a little off still, but from the time I went through, I can't vouch for how well it solves problems. Gotta give it a little time and then ask commuters.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 10, 2019, 02:35:06 PM
Exactly: I-690 stays with even some ramp reconfigurations/additions.
Aw, I was hoping that they'd fix the traffic lights at the fair. On a road trip to Niagara Falls in my youth, the fair just happened to be going on, and I was understandably confused.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 10, 2019, 02:36:21 PM
Exactly: I-690 stays with even some ramp reconfigurations/additions.
Aw, I was hoping that they'd fix the traffic lights at the fair. On a road trip to Niagara Falls in my youth, the fair just happened to be going on, and I was understandably confused.
They have started to fix that as well.  This was the last year for that infamous temporary traffic light.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on December 12, 2019, 11:32:03 PM
Gov. Andrew Cuomo rips 60% toll increase planned for northern Hudson River bridges (https://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/09/cuomo-rips-60-toll-increase-planned-northern-hudson-river-bridges/2629670001/)

The Cuomo administration criticized plans by the state Bridge Authority to raise tolls 60% on the five Hudson Valley bridges it controls, saying "a toll increase of this magnitude is not warranted."

The letter sent Friday from state budget director Robert Mujica to the Bridge Authority rips the authority's plan to increase revenue by $22 million, or by 37%, through a toll increase.

Mujica said the increase would increase tolls by 60%: from $1.25 to $2 roundtrip for drivers with E-ZPass and from $1.50 to $2.50 for those paying cash.

The authority maintains five toll bridges: the Mid-Hudson Bridge, the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge, the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge, the Rip Van Winkle Bridge and the Bear Mountain Bridge.

--

I did not see this get posted (but there are also multiple Tappan Zee / Mario Cuomo bridge threads at this point):

Contractors for new Tappan Zee bridge claim they’re owed $900 million, sue state for project documents (https://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2019/11/21/new-tappan-zee-bridge-contractors-lawsuit.html)

The companies that designed and built the $3.9 billion Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge are asking a judge to force the New York State Thruway Authority to hand over internal records the contractors want in their pursuit of about $900 million they claim is owed.

Tappan Zee Constructors LLC, the consortium of firms that built the 3.1-mile bridge across the Hudson River between Rockland and Westchester counties, sued the Thruway Authority this week in state Supreme Court in Albany County.

The lawsuit claims the authority violated the state Freedom of Information Law by not turning over the vast majority of documents that were requested in a timely manner, and didn't provide a legally justifiable reason for denying access to records.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 12, 2019, 11:38:47 PM
Exactly: I-690 stays with even some ramp reconfigurations/additions.
Aw, I was hoping that they'd fix the traffic lights at the fair. On a road trip to Niagara Falls in my youth, the fair just happened to be going on, and I was understandably confused.
They have started to fix that as well.  This was the last year for that infamous temporary traffic light.

The light is gone, though heading westbound there's still a "Stop Here On Red" sign. The bridge supports are in place, but no bridge yet.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on December 14, 2019, 11:38:31 AM
Am posting the link to the previously-announced webinar featuring northern/western NY's auxiliary interstates below, in case folks have not seen it/bookmarked it already. The show kicks off at 5 PM ET this afternoon and will feature a few familiar faces on the forum - come join us!

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 14, 2019, 12:14:51 PM
I-690 lanes are open, but the blasted ramp from Bridge St to I-690 EB is still closed with work still being done under the bridge.

I might find out more about what's going on come Tuesday.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on December 14, 2019, 11:03:23 PM
The first article does not state that "NYSDOT wants to" implement the road diet, although the second does -- I believe incorrectly.  Rather, my understanding is that it is actually Onondaga County that is the sponsor of the project while NYSDOT is assisting by implementing it.

(personal opinion expressed)


It's on NYSDOT's projects site if that tells you anything.  Are local projects ever listed on the NYSDOT project page?

Here's a couple renderings from an article (https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/11/see-nys-plans-to-reduce-lanes-on-onondaga-lake-parkway.html) on Syracuse.com:

(https://www.syracuse.com/resizer/Y6fU7ia1nuksyFlUJ48YrFjSQaE=/700x0/smart/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-advancelocal.s3.amazonaws.com/public/GOG33HK2BZD7VHG4O5LZ6ISDTY.JPG)
 (http://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-advancelocal.s3.amazonaws.com/public/GOG33HK2BZD7VHG4O5LZ6ISDTY.JPG)
(https://www.syracuse.com/resizer/Zw_6TAkY6X6UTogsKzaVPhEYPGk=/700x0/smart/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-advancelocal.s3.amazonaws.com/public/JFKS6PHEVJCBJHTBG2X4DIO7SI.JPG) (http://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-advancelocal.s3.amazonaws.com/public/JFKS6PHEVJCBJHTBG2X4DIO7SI.JPG)

(click each image for a larger version)



Huh.  It's unfortunate your tour of I-690 wasn't delayed a little bit.  The Bridge Street project supposedly will be all done quite soon (end of this week?)..except I still need to complain about the exit only arrow on the Bridge St sign over the option lane headed EB.

Do you mean the first or second sign?  I'm not a fan of either sign, nor am I a fan of the lane layout of the area.  I think the added lane should be the exit lane, and the right lane of I-690 would be the option lane.  Last time I drove through there, I was almost forced onto the C/D road.  There was a backup in all three lanes, and I was in the right lane.  By the time I got over a lane, the line of cars in that lane had already split, so I needed to get over a second time.  I was able to find a gap just before the lines at the exit gore.

I'm surprised at how well people have been following the 45 MPH work zone speed limit.  It's normally 55 all the way until I-481, and it's so hard to not do 65 between the NY 635 bridge and I-481.  I normally do 60-65 without realizing it, and there's cars that are passing me.

I'll also take a moment to talk about my complaint about Bridge St too.  When you're on NY 290 west, there's an added lane just before NY 290 turns onto Bridge St, but that's not a turn lane like I expect it to be.  A bit closer to the intersection, there's a right turn lane added.  Once you get to the I-690 west ramp, the lane that was added becomes a right turn lane, along with another lane added just after the Bridge St intersection.  One of the last times I was on NY 290, I wanted to get on I-690, but I was in the wrong lane, and since there wasn't a gap, I was forced to go to Erie Blvd and get on I-690 at NY 635.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 15, 2019, 11:12:00 AM
Not sure where the Parkway project is headed now due to even more various issues between all the entities and the public.  Seems to have been some lack of understanding or outright total reversals of support for the idea.

(personal opinion expressed)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on December 21, 2019, 08:45:51 PM
Speaking of parkways, what's the backstory behind this structure in the median of the Taconic between I-84 and NY 52?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5475993,-73.77449,3a,75y,278.81h,90.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2GMxQxLLQj_6bEEEThqaCg!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i13312!8i6656

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 21, 2019, 08:53:42 PM
Former gas station?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on December 21, 2019, 09:28:20 PM
Yes, former gas/service station. The old ramps/infrastructure remained until 2008 when the area was cleaned up, but the station building is supposedly on some sort of historic registry so it's not going anywhere.

This project in 2008 was also my first venture into road/bridge construction as a professional - I was in my first summer as an intern with DOT when it happened, so it's got some personal significance w.r.t. my career path.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 22, 2019, 12:37:25 PM
Look what I found in a newsletter about the Long Island Motor Parkway; It's a 1931 map showing among other things, the original intended path of the missing link for NY 24:
http://www.vanderbiltcupraces.com/blog/article/kleiners_kolumn_the_motor_parkway_in_maps_part_iii?utm_source=VCR+Newsletter+December+14%2C+2019&utm_campaign=test&utm_medium=email (http://www.vanderbiltcupraces.com/blog/article/kleiners_kolumn_the_motor_parkway_in_maps_part_iii?utm_source=VCR+Newsletter+December+14%2C+2019&utm_campaign=test&utm_medium=email)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 23, 2019, 08:49:35 PM
While doing some clinching around Niagara Falls today, I happened to drive on the new southern end of the northern section of Niagara Scenic Parkway.  They now have Whirlpool Street signed "TO Niagara Scenic Parkway", with the parkway realigned to feed directly into the street at Findlay Drive.  Also interesting is what used to be a RIRO interchange with NY 104 north of there at Devils Hole State Park.  That RIRO is now an all-way stop and the former off ramp is now striped for two-way traffic (the on ramp appeared to be unchanged).  Whether they are going to have traffic from NY 104 access both directions of parkway or have both directions of parkway access NY 104 (or both), I'm not sure.  Signage on NY 104 is unchanged, and I didn't take the parkway north of there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on December 25, 2019, 10:03:51 PM
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-toll-20191222-ozqq7atcbrexdpwtukrncm5uim-story.html  No more free EB travel into Brooklyn.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 25, 2019, 10:19:56 PM
I always thought it was unusual that the MTA's Verrazzano Bridge collected the toll westbound while all of the Port Authority's Hudson River crossings were tolled eastbound. It kind of defeated the purpose for one facility to be the opposite of all the others.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 26, 2019, 12:07:30 AM
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-toll-20191222-ozqq7atcbrexdpwtukrncm5uim-story.html  No more free EB travel into Brooklyn.
Shameless money grab.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 26, 2019, 12:37:31 AM
I always thought it was unusual that the MTA's Verrazzano Bridge collected the toll westbound while all of the Port Authority's Hudson River crossings were tolled eastbound. It kind of defeated the purpose for one facility to be the opposite of all the others.
The idea was that you weren't soaking people as hard to head from NJ into NY that way - if it's the same cost as every other way, maybe some people will go through the island, buy coffee and a bagel on the way in, pizza on the way out, do some shopping? You won't have that now. This will lighten some of the load on the SIE at least. The open question is what Port Authority will do once they go cashless - it's assumed they'll keep it one way tolling, but will they consider two way? Will they talk to the NYSTA? What about NYSBA?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on December 26, 2019, 08:03:28 AM
I always thought it was unusual that the MTA's Verrazzano Bridge collected the toll westbound while all of the Port Authority's Hudson River crossings were tolled eastbound. It kind of defeated the purpose for one facility to be the opposite of all the others.

But the Verrazano Bridge can toll independently of the PA crossings as you still need to cross a PA bridge to get on Staten Island from New Jersey. The Verrazano Bridge is an additional crossing, not one that can be used instead of a PA crossing.

As the article implies, the Verrazano's "competitors" are the East River crossings (including the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel which the article didn't mention). And I saw this in action a few years ago when a cruise line's shuttles between Newark Airport and the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal operated EB via the Goethals and Verrazano bridges but WB via the Brooklyn-Battery and Holland tunnels.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 26, 2019, 04:09:58 PM
You're right Istone19. I had not thought it out completely. Good points.

And Alps, I'm guessing that when the PA goes cashless, they will toll in both directions again, as it will be relatively simple to erect overhead antennas in both directions, right?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 26, 2019, 05:33:31 PM
And Alps, I'm guessing that when the PA goes cashless, they will toll in both directions again, as it will be relatively simple to erect overhead antennas in both directions, right?

Bidirectional tolling may be a nightmare from a load management perspective. As it stands, people heading EB will detour to Tappan Zee or Bear Mountain to pay a smaller toll, even if it adds time. Reinstating WB tolls will make that happen heading the other way. It's not like TZB or the roads leading to it have much in the way of extra capacity for shunpiking traffic.

Since New York has a controlling interest in all three Hudson River bridge authorities, it's probably going to be an "all or nothing" thing. Either everything over the Hudson will go bidirectional or nothing will (minus the Castleton-On-Hudson Bridge, which is bidirectional but hidden in the ticket system).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: sbeaver44 on December 26, 2019, 09:10:02 PM
I drive from Harrisburg to Smithtown in Suffolk County a few times a year to visit friends. 

Because of the Verrazano, and the MTA making me pay Cash rate despite having an EZPass (PA Turnpike issued), I usually take 78 to either 287-440-Outerbridge Cr or 78-440-Bayonne Br Eastbound.  Then over the Verrazano to the Belt Pkwy.  Depending on traffic, I'll either take Southern Pkwy to Sagtikos to Sunken Meadow, or Cross Island Pkwy right to Northern Pkwy. 

WB, I'm using Northern Pkwy (or rarely 495) to CIP/295 and the Throgs Neck, then 95 to 80 to 287 to 78.

The last few times I've sucked it up and paid the $19 to use the Verrazano WB because I like the southern 287 approach way better than any part of 95.

I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on December 26, 2019, 10:26:13 PM
I think the article is stating that MTA is getting after WB Shunpikers.   Even myself in 1998, used the Gowanus to the Brooklyn Bridge to FDR SB though the underpass to West Street and through the tunnel to NJ to avoid the tolls coming back from Coney Island.  The article said others were doing that as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 26, 2019, 11:08:52 PM
I think the article is stating that MTA is getting after WB Shunpikers.   Even myself in 1998, used the Gowanus to the Brooklyn Bridge to FDR SB though the underpass to West Street and through the tunnel to NJ to avoid the tolls coming back from Coney Island.  The article said others were doing that as well.
I just take the George Washington Bridge early in the morning. I don't avoid tolls coming from Queens, but at least I don't have to look at the never-built Todt Hill Interchange while driving on the SIE. And I don't have to put up with the shitty Manhattan and Brooklyn traffic either.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on December 26, 2019, 11:11:45 PM
I think the article is stating that MTA is getting after WB Shunpikers.   Even myself in 1998, used the Gowanus to the Brooklyn Bridge to FDR SB though the underpass to West Street and through the tunnel to NJ to avoid the tolls coming back from Coney Island.  The article said others were doing that as well.
I just take the George Washington Bridge early in the morning. I don't avoid tolls coming from Queens, but at least I don't have to look at the never-built Todt Hill Interchange while driving on the SIE. And I don't have to put up with the shitty Manhattan and Brooklyn traffic either.


Yeah the never built Richmond Parkway extension that is a shame it never got done.  It would make getting from Brooklyn to the Jersey Shore much easier if it had been completed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 02, 2020, 12:37:16 PM
New Question; Is Region 10 turning more of Montauk Highway over to Suffolk County, or was that a signage error I saw at the east end of Suffolk CR 50?


Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on January 02, 2020, 01:50:27 PM
I'm guessing that when the PA goes cashless, they will toll in both directions again, as it will be relatively simple to erect overhead antennas in both directions, right?
It's possible that the P.A. could do similar to what MassDOT did when it first implemented AET for the Tobin Bridge several years ago.  Convert the existing in/citybound toll plaza into an AET gantry than convert such to 2-way tolling (add outbound gantry) later on... when all the remaining tolled-harbor crossings were converted to AET.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on January 02, 2020, 03:29:29 PM
Since New York has a controlling interest in all three Hudson River bridge authorities, it's probably going to be an "all or nothing" thing. Either everything over the Hudson will go bidirectional or nothing will (minus the Castleton-On-Hudson Bridge, which is bidirectional but hidden in the ticket system).

Those of us old enough to remember when they went to eastbound tolls may remember that all three (PA, NYTA, and NYBA) changed at the same time. It's been almost 50 years since then.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 02, 2020, 06:38:56 PM
New Question; Is Region 10 turning more of Montauk Highway over to Suffolk County, or was that a signage error I saw at the east end of Suffolk CR 50?

Possible (been a while since the last highway inventory came out and I don't have the patience to sort through legislation), but this may just be a case of them disregarding NY 27A EB because it ends less than a mile to the east. 27A dies at Exit 46A.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SGwithADD on January 04, 2020, 10:11:33 PM
On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.
given the proliferation of cameras all over the place, I still have two questions:
1. Why only some of them?
2. Where can I view those feeds?
1) Don't know.
2) You can't.

Seems like the cameras are visible at 511 NY (https://511ny.org/)?

I also believe I saw a new, rather small permanent VMS replacing the portable VMS on I-81 at the NY-PA border.  It was dark and there were strong snow squalls, so I'm not 100% positive...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 04, 2020, 10:17:18 PM
On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.
given the proliferation of cameras all over the place, I still have two questions:
1. Why only some of them?
2. Where can I view those feeds?
1) Don't know.
2) You can't.

Seems like the cameras are visible at 511 NY (https://511ny.org/)?

I also believe I saw a new, rather small permanent VMS replacing the portable VMS on I-81 at the NY-PA border.  It was dark and there were strong snow squalls, so I'm not 100% positive...

The cameras shown there are not the VMS cameras. All of the cameras here are high-mounted cameras, usually at interchanges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SGwithADD on January 05, 2020, 10:06:41 AM
On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.
given the proliferation of cameras all over the place, I still have two questions:
1. Why only some of them?
2. Where can I view those feeds?
1) Don't know.
2) You can't.

Seems like the cameras are visible at 511 NY (https://511ny.org/)?

I also believe I saw a new, rather small permanent VMS replacing the portable VMS on I-81 at the NY-PA border.  It was dark and there were strong snow squalls, so I'm not 100% positive...

The cameras shown there are not the VMS cameras. All of the cameras here are high-mounted cameras, usually at interchanges.

Oh my mistake.  There are a number of VMS-mounted cameras that are up (check out the Binghamton area for some of them), but they're all feeds from permanent VMSes mounted on a truss.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 05, 2020, 04:00:04 PM
On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.
given the proliferation of cameras all over the place, I still have two questions:
1. Why only some of them?
2. Where can I view those feeds?
1) Don't know.
2) You can't.

Seems like the cameras are visible at 511 NY (https://511ny.org/)?

I also believe I saw a new, rather small permanent VMS replacing the portable VMS on I-81 at the NY-PA border.  It was dark and there were strong snow squalls, so I'm not 100% positive...

The cameras shown there are not the VMS cameras. All of the cameras here are high-mounted cameras, usually at interchanges.

Oh my mistake.  There are a number of VMS-mounted cameras that are up (check out the Binghamton area for some of them), but they're all feeds from permanent VMSes mounted on a truss.
Right.  I was talking about portables.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 12, 2020, 12:36:54 AM
I was just doing a Google Maps/Street View scan of the Hudson Valley Rail Trail, and I discovered a stub between the northbound and southbound ramps from US 44-NY 55 @ US 9W in Highland.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7077048,-73.9648123,3a,75y,229.16h,84.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgoj3brK_3E47pHBDlQzqKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7077048,-73.9648123,3a,75y,229.16h,84.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgoj3brK_3E47pHBDlQzqKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Any chance this might've been a formerly proposed spur to Vineyard Avenue?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on January 12, 2020, 08:44:42 AM
Quote
Any chance this might've been a formerly proposed spur to Vineyard Avenue?

This is the only surviving remnant of a temporary access road between 9W and the bridge due to a reconstruction project at this  interchange ca. 2010. When the flyover was closed/redone about 10 years ago, a temp roadway was constructed to bring the intersection to a 'T' with a temp signal. When the flyover reopened, the temp roadways were removed; this gore area is all that remains of that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 12, 2020, 05:38:08 PM
Quote
Any chance this might've been a formerly proposed spur to Vineyard Avenue?

This is the only surviving remnant of a temporary access road between 9W and the bridge due to a reconstruction project at this  interchange ca. 2010. When the flyover was closed/redone about 10 years ago, a temp roadway was constructed to bring the intersection to a 'T' with a temp signal. When the flyover reopened, the temp roadways were removed; this gore area is all that remains of that.

While we're in the area, any idea why NYSBA felt the need to shave its name into the grass just west of there? (Step forward a bit in Street View, or just switch to aerial mode to see it.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 14, 2020, 11:46:01 PM
Slightly OT, since I mentioned the research on the Hudson Valley Rail Trail, can anyone confirm that this caboose was a former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Caboose?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hudson_Valley_Rail_Trail_depot.jpg

And can anybody see that sign for the HVRT on the southeast corner of NY 299 and Ulster CR 22?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7378821,-74.0367109,3a,15y,152.37h,90.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smZsYqQfVyLyMyntWncx4XQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7378821,-74.0367109,3a,15y,152.37h,90.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smZsYqQfVyLyMyntWncx4XQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on January 15, 2020, 12:20:21 PM
Slightly OT, since I mentioned the research on the Hudson Valley Rail Trail, can anyone confirm that this caboose was a former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Caboose?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hudson_Valley_Rail_Trail_depot.jp

I can't say with absolute certainty, but it is highly likely that this is a former New Haven Railroad NE-2 class caboose.  The Pennsylvania's N5 N6 class cabooses were similar, but not identical, in design.  If it is a N5 N6, and not a NE-2,  the roof should have evidence of mounting points for the PRR induction train antennas originally affixed to the N5s N6s.

corrected PRR caboose class - thanks Roadgeek Adam for the clarification. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 15, 2020, 07:58:30 PM
Slightly OT, since I mentioned the research on the Hudson Valley Rail Trail, can anyone confirm that this caboose was a former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Caboose?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hudson_Valley_Rail_Trail_depot.jp

I can't say with absolute certainty, but it is highly likely that this is a former New Haven Railroad NE-2 class caboose.  The Pennsylvania's N5 class cabooses were similar, but not identical, in design.  If it is a N5, and not a NE-2,  the roof should have evidence of mounting points for the PRR induction train antennas originally affixed to the N5s.

That's a 1915 N6C Pennsy caboose. N5s had round windows, N6s had the square windows like that one does.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on January 18, 2020, 08:43:08 AM
New Question; Is Region 10 turning more of Montauk Highway over to Suffolk County, or was that a signage error I saw at the east end of Suffolk CR 50?

Possible (been a while since the last highway inventory came out and I don't have the patience to sort through legislation), but this may just be a case of them disregarding NY 27A EB because it ends less than a mile to the east. 27A dies at Exit 46A.

What did the signage say?  My guess is that it's probably a sign goof.  I was past the eastern terminus of NY 27A a few months ago, and at least of then the signage hadn't changed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 19, 2020, 12:40:30 AM
New Question; Is Region 10 turning more of Montauk Highway over to Suffolk County, or was that a signage error I saw at the east end of Suffolk CR 50?

Possible (been a while since the last highway inventory came out and I don't have the patience to sort through legislation), but this may just be a case of them disregarding NY 27A EB because it ends less than a mile to the east. 27A dies at Exit 46A.

What did the signage say?  My guess is that it's probably a sign goof.  I was past the eastern terminus of NY 27A a few months ago, and at least of then the signage hadn't changed.
It said "JCT CR 27A Suffolk."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 19, 2020, 01:19:46 PM
It said "JCT CR 27A Suffolk."

Yeah, that's definitely an error. The county section of Montauk Highway is CR 85.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on January 23, 2020, 08:06:17 PM
Ok.  Is there ANY chance that R9 might fix I-88 between the Richmondville/Worcester line and exit 16?  I drive I-88 frequently for work and for long distance trips west, and it's absolutely atrocious.  I have to play LLB from the county line to at least Oneonta.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 23, 2020, 10:04:27 PM
That stretch of I-88 used to be worse, believe it or not. They repaired the worst sections a year or two ago.

R9 has been slowly overlaying/reconstructing their entire section of the road. It's just not a high priority. Most of it through Schoharie County has gotten a much-needed overlay within the past couple years and two stretches in Broome and Otsego Counties had full-depth reconstructions. The southernmost couple miles is getting a partial-depth reconstruction this upcoming construction season.

Looking at the upcoming projects list, the resurfacing in Schoharie will make its way into Otsego County this year and there will be another in Broome.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on February 07, 2020, 05:54:34 AM
Come visit the illustrious Storm King Highway (NY 218) along the Hudson River in the scenic Hudson Valley of New York State. Complete with twists, turns, cliffs and scenic vistas, this is a memorable drive to take.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/storm-king-highway.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/storm-king-highway.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on February 07, 2020, 12:17:28 PM
Come visit the illustrious Storm King Highway (NY 218) along the Hudson River in the scenic Hudson Valley of New York State. Complete with twists, turns, cliffs and scenic vistas, this is a memorable drive to take.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/storm-king-highway.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/storm-king-highway.html)

It is truly an interesting drive into the idyllic Village of Cornwall on Hudson; however, it is now closed for the season.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 07, 2020, 12:40:38 PM
The highway gets closed for the season?  I don't see a recent notice?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 07, 2020, 12:41:31 PM
The highway gets closed for the season?  I don't see a recent notice?

Yeah, it gets closed any time it needs to be salted or plowed. Full-height gates and everything.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 07, 2020, 12:53:55 PM
The highway gets closed for the season?  I don't see a recent notice?

Yeah, it gets closed any time it needs to be salted or plowed. Full-height gates and everything.
So, by storm or is it a date range?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 07, 2020, 01:01:25 PM
So, by storm or is it a date range?

By storm, sort of. Region 8 won't plow it and the road is prone to rockfall and other weather-related issues, so they frequently need to clear debris from the road before reopening. In Winter 2018, it was closed for 4 months (https://www.recordonline.com/news/20180329/route-218-could-remain-closed-until-end-of-april). Summer closures after large storms aren't uncommon, either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on February 07, 2020, 02:04:05 PM
Not all of it gets closed.  The portion south of West Point's Washington Gate remains open.  Not sure where the closure point on the Cromwell end is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 07, 2020, 02:37:25 PM
Not all of it gets closed.  The portion south of West Point's Washington Gate remains open.  Not sure where the closure point on the Cromwell end is.

Closure point on the north end is the state park boundary.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 08, 2020, 01:15:47 AM
Come visit the illustrious Storm King Highway (NY 218) along the Hudson River in the scenic Hudson Valley of New York State. Complete with twists, turns, cliffs and scenic vistas, this is a memorable drive to take.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/storm-king-highway.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/storm-king-highway.html)

And thrown in for good measure, a photo of the state's only road tunnel through land, on NY 9D at Breakneck.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on February 12, 2020, 11:57:43 AM
In recent weeks, these two have been removed from the NY 30 bridge in Amsterdam:

(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20161105/dmny30ny67ny5s.jpg)

(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20150508/bridgest.jpg)

And not just the panels, the entire assembly except for a small piece of the first, are gone.  The first has been replaced by a small group of shields at the exit ramp to NY 5 East, and the second has not been replaced with anything.

The last of these still standing is down on NY 5 East:

(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20060107/ny5eastschdy.jpg)


Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on February 12, 2020, 10:07:26 PM
In recent weeks, these two have been removed from the NY 30 bridge in Amsterdam:

And not just the panels, the entire assembly except for a small piece of the first, are gone.  The first has been replaced by a small group of shields at the exit ramp to NY 5 East, and the second has not been replaced with anything.


R2 replacing more overheads with ground mounted signs?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 13, 2020, 01:04:10 PM
It's worth noting that the City of Amsterdam plans to remove NY 5 eastbound and route both directions onto what is currently NY 5 westbound in order to improve access to their waterfront, so the ramp the overhead signs were for won't likely be around much longer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on February 13, 2020, 06:40:00 PM
It's worth noting that the City of Amsterdam plans to remove NY 5 eastbound and route both directions onto what is currently NY 5 westbound in order to improve access to their waterfront, so the ramp the overhead signs were for won't likely be around much longer.

Could be the case.  I haven't seen enough detail in plans to know if that ramp from the bridge from NY 30 North down to current NY 5 East would remain.  The part that's definitely being discussed for removal is west of the bridge, where a rec center is proposed I believe just west of the Mohawk Valley Gateway Overlook pedestrian bridge that would sit in part right on top of the existing roadway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 13, 2020, 07:29:18 PM
Are there details of that @vdeane? All of the ramps and express routes around the city seem excessive, more so given the area's economic decline and the mall's status.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 13, 2020, 08:29:17 PM
I'm only aware of the part that was mentioned in the announcement of the Amsterdams' downtown revitilization grant:

Quote
Removal of Route 5 eastbound spur in downtown (Cost estimate $5 million, undetermined amount of DRI funds sought) "We don't know what amount we're going to do yet. We put in an application to the State Department of Transportation to remove the entirety of that section of Route 5, but we don't know when that's anticipated to come through yet," Bearcroft said.

https://dailygazette.com/article/2019/02/02/bridge-to-downtown-connection-eyed-for-dri-funding
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on February 13, 2020, 08:50:13 PM
Lots of information is posted by the city here: https://www.amsterdamny.gov/business/downtown-revitalization-initiative-dri
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 14, 2020, 08:07:22 AM
In recent weeks, these two have been removed from the NY 30 bridge in Amsterdam:

And not just the panels, the entire assembly except for a small piece of the first, are gone.  The first has been replaced by a small group of shields at the exit ramp to NY 5 East, and the second has not been replaced with anything.


R2 replacing more overheads with ground mounted signs?

Most likely. My last conversation with R2 around all these changes revolved around the structural integrity of the overhead sign installations and the lack of funds to replace them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 14, 2020, 12:54:03 PM
In recent weeks, these two have been removed from the NY 30 bridge in Amsterdam:

And not just the panels, the entire assembly except for a small piece of the first, are gone.  The first has been replaced by a small group of shields at the exit ramp to NY 5 East, and the second has not been replaced with anything.


R2 replacing more overheads with ground mounted signs?

Most likely. My last conversation with R2 around all these changes revolved around the structural integrity of the overhead sign installations and the lack of funds to replace them.
And this is one reason why I scratch my head at MA and their policy of making every single sign overhead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on February 15, 2020, 07:20:25 AM
Most of these overhead sign bridges in New York have been there for at least 40, and more likely 50, years.  Most have a seemingly "flimsy" look, making the case for structural integrity issues.  As machias has posted (and has put on his former website), many of the overhead sign installations in the Syracuse area had to be dismantled due to structural integrity issues.

Maybe if NYSDOT used larger, thicker "arm masts" like Florida has or had a more "boxy" sign bridge, some of the structural integrity issues may not exist.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 15, 2020, 12:18:49 PM
Most of these overhead sign bridges in New York have been there for at least 40, and more likely 50, years.  Most have a seemingly "flimsy" look, making the case for structural integrity issues.  As machias has posted (and has put on his former website), many of the overhead sign installations in the Syracuse area had to be dismantled due to structural integrity issues.

Maybe if NYSDOT used larger, thicker "arm masts" like Florida has or had a more "boxy" sign bridge, some of the structural integrity issues may not exist.
What bothers me about it more than anything else is the low-hanging traffic signal sign with the flashing lights.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 15, 2020, 07:03:17 PM
Most of these overhead sign bridges in New York have been there for at least 40, and more likely 50, years.  Most have a seemingly "flimsy" look, making the case for structural integrity issues.  As machias has posted (and has put on his former website), many of the overhead sign installations in the Syracuse area had to be dismantled due to structural integrity issues.

Maybe if NYSDOT used larger, thicker "arm masts" like Florida has or had a more "boxy" sign bridge, some of the structural integrity issues may not exist.

Actually, many of the overhead sign supports installed in the 60s and 70s in the Utica area were still standing as of three years ago, but the supports installed in the late 1980s were the ones having structural issues. It makes sense if the 60s-70s era supports are starting to fail now, but the ones from the late 1980s seemed a bit premature.

I like what the Thruway Authority has been doing with single arm supports. Now if they could just get sign fabrication material that is actually reflective.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on February 15, 2020, 07:31:06 PM
amroad17, I don't know about the upstate regions, but NYSDOT Region-10 on Long Island has been building more substantial looking boxy sign gantries in recent years. Some of them use surprisingly large pipes. Many years ago I was told by a DOT engineer that they build for a higher wind load on Long Island than in most of the state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 15, 2020, 09:06:32 PM
I don't know how they compare to Region 10, but the overhead installs for the other regions have been beefier in recent years too.  Here's one from the last decade in the Rochester area: http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i590&state=NY&file=100_6334.JPG

Most of these overhead sign bridges in New York have been there for at least 40, and more likely 50, years.  Most have a seemingly "flimsy" look, making the case for structural integrity issues.  As machias has posted (and has put on his former website), many of the overhead sign installations in the Syracuse area had to be dismantled due to structural integrity issues.

Maybe if NYSDOT used larger, thicker "arm masts" like Florida has or had a more "boxy" sign bridge, some of the structural integrity issues may not exist.

Actually, many of the overhead sign supports installed in the 60s and 70s in the Utica area were still standing as of three years ago, but the supports installed in the late 1980s were the ones having structural issues. It makes sense if the 60s-70s era supports are starting to fail now, but the ones from the late 1980s seemed a bit premature.

I like what the Thruway Authority has been doing with single arm supports. Now if they could just get sign fabrication material that is actually reflective.

I think they finally ran out of the nonreflective crap they had been using.  The new 1 mile advance sign for EB exit 25A is reflective.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on February 15, 2020, 10:25:16 PM
Yes vdeane, that cantilever sign in your link in Rochester looks like what Region-10 is installing these days. And LOL they're using even bigger pipes on traffic light mast-arms.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on February 16, 2020, 06:54:50 AM
It's good that NYSDOT is erecting those improved sign bridges and cantilever supports.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 20, 2020, 12:22:52 AM
This gantry is being replaced.  Foundations going in now.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4298/36271172035_1c35089595_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XgaeM6)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on March 20, 2020, 09:55:26 AM
amroad17, I don't know about the upstate regions, but NYSDOT Region-10 on Long Island has been building more substantial looking boxy sign gantries in recent years. Some of them use surprisingly large pipes. Many years ago I was told by a DOT engineer that they build for a higher wind load on Long Island than in most of the state.

Isn't that becoming more prevalent across all NYSDOT regions? I think R11 has picked up on this as well. Most of the masts along the Staten Island Expressway now have the much beefier pipes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6093936,-74.1233958,3a,26.2y,272.42h,94.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sykb6fstF35yVscs_CAjEbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on March 29, 2020, 09:01:41 PM
Come check out the Green Island Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between Troy and Green Island, New York. Its history involves tragic collapses and a transforming robot.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/03/green-island-bridge-troy-and-green.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/03/green-island-bridge-troy-and-green.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on April 02, 2020, 03:53:02 PM
Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...

What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?

At best I can think of it as the quick way from Erie to NYC, which seems like a pointless corridor -- for example, going from the Midwest to NYC, you'd take I-80 through PA. Buffalo to Albany could use the Thruway (which does suck but is it worth detouring down to Salamanca to pick up NY 17 to I-88?). At worst it seems to string along local traffic between towns in the Southern Tier and serving as a convenient terminus for US 220 and US 15. I don't doubt that it's the scenic way to NYC from points west, but from a long distance travel perspective it doesn't make much sense to detour to it.

The only timeframe where it might have had utility is the period before I-80 through PA was opened, but at that point little of NY 17 was a freeway. Otherwise, you may as well just take US highways through PA or hedge your bets on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on April 02, 2020, 04:55:52 PM
Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...
What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?
At best I can think of it as the quick way from Erie to NYC, which seems like a pointless corridor -- for example, going from the Midwest to NYC, you'd take I-80 through PA.
The name Southern Tier Expressway pretty well sums it up.

Mainly serves the band of counties along the southern border of the state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on April 02, 2020, 05:10:11 PM
Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...

What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?

End to end, it probably makes little sense given better routes exist. But you're forgetting all the short traffic on it for whom it does makes sense. I've been on 17 or now I-86 many times but never end-to-end or anything close to it (in fact, not at all between Binghamton and Harriman and east (south) of Harriman isn't really relevant to this question). But many times between Binghamton and Owego and a few between Horseheads and I-90 and for the latter, a major time saver compared to any alternative.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on April 02, 2020, 05:31:36 PM
Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...
What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?
At best I can think of it as the quick way from Erie to NYC, which seems like a pointless corridor -- for example, going from the Midwest to NYC, you'd take I-80 through PA.
The name Southern Tier Expressway pretty well sums it up.

Mainly serves the band of counties along the southern border of the state.

THIS.  NY 17 was a surface road connecting those towns (Jamestown, Olean, Hornell, Corning, Elmira, Binghamton, and then Binghamton to the Hudson Valley).  Then it was slowly upgraded to the Southern Tier Expwy, first as part freeway part expressway (and still so east of I-81), and then slowly (deathly slowly) (being) upgraded to I-86.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 02, 2020, 05:50:46 PM
NY 17 was never meant to be more than a cross-state corridor serving communities along the southern edge of the state. Basically, a route connecting Lake Erie to New York City.

Before the expressway, NY 17 followed NY 394 west of Steamburg and NY 417 between Salamanca and Corning. The entirety of both routes is former alignments of NY 17. Arguably, this is a more major corridor than US 6 to the south and it would have likely received a US Route designation had New York not been so opposed to US Routes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on April 02, 2020, 06:25:21 PM
So I'm guessing traffic in the Southern Tier was substantial enough to warrant a freeway. That, or in a rare moment of planning clairvoyance the state built NY 17 to freeway standards before traffic got really bad (barring some laggard bypasses like Horseheads and Parksville).

Ironically enough, NY 17 actually works better heading north or south -- say Williamsport to Rochester or Buffalo -- given that it spawns I-390, US 15, and meets some other important routes (I-81, I-88 by extension, and I-87/Thruway).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 02, 2020, 06:55:36 PM
New York City - Binghamton was a busy corridor VERY early on, mainly due to vacation traffic to/from the Catskills. Parts of the Quickway were open by the early 50s and predate the Interstate system. In the 40s and 50s, the former surface road was one of the most dangerous roads in the country due to traffic and geometry. Much of former NY 17 can be driven today and there are several hairpin turns and steep grades through the Catskills. Fun to drive now that everybody uses the expressway, but a death trap when it was the major road through the region.

Much of the Southern Tier Expressway (current NY 17 west of Binghamton) was constructed with ADHS funds as Corridor T, but there were proposals to upgrade it pre-ADHS. West of Jamestown was not part of the original plan and was originally a super 2, not being widened to 4 lanes until the late 90s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Beltway on April 02, 2020, 08:26:33 PM
Much of the Southern Tier Expressway (current NY 17 west of Binghamton) was constructed with ADHS funds as Corridor T, but there were proposals to upgrade it pre-ADHS. West of Jamestown was not part of the original plan and was originally a super 2, not being widened to 4 lanes until the late 90s.
The ADHS was a big boost to building a 4-lane corridor on that route and getting nearly all done by the 1980s.

ADHS in its early years provided 80% federal funding for construction and from a large account that was separate from other federal highway accounts.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: AcE_Wolf_287 on April 02, 2020, 11:43:27 PM
Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...

What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?

At best I can think of it as the quick way from Erie to NYC, which seems like a pointless corridor -- for example, going from the Midwest to NYC, you'd take I-80 through PA. Buffalo to Albany could use the Thruway (which does suck but is it worth detouring down to Salamanca to pick up NY 17 to I-88?). At worst it seems to string along local traffic between towns in the Southern Tier and serving as a convenient terminus for US 220 and US 15. I don't doubt that it's the scenic way to NYC from points west, but from a long distance travel perspective it doesn't make much sense to detour to it.

The only timeframe where it might have had utility is the period before I-80 through PA was opened, but at that point little of NY 17 was a freeway. Otherwise, you may as well just take US highways through PA or hedge your bets on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Easy way for truckers in erier to go to NYC, or Hartford, or Newburgh or etc
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 03, 2020, 12:19:44 PM
Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...

What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?

It helps to go back to the time of the railroads, when transportation corridors were basically private ventures and control of them was the source of much competition. In the early days of the railroad, there was something of a race to connect New York City to the Great Lakes–above the falls of Niagara, mind you. Vanderbilt's New York Central had control of the "water-level route", following the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers through their natural valleys, and then heading west through the relatively flat corridor enjoyed by the Erie Canal.

At the same time, the Erie Railroad had the idea that they could compete for this traffic by heading along the Susquehanna, Chemung and upper Allegheny Rivers, along with Lake Chautauqua, to meet Lake Erie well upstream of Buffalo. Why this route, through much more difficult terrain with sharper curves and steeper grades, was thought feasible is somewhat of a mystery in hindsight, but it was an optimistic time…

Anyway, long story short, the Erie route was eventually finished, but not before the water-level route had established its primacy as the way to get between the city and the hinterlands. It's still the principal rail corridor, and was later chosen by the Thruway (and earlier by the canal) as well. Meanwhile, the Erie route has always been an available back door–and has always lagged along behind. The early canals along the Southern Tier route have all long vanished, the railroad was a late finisher, and the expressway conversion was equally slow to complete, being unfinished even to this day.

So maybe that confirms your question–perhaps that route never has made much sense as an end-to-end alternative, but it's also never been abandoned, despite the challenges of completion. Maybe it's nothing more than manifest destiny. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 03, 2020, 12:53:49 PM
Should also point out that most other states have tons of rural divided highways compared to New York. We need more here, not less. Just to scratch the surface on some roads that NY could upgrade to four lane divided highway (and still be way behind other states): NY 14, NY 13, NY 104, NY5/US20, NY 96, US 20A, US 11 north of Watertown, and the list goes on and on.

NY 17 becoming I-86 and coming up to interstate standards is an entirely separate question, but the concept of a four-lane highway is certainly not excessive for the Southern Tier. There are plenty of segments that simply would not work as a 2-lane road, I-390 to Binghamton being the most prominent, with tons of long haul truck traffic along that segment too, especially from I-390 to Corning.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on April 03, 2020, 07:01:46 PM
Arguably, this is a more major corridor than US 6 to the south and it would have likely received a US Route designation had New York not been so opposed to US Routes.

What were the politics behind the Empire State's opposition to US route designations?

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 04, 2020, 08:36:13 AM


Just to scratch the surface on some roads that NY could upgrade to four lane divided highway (and still be way behind other states): NY 14, NY 13, NY 104, NY5/US20, NY 96, US 20A, US 11 north of Watertown, and the list goes on and on.

NY doesn't have the funding to maintain -- let alone improve -- conditions on its system.  Even if it did, I'm not seeing much reason for these upgrades given traffic volumes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 04, 2020, 10:13:03 AM
^ Agree that NYSDOT lacks funding.  But there are valid capacity reasons for 4-lanes along some of those routes.  The ones that stick out the most are 299 east of New Paltz, 13 between Ithaca and Cortland, and 104 as far as Sodus.  And although I don't think the entire Watertown-Rouses Point corridor warrants 4 lanes, it's worth noting that a NYSDOT study from a couple years ago recommended 4 lanes (and bypasses) along US 11 between Canton and Potsdam.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 04, 2020, 12:12:50 PM
NY 13 between Elmira and Cortland has been part of upgrade proposals for 50 years. It should be noted that Tompkins County is one of the largest in the country without a 4-lane connection to the rest of the US.

NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6 and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on April 04, 2020, 04:27:45 PM
The ROW of 299 for a good mile and a half east of the Thruway has been taken over by the new Empire State Trail, so you can consider that the final nail for any potential widening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 04, 2020, 05:01:12 PM
I drive between Syracuse and Ithaca frequently.  NY 13 has never been an issue as is.  I suspect this is because the availability of back road routes has helped keep traffic down.  I don't see a pressing need to upgrade NY 13.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 04, 2020, 06:18:58 PM
I drive between Syracuse and Ithaca frequently.  NY 13 has never been an issue as is.  I suspect this is because the availability of back road routes has helped keep traffic down.  I don't see a pressing need to upgrade NY 13.

Yeah, Google will sometimes even route you through Freeville and McLean on back roads and avoid most of NY 13 altogether. If that alternate didn't exist, NY 13 would be a much bigger problem.

As it is, I think Ithaca-Elmira is a bigger problem than Ithaca-Cortland.
I also find Geneva (or Thruway Exit 42) to Ithaca very frustrating. Unfortunately, NY 96 is probably at least 4th in line for an upgraded connection to Ithaca, behind both directions of NY 13 and NY 79.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on April 04, 2020, 08:23:40 PM
Traffic counts and accident rates favor dualization or, at the least, access control between Ithaca and Cortland. There is a project underway to study NY Route 13 between Lansing and Dryden: https://tompkinscountyny.gov/planning/transportation-choices/rt13corridor
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 04, 2020, 08:56:42 PM
Just to scratch the surface on some roads that NY could upgrade to four lane divided highway (and still be way behind other states): NY 14, NY 13, NY 104, NY5/US20, NY 96, US 20A, US 11 north of Watertown, and the list goes on and on.
NY doesn't have the funding to maintain -- let alone improve -- conditions on its system.  Even if it did, I'm not seeing much reason for these upgrades given traffic volumes.

Certainly, not all those routes in entirety need four lanes. To get a bit more specific:

NY 14: Definitely between Geneva and the Thruway, if nothing else. I do feel that many states would have long since four-laned the entire Geneva to Watkins Glen section as well, which has plenty of truck traffic and would be very nice to have, but is not a pressing need.

NY 13: Already been discussed.

NY 104: Froggie is right that Williamson to Sodus is the immediate need. Sodus to Wolcott is a classic easy-upgrade Super 2 that many other states would have long since four-laned/divided. NY 370 feels like the logical spot to extend four lanes, as there's plenty of traffic taking that route to/from the Syracuse area.

NY5/US20: NY 318 to Auburn, which already has occasional passing lanes. And Canandaigua to Geneva.

NY 96: It's a pipe dream, but I really want a four lane connection from Rochester to Ithaca. NY 96A between Geneva and Ovid is the most logical starting point (the four-laning is already started at the north end of 96A...), then continuing from Ovid along NY 96 to Ithaca. It's not a totally dysfunctional corridor, but 50 miles with not so much as a passing lane can be torture on a nice summer afternoon.

US 20A: If we could somehow get rid of the truck ban through Warsaw (or build a Warsaw bypass  :)), it would make sense to four-lane the entire thing from NY 400 to NY 39. Until then, a few passing lanes would suffice.

US 11: I would prioritize Fort Drum to Potsdam. Widening is not really needed east of Potsdam, as traffic to Massena or the Cornwall border will turn off at NY 56, while NY 11B provides some redundancy between Potsdam and Malone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 04, 2020, 10:50:59 PM
Quote from: webny99
As it is, I think Ithaca-Elmira is a bigger problem than Ithaca-Cortland.

From a strictly traffic perspective, Ithaca-Cortland has roughly double the volumes of Ithaca-Elmira.  And that doesn't take into account what's avoiding 13...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 04, 2020, 11:59:03 PM
NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6 and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.

Which super-2 is that? US 6 doesn't have any 2-lane stretches between the Taconic and Peekskill; NY 35 does but they're not "super".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 05, 2020, 01:03:22 PM
NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6 and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.

Which super-2 is that? US 6 doesn't have any 2-lane stretches between the Taconic and Peekskill; NY 35 does but they're not "super".

I meant west of the river, which IS mostly super-2 between NY 17 and the Palisades Parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: interstate73 on April 05, 2020, 04:58:56 PM
I'm a little biased ofc but I would love to see a dualing of NY79 between Ithaca and Witney Point, looking at AADT it isn't really justified but on days with big movements in or out for breaks etc (would have been making the trek coming back from break today if not for the rona...) 79 really gets slammed because it's the main route between Ithaca and the Tri-State, where a huge chunk of the student population in Ithaca lives, as well as New England. It hasn't been uncommon for me to be stuck below the speed limit the whole stretch because of slow pokes ahead and no opportunity to pass. Perhaps it could be justified as the main corridor to NYC or because of the surge traffic? Or if NY13 to Cortland were dualed and connected directly to 81 perhaps that would become the faster route...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 05, 2020, 05:08:45 PM
Quote from: webny99
As it is, I think Ithaca-Elmira is a bigger problem than Ithaca-Cortland.
From a strictly traffic perspective, Ithaca-Cortland has roughly double the volumes of Ithaca-Elmira.  And that doesn't take into account what's avoiding 13...

So I did some digging (https://gis.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=tdv)...
Ithaca-Elmira has a pretty consistent AADT of around 7500, while Ithaca-Cortland has much more variation: 18000 on the NY 366 overlap, then around 12000 as far as Dryden, then closer to 10000 between Dryden and Ithaca. The McLean route has about 3500 on the Etna end and about 6500 on the Cortland end.
So double is somewhat fair, but if you take away Dryden and Freeville and look at Ithaca-Cortland through traffic exclusively, then they're much more comparable. Since we're talking fictional improvements, I guess a new NE/SW route north of Dryden and south of Freeville (call it a northern bypass of Dryden if you wish) would be the optimal solution.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 05, 2020, 05:18:33 PM
I'm a little biased ofc but I would love to see a dualing of NY79 between Ithaca and Witney Point, looking at AADT it isn't really justified but on days with big movements in or out for breaks etc (would have been making the trek coming back from break today if not for the rona...) 79 really gets slammed because it's the main route between Ithaca and the Tri-State, where a huge chunk of the student population in Ithaca lives, as well as New England. It hasn't been uncommon for me to be stuck below the speed limit the whole stretch because of slow pokes ahead and no opportunity to pass. Perhaps it could be justified as the main corridor to NYC or because of the surge traffic? Or if NY13 to Cortland were dualed and connected directly to 81 perhaps that would become the faster route...

It's currently about 12-13 minutes longer to go through Cortland, so even with upgrades to NY 13, I don't think that would become the fastest route to points south/southeast.

Another option would be an upgraded NY 13 as far as Dryden, then take a shortcut over to I-81 using NY 392. If only I-81 had an exit for Messengerville (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Messengerville,+NY+13803/@42.4889756,-76.0834036,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x89da42a528b44541:0x180278a123e747e6!8m2!3d42.4889586!4d-76.0746467)... LOL!  That route is currently 7 minutes longer than NY 79, so say improvements to NY 13 save 2-3 minutes and a direct connection from NY 392 to I-81 saves another 2-3 minutes. That becomes basically a wash time-wise - not to mention that a direct connection would be an improvement over the current situation in Whitney Point!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 05, 2020, 07:52:49 PM
Let's not stray into Fictional territory. Please limit your posts to the topic of New York roads that need improvements, not how you might route things.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 06, 2020, 03:45:48 AM
NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6 and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.

Which super-2 is that? US 6 doesn't have any 2-lane stretches between the Taconic and Peekskill; NY 35 does but they're not "super".

I meant west of the river, which IS mostly super-2 between NY 17 and the Palisades Parkway.

Ah, yes–I thought you meant just west of the Taconic. But that's just US 6, though; NY 35 doesn't go west of the river.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 06, 2020, 12:29:08 PM
NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6 and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.

Which super-2 is that? US 6 doesn't have any 2-lane stretches between the Taconic and Peekskill; NY 35 does but they're not "super".

I meant west of the river, which IS mostly super-2 between NY 17 and the Palisades Parkway.

Ah, yes–I thought you meant just west of the Taconic. But that's just US 6, though; NY 35 doesn't go west of the river.
35 was designed with room for the Bear Mountain Parkway to be completed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 06, 2020, 02:28:34 PM
NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6 and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.

Which super-2 is that? US 6 doesn't have any 2-lane stretches between the Taconic and Peekskill; NY 35 does but they're not "super".

I meant west of the river, which IS mostly super-2 between NY 17 and the Palisades Parkway.

Ah, yes–I thought you meant just west of the Taconic. But that's just US 6, though; NY 35 doesn't go west of the river.
35 was designed with room for the Bear Mountain Parkway to be completed.

"The super-2 section of US 6" and "NY 35 west of the Taconic" were two separate phrases. And yes, NY 35 has preserved ROW for 4 lanes or the Bear Mountain Parkway to be completed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 06, 2020, 03:14:35 PM
"The super-2 section of US 6" and "NY 35 west of the Taconic" were two separate phrases. And yes, NY 35 has preserved ROW for 4 lanes or the Bear Mountain Parkway to be completed.
Wait a second; I thought the preserved ROW for the Bear Mountain Parkway was supposed to go around US 202 and NY 35.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 06, 2020, 04:14:02 PM
NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6, and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.
Which super-2 is that? US 6 doesn't have any 2-lane stretches between the Taconic and Peekskill; NY 35 does but they're not "super".
I meant west of the river, which IS mostly super-2 between NY 17 and the Palisades Parkway.
Ah, yes–I thought you meant just west of the Taconic. But that's just US 6, though; NY 35 doesn't go west of the river.
35 was designed with room for the Bear Mountain Parkway to be completed.
"The super-2 section of US 6" and "NY 35 west of the Taconic" were two separate phrases.

The power of punctuation!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on April 06, 2020, 05:42:25 PM
Platte Clove Road is a seasonally open road that is a narrow road on the side of a mountain in the Catskills which also has a number of hiking trailheads accessed from it. It may have been closed to free up any potential emergency personnel. Of possible interest to road enthusiasts, this is the first that I've seen where the Town of Hunter has a numbered (but unsigned) town route system, numbered Town Route 9.

http://townofhuntergov.com/platte-clove-road-closed-until-further-notice/ (http://townofhuntergov.com/platte-clove-road-closed-until-further-notice/)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 07, 2020, 05:07:37 PM
"The super-2 section of US 6" and "NY 35 west of the Taconic" were two separate phrases.

That's it. That's what I was missing. Sorry! :-D

Quote
And yes, NY 35 has preserved ROW for 4 lanes or the Bear Mountain Parkway to be completed.

Yes, indeed it has; the ROW is still there on the north side of NY 35 (which of course is also US 202 at that point).

Wait a second; I thought the preserved ROW for the Bear Mountain Parkway was supposed to go around US 202 and NY 35.

The unbuilt section is immediately north of, and parallel to, US 202/NY 35, so it's essentially the same corridor there. I am sure the parkway, had it been built, would have been on a separate carriageway, but where the ROW is located would also allow an easy twinning of 202/35.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 11, 2020, 06:41:04 PM
Wait a second; I thought the preserved ROW for the Bear Mountain Parkway was supposed to go around US 202 and NY 35.

The unbuilt section is immediately north of, and parallel to, US 202/NY 35, so it's essentially the same corridor there. I am sure the parkway, had it been built, would have been on a separate carriageway, but where the ROW is located would also allow an easy twinning of 202/35.
I still remember a map showing it running south of and parallel to US 202/NY 35. I wish I could find it.

In the meantime, I was going to start a separate thread on the realignment of major Long Island roads, but I changed my mind and decided to just add it to the existing New York State thread.

Over on Steve Alps' page on NY 27 in Suffolk County, the lead picture is an old Michael Summa picture from 1975, which was later revealed to be from Amagansett on an older alignment, specifically at what is today Atlantic Avenue and Old Montauk Highway.

https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ny_27/e.html

(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ny_27/old.jpg)

Although what I found out from Historic Aerials was that this old section was built sometime between 1954 and 1960.

https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=12&lat=40.979444&lon=-72.125278

So, I'm going to assume that the old sign in that picture was simply left there for a good 20 years.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on April 21, 2020, 03:28:58 PM
Anyone notice the sign replacement project for the Hutchinson River Parkway from the Bruckner interchange to the Connecticut Line is next for the mileage-based exit numbers?  D263231

link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D264231
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on April 22, 2020, 12:23:06 AM
Anyone notice the sign replacement project for the Hutchinson River Parkway from the Bruckner interchange to the Connecticut Line is next for the mileage-based exit numbers?  D263231

link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D264231

Is NYSDOT not big on the left plaques on exit number panels? Should be one for the Cross County exit SB and one again for the 684 exit NB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on April 22, 2020, 11:48:29 AM
More recent installations have the left plaque combined into the exit tab, but historically NYSDOT didnt use the LEFT signage. It only positioned the exit number tab on the left side of signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on April 22, 2020, 05:07:06 PM
Looks like the I-684 exit is getting numbered.... but only on the "exit now" gantry!

With the highest exit now #19A-B, this will make the jump to CT #27 easier to stomach, if only slightly. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 22, 2020, 05:56:12 PM
Looks like I'll have to adjust the numbers on my signage (my mileage is off by a mile or two).  What I don't get is how the NY 120A interchange is numbered northbound.  NYSDOT has it numbered as Exit 19 A-B, yet the gore signage for 19B will read "27" because you cross the CT border.  Current NYSDOT BGS's for the interchange only include tabs for Exit 30S, with no mention of Exit 30N (or Exit 27 for that matter).  This will only confuse things even more.  Why not just number the NY exit as plain old 19 and be done with it?  At least they did it right southbound by letting CTDOT be responsible for the exit on its side of the border. 

And I had a nice APL set up for the Cross County interchange southbound

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49806738843_05601e5cec_w.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on April 22, 2020, 06:34:15 PM
And... wait a minute.... I thought something didn't look right on the pullthrus on the Exit 15-16A signs...

How, NYSDOT, do you spell Merrit"T" Parkway again?

Hope they proofread and correct that?





Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 22, 2020, 07:42:22 PM
Looks like I'll have to adjust the numbers on my signage (my mileage is off by a mile or two).  What I don't get is how the NY 120A interchange is numbered northbound.  NYSDOT has it numbered as Exit 19 A-B, yet the gore signage for 19B will read "27" because you cross the CT border.  Current NYSDOT BGS's for the interchange only include tabs for Exit 30S, with no mention of Exit 30N (or Exit 27 for that matter).  This will only confuse things even more.  Why not just number the NY exit as plain old 19 and be done with it?  At least they did it right southbound by letting CTDOT be responsible for the exit on its side of the border. 

And I had a nice APL set up for the Cross County interchange southbound

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49806738843_05601e5cec_w.jpg)
Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 22, 2020, 09:03:02 PM
Looks like I'll have to adjust the numbers on my signage (my mileage is off by a mile or two).  What I don't get is how the NY 120A interchange is numbered northbound.  NYSDOT has it numbered as Exit 19 A-B, yet the gore signage for 19B will read "27" because you cross the CT border.  Current NYSDOT BGS's for the interchange only include tabs for Exit 30S, with no mention of Exit 30N (or Exit 27 for that matter).  This will only confuse things even more.  Why not just number the NY exit as plain old 19 and be done with it?  At least they did it right southbound by letting CTDOT be responsible for the exit on its side of the border. 

And I had a nice APL set up for the Cross County interchange southbound

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49806738843_05601e5cec_w.jpg)
Note that the plans have a note for the northbound gore saying "exit gore sign and posts to be replaced by Connecticut DOT".  With the current southbound 27S becoming 19A, exit 27 may be going away.  Should make the jump to exit 28 easier in any case.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 22, 2020, 09:14:56 PM
Re: above posts concerning NYS DOT's non-use of LEFT exit tabs. At least on Long Island they have been using the yellow LEFT box on new signs pretty much since the 2009 Manual mandated it. I can't imagine why they are not shown in the plans for the Hutchinson Pkwy. I suspect someone screwed up. Notice also that some of the signs for the I-684 exit have no exit number tab at all. Ya' have to wonder if NYS DOT doesn't even proof read their own plans.

Also what is their purpose in having the horizontal dividing line separating the street name from the city names?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on April 22, 2020, 09:30:51 PM
Re: above posts concerning NYS DOT's non-use of LEFT exit tabs. At least on Long Island they have been using the yellow LEFT box on new signs pretty much since the 2009 Manual mandated it. I can't imagine why they are not shown in the plans for the Hutchinson Pkwy. I suspect someone screwed up. Notice also that some of the signs for the I-684 exit have no exit number tab at all. Ya' have to wonder if NYS DOT doesn't even proof read their own plans.

Also what is their purpose in have the horizontal dividing line separating the street name from the city names?

That's a R8 thing and has been for years. For a while, they've done all caps in a box (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9358879,-73.8785025,3a,75y,18.79h,93.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT3nmkhP81ST-5JBAFRnQag!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) for the street names.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 22, 2020, 09:36:49 PM
I never liked those boxed street names either. I'm glad Region 10 doesn't do any of that stuff. They just print the street and city names in mixed case, very plain and simple.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 23, 2020, 12:41:20 PM
I liked the boxed street names. I think using FHWA normal fonts looked weird for street names. The boxed names was/is a good alternative.

That said, I tend to agree that exit 27 in CT will likely cease to be.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on April 23, 2020, 01:54:36 PM
Quote from: Alps link=topic=1487.msg2493509#msg2493509
Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.

Tell that to the MTA (I think they are responsible for crossing signs). Found on the Whitestone Bridge. This is a relatively recent installation that incorporates the left exit signage found elsewhere in R10

https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXdyQ1EUiyUbqBry9
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 23, 2020, 02:28:21 PM
I liked the boxed street names. I think using FHWA normal fonts looked weird for street names. The boxed names was/is a good alternative.

R2 did the boxed street name thing for years as well and I complained about it every time they did it. The box obscures the legibility of the legend inside the box at night. The road name would end up being just one big blob of white.  It looked particularly bad on signs where there was just a road name and action message. It’d be a box within a box and an arrow. Awful.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 23, 2020, 02:45:08 PM
Quote from: Alps link=topic=1487.msg2493509#msg2493509
Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.

Tell that to the MTA (I think they are responsible for crossing signs). Found on the Whitestone Bridge. This is a relatively recent installation that incorporates the left exit signage found elsewhere in R10

https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXdyQ1EUiyUbqBry9

Reason why I used NYC airports here is that NYC is too vague because either option will get you to NYC.  Most people get to the Bronx (including Yankee Stadium), and the West Side of Manhattan via the Cross County and either 87 or the Sawmill/Henry Hudson.  The Hutch is a better option if you’re going to Queens (LaGuardia and JFK included) or the east side of the Bronx or lower Manhattan (via 278 and the RFK).  The Hutch turns into 678, which takes you right in to JFK, but with it being the preferred route to LaGuardia as well, I used “NYC Airports”
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 23, 2020, 08:26:59 PM
Quote from: Alps link=topic=1487.msg2493509#msg2493509
Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.

Tell that to the MTA (I think they are responsible for crossing signs). Found on the Whitestone Bridge. This is a relatively recent installation that incorporates the left exit signage found elsewhere in R10

https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXdyQ1EUiyUbqBry9

Reason why I used NYC airports here is that NYC is too vague because either option will get you to NYC.  Most people get to the Bronx (including Yankee Stadium), and the West Side of Manhattan via the Cross County and either 87 or the Sawmill/Henry Hudson.  The Hutch is a better option if you’re going to Queens (LaGuardia and JFK included) or the east side of the Bronx or lower Manhattan (via 278 and the RFK).  The Hutch turns into 678, which takes you right in to JFK, but with it being the preferred route to LaGuardia as well, I used “NYC Airports”

Once again we have collision between MUTCD requirements and what makes sense locally. It's worth noting that within the Borough of Queens NY Airports was used back in the 1960's as a southbound destination on entrance ramps to I-678, the Whitestone Expwy. There really was no place or city name to use at that point as the road terminated at JFK Airport.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 23, 2020, 11:12:22 PM
Quote from: Alps link=topic=1487.msg2493509#msg2493509
Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.

Tell that to the MTA (I think they are responsible for crossing signs). Found on the Whitestone Bridge. This is a relatively recent installation that incorporates the left exit signage found elsewhere in R10

https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXdyQ1EUiyUbqBry9

Reason why I used NYC airports here is that NYC is too vague because either option will get you to NYC.  Most people get to the Bronx (including Yankee Stadium), and the West Side of Manhattan via the Cross County and either 87 or the Sawmill/Henry Hudson.  The Hutch is a better option if you’re going to Queens (LaGuardia and JFK included) or the east side of the Bronx or lower Manhattan (via 278 and the RFK).  The Hutch turns into 678, which takes you right in to JFK, but with it being the preferred route to LaGuardia as well, I used “NYC Airports”

Once again we have collision between MUTCD requirements and what makes sense locally. It's worth noting that within the Borough of Queens NY Airports was used back in the 1960's as a southbound destination on entrance ramps to I-678, the Whitestone Expwy. There really was no place or city name to use at that point as the road terminated at JFK Airport.
Then name the airports. In this case there is no such issue. Sign NYC or at least Queens ahead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 23, 2020, 11:15:46 PM
Yeah, I'd go with a borough.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 29, 2020, 09:04:44 AM
Anyone notice the sign replacement project for the Hutchinson River Parkway from the Bruckner interchange to the Connecticut Line is next for the mileage-based exit numbers?  D263231

link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D264231
Wow, so many Exit 1's in The Bronx. It kind of makes me regret advocating mileage based exit numbers for the Hutch.


Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways on the other hand is a totally different story. Maybe I'll look for a thread on that on the Connecticut board.




Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 29, 2020, 01:06:06 PM
CTDOT has plans to eventually renumber CT 15, but probably not until at least 2026.

But just for fun, here is what the Merritt/Wilbur Cross would look like with mileage-based numbers

Exit 1: NY 120A NORTH (unless NYSDOT and CTDOT finally come to a mutual agreement to number it 19B)
Exit 3: Round Hill Rd
Exit 4: Lake Ave
Exit 5: North St
Exit 8: Den Rd
Exit 9: CT 104
Exit 10: CT 137
Exit 13: CT 106
Exit 14: CT 124
Exit 15: CT 123
Exit 16 A/B (NB ONLY): US 7
Exit 17 A/B: Main Ave (TO US 7 SB)
Exit 20: CT 33
Exit 21: CT 57
THE NO EXIT ZONE :)
Exit 27: CT 58
Exit 28: CT 59
Exit 29: Park Ave
Exit 30: CT 111
Exit 32A: CT 25 SOUTH (NB); CT 25 NORTH (SB)
Exit 32B: CT 25 NORTH (NB); CT 127 (SB)
Exit 33 (NB ONLY): CT 108
Exit 34: CT 8 NORTH (NB); CT 8/CT 108 (SB)
Exit 36: CT 110
Exit 37: SR 796 (Milford Connector TO I-95/US 1)
Exit 38A (38 SB): Wheelers Farms Rd
Exit 38B (NB ONLY) Wolf Harbor Rd
Exit 41: CT 121
Exit 42 A/B: CT 34
Exit 46: CT 63/CT 69
Exit 50: CT 10
Exit 51 (A/B SB): Whitney Ave
Exit 52 (NB ONLY): Dixwell Ave
Exit 53: CT 22
Exit 58: Quinnipiac St/Wallingford Ctr (NB); South Turnpike Rd/Quinnipiac St (SB)
Exit 59: CT 150
Exit 61: US 5
Exit 64A (SB ONLY): I-91 SOUTH
Exit 64 (64B SB): East Main St
Exit 65A (NB ONLY): I-91 NORTH/CT 66 EAST
Exit 65B (NB ONLY): I-691 WEST

And the Hartford portion
Exit 79: CT 99 SOUTH
Exit 80A: I-91 SOUTH
Exit 80B: Brainard Rd/Airport Rd
Exit 81 (NB ONLY): I-91 NORTH
Exit 82: US 5 NORTH/CT 2 (NB ONLY)/East River Dr
Exit 83 (NB ONLY): Silver Lane
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on May 08, 2020, 08:30:10 PM
Anyone notice the sign replacement project for the Hutchinson River Parkway from the Bruckner interchange to the Connecticut Line is next for the mileage-based exit numbers?  D263231

link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D264231 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D264231)

I was looking forward to seeing the signage plans but I don't like these. Looks like they're identical replacements for the ones already in place, which were probably installed piecemeal over the years.


Are these finalized? Any point in telling Region 8 now? I assume a plan from Region 11 will be forthcoming for the Bronx section? Will that section (finally) have mile markers, too?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on May 09, 2020, 08:33:31 AM
Will the new CT 15 exit numbers start at the state line or continue the numbering from New York?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on May 09, 2020, 11:30:17 AM
Will the new CT 15 exit numbers start at the state line or continue the numbering from New York?

No plans are up yet, and probably won't be for a while, for a ConnDOT CT 15 renumbering.  But to make them part of a distance-based system, they would most likely start at the NY state line (with #1) and count up.  I can't imagine they'd continue the NY numbering again!

IMO, they should have renumbered the exits when signs were replaced a couple years ago. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on May 09, 2020, 01:59:16 PM
I-84 was opened in segments in the pre-NSML era. Does anyone know what the speed limit on 84 was when it first opened? The section east of the river was mostly raised to 65 MPH around the same time in late 2008/early 2009 when the highway was transferred from NYSTA back to NYSDOT. Which agency raised the limit? I wonder why it was 55 for so long after NSML's repeal and the 2003 law that let NYSDOT/TA set 65 zones on their own without the legislature's approval.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 09, 2020, 10:54:31 PM
Will the new CT 15 exit numbers start at the state line or continue the numbering from New York?

No plans are up yet, and probably won't be for a while, for a ConnDOT CT 15 renumbering.  But to make them part of a distance-based system, they would most likely start at the NY state line (with #1) and count up.  I can't imagine they'd continue the NY numbering again!

IMO, they should have renumbered the exits when signs were replaced a couple years ago. 
It's worth noting that the mileposts start at 0 at the NY line, so if the exit numbers were to match they would need to reset.  Maybe CT knew NY would be converting the Hutch soon and wanted to wait until that was done before changing CT 15?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 10, 2020, 08:24:45 PM
It doesn't much matter. As per the MUTCD, the exit numbers for the Merritt Pkwy. must start at zero at the state line, so anything New York does on the Hutch is irrelevant to Connecticut. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 10, 2020, 09:59:06 PM
It doesn't much matter. As per the MUTCD, the exit numbers for the Merritt Pkwy. must start at zero at the state line, so anything New York does on the Hutch is irrelevant to Connecticut. 
Exit 30/27 (future exit 19) straddles the state border.  CT would not be able to change the numbers is one fell swoop without the NY side changing first, or else the exit numbers would be made even worse than they already are.  ALL southbound signage (with the exception of one gore sign), as well as one of the northbound gore signs, is in CT.

Also, last time I checked, exit numbers/mileage starting at 0 is not actually mandated by the MUTCD.  In fact, there a a ton of examples around the country where they don't.  Just look at the entire state of Arizona (minus most interstates), for example.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 10, 2020, 10:17:10 PM
Vdeane, are you saying that the numbering can start with 1 instead of 0 (zero)? No argument there. But what I was saying was that the exit numbering is required to start at the state line as per Sec.2E-31-11. The southern/western terminus within that state. So Connecticut could not just continue New York's numbering. Though yes, I see that this interchange is a special case right at the state border so some tailoring for that specific location might be needed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 10, 2020, 10:40:03 PM
Vdeane, are you saying that the numbering can start with 1 instead of 0 (zero)? No argument there. But what I was saying was that the exit numbering is required to start at the state line as per Sec.2E-31-11. The southern/western terminus within that state. So Connecticut could not just continue New York's numbering. Though yes, I see that this interchange is a special case right at the state border so some tailoring for that specific location might be needed.
Here's the actual text you just cited:

Quote
Regardless of whether a mainline route originates within a State or crosses into a State from another State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point for interchange numbering.
It says "the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point"... it does not say what it should begin at.  I-17 in Arizona begins at 194, for example.  In any case, the mileage for CT 15 starts at 0 at the border, and I already noted that they would have to reset the numbering to match the mileage before you decided to chime in.  As such, I have no idea why you decided to argue the point, especially since I was never arguing that CT should continue continuing NY's numbering in the first place - it was that signs like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0543603,-73.6742121,3a,25.4y,196.69h,99.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sreZrtenLGZh9dI2CwIl2kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) could not have their numbers changed without NY changing first, and since NY's previous renumbering of the Hutch broke the sequence, they couldn't just leave that at exit 27 and change everything else.  IMO the correct solution is for that interchange to be numbered exit 19 and only exit 19 and for CT to renumber everything else off CT 15's mileage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 10, 2020, 10:48:38 PM
I have long been an advocate for starting the milage and exit numbers for the Hutch/Merritt/Wilbur Cross Pkwy/Berlin Tpke/Wilbur Cross Hwy at the Whitestone Bridge with no reset at the CT border.

That road network is so historic that I think it might be cool to do the milage and numbering this way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 11, 2020, 01:31:46 AM
I have long been an advocate for starting the milage and exit numbers for the Hutch/Merritt/Wilbur Cross Pkwy/Berlin Tpke/Wilbur Cross Hwy at the Whitestone Bridge with no reset at the CT border.

That road network is so historic that I think it might be cool to do the milage and numbering this way.
It's supported by the MUTCD, but only as long as CT re-mileposts the highway to match.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 11, 2020, 01:39:37 AM
I have long been an advocate for starting the milage and exit numbers for the Hutch/Merritt/Wilbur Cross Pkwy/Berlin Tpke/Wilbur Cross Hwy at the Whitestone Bridge with no reset at the CT border.

That road network is so historic that I think it might be cool to do the milage and numbering this way.
It's supported by the MUTCD, but only as long as CT re-mileposts the highway to match.

And it is currently mileposted from the NY border, so they won't.  And no, they won't reset the mileposts at the Sikorsky Bridge either to give separate mileage for the Merritt and Wilbur Cross.  Question is: Will CTDOT install mileposts along the entire length of CT 15, including the Berlin Turnpike and the Hartford expressway portion? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 21, 2020, 11:39:28 PM
Old News 12 Long Island about a vacant lot in Coram which didn't mention the fact that this was the ROW for the formerly proposed realignment and widening of NY 25:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150712230705/http://longisland.news12.com/news/neighbors-businesses-complain-of-vacant-coram-lot-1.10629981

Just something I thought I'd bring up.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 09, 2020, 09:43:22 PM
Hey, I just discovered an old road in Millwood in Westchester County.

It begins somewhere around NY 133 just across from the power lines where it runs parallel to the Old Put (North County) Trailway. Then it crosses NY 120 diagonally just before that left turn where it ends at NY 100.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1914203,-73.7975064,3a,75y,253.4h,96.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1JWswx81AB8Nv7mzKD6Fdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1916021,-73.7974817,3a,75y,358.43h,97.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk1Urq6bVwWegloO9wvfO9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

From there it crosses NY 100 and runs along the east side of Shingle House Road, but I'm not 100% sure of how far north it goes from there:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1925226,-73.7974672,3a,75y,349.71h,96.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seZs736fBSzmCdTa3o7hOwA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

I checked to see if it was a spur from the Old Put, but no such luck.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 10, 2020, 03:08:50 AM
Hey, I just discovered an old road in Millwood in Westchester County.

Looks like aqueduct to me; pretty common sight around these here parts. :-)

(Yep, the Catskill Aqueduct does indeed run right through there.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on June 25, 2020, 12:50:26 PM
Does anyone know the history behind why the exit numbers on NY 27 start at Exit 38 in Lindenhurst? Wiki shows that interchange as being at mile 35.3 so it's not exactly mile-based, and the exits continue sequentially anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on June 27, 2020, 09:05:54 AM
Does anyone know the history behind why the exit numbers on NY 27 start at Exit 38 in Lindenhurst? Wiki shows that interchange as being at mile 35.3 so it's not exactly mile-based, and the exits continue sequentially anyway.

Yes, it was supposed to extend further west as an expressway, so they started the exit numbers at 37 (which is only numbered when going west) to leave room for the exits in Nassau County and possibly even beyond.  Exits 1-6 do exist on the Prospect Expressway section in Brooklyn.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 27, 2020, 12:31:41 PM
Just saw a new Excelsior license plate on the road for the first time....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 27, 2020, 09:22:16 PM
Just saw a new Excelsior license plate on the road for the first time....
Oddly enough, I too saw my first about an hour after you posted.  I wonder if it was the same one - was yours on a trailer pulled by a vehicle with an Empire Gold plate?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 27, 2020, 09:27:18 PM
Just saw a new Excelsior license plate on the road for the first time....
Oddly enough, I too saw my first about an hour after you posted.  I wonder if it was the same one - was yours on a trailer pulled by a vehicle with an Empire Gold plate?
No, some  SUV on I-87 without anything being special about it. Right to KDH series, though - apparently they jumped to K in sequence..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 27, 2020, 09:36:05 PM
I'd forgotten all about these new plates. So let me get this straight: New York State in its infinite wisdom will now have three different designs of license plates on the road? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. What was their reason for not staying with the existing orange and blue plates?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 27, 2020, 09:43:54 PM
I'd forgotten all about these new plates. So let me get this straight: New York State in its infinite wisdom will now have three different designs of license plates on the road? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. What was their reason for not staying with the existing orange and blue plates?
The official reason: gold and blue doesn't work well with cameras (never heard it elsewhere - but the first iteration of Excelsior plates didn't work at all with ezpass readers, according to some news stories)
Commonly believed reason: Governor Cuomo II wanted to put a new Tappan Zee bridge on those plates - the one he named after his dad, Gov. Cuomo I. Public voted against that design
My best guess: DMV tries to establish 10-year plate replacement cycle, but cannot get PR shit together and nobody wants to pay for a new plate just-because.

PS. I still have old white-and-blue plates on my car
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 27, 2020, 10:03:50 PM
Yeah, the plan was for anyone would plates older than 10 years (which would include all Empire Blue plates) would have a mandatory replacement.  That was scrapped due to public opposition.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 27, 2020, 10:12:13 PM
The state should automatically replace all the blue and white plates for no charge. At least then we'd only have two different plates for the same state. Many years ago there was never a charge when plates  were changed to a new design. When you renewed, DMV simply issued your new plates with only the standard renewal fee.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 27, 2020, 10:21:35 PM
The state should automatically replace all the blue and white plates for no charge. At least then we'd only have two different plates for the same state. Many years ago there was never a charge when plates  were changed to a new design. When you renewed, DMV simply issued your new plates with only the standard renewal fee.
Why "no charge"? I do pay to have registration or  license renewed, nothing new about it. Plates have fabrication and distribution costs as well.
The only thing about the plates is that there are some unrealistic expectations about plates being good forever. No, they cannot - they are used in pretty harsh conditions. The question is only about implied guarantees.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 27, 2020, 10:30:04 PM
So how did they manage years ago when they changed plates every two years back in the 1960's? Just the standard renewal charge, but every year, not two years and the new plates were included. In the off year, they gave you a renewal sticker for the existing plate. And pre-1965 there was no state sales tax either. How did they run the government back then?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 27, 2020, 10:52:17 PM
So how did they manage years ago when they changed plates every two years back in the 1960's? Just the standard renewal charge, but every year, not two years and the new plates were included. In the off year, they gave you a renewal sticker for the existing plate. And pre-1965 there was no state sales tax either. How did they run the government back then?
Without going into politics... It is much easier to bake the price of a simple plate which is only good for a year or two into annual fee.
I assume that upgrade to long-service plate included some fees because plates are more expensive to fabricate but much less hassle with replacement....
I don't remember how things worked with mass replacement in 2001-2002, but my impression that it was accepted as a needed step.
Fast forward to 2009, with effects of the crisis are still here, Gov. Patterson tried to launch total plate replacement as a fundraiser - which didn't go well with people. So in 2019 mass replacement hit the same wall. Covid crisis would mean neither getting free plates from struggling state nor making drivers pay for those plates is going to work.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2020, 11:42:23 PM
I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 28, 2020, 01:30:35 AM
I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.
You mean the original blue numerals and red Liberty, right?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 28, 2020, 01:51:18 AM
I remember having to pay $25 for new Liberty plates in 1986 when renewing my old blue on gold plates. People didn't get hysterical about the $25 then, it was approximately 13 years since the preceding design had been introduced, and New York still had location-based plate numbers. It's beyond my comprehension as to why NYSDMV can't figure out how to do license plates anymore. The last time we went back east there were way too many peeling license plates observed on the roadways, including a couple where folks had colored in their numbers with paint or a sharpie or something.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on June 28, 2020, 02:16:34 AM
So, are the new NY plates as ugly in the wild as one would expect?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 28, 2020, 07:57:24 AM
So, are the new NY plates as ugly in the wild as one would expect?
They look as generic as it gets. Nothing really ugly about it. At least, it doesn't look like the car is attached to those bright license plates...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on June 28, 2020, 09:22:04 AM
i just renewed my registration and opted for new plates mainly because I have early generation gold plates that are peeling.

NY has a problem with bad paint with E series (the last white plates made) and F series (early generation gold plates). DMV recalled those and they did offer to replace the peeling plates for free.

The gold plates are hated by many and most people I know that have the old white plates would refuse to give them up for the gold plates no matter how bad they looked even if they were able to get new plates for free due to the recall.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 28, 2020, 04:35:59 PM
I remember having to pay $25 for new Liberty plates in 1986 when renewing my old blue on gold plates. People didn't get hysterical about the $25 then, it was approximately 13 years since the preceding design had been introduced, and New York still had location-based plate numbers. It's beyond my comprehension as to why NYSDMV can't figure out how to do license plates anymore. The last time we went back east there were way too many peeling license plates observed on the roadways, including a couple where folks had colored in their numbers with paint or a sharpie or something.

Ontario had a problem with a recent batch of plates. Seems like a material issue.

Re: peeling plates, yeah, a lot of people are ridiculous with their hate for the Empire Gold plates.

If I end uo staying in NY after grad school, I'll probably pay for the new plates. I actually like them and, if anything, they don't make me stand out as much when leaving the state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 28, 2020, 08:00:54 PM
I was in back of a car with the brand new plates earlier today. It looks good, but I like the orange plates too. Again I say it's ridiculous for one state to have three different style plates on the road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on June 28, 2020, 08:51:38 PM
Saw my first set in the wild today while I was on a walk. Didn't get a great look at them. They're not as ugly as I expected but I'm really not a fan, and if anything I think they're less legible than the previous generation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 28, 2020, 11:01:28 PM
Isn't three sets of plates on the road still less than Ohio? I can never keep track of all the different plates they have going on.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 29, 2020, 01:38:07 AM
I was in back of a car with the brand new plates earlier today. It looks good, but I like the orange plates too. Again I say it's ridiculous for one state to have three different style plates on the road.
NJ in the 1990s had old peach, blue, and new yellow.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on June 29, 2020, 11:01:33 AM
I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.

I actually saw a lady liberty plate in the wild in Brooklyn a few weeks ago: (https://i.imgur.com/VFCVah8.jpg). Not sure how this is possible but it was quite a throwback haha
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 29, 2020, 11:12:26 AM
I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.

I actually saw a lady liberty plate in the wild in Brooklyn a few weeks ago: Not sure how this is possible but it was quite a throwback haha
I did too, a year or two back. It was on a campus parking lot, with cops actively involved. It didn't occur to me until quite a bit later that a 25 year historic car can legally carry those plates today. Apparently, whatever the issue was, it was resolved as I saw the same car with same plates a few more times.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 29, 2020, 12:55:47 PM
I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.
You mean the original blue numerals and red Liberty, right?
Oui.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on July 02, 2020, 03:04:34 PM
I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.

I actually saw a lady liberty plate in the wild in Brooklyn a few weeks ago: Not sure how this is possible but it was quite a throwback haha
I did too, a year or two back. It was on a campus parking lot, with cops actively involved. It didn't occur to me until quite a bit later that a 25 year historic car can legally carry those plates today. Apparently, whatever the issue was, it was resolved as I saw the same car with same plates a few more times.

So the car still had the original plates and got to keep them by renewing the registration all these years? The car I saw was definitely not old enough to have ever had lady liberty plates, maybe an old registration got transferred to another car?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 02, 2020, 03:12:06 PM
I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.

I actually saw a lady liberty plate in the wild in Brooklyn a few weeks ago: Not sure how this is possible but it was quite a throwback haha
I did too, a year or two back. It was on a campus parking lot, with cops actively involved. It didn't occur to me until quite a bit later that a 25 year historic car can legally carry those plates today. Apparently, whatever the issue was, it was resolved as I saw the same car with same plates a few more times.

So the car still had the original plates and got to keep them by renewing the registration all these years? The car I saw was definitely not old enough to have ever had lady liberty plates, maybe an old registration got transferred to another car?

As far as I know, this is the ONLY way to use those pre-2000 plates -  and only on a pre-2000 car:
Quote
Any motor vehicle manufactured more than 25 years before the current calendar year that is used only as a collector's item or exhibition piece, and not for daily transportation, may be registered with vintage plates from the model year of the vehicle...... To register your vehicle with vintage plates, you must have actual plates that were valid in New York State in the year the vehicle was manufactured.
Bulk of those plates were taken off the road during 2001-2002 mandatory exchange program.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 05, 2020, 07:44:09 PM
I see that I-84 still has duplicate signs west of NY 121:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3835115,-73.5799762,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swuVVtfJVcuHw_EYyrcelGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3840817,-73.5834026,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv4PpIvajjCmZ1yq__XkWFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3846854,-73.5853422,3a,75y,264.25h,100.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm6tqLC99KWXsYqKpsLX97Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

What's up with that? An overhead sign gantry, or even an overhead signpost for one lane makes much more sense.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 05, 2020, 08:35:46 PM
I see that I-84 still has duplicate signs west of NY 121:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3835115,-73.5799762,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swuVVtfJVcuHw_EYyrcelGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3840817,-73.5834026,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv4PpIvajjCmZ1yq__XkWFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3846854,-73.5853422,3a,75y,264.25h,100.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm6tqLC99KWXsYqKpsLX97Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

What's up with that? An overhead sign gantry, or even an overhead signpost for one lane makes much more sense.



I've never understood the need for "To New York City" and "To Brewster" on the secondary destination signs
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on July 11, 2020, 04:11:24 PM
Another puzzler: What was on this sign between 383 and RIT?
https://goo.gl/maps/hi21GCUWEXPsa8iP8
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on July 11, 2020, 04:54:36 PM
Another puzzler: What was on this sign between 383 and RIT?
https://goo.gl/maps/hi21GCUWEXPsa8iP8

Testing my memory with this one, but I think it used to say "U of R / RIT" before the Exit 16 reconstruction.
Now, signage instead directs you to use NY 15 to reach U of R, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.108088,-77.6163356,3a,15y,304.02h,90.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG3J6wg5RlP_NA4PlQVq3tg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG3J6wg5RlP_NA4PlQVq3tg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D295.94565%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 11, 2020, 06:41:08 PM
Another puzzler: What was on this sign between 383 and RIT?
https://goo.gl/maps/hi21GCUWEXPsa8iP8

Based on the way NYSDOT Region 4 tends to design sign layouts, are we sure there was anything between the route marker and RIT? R4 always did enjoy their left justified route markers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on July 11, 2020, 09:04:38 PM
Another puzzler: What was on this sign between 383 and RIT?
https://goo.gl/maps/hi21GCUWEXPsa8iP8

Based on the way NYSDOT Region 4 tends to design sign layouts, are we sure there was anything between the route marker and RIT? R4 always did enjoy their left justified route markers.

I don’t recall seeing anything other than the shield and “RIT”  as far back as the early 1990’s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 11, 2020, 09:06:56 PM
Machias, are you saying in Region-4, it's standard to have the route shield on the left side of the sign, instead of in the center?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 11, 2020, 11:33:27 PM
Another puzzler: What was on this sign between 383 and RIT?
https://goo.gl/maps/hi21GCUWEXPsa8iP8

Testing my memory with this one, but I think it used to say "U of R / RIT" before the Exit 16 reconstruction.
Now, signage instead directs you to use NY 15 to reach U of R, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.108088,-77.6163356,3a,15y,304.02h,90.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG3J6wg5RlP_NA4PlQVq3tg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG3J6wg5RlP_NA4PlQVq3tg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D295.94565%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).
That's what the southbund supplemental sign says (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1252448,-77.6546819,3a,17.1y,119.08h,86.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFgkSdVzD8r1jiQcKs1wkfw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DFgkSdVzD8r1jiQcKs1wkfw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D49.74402%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192), at least.  The combo stuck out in my head when you posted that as familiar, so it might have.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 12, 2020, 12:33:08 AM
Machias, are you saying in Region-4, it's standard to have the route shield on the left side of the sign, instead of in the center?

On the exit directional guide sign, yes. On the advance exit sign, not as much.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on July 12, 2020, 01:09:53 AM
Another puzzler: What was on this sign between 383 and RIT?
https://goo.gl/maps/hi21GCUWEXPsa8iP8

Testing my memory with this one, but I think it used to say "U of R / RIT" before the Exit 16 reconstruction.
Now, signage instead directs you to use NY 15 to reach U of R, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.108088,-77.6163356,3a,15y,304.02h,90.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG3J6wg5RlP_NA4PlQVq3tg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG3J6wg5RlP_NA4PlQVq3tg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D295.94565%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).
That's what the southbund supplemental sign says (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1252448,-77.6546819,3a,17.1y,119.08h,86.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFgkSdVzD8r1jiQcKs1wkfw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DFgkSdVzD8r1jiQcKs1wkfw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D49.74402%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192), at least.  The combo stuck out in my head when you posted that as familiar, so it might have.
It didn't look like text was there. I didn't really see any scars at all, so I'll go with poor justification.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on July 12, 2020, 05:12:54 AM
I’m pretty sure it was just the left-justified 383 when it opened in 1980. An RIT plaque was added a few years later. The layout of the present sign is just a carbon copy of the old sign.

It wouldn’t have had U of R in this direction – that was always on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1107494,-77.605473,3a,51.3y,256.78h,100.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szO_VAex7Ef3V6eSq2MuNgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (originally more verbose).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on July 12, 2020, 11:27:49 AM
I’m pretty sure it was just the left-justified 383 when it opened in 1980. An RIT plaque was added a few years later. The layout of the present sign is just a carbon copy of the old sign.

Could be... maybe I'm misremembering, or thinking of the SB sign that vdeane posted.
Also note that "RIT" appears to have been tacked on after the fact at the actual exit sign here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1219196,-77.6466038,3a,15y,347.04h,95.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb5wM6ybTZkYg5z6H6nF9Yw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).


It wouldn’t have had U of R in this direction – that was always on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1107494,-77.605473,3a,51.3y,256.78h,100.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szO_VAex7Ef3V6eSq2MuNgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (originally more verbose).

Good point. I think those signs (there's one on the 590 connection ramp as well) are still there, having never been replaced as part of the Exit 16 reconstruction. It's just the two new signs closer to the exit (here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1079099,-77.6139663,3a,39.6y,272.41h,90.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_43rXbMrXiPVuwO7755vVA!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.108327,-77.6170808,3a,40.9y,296.97h,89.27t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4H9yLw6aB7Ph9SUUt5ZQMQ!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i13312!8i6656)) that omit the redundant "U of R" on the second line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 12, 2020, 11:41:22 AM
I-490 really needs to be milled and paved between the Can Of Worms and Victor. I drove it yesterday and it's very rough on my Civic's suspension.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 12, 2020, 12:28:59 PM
I-490 really needs to be milled and paved between the Can Of Worms and Victor. I drove it yesterday and it's very rough on my Civic's suspension.
The holes in the center seam are massive.  I don't know how people pass each other without bending up their rims.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on July 12, 2020, 07:03:17 PM
I-490 really needs to be milled and paved between the Can Of Worms and Victor. I drove it yesterday and it's very rough on my Civic's suspension.
The holes in the center seam are massive.  I don't know how people pass each other without bending up their rims.
The stretch between 390 and 531 is pretty bad also. Especially westbound.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 13, 2020, 05:34:59 PM
I-490 really needs to be milled and paved between the Can Of Worms and Victor. I drove it yesterday and it's very rough on my Civic's suspension.
The holes in the center seam are massive.  I don't know how people pass each other without bending up their rims.
The stretch between 390 and 531 is pretty bad also. Especially westbound.
That area was recently gutted and resurfaced. I think once you go West of NY 531 it gets bad again but I haven't gone that way in a long time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 14, 2020, 02:21:06 PM
It wouldn’t have had U of R in this direction – that was always on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1107494,-77.605473,3a,51.3y,256.78h,100.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szO_VAex7Ef3V6eSq2MuNgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (originally more verbose).

On the subject of verbosity and these signs, I remember seeing Paula Poundstone in a local appearance years ago. She had a joke about these signs, and specifically about one that read "University of Roch". Can anybody pinpoint where such a sign would have been (probably talking mid-late 90s here)?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on July 15, 2020, 06:21:18 AM
It wouldn’t have had U of R in this direction – that was always on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1107494,-77.605473,3a,51.3y,256.78h,100.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szO_VAex7Ef3V6eSq2MuNgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (originally more verbose).

On the subject of verbosity and these signs, I remember seeing Paula Poundstone in a local appearance years ago. She had a joke about these signs, and specifically about one that read "University of Roch". Can anybody pinpoint where such a sign would have been (probably talking mid-late 90s here)?

Going northbound, the one I posted above, and its twin (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1107959,-77.6031861,3a,75y,295.6h,82.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shBkQyK56fwSbD_hlYAsFAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the end of I-590, have been in their locations since the highways opened in 1980. Until a few years ago, their layout was something like:
Monroe Comm College
University of Roch
Strong Mem Hospital
(I am not sure I am abbreviating the correct words, and the lines might have been in a different order)

Going southbound (like an entertainer who just flew in), I think that University of Roch was in advance of exit 17 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1249023,-77.6537048,3a,75y,134.37h,89.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGcPMws_c8CMB80M33-yxMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), Strong Mem Hospital for exit 16A (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1192837,-77.6397135,3a,75y,140.42h,85.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCBzoNpcnkFSB8NAj7tg6JA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), and Monroe Comm College for exit 16B (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1136977,-77.6284997,3a,75y,152.34h,78.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suJQ50K5yF4Q1UfCZQcj5tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), all since 1980.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on July 15, 2020, 07:21:00 AM
Going northbound, the one I posted above, and its twin (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1107959,-77.6031861,3a,75y,295.6h,82.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shBkQyK56fwSbD_hlYAsFAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the end of I-590, have been in their locations since the highways opened in 1980. Until a few years ago, their layout was something like:
Monroe Comm College
University of Roch
Strong Mem Hospital

(I am not sure I am abbreviating the correct words, and the lines might have been in a different order)

No need to rely on memory for these ones... these were still in place as recently as 2014 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1108079,-77.6032696,3a,75y,265.39h,88.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjJYV_ikdf_KII33aR6VLYQ!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656). They disappeared during the Exit 16 reconstruction, and reappeared in their current form probably sometime in 2017. The line in question actually says "Univ of Rochester" (no "Roch", sadly...) and the second and third lines are swapped. But you still did a much better job remembering that than I would have without the help of Street View!  :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 19, 2020, 11:49:47 AM
Going northbound, the one I posted above, and its twin (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1107959,-77.6031861,3a,75y,295.6h,82.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shBkQyK56fwSbD_hlYAsFAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the end of I-590, have been in their locations since the highways opened in 1980. Until a few years ago, their layout was something like:
Monroe Comm College
University of Roch
Strong Mem Hospital

(I am not sure I am abbreviating the correct words, and the lines might have been in a different order)

No need to rely on memory for these ones... these were still in place as recently as 2014 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1108079,-77.6032696,3a,75y,265.39h,88.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjJYV_ikdf_KII33aR6VLYQ!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656). They disappeared during the Exit 16 reconstruction, and reappeared in their current form probably sometime in 2017. The line in question actually says "Univ of Rochester" (no "Roch", sadly...) and the second and third lines are swapped. But you still did a much better job remembering that than I would have without the help of Street View!  :)

Well, that's kind of what I'm getting at–at the time, I remember everyone getting the joke right away and "knowing" which sign(s) it referred to. But in years afterward (and not long afterward), I remember glancing at these signs with the joke in mind, trying to find the actual "University of Roch" example–and thinking maybe it was made up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on July 20, 2020, 06:46:10 PM
I see that I-84 still has duplicate signs west of NY 121:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3835115,-73.5799762,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swuVVtfJVcuHw_EYyrcelGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3840817,-73.5834026,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv4PpIvajjCmZ1yq__XkWFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3846854,-73.5853422,3a,75y,264.25h,100.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm6tqLC99KWXsYqKpsLX97Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

What's up with that? An overhead sign gantry, or even an overhead signpost for one lane makes much more sense.
It's worth noting that prior to the mid(?) 90s; overhead diagrammatic signage were used for the I-684/NY 22 interchange. 

The likely reasoning for going with redundant, ground-mounted signs on each side of the road may have been in reaction to motorists missing the exit ramp due to being behind trucks in both lanes (and, hence, not seeing the signs).  It's also worth noting that the first advance BGS for I-684/NY 22 is only 3/4 mile from the interchange; so one that is either unfamiliar with the area or not paying attention could easily miss the exit if they're stuck behind semis.  With the old overhead signs (guessing 80s-vintage), the first advance notice BGS for I-684/NY 22 was only for a 1/2 mile from the ramp.

While 3/4 mile advance is better than 1/2 mile for a first notice; such IMHO is still too short for a major highway interchange out in the open.  Even if a 1-mile or a 2-mile advance signage is located prior to the NY 121 interchange; such would give an unfamiliar/unsuspecting motorist a better heads-up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on July 20, 2020, 07:21:03 PM
I see that I-84 still has duplicate signs west of NY 121:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3835115,-73.5799762,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swuVVtfJVcuHw_EYyrcelGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3840817,-73.5834026,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv4PpIvajjCmZ1yq__XkWFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3846854,-73.5853422,3a,75y,264.25h,100.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm6tqLC99KWXsYqKpsLX97Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

What's up with that? An overhead sign gantry, or even an overhead signpost for one lane makes much more sense.
It's worth noting that prior to the mid(?) 90s; overhead diagrammatic signage were used for the I-684/NY 22 interchange. 

The likely reasoning for going with redundant, ground-mounted signs on each side of the road may have been in reaction to motorists missing the exit ramp due to being behind trucks in both lanes (and, hence, not seeing the signs).  It's also worth noting that the first advance BGS for I-684/NY 22 is only 3/4 mile from the interchange; so one that is either unfamiliar with the area or not paying attention could easily miss the exit if they're stuck behind semis.  With the old overhead signs (guessing 80s-vintage), the first advance notice BGS for I-684/NY 22 was only for a 1/2 mile from the ramp.

While 3/4 mile advance is better than 1/2 mile for a first notice; such IMHO is still too short for a major highway interchange out in the open.  Even if a 1-mile or a 2-mile advance signage is located prior to the NY 121 interchange; such would give an unfamiliar/unsuspecting motorist a better heads-up.

I agree.  And a couple-mile widening between CT Exit 1 and I-684 would help to relieve traffic congestion in the area, primarily westbound approaching I-684.  Maybe make it a 2-lane exit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 20, 2020, 09:49:06 PM
I generally think New York does a fine job in advanced interchange signage, but I found it really perplexing that some major interchanges are signed less than a mile from the actual exit gore. For example, the sign for I-99/US 15's exit in Corning is signed only a half mile from the actual exit (around a long curve, too) on I-86 westbound (https://goo.gl/maps/tJ57BryYKQpUPuuc6) and I think it's a half mile on I-86 eastbound as well. I-86 is only signed a half mile from I-99's terminus (https://goo.gl/maps/R3hyTdkKUTF4G3zAA).

In comparison, I-86's diversion from I-81 is signed one mile in advance (https://goo.gl/maps/p1CZXHAMximbZfQLA).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 20, 2020, 09:57:42 PM
MUTCD Sec. 2E-33.02 recommends putting advance guide signs at 1 mile and 2 miles if spacing permits for major and intermediate interchanges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 21, 2020, 06:23:14 AM
I generally think New York does a fine job in advanced interchange signage, but I found it really perplexing that some major interchanges are signed less than a mile from the actual exit gore. For example, the sign for I-99/US 15's exit in Corning is signed only a half mile from the actual exit (around a long curve, too) on I-86 westbound (https://goo.gl/maps/tJ57BryYKQpUPuuc6) and I think it's a half mile on I-86 eastbound as well. I-86 is only signed a half mile from I-99's terminus (https://goo.gl/maps/R3hyTdkKUTF4G3zAA).

In comparison, I-86's diversion from I-81 is signed one mile in advance (https://goo.gl/maps/p1CZXHAMximbZfQLA).
Generally fine, but most interchanges are lacking.
Another example - I-87 southbound -> Thruway in Albany.
First advance sign is than 3/4mile from the gore point:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7081159,-73.8291809,3a,75y,220.81h,81.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svPNLL1PwmdDKlZRh4Vip6A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
However, it is not until much later that there is a vague message that only the right lane is going towards Thruway ("Thruway - keep right": https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7014804,-73.8348774,3a,75y,222.69h,76.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spMnRx70hy1hwbGPBnYytZQ!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
The  option lane was removed decades ago. 

It is not an academic complain - I do see plenty of drivers getting into the wrong lane as a result. Being forced onto the eastbound road when one needs to go the other way, with no simple U-turn options must be interesting. Driving around a 18-wheeler which has to change a lane within 100 feet of a gore point - priceless! Happens every other week with me..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 21, 2020, 08:11:00 AM
I generally think New York does a fine job in advanced interchange signage, but I found it really perplexing that some major interchanges are signed less than a mile from the actual exit gore. For example, the sign for I-99/US 15's exit in Corning is signed only a half mile from the actual exit (around a long curve, too) on I-86 westbound (https://goo.gl/maps/tJ57BryYKQpUPuuc6) and I think it's a half mile on I-86 eastbound as well. I-86 is only signed a half mile from I-99's terminus (https://goo.gl/maps/R3hyTdkKUTF4G3zAA).

In comparison, I-86's diversion from I-81 is signed one mile in advance (https://goo.gl/maps/p1CZXHAMximbZfQLA).
Generally fine, but most interchanges are lacking.
Another example - I-87 southbound -> Thruway in Albany.
First advance sign is than 3/4mile from the gore point:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7081159,-73.8291809,3a,75y,220.81h,81.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svPNLL1PwmdDKlZRh4Vip6A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
However, it is not until much later that there is a vague message that only the right lane is going towards Thruway ("Thruway - keep right": https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7014804,-73.8348774,3a,75y,222.69h,76.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spMnRx70hy1hwbGPBnYytZQ!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
The  option lane was removed decades ago. 

It is not an academic complain - I do see plenty of drivers getting into the wrong lane as a result. Being forced onto the eastbound road when one needs to go the other way, with no simple U-turn options must be interesting. Driving around a 18-wheeler which has to change a lane within 100 feet of a gore point - priceless! Happens every other week with me..

Last time I was in New York State I noticed Region 3 has gone with a full implementation of 2 mile advance signs whenever possible, and reducing that to 1 1/2 miles if spacing requires it. I don't know if this is a NYSDOT effort or a Region 3 effort, but it's impressive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 21, 2020, 08:46:46 AM
I generally think New York does a fine job in advanced interchange signage, but I found it really perplexing that some major interchanges are signed less than a mile from the actual exit gore. For example, the sign for I-99/US 15's exit in Corning is signed only a half mile from the actual exit (around a long curve, too) on I-86 westbound (https://goo.gl/maps/tJ57BryYKQpUPuuc6) and I think it's a half mile on I-86 eastbound as well. I-86 is only signed a half mile from I-99's terminus (https://goo.gl/maps/R3hyTdkKUTF4G3zAA).

In comparison, I-86's diversion from I-81 is signed one mile in advance (https://goo.gl/maps/p1CZXHAMximbZfQLA).
Generally fine, but most interchanges are lacking.
Another example - I-87 southbound -> Thruway in Albany.
First advance sign is than 3/4mile from the gore point:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7081159,-73.8291809,3a,75y,220.81h,81.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svPNLL1PwmdDKlZRh4Vip6A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
However, it is not until much later that there is a vague message that only the right lane is going towards Thruway ("Thruway - keep right": https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7014804,-73.8348774,3a,75y,222.69h,76.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spMnRx70hy1hwbGPBnYytZQ!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
The  option lane was removed decades ago. 

It is not an academic complain - I do see plenty of drivers getting into the wrong lane as a result. Being forced onto the eastbound road when one needs to go the other way, with no simple U-turn options must be interesting. Driving around a 18-wheeler which has to change a lane within 100 feet of a gore point - priceless! Happens every other week with me..

Another biggie that I would have experienced missed had I not had Waze open the first time I drove it is I-287 east approaching I-684, first sign is for it (after a million other interchanges through White Plains) is 1/2 mile: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0299446,-73.7411847,3a,39.5y,110.09h,89.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swXT6ViOdyeNl7-RdKo61og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on July 21, 2020, 06:00:46 PM
I generally think New York does a fine job in advanced interchange signage, but I found it really perplexing that some major interchanges are signed less than a mile from the actual exit gore. For example, the sign for I-99/US 15's exit in Corning is signed only a half mile from the actual exit (around a long curve, too) on I-86 westbound (https://goo.gl/maps/tJ57BryYKQpUPuuc6) and I think it's a half mile on I-86 eastbound as well. I-86 is only signed a half mile from I-99's terminus (https://goo.gl/maps/R3hyTdkKUTF4G3zAA).

In comparison, I-86's diversion from I-81 is signed one mile in advance (https://goo.gl/maps/p1CZXHAMximbZfQLA).
Generally fine, but most interchanges are lacking.
Another example - I-87 southbound -> Thruway in Albany.
First advance sign is than 3/4mile from the gore point:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7081159,-73.8291809,3a,75y,220.81h,81.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svPNLL1PwmdDKlZRh4Vip6A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
However, it is not until much later that there is a vague message that only the right lane is going towards Thruway ("Thruway - keep right": https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7014804,-73.8348774,3a,75y,222.69h,76.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spMnRx70hy1hwbGPBnYytZQ!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
The  option lane was removed decades ago. 

It is not an academic complain - I do see plenty of drivers getting into the wrong lane as a result. Being forced onto the eastbound road when one needs to go the other way, with no simple U-turn options must be interesting. Driving around a 18-wheeler which has to change a lane within 100 feet of a gore point - priceless! Happens every other week with me..

Last time I was in New York State I noticed Region 3 has gone with a full implementation of 2 mile advance signs whenever possible, and reducing that to 1 1/2 miles if spacing requires it. I don't know if this is a NYSDOT effort or a Region 3 effort, but it's impressive.
Region 10 doesn’t sign anything more than 1 mile, if I remember correctly most of our signs are 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 mile since everything is so close together. There’s an oddity on ny-135 I believe the sign says 2/10 mile
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 21, 2020, 08:45:43 PM
Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?

Mccojm, I believe that 2/10 mile sign is at NY 27, Sunrise Hwy correct? That's a holdover from the original late 1960's signing when that section of NY-135 was built. Back then it was standard NYSDOT practice to use tenths of a mile on exit signs and 2/10's was the standard for the second exit at a cloverleaf interchange.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on July 22, 2020, 07:01:14 AM
I generally think New York does a fine job in advanced interchange signage, but I found it really perplexing that some major interchanges are signed less than a mile from the actual exit gore. For example, the sign for I-99/US 15's exit in Corning is signed only a half mile from the actual exit (around a long curve, too) on I-86 westbound (https://goo.gl/maps/tJ57BryYKQpUPuuc6) and I think it's a half mile on I-86 eastbound as well. I-86 is only signed a half mile from I-99's terminus (https://goo.gl/maps/R3hyTdkKUTF4G3zAA).

In comparison, I-86's diversion from I-81 is signed one mile in advance (https://goo.gl/maps/p1CZXHAMximbZfQLA).
There is a 1 MILE advance sign for I-86 just past the gore for EXIT 11 on I-99 NB.

It would be nice to see a post interchange mileage sign north of EXIT 8 showing the distance to I-86 (4) and Corning (5)*.
      *-Corning is 6 miles from EXIT 8, not 8 miles as signs list.  Likewise, Mansfield is 24 miles away, not 22.

Yes, the advance signage for I-99/US 15 on I-86 is lacking.  1 MILE advance signage is needed, at least.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 22, 2020, 07:34:50 AM
Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?

Local newspaper did. DOT responded with in-stock bullshit - compliant to regulations, no plans to modify.
That is one of very poorly designed local spots in  general, signage just makes it worse.
Upd. I missed the narrative, bottom line still the same
https://blog.timesunion.com/gettingthere/ramp-to-thruway-a-place-for-near-misses/1511/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 22, 2020, 08:48:30 PM
Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?

Local newspaper did. DOT responded with in-stock bullshit - compliant to regulations, no plans to modify.
That is one of very poorly designed local spots in  general, signage just makes it worse.
Upd. I missed the narrative, bottom line still the same
https://blog.timesunion.com/gettingthere/ramp-to-thruway-a-place-for-near-misses/1511/

This might be a case where even though the signing is technically correct, it does not convey the needed info in an intuitive form for the average driver and could be improved..............And just as I've often said about traffic signal installations, just because it meets minimum standards, that doesn't necessarily make it a good quality design.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on July 25, 2020, 03:33:19 PM
I received my new plates in the mail today.

(https://i.imgur.com/65zc7Po.jpg)

I haven't seen any of the new plates in the Rochester area thus far so my set could be one of the first ones here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 25, 2020, 04:05:24 PM
I received my new plates in the mail today.


I haven't seen any of the new plates in the Rochester area thus far so my set could be one of the first ones here.
New plates don't stand out of typical dark-on-white plates, but I bet there are more of them than we notice.
I even saw commercial and historic plates on a new base...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 25, 2020, 05:49:44 PM
I received my new plates in the mail today.

(https://i.imgur.com/65zc7Po.jpg)

I haven't seen any of the new plates in the Rochester area thus far so my set could be one of the first ones here.

I guess I didn't realize the letters and numbers were black. For some reason I thought they were going to blue like the past two incarnations
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 25, 2020, 08:55:00 PM
I've seen quite a few on Long Island with later series letters such as KDB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 25, 2020, 11:03:42 PM
Can I be the first to say...."eww"?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on July 26, 2020, 09:43:00 AM
I saw a couple around Rochester last week. I thought at first they were peeling Empire plates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: DJStephens on July 26, 2020, 09:58:20 AM
Some kind of homage to "Star Trek"??
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2020, 11:32:06 AM
Can I be the first to say...."eww"?

Looks like you are. I like it. Less busy than their recent designs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on July 26, 2020, 06:13:57 PM
I received my new plates in the mail today.

[image clipped]

I haven't seen any of the new plates in the Rochester area thus far so my set could be one of the first ones here.

I guess I didn't realize the letters and numbers were black. For some reason I thought they were going to blue like the past two incarnations
I took a look at my new plates again and the letters and numbers are actually dark blue. They certainly do look black in my photo.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on July 26, 2020, 07:15:26 PM
I like them much better than the Empire Gold plates...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PaulRAnderson on July 26, 2020, 07:36:09 PM
Why did New York change their license plate design so quickly?  The Empire Gold plates have only been out a few years.  Is it because the letters peel off after a while?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 26, 2020, 08:28:24 PM
The reason was supposedly that cameras (red light and toll I assume) could not read the numbers on the blue/orange plate as well as they could dark numbers on a white background. So now NY State in its infinite wisdom has three different plate designs on the road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 26, 2020, 09:25:04 PM
Some kind of homage to "Star Trek"??
It was adopted as the state motto in 1778... so a bit earlier than Star Trek III.  But now I'm imagining people reacting like Scotty and Sulu to the plates.

The reason was supposedly that cameras (red light and toll I assume) could not read the numbers on the blue/orange plate as well as they could dark numbers on a white background. So now NY State in its infinite wisdom has three different plate designs on the road.
There was supposed to be a mandatory replacement for plates over 10 years old, which would have taken the white/blue plates out of service.  Of course, people in NY tend to react negatively to plate replacements because they cost $25, especially since the blue/gold plates were supposed to be a mandatory replacement for everyone with the rationale being to raise money.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on July 27, 2020, 02:21:36 AM
Some kind of homage to "Star Trek"??
It was adopted as the state motto in 1778... so a bit earlier than Star Trek III.  But now I'm imagining people reacting like Scotty and Sulu to the plates.

The reason was supposedly that cameras (red light and toll I assume) could not read the numbers on the blue/orange plate as well as they could dark numbers on a white background. So now NY State in its infinite wisdom has three different plate designs on the road.
There was supposed to be a mandatory replacement for plates over 10 years old, which would have taken the white/blue plates out of service.  Of course, people in NY tend to react negatively to plate replacements because they cost $25, especially since the blue/gold plates were supposed to be a mandatory replacement for everyone with the rationale being to raise money.

Meanwhile, while it's getting less common, you still see plenty of cream on blue and even a few lingering black on cream plates in NJ happily puttering along since plate transfers are still allowed in some situations. Mind you, NJMVC really needs to do some sort of plate reissue at this point for the older stamped plates (a lot of them have peeling problems that make NY's plates look pristine in comparison). I'm almost surprised that NJ hasn't done a new plate design. The runny eggs are almost 30 years old at this point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on July 27, 2020, 04:00:03 PM
On the 15th, I saw my first new NY license plate at Wegmans here in Auburn.  At first, I thought it was an old Liberty plate since it had dark text on a white background and I couldn't see the top or bottom of it.  If I remember right, there was a plate frame that covered the top and bottom.  Once I got a closer look at it, I thought it kind of looked like Texas plates do.

After that first sighting, I didn't see any more until last week.  I saw maybe a half dozen plates total last week.  One of my neighbors now has one.  I don't hate them like I did the Empire Gold ones at first.  I'm still not a fan of the Empire Gold ones but have gotten used to them.  I think the new plates kind of look like an updated version of the white and blue Empire plates.  I still have to say the Liberty plates are my favorite, even though they look dated.  The Empire Blue plates are a close second since they don't look as dated.



On Saturday, I drove to Syracuse, and the lane closure that was on the NY 695 north to I-690 east ramp is no longer there.  A new lane was being added for the new ramp from the bridge from the Orange Lot and the existing lanes were shifted to the right.

I don't like the setup since if you're in the right lane on the ramp, you now have to move over two lanes to the left.  The old setup was an added lane on I-690 for the left lane and a lane drop to the NY 297 exit for the right lane.  The new setup makes the ramp from the Orange Lot the added lane on I-690, the left lane from NY 695 the lane drop for NY 297, and the right lane ends.

On NY 695 north, I usually use the center lane (sometimes the left lane if I'm passing) and if I'm not already there, I like to move to the left lane around where the ramp to I-690 west leaves NY 695.  I do this because I know what becomes the right lane is a lane drop.  This time though, I stayed in the right lane after the I-690 west ramp because the left lane has been closed.  Once I saw the left lane was no longer closed, I started looking for a gap and was able to move over a lane at the end of the ramp as the lanes merge into I-690.  This happened to be the same spot where the first of the new painted merge arrows are.

Since traffic was light, I was able to quickly move over a second lane.  Even without cars behind me I didn't like it.  With the old setup, there's been a few times I thought I was going to be forced to exit onto NY 297 because there wasn't a gap, and now there's two lanes to change.  I think it will be worse with more traffic.  I wonder why they made a lane that will only get use a few times through the year and during the State Fair the new through lane, but my best guess is not being able to fit in an acceleration lane since I-690 is so close and/or not wanting a left lane drop.

Ideally, I'd like to see ramp braiding, but that would be super expensive since the ramp from I-690 east would have to go over the existing bridges at the I-690/NY 695 interchange.  Tunneling wouldn't work since this portion of I-690 is built on industrial waste beds.  A realistic option would be to make the ramp from the Orange Lot bridge the lane that ends, but like I mentioned above, the acceleration lane might not be able to be long enough since it's already pretty close to where the ramp from NY 695 merges onto I-690.

On a side note, when the left lane was closed, I didn't like the lane shift on the curve of the ramp.  The curve is already fairly tight and has an advisory speed of 55 MPH.  This is one of those times they actually mean it.  It's possible to do the curve at 60 MPH, but going that fast makes me uncomfortable.  During the construction, they made the curve even tighter and used tall Jersey barriers on the second half of the curve that made the lane super narrow.  The first time I went through the construction, I was surprised that the curve kept getting tighter and the road kept getting narrower.  I ended up slowing down to 45 MPH and felt comfortable with that.  There was no work zone speed limit or advisory speed but I think the curve should have been signed for 45 MPH.  I had a car pretty close behind me, and since the curve was so uncomfortable, I thought to myself "they'll just have to deal with it" as I went through it.  Thankfully, the final curve isn't really different than it was before.  When I first saw the plans for the project, I was worried that shifting the lanes to the right by a lane would make the curve too tight, but 55 MPH was fine.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 28, 2020, 03:13:45 PM
I see a lot of construction zones setting up on I-88.  Please for the love of GOD tell me that Region 9 is prepping to fix that stretch between Oneonta and Richmondville.  The worst of all of that stretch is through Worcester and part of Richmondville.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 28, 2020, 07:09:07 PM
Hopefully! It's one of the worst stretches of concrete roadway I've driven on - although the first few miles of I-88 by Binghamton was equally as bad until it received some asphalt patches and diamond grinding a year or so ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on July 29, 2020, 11:07:42 PM
I haven't seen any of the new plates in the Rochester area thus far so my set could be one of the first ones here.

I've seen several around the Utica area over the past few weeks.  Almost to the point where I'm seeing one or two a day in my travels.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on July 29, 2020, 11:14:41 PM
Hopefully! It's one of the worst stretches of concrete roadway I've driven on - although the first few miles of I-88 by Binghamton was equally as bad until it received some asphalt patches and diamond grinding a year or so ago.

The section between Sidney and Oneonta was horrible until maybe a few years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 29, 2020, 11:29:41 PM
The west end of I-88 is being redone right now. That will hopefully put an end to the misery there.

Re: Oneonta - Cobleskill...yeah. It's among the worst remaining sections of state-maintained road in the state. NY 2 over Petersburg Pass and US 219 near the PA line are contenders, the latter of which is original concrete from when it was dualized. The worst of it is apparently being fixed this year, hopefully they'll get to all of it over the next couple years. Cobleskill east has gotten an overlay over the past few years, which has helped significantly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on August 08, 2020, 04:09:16 PM
The west end of I-88 is being redone right now. That will hopefully put an end to the misery there.

Re: Oneonta - Cobleskill...yeah. It's among the worst remaining sections of state-maintained road in the state. NY 2 over Petersburg Pass and US 219 near the PA line are contenders, the latter of which is original concrete from when it was dualized. The worst of it is apparently being fixed this year, hopefully they'll get to all of it over the next couple years. Cobleskill east has gotten an overlay over the past few years, which has helped significantly.

Thank the God Most High.  I remember having to be careful on my motorcycle in areas on I-88 because there was a crevasse in between the lanes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr. Matté on August 09, 2020, 05:47:02 PM
On the 15th, I saw my first new NY license plate at Wegmans here in Auburn.  At first, I thought it was an old Liberty plate since it had dark text on a white background and I couldn't see the top or bottom of it.  If I remember right, there was a plate frame that covered the top and bottom.  Once I got a closer look at it, I thought it kind of looked like Texas plates do.

Having seen two New NY Plates (officially designated, but not commonly known as the Gov. Mario M. Cuomo Plates) during my roadgeeking trip through Central Jersey yesterday, I thought from afar they were slightly faded NJ plates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 09, 2020, 08:11:27 PM
In my opinion, the new NY plates are more difficult to read than the blue/orange or the previous blue/white plates. Probably the best NY plate was the old liberty plates. They had bigger numerals.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on August 10, 2020, 06:48:20 AM
I want to see how the state handles the govt/ agency special plates. Example is I work for DOT, plates say NYS department of transportation on left and then two digit year and 4 digit serial no. Yy-xxxx. Also emergency management have the White with red version of the gold plates.. interesting to see how that translates to the govt issued plates.

Also, wonder if they’ll update the regional plates, Long Island never got the update for gold plates. The new plates are starting to pop up everywhere down here on the island and saw a commercial version as well. Definitely looks Better seeing blue “commercial”  stamped on. Ottom opposed to the  yellow “excelsior”  on regular plates. Should have said Empire State. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on August 10, 2020, 08:42:46 AM
I want to see how the state handles the govt/ agency special plates. Example is I work for DOT, plates say NYS department of transportation on left and then two digit year and 4 digit serial no. Yy-xxxx. Also emergency management have the White with red version of the gold plates.. interesting to see how that translates to the govt issued plates.

Also, wonder if they’ll update the regional plates, Long Island never got the update for gold plates. The new plates are starting to pop up everywhere down here on the island and saw a commercial version as well. Definitely looks Better seeing blue “commercial”  stamped on. Ottom opposed to the  yellow “excelsior”  on regular plates. Should have said Empire State.

Or the county name, like several other states.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on August 10, 2020, 12:15:18 PM

Or the county name, like several other states.

Yes, either have county of registration or state nickname. Hell, excelsior would be okay if it was dark blue rather than yellow on white. Glad we don’t have a website like some states **florida, ruined their plate with the website added making state name blend in instead of standing out like old plates **
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 10, 2020, 12:17:48 PM
Can I be the first to say...."eww"?

I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Interstatefan78 on August 11, 2020, 09:28:12 PM
I want to see how the state handles the govt/ agency special plates. Example is I work for DOT, plates say NYS department of transportation on left and then two digit year and 4 digit serial no. Yy-xxxx. Also emergency management have the White with red version of the gold plates.. interesting to see how that translates to the govt issued plates.

Also, wonder if they’ll update the regional plates, Long Island never got the update for gold plates. The new plates are starting to pop up everywhere down here on the island and saw a commercial version as well. Definitely looks Better seeing blue “commercial”  stamped on. Ottom opposed to the  yellow “excelsior”  on regular plates. Should have said Empire State.
MTA Buses look like this left side Metropolitan Transit Authority AU XXXX.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 12, 2020, 07:39:09 PM
Region 10 doesn’t sign anything more than 1 mile, if I remember correctly most of our signs are 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 mile since everything is so close together.
You can say that for Region 11 as well. However, there are segments of the Long Island Expressway where interchanges are spread much further apart between Exits 39 and 40, 68 and 69, and 70 and 71. Occasionally I read about proposals to add new interchanges in between these spaces, and I don't think they should... unless one of those interchanges is the formerly proposed Wantagh Parkway Extension. In that case, I say bring it on.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 12, 2020, 08:40:48 PM
YES! The Wantagh State Pkwy. extension to the LI Expwy could and should still be built. Most of the state owned vacant right-of-way is still there, undeveloped. It absolutely frosts me that the Inc. Village of Westbury was able to stop it from being built back around 1960. Don't know how it happened. Back in the pre-EIS era the States pretty much ruled with eminent domain, and most projects got done. Don't know how Westbury stopped it.........
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 13, 2020, 07:37:02 AM
Not only that, there should be northbound exit only ramps to NY 25, and southbound entrance ramps from NY 25.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 16, 2020, 10:20:34 PM
For anyone that lives or travels in New York: is the state becoming more strict with speed enforcement?
Recently our VMS's have been saying "SPEED LIMIT STRICTLY ENFORCED", I've seen more police out and about and running radar from new spots, and heard reports of people getting pulled over for high 70's on the Thruway which used to be safe.

So I thought I'd ask if it was just me, or is there something else going on? The state trying to make up for lost revenue elsewhere, maybe.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on August 16, 2020, 10:26:33 PM
For anyone that lives or travels in New York: is the state becoming more strict with speed enforcement?
Recently our VMS's have been saying "SPEED LIMIT STRICTLY ENFORCED", I've seen more police out and about and running radar from new spots, and heard reports of people getting pulled over for high 70's on the Thruway which used to be safe.

So I thought I'd ask if it was just me, or is there something else going on? The state trying to make up for lost revenue elsewhere, maybe.

Haven’t noticed anything extra on long island ... just the usual. Wouldn’t surprise me if it was to get more revenue though as the state and counties are BROKE
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 17, 2020, 12:24:33 AM
In my opinion, the new NY plates are more difficult to read than the blue/orange or the previous blue/white plates. Probably the best NY plate was the old liberty plates. They had bigger numerals.

The new NY plates are indistinguishable from many other plates. I drove through NM last year and could instantly spot a NY plate with a Bills bumper sticker. Without the golden yellow, it doesn't have much to draw my attention.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 17, 2020, 07:39:33 AM
For anyone that lives or travels in New York: is the state becoming more strict with speed enforcement?
Recently our VMS's have been saying "SPEED LIMIT STRICTLY ENFORCED", I've seen more police out and about and running radar from new spots, and heard reports of people getting pulled over for high 70's on the Thruway which used to be safe.

So I thought I'd ask if it was just me, or is there something else going on? The state trying to make up for lost revenue elsewhere, maybe.
Lost revenue is an obvious factor, but those enforcement campaigns happen once every so often. I doubt it would be a permanent thing, police force is only  that big, and crime rates seem to be up. Possibly ticket quotas would go up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on August 17, 2020, 10:41:46 AM
I think so. I was coming back from Ohio and Pennsylvnia at the height of the first wave of COVID and saw no less than 30 or so police over 100 miles between the Pennsylvania state line and Corning NY. I can't remember if I posted about it on here or not. In some areas, there was a cop for every other median opening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 17, 2020, 10:50:33 AM
I think so. I was coming back from Ohio and Pennsylvnia at the height of the first wave of COVID and saw no less than 30 or so police over 100 miles between the Pennsylvania state line and Corning NY. I can't remember if I posted about it on here or not. In some areas, there was a cop for every other median opening.
For the first few days after lockdown started and state of emergency was declared, state police seemingly went into the standard procedure for the state of emergency - developed, likely, with 9/11 or major hurricane in mind.
My impression was that every single available cruiser was sitting along Northway at that point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 17, 2020, 10:52:07 AM
It wouldn't surprise me if they're trying to ramp up enforcement.  It's been documented in several states that the drop in traffic due to COVID has greatly increased the rate of excessive speeding.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 17, 2020, 10:55:37 AM
It wouldn't surprise me if they're trying to ramp up enforcement.  It's been documented in several states that the drop in traffic due to COVID has greatly increased the rate of excessive speeding.
I know a guy who enjoyed 90 MPH traffic flow on the Northway (I-87 north of Albany) as police was nowhere to be seen at the peak of NYC spread. Interestingly enough, there seemed to be fewer accidents - which were an almost daily thing on that stretch in better times
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 17, 2020, 08:59:46 PM
For anyone that lives or travels in New York: is the state becoming more strict with speed enforcement?
Recently our VMS's have been saying "SPEED LIMIT STRICTLY ENFORCED", I've seen more police out and about and running radar from new spots, and heard reports of people getting pulled over for high 70's on the Thruway which used to be safe.

So I thought I'd ask if it was just me, or is there something else going on? The state trying to make up for lost revenue elsewhere, maybe.
I believe there was a campaign recently, but yes, it does seem to be up.  Reminds me of the way things were in the aftermath of the Great Recession.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 17, 2020, 10:37:13 PM
Must depend on location. Enforcement has been pretty lax recently from my experience. Hell, just today, traffic on the Thruway south of Albany was moving 80+ with few cops to be seen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on August 18, 2020, 06:14:23 PM
Must depend on location. Enforcement has been pretty lax recently from my experience. Hell, just today, traffic on the Thruway south of Albany was moving 80+ with few cops to be seen.

One day during the past week, I think I saw Troopers staked out at three different locations along NY 5S between Ilion and Utica (A notorious speed trap to begin with).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 18, 2020, 06:27:47 PM
Must depend on location. Enforcement has been pretty lax recently from my experience. Hell, just today, traffic on the Thruway south of Albany was moving 80+ with few cops to be seen.

One day during the past week, I think I saw Troopers staked out at three different locations along NY 5S between Ilion and Utica (A notorious speed trap to begin with).

That stretch, along with the stretch of NY 12 north of Utica, should both be 65 MPH. They're more open than NY 49 is. The speed limits are purposely set low to encourage revenue generation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 18, 2020, 08:55:11 PM
It wouldn't surprise me if they're trying to ramp up enforcement.  It's been documented in several states that the drop in traffic due to COVID has greatly increased the rate of excessive speeding.

I'm not sure what constitutes "excessive"... but I do seem to have more company doing 70 mph in a 55 on my commute that I used to.
But then there also seems to be more people that go exactly the speed limit and refuse to exceed it, causing a bit less consistency overall.

I haven't seen anything really crazy, though. There's the odd person or motorbike doing about 80 in a 55, or 90 in a 65. But that seems to be about where it maxes out around here, both before and during the pandemic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: STLmapboy on August 19, 2020, 07:37:29 PM
A friend I met at a camp in Minnesota recently moved from Marshfield, WI, to Pittsford, NY (outside Rochester). Out of curiosity I went on GSV around the area. That led me to this horrific decaying bridge (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.078611,-77.4850733,3a,75y,355.14h,105.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9TPRM-7_o1MOlMXjZApIJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) at his exit (NY-31). Some of the other bridges (Erie Canal) are in bad shape as well, and the median is a flimsy guardrail (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.0770979,-77.4839145,3a,30.6y,164.35h,88.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWxrAt5fKAHGB1AsRaicrsw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) on the fully-asphalted 2-2 roadway. Any plans to widen/repave/expand 490 and replace aging bridges east of Rochester?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 19, 2020, 09:52:20 PM
A friend I met at a camp in Minnesota recently moved from Marshfield, WI, to Pittsford, NY (outside Rochester). Out of curiosity I went on GSV around the area. That led me to this horrific decaying bridge (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.078611,-77.4850733,3a,75y,355.14h,105.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9TPRM-7_o1MOlMXjZApIJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) at his exit (NY-31). Some of the other bridges (Erie Canal) are in bad shape as well, and the median is a flimsy guardrail (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.0770979,-77.4839145,3a,30.6y,164.35h,88.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWxrAt5fKAHGB1AsRaicrsw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) on the fully-asphalted 2-2 roadway. Any plans to widen/repave/expand 490 and replace aging bridges east of Rochester?

Hey, that's not far from me at all. I'd be curious what brought them to the area!

The I-490/Marsh Road bridge was even worse than that before it finally got replaced a few years ago. The Exit 27 ramp overpass has also been replaced recently. I haven't heard anything official about Kreag Rd, the canal, or NY 31, but they're all badly in need in of replacement.

Sadly, no plans to widen that segment. I have a strong love-hate relationship with that stretch of I-490, which is something I've discussed a lot on this forum. On the one hand, it's often bogged down with traffic because 72,000 cars per day is just way too much for four lanes to handle. On the other hand, it's one of the most intense freeways in the state if not the country, making it fun to drive, and it's certainly one of the oddest locations for a 65 speed limit in NY. Plus that old guardrail, which isn't something you see very often anymore.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on August 20, 2020, 08:06:34 AM
I was always curious as to how strong those box guardrails are.

The pavement in that area is horrible. It's one of the oldest interstates in upstate and was built circa 1955 and the bridges and pavement are original.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 20, 2020, 04:33:31 PM
Strictly a guess, but I would think those box beams would be strong enough to stop a passenger car or small SUV. So they would be acceptable on parkways with no heavy truck traffic. But on any road with with trucks and busses, I would think the standard W-beam guide rail would be a better choice.

One parkway where the box-beam was appropriate when erected in the late 1960's was the Taconic Parkway in Putnam County. Space was very limited so the thinner guide rail was perfect for that road. When I drove that route again a few years ago, I was surprised to see that very little had changed on the Putnam County segment in the years since that box-beam installation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on August 20, 2020, 08:31:04 PM
On another topic, what's with the awkward interchange with US 9 and US 44/NY 55 in Poughkeepsie? Obviously it's an old interchange with the left exits/merges and short accel lanes, but why choose said design in the first place? It does no favors for US 9 -> Mid Hudson Bridge traffic (US 9 NB competes with exiting SB traffic) and if they were to redesign the interchange it could do with flyovers directly accessing 44/55 WB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 20, 2020, 09:04:48 PM
Strictly a guess, but I would think those box beams would be strong enough to stop a passenger car or small SUV. So they would be acceptable on parkways with no heavy truck traffic. But on any road with with trucks and busses, I would think the standard W-beam guide rail would be a better choice.

One parkway where the box-beam was appropriate when erected in the late 1960's was the Taconic Parkway in Putnam County. Space was very limited so the slimmer guide rail was perfect for that road. When I drove that route again a few years ago, I was surprised to see that very little had changed on the Putnam County segment in the years since that box-beam installation.
Box beam is actually more rigid and requires less deflection space than W beam.  From page 10-54 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual:

Quote
10.2.3.4 Box Beam

This railing is a square structural steel tube, 6 inches on a side with a 3/16 inch wall
thickness. The rail is significantly more rigid than a W-beam and must be shop curved for
radii under 720 feet. Details of the system are shown on the Standard Sheets for 606 series
items. The system develops most of its redirective strength through beam action and
therefore does not require anchor blocks. Note that runs must be at least 125 feet in length
(measured as full length of rail, toe to toe, of terminals) for the system to develop its
intended deflection resistance.

The main advantages of box beam guide rail are that:
- It requires less space for deflection than an equivalently supported W-beam.
- Its splice connection detail practically eliminates spearing problems.
- It is less of a visual obstruction than W-beam.
- It has a stronger, more rigid rail element and is therefore better at bridging between
points of support. (When struck, the corrugations in W-beam tend to flatten,
reducing its beam strength and increasing its tendency to fold around objects behind
the rail, rather than supporting itself as a rigid beam against them. This only
becomes an issue when vehicles strike the rail and cause more than the standard
deflection or objects are present within the deflection distance.)

The main disadvantages of box beam guide rail are that:
- It is less forgiving than cable or weak-post W-beam guide rail.
- It is significantly more expensive than cable or weak-post W-beam guide rail (but
only about 20% more expensive than heavy-post blocked-out corrugated rail).
- It is more difficult to repair.
- Significant repair delays may occur if damaged rail must be replaced with sections
shop-curved to the correct radius.

Box beam guide rail may be warranted when either of the following conditions apply:
- The appropriate clear zone width can not be economically obtained and the available
space between any nonremovable hazard and the edge of shoulder is adequate for
box beam but not for cable or W-beam on weak-posts.
- It is necessary to transition to a rigid barrier system.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/chapt_10.pdf
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 20, 2020, 09:21:26 PM
Can I be the first to say...."eww"?

I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 20, 2020, 10:29:45 PM
Thanks vdeane for posting that info re: box-beam guide rails. Very interesting and informative.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on August 21, 2020, 03:57:19 AM
Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...

I've seen three in the past week (One each of B, E, and F).  Two of those on my way home from work on Thursday.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 21, 2020, 12:57:56 PM
Can I be the first to say...."eww"?

I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...
I wonder how they get them, given that the DMV is still not open for all services.  Licence plate replacement is one of the services they are NOT open for.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 21, 2020, 01:16:23 PM
Can I be the first to say...."eww"?

I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...
I wonder how they get them, given that the DMV is still not open for all services.  Licence plate replacement is one of the services they are NOT open for.
Online, maybe? Registration renewal is one of those things which easily work by mail. Custom plates arrive by mail anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on August 21, 2020, 02:00:51 PM
Can I be the first to say...."eww"?

I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...
I wonder how they get them, given that the DMV is still not open for all services.  Licence plate replacement is one of the services they are NOT open for.
Online, maybe? Registration renewal is one of those things which easily work by mail. Custom plates arrive by mail anyway.

Probably online...I've renewed our registrations online the last couple of times and you are given three renewal options: Keep your current plate and number, new plate with new number, and new plate with current number.  And the turnaround time is usually relatively quick (New documents arrive in about a week).

Also drove down toward Cooperstown and Oneonta this morning and spotted two more pre-Excelsior combos on Excelsior plates (D-series and J-series...Yet to see A, C, G, and H) and also a vanity plate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 21, 2020, 02:07:00 PM
I renewed our two registrations online this week and opted to keep our current orange and blue plates.  It was something like an extra $25 or $30 to opt to get new plates, significantly more, I'm thinking another $40 or $50, to get new ones but keep your number.  All done online, new reg stickers will come in the mail.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 21, 2020, 02:11:29 PM
Can I be the first to say...."eww"?

I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...
I wonder how they get them, given that the DMV is still not open for all services.  Licence plate replacement is one of the services they are NOT open for.
Online, maybe? Registration renewal is one of those things which easily work by mail. Custom plates arrive by mail anyway.

Probably online...I've renewed our registrations online the last couple of times and you are given three renewal options: Keep your current plate and number, new plate with new number, and new plate with current number.  And the turnaround time is usually relatively quick (New documents arrive in about a week).

Also drove down toward Cooperstown and Oneonta this morning and spotted two more pre-Excelsior combos on Excelsior plates (D-series and J-series...Yet to see A, C, G, and H) and also a vanity plate.
I saw commercial, vanity, county (SP-123), and even historical one. I am actually surprised given the situation. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 21, 2020, 09:47:59 PM
Online could be a way to do it; in my case, I was planning to take advantage of the free replacement for peeling plates to switch; I suppose actually paying for the new plates next year with my registration renewal would be a good way to avoid the hassle of going in to the DMV (assuming they even fully reopen by then) and replacing the sticker an extra time.  Of course, such assumes I can get the new plates before turning in the old, and I wouldn't want the sheeting to get damaged in the mail.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on August 22, 2020, 07:30:12 AM
Can I be the first to say...."eww"?

I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...
I wonder how they get them, given that the DMV is still not open for all services.  Licence plate replacement is one of the services they are NOT open for.
Online, maybe? Registration renewal is one of those things which easily work by mail. Custom plates arrive by mail anyway.

Probably online...I've renewed our registrations online the last couple of times and you are given three renewal options: Keep your current plate and number, new plate with new number, and new plate with current number.  And the turnaround time is usually relatively quick (New documents arrive in about a week).

Also drove down toward Cooperstown and Oneonta this morning and spotted two more pre-Excelsior combos on Excelsior plates (D-series and J-series...Yet to see A, C, G, and H) and also a vanity plate.
I saw commercial, vanity, county (SP-123), and even historical one. I am actually surprised given the situation.
When renewing (online or by mail) you can opt to have your old plate number on new plates but will have to pay an extra $20.00 for that in addition to the $25.00 new plate fee. I believe that can be done with vanity plates if you already had them.

I've seen new commercial plates around as well. Haven't seen other types yet.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 22, 2020, 06:13:04 PM
It's so odd to me that NYSDMV is allowing people to keep the older plate designs. Back in 1986 when we went from the original blue on gold to the Liberty plates there was no choice, and I'm pretty sure we still had to pay extra for the new design. I thought the idea was to get everyone on the same generation of license plates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 22, 2020, 06:39:07 PM
It's so odd to me that NYSDMV is allowing people to keep the older plate designs. Back in 1986 when we went from the original blue on gold to the Liberty plates there was no choice, and I'm pretty sure we still had to pay extra for the new design. I thought the idea was to get everyone on the same generation of license plates.
There was the same idea in 2008 under gov. Patterson - but that was an apparent attempt for money grab in difficult times, public pressure built up and they had to retreat to keeping old design as valid and new as new issue.
That did set precedent for today's situation.
Was extensively discussed somewhere here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2350.1175
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 22, 2020, 07:21:27 PM
New topic, and Steve Alps might want to get in on this;

I was reading his article about the New York State Thruway detour after the Schoharie Creek Bridge disaster (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/detour/), and while I was looking at the page I saw the pylons for the apparent abandoned railroad bridges (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/detour/e4.jpg). I was wondering if anyone has ever looked at Historic Aerials' coverage of that portion of the state?

https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=42.9308&lon=-74.2781

Because I see no evidence of any other parallel railroads crossing the creek from those maps. The only other line I see is on the other side of the Mohawk River.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 22, 2020, 07:46:27 PM
New topic, and Steve Alps might want to get in on this;

I was reading his article about the New York State Thruway detour after the Schoharie Creek Bridge disaster (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/detour/), and while I was looking at the page I saw the pylons for the apparent abandoned railroad bridges (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/detour/e4.jpg). I was wondering if anyone has ever looked at Historic Aerials' coverage of that portion of the state?

https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=42.9308&lon=-74.2781

Because I see no evidence of any other parallel railroads crossing the creek from those maps. The only other line I see is on the other side of the Mohawk River.

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/img4/ht_icons/overlay/NY/NY_Tribes%20Hill_139361_1944_24000_geo.jpg
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 22, 2020, 10:50:59 PM
Steve Alps made some errors in his reporting of the piers and bridge abutments.  The lone pier in the middle of Schoharie Creek was for a former roadway bridge, which tied into Railroad St in Fort Hunter.  This roadway is clearly shown on the 1944 topo map image kalvado posted.

The bridge abutment further downstream that he shows in the following photo isn't for a former rail bridge, but instead was for an abandoned section of canal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 22, 2020, 11:43:38 PM
Steve Alps made some errors in his reporting of the piers and bridge abutments.  The lone pier in the middle of Schoharie Creek was for a former roadway bridge, which tied into Railroad St in Fort Hunter.  This roadway is clearly shown on the 1944 topo map image kalvado posted.

The bridge abutment further downstream that he shows in the following photo isn't for a former rail bridge, but instead was for an abandoned section of canal.

Ya know, if you submit this error to me by my handy email posted on my website, I'd fix it (: Keep in mind Historic Aerials didn't exist for a lot of my captions years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on August 23, 2020, 10:05:03 AM
On another topic, what's with the awkward interchange with US 9 and US 44/NY 55 in Poughkeepsie? Obviously it's an old interchange with the left exits/merges and short accel lanes, but why choose said design in the first place? It does no favors for US 9 -> Mid Hudson Bridge traffic (US 9 NB competes with exiting SB traffic) and if they were to redesign the interchange it could do with flyovers directly accessing 44/55 WB.

I drove through that interchange daily for about 10 years. I don't think it can be fixed because there's no space on either side. I was surprised when there wasn't someone rear-ended there. Accident rate was 10.97 per million vehicle miles when I asked for accident data
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 23, 2020, 10:20:26 AM
On another topic, what's with the awkward interchange with US 9 and US 44/NY 55 in Poughkeepsie? Obviously it's an old interchange with the left exits/merges and short accel lanes, but why choose said design in the first place? It does no favors for US 9 -> Mid Hudson Bridge traffic (US 9 NB competes with exiting SB traffic) and if they were to redesign the interchange it could do with flyovers directly accessing 44/55 WB.

I drove through that interchange daily for about 10 years. I don't think it can be fixed because there's no space on either side. I was surprised when there wasn't someone rear-ended there. Accident rate was 10.97 per million vehicle miles when I asked for accident data
I think the bowtie design was innovative given the space constraints, but the left lane exits and merges are problematic.  I wonder if speed reducing measures on US 9 would help matters.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 23, 2020, 10:39:58 AM
On another topic, what's with the awkward interchange with US 9 and US 44/NY 55 in Poughkeepsie? Obviously it's an old interchange with the left exits/merges and short accel lanes, but why choose said design in the first place? It does no favors for US 9 -> Mid Hudson Bridge traffic (US 9 NB competes with exiting SB traffic) and if they were to redesign the interchange it could do with flyovers directly accessing 44/55 WB.

There have been proposals to redo that interchange over the years, but money is an issue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: STLmapboy on August 23, 2020, 11:13:21 AM
I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 23, 2020, 12:24:22 PM
I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.

Depends on the region. Historically, there were two main standards: the Long Island Montauk Point Lighthouse shield and the green state route shield with the parkway name. Lake Ontario and Robert Moses/Niagara Scenic always had their own shields.

In recent years, the New York City parkways have slowly been shifting to shields similar to the Long Island parkways. These shields replace the Montauk Point Lighthouse with a symbol representing each parkway. The Jackie Robinson Parkway is a picture of Jackie Robinson (https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/images/infrastructure/jackie-robinson-parkway.jpg), the Grand Central Parkway is the Unisphere, the Henry Hudson Parkway is the Little Red Lighthouse, FDR Drive has 1 WTC and the Brooklyn Bridge. I think the Bronx River Parkway is a boat.

The current Niagara Scenic Parkway shield (and former Robert Moses State Parkway shield) were taller state route shields, but white on green (like the parkway shields).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 23, 2020, 01:19:02 PM
On another topic, what's with the awkward interchange with US 9 and US 44/NY 55 in Poughkeepsie? Obviously it's an old interchange with the left exits/merges and short accel lanes, but why choose said design in the first place? It does no favors for US 9 -> Mid Hudson Bridge traffic (US 9 NB competes with exiting SB traffic) and if they were to redesign the interchange it could do with flyovers directly accessing 44/55 WB.

I drove through that interchange daily for about 10 years. I don't think it can be fixed because there's no space on either side. I was surprised when there wasn't someone rear-ended there. Accident rate was 10.97 per million vehicle miles when I asked for accident data
I think the bowtie design was innovative given the space constraints, but the left lane exits and merges are problematic.  I wonder if speed reducing measures on US 9 would help matters.
The cleanest way to fix it is to make it a SPUI, but I'm sure a free-flowing interchange for all directions is preferred.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 23, 2020, 01:29:50 PM
The cleanest way to fix it is to make it a SPUI, but I'm sure a free-flowing interchange for all directions is preferred.

While I don't have an in at the bridge authority like I do at most other agencies in the state, I have a very strong feeling that they don't want anything that could have traffic stopping on the bridge, and that's the only way to do a SPUI without massive property takings to put the intersection on 9.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 23, 2020, 08:39:09 PM
I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.


You're right; the NYC area state parkways are an interesting study. And believe me, here on Long Island some of those ancient sub-standard interchanges (built in the 1930's & '40's) are a real pain to drive. The only reason NYS DOT gets away with them is that there is no heavy truck traffic on these parkways. Except those using passenger car GPS's who wander onto the parkways in clear violation of posted signs. State Police escort them off the road and ticket them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on August 24, 2020, 03:22:54 PM
I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.

Depends on the region. Historically, there were two main standards: the Long Island Montauk Point Lighthouse shield and the green state route shield with the parkway name. Lake Ontario and Robert Moses/Niagara Scenic always had their own shields.

In recent years, the New York City parkways have slowly been shifting to shields similar to the Long Island parkways. These shields replace the Montauk Point Lighthouse with a symbol representing each parkway. The Jackie Robinson Parkway is a picture of Jackie Robinson (https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/images/infrastructure/jackie-robinson-parkway.jpg), the Grand Central Parkway is the Unisphere, the Henry Hudson Parkway is the Little Red Lighthouse, FDR Drive has 1 WTC and the Brooklyn Bridge. I think the Bronx River Parkway is a boat.

The current Niagara Scenic Parkway shield (and former Robert Moses State Parkway shield) were taller state route shields, but white on green (like the parkway shields).

Actually curious, is this an NYSDOT region thing? Region 8 does one thing, 10 something else, 11 yet another thing? 11 never really had a super formal thing, the Grand Central Pkwy had its own unique design for a long time and few of the other parkways rally used a unique shield, except for the Belt, which has a version of the LI lighthouse (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5924403,-73.9080239,3a,15y,322.25h,92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn0RVGBUvs45v5UcEFu6j-w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 25, 2020, 01:24:59 AM
I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.

Depends on the region. Historically, there were two main standards: the Long Island Montauk Point Lighthouse shield and the green state route shield with the parkway name. Lake Ontario and Robert Moses/Niagara Scenic always had their own shields.

In recent years, the New York City parkways have slowly been shifting to shields similar to the Long Island parkways. These shields replace the Montauk Point Lighthouse with a symbol representing each parkway. The Jackie Robinson Parkway is a picture of Jackie Robinson (https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/images/infrastructure/jackie-robinson-parkway.jpg), the Grand Central Parkway is the Unisphere, the Henry Hudson Parkway is the Little Red Lighthouse, FDR Drive has 1 WTC and the Brooklyn Bridge. I think the Bronx River Parkway is a boat.

The current Niagara Scenic Parkway shield (and former Robert Moses State Parkway shield) were taller state route shields, but white on green (like the parkway shields).

Actually curious, is this an NYSDOT region thing? Region 8 does one thing, 10 something else, 11 yet another thing? 11 never really had a super formal thing, the Grand Central Pkwy had its own unique design for a long time and few of the other parkways rally used a unique shield, except for the Belt, which has a version of the LI lighthouse (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5924403,-73.9080239,3a,15y,322.25h,92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn0RVGBUvs45v5UcEFu6j-w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
The green and white Region 8 and beyond parkway shield was around before the ones in Long Island and New York City. Long Island started getting theirs Montauk Point Lighthouse shields in the 1980's and the Grand Central got their own around that time as well. Eventually the "Westchester and beyond" shields started spreading into New York City, until they were replaced by what cl94 describes above.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 25, 2020, 06:37:30 PM
Any updates on if/when more routes may convert to mileage-based exits? The Hutchinson River Parkway was supposed to convert this year, but it looks like that is not going to happen. It looks like New York's conversion will continue at a snail's pace.  :-(
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 25, 2020, 08:57:24 PM
Any updates on if/when more routes may convert to mileage-based exits? The Hutchinson River Parkway was supposed to convert this year, but it looks like that is not going to happen. It looks like New York's conversion will continue at a snail's pace.  :-(
According the the website, the project is still on: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=881459
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 26, 2020, 12:38:18 AM
Any updates on if/when more routes may convert to mileage-based exits? The Hutchinson River Parkway was supposed to convert this year, but it looks like that is not going to happen. It looks like New York's conversion will continue at a snail's pace.  :-(
According the the website, the project is still on: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=881459
*mutters about data system issues and WEPI under his breath...*
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 26, 2020, 06:28:58 AM
Too many "Exit 1s" for the Hutchinson River Parkway.


 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 26, 2020, 07:01:53 AM
The bridge abutment further downstream that he shows in the following photo isn't for a former rail bridge, but instead was for an abandoned section of canal.
I thought that might've been for the Canal. Are there any sections of the canal used for shipping anymore?



Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ketchup99 on August 26, 2020, 10:09:46 AM
Maybe a stupid question, but why can't short parkways just stay sequential? The only time you really need mileage-based exits are on long routes when you want to be able to judge how long you have left. Can't a short parkway like the Hutch keep its numbers as is to avoid confusion?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 26, 2020, 10:27:56 PM
Maybe a stupid question, but why can't short parkways just stay sequential? The only time you really need mileage-based exits are on long routes when you want to be able to judge how long you have left. Can't a short parkway like the Hutch keep its numbers as is to avoid confusion?

I wish NYSDOT would tackle the expressways without exit numbers first and then convert the others as sign rehabs take place. For example, NY 33 in the Buffalo area is longer than I-290 and has more interchanges, but I-290 has exit numbers and NY 33 does not. Same with US 219 and NY 400, they need numbered interchanges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 29, 2020, 01:33:34 AM
So NYSDOT has released preliminary drawings for the N.Y.-5 Skyway removal/connection, and I have to say that I wish the Skyway would stay, but I get why it's coming down. Nevertheless, it's still exciting to see new highway being constructed in Western NY for the first time since US 219 in 2009.

Naturally, I'm guessing that politicians would prefer the boulevard option, but I'm leaning towards the freeway one myself. I get that people want an all-boulevard connection to Blasdell, but why?

(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/ac/4ac07bde-e983-11ea-9d72-bf56e650cab1/5f498e93bd31e.image.jpg)

(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/c5/0c5be7fc-e983-11ea-bdd1-dbffb491dba9/5f498e3448393.image.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on August 29, 2020, 11:37:04 AM
I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.
i know the Parkway signs with the light house are long island parkways and I know the Jackie Robinson has Jackie Robinson swinging a bat
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on August 30, 2020, 12:08:13 AM
So NYSDOT has released preliminary drawings for the N.Y.-5 Skyway removal/connection, and I have to say that I wish the Skyway would stay, but I get why it's coming down. Nevertheless, it's still exciting to see new highway being constructed in Western NY for the first time since US 219 in 2009.

Naturally, I'm guessing that politicians would prefer the boulevard option, but I'm leaning towards the freeway one myself. I get that people want an all-boulevard connection to Blasdell, but why?

*pics*

There doesn't seem to be any mention of it in the report (https://images.radio.com/wben/Project%20Scoping%20Report_August%202020%281%29.pdf), so I wonder how NY 5 would be realigned if either of the above options ends up getting chosen. Seems the easiest option to me would be to have it leave the freeway/boulevard at the lest exit before I-190, then overlap with US 62 north to UB South (at which point it would rejoin its' current routing).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 30, 2020, 01:59:50 PM
So NYSDOT has released preliminary drawings for the N.Y.-5 Skyway removal/connection, and I have to say that I wish the Skyway would stay, but I get why it's coming down. Nevertheless, it's still exciting to see new highway being constructed in Western NY for the first time since US 219 in 2009.

Naturally, I'm guessing that politicians would prefer the boulevard option, but I'm leaning towards the freeway one myself. I get that people want an all-boulevard connection to Blasdell, but why?

*pics*

There doesn't seem to be any mention of it in the report (https://images.radio.com/wben/Project%20Scoping%20Report_August%202020%281%29.pdf), so I wonder how NY 5 would be realigned if either of the above options ends up getting chosen. Seems the easiest option to me would be to have it leave the freeway/boulevard at the lest exit before I-190, then overlap with US 62 north to UB South (at which point it would rejoin its' current routing).

Yeah I was looking for the NY-5 alignment also. Your idea seems to be the best option.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2020, 02:15:54 PM
If the Buffalo Skyway is eliminated, would it be possible to put NY 5 back on its pre-Skyway alignment?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on September 02, 2020, 11:03:29 AM
It looks like New York's conversion will continue at a snail's pace.  :-(

I-684 would be an easy conversion. NYSDOT replaced a ton of guide signs in New York City around 2014 and while I didn't expect mile conversion, it would've been nice if they eliminated suffixed exits or at least changed N-S-W-E suffixes to A-B
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on September 02, 2020, 11:12:01 AM
I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.

The Palisades Parkway has its own brown leaf design with PALISADES/INTERSTATE/PARKWAY at the bottom. There's a modified version (https://goo.gl/maps/vDqJUZh59aAN237h9) with a smaller leaf and bigger Palisades/Interstate/Parkway text in mixed case. There are a small number of black-and-white Harlem River Drive/FDR Drive shields in Manhattan: https://goo.gl/maps/34jN7kfajaph8hFf7 which is unusual since entrance signs are usually small green guide signs posted by the city.

I haven't seen any new shields on the Cross Island, but then again I don't think I've ever seen reassurance signange on the CIP.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: STLmapboy on September 03, 2020, 02:07:42 PM
I found some three-section bimodal-arrow FYA signals in (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1221364,-75.2911801,3a,43.1y,214.46h,99.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy_ttrFHlkNpWIC6_wCAfTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) Utica (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1380262,-75.2760884,3a,16.7y,363.17h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7rP4yDNQB681oSN6207EAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/). Any more of these in NY?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on September 03, 2020, 10:55:35 PM
I found some three-section bimodal-arrow FYA signals in (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1221364,-75.2911801,3a,43.1y,214.46h,99.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy_ttrFHlkNpWIC6_wCAfTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) Utica (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1380262,-75.2760884,3a,16.7y,363.17h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7rP4yDNQB681oSN6207EAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/). Any more of these in NY?
I’m not always clear on the terminology, but if you mean a 3-section signal R/Y/FYA, yes. In Geneva, on 5 & 20 westbound at Castle St., the right turn signal is one of these. (GSV is too old to show it.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on September 04, 2020, 10:07:09 PM
I found some three-section bimodal-arrow FYA signals in (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1221364,-75.2911801,3a,43.1y,214.46h,99.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy_ttrFHlkNpWIC6_wCAfTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) Utica (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1380262,-75.2760884,3a,16.7y,363.17h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7rP4yDNQB681oSN6207EAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/). Any more of these in NY?
I’m not always clear on the terminology, but if you mean a 3-section signal R/Y/FYA, yes. In Geneva, on 5 & 20 westbound at Castle St., the right turn signal is one of these. (GSV is too old to show it.)

Transit Rd. (NY 78) at Tonawanda Creek Rd. in Millersport.  I want to say there are more out there besides the ones in/near Utica.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on September 05, 2020, 08:55:58 AM
The Palisades Parkway has its own brown leaf design with PALISADES/INTERSTATE/PARKWAY at the bottom. There's a modified version (https://goo.gl/maps/vDqJUZh59aAN237h9) with a smaller leaf and bigger Palisades/Interstate/Parkway text in mixed case.

This style is used for all the parkways inside Palisades Interstate Park.  Seven Lakes Drive and Lake Welch Drive have this type of signage as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NYCDOT on September 05, 2020, 02:09:47 PM
Random question-Does NYSDOT or the various regions decide where to construct the restaurant/gas/attraction signs?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 05, 2020, 03:02:16 PM
For what level of "where" are we talking about?  The logo signs are managed by the regional Real Estate offices, with businesses having to adhere to various requirements to have their logo on a sign (for example, a restaurant has to serve breakfast).  That said, as in all things, I'm sure there is statewide guidance of some kind.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on September 05, 2020, 03:03:33 PM
(for example, a restaurant has to serve breakfast)

Lunch/dinner only places can't be on logo signs?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on September 05, 2020, 08:09:06 PM
(for example, a restaurant has to serve breakfast)

Lunch/dinner only places can't be on logo signs?

The MUTCD has specific rules about what qualifies for a service sign on highways. For food signs:

To qualify for a FOOD logo sign panel, a business should have:
1. Licensing or approval, where required;
2. Continuous operations to serve at least two meals per day, at least 6 days per week;
3. Modern sanitary facilities; and
4. Public telephone.

Mind you, states may have additional rules that must be followed to be featured on signs in state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 05, 2020, 09:26:25 PM
The Palisades Parkway has its own brown leaf design with PALISADES/INTERSTATE/PARKWAY at the bottom. There's a modified version (https://goo.gl/maps/vDqJUZh59aAN237h9) with a smaller leaf and bigger Palisades/Interstate/Parkway text in mixed case.

This style is used for all the parkways inside Palisades Interstate Park.  Seven Lakes Drive and Lake Welch Drive have this type of signage as well.
Those and Tiorati. I've wondered if those are officially parkways or not.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NYCDOT on September 06, 2020, 09:59:36 AM
For what level of "where" are we talking about?  The logo signs are managed by the regional Real Estate offices, with businesses having to adhere to various requirements to have their logo on a sign (for example, a restaurant has to serve breakfast).  That said, as in all things, I'm sure there is statewide guidance of some kind.
That's very interesting, had no idea about a "breakfast" regulation. However, I feel like in R10 and R11 the logo signs are nowhere to be found. Instead, they're replace with a blue sign with generic icons for gas and food.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on September 06, 2020, 11:17:31 AM
The Palisades Parkway has its own brown leaf design with PALISADES/INTERSTATE/PARKWAY at the bottom. There's a modified version (https://goo.gl/maps/vDqJUZh59aAN237h9) with a smaller leaf and bigger Palisades/Interstate/Parkway text in mixed case.

This style is used for all the parkways inside Palisades Interstate Park.  Seven Lakes Drive and Lake Welch Drive have this type of signage as well.
Those and Tiorati. I've wondered if those are officially parkways or not.

So is the brown PIP shield a NYS Parks thing then? The GWB approaches sign the shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8690338,-73.9774827,3a,75y,140.06h,98.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-GlvpNl3vfuxY0A7eRY3WQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) at the exits to 9W there, but not sure if that's NJTA or the Port Authority that signs it. NJDOT also seems to sign with the brown shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8595983,-73.9650551,3a,16.2y,64.88h,91.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syDYAHoLjx2BVt4b5hIzb8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), but I don't remember seeing reassurance shields along the Parkway itself in the NJ section.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 06, 2020, 11:18:40 AM
For what level of "where" are we talking about?  The logo signs are managed by the regional Real Estate offices, with businesses having to adhere to various requirements to have their logo on a sign (for example, a restaurant has to serve breakfast).  That said, as in all things, I'm sure there is statewide guidance of some kind.
That's very interesting, had no idea about a "breakfast" regulation. However, I feel like in R10 and R11 the logo signs are nowhere to be found. Instead, they're replace with a blue sign with generic icons for gas and food.
there was a fairly interesting situation regarding one of Albany stores fighting for a spot on services sign. One of the things DOT was bringing up was that services signs are not used within urban areas as there are too many locations to list - and services are available basically in any direction.
If anything, R10 and R11 can use the same reasoning across their entire footprint.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NYCDOT on September 06, 2020, 12:14:36 PM
For what level of "where" are we talking about?  The logo signs are managed by the regional Real Estate offices, with businesses having to adhere to various requirements to have their logo on a sign (for example, a restaurant has to serve breakfast).  That said, as in all things, I'm sure there is statewide guidance of some kind.
That's very interesting, had no idea about a "breakfast" regulation. However, I feel like in R10 and R11 the logo signs are nowhere to be found. Instead, they're replace with a blue sign with generic icons for gas and food.
there was a fairly interesting situation regarding one of Albany stores fighting for a spot on services sign. One of the things DOT was bringing up was that services signs are not used within urban areas as there are too many locations to list - and services are available basically in any direction.
If anything, R10 and R11 can use the same reasoning across their entire footprint.
I see.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 06, 2020, 12:56:28 PM
The only recent debate in Albany I was aware of was an Arbor Hill business claiming racism or classism because the general service signs (not full branded logo signs) only had direction arrows pointing to US 9 north from I-90.  And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.

So, NYSDOT made the arrows bidirectional.  Case closed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 06, 2020, 04:49:11 PM
And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.
Those arrows were pointing at Northern Boulevard (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.672726,-73.7466536,3a,21.5y,16.62h,92.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBssnMHt6-ky-MDu_eFwSVw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  The gas stations on US 9 north of Loudonville wouldn't even qualify (https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/nys-signs/logo#:~:text=An%20advertised%20facility%20must%20be,%2C%20back%20panels%2C%20and%20signs.).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 06, 2020, 11:20:06 PM
And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.
Those arrows were pointing at Northern Boulevard (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.672726,-73.7466536,3a,21.5y,16.62h,92.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBssnMHt6-ky-MDu_eFwSVw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  The gas stations on US 9 north of Loudonville wouldn't even qualify (https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/nys-signs/logo#:~:text=An%20advertised%20facility%20must%20be,%2C%20back%20panels%2C%20and%20signs.).
That just supports the complainant's argument.  Having to take US 9 and then turn off again is more complicated than just driving into Arbor Hill.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 07, 2020, 08:42:28 AM
The only recent debate in Albany I was aware of was an Arbor Hill business claiming racism or classism because the general service signs (not full branded logo signs) only had direction arrows pointing to US 9 north from I-90.  And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.

So, NYSDOT made the arrows bidirectional.  Case closed.
Not so fast.
Quote
Under federal guidelines, according to Breen [NYSDOT spokesperson], food signs are used to direct motorists only to rural areas.
"We expect that in urbanized areas, people will assume that there are food and services there," Breen said.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Fork-in-the-road-not-on-the-sign-912035.php
Until NYSDOT PR people make up regulations and reasons on the fly (not that I would be surprised if that is the actual case), things were not that simple.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 07, 2020, 10:33:23 AM
The only recent debate in Albany I was aware of was an Arbor Hill business claiming racism or classism because the general service signs (not full branded logo signs) only had direction arrows pointing to US 9 north from I-90.  And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.

So, NYSDOT made the arrows bidirectional.  Case closed.
Not so fast.
Quote
Under federal guidelines, according to Breen [NYSDOT spokesperson], food signs are used to direct motorists only to rural areas.
"We expect that in urbanized areas, people will assume that there are food and services there," Breen said.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Fork-in-the-road-not-on-the-sign-912035.php
Until NYSDOT PR people make up regulations and reasons on the fly (not that I would be surprised if that is the actual case), things were not that simple.

I don't believe there are logo signs on I-90 around US 9 (I could be mistaken).  There are general service signs and the solution was definitely just to update the arrows for them.

Case closed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 07, 2020, 11:38:22 AM
And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.
Those arrows were pointing at Northern Boulevard (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.672726,-73.7466536,3a,21.5y,16.62h,92.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBssnMHt6-ky-MDu_eFwSVw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  The gas stations on US 9 north of Loudonville wouldn't even qualify (https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/nys-signs/logo#:~:text=An%20advertised%20facility%20must%20be,%2C%20back%20panels%2C%20and%20signs.).
That just supports the complainant's argument.  Having to take US 9 and then turn off again is more complicated than just driving into Arbor Hill.
Except you don't even get on US 9.  You're still on the ramp from I-90 when that split happens.  In fact, there is no access to Northern Boulevard from US 9 north (or access to US 9 south) at all!  It LOOKS like a diamond interchange, but it's really a pair of half-diamonds that meet at each other - one to US 9 north/from US 9 south, and one to/from I-90.  This side has a nice plaza and a few businesses.  On the south side, the only thing with a parking lot is a tiny Stewart's in a bad neighborhood.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 07, 2020, 04:48:45 PM
And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.
Those arrows were pointing at Northern Boulevard (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.672726,-73.7466536,3a,21.5y,16.62h,92.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBssnMHt6-ky-MDu_eFwSVw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  The gas stations on US 9 north of Loudonville wouldn't even qualify (https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/nys-signs/logo#:~:text=An%20advertised%20facility%20must%20be,%2C%20back%20panels%2C%20and%20signs.).
That just supports the complainant's argument.  Having to take US 9 and then turn off again is more complicated than just driving into Arbor Hill.
Except you don't even get on US 9.  You're still on the ramp from I-90 when that split happens.  In fact, there is no access to Northern Boulevard from US 9 north (or access to US 9 south) at all!  It LOOKS like a diamond interchange, but it's really a pair of half-diamonds that meet at each other - one to US 9 north/from US 9 south, and one to/from I-90.  This side has a nice plaza and a few businesses.  On the south side, the only thing with a parking lot is a tiny Stewart's in a bad neighborhood.
The complainant, I believe, owned one of the restaurants down through there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on September 07, 2020, 10:46:45 PM
I found some three-section bimodal-arrow FYA signals in (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1221364,-75.2911801,3a,43.1y,214.46h,99.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy_ttrFHlkNpWIC6_wCAfTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) Utica (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1380262,-75.2760884,3a,16.7y,363.17h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7rP4yDNQB681oSN6207EAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/). Any more of these in NY?

There have been some in R10, it’s not common though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on September 09, 2020, 11:15:15 AM
Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?

Local newspaper did. DOT responded with in-stock bullshit - compliant to regulations, no plans to modify.
That is one of very poorly designed local spots in  general, signage just makes it worse.
Upd. I missed the narrative, bottom line still the same
https://blog.timesunion.com/gettingthere/ramp-to-thruway-a-place-for-near-misses/1511/

This might be a case where even though the signing is technically correct, it does not convey the needed info in an intuitive form for the average driver and could be improved..............And just as I've often said about traffic signal installations, just because it meets minimum standards, that doesn't necessarily make it a good quality design.

Sorry to chime in a little late on this ....

One idea that I discussed with a friend of mine who is a professional traffic engineer with his own consulting company is the idea of peer review.  Essentially, engineers should take a business trip to an unfamiliar part of the country and drive the roads and try to figure out if everything makes sense.  So if you brought an engineer from Mississippi to drive the Northway and he were confronted with the setup to the Thruway, would he think it was intuitive?  Would he think that some more signage is necessary, especially as in almost anywhere you would normally keep left to stay on I-87.  Would he be able to recommend something appropriate?  (In all cases, likely yes).

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be plans to do something like this at all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on September 09, 2020, 11:26:24 AM
One idea that I discussed with a friend of mine who is a professional traffic engineer with his own consulting company is the idea of peer review.  Essentially, engineers should take a business trip to an unfamiliar part of the country and drive the roads and try to figure out if everything makes sense.  So if you brought an engineer from Mississippi to drive the Northway and he were confronted with the setup to the Thruway, would he think it was intuitive?  Would he think that some more signage is necessary, especially as in almost anywhere you would normally keep left to stay on I-87.  Would he be able to recommend something appropriate?  (In all cases, likely yes).

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be plans to do something like this at all.

Exposure to other ideas and other ways of doing things should be a plus. Unfortunately, far too many people think of it as nothing of value and value longetivity with the "same old, same old". I am always amused when a local political candidate includes as one of the reasons they should be elected "life long resident of the community" which to me means "no exposure to other ideas and therefore nothing new to bring to the table."

Note the above is intended to be a generic comment and not particular to any current candidate in any race.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 09, 2020, 06:33:08 PM
Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?

Local newspaper did. DOT responded with in-stock bullshit - compliant to regulations, no plans to modify.
That is one of very poorly designed local spots in  general, signage just makes it worse.
Upd. I missed the narrative, bottom line still the same
https://blog.timesunion.com/gettingthere/ramp-to-thruway-a-place-for-near-misses/1511/

This might be a case where even though the signing is technically correct, it does not convey the needed info in an intuitive form for the average driver and could be improved..............And just as I've often said about traffic signal installations, just because it meets minimum standards, that doesn't necessarily make it a good quality design.

Sorry to chime in a little late on this ....

One idea that I discussed with a friend of mine who is a professional traffic engineer with his own consulting company is the idea of peer review.  Essentially, engineers should take a business trip to an unfamiliar part of the country and drive the roads and try to figure out if everything makes sense.  So if you brought an engineer from Mississippi to drive the Northway and he were confronted with the setup to the Thruway, would he think it was intuitive?  Would he think that some more signage is necessary, especially as in almost anywhere you would normally keep left to stay on I-87.  Would he be able to recommend something appropriate?  (In all cases, likely yes).

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be plans to do something like this at all.
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 09, 2020, 07:55:46 PM
Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?

Local newspaper did. DOT responded with in-stock bullshit - compliant to regulations, no plans to modify.
That is one of very poorly designed local spots in  general, signage just makes it worse.
Upd. I missed the narrative, bottom line still the same
https://blog.timesunion.com/gettingthere/ramp-to-thruway-a-place-for-near-misses/1511/

This might be a case where even though the signing is technically correct, it does not convey the needed info in an intuitive form for the average driver and could be improved..............And just as I've often said about traffic signal installations, just because it meets minimum standards, that doesn't necessarily make it a good quality design.

Sorry to chime in a little late on this ....

One idea that I discussed with a friend of mine who is a professional traffic engineer with his own consulting company is the idea of peer review.  Essentially, engineers should take a business trip to an unfamiliar part of the country and drive the roads and try to figure out if everything makes sense.  So if you brought an engineer from Mississippi to drive the Northway and he were confronted with the setup to the Thruway, would he think it was intuitive?  Would he think that some more signage is necessary, especially as in almost anywhere you would normally keep left to stay on I-87.  Would he be able to recommend something appropriate?  (In all cases, likely yes).

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be plans to do something like this at all.
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.

It was my understanding that NYSDOT had conferences of some sort in the different regions, bringing all of whatever level of management or whatever NYSDOT together in Utica or Buffalo or Albany, depending on the quarter or year. I can’t help but think when a traffic engineer goes to Utica they can’t help but notice the weirdness with To Region 2’s signing practices
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 09, 2020, 08:06:50 PM
Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?

Local newspaper did. DOT responded with in-stock bullshit - compliant to regulations, no plans to modify.
That is one of very poorly designed local spots in  general, signage just makes it worse.
Upd. I missed the narrative, bottom line still the same
https://blog.timesunion.com/gettingthere/ramp-to-thruway-a-place-for-near-misses/1511/

This might be a case where even though the signing is technically correct, it does not convey the needed info in an intuitive form for the average driver and could be improved..............And just as I've often said about traffic signal installations, just because it meets minimum standards, that doesn't necessarily make it a good quality design.

Sorry to chime in a little late on this ....

One idea that I discussed with a friend of mine who is a professional traffic engineer with his own consulting company is the idea of peer review.  Essentially, engineers should take a business trip to an unfamiliar part of the country and drive the roads and try to figure out if everything makes sense.  So if you brought an engineer from Mississippi to drive the Northway and he were confronted with the setup to the Thruway, would he think it was intuitive?  Would he think that some more signage is necessary, especially as in almost anywhere you would normally keep left to stay on I-87.  Would he be able to recommend something appropriate?  (In all cases, likely yes).

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be plans to do something like this at all.
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.

It was my understanding that NYSDOT had conferences of some sort in the different regions, bringing all of whatever level of management or whatever NYSDOT together in Utica or Buffalo or Albany, depending on the quarter or year. I can’t help but think when a traffic engineer goes to Utica they can’t help but notice the weirdness with To Region 2’s signing practices
I still think there is a helicopter parking somewhere by DOT... I just cannot find it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on September 09, 2020, 08:58:49 PM
Re: the Northway SB at the Thruway, I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that the stay on I-87 SB traffic is forced into a single lane that splits immediately into two on the ramp.  I assume there's some good reason, for the setup, but it doesn't make sense to me.  Why not keep the rightmost lane exit only to continue on I-87 SB, and the next lane split at the ramp with the option of continuing to the I-90 EB ramp or taking the I-87 SB ramp?  This would especially help with those cars that try to pull in at the last moment to try to get ahead of slow trucks.  Maybe someone on here who knows more about the engineering of such things can set me straight and has an idea why the current configuration is better.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 09, 2020, 09:50:55 PM
Re: the Northway SB at the Thruway, I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that the stay on I-87 SB traffic is forced into a single lane that splits immediately into two on the ramp.  I assume there's some good reason, for the setup, but it doesn't make sense to me.  Why not keep the rightmost lane exit only to continue on I-87 SB, and the next lane split at the ramp with the option of continuing to the I-90 EB ramp or taking the I-87 SB ramp?  This would especially help with those cars that try to pull in at the last moment to try to get ahead of slow trucks.  Maybe someone on here who knows more about the engineering of such things can set me straight and has an idea why the current configuration is better.
It had been designed the way you describe. If you look carefully, ramp is wide enough for 2 lanes, and actually did carry 2 lanes. However, it turned out as a high accident rate setup - design speed of 55 MPH turned out to be overly optimistic. Instead of redoing the ramp or finding some other option to slow the traffic,  a "temporary" single lane was adopted. Redoing that ramp, per @Rothman, is not even being discussed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on September 09, 2020, 10:45:35 PM
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.

I’m just a principal engineer technician but I oversee r10 construction ADA compliance and now training for work zone inspection, I’d love to visit the other 10 regions and see how things are done differently.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on September 10, 2020, 07:53:36 AM
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.

I’m just a principal engineer technician but I oversee r10 construction ADA compliance and now training for work zone inspection, I’d love to visit the other 10 regions and see how things are done differently.

It would be nice if they allowed it.  There is definitely some benefit from having "fresh eyes" look at something.

As others have said, a TOTSO on a major interstate highway IMO is so egregious that the warning for it should begin 5 miles up the road, notwithstanding that there are other exits still ahead.  Imagine if 5 miles ahead of the Northway/Thruway interchange you see signs for: "I-87 SOUTH New York RIGHT LANE 5 MILES AHEAD" and such a sign would repeat every mile along the way.  That would get attention.

It's frustrating when the public is telling the DOT that this is something that they find confusing and more helpful signage would be useful and their response is, we don't think it's confusing and it follows all of the standards.  The whole point of the signage is to guide motorists, and if the existing signage is not adequately guiding motorists then the signage needs to be replaced and/or supplemented.  Individual complainers can get ignored, but it's really audacious to dismiss a complaint that comes from the transportation reporter of a local newspaper, as is the case here.  [An article from the Times-Union was linked upthread, check my post from yesterday.]
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 10, 2020, 09:01:26 AM
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.

I’m just a principal engineer technician but I oversee r10 construction ADA compliance and now training for work zone inspection, I’d love to visit the other 10 regions and see how things are done differently.
Wow, I didn't know NYSDOT doesn't allow engineer's travel. How far can you go from the office without facing penalties - 10 miles? or less?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on September 10, 2020, 11:34:28 AM
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.

I’m just a principal engineer technician but I oversee r10 construction ADA compliance and now training for work zone inspection, I’d love to visit the other 10 regions and see how things are done differently.
Wow, I didn't know NYSDOT doesn't allow engineer's travel. How far can you go from the office without facing penalties - 10 miles? or less?

My post may have been misleading, engineers definitively travel to other regions especially for state wide meetings and seminars. I’m not high up enough in engineer chain of command or level of importance to go on these work related trips. Essentially my title doesn’t warrant needing to visit other regions, my supervisor may go though. Most intrastate travel has been limited to zoom/ webinar meetings to avoid covid infections this year as well. As far as penalty goes, there’s really no penalty but you better have good reason to travel to other regions. I know upstate the regions are rather large and can take a few hours to traverse compared to r10 of just Nassau and Suffolk. Being from region 10, we really don’t ever have a reason to venture outside of Nassau/ Suffolk except on short spurts of GCP, Belt Pkwy, 495 and few state routes just over the queens border to travel to other locations in Nassau. In my 7.5 years with R10, I’ve only ventured out of R10 once last April to r8 Hawthorne TMC for inspector training (all “new” construction hires from r8,10,11 went to this).My coverage area is all DOT roads from queens/ Nassau border to the East end forks of orient and montauk. In R10, Most people are restricted to the main office building in hauppauge or if In field such as construction or maintenance, they’re limited to the construction contract they’re assigned to or maintenance residency they work out of and the roads they cover; it may be different in the other regions of upstate though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 10, 2020, 12:21:53 PM
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.

I’m just a principal engineer technician but I oversee r10 construction ADA compliance and now training for work zone inspection, I’d love to visit the other 10 regions and see how things are done differently.
Wow, I didn't know NYSDOT doesn't allow engineer's travel. How far can you go from the office without facing penalties - 10 miles? or less?

My post may have been misleading, engineers definitively travel to other regions especially for state wide meetings and seminars. I’m not high up enough in engineer chain of command or level of importance to go on these work related trips. Essentially my title doesn’t warrant needing to visit other regions, my supervisor may go though. Most intrastate travel has been limited to zoom/ webinar meetings to avoid covid infections this year as well. As far as penalty goes, there’s really no penalty but you better have good reason to travel to other regions. I know upstate the regions are rather large and can take a few hours to traverse compared to r10 of just Nassau and Suffolk. Being from region 10, we really don’t ever have a reason to venture outside of Nassau/ Suffolk except on short spurts of GCP, Belt Pkwy, 495 and few state routes just over the queens border to travel to other locations in Nassau. In my 7.5 years with R10, I’ve only ventured out of R10 once last April to r8 Hawthorne TMC for inspector training (all “new”  construction hires from r8,10,11 went to this).My coverage area is all DOT roads from queens/ Nassau border to the East end forks of orient and montauk. In R10, Most people are restricted to the main office building in hauppauge or if In field such as construction or maintenance, they’re limited to the construction contract they’re assigned to or maintenance residency they work out of and the roads they cover; it may be different in the other regions of upstate though.

Thing is, most people on this forum don't see a 100-200 mile trip as something unusual. It is nice when your employer pays for the mileage, but pretty often it is just a fun ride. Looking at road features as you drive by is just another fun part.


On the same token.. .Last weekend I passed a maintenance area on a Thruway,  just south of Albany (exit 22 or so). There were two green signs prepared for installation: "TAP New York"  What those are about??   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 10, 2020, 12:57:24 PM
On the same token.. .Last weekend I passed a maintenance area on a Thruway,  just south of Albany (exit 22 or so). There were two green signs prepared for installation: "TAP New York"  What those are about??   
I'm curious about that myself, though I'm not sure they're being prepared for installation... they've been sitting there for YEARS.

My first thought relates to TAP/CMAQ grant projects, but somehow I don't think that's it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 10, 2020, 01:11:53 PM
GSV shows some of those signs there as far back as 2015. The "TAP New York" sign has been there since 16 or 17. I think that might just be NYSTA's sign graveyard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on September 18, 2020, 04:26:36 PM
A couple days ago, I saw this article on Syracuse.com:
New I-690 on-ramp ends need for red light on highway during NY State Fair (https://www.syracuse.com/statefair/2020/09/new-i-690-on-ramp-ends-need-for-red-light-on-highway-during-ny-state-fair.html)

It's kind of disappointing to see the light go since a rare Interstate quirk was so close to me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NYCDOT on September 22, 2020, 06:03:10 PM
At bridge and tunnel crossings, is there any standard as to whether or not a control city is an actual city or the bridge/tunnel name? I'm unsure where to look for info about this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 22, 2020, 07:50:23 PM
The place to find this information is the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (MUTCD) A control city is just that. The next control city along the route. That idea probably works fine in rural areas in the south and west, but not so well in a metroplex like NYC, where bridge and tunnel names might be more helpful in some cases.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on September 24, 2020, 12:33:28 PM
There's a new building proposed in Buffalo that would be built within the NY-5 E/I-190 N on-ramp loop... while I think it's an interesting idea, my gut tells me that there will be opposition from the DOT. Any thoughts?

Also, are there any other examples of projects like this around the US/internationally? I haven't found any.

(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/11/311bb748-fde2-11ea-aa2d-7b276a7d60cf/5f6bbbe518941.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C803)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 24, 2020, 02:30:03 PM
Internationally? Lots. Many countries resisted the urge to do wholesale clearing of neighborhoods for freeways and ramps. There are many underused spaces that could be repurposed for other uses.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mccojm on September 25, 2020, 10:53:21 PM
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.

I’m just a principal engineer technician but I oversee r10 construction ADA compliance and now training for work zone inspection, I’d love to visit the other 10 regions and see how things are done differently.
Wow, I didn't know NYSDOT doesn't allow engineer's travel. How far can you go from the office without facing penalties - 10 miles? or less?

My post may have been misleading, engineers definitively travel to other regions especially for state wide meetings and seminars. I’m not high up enough in engineer chain of command or level of importance to go on these work related trips. Essentially my title doesn’t warrant needing to visit other regions, my supervisor may go though. Most intrastate travel has been limited to zoom/ webinar meetings to avoid covid infections this year as well. As far as penalty goes, there’s really no penalty but you better have good reason to travel to other regions. I know upstate the regions are rather large and can take a few hours to traverse compared to r10 of just Nassau and Suffolk. Being from region 10, we really don’t ever have a reason to venture outside of Nassau/ Suffolk except on short spurts of GCP, Belt Pkwy, 495 and few state routes just over the queens border to travel to other locations in Nassau. In my 7.5 years with R10, I’ve only ventured out of R10 once last April to r8 Hawthorne TMC for inspector training (all “new”  construction hires from r8,10,11 went to this).My coverage area is all DOT roads from queens/ Nassau border to the East end forks of orient and montauk. In R10, Most people are restricted to the main office building in hauppauge or if In field such as construction or maintenance, they’re limited to the construction contract they’re assigned to or maintenance residency they work out of and the roads they cover; it may be different in the other regions of upstate though.

Thing is, most people on this forum don't see a 100-200 mile trip as something unusual. It is nice when your employer pays for the mileage, but pretty often it is just a fun ride. Looking at road features as you drive by is just another fun part.


On the same token.. .Last weekend I passed a maintenance area on a Thruway,  just south of Albany (exit 22 or so). There were two green signs prepared for installation: "TAP New York"  What those are about??   

Sounds to me like they’re  old tapan zee bridge signs in storage  after they were removed
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 26, 2020, 09:42:48 AM
There's a new building proposed in Buffalo that would be built within the NY-5 E/I-190 N on-ramp loop... while I think it's an interesting idea, my gut tells me that there will be opposition from the DOT. Any thoughts?

Also, are there any other examples of projects like this around the US/internationally? I haven't found any.

(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/11/311bb748-fde2-11ea-aa2d-7b276a7d60cf/5f6bbbe518941.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C803)
I think it's not a smart idea (parking?)  Makes me think of the cloverleafs in MA that are horrifically expensive to upgrade, partially due to the fact development goes right up to the ramps.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 26, 2020, 11:13:47 AM
There's a new building proposed in Buffalo that would be built within the NY-5 E/I-190 N on-ramp loop... while I think it's an interesting idea, my gut tells me that there will be opposition from the DOT. Any thoughts?

Also, are there any other examples of projects like this around the US/internationally? I haven't found any.

(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/11/311bb748-fde2-11ea-aa2d-7b276a7d60cf/5f6bbbe518941.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C803)
I think it's not a smart idea (parking?)  Makes me think of the cloverleafs in MA that are horrifically expensive to upgrade, partially due to the fact development goes right up to the ramps.
I can think of a walkway from the parking/transit going under the ramp. Cheaper than a driveway (but deliveries...)
Reconstructions would be interesting, though, thats a good point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on September 26, 2020, 02:27:07 PM
Based on https://www.buffalorising.com/2020/09/big-reveal-douglas-planning-residential-building/ the levels below the onramp will be parking, residential levels are even with the "grass" in the image.

The city owns the lot - would DOT have to approve?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 26, 2020, 02:46:21 PM
Based on https://www.buffalorising.com/2020/09/big-reveal-douglas-planning-residential-building/ the levels below the onramp will be parking, residential levels are even with the "grass" in the image.

The city owns the lot - would DOT have to approve?
Even getting access to a lot within a loop would be a challenge, especially if you need a ramp down to parking.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr. Matté on September 26, 2020, 04:01:29 PM
Based on https://www.buffalorising.com/2020/09/big-reveal-douglas-planning-residential-building/ the levels below the onramp will be parking, residential levels are even with the "grass" in the image.

The city owns the lot - would DOT have to approve?
Even getting access to a lot within a loop would be a challenge, especially if you need a ramp down to parking.

There's existing streets below the (elevated) loop ramp already. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8803355,-78.8781033,195m/data=!3m1!1e3)

Checking that area (road edge below/road edge above, obviously not taking into account for any sidewalks or building setbacks), it's about 1.1 acres of land on which a building can be constructed. It can probably be done, where there's a will and a politically-connected contractor, there's a way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 26, 2020, 04:17:30 PM
One would ask "why?" to building inside of a loop ramp in the area. Its Buffalo, not Manhattan, and land isn't in short supply there. There is literally a SEA of parking lots in the immediate vicinity that could be redeveloped into high density mixed use development.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on September 26, 2020, 04:57:17 PM
literally a SEA of parking lots

A literal sea of parking lots would hold boats, not cars.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: odditude on September 27, 2020, 05:51:44 PM
literally a SEA of parking lots

A literal sea of parking lots would hold boats, not cars.

they look like cars to me... (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Seattle-Tacoma+International+Airport/@47.4534289,-122.2998028,134m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490435542eafefd:0x99d3d9c4c7dc37b7!8m2!3d47.4502499!4d-122.3088165)   :awesomeface:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 28, 2020, 10:29:49 AM
literally a SEA of parking lots
A literal sea of parking lots would hold boats, not cars.
they look like cars to me... (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Seattle-Tacoma+International+Airport/@47.4534289,-122.2998028,134m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490435542eafefd:0x99d3d9c4c7dc37b7!8m2!3d47.4502499!4d-122.3088165)   :awesomeface:

Very well played! :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 28, 2020, 10:54:56 AM
Is there a reason why roads flanking the I-88 corridor (including ramps on I-88) have yield signs in lieu of stop signs? Traffic counts are probably lower since nearly every junction off of I-88 are rural, but this is something that's not replicated in other areas of the state. (IMO, yield signs are underappreciated.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 28, 2020, 08:10:35 PM
Is there a reason why roads flanking the I-88 corridor (including ramps on I-88) have yield signs in lieu of stop signs? Traffic counts are probably lower since nearly every junction off of I-88 are rural, but this is something that's not replicated in other areas of the state. (IMO, yield signs are underappreciated.)

Good sightlines. NYSDOT will occasionally post yield signs where sightlines are good, particularly in the western part of the state. That being said, sightlines in this state are rarely good enough to meet the Green Book standard for posting a yield sign over a stop sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dkblake on September 28, 2020, 10:32:17 PM
Driving question: I'm driving a cargo van from near Burlington-area to near Buffalo and back later this week- I lived in upstate NY for 7-8 years but never went that particular corridor. Maps are either suggesting taking 8 to 365 to the Thruway or 67 from Malta to Amsterdam.  Anyone have experience with either? I'm thinking about driving 8/365 one way and 67 the other, but not sure if 8 is relatively straight/flat like Route 12 or curvy like, say, Route 3 (which would be not super appealing in a cargo van).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 28, 2020, 11:05:53 PM
Driving question: I'm driving a cargo van from near Burlington-area to near Buffalo and back later this week- I lived in upstate NY for 7-8 years but never went that particular corridor. Maps are either suggesting taking 8 to 365 to the Thruway or 67 from Malta to Amsterdam.  Anyone have experience with either? I'm thinking about driving 8/365 one way and 67 the other, but not sure if 8 is relatively straight/flat like Route 12 or curvy like, say, Route 3 (which would be not super appealing in a cargo van).

You came to the right place!

I've actually done both routes. NY 8 is not a bad road, definitely not as straight/flat as NY 12, but not as curvy as NY 3 either. It's the more scenic route by far, especially now that we're heading into leaf changing season, but it's going to be slower going and not as much opportunity to make up time. NY 67, on the other hand, is quite a nice road outside of Amsterdam, making it the preferred shortcut between I-87 and I-90. I've also taken NY 29 to NY 30A, but once was enough for that route. I'd vastly prefer NY 67: It's shorter, higher-quality road, fewer slowdowns, and fewer trucks. Just make sure to use Malta Ave/US 9 to connect to/from I-87.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on September 28, 2020, 11:33:49 PM
Driving question: I'm driving a cargo van from near Burlington-area to near Buffalo and back later this week- I lived in upstate NY for 7-8 years but never went that particular corridor. Maps are either suggesting taking 8 to 365 to the Thruway or 67 from Malta to Amsterdam.  Anyone have experience with either? I'm thinking about driving 8/365 one way and 67 the other, but not sure if 8 is relatively straight/flat like Route 12 or curvy like, say, Route 3 (which would be not super appealing in a cargo van).

You came to the right place!

I've actually done both routes. NY 8 is not a bad road, definitely not as straight/flat as NY 12, but not as curvy as NY 3 either. It's the more scenic route by far, especially now that we're heading into leaf changing season, but it's going to be slower going and not as much opportunity to make up time. NY 67, on the other hand, is quite a nice road outside of Amsterdam, making it the preferred shortcut between I-87 and I-90. I've also taken NY 29 to NY 30A, but once was enough for that route. I'd vastly prefer NY 67: It's shorter, higher-quality road, fewer slowdowns, and fewer trucks. Just make sure to use Malta Ave/US 9 to connect to/from I-87.
My mother grew up in Ballston Spa which you will pass through using 67 so 67 has always been my go-to route between the Northway and the Thruway and I know all the roads. With a car, I’d go I-87 to Exit 13, north on US 9 to Old Post Road and then west until it ends at Malta Ave. (with the van, south on US 9 to Malta Ave. will be better but slightly longer). Reaching Ballston Spa, left on Hyde Blvd. to East High Street, then right (and past the house my mother grew up in). East High St. then becomes NY 67 as you reach the middle of Ballston Spa. 67 will become a little curvy approaching Amsterdam and Amsterdam is always a pain to get through but it’s a good way to go.


iPad
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 02, 2020, 01:15:30 AM
There's a new building proposed in Buffalo that would be built within the NY-5 E/I-190 N on-ramp loop... while I think it's an interesting idea, my gut tells me that there will be opposition from the DOT. Any thoughts?

Also, are there any other examples of projects like this around the US/internationally? I haven't found any.

(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/11/311bb748-fde2-11ea-aa2d-7b276a7d60cf/5f6bbbe518941.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C803)
Remember the CHP station in the middle of a loop ramp in "CHiPs?"

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 02, 2020, 06:24:16 PM
New topic; Does this diner along NY 28 still exist, and where is/was it?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Diner,_side_view,_Route_28,_north_of_Kingston,_New_York_LOC_37881532995.jpg

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 02, 2020, 08:13:34 PM
There's a new building proposed in Buffalo that would be built within the NY-5 E/I-190 N on-ramp loop... while I think it's an interesting idea, my gut tells me that there will be opposition from the DOT. Any thoughts?

Also, are there any other examples of projects like this around the US/internationally? I haven't found any.

(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/11/311bb748-fde2-11ea-aa2d-7b276a7d60cf/5f6bbbe518941.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C803)
Remember the CHP station in the middle of a loop ramp in "CHiPs?"



That was a real CHP Station. I saw it myself on a visit to Los Angeles in 1984. It's at the interchange of the I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) and I-110 (Harbor Fwy) in the Downtown area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 02, 2020, 08:20:54 PM
That was a real CHP Station. I saw it myself on a visit to Los Angeles in 1984. It's at the interchange of the I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) and I-110 (Harbor Fwy) in the Downtown area.
That's the one. I forgot the location, but I knew it was real. There's no way that's a safe arrangement.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 02, 2020, 11:07:48 PM
That was a real CHP Station. I saw it myself on a visit to Los Angeles in 1984. It's at the interchange of the I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) and I-110 (Harbor Fwy) in the Downtown area.
That's the one. I forgot the location, but I knew it was real. There's no way that's a safe arrangement.


Speaking of real police stations: https://goo.gl/maps/ncCs1vYa5HeSCx4h7
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on October 03, 2020, 02:56:00 AM
That was a real CHP Station. I saw it myself on a visit to Los Angeles in 1984. It's at the interchange of the I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) and I-110 (Harbor Fwy) in the Downtown area.
That's the one. I forgot the location, but I knew it was real. There's no way that's a safe arrangement.

Speaking of real police stations: https://goo.gl/maps/ncCs1vYa5HeSCx4h7

And speaking of real police stations inside freeway cloverleafs and Buffalo:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9350668,-78.7677445,3a,75y,172.84h,92.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv0rcGql8uGXgICFAAUcr-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 03, 2020, 07:43:37 PM
That was a real CHP Station. I saw it myself on a visit to Los Angeles in 1984. It's at the interchange of the I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) and I-110 (Harbor Fwy) in the Downtown area.
That's the one. I forgot the location, but I knew it was real. There's no way that's a safe arrangement.



Why is that not a safe arrangement? Seems to me it's good use of the space.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: STLmapboy on October 03, 2020, 08:01:51 PM
That was a real CHP Station. I saw it myself on a visit to Los Angeles in 1984. It's at the interchange of the I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) and I-110 (Harbor Fwy) in the Downtown area.
That's the one. I forgot the location, but I knew it was real. There's no way that's a safe arrangement.



Why is that not a safe arrangement? Seems to me it's good use of the space.
Yeah. Unlike the Buffalo example (which admittedly has lower traffic), the access isn't at grade with the ramps. The CHP building is fairly nice, with a low profile and decent parking, not clinging to the ramp's edge as a multi-story building like the proposed Buffalo example.

Anyway, I had a completely different question. I've noticed that New York signs tend to have rounded edges (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6663625,-73.7906773,3a,47.7y,265.69h,100.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srwKNBEJKZHBVPqus2t32FQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/), compared to Missouri's sharper edges (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2006307,-90.4029556,3a,17.2y,156.12h,99.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLsMtqzr_3CR94ixIsj4rfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/). I could never quite pin down why NY signs looked different until I looked closer at the sides. It appears Florida (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5212451,-80.0725307,3a,24.1y,26.9h,100.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZhYEe9bIdGFgobSI-vmIOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) does the same thing; I don't know of any more states that do this. Is there any particular reason or just an NYSDOT specification?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 03, 2020, 08:06:14 PM
The MUTCD specifies rounded corners. It allows the corners to either be actually rounded like NY does, or the sign can be square cornered with a rounded sign face like many states do.

There are also two types of sign construction. The square cornered signs are usually extruded design. The actual rounded signs are usually a flat sheet of metal (aluminum maybe) with stiffeners added to the back to make it more wind resistant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 03, 2020, 10:17:18 PM
The MUTCD specifies rounded corners. It allows the corners to either be actually rounded like NY does, or the sign can be square cornered with a rounded sign face like many states do.

There are also two types of sign construction. The square cornered signs are usually extruded design. The actual rounded signs are usually a flat sheet of metal (aluminum maybe) with stiffeners added to the back to make it more wind resistant.

I believe Virginia and North Carolina use physically rounded corners as well. New York did this for worker safety, I think in the 1950s or 60s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: yakra on October 04, 2020, 01:54:44 PM
Is the mileage-based renumbering of I84 complete now? It was mostly done as of January; I'm looking to confirm that 2->4 and 3->15 have happened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 04, 2020, 08:45:06 PM
Is the mileage-based renumbering of I84 complete now? It was mostly done as of January; I'm looking to confirm that 2->4 and 3->15 have happened.
roadwaywiz did a livestream recently that included I-84.  3->15 was done and I think 2->4 was as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dkblake on October 06, 2020, 10:56:28 AM
Driving question: I'm driving a cargo van from near Burlington-area to near Buffalo and back later this week- I lived in upstate NY for 7-8 years but never went that particular corridor. Maps are either suggesting taking 8 to 365 to the Thruway or 67 from Malta to Amsterdam.  Anyone have experience with either? I'm thinking about driving 8/365 one way and 67 the other, but not sure if 8 is relatively straight/flat like Route 12 or curvy like, say, Route 3 (which would be not super appealing in a cargo van).

You came to the right place!

I've actually done both routes. NY 8 is not a bad road, definitely not as straight/flat as NY 12, but not as curvy as NY 3 either. It's the more scenic route by far, especially now that we're heading into leaf changing season, but it's going to be slower going and not as much opportunity to make up time. NY 67, on the other hand, is quite a nice road outside of Amsterdam, making it the preferred shortcut between I-87 and I-90. I've also taken NY 29 to NY 30A, but once was enough for that route. I'd vastly prefer NY 67: It's shorter, higher-quality road, fewer slowdowns, and fewer trucks. Just make sure to use Malta Ave/US 9 to connect to/from I-87.
My mother grew up in Ballston Spa which you will pass through using 67 so 67 has always been my go-to route between the Northway and the Thruway and I know all the roads. With a car, I’d go I-87 to Exit 13, north on US 9 to Old Post Road and then west until it ends at Malta Ave. (with the van, south on US 9 to Malta Ave. will be better but slightly longer). Reaching Ballston Spa, left on Hyde Blvd. to East High Street, then right (and past the house my mother grew up in). East High St. then becomes NY 67 as you reach the middle of Ballston Spa. 67 will become a little curvy approaching Amsterdam and Amsterdam is always a pain to get through but it’s a good way to go.


iPad

This worked great- thanks!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on October 07, 2020, 11:05:29 PM
The MUTCD specifies rounded corners. It allows the corners to either be actually rounded like NY does, or the sign can be square cornered with a rounded sign face like many states do.

There are also two types of sign construction. The square cornered signs are usually extruded design. The actual rounded signs are usually a flat sheet of metal (aluminum maybe) with stiffeners added to the back to make it more wind resistant.

I believe Virginia and North Carolina use physically rounded corners as well. New York did this for worker safety, I think in the 1950s or 60s.

NC does use physically rounded corners as you stated. I believe VA used to, but I believe newer installs are using extruded metal which means squared corners with rounded borders. DE also used to use rounded signs, but has also moved towards extruded metal so squared corners with rounded borders.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 08, 2020, 08:12:30 PM
Does anyone know why the extruded design is becoming more popular? It is definitely more crude looking. You can sometimes see the horizontal lines right thru the sign face. New York DOT's signs look much better with their flat sheet metal and physically rounded corners.

Maybe Alps could shed some light?   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 08, 2020, 10:54:35 PM
Does anyone know why the extruded design is becoming more popular? It is definitely more crude looking. You can sometimes see the horizontal lines right thru the sign face. New York DOT's signs look much better with their flat sheet metal and physically rounded corners.

Maybe Alps could shed some light?   
What did I ever do to you?
I don't have a great answer here. Different agencies have different preferences based on cost, durability, their specs, their sign supports, and what they're comfortable with.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on October 09, 2020, 06:47:37 PM
I noticed on Ocean Parkway (the long island one, not the brooklyn one) the wooden lightposts seem to be all gone in the section between the Meadowbrook/Bay Parkway interchange and the traffic circle with Wantagh Parkway and there is none all the way towards the far eastern section where they added new retro wooden ones near the Robert Moses Exit.

Were they all knocked down by a hurricane, or was this a conscious decision by the NYSDOT to pull em out?

Also how come the Wantagh parkway south of Merrick Road didnt get retro wooden lights? I remember a long while ago they used to have the oldest style ones, they were in the median.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 09, 2020, 08:42:41 PM
Does anyone know why the extruded design is becoming more popular? It is definitely more crude looking. You can sometimes see the horizontal lines right thru the sign face. New York DOT's signs look much better with their flat sheet metal and physically rounded corners.

Maybe Alps could shed some light?   
What did I ever do to you?
I don't have a great answer here. Different agencies have different preferences based on cost, durability, their specs, their sign supports, and what they're comfortable with.

LOL Nothing personal Alps. But since you're from a state that uses the extruded signs and you're usually knowledgable about this stuff, I thought you might be able to fill us in on the reasons to use one type of construction over the other. Didn't mean to put you on the spot.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 14, 2020, 12:52:14 PM
Alternative concepts for the US 44/NY 55 and US 9 interchange have been posted: https://www.poughkeepsie94455.com/virtual-meeting
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 14, 2020, 03:39:40 PM
Alternative concepts for the US 44/NY 55 and US 9 interchange have been posted: https://www.poughkeepsie94455.com/virtual-meeting

Wow, they're all just so funky.

The flyover seems like it would be the easiest to adapt to. They basically function like the current configuration, except that the U-turn movements are moved away from the thru lanes, which is the biggest drawback with what's there now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 14, 2020, 08:32:24 PM
I wouldn't say it moves the turn movements away from the thru lanes so much as it moves the thru lanes away from the turn movements.  That said, the flyover also appears to be the concept the MPO likes the least, judging by the article I read.  Among other things, one thing they don't like about it is that it "wouldn't slow down traffic on US 9".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on October 14, 2020, 08:54:37 PM
Concept B to me looks the best, however it's probably the most expensive :bigass: 

Also seems like Concept B will take a single house, I might be wrong
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 14, 2020, 10:50:04 PM
Concept B to me looks the best, however it's probably the most expensive :bigass: 

Also seems like Concept B will take a single house, I might be wrong
I like B because it's the weirdest. C just seems too contrived.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on October 14, 2020, 11:05:06 PM
Concept B to me looks the best, however it's probably the most expensive :bigass: 

Also seems like Concept B will take a single house, I might be wrong
I like B because it's the weirdest. C just seems too contrived.

B looks like a freeway, the others just look weird
Title: Re: New York
Post by: epzik8 on October 15, 2020, 07:09:17 AM
What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.
(https://i.imgur.com/xxoQylh.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on October 15, 2020, 11:15:57 AM
What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.

What US route in New York hasn't been "demoted"?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 15, 2020, 11:18:30 AM
What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.

What US route in New York hasn't been "demoted"?
220?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 15, 2020, 12:57:40 PM
Concept B to me looks the best, however it's probably the most expensive :bigass: 

Also seems like Concept B will take a single house, I might be wrong
More expensive than building a viaduct over the entire interchange?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 15, 2020, 02:09:24 PM
Concept B to me looks the best, however it's probably the most expensive :bigass: 

Also seems like Concept B will take a single house, I might be wrong
More expensive than building a viaduct over the entire interchange?

The only thing D does is build that viaduct, which is almost certainly cheaper and quicker than several new bridges, new interchanges, and a realignment.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on October 15, 2020, 07:02:41 PM
These concepts are all so... funky. Is there a reason for keeping the freeway along the north-south arterial versus converting it into say, a 45 MPH boulevard? Weren't those full freeway plans aborted?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 15, 2020, 09:19:06 PM
These concepts are all so... funky. Is there a reason for keeping the freeway along the north-south arterial versus converting it into say, a 45 MPH boulevard? Weren't those full freeway plans aborted?
Traffic volumes could merit it, and perhaps there are enough parallel corridors better suited for multi-modal use such that this doesn't need it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 17, 2020, 02:33:32 AM
I wouldn't say it moves the turn movements away from the thru lanes so much as it moves the thru lanes away from the turn movements.

It separates them, is all I'm saying. I'm not referring to physical location.

Quote
That said, the flyover also appears to be the concept the MPO likes the least, judging by the article I read.  Among other things, one thing they don't like about it is that it "wouldn't slow down traffic on US 9".

Traffic is already pretty slow through there, in my experience–certainly more so than stretches to the south and north, at least relative to the speed limit. Though that is in no small part due to the interchange itself.

These concepts are all so... funky. Is there a reason for keeping the freeway along the north-south arterial versus converting it into say, a 45 MPH boulevard? Weren't those full freeway plans aborted?

For that matter, I wonder they didn't consider just eliminating the non-bridge movements altogether, given the proximity of other connections to the local streets. Traffic bound to and from the town has several other possible exits nearby; I always use one of them instead. Sure, you could say that traffic needing to use the E-W arterial (i.e., commercial traffic) needs also to have ramp connections that don't go through local streets, but that arterial is a problem concept to begin with, and such traffic in many cases probably ought to be routed somewhere else in the first place.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 19, 2020, 01:15:57 PM
Why is that not a safe arrangement? Seems to me it's good use of the space.
Well, you've got cops coming in and out of a tight area right next to the loop off-ramp. It's a weaving hazard. However as Mr. Matte pointed out in an earlier post...

There's existing streets below the (elevated) loop ramp already. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8803355,-78.8781033,195m/data=!3m1!1e3)
So perhaps there is a difference between this and the CHP station between the Santa Monica and Harbor Freeways.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: epzik8 on October 19, 2020, 04:46:32 PM
What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.

What US route in New York hasn't been "demoted"?
220?
I don't think 220 actually makes it into New York state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 20, 2020, 12:45:03 AM
What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.

What US route in New York hasn't been "demoted"?
220?
I don't think 220 actually makes it into New York state.
It used to, until quite recently, end at old 17 just inside the border. No shields = no errors.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 20, 2020, 11:02:55 AM
What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.

What US route in New York hasn't been "demoted"?
220?
I don't think 220 actually makes it into New York state.
It used to, until quite recently, end at old 17 just inside the border. No shields = no errors.

What happened quite recently?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on October 20, 2020, 12:07:13 PM
What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.

What US route in New York hasn't been "demoted"?
220?
I don't think 220 actually makes it into New York state.
It used to, until quite recently, end at old 17 just inside the border. No shields = no errors.

What happened quite recently?

US 220 was formally truncated to end at I-86/NY 17 instead of Chemung St.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 20, 2020, 04:03:32 PM
What happened quite recently?

US 220 was formally truncated to end at I-86/NY 17 instead of Chemung St.

Huh, I'll be darned. I just located the relevant AASHTO (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20-%20Minutes%20SM-2017.pdf) petition. Clearly, gone are the day when this was the sort of thing I was scrupulously on top of. :-D

What's ironic is that this petition is probably the most definitive evidence I've ever seen the US 220 did, in fact, extend into New York after the STE was built. It sounds like NYSDOT always assumed it to be truncated, but that "somehow,
the paperwork was never completed years ago"–and so that little anomaly came to be.

Only thing I don't get, the petition says that NY 17C was rescinded "about ten years ago", which would be 2007. But surely 17C was taken off of Chemung Street rather longer ago than that, and certainly it hasn't been rescinded elsewhere?

(Oh, and I'm assuming there's no actual change to the route within Pennsylvania. The document refers ambiguously to the state line and the junction of I-86/NY 17, but if there's any meaningful difference between the two, it's one of mere feet.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on October 20, 2020, 04:59:51 PM
Only thing I don't get, the petition says that NY 17C was rescinded "about ten years ago", which would be 2007. But surely 17C was taken off of Chemung Street rather longer ago than that, and certainly it hasn't been rescinded elsewhere?

Agreed.  I lived in the area from 1993-2007 and I don't ever recall seeing Chemung St. signed as NY 17C west of NY 34 during that time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 21, 2020, 10:23:33 AM
Agreed.  I lived in the area from 1993-2007 and I don't ever recall seeing Chemung St. signed as NY 17C west of NY 34 during that time.

Maybe it was a similar thing, where NYSDOT considered it to have happened, but never filled out the "paperwork", so while the signage was all removed, it was never formalized until 2007?

Or, more likely, the information in this document just isn't all that precise…
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 01, 2020, 05:05:15 PM
I was just looking forward to my first trip around the Storm King Highway in a few years, and the gates are closed at both ends. There are signs posted well ahead of each of the closures, which makes me wonder if this is long-term. Is this some kind of new normal.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201101/a8f7780cb30d2aee15ba4b47fb99ae90.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 01, 2020, 05:12:27 PM
I was just looking forward to my first trip around the Storm King Highway in a few years, and the gates are closed at both ends. There are signs posted well ahead of each of the closures, which makes me wonder if this is long-term. Is this some kind of new normal.

Storm King Highway is not plowed or salted in the winter. Whenever there is a forecast for snow/ice (such as there was on Friday and is for early this week), the road is gated off. Unless there's a decent amount of rockfall, I expect it to be back open by next weekend.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 01, 2020, 05:16:09 PM
I was just looking forward to my first trip around the Storm King Highway in a few years, and the gates are closed at both ends. There are signs posted well ahead of each of the closures, which makes me wonder if this is long-term. Is this some kind of new normal.

Storm King Highway is not plowed or salted in the winter. Whenever there is a forecast for snow/ice (such as there was on Friday and is for early this week), the road is gated off. Unless there's a decent amount of rockfall, I expect it to be back open by next weekend.
You can still walk it.  It is not that far to the overlook.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 01, 2020, 07:14:40 PM
I was just looking forward to my first trip around the Storm King Highway in a few years, and the gates are closed at both ends. There are signs posted well ahead of each of the closures, which makes me wonder if this is long-term. Is this some kind of new normal.

Storm King Highway is not plowed or salted in the winter. Whenever there is a forecast for snow/ice (such as there was on Friday and is for early this week), the road is gated off. Unless there's a decent amount of rockfall, I expect it to be back open by next weekend.
You can still walk it.  It is not that far to the overlook.

I didn’t really have time, plus it was pouring off and on this afternoon/evening. And the dude at the West Point/US Mint security gate was already looking mr over.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 02, 2020, 09:24:55 AM
I always thought that would be the kind of road that gets closed off for military activities from West Point as well.

On another topic, I just found out that the road along the Lake George Battlefield State Park used to have Robert Moses-style wooden lampposts.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lake_George_Battlefield_State_Park_sign.jpg

Those lampposts don't exist anymore, but there's an erroneous NY (US) 9 sign at the recently built roundabout there. 
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4177318,-73.7050069,3a,75y,310.49h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfzsqPm81rtk1VDQaPu2EFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4177318,-73.7050069,3a,75y,310.49h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfzsqPm81rtk1VDQaPu2EFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

And I see I just brought this thread up to 199 pages.

 :sombrero:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Stephane Dumas on November 02, 2020, 10:02:58 AM

Those lampposts don't exist anymore, but there's an erroneous NY (US) 9 sign at the recently built roundabout there. 
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4177318,-73.7050069,3a,75y,310.49h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfzsqPm81rtk1VDQaPu2EFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4177318,-73.7050069,3a,75y,310.49h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfzsqPm81rtk1VDQaPu2EFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

And I see I just brought this thread up to 199 pages.

 :sombrero:

Sad to see these lamposts gone. Btw, is that Quebec autoroute sign is still there? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4346126,-73.7165343,3a,15y,339.36h,89.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK5eZivHtKbt8KxjV3i5XmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 02, 2020, 10:27:36 AM
Sad to see these lamposts gone. Btw, is that Quebec autoroute sign is still there? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4346126,-73.7165343,3a,15y,339.36h,89.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK5eZivHtKbt8KxjV3i5XmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

No idea. You'll have to ask somebody who was actually there. And while you're at it, ask them about this mysterious loop just south of the on-ramp.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4344636,-73.7162659,3a,75y,11.37h,85.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMbP1L6s5yExvRB9yHL78nQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en


Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 02, 2020, 11:49:00 AM
The Autoroute signs were there as of a few months ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 02, 2020, 07:47:51 PM
I always thought that would be the kind of road that gets closed off for military activities from West Point as well.

Not that I've seen; it's NY 293 that passes through the "business end" of West Point, as far as intensive military exercises are concerned anyway. (Summer training at Camp Buckner, for example.) I don't know how often that gets shut down either, but I'm sure DoD reserves the right.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 02, 2020, 08:27:52 PM
Sad to see these lamposts gone. Btw, is that Quebec autoroute sign is still there? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4346126,-73.7165343,3a,15y,339.36h,89.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK5eZivHtKbt8KxjV3i5XmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

No idea. You'll have to ask somebody who was actually there. And while you're at it, ask them about this mysterious loop just south of the on-ramp.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4344636,-73.7162659,3a,75y,11.37h,85.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMbP1L6s5yExvRB9yHL78nQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Looks a little like a Jersey Jughandle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 04, 2020, 12:51:57 AM
Sad to see these lamposts gone. Btw, is that Quebec autoroute sign is still there? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4346126,-73.7165343,3a,15y,339.36h,89.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK5eZivHtKbt8KxjV3i5XmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

No idea. You'll have to ask somebody who was actually there. And while you're at it, ask them about this mysterious loop just south of the on-ramp.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4344636,-73.7162659,3a,75y,11.37h,85.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMbP1L6s5yExvRB9yHL78nQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Maybe a turnaround for a bus route or snowplows?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on November 05, 2020, 09:31:31 AM
acording to the NYSDOT website there is a project which will add a aux lane to eastbound longisland expressway from the clearview expressway to franny lewis blvd this project is scheduled to start fall of next year and take 2 years and wrap up in 2023 here is a link to the project do u think this project will help the traffic on lie east or is it a waste because the existing acell lanes from clearview are from 200-500ft long not adequate for the high volume of traffic that gets on lie at this interchange https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X22869 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X22869)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 05, 2020, 03:29:01 PM
acording to the NYSDOT website there is a project which will add a aux lane to eastbound longisland expressway from the clearview expressway to franny lewis blvd this project is scheduled to start fall of next year and take 2 years and wrap up in 2023 here is a link to the project do u think this project will help the traffic on lie east or is it a waste because the existing acell lanes from clearview are from 200-500ft long not adequate for the high volume of traffic that gets on lie at this interchange https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X22869 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X22869)
Well, they already have auxiliary lanes between Springfield Boulevard and the Cross Island Parkway, so why not? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on November 05, 2020, 05:15:12 PM
Also a new auxiliary lane on the Staten Island Expressway between MLK JR. EXPWY and South Avenue.


https://www.silive.com/news/2020/10/new-auxiliary-lane-coming-to-westbound-staten-island-expressway.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on November 09, 2020, 09:34:44 AM
Also a new auxiliary lane on the Staten Island Expressway between MLK JR. EXPWY and South Avenue.


https://www.silive.com/news/2020/10/new-auxiliary-lane-coming-to-westbound-staten-island-expressway.html
what did they forget the cluster fu*k on the east bound side on how the left lane merges and a half mile later that 4th lane comes back just extend that 4th lane and connect to existing hov  :angry:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on November 09, 2020, 10:28:12 AM
a traffic study was released by trip stating that traffic on longisland is getting worse and isnt stoping any time soon and states the Southern state parkway sees 210,000 vehicles a day and the most congested is from cip to 5th avenue if this is the case why dont they widen ssp its not like there isnt room for it the bridges would obvi have to be replaced but its not like NYS DOT hasnt done a project like this before i mean they did it on the LIE rplacing most bridges why dont they do it here and if there is plans thats are in the works what are they or do u see a project like a reconstruction project happening in the future heres a link to the study https://tripnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TRIP_Keeping_Long_Island_Mobile_Report_September_2020.pdf (https://tripnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TRIP_Keeping_Long_Island_Mobile_Report_September_2020.pdf)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 09, 2020, 10:43:06 AM
Sad to see these lamposts gone. Btw, is that Quebec autoroute sign is still there? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4346126,-73.7165343,3a,15y,339.36h,89.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK5eZivHtKbt8KxjV3i5XmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

No idea. You'll have to ask somebody who was actually there. And while you're at it, ask them about this mysterious loop just south of the on-ramp.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4344636,-73.7162659,3a,75y,11.37h,85.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMbP1L6s5yExvRB9yHL78nQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Maybe a turnaround for a bus route or snowplows?

Looks like just a normal NYSDOT parking area.

Some older GSV images show a stormwater permit mailbox at the site; perhaps it was a construction staging area that was converted to, or had already been, a parking area?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 10, 2020, 06:14:23 PM
The lovely button copy on Westchester Ave in Harrison has all been replaced, ecept for the button copy on the I-287 mainline.

Gone:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50139120666_703563e1fa_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2joC6KG)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 11, 2020, 08:46:41 AM
I was just looking forward to my first trip around the Storm King Highway in a few years, and the gates are closed at both ends. There are signs posted well ahead of each of the closures, which makes me wonder if this is long-term. Is this some kind of new normal.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201101/a8f7780cb30d2aee15ba4b47fb99ae90.jpg)
IIRC a lot of those little connector roads there were closed due to COVID.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on November 12, 2020, 02:44:33 PM
I was just looking forward to my first trip around the Storm King Highway in a few years, and the gates are closed at both ends. There are signs posted well ahead of each of the closures, which makes me wonder if this is long-term. Is this some kind of new normal.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201101/a8f7780cb30d2aee15ba4b47fb99ae90.jpg)
IIRC a lot of those little connector roads there were closed due to COVID.

I drove up Storm King Highway for the first time in a while myself, looking for foliage. This was about 3 weeks ago. There is a new 35 mph speed limit (well, new as of 1-2 years ago) which is fine. This was an unposted 55 mph zone before but it's a narrow winding road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 12, 2020, 04:22:07 PM
I drove up Storm King Highway for the first time in a while myself, looking for foliage. This was about 3 weeks ago. There is a new 35 mph speed limit (well, new as of 1-2 years ago) which is fine. This was an unposted 55 mph zone before but it's a narrow winding road.

NY setting nanny speed limits, boo. NY used to be one of the best states about setting speed limits based on roadside development, not curves. Lots of 55 zones in rural areas that would be 40s or 45s in most states. But I guess it's starting to fall in line with everyone else. People who know how to drive properly shouldn't be penalized by people who can't (who will probably end up ignoring the speed limit anyways).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 12, 2020, 08:22:17 PM
I drove up Storm King Highway for the first time in a while myself, looking for foliage. This was about 3 weeks ago. There is a new 35 mph speed limit (well, new as of 1-2 years ago) which is fine. This was an unposted 55 mph zone before but it's a narrow winding road.

NY setting nanny speed limits, boo. NY used to be one of the best states about setting speed limits based on roadside development, not curves. Lots of 55 zones in rural areas that would be 40s or 45s in most states. But I guess it's starting to fall in line with everyone else. People who know how to drive properly shouldn't be penalized by people who can't (who will probably end up ignoring the speed limit anyways).
Have you driven on the Storm King Highway?  It's not possible to get up to 55 on that road.  Between the curves, parking areas with pedestrians, cliff on one side, and stone guiderail with a dropoff on the other, trying to go 55 there would be inadvisable.  I don't remember how fast I was able to top out at when I drove the Storm King Highway as it was many years ago, but I do know that it was WAY below 55.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on November 12, 2020, 09:14:43 PM
I drove up Storm King Highway for the first time in a while myself, looking for foliage. This was about 3 weeks ago. There is a new 35 mph speed limit (well, new as of 1-2 years ago) which is fine. This was an unposted 55 mph zone before but it's a narrow winding road.

NY setting nanny speed limits, boo. NY used to be one of the best states about setting speed limits based on roadside development, not curves. Lots of 55 zones in rural areas that would be 40s or 45s in most states. But I guess it's starting to fall in line with everyone else. People who know how to drive properly shouldn't be penalized by people who can't (who will probably end up ignoring the speed limit anyways).
Uh...what?

I've been on the Storm King Highway. Trying to go any faster than 40 is a death sentence into a cliff face, the Hudson River, or trees. 30-35 is definitely fine for the amount of traffic it receives.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 12, 2020, 11:49:21 PM
Storm King Highway is one of the very few cases where I'm okay with nanny limits. Combination of bike/ped traffic, poor sightlines, and people who will use the curves to test out fancy cars is a recipe for trouble.

Indeed, this is one of only a handful of places in the state where limits are reduced for geometry.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 13, 2020, 09:45:14 AM
Speaking of Storm King Hwy, is it still open to the back gate at West Point (from the 9W/218/293 junction), or is that closed too?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 13, 2020, 02:02:11 PM
Speaking of Storm King Hwy, is it still open to the back gate at West Point (from the 9W/218/293 junction), or is that closed too?

that section of Route 218 is always open down to the Washington Gate, except when military exercises are taking place.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 20, 2020, 12:17:19 AM
I've got to go with noelbotevera and cl94 when it comes to the Storm King Highway, even though I've only seen it from US 9W. And this is coming from somebody who likes to drive fast. I may not fly along either segment of NY 218 if I ever go there, but it is a road that's on my bucket list.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ketchup99 on November 27, 2020, 11:44:05 AM
Sounds like a fun road to travel one day. But looking at it on GSV, I can't see what's wrong with it being posted at 55. Yeah, it would probably be stupid to do 55. But it's one of those roads where if you crash, it's going to be off the edge, which is your own problem. It's not really the government's job to protect one from oneself.

Pennsylvania's usually pretty good about this - any roadside development at all and they'll usually drop it to 45, but it can be as twisty as you like and the road stays at 55. If this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6084029,-78.137483,3a,75y,182.62h,90.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW65RNHmI9wVhRvUXL7gemw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) can be 55, so can Storm King.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Revive 755 on November 27, 2020, 12:08:54 PM
Sounds like a fun road to travel one day. But looking at it on GSV, I can't see what's wrong with it being posted at 55. Yeah, it would probably be stupid to do 55. But it's one of those roads where if you crash, it's going to be off the edge, which is your own problem.

Or someone takes the road too fast, crosses over the centerline on a curve, and gets into a sideswipe or head on crash with someone else going the opposite direction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on November 30, 2020, 06:08:37 AM
Regurgitating some bridge photos I took in 2002 and 2005 of the bridge to Haiti Island in Central New York State. As of 2010, the Haiti Island Bridge (also known as the Haiti Road Bridge) was replaced with a concrete slab over a channel of the Seneca River.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/11/old-haiti-island-bridge-conquest-new.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/11/old-haiti-island-bridge-conquest-new.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on November 30, 2020, 10:50:16 AM
...I can't see what's wrong with it being posted at 55. Yeah, it would probably be stupid to do 55....

If it's dangerous and stupid to do the speed limit, the limit may be too high. Believe me, I'm very frustrated by speed limits in New York but this is a rare instance where I am fine with lowering it. It's not going to affect anything and the new limit is very reasonable.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 04, 2020, 02:28:33 AM
...I can't see what's wrong with it being posted at 55. Yeah, it would probably be stupid to do 55....

If it's dangerous and stupid to do the speed limit, the limit may be too high. Believe me, I'm very frustrated by speed limits in New York but this is a rare instance where I am fine with lowering it. It's not going to affect anything and the new limit is very reasonable.

Yeah, the problem is that in this country, people tend to regard speed limits as minimum limits, rather than maximum ones. So if you post something at 55, you have to figure people are going to be thinking 60-65mph as a plan A.

Otherwise, if we were talking about some other countries I've driven in, where driving behavior is governed more by actual road conditions, I'd say ketchup has a point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 04, 2020, 10:44:37 AM
...I can't see what's wrong with it being posted at 55. Yeah, it would probably be stupid to do 55....

If it's dangerous and stupid to do the speed limit, the limit may be too high. Believe me, I'm very frustrated by speed limits in New York but this is a rare instance where I am fine with lowering it. It's not going to affect anything and the new limit is very reasonable.

Yeah, the problem is that in this country, people tend to regard speed limits as minimum limits, rather than maximum ones. So if you post something at 55, you have to figure people are going to be thinking 60-65mph as a plan A.

Otherwise, if we were talking about some other countries I've driven in, where driving behavior is governed more by actual road conditions, I'd say ketchup has a point.

Part of the speed limit = minimum behavior is because municipalities have posted speed limits lower than they should be in an effort to control driver behavior instead of for safety considerations. It's related to the issue of using stop signs as a speed control device instead of a safety device. I've found that New York tends to be the most reasonable of the eastern states when it comes to posting speed limits, outside of the lower than necessary 65 MPH on freeways outside of the New York metro area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 04, 2020, 01:04:44 PM
Yeah, outside of blanket 30 mph limits (regardless of conditions) in municipalities and the low freeway limits, NY does a good job with speed limits for the most part.  As for Storm King, I don't remember getting anywhere close to 55 in the portion that was posted for that when I drove it, so the new limit isn't like, say, NY 17 through Delaware County (where it's 55 because trucks would have to slow to that speed on a couple curves but otherwise would be fine to be posted 65-70), or MA where the speed limit on two lane roads changes every 200 feet because the state got mad the courts wouldn't let them issue tickets for exceeding advisory limits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 05, 2020, 10:22:45 AM
Who here isn't familiar with the Manhasset Valley Viaduct? If you know about it, you also know that Nassau County Department of Public Works would probably laugh in your face if you request low clearance signs anywhere along that bridge.

But I wouldn't.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7926958,-73.7089532,3a,75y,344.01h,83.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIYIWRLZ27R0ldQLtpwVtFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7926958,-73.7089532,3a,75y,344.01h,83.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIYIWRLZ27R0ldQLtpwVtFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)


Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ketchup99 on December 06, 2020, 01:45:59 PM
...I can't see what's wrong with it being posted at 55. Yeah, it would probably be stupid to do 55....

If it's dangerous and stupid to do the speed limit, the limit may be too high. Believe me, I'm very frustrated by speed limits in New York but this is a rare instance where I am fine with lowering it. It's not going to affect anything and the new limit is very reasonable.

Yeah, the problem is that in this country, people tend to regard speed limits as minimum limits, rather than maximum ones. So if you post something at 55, you have to figure people are going to be thinking 60-65mph as a plan A.

Otherwise, if we were talking about some other countries I've driven in, where driving behavior is governed more by actual road conditions, I'd say ketchup has a point.
So what if it's an unposted default 55? On lots of country roads like this, in the absence of a speed limit sign, people will drive 35 when conditions and geometry demand it and 65 when they allow it. The existence of the sign setting a "benchmark speed" seems to in many cases cause problems. An unposted 55 wouldn't encourage people to go through there at 65, but it would give cops an enforcement mechanism if someone was driving like a madman.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 06, 2020, 09:39:04 PM
Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it).  If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).

NY has been moving away from having fully unposted zones, as not everyone knows what "end XX limit" means.  Those are usually followed by "state speed limit 55".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ketchup99 on December 07, 2020, 12:01:23 AM
Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it).  If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).

NY has been moving away from having fully unposted zones, as not everyone knows what "end XX limit" means.  Those are usually followed by "state speed limit 55".
Huh, so out of curiosity, if a state highway (posted at 55 on either side of town) goes through a village (with a village limit of 30), will the state highway be at 30 or 55 barring a study?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 07, 2020, 12:18:41 AM
If they complain enough, the limit drops through their town.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 07, 2020, 01:23:39 AM
Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it).  If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).

NY has been moving away from having fully unposted zones, as not everyone knows what "end XX limit" means.  Those are usually followed by "state speed limit 55".
Huh, so out of curiosity, if a state highway (posted at 55 on either side of town) goes through a village (with a village limit of 30), will the state highway be at 30 or 55 barring a study?
Typically they drop to 30 if the village limit is 30, unless the highway bypasses the downtown (in which case they may be doing a speed study).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on December 07, 2020, 12:45:09 PM
Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it).  If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).

I do really notice it when "Speed Limit 55" is posted instead of "State Speed Limit 55" (NY 8/NY 30 south of Speculator comes to mind).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 07, 2020, 12:58:45 PM
Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it).  If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).

NY has been moving away from having fully unposted zones, as not everyone knows what "end XX limit" means.  Those are usually followed by "state speed limit 55".
Huh, so out of curiosity, if a state highway (posted at 55 on either side of town) goes through a village (with a village limit of 30), will the state highway be at 30 or 55 barring a study?
30.  Think of the speed zones as nested polygons that apply wherever there isn't a linear speed limit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 07, 2020, 01:06:01 PM
The speed study thing is key: along state-maintained roads, any limit that isn't 55 or an area limit of some sort (city, village, town) is the result of a speed study. Village speed limits are not always 30 (I have seen 35, for example), while town limits are all over the place. Towns and counties? Sure, they'll set nanny limits for political reasons, with a few sticking out. If there is a rural limit under 55 on a state highway, you can bet your butt there was a speed study and a very good reason for the low limit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on December 08, 2020, 09:54:32 AM
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the freeway system of New York's Southern Tier region in and around Binghamton, NY. Coverage will begin on Saturday (12/12) at 6 PM ET and will feature live contributions from members of this forum; we hope to see you there!

Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 08, 2020, 08:11:36 PM
So what if it's an unposted default 55? On lots of country roads like this, in the absence of a speed limit sign, people will drive 35 when conditions and geometry demand it and 65 when they allow it.

In that case, yeah, I've noticed that people seem to go at whatever speed they last saw posted, or that they feel comfortable with. I don't think the motoring public universally understands it to mean the underlying default speed now applies. (They probably figure someone forgot to put up signs for what the new limit is.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on December 09, 2020, 01:04:04 PM
So what if it's an unposted default 55? On lots of country roads like this, in the absence of a speed limit sign, people will drive 35 when conditions and geometry demand it and 65 when they allow it.

In that case, yeah, I've noticed that people seem to go at whatever speed they last saw posted, or that they feel comfortable with. I don't think the motoring public universally understands it to mean the underlying default speed now applies. (They probably figure someone forgot to put up signs for what the new limit is.)

In the Hudson Valley, there were several areas off the top of my head where speed limit signs were missing. Thankfully a lot of them were replaced in the last year or two. NY 9D by Breakneck has a regular ol' Speed Limit 55 sign, which always gets my attention in NY lol.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:21 PM
Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it).  If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).

NY has been moving away from having fully unposted zones, as not everyone knows what "end XX limit" means.  Those are usually followed by "state speed limit 55".

The municipal 30 mph zones drive me crazy. I don't know why small municipalities get to set speed limits because they don't know what they're talking about and the "area speed limit 30" thing is so entrenched that any local road, of any design and operation, must be 30. Whenever I've complained about a speed limit on a town road, you'd think I was asking them to legalize drag racing. 40? What is this, the autobahn? If you're on any road that clips a village, expect 30 mph even if it's very unwarranted.

NYSDOT also doesn't review their own limits regularly, so it only changes if the local board asks for it (and the only time this happens is when they want it lowered). So this can prevent new speed traps but also entrenches old ones (for example, they widened US 9 near me 10 years ago and replaced a crosswalk with an underpass. Still posted at 30 and the decision to send it to the DOT comes down to one town councilman whose district the road runs through).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on December 11, 2020, 05:23:09 PM
Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it).  If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).

I do really notice it when "Speed Limit 55" is posted instead of "State Speed Limit 55" (NY 8/NY 30 south of Speculator comes to mind).

I'm so used to seeing "STATE SPEED LIMIT 55" signs that it looks weird to me when I see other states' "SPEED LIMIT 55" signs.  I've only seen one "SPEED LIMIT 55" sign in NY, and that was this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0540885,-76.1201057,3a,15y,210.16h,100.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy5XMOOjJW7f9dibRz3XZIg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), installed as part of the Teall/Beech bridge replacement in Syracuse.



Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it).  If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).

NY has been moving away from having fully unposted zones, as not everyone knows what "end XX limit" means.  Those are usually followed by "state speed limit 55".

The municipal 30 mph zones drive me crazy. I don't know why small municipalities get to set speed limits because they don't know what they're talking about and the "area speed limit 30" thing is so entrenched that any local road, of any design and operation, must be 30. Whenever I've complained about a speed limit on a town road, you'd think I was asking them to legalize drag racing. 40? What is this, the autobahn? If you're on any road that clips a village, expect 30 mph even if it's very unwarranted.

NYSDOT also doesn't review their own limits regularly, so it only changes if the local board asks for it (and the only time this happens is when they want it lowered). So this can prevent new speed traps but also entrenches old ones (for example, they widened US 9 near me 10 years ago and replaced a crosswalk with an underpass. Still posted at 30 and the decision to send it to the DOT comes down to one town councilman whose district the road runs through).

Even as a little kid, I always thought the fact that NY 31 is 35 MPH in Weedsport was weird.  My thought process at the time was "speed limits in cities and villages are supposed to be 30 MPH".  I looked at all the entrances to the village, and only Hamilton St. (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0432282,-76.5726026,3a,15y,117.16h,81.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMi_zvlxBmcB98HlyCjxCWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and East Brutus St. (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0475589,-76.5555178,3a,17y,313.96h,91.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spsJA8gHkruYkZJCNefrzGA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) have "VILLAGE SPEED LIMIT 30" signs.  It's interesting to note that neither of them are on NY 34, the only other state route to enter Weedsport.  The sign on East Brutus St. might be a carbon-copy of the sign that was there when it was NY 31B.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on December 11, 2020, 10:45:35 PM
I do really notice it when "Speed Limit 55" is posted instead of "State Speed Limit 55" (NY 8/NY 30 south of Speculator comes to mind).

Must be a Region 2 thing.  I've lost track of how many "Speed Limit 55" signs are posted around the Utica area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on December 12, 2020, 06:33:49 AM
The Times Herald-Record of Middletown, NY has posted an article on 12/10/2020 with some historic postcard images of the Storm King Highway (modern NY 218).

https://www.recordonline.com/story/news/2020/12/10/now-then-history-storm-king-highway/3807444001/ (https://www.recordonline.com/story/news/2020/12/10/now-then-history-storm-king-highway/3807444001/)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 17, 2020, 09:36:27 AM
I think someone forgot to tell PennDOT (blame myself I guess) that US 220 does not enter New York any more. (https://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=3280)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on December 17, 2020, 10:36:44 AM
Our next installment in the "Virtual Tour" series is scheduled to take place on Saturday (12/19) at 6 PM ET. Come join me and members of the AARoads community as we profile NY Route 17/Interstate 86 across the Catskill region of New York State and discuss the history and features of this highway (also known as the "Quickway") all while enjoying a real-time video trip along the length of the highway between Harriman and Binghamton.

A link to the event location can be found below and we look forward to seeing you in attendance:

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on December 19, 2020, 09:26:13 PM
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the bridges that span the Hudson River, with the primary focus being on the Capital District and Hudson Valley regions of New York State. There are many interesting & historic structures to discuss and we will be dissecting their history and importance as only the folks of the AARoads Forum can! Coverage will begin on Sunday (12/20) at 6 PM ET and will feature live contributions from members of this forum; we hope to see you there!

Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on December 20, 2020, 04:54:55 PM
Going to Port Jervis yesterday, I noticed there's no town line signs in Orange County on I-84.  Vestiges of Thruway control?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 20, 2020, 08:41:04 PM
Going to Port Jervis yesterday, I noticed there's no town line signs in Orange County on I-84.  Vestiges of Thruway control?
That's what I would guess.  No reference markers, either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 20, 2020, 10:01:51 PM
Going to Port Jervis yesterday, I noticed there's no town line signs in Orange County on I-84.  Vestiges of Thruway control?
That's what I would guess.  No reference markers, either.

What gets me is that they didn't install reference markers with the recent sign replacement project. Tenth mile markers were installed, but not reference markers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on December 21, 2020, 05:20:25 AM
Going to Port Jervis yesterday, I noticed there's no town line signs in Orange County on I-84.  Vestiges of Thruway control?
That's what I would guess.  No reference markers, either.

NYSDOT is inconsistent with town line signs in general. Much of I-390 in Livingston County has never had them – even at the Geneseo—Groveland town line, which is within a sign project that happened just a couple of years ago.
On surface roads around here, the state signs are completely random (the towns are more consistent with their tiny notices about zoning laws and building permits).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 22, 2020, 08:24:58 PM
NYSDOT town line signs really depend on the region. Regions 1, 5, and 6 are good with them (3 and 7 may be, not there often enough to remember). Others are not. Region 10 doesn't post them at all, 8 and 9 tend not to.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 24, 2020, 05:28:43 PM
They're very consistent here in Connecticut. The white-on-green is the state standard. The Rocky Hill sign with the town seal is how I wish they'd look. :)
(https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/76/76/w52HuXrr_t.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/w52HuXrr)
(https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/f9/17/0AiBTYwt_t.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/0AiBTYwt)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on December 24, 2020, 06:26:17 PM
NYSDOT town line signs really depend on the region. Regions 1, 5, and 6 are good with them (3 and 7 may be, not there often enough to remember). Others are not. Region 10 doesn't post them at all, 8 and 9 tend not to.

7 is hit or miss. Most town lines are signed, but many only have local and not DOT signage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on December 30, 2020, 09:56:31 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1138228,-74.1617937,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5CS8MsvP_Y2Jfj65kI_kSg!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Is this the new New York Welcome to signs or is this just for the NYS Thruway crossings?

This is awful. I like the old Thruway signs or the usual Welcome signs at state highway entrance points.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on December 30, 2020, 09:58:23 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1138228,-74.1617937,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5CS8MsvP_Y2Jfj65kI_kSg!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Is this the new New York Welcome to signs or is this just for the NYS Thruway crossings?

This is awful. I like the old Thruway signs or the usual Welcome signs at state highway entrance points.

I believe this sign is used on I-84 entering from Connecticut. I hate it too. The NYS tourism signs are a real embarassment.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on December 30, 2020, 11:49:08 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1138228,-74.1617937,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5CS8MsvP_Y2Jfj65kI_kSg!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Is this the new New York Welcome to signs or is this just for the NYS Thruway crossings?

This is awful. I like the old Thruway signs or the usual Welcome signs at state highway entrance points.

I thought these were to supposed to be new welcome signs in general, but I have only seen them on the Interstates.

It certainly could certainly be worse, like on NY 43 at the MA line: http://newyorkroutes.net/images/photos/routes/043/043-02350w1.JPG
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on December 31, 2020, 01:08:56 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1138228,-74.1617937,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5CS8MsvP_Y2Jfj65kI_kSg!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Is this the new New York Welcome to signs or is this just for the NYS Thruway crossings?

This is awful. I like the old Thruway signs or the usual Welcome signs at state highway entrance points.

They started putting these up a few years ago. Originally there were four or five signs that followed the "Welcome to NY" sign to advertise apps and websites and stuff. The FHWA withheld money (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/nyregion/new-york-road-signs-feud.html) from the state until the state took most of them down. I think these are the compromise ones at the end of it all. There's even one at the exit of the Lincoln Tunnel onto Dyre Ave in Manhattan (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7568194,-73.995603,3a,82.8y,156.35h,94.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9FFoKjrGL9d6D0XjBafZZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on December 31, 2020, 09:23:34 AM
The Geography King would agree, they suck:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on December 31, 2020, 11:42:44 AM
I actually think the current welcome to NY sign isn't that bad.  It's certainly better than its predecessor: 
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk01RuDZwmiw6jp9cae8QIJbTo655kQ:1609432718481&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=welcome+to+new+york+sign&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjz2-WL1PjtAhXSmVkKHbJpAmEQjJkEegQIBBAB&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=j3etYda-JgjToM

But not as good as the one that preceeded...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/auvet/285187797/sizes/l/

Come to think of it, the two I linked above were probably only used on the Thruway entrances from state lines.  2-lane roads had the green "Welcome to New York/the Empire State" sign with the state shield.  Now I believe all borders, Thruway or not, get the present sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 31, 2020, 12:54:07 PM
Come to think of it, the two I linked above were probably only used on the Thruway entrances from state lines.  2-lane roads had the green "Welcome to New York/the Empire State" sign with the state shield.  Now I believe all borders, Thruway or not, get the present sign.
Historically, that sign was used on all non-Thruway borders, including interstates.  Now the present sign is used at Thruway and other interstate/freeway borders, and the surface road borders are a mixed bag of the older sign, the state of opportunity sign, and the newer one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on December 31, 2020, 09:38:02 PM
I've always liked New Jersey's (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1099479,-74.1647298,3a,75y,189.75h,105.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0_m51deFO6PBIiQaJPtoHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). I like that the state leaned into the classic postcard thing that's a classic NJ staple.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on December 31, 2020, 09:53:39 PM
Also mentioned in the Vermont thread but relevant here:  the Essex-Charlotte Ferry on Lake Champlain will be suspended starting next Monday (1/4), due to low usage as a result of COVID.  The Plattsburgh-Grand Isle Ferry remains in operation.

https://vtdigger.org/2020/12/21/shutdown-of-charlotte-essex-ferry-raises-outcry-on-both-sides-of-the-lake/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 01, 2021, 12:08:30 AM
I didn't realize the Charlotte-Essex ferry was even running. I know it was down to one ferry back in the spring.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on January 01, 2021, 12:27:35 AM
Also mentioned in the Vermont thread but relevant here:  the Essex-Charlotte Ferry on Lake Champlain will be suspended starting next Monday (1/4), due to low usage as a result of COVID.

That's too bad! I took that ferry back in summer 2018 and it seemed well-used, although a lot has changed since then. For the sake of locals and tourists I hope it's temporary.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 01, 2021, 10:50:50 PM
I can't say I'm surprised, given that everyone who goes to (or returns to) Vermont is required to have a 14 day quarantine.  They don't have an exemption for neighboring states like seems to be typical in the other states around here.  I'm actually amazed there's as much traffic across the border as there is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on January 01, 2021, 11:44:42 PM
^ Better jobs in Chittenden County than in Plattsburgh...or so the theory I've heard is.  And those considered "essential employees" are exempt from the 14 day quarantine (unless they're showing symptoms themselves) as has been the case since COVID began.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on January 02, 2021, 04:26:04 AM
I can't say I'm surprised, given that everyone who goes to (or returns to) Vermont is required to have a 14 day quarantine.  They don't have an exemption for neighboring states like seems to be typical in the other states around here.  I'm actually amazed there's as much traffic across the border as there is.

Vermont was on a county-by-county basis for several months over the summer and early fall until things spiraled out of control again. I was able to get two visits in without the need for quarantine.

Of course, I'm likely moving there in a couple months...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on January 02, 2021, 08:45:29 AM
Quote
Of course, I'm likely moving there in a couple months...

Oh...?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 02, 2021, 09:17:17 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1138228,-74.1617937,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5CS8MsvP_Y2Jfj65kI_kSg!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Is this the new New York Welcome to signs or is this just for the NYS Thruway crossings?

This is awful. I like the old Thruway signs or the usual Welcome signs at state highway entrance points.

They started putting these up a few years ago. Originally there were four or five signs that followed the "Welcome to NY" sign to advertise apps and websites and stuff. The FHWA withheld money (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/nyregion/new-york-road-signs-feud.html) from the state until the state took most of them down. I think these are the compromise ones at the end of it all. There's even one at the exit of the Lincoln Tunnel onto Dyre Ave in Manhattan (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7568194,-73.995603,3a,82.8y,156.35h,94.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9FFoKjrGL9d6D0XjBafZZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
I don't remember whether they kept them in Port Jefferson, though, and I was there in November 2019. If anything that was one of the locations they should've stayed, because they were aimed at all the people coming off the Port Jeff-Bridgeport Ferry.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on January 02, 2021, 10:56:41 PM
7 is hit or miss. Most town lines are signed, but many only have local and not DOT signage.

I noticed this today going up to Evans Mills.  12 was semi consistent north of Boonville,  26 was hit or miss.  Town line signs looked non existent in Jefferson County, at least as what I saw on 26 between 3 and US 11.

Region 2 is on the game in most spots, however some Herkimer County towns on 28 and 29 tend to do the Vermont thing with town provided painted signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheGrassGuy on January 04, 2021, 01:14:41 PM
How to take over NY: A comprehensive guide for NJDOT

1. Make all the shields circles
2. Add 600 to every county route number
3. Add black backgrounds to everything
4. Extend NJ-23 to Port Jervis
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dkblake on January 04, 2021, 04:00:20 PM
I don't remember whether they kept them in Port Jefferson, though, and I was there in November 2019. If anything that was one of the locations they should've stayed, because they were aimed at all the people coming off the Port Jeff-Bridgeport Ferry.

Are you thinking of the Orient Point ferry? I'm pretty sure there was a sign once you turned onto NY 25. I lived near Port Jeff for about a decade until 2015 and don't ever remember a Welcome to NY sign there- there's not really space for one anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 04, 2021, 06:05:03 PM
How to take over NY: A comprehensive guide for NJDOT

3. Add black backgrounds to everything

NJDOT stopped that a few years ago. FHWA threatened to take away funding if it continued.

I don't remember whether they kept them in Port Jefferson, though, and I was there in November 2019. If anything that was one of the locations they should've stayed, because they were aimed at all the people coming off the Port Jeff-Bridgeport Ferry.

Are you thinking of the Orient Point ferry? I'm pretty sure there was a sign once you turned onto NY 25. I lived near Port Jeff for about a decade until 2015 and don't ever remember a Welcome to NY sign there- there's not really space for one anyway.

Orient Point 100% had a series of signs when I was there in 2016.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 04, 2021, 06:37:46 PM
How to take over NY: A comprehensive guide for NJDOT

3. Add black backgrounds to everything

NJDOT stopped that a few years ago. FHWA threatened to take away funding if it continued.

(citation needed)
I thought they just did it because the MUTCD was explicit and they decided to be more compliant. I haven't heard of FHWA threatening over pretty much anything.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 04, 2021, 07:31:49 PM
(citation needed)
I thought they just did it because the MUTCD was explicit and they decided to be more compliant. I haven't heard of FHWA threatening over pretty much anything.

Did they? My apologies then.

I guess I'm too used to dealing with NY, which doesn't budge on anything unless you threaten to take money away.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 04, 2021, 08:48:29 PM


How to take over NY: A comprehensive guide for NJDOT

3. Add black backgrounds to everything

NJDOT stopped that a few years ago. FHWA threatened to take away funding if it continued.

(citation needed)
I thought they just did it because the MUTCD was explicit and they decided to be more compliant. I haven't heard of FHWA threatening over pretty much anything.

I was sorry NJ had to change that feature. While I don't agree with all of New Jersey's signing practices, I did like the circular state route number symbol placed on the black square. I thought it stood out better that way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 04, 2021, 08:57:13 PM
I don't remember whether they kept them in Port Jefferson, though, and I was there in November 2019. If anything that was one of the locations they should've stayed, because they were aimed at all the people coming off the Port Jeff-Bridgeport Ferry.

Are you thinking of the Orient Point ferry? I'm pretty sure there was a sign once you turned onto NY 25. I lived near Port Jeff for about a decade until 2015 and don't ever remember a Welcome to NY sign there- there's not really space for one anyway.
It looks like there is one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9471581,-73.0694194,3a,57.8y,184.64h,83.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZipNEr41xKSnBpISf1aZXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dkblake on January 04, 2021, 09:45:21 PM
I don't remember whether they kept them in Port Jefferson, though, and I was there in November 2019. If anything that was one of the locations they should've stayed, because they were aimed at all the people coming off the Port Jeff-Bridgeport Ferry.

Are you thinking of the Orient Point ferry? I'm pretty sure there was a sign once you turned onto NY 25. I lived near Port Jeff for about a decade until 2015 and don't ever remember a Welcome to NY sign there- there's not really space for one anyway.
It looks like there is one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9471581,-73.0694194,3a,57.8y,184.64h,83.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZipNEr41xKSnBpISf1aZXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

So there is! Though I stand by my "there's not really space for one anyway" position  :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 04, 2021, 11:44:57 PM
I don't remember whether they kept them in Port Jefferson, though, and I was there in November 2019. If anything that was one of the locations they should've stayed, because they were aimed at all the people coming off the Port Jeff-Bridgeport Ferry.
Are you thinking of the Orient Point ferry? I'm pretty sure there was a sign once you turned onto NY 25. I lived near Port Jeff for about a decade until 2015 and don't ever remember a Welcome to NY sign there- there's not really space for one anyway.
No, I was thinking of Port Jeff. I'm familiar with the one on NY 25 coming off the Orient Point Ferry (I've been one of many who have taken pictures of them (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Welcome_to_New_York_Sign_at_NY_25_(Close-Up).JPG)), but I still remember seeing some in Port Jefferson.

 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on January 06, 2021, 08:56:00 AM
out of curiosity I was looking on the NY's 2020-2024 TIP plan and i found a project which has future operational improvements on the Southern state parkway so I emailed a Dot staff director and this is the response I got...

Dear Mr. Mendes,

Thank you for your email of November 25, requesting information on a 2020-2045 TIP plan item.  I have looked into the matter and have the following information to share:

The New York state Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has initiated a Southern State Parkway (SSP) Mainline Safety & Operational Study from Eagle Avenue to the Wantagh State Parkway (WSP).  The study was initiated this year, within the department, to evaluate potential mainline safety enhancements and operational improvements.  This study, expected to be completed late next year, could be used to provide the groundwork for future project proposals.  The study is ongoing, so it is premature to discuss any findings at this time.

Again, thank you for your question and I wish you a happy and healthy holiday season as well.

Regards,

Mary L. Byrne, P.E
Staff Director, Nassau Suffolk TCC

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
250 Veterans Memorial Highway, Rm 2B-46C, Hauppauge, NY 11788
(631) 952-6930 | mary.byrne@dot.ny.gov
www.NYMTC.org
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 06, 2021, 12:32:55 PM
Some of this I presume will have to do with the bridge meeting trucks problem. SSP is notoriously bad on the commercial vehicle violation on LI.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on January 06, 2021, 12:49:44 PM
Some of this I presume will have to do with the bridge meeting trucks problem. SSP is notoriously bad on the commercial vehicle violation on LI.
i think so to but on top of that probably lengthen aux lanes add lanes realign curves but also eliminate that clusterf*ck at the wantagh pkwy
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 06, 2021, 08:19:08 PM
What issues are you talking about at the Wantagh Pkwy. and what improvements  would you suggest?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on January 07, 2021, 08:16:49 AM
What issues are you talking about at the Wantagh Pkwy. and what improvements  would you suggest?
i accually happen to live off the exit to wantagh ave and i suggest on EB SSP they relocate the exit from south WSP to EB SSP to a loop ramp to make it so people have more merge length and so they have time to merge before the ramp from north WSP merges sorta like how the LIE/NY-135 interchange is setup with the lanes and loop ramps but a flyover would connect EB SSP to NB WSP
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 07, 2021, 04:16:48 PM
Interestingly, before the Wantagh/S.S. Pky. interchange was rebuilt and reconfigured in 1966, the S/B to E/B ramp was a cloverleaf, which resulted in too much weaving traffic under the Wantagh Pkwy. bridge. The current ramp was configured to eliminate that issue and handle the large amount of traffic using that  ramp.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on January 08, 2021, 08:56:59 AM
Interestingly, before the Wantagh/S.S. Pky. interchange was rebuilt and reconfigured in 1966, the S/B to E/B ramp was a cloverleaf, which resulted in too much weaving traffic under the Wantagh Pkwy. bridge. The current ramp was configured to eliminate that issue and handle the large amount of traffic using that  ramp.
yes i have seen this if you go on historical images and you'll see the construction but now u have 5 lanes going into 3 which creates weaving between there and 28S which creates a major bottleneck (http://file:///C:/Users/acami/Documents/WSP.jpg) as seen here its out the merging ***PS "i drew these myself on google earth pro these are not actual plans"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 08, 2021, 08:28:10 PM
Well yes, there is still lots of weaving but at least it's a longer stretch of road, maybe a half-mile. Still better than what the old set-up would have been with today's traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on January 12, 2021, 03:14:20 PM
Well yes, there is still lots of weaving but at least it's a longer stretch of road, maybe a half-mile. Still better than what the old set-up would have been with today's traffic.
Yes 100% i agree with u but there is room for improvements not just at the wantagh but west all the way to eagle ave and maybe to the cross island as well but thats a whole other ball game
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on January 13, 2021, 11:27:55 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/bg5UFpvmec75J7bz9
Found this sign bridge for the RFK Bridge Manhattan approach on the ground below the viaduct.   Interesting that the contractor would lay the sign bridge here and not on the Manhattan Side of the lift span.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on January 15, 2021, 11:39:02 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/bg5UFpvmec75J7bz9
Found this sign bridge for the RFK Bridge Manhattan approach on the ground below the viaduct.   Interesting that the contractor would lay the sign bridge here and not on the Manhattan Side of the lift span.

Even neater, you can see it installed in this in this new GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/x2UtnJNgksrRPQDb7).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on January 16, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Does anyone have any info or old photos from the original Northern State/Meadowbrook interchange before it was changed in the early 90s? All I can find is old satelite photos on historic aerials.

How were the exits numbered?

Westbound there looks like a

31N for North Glen Cove Road to 25
31S for South Glen Cove Road to Meadowbrook

and a third ramp to Glen Cove Road where the current Exit 31 is.

Going eastbound you have a

ramp to 25 West
ramp to Glen Cove Road south and 25 East

and obviously the Meadowbrook Exit which was 31A
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 16, 2021, 08:17:58 PM
No photos but I kind of remember the old interchange. It was pretty much the way you figured it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 16, 2021, 10:51:59 PM
Well yes, there is still lots of weaving but at least it's a longer stretch of road, maybe a half-mile. Still better than what the old set-up would have been with today's traffic.
Yes 100% i agree with u but there is room for improvements not just at the wantagh but west all the way to eagle ave and maybe to the cross island as well but thats a whole other ball game
The biggest problem is east of the Wantagh Parkway interchange. I almost want to believe that eliminating Exit 28S and converting Exit 28N into an east to both directions off-ramp would do the trick, but I'm not sure that would be enough.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on January 18, 2021, 10:19:59 AM
Well yes, there is still lots of weaving but at least it's a longer stretch of road, maybe a half-mile. Still better than what the old set-up would have been with today's traffic.
Yes 100% i agree with u but there is room for improvements not just at the wantagh but west all the way to eagle ave and maybe to the cross island as well but thats a whole other ball game
The biggest problem is east of the Wantagh Parkway interchange. I almost want to believe that eliminating Exit 28S and converting Exit 28N into an east to both directions off-ramp would do the trick, but I'm not sure that would be enough.
also the existing 5th lane that merges before 28s make that exit only to the loop ramp which would be exit 28N-S and the 4th lane on right extend that to the Seaford oyster bay expressway and move the exit to RT 135 north into a flyover ramp removing the weaving between ramps and construct a C/D road on east bound SSP in the median all the through the 135/107 interchanges to remove the weaving between 135 and exit 29 and on westbound ssp close the on ramp from sb 107 and exit 29s and extend the aux lane from the loop ramp the NB 135 and make it a 2 lane ramp kinda like LIE-135 interchange
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on January 18, 2021, 04:45:16 PM
if they had built the southern extension of 135, it would help a lot since a lot of that traffic especially in summer is people coming up from the beaches since that interchange suffers from a horrid design weakness, three lanes of traffic merge into one then become an exit only for another exit, causing a terrible weaving problem. This is also the biggest design flaw of the LIE-135 interchange, going east to south you have a two lane ramp that quickly merges into one, then that lane quickly you have to merge right with two lanes coming in from the westbound ramp, a very tight turn then you quickly have to move over again. I cant imagine that was the final design, to me it seems like somewhere down the line they made a lot of bad compromises to it, to keep the Plainview/Woodbury/Syosset people happy
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 18, 2021, 06:12:58 PM
All the button copy signs on Westchester Ave in Harrison have been replaced.  The I-684 and Merritt signs on the I-287 EB mainline still are up.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49985830436_ea73238407_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ja5rUG)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 18, 2021, 08:13:31 PM
if they had built the southern extension of 135, it would help a lot since a lot of that traffic especially in summer is people coming up from the beaches since that interchange suffers from a horrid design weakness, three lanes of traffic merge into one then become an exit only for another exit, causing a terrible weaving problem. This is also the biggest design flaw of the LIE-135 interchange, going east to south you have a two lane ramp that quickly merges into one, then that lane quickly you have to merge right with two lanes coming in from the westbound ramp, a very tight turn then you quickly have to move over again. I cant imagine that was the final design, to me it seems like somewhere down the line they made a lot of bad compromises to it, to keep the Plainview/Woodbury/Syosset people happy

The original interchange built circa 1961 was a standard cloverleaf design. The current configuration was a rebuild in the 1990's around the same time the HOV lanes were added to the LIE. NYS DOT wanted C-D roads thru that area but yes the affluent Syosset community brought political pressure to bear and forced DOT to scale down the project to what it is now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on January 20, 2021, 09:04:10 AM
if they had built the southern extension of 135, it would help a lot since a lot of that traffic especially in summer is people coming up from the beaches since that interchange suffers from a horrid design weakness, three lanes of traffic merge into one then become an exit only for another exit, causing a terrible weaving problem. This is also the biggest design flaw of the LIE-135 interchange, going east to south you have a two lane ramp that quickly merges into one, then that lane quickly you have to merge right with two lanes coming in from the westbound ramp, a very tight turn then you quickly have to move over again. I cant imagine that was the final design, to me it seems like somewhere down the line they made a lot of bad compromises to it, to keep the Plainview/Woodbury/Syosset people happy
it looks to me they designed it like that considering that the proximity of the LIE to the NSP that 75% of people are not gonna get off at the northern state considering its going west where they just came from and or the direction they were headed but the demand was there to keep the ramp open honestly i think they should close that interchange and build a full interchange at the lie and the NSP but there would be lots of weaving but the LIE 135 interchange has been designed very well if i could say so my self for using the existing 135 bridge and not using service roads like at the sag how ever it could be better
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on January 21, 2021, 01:48:19 PM
Something else I noticed on the LIE, the state DOT seems adverse to using those really really tall streetlights with the group of lights at the top, at Exit 49, each quadrant of the cloverleaf had one, now two of the quadrants are missing them with regular streetlights installed instead up the ramps.

Then there is the unexplainable way that the streetlights and sign backs are painted brown in Nassau county, but other expressways in Nassau (135 and 878) have bare metal ones.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 21, 2021, 04:02:18 PM
Signbacks, streetlights and guide rails being painted brown is only on the Long Island State Parkways, formerly run by the Long Island State Park Commission until about 1976. I assume the reason was to maintain a "park like" appearance on the parkways, to maintain kind of a tradition on those particular roads.

The brown paint is mostly on original fixtures that were done as part of large scale replacement projects. Newer signs, guide rails etc. that replaced damaged ones are usually the standard metal color.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on January 21, 2021, 06:46:49 PM
Signbacks, streetlights and guide rails being painted brown is only on the Long Island State Parkways, formerly run by the Long Island State Park Commission until about 1976. I assume the reason was to maintain a "park like" appearance on the parkways, to maintain kind of a tradition on those particular roads.

The brown paint is mostly on original fixtures that were done as part of large scale replacement projects. Newer signs, guide rails etc. that replaced damaged ones are usually the standard metal color.

NJDOT did that on the part of 78 through the Watching Reservation that was opened in the mid 80s. I believe it was done for the same reason (more wildlife kinda setting) but as signs have been replaced over the years, they have standard plain backs and posts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on January 21, 2021, 08:50:58 PM
NY seems to be very averse to highway lighting compared to other states. I guess it's sort of a good thing due to reduced light pollution, but it makes driving at night much more unpleasant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 21, 2021, 08:56:35 PM
NY seems to be very averse to highway lighting compared to other states. I guess it's sort of a good thing due to reduced light pollution, but it makes driving at night much more unpleasant.

New York removed a lot of lighting in the 70s as an energy-saving measure. Since the local municipality has to pay to operate the lights in most parts of the state (even on freeways), it hasn't been put back when removed. The Hudson Valley and Capital District in particular are quite averse to lighting, with Region 1 having no freeway lighting apart from bridges and former toll plazas and Region 8 keeping it to southern Westchester County, while lighting in Regions 3 and 5 is mostly limited to the city limits of Syracuse and Buffalo, respectively.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on January 22, 2021, 02:33:26 PM
It's nice to have dark sky areas in the Adirondacks. Those sodium vapor lights (and non-recessed light fixtures) were awful for bleeding out into the countryside.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 22, 2021, 08:52:10 PM
After removing the old incandescent lights on some Long Island Parkways in the 1970's, Region-10 has installed new lights in recent years to restore the old lighting with newer style lamps such as sodium vapor which are still in use. No LED lighting yet but I actually think the S.V. lights are brighter and more effective.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on January 22, 2021, 10:24:57 PM
After removing the old incandescent lights on some Long Island Parkways in the 1970's, Region-10 has installed new lights in recent years to restore the old lighting with newer style lamps such as sodium vapor which are still in use. No LED lighting yet but I actually think the S.V. lights are brighter and more effective.

They ripped out the wooden lights on Ocean Parkway and replaced them with nothing, only the far eastern end of hte parkway has some retro woodie streetlights
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on January 24, 2021, 11:26:53 AM
Did you know that it's all the rage to have a NY 990V page? A new blog article on the curiously numbered NY 990V in Schoharie County, New York is now here.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/the-curious-case-of-ny-990v.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/the-curious-case-of-ny-990v.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on January 25, 2021, 03:59:03 PM
After removing the old incandescent lights on some Long Island Parkways in the 1970's, Region-10 has installed new lights in recent years to restore the old lighting with newer style lamps such as sodium vapor which are still in use. No LED lighting yet but I actually think the S.V. lights are brighter and more effective.

My personal take here, but the newer generations of LED lighting do a much much better job than some earlier variants of LEDs or SV's, and without as much light pollution to boot. Take these fixtures (https://goo.gl/maps/AeRTca6Fou9EBVgDA) that were installed at the end of NJTP Exit 12 at the interchange with Drift Rd/Industrial Highway in Carteret. They replaced SV fixtures sometime in 2017-18 and the light they put out is both brighter and cleaner than the SV's they replaced (which were installed when Exit 12 was reconstructed so they weren't that old, maybe 10 years or so?). These LEDs are way better than, for example these fixtures (https://goo.gl/maps/rAgzXDX6GxCUwts4A) that PSEG favored and installed a ton of in the mid aughts. I think newer, better, and far more efficient fixtures that are now available will help accelerate the conversion to LED lighting as time goes on.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 28, 2021, 08:55:18 AM
Maybe a small thing... They were putting murals on a ramp of newly built exit 3 of I-87 "Northway".
Story behind:
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Mohican-Nation-says-New-York-silent-about-not-15817599.php
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/State-reverses-again-will-put-Native-American-15891716.php
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 29, 2021, 10:10:19 PM
NYSDOT posted the presentation from last night's public meeting on the NY 363/NY 434 interchange project in Binghamton.  They've narrowed down to two alternatives.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/363gateway/projectdocuments
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 30, 2021, 02:39:38 AM
NYSDOT posted the presentation from last night's public meeting on the NY 363/NY 434 interchange project in Binghamton.  They've narrowed down to two alternatives.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/363gateway/projectdocuments

I would recommend Alternative 1.12.  Alternative 1.11b puts all of the NY 363 SB to NY 434 WB traffic to city streets that is unnecessary.

The bonus with 1.12 is getting a very sizeable area of green space that would not be affected by the city street increase in 1.11b.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on February 01, 2021, 12:42:55 PM
Agree with 1.12 over 1.11b.  More direct 363/434 connections than 1.11b despite the traffic signal, and also eliminates the NB/SB lane crossover jumble.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 01, 2021, 08:20:02 PM
I wonder if C1.12 can really handle traffic volumes on 434. I've been there during near-peak times and it's not inconsiderable.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 02, 2021, 12:02:06 AM
I wonder if C1.12 can really handle traffic volumes on 434. I've been there during near-peak times and it's not inconsiderable.

PHV for the movement from 363 to 434 is 460 veh/hr. A double left turn could probably handle that as well as a loop ramp if the phasing is correct.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 02, 2021, 12:58:11 AM
I wonder if C1.12 can really handle traffic volumes on 434. I've been there during near-peak times and it's not inconsiderable.

PHV for the movement from 363 to 434 is 460 veh/hr. A double left turn could probably handle that as well as a loop ramp if the phasing is correct.
That light? I'm surprised. But I defer to the traffic engineers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 02, 2021, 12:57:02 PM
I wonder if C1.12 can really handle traffic volumes on 434. I've been there during near-peak times and it's not inconsiderable.

PHV for the movement from 363 to 434 is 460 veh/hr. A double left turn could probably handle that as well as a loop ramp if the phasing is correct.
That light? I'm surprised. But I defer to the traffic engineers.

I'll build a Synchro model at some point tonight to test this out. At worst, I don't think it would perform any worse than the current weavefest.

Full alternative list is here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region9/projects/90380A-Home/90380A-Repository/Rte%20363_Initial%20alternatives.pdf). 1.12 is by far the best of the group.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on February 08, 2021, 10:31:12 AM
Does the LIE have mileage signs along it? Back in 1988 my one and only time on it I remember only one East of the Queens- Nassau Border for Riverhead and nothing eastward.  Never been on it west except in Queens near former Shea Stadium and to the Midtown Tunnel and of course none I never saw there.

LIE has no big cities of interest along it may be why, but without mile based numbers on exits makes the 70 plus miles drive very long as no major reference points to note along its way does not help either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 08, 2021, 11:55:13 AM
Does the LIE have mileage signs along it? Back in 1988 my one and only time on it I remember only one East of the Queens- Nassau Border for Riverhead and nothing eastward.  Never been on it west except in Queens near former Shea Stadium and to the Midtown Tunnel and of course none I never saw there.

LIE has no big cities of interest along it may be why, but without mile based numbers on exits makes the 70 plus miles drive very long as no major reference points to note along its way does not help either.

Please, the LIE doesn't even have mileposts. Region 10 doesn't use them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 08, 2021, 12:59:52 PM
I think the travel time VMS signs include mileage, but as for regular ones, I don't think so.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 08, 2021, 02:56:44 PM
Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dkblake on February 08, 2021, 06:48:25 PM
Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.

I always presumed it's because 34th Street (or one of the nearby streets) acts as the "connection" between NJ 495 and I-495, and that stretch of Manhattan goes from 1st to 12th Ave.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on February 08, 2021, 11:29:13 PM
Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.

Does this account for the NJ stretch of 495? The Staten Island Expwy starts at 3 because there are two exits on the NJ stretch before the Goethals. Maybe they were going to do something similar here?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 08, 2021, 11:52:56 PM
Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.

Does this account for the NJ stretch of 495? The Staten Island Expwy starts at 3 because there are two exits on the NJ stretch before the Goethals. Maybe they were going to do something similar here?
The interesting thing is that NJ has never done sequential. Only the Turnpike has. (Okay, and the lettered exits in Atlantic City, but that's a bit different.) 495 would have gotten into the 2s in NJ, so exiting in NY would get you at most 3-4 on the west side of Manhattan. How do you get from 4 to 13?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on February 09, 2021, 04:20:56 PM
Does the LIE have mileage signs along it? Back in 1988 my one and only time on it I remember only one East of the Queens- Nassau Border for Riverhead and nothing eastward.  Never been on it west except in Queens near former Shea Stadium and to the Midtown Tunnel and of course none I never saw there.

LIE has no big cities of interest along it may be why, but without mile based numbers on exits makes the 70 plus miles drive very long as no major reference points to note along its way does not help either.

Please, the LIE doesn't even have mileposts. Region 10 doesn't use them.


Wow that’s interesting.  An interstate without mile posts. Hmmm.

Thought that was required?


Plus it wasn’t an interstate to begin with east of the Clearview.  I would think they posted them to get interstate status.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 09, 2021, 04:48:35 PM
Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.

Does this account for the NJ stretch of 495? The Staten Island Expwy starts at 3 because there are two exits on the NJ stretch before the Goethals. Maybe they were going to do something similar here?
The interesting thing is that NJ has never done sequential. Only the Turnpike has. (Okay, and the lettered exits in Atlantic City, but that's a bit different.) 495 would have gotten into the 2s in NJ, so exiting in NY would get you at most 3-4 on the west side of Manhattan. How do you get from 4 to 13?

Wasn't there a plan to extend 495 further west along 3 at one point? That would have given a few extra miles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on February 09, 2021, 06:20:21 PM
Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.

Does this account for the NJ stretch of 495? The Staten Island Expwy starts at 3 because there are two exits on the NJ stretch before the Goethals. Maybe they were going to do something similar here?
The interesting thing is that NJ has never done sequential. Only the Turnpike has. (Okay, and the lettered exits in Atlantic City, but that's a bit different.) 495 would have gotten into the 2s in NJ, so exiting in NY would get you at most 3-4 on the west side of Manhattan. How do you get from 4 to 13?

Wasn't there a plan to extend 495 further west along 3 at one point? That would have given a few extra miles.

That was changed in favor of I-280.  They wanted NJ 3 full interstate, but costs too much.  Then I-280 got the honor of that connection west to I-80.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 09, 2021, 07:30:40 PM
Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.

Does this account for the NJ stretch of 495? The Staten Island Expwy starts at 3 because there are two exits on the NJ stretch before the Goethals. Maybe they were going to do something similar here?
The interesting thing is that NJ has never done sequential. Only the Turnpike has. (Okay, and the lettered exits in Atlantic City, but that's a bit different.) 495 would have gotten into the 2s in NJ, so exiting in NY would get you at most 3-4 on the west side of Manhattan. How do you get from 4 to 13?

Wasn't there a plan to extend 495 further west along 3 at one point? That would have given a few extra miles.

That was changed in favor of I-280.  They wanted NJ 3 full interstate, but costs too much.  Then I-280 got the honor of that connection west to I-80.
I think this is the first time I've 100% agreed with something you posted ;)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on February 09, 2021, 08:49:30 PM
Can't (or shouldn't) be. As per the MUTCD, exit numbers start at the state line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on February 09, 2021, 08:52:55 PM
Can't (or shouldn't) be. As per the MUTCD, exit numbers start at the state line.

It has an even first digit. Beltways can retain numbers when crossing state lines (although I-495 is not a beltway by any stretch of the imagination, but then, I-470 OH/WV is also a straight line and could reasonably have its numbers continue).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dkblake on February 09, 2021, 09:30:13 PM
Does the LIE have mileage signs along it? Back in 1988 my one and only time on it I remember only one East of the Queens- Nassau Border for Riverhead and nothing eastward.  Never been on it west except in Queens near former Shea Stadium and to the Midtown Tunnel and of course none I never saw there.

LIE has no big cities of interest along it may be why, but without mile based numbers on exits makes the 70 plus miles drive very long as no major reference points to note along its way does not help either.

Please, the LIE doesn't even have mileposts. Region 10 doesn't use them.


Wow that’s interesting.  An interstate without mile posts. Hmmm.

Thought that was required?


Plus it wasn’t an interstate to begin with east of the Clearview.  I would think they posted them to get interstate status.

It's been a while since I've driven on it, but I wonder if the LIE has the NYS green mile markers?

Also- the question of "does the LIE have big cities along it" is interesting because so much of LI's population is from unincorporated areas. If the towns of Nassau and western Suffolk incorporated- like, if they functioned like western cities rather than NY towns- they would be well within the top 100 cities by population (with the exception of Smithtown).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 09, 2021, 09:35:24 PM
It's been a while since I've driven on it, but I wonder if the LIE has the NYS green mile markers?

Also- the question of "does the LIE have big cities along it" is interesting because so much of LI's population is from unincorporated areas. If the towns of Nassau and western Suffolk incorporated- like, if they functioned like western cities rather than NY towns- they would be well within the top 100 cities by population (with the exception of Smithtown).

The LIE has reference markers, yes. There are only a couple of state-maintained routes (if any) longer than 1/4 mile that lack them entirely.

And for the "unincorporated areas" thing...yeah. They're technically "incorporated" but incorporated as towns, not cities, and as such can have a lower level of government, which means they don't end up on the lists of "cities". Hempstead is larger than Seattle in terms of population and would be the third-largest city in the Northeast in terms of population if incorporated as a city instead of a town (behind NYC and Philadelphia).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on February 09, 2021, 09:53:27 PM
The Town of Hempstead brags that it is "America's Largest Township".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on February 09, 2021, 10:02:07 PM
Can't (or shouldn't) be. As per the MUTCD, exit numbers start at the state line.

It has an even first digit. Beltways can retain numbers when crossing state lines (although I-495 is not a beltway by any stretch of the imagination, but then, I-470 OH/WV is also a straight line and could reasonably have its numbers continue).

You are correct as per Sec. 2F.31.15. That applies to circumferentials, loops and spur routes. Thanks for pointing that out.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on February 11, 2021, 09:43:49 AM
I see that not only the LIE ( this is on AARoads and East Coast Roads BTW) that most of the LIE is built to suburban freeway likes in design than the Upstate interstates are.  For example the interchanges are densely spread like the Connecticut Turnpike has directly across the sound to the north.  Hardly any development of commercial nature that I have seen on it. Plus the sequential exit numbers go from 13-73 in 71 miles average out to one exit in less than 1.75 miles.   It is mainly through bedroom communities most likely spawned from the freeway itself post construction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 14, 2021, 10:17:23 PM
And for the "unincorporated areas" thing...yeah. They're technically "incorporated" but incorporated as towns, not cities, and as such can have a lower level of government, which means they don't end up on the lists of "cities". Hempstead is larger than Seattle in terms of population and would be the third-largest city in the Northeast in terms of population if incorporated as a city instead of a town (behind NYC and Philadelphia).

It is mostly to do with how the census bureau, being the principal authority on populated places, regards them. They are "minor civil divisions"–i.e., subdivisions of counties–which by definition have some degree of legal status as bodies politic. In most cases this means there's a government in place, and in the case of NY's towns, they are quite strong governments, and they can be said to be incorporated insofar as they are municipal corporations with all the powers of same. But because the census distinguishes them from "freestanding" incorporated places–cities and villages–common parlance tends to reflect this.

In several cases, where there is a populous suburban town with no sufficiently distinct settlements within it, the census will create an unincorporated "place" coextensive with the town, so that it can stand alongside incorporated places and be compared to them statistically. But the towns on Long Island are peppered with individual named places that are unincorporated (to say nothing of the many incorporated villages inside the towns), and so it is those places that serve as the "cities" for comparative purposes.

So for the town of Hempstead, the populated places of record would be the villages (like Hempstead, Lynbrook, Rockville Centre) and the unincorporated communities (places like Baldwin and Oceanside). Also, as a practical matter, you can't really double-count the whole of Hempstead town if you're also counting the villages inside of it, so in this regard, the remainder of a NY town outside of its villages is more comparable to the unincorporated area of a western county than it is to incorporated places like cities.

The Town of Hempstead brags that it is "America's Largest Township".

To which, of course, I'm sure some place in Pennsylvania or elsewhere takes umbrage, seeing as how we ain't got them thar townships in this'yer state! :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 15, 2021, 09:44:20 AM
And for the "unincorporated areas" thing...yeah. They're technically "incorporated" but incorporated as towns, not cities, and as such can have a lower level of government, which means they don't end up on the lists of "cities". Hempstead is larger than Seattle in terms of population and would be the third-largest city in the Northeast in terms of population if incorporated as a city instead of a town (behind NYC and Philadelphia).

It is mostly to do with how the census bureau, being the principal authority on populated places, regards them. They are "minor civil divisions"–i.e., subdivisions of counties–which by definition have some degree of legal status as bodies politic. In most cases this means there's a government in place, and in the case of NY's towns, they are quite strong governments, and they can be said to be incorporated insofar as they are municipal corporations with all the powers of same. But because the census distinguishes them from "freestanding" incorporated places–cities and villages–common parlance tends to reflect this.

In several cases, where there is a populous suburban town with no sufficiently distinct settlements within it, the census will create an unincorporated "place" coextensive with the town, so that it can stand alongside incorporated places and be compared to them statistically. But the towns on Long Island are peppered with individual named places that are unincorporated (to say nothing of the many incorporated villages inside the towns), and so it is those places that serve as the "cities" for comparative purposes.

So for the town of Hempstead, the populated places of record would be the villages (like Hempstead, Lynbrook, Rockville Centre) and the unincorporated communities (places like Baldwin and Oceanside). Also, as a practical matter, you can't really double-count the whole of Hempstead town if you're also counting the villages inside of it, so in this regard, the remainder of a NY town outside of its villages is more comparable to the unincorporated area of a western county than it is to incorporated places like cities.

The Town of Hempstead brags that it is "America's Largest Township".

To which, of course, I'm sure some place in Pennsylvania or elsewhere takes umbrage, seeing as how we ain't got them thar townships in this'yer state! :-D
Not sure what is with unincorporated places, but as far as I know every square foot of NYS soil is a part of either a city, town, or indian reservation. There are some traditional names, some of which USPS keeps - my official home address is in a "postal town" which is a synonym to a zip code 12XXX and doesn't have any political significance. At the same time, we live in a "legal" town, which has a government that provides certain services like snow removal from public roads, manages building permits, has a court and an (unused) authority to levy taxes.  The postal town is split between a few legal towns, though, just to make it interesting. But the role of postal town is limited to address.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: paul02474 on February 15, 2021, 01:45:44 PM
"Unincorporated" in New York vernacular is used to describe areas in towns that are not part of an incorporated village.
As mentioned in a previous post, all territory in New York State outside of an Indian reservation is in a city or a town. Towns are subdivisions of counties, and provide basic services.
Incorporated villages may choose the services they provide. Some villages exist purely to enact their own zoning regulations. Others perform a full range of municipal services, including police, fire, and public works. Consequently, towns with incorporated villages within their boundaries are required to compute a town tax (for services provided to all residents in the town) and a part town tax (for services provided outside an incorporated village). For example, the tax to support the highway department is only levied on properties outside of an incorporated village that provides those services through a village tax.
Outside of cities, school districts are independent taxing authorities, and they are also independent of counties and towns. School districts can cross town and county lines. (Example: Cold Spring Harbor Central School District crosses the county line and includes part of the towns of Huntington (Suffolk County) and Oyster Bay (Nassau County).
To bring this back to the topic of roads and control cities, towns don't necessarily correspond to how folks (or the USPS) describe their communities. The Town of Oyster Bay is in eastern Nassau County, and stretches from the Long Island Sound to the Atlantic Ocean. Places like Syosset, Hicksville, and Massapequa are not incorporated as villages, receive all municipal services from the county or the Town of Oyster Bay, but aside from the sign at the town line, destination signs use the names of these unincorporated places. How do you know where Syosset ends and Hicksville begins? Ask the postal service, as they define the difference.
However, the postal service doesn't necessarily define the difference. Consider Northport 11768. It includes the Incorporated Village of Northport, but it includes portions of the Town of Huntington that describes itself as Northport but are outside the village. It includes the Incorporated Village of Asharoken, Eaton's Neck, and the area known as Fort Salonga that extends across the town line into Smithtown. Thus, you could be in an unincorporated portion of the Town of Smithtown, your mailing address is Northport 11768, and you are in the Kings Park fire and school district. Control city, anyone?



Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on February 17, 2021, 12:15:06 PM
The US postal service also considers all the neighborhoods of Queens to be towns unlike Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx which are cities themselves as New York, NY is only Manhattan in their world.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: sparker on February 17, 2021, 07:05:13 PM
The US postal service also considers all the neighborhoods of Queens to be towns unlike Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx which are cities themselves as New York, NY is only Manhattan in their world.

A similar situation to Los Angeles locations; even though part of L.A. city jurisdiction, many of the outlying areas, most notably the San Fernando Valley, are postally identified by their own local names (North Hollywood, Van Nuys, Woodland Hills, etc.) and individual zip codes rather than as indistinguishable parts of L.A.  This also applies to other towns that were eventually annexed by L.A., such as San Pedro and Wilmington.   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 18, 2021, 11:18:04 AM
The US postal service also considers all the neighborhoods of Queens to be towns unlike Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx which are cities themselves as New York, NY is only Manhattan in their world.

A similar situation to Los Angeles locations; even though part of L.A. city jurisdiction, many of the outlying areas, most notably the San Fernando Valley, are postally identified by their own local names (North Hollywood, Van Nuys, Woodland Hills, etc.) and individual zip codes rather than as indistinguishable parts of L.A.  This also applies to other towns that were eventually annexed by L.A., such as San Pedro and Wilmington.   
Simplest reason I can think of is lack of USPS desire to deal with same street names after annexation. After all, USPS only has to ensure delivery, not to acknowledge political changes
On the other hand, I remember a few situations when addressing schemes was used for non-postal reasons. There was a big article how Minnesota worked with USPS to allow businesses in suburbs to use "Minneapolis MN" address - apparently, it adds weight to their offer (I am not sure why they they think so, though)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SGwithADD on February 18, 2021, 09:28:12 PM
So I was looking at GSV in Watertown, and came across something a bit weird about US 11's routing there. Coming north from the southern city limits, US 11 seems to be signed on the following route:

    Washington --> R on Public Square --> L on Mill --> merge with Leray (https://goo.gl/maps/WLKNK2jL6ZgXGhQY7)

However, doing the route in reverse, US 11 is signed on:

    (starting from merge point with Mill) Leray --> becomes Massey --> slight L on Holcomb --> L on Paddock --> R on Washington (https://goo.gl/maps/QxeFwrsXMTcFqBa46)

So you might be thinking "big deal - one way couplet", right? But no! Both legs are signed as N/S US 11, both with reassurance shields on the route (except for Mill St north of the Black River) and on intersecting state routes.  This leads to some weirdness where if you drive on NY 3 (Arsenal Street) eastbound, you see two (https://goo.gl/maps/CYtmwiGSSWjkw4pK9) fully separate (https://goo.gl/maps/uJ1V2vPEv4ncVwYZ8) intersections for US 11 North/South in under 1/2 mile.  Oddly, both sets of sign assemblies look newer, and the GSV images are both from September 2018.

The NYSDOT inventory log lists the first routing I listed (along Mill) as the official route of US 11.  While I haven't confirmed with reliable sources, it seems that US 11 may have originally been routed on Paddock, and then realigned at some point.  Unfortunately, nobody bothered fixing the southbound routing at the junction, and perhaps in-kind assembly replacements (or poor city maintenance) led to this mess.  Oddly, old GSV images seem to indicate that this dual US 11 signing has been around since at least 2008...

Anyone have any idea what's going on here??
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 19, 2021, 08:43:03 PM
So I was looking at GSV in Watertown, and came across something a bit weird about US 11's routing there. Coming north from the southern city limits, US 11 seems to be signed on the following route:

    Washington --> R on Public Square --> L on Mill --> merge with Leray (https://goo.gl/maps/WLKNK2jL6ZgXGhQY7)

However, doing the route in reverse, US 11 is signed on:

    (starting from merge point with Mill) Leray --> becomes Massey --> slight L on Holcomb --> L on Paddock --> R on Washington (https://goo.gl/maps/QxeFwrsXMTcFqBa46)

So you might be thinking "big deal - one way couplet", right? But no! Both legs are signed as N/S US 11, both with reassurance shields on the route (except for Mill St north of the Black River) and on intersecting state routes.  This leads to some weirdness where if you drive on NY 3 (Arsenal Street) eastbound, you see two (https://goo.gl/maps/CYtmwiGSSWjkw4pK9) fully separate (https://goo.gl/maps/uJ1V2vPEv4ncVwYZ8) intersections for US 11 North/South in under 1/2 mile.  Oddly, both sets of sign assemblies look newer, and the GSV images are both from September 2018.

The NYSDOT inventory log lists the first routing I listed (along Mill) as the official route of US 11.  While I haven't confirmed with reliable sources, it seems that US 11 may have originally been routed on Paddock, and then realigned at some point.  Unfortunately, nobody bothered fixing the southbound routing at the junction, and perhaps in-kind assembly replacements (or poor city maintenance) led to this mess.  Oddly, old GSV images seem to indicate that this dual US 11 signing has been around since at least 2008...

Anyone have any idea what's going on here??

The multiple routings of US 11 have been in Watertown for at least 50 years. I noticed that as a kid when I was in elementary school. I'm wondering if it has something to do with Arsenal Street being one way eastbound between Massey and the Square up until the late 1990s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 20, 2021, 01:26:50 AM
Not sure what is with unincorporated places, but as far as I know every square foot of NYS soil is a part of either a city, town, or indian reservation.

That's right–actually just city or town, as those entities exist inside of reservations as well. Town governments are non-functioning within the sovereign reservations, so the census doesn't recognize them there. But the city of Salamanca exists mostly within the Allegany Reservation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on March 03, 2021, 01:32:32 PM
Well yes, there is still lots of weaving but at least it's a longer stretch of road, maybe a half-mile. Still better than what the old set-up would have been with today's traffic.
Yes 100% i agree with u but there is room for improvements not just at the wantagh but west all the way to eagle ave and maybe to the cross island as well but thats a whole other ball game
if they were gonna go to the cross island i think they would go with a HOV3+ lane and extend that to JFK airport on the belt parkway
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on March 04, 2021, 08:33:54 PM
Last night, I drove to Syracuse and back for the first time since February 7th.  I noticed that the signals here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0346048,-76.3655962,3a,65y,81.29h,96.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1bMzbGSKy8jKm5XLMpRt7g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0362206,-76.3350104,3a,64y,71.98h,91.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLFqOHHaW3Soi1jancDxrbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) have been retrofitted with reflective backplates.  The second intersection now has a supplemental through signal head on the right far-side pole which was installed last year if I remember right.  The signal must also have been switched to leading left turns only since the "ONCOMING TRAFFIC MAY HAVE EXTENDED GREEN" signs (one of them is barely visible to the right of the left turn arrow) are now gone.  I first started seeing backplates a few years back (maybe 2016 based on looking around in Street View), but over the past year or two, backplates have been popping up on most if not all new installations.  Over the past month or two, the retroffiting of older installations has really picked up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TonyTrafficLight on March 05, 2021, 12:10:02 PM
Lots of new blackplates here in Region 2 in the Utica/Rome area. Seen many new ones the past few weeks.
Mainly on single signals at intersections and nothing on the doghouses just yet.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on March 05, 2021, 04:34:28 PM
R5 has gone backplate and FYA crazy. Taking time, but it's good that they are finally  doing this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on March 06, 2021, 03:54:47 PM
Lots of new blackplates here in Region 2 in the Utica/Rome area. Seen many new ones the past few weeks.
Mainly on single signals at intersections and nothing on the doghouses just yet.

The only place I've *REALLY* seen the new backplates in my travels, aside from downtown Utica where NY 5S was rebuilt, is along Commercial Dr. (NY 5A) in New Hartford.  I haven't seen any new ones in Herkimer County...yet.

R5 has gone backplate and FYA crazy. Taking time, but it's good that they are finally  doing this.

Not sure about R5 though I have seen at least one instance there, but it seems that more and more new FYA installs around here are of the three section variety (RA-YA-Bimodal FYA/GA).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 06, 2021, 04:05:03 PM
R5 has gone backplate and FYA crazy. Taking time, but it's good that they are finally  doing this.

NYSDOT in general has gone backplate and FYA crazy. A couple of regions are still installing left turn doghouses and four section bimodals for dedicated turn lanes, but they are becoming very rare in new installs. Backplates caught on a few years before FYAs in most places, if only because the 2009 MUTCD explicitly requires them for high-speed roads.

Not sure about R5 though I have seen at least one instance there, but it seems that more and more new FYA installs around here are of the three section variety (RA-YA-Bimodal FYA/GA).

I want to say R2 is New York's testbed for three section FYAs. They were also one of the first regions to install a decent number of FYAs in general; NY 5S in Mohawk was the first place I ever saw them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on March 07, 2021, 02:49:01 AM
I want to say R2 is New York's testbed for three section FYAs. They were also one of the first regions to install a decent number of FYAs in general; NY 5S in Mohawk was the first place I ever saw them.

Binghamton and Rochester were the first areas to get FYAs (The ones in Mohawk were activated in late 2013).  R2 did seem to catch on at a good pace but I think other areas were seeming to catch on at the same time.  As for being the testbed for the three section FYAs, I tend to agree (I have seen them in a few other areas outside of R2, but not many).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on March 13, 2021, 05:26:33 PM
Region 4 is installing back plates on a large scale now, even on their older diagonal span wire installs. Monroe County is also installing back plates on their yellow bodied signals which almost gives them that Canadian look.

Speaking of three section FYA here's one that Region 4 installed around 2016 in Rochester.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1474909,-77.7094574,3a,75y,36.28h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLZfIMqlxafoG-cewE_Gkgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

EDIT: I should mention that this three section FYA is a permissive only signal so no bi-modal arrow here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 14, 2021, 05:41:07 PM
They repaved the last concrete segment of I-684 near Katonah and parts of the Saw Mill Pkway, but the button copy signs remain.  Aren't their replacement part of the project?
Any idea how old these are?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51034978453_224388716e_c.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on March 15, 2021, 12:18:15 AM
They repaved the last concrete segment of I-684 near Katonah and parts of the Saw Mill Pkway, but the button copy signs remain.  Aren't their replacement part of the project?
Any idea how old these are?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51034978453_224388716e_c.jpg)
Probably early 1980's as New York used a text form throughout the 1970's (the right sign would have "N.Y. 35" instead of the shield).  I say this because when the Camillus bypass was completed in 1979, the BGS's at the western freeway terminus had one with N.Y. 174 SOUTH/Camillus and the other with N.Y. 5 EAST/Syracuse without shields.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: interstatefan990 on March 15, 2021, 01:10:35 AM
They repaved the last concrete segment of I-684 near Katonah and parts of the Saw Mill Pkway, but the button copy signs remain.  Aren't their replacement part of the project?
Any idea how old these are?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51034978453_224388716e_c.jpg)

I drive past this point pretty frequently on my commutes and weekend drives, and I can tell you that these signs are in desperate need of replacement. They are almost completely illegible at night.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on March 16, 2021, 10:37:35 AM
Any body got any news on the progress at the kew gardens interchanges there is no news coverage ive heard nothing about it since 2018 ik they started phase 4 on the grandcentral
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on March 16, 2021, 08:06:59 PM
I drove thru there in both directions on GCP in the last two months. It's still a mess but it looks like it is progressing. Among other things, the Union Tpk. westbound overpass with the arches appears to be gone, I'm sorry to say. And both directions on GCP is an awkward drive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on March 17, 2021, 08:13:37 AM
They repaved the last concrete segment of I-684 near Katonah and parts of the Saw Mill Pkway, but the button copy signs remain.  Aren't their replacement part of the project?
Any idea how old these are?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51034978453_224388716e_c.jpg)
Probably early 1980's as New York used a text form throughout the 1970's (the right sign would have "N.Y. 35" instead of the shield).

When did NYS stop using button copy interstate shields?

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on March 17, 2021, 08:50:39 AM
I drove thru there in both directions on GCP in the last two months. It's still a mess but it looks like it is progressing. Among other things, the Union Tpk. westbound overpass with the arches appears to be gone, I'm sorry to say. And both directions on GCP is an awkward drive.
yeah i saw that to the last time i drove through there that overpass reminds me of when we used to drive to LGA but these improvements are needed here is a link to the video of the improvements if ur interested  https://youtu.be/pvmGYA-wQj4 (https://youtu.be/pvmGYA-wQj4)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 17, 2021, 08:01:22 PM
When did NYS stop using button copy interstate shields?

ixnay
I've only seen them myself in the NYC area, which suggests it's a region by region approach. Those signs could very well be original to the 1960s completions of the freeway network.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 17, 2021, 08:50:14 PM
When did NYS stop using button copy interstate shields?

ixnay
I've only seen them myself in the NYC area, which suggests it's a region by region approach. Those signs could very well be original to the 1960s completions of the freeway network.

I have seen pictures from upstate that have button copy shields, but again, we're talking early 70s at the absolute latest and all original signs. These were long gone upstate by the time I was old enough to remember signs. The button copy shields downstate are pretty much all original (60s), so this would track.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 18, 2021, 07:20:29 PM
(http://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/backup/assets/81hist1.jpg)

1973 or so in Syracuse. Interestingly the northbound overhead signs at Exit 32 with the same design (replacing “Cortland”  with “Watertown” ) did not have a button copy interstate marker, and it was put up around the same time. Unfortunately I don’t have a photo of that assembly.

Photo taken in 1976.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 18, 2021, 08:35:36 PM
Two things of interest on that photo.  First, the more things change, the more they stay the same...note the colors on the license plate.

Second, is that a 40 or 45 MPH speed limit attached to the 2nd overhead gantry?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on March 18, 2021, 08:40:03 PM
Very unusual for NYSDOT to have the route shield next to the destination instead of above it. Used to be common in California, but not here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 18, 2021, 09:04:09 PM
Very unusual for NYSDOT to have the route shield next to the destination instead of above it. Used to be common in California, but not here.

I only saw that in Region 3 for that generation of signs, but that’s how they did it on most of the overhead signs I remember. When they were replaced in the early 90s, they went with the standard layout.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 18, 2021, 09:04:42 PM
Two things of interest on that photo.  First, the more things change, the more they stay the same...note the colors on the license plate.

Second, is that a 40 or 45 MPH speed limit attached to the 2nd overhead gantry?


It’s a 45 MPH speed limit. I think it’s still 45 today.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on March 19, 2021, 09:21:28 AM
(http://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/backup/assets/81hist1.jpg)

1973 or so in Syracuse. Interestingly the northbound overhead signs at Exit 32 with the same design (replacing “Cortland”  with “Watertown” ) did not have a button copy interstate marker, and it was put up around the same time. Unfortunately I don’t have a photo of that assembly.

Photo taken in 1976.
the funny thing is those look like the signs they use on the Belt Pkwy and the BQE like the very square styling and the color
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 20, 2021, 12:43:57 PM
When did NYS stop using button copy interstate shields?

ixnay
I've only seen them myself in the NYC area, which suggests it's a region by region approach. Those signs could very well be original to the 1960s completions of the freeway network.
Oh, we had them on Long Island too. Of course, they started replacing most of them in the 1970's.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on March 22, 2021, 11:36:51 AM
I was out in Orleans County last week and had occasion to drive on NY-279.  I understand that it is under county maintenance, but there was absolutely no signage (reassurance or reference markers) between NY-104 and NY-18.

I contacted Region 4 and got this response:

“ Route 279 between Route 104 and Route 18 is owned, maintained, and operated by the Orleans County DPW.  This portion of the highway includes the segment you are referring to.  It was a State road but had been transferred to the County as part of a jurisdictional transfer many years ago.  If you would like to speak with someone at the County regarding this, they can be contacted at (585) 589-6145.”

Does this mean that it’s decommissioned?  In my experience most county-maintained segments still have reference markers and reassurance shields.  I can’t imagine Orleans County would post these.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 22, 2021, 12:00:16 PM
I was out in Orleans County last week and had occasion to drive on NY-279.  I understand that it is under county maintenance, but there was absolutely no signage (reassurance or reference markers) between NY-104 and NY-18.

I contacted Region 4 and got this response:

“ Route 279 between Route 104 and Route 18 is owned, maintained, and operated by the Orleans County DPW.  This portion of the highway includes the segment you are referring to.  It was a State road but had been transferred to the County as part of a jurisdictional transfer many years ago.  If you would like to speak with someone at the County regarding this, they can be contacted at (585) 589-6145.”

Does this mean that it’s decommissioned?  In my experience most county-maintained segments still have reference markers and reassurance shields.  I can’t imagine Orleans County would post these.

Interesting. If there really is no signage whatsoever, it must have been taken down fairly recently, as here's June 2019 Street View from NY 104 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2850934,-78.2155953,3a,49y,336.36h,81.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx6ibDUelTo1Fs1NqSxNC_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1). With that said, the rest of the route does seem to be very under-signed compared to most other state routes, although there is this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3228619,-78.2512437,3a,25.6y,102.64h,88.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4oVxggyO5BnfNhSjO471wA!2e0!5s20110701T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) from 2011 (which could easily be gone by now). It's also signed in advance on NY 18, although there is no reassurance shield once you make the turn, which is rare.

I would guess that it's not decommissioned unless it's something that happened very recently - but there are a few folks on here with more subject knowledge than me, so I'll defer to them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 22, 2021, 12:10:56 PM
NY 279 has been signed like crap along the route itself for years. There were only a couple shields along the county-maintained segment itself when I drove it in 2017, but it was signed well from both 104 and 18. I'll believe it's gone when signs are removed along both 104 and 18.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 22, 2021, 04:22:56 PM
I would guess that it's not decommissioned unless it's something that happened very recently - but there are a few folks on here with more subject knowledge than me, so I'll defer to them.

There are some other nearby routes that have been decommissioned along county-owned sections, if I'm not mistaken.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on March 22, 2021, 04:28:58 PM
NY 279 is still active.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on March 22, 2021, 08:25:40 PM
NY 279 has been signed like crap along the route itself for years. There were only a couple shields along the county-maintained segment itself when I drove it in 2017, but it was signed well from both 104 and 18. I'll believe it's gone when signs are removed along both 104 and 18.

I couldn't tell you how far off course I went when I eventually clinched NY 279 on my return trip from the NE Ohio meet in 2018 because I missed turns due to the lack of signage, particularly in Waterport (*NO* signs other than at the intersections with NY 104 and NY 18).  I honestly feel they should just drop the number in Orleans County altogether and move it to the New York portion of the Bennington Bypass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on March 22, 2021, 08:33:02 PM
move it to the New York portion of the Bennington Bypass.

Apple Maps thinks it already is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on March 22, 2021, 09:39:19 PM
Random question:  is NYSDOT HQ located where it is (50 Wolf Road, Colonie) for the view of its flagship highway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 22, 2021, 10:23:42 PM
I don't know, but I'm guessing no.  It's certainly a nice view from the 6th floor, though.  You can see all the way out to the Helderbergs, and at least several years ago, there was a hawk that was often seen in the area.  Main Office used to be located in the State Office Campus with Region 1 over at 84 Holland Avenue.  50 Wolf Road was originally the DEC building.  Then DEC moved downtown and Main Office moved to its present location.  Region 1, meanwhile, went over to downtown Schenectady for a few years before moving in with Main Office.

There were plans to move Region 1 and Main Office in with the Thruway Authority, but those have since been abandoned as far as I'm aware.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 22, 2021, 11:09:16 PM
Nah.  NYSDOT MO moved from the State Office Campus because Building 4 was falling apart.  50 Wolf Road was simply convenient.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: snowc on March 30, 2021, 06:06:18 AM
Nah.  NYSDOT MO moved from the State Office Campus because Building 4 was falling apart.  50 Wolf Road was simply convenient.
Anybody know why I-690 ramp to SYR from thompson and also exit 16N is closed? I saw them ripping it apart.  :banghead:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 30, 2021, 09:59:00 AM
^ According to the NYSDOT STIP, they're replacing the bridge decks on Thompson over 690 and the railroad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 30, 2021, 04:52:40 PM
Nah.  NYSDOT MO moved from the State Office Campus because Building 4 was falling apart.  50 Wolf Road was simply convenient.
Anybody know why I-690 ramp to SYR from thompson and also exit 16N is closed? I saw them ripping it apart.  :banghead:
Same reason the ramps on the other side were closed a year ago...bridge project...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: snowc on March 30, 2021, 06:36:36 PM
^ According to the NYSDOT STIP, they're replacing the bridge decks on Thompson over 690 and the railroad.
Thanks froggie!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 02, 2021, 09:31:45 AM
According to the Buffalo News, state planners have decided that NY-5/Skyway should be converted into a 40-MPH "boulevard" rather than a 55-MPH expressway. I don't agree with this at all, mostly because this road goes through a predominantly industrial area with a connection to another freeway. I am not sure what they are envisioning this area to look like, because in other cities with similar highway setups, I don't think they would completely downgrade their expressways like this. I'm not understanding the rationale to do this. I also don't think they actually talked to the people who use this road everyday... that was me for a few years.

Ironically, the I-190 in South Buffalo actually cuts neighborhoods off... I'm not sure why they don't push to remove that highway as well, because the Skyway only cuts on the Canalside district. In addition, it's been reported that even if the Skyway is removed, they will still keep a portion of the deck and piers around for a pedestrian park. I thought the goal was to increase development space at Canalside. I don't understand who is planning these projects.

Edit: Are these the "planners?" This is whack!

Quote
[Rep Brian Higgins and State Sen Tim Kennedy] want to also see a new on-ramp at Lake Avenue to take Southtowns residents to the 90 to connect to the 190, and a Thruway turning lane at Milestrip Road.

(https://i.imgur.com/znVindol.jpg)

(https://bloximages-chicago2-vip-townnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/b6/db686732-931a-11eb-883e-0b1e4571f182/606615c89b97d.image.png?resize=1024%2C700)

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/weve-got-to-get-it-right-boulevard-option-gains-favor-as-skyway-review-moves-ahead/article_c8e65f06-873f-11eb-b8a7-979504e370e7.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 02, 2021, 06:11:01 PM
According to the Buffalo News, state planners have decided that NY-5/Skyway should be converted into a 40-MPH "boulevard" rather than a 55-MPH expressway. I don't agree with this at all, mostly because this road goes through a predominantly industrial area with a connection to another freeway. I am not sure what they are envisioning this area to look like, because in other cities with similar highway setups, I don't think they would completely downgrade their expressways like this. I'm not understanding the rationale to do this. I also don't think they actually talked to the people who use this road everyday... that was me for a few years.

Ironically, the I-190 in South Buffalo actually cuts neighborhoods off... I'm not sure why they don't push to remove that highway as well, because the Skyway only cuts on the Canalside district. In addition, it's been reported that even if the Skyway is removed, they will still keep a portion of the deck and piers around for a pedestrian park. I thought the goal was to increase development space at Canalside. I don't understand who is planning these projects.

I originally disagreed with the Skyway removal, but now it looks like there might still be a freeway connection to I-190. Is the new purple route a full freeway? If so, then I don't have so much of an issue with the removal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 02, 2021, 06:18:32 PM
Considering that NYSDOT went ahead and removed the eastern end of the Inner Loop, I have no doubt they will lobby for it here.
Granted, Ive never seen the Inner Loop busy enough to warrant it's existence and they basically let it crumble for the last 20 years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 02, 2021, 08:23:37 PM
I originally disagreed with the Skyway removal, but now it looks like there might still be a freeway connection to I-190. Is the new purple route a full freeway? If so, then I don't have so much of an issue with the removal.

Surface road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 02, 2021, 10:21:53 PM
Ironically, the I-190 in South Buffalo actually cuts neighborhoods off... I'm not sure why they don't push to remove that highway as well, because the Skyway only cuts on the Canalside district. In addition, it's been reported that even if the Skyway is removed, they will still keep a portion of the deck and piers around for a pedestrian park. I thought the goal was to increase development space at Canalside. I don't understand who is planning these projects.
My understanding is that there's a developer that wants to build in the space around the I-190 interchange, but they need that part of the Skyway and the associated ramps gone to move forward.  As for I-190... don't give them ideas!

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 02, 2021, 11:40:10 PM
^^ that's an interesting one, but the developer might be waiting awhile for that

Considering that NYSDOT went ahead and removed the eastern end of the Inner Loop, I have no doubt they will lobby for it here.
Granted, Ive never seen the Inner Loop busy enough to warrant it's existence and they basically let it crumble for the last 20 years.

The difference is that Route 5 had an AADT of 36,000 cars in 2019 averaging 59 MPH. I'm not sure if I'm reading the right data but I found it here: https://gisportalny.dot.ny.gov/portalny/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=28537cbc8b5941e19cf8e959b16797b4.

Moving the expressway is a good idea. Downgrading it to a boulevard for (IMO) no reason but cost cutting is silly and shortsighted.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 03, 2021, 11:44:39 AM
I originally disagreed with the Skyway removal, but now it looks like there might still be a freeway connection to I-190. Is the new purple route a full freeway? If so, then I don't have so much of an issue with the removal.

Surface road.

In the diagram it looks like an interchange at South Park, but maybe more of a RIRO at Tifft (?).

If they're constructing seven new bridges and a new roadway anyways you'd think it would be at least expressway grade.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 03, 2021, 01:37:23 PM
I originally disagreed with the Skyway removal, but now it looks like there might still be a freeway connection to I-190. Is the new purple route a full freeway? If so, then I don't have so much of an issue with the removal.

Surface road.
If they're constructing seven new bridges and a new roadway anyways you'd think it would be at least expressway grade.

And that's why this makes no sense to me. We aren't talking about NY-198 here. We're talking about a heavily industrialized/warehouse area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 03, 2021, 07:42:36 PM
Considering that NYSDOT went ahead and removed the eastern end of the Inner Loop, I have no doubt they will lobby for it here.
Granted, Ive never seen the Inner Loop busy enough to warrant it's existence and they basically let it crumble for the last 20 years.

Of course, removing the Inner Loop didn't make any sense at first either, until they resolved to also restore the street grid that had been disrupted by it. But initially, the idea was simply to raise the roadway to surface level, leaving just as much of a blighted barrier, except now also with pedestrian and cross traffic conflicts.

(I have to say, I was just in town for a visit, and the area around Charlotte Street at Pitkin is really disorienting!)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: bluecountry on April 07, 2021, 09:47:49 PM
What's the deal with I-87.

1.  Is it ever going to have one uniform set of exit numbers?
2.  Why is it as part of the Thruway it is mostly 2 lanes south of I-90 despite being so close to Albany with little traffic, yet as soon as I-87 leaves the Thruway it adds a 3rd lane and has a lot more traffic than anywhere else (even the area right outside Albany) up to Lake George?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2021, 12:21:39 AM
What's the deal with I-87.

1.  Is it ever going to have one uniform set of exit numbers?
2.  Why is it as part of the Thruway it is mostly 2 lanes south of I-90 despite being so close to Albany with little traffic, yet as soon as I-87 leaves the Thruway it adds a 3rd lane and has a lot more traffic than anywhere else (even the area right outside Albany) up to Lake George?
1. No, it'll reset at each state line (VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY).
2. Because people hate tolls.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 08, 2021, 12:41:26 AM
What's the deal with I-87.

1.  Is it ever going to have one uniform set of exit numbers?
2.  Why is it as part of the Thruway it is mostly 2 lanes south of I-90 despite being so close to Albany with little traffic, yet as soon as I-87 leaves the Thruway it adds a 3rd lane and has a lot more traffic than anywhere else (even the area right outside Albany) up to Lake George?
1. No, it'll reset at each state line (VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY).
2. Because people hate tolls.
I-87 is in those states?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 08, 2021, 05:29:25 AM
What's the deal with I-87.

1.  Is it ever going to have one uniform set of exit numbers?
2.  Why is it as part of the Thruway it is mostly 2 lanes south of I-90 despite being so close to Albany with little traffic, yet as soon as I-87 leaves the Thruway it adds a 3rd lane and has a lot more traffic than anywhere else (even the area right outside Albany) up to Lake George?
1. No, it'll reset at each state line (VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY).
2. Because people hate tolls.
2. Not just that. Tolls don't prevent heavy travel between Albany and Schenectady.

Albany sits in a valley at confluence of Hudson and Mohawk and is surrounded by mountain ranges (Catskills, Adirondack, Green mountains). 787 splits off 87 Thruway at almost Southernmost point of the valley. There is a lot more usable land north of that point (Mohawk valley, Hudson valley as hudson turns almost 90 deg in Glenn's Falls) than south.  (Upd) there is also a stretch of 6-lane free I-90 on the other side of Hudson serving southeast portion of the valley).
https://www.freeworldmaps.net/united-states/newyork/newyork-map.jpg

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 08, 2021, 12:46:22 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that Albany is a major intersection of corridors.  There's I-87 to the north and south, I-90 to the east and west, and I-88 to the southwest (there's also NY 7/VT 9 to the northeast).  Traffic from the south, west, east, and southwest then goes north of I-87 to Lake George/Saratoga/the Adirondacks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: snowc on April 08, 2021, 01:36:49 PM
What's the deal with I-87.

1.  Is it ever going to have one uniform set of exit numbers?
2.  Why is it as part of the Thruway it is mostly 2 lanes south of I-90 despite being so close to Albany with little traffic, yet as soon as I-87 leaves the Thruway it adds a 3rd lane and has a lot more traffic than anywhere else (even the area right outside Albany) up to Lake George?
1. No, it'll reset at each state line (VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY).
2. Because people hate tolls.
I-87 is in those states?
Not quite. I-87 is in NC but is future in VA. MD doesn't have I87, nor DE!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2021, 06:17:00 PM
What's the deal with I-87.

1.  Is it ever going to have one uniform set of exit numbers?
2.  Why is it as part of the Thruway it is mostly 2 lanes south of I-90 despite being so close to Albany with little traffic, yet as soon as I-87 leaves the Thruway it adds a 3rd lane and has a lot more traffic than anywhere else (even the area right outside Albany) up to Lake George?
1. No, it'll reset at each state line (VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY).
2. Because people hate tolls.
I-87 is in those states?
Not quite. I-87 is in NC but is future in VA. MD doesn't have I87, nor DE!
Ah, but the intent, you see...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 09, 2021, 11:26:29 PM
First $800m finally announced for I-81 project in Syracuse as part of the new state budget.  A lot of the first phase work will be on I-481.

https://www.syracuse.com/state/2021/04/syracuses-i-81-project-gets-800m-in-ny-budget-with-latest-plan-coming-this-summer.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 09, 2021, 11:33:37 PM
I love this:

“ For years we have been working on a solution to transform the obsolete and poorly designed I-81 viaduct in Syracuse into a modern transportation corridor”

Which is reverting it back to an a road with at grade crossings. That is comedy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 10, 2021, 12:26:21 AM
 
I love this:

“ For years we have been working on a solution to transform the obsolete and poorly designed I-81 viaduct in Syracuse into a modern transportation corridor”

Which is reverting it back to an a road with at grade crossings. That is comedy.

Yeah, like how "modern" art was all the rage in the early 20th century. Then it was superseded by all this wacky stuff a few decades later–and now look at which of the two still draws crowds in a museum! :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 10, 2021, 04:27:39 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that Albany is a major intersection of corridors.  There's I-87 to the north and south, I-90 to the east and west, and I-88 to the southwest (there's also NY 7/VT 9 to the northeast).  Traffic from the south, west, east, and southwest then goes north of I-87 to Lake George/Saratoga/the Adirondacks.

Don't forget Montreal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 10, 2021, 05:18:31 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that Albany is a major intersection of corridors.  There's I-87 to the north and south, I-90 to the east and west, and I-88 to the southwest (there's also NY 7/VT 9 to the northeast).  Traffic from the south, west, east, and southwest then goes north of I-87 to Lake George/Saratoga/the Adirondacks.

Don't forget Montreal.
I-87 up north and I-88 are fairly empty most of the time. there are 3 busy roads out of Albany - going to Boston, NYC and Buffalo. Buffalo-Boston (Hartford) is probably the only traffic stream transiting through Albany area. NYC-Boston and NYC-Syracuse(Buffalo) don't need to go through Albany.
Canal was a big transit route, but no longer is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 10, 2021, 11:21:50 PM
Another thing to keep in mind that Albany is a major intersection of corridors.  There's I-87 to the north and south, I-90 to the east and west, and I-88 to the southwest (there's also NY 7/VT 9 to the northeast).  Traffic from the south, west, east, and southwest then goes north of I-87 to Lake George/Saratoga/the Adirondacks.

Don't forget Montreal.
I-87 up north and I-88 are fairly empty most of the time. there are 3 busy roads out of Albany - going to Boston, NYC and Buffalo. Buffalo-Boston (Hartford) is probably the only traffic stream transiting through Albany area. NYC-Boston and NYC-Syracuse(Buffalo) don't need to go through Albany.
Canal was a big transit route, but no longer is.
Depends on how expansive you define the "Albany area".  In normal times, there's lots of out of state traffic going up the Northway to Saratoga/Lake George, though this is, of course, seasonal.

There isn't nearly as much Albany-Montréal traffic as one would think.  The border is just enough of an impediment to tamp it down a little, and traffic counts through Essex County are very low (some sections get down to an AADT of around 5-6k, much less than I-90 or I-87 south of Albany).  It's also very desolate by northeast interstate standards - in the whole of Essex County (a bit over 50 miles as the crow flies) there are only three* towns of any significance within 5 miles of the Northway (Schroon Lake, Elizabethtown, and Westport), two of them from the same exit.  There is a fair amount of Canadian traffic, but a lot of that is going to the Adirondacks as well, so not all of it makes it down to Albany.  Also keep in mind that the drive is long.  Between the Thruway moving south and the border moving north, I-87 north of I-90 is about the same length as I-81 is across the entire state.  Albany-Plattsburgh is not Syracuse-Watertown but further east.

*Four if including Keeseville, though the exit and majority of the former village are in Clinton County.

I love this:

“ For years we have been working on a solution to transform the obsolete and poorly designed I-81 viaduct in Syracuse into a modern transportation corridor”

Which is reverting it back to an a road with at grade crossings. That is comedy.

Yeah, like how "modern" art was all the rage in the early 20th century. Then it was superseded by all this wacky stuff a few decades later–and now look at which of the two still draws crowds in a museum! :-D
I suspect the Urbanists consider the entire concept of a freeway to be outdated.  They want to replace all urban freeways with boulevards, bikes, and transit, and all rural freeways with trains.  Make no mistake, that's the endgame.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 11, 2021, 05:09:23 PM
 
I suspect the Urbanists consider the entire concept of a freeway to be outdated.  They want to replace all urban freeways with boulevards, bikes, and transit, and all rural freeways with trains.  Make no mistake, that's the endgame.

(personal opinion)

Exactly. The concept of replacing an urban freeway with a surface boulevard is indeed quite modern–as in current, recently in vogue–so that's not the funny part. Where the comedy comes in is that "Modern" also refers to a specific aesthetic period that is now quite out-of-date–like the I-81 freeway through Syracuse. So they want to replace something Modern with something modern. :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheGrassGuy on April 12, 2021, 07:54:52 AM
What next? Turning the Harlem River Drive back into a speedway for horse traffic only? Taking a page out of The Netherlands's book and making the Thruway a bicycle highway? Just think of all the trees we'll be saving! :bigass:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 12, 2021, 11:15:40 AM
What next? Turning the Harlem River Drive back into a speedway for horse traffic only? Taking a page out of The Netherlands's book and making the Thruway a bicycle highway? Just think of all the trees we'll be saving! :bigass:

I don't think the Thruway is considered obsolete (i.e., "modern") by any appreciable number of people, so that wouldn't be a good comparison. Harlem River Drive–more likely, actually! (Especially if you did replace it with a bicycle facility, rather than a horse track.) But a better comparison still would be the replacement of the West Side Highway with the current surface boulevard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 12, 2021, 01:31:23 PM
Eh, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people out there who see high-speed rail as a replacement for the interstate system.  And actually, there is a trail following a similar route to the Thruway (https://empiretrail.ny.gov/)!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 01:48:24 PM
According to the Buffalo News, state planners have decided that NY-5/Skyway should be converted into a 40-MPH "boulevard" rather than a 55-MPH expressway. I don't agree with this at all, mostly because this road goes through a predominantly industrial area with a connection to another freeway. I am not sure what they are envisioning this area to look like, because in other cities with similar highway setups, I don't think they would completely downgrade their expressways like this. I'm not understanding the rationale to do this. I also don't think they actually talked to the people who use this road everyday... that was me for a few years.

Ironically, the I-190 in South Buffalo actually cuts neighborhoods off... I'm not sure why they don't push to remove that highway as well, because the Skyway only cuts on the Canalside district. In addition, it's been reported that even if the Skyway is removed, they will still keep a portion of the deck and piers around for a pedestrian park. I thought the goal was to increase development space at Canalside. I don't understand who is planning these projects.

Edit: Are these the "planners?" This is whack!

Quote
[Rep Brian Higgins and State Sen Tim Kennedy] want to also see a new on-ramp at Lake Avenue to take Southtowns residents to the 90 to connect to the 190, and a Thruway turning lane at Milestrip Road.

(https://i.imgur.com/znVindol.jpg)

(https://bloximages-chicago2-vip-townnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/b6/db686732-931a-11eb-883e-0b1e4571f182/606615c89b97d.image.png?resize=1024%2C700)

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/weve-got-to-get-it-right-boulevard-option-gains-favor-as-skyway-review-moves-ahead/article_c8e65f06-873f-11eb-b8a7-979504e370e7.html

Also, the Skyway is rather beautiful. There seems to be a backlash forming against its removal https://www.change.org/p/brian-higgins-save-the-skyway-bridge?recruiter=925986633&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&recruited_by_id=b80a0c80-0c64-11e9-93bd-eb0aef6101a6
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2021, 04:37:36 PM
Good. I signed it. It would be awesome to see this structure saved.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 12, 2021, 09:37:49 PM
One thing to keep in mind: that petition advocates work around NY 198 and NY 33 that could include freeway removals.  The NY 33 proposal was originally to cap it, but nobody wants the exhaust vents, so I wouldn't rule out a full removal being considered at some point.  Also, a good chunk of the "keep the Skyway" crowd wants to keep it as a pedestrian-only Cloudwalk (which would no longer exist in the area around I-190 and would have a giant elevator built instead), not as a freeway.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 09:48:50 PM
One thing to keep in mind: that petition advocates work around NY 198 and NY 33 that could include freeway removals.  The NY 33 proposal was originally to cap it, but nobody wants the exhaust vents, so I wouldn't rule out a full removal being considered at some point.  Also, a good chunk of the "keep the Skyway" crowd wants to keep it as a pedestrian-only Cloudwalk (which would no longer exist in the area around I-190 and would have a giant elevator built instead), not as a freeway.

(personal opinion)

Exhaust vents won't be needed in the future with electric cars.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 12, 2021, 10:22:42 PM
So you're suggesting that they leave everything the way it is now for the couple of decades it will take for electric cars to become pervasive enough to not need exhaust vents?  Good luck with that...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:52:11 PM
So you're suggesting that they leave everything the way it is now for the couple of decades it will take for electric cars to become pervasive enough to not need exhaust vents?  Good luck with that...

Decades? Try years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 13, 2021, 01:19:59 AM
So you're suggesting that they leave everything the way it is now for the couple of decades it will take for electric cars to become pervasive enough to not need exhaust vents?  Good luck with that...

Decades? Try years.
Try decades. Next.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 13, 2021, 01:11:58 PM
So you're suggesting that they leave everything the way it is now for the couple of decades it will take for electric cars to become pervasive enough to not need exhaust vents?  Good luck with that...

Decades? Try years.
In the places that set a date for outlawing ICE cars, that date tends to be in the 2030-2040 time range.  Then you need to add another decade on top of that for the ICE cars on the road when that happens to age out of the fleet.  So yes, decades.  Given that electric cars take a long time to charge and aren't as good on roadtrips for that reason, with no credible evidence that such will change (the battery industry has been trying to figure out fast charging of big batteries for over 20 years now and, despite many promising attempts, has failed to do so every time, so any claim that they will is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence), adoption is going to be limited to people who are willing to put up with the more frequent/longer stops to charge and/or people who are willing to just use it to drive around town and have (or rent) a separate car for trips for a while, perhaps up until people are forced by government mandate.  Most people want a car that can handle all their needs, not just the most common ones and end up needing a second car or to rent for the others.

Regardless, as I'm sure this will all be dismissed because it doesn't agree with your pre-conceived prognostications of what you want the future to look like, even if we assume it was just years, the people who want to remove those freeways aren't going to want to wait even that long, and the freeway removal movement is only gaining momentum.  Every project, in their eyes, is just a stepping stone to removing even more freeways.  The Inner Loop in Rochester is already being used to justify removing I-81 in Syracuse and I-787 in Albany, for example.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on April 13, 2021, 02:43:05 PM
No place has outlawed ICE car ownership or usage. A select few are setting mandates for forcing the sale of -new- electric-only vehicles. As it is, you can purchase a very cheap ICE car; battery-only vehicles are still very expensive and unattainable to all but the upper class.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2021, 08:43:16 PM
I think electric cars will not become the norm until you can recharge an electric car's batteries as fast as you can fill an ICE's gas tank with gasoline, and go as far as that ICE car without recharging. Also, the car's electrical batteries would have to work in all temperatures and climates, and could last as long as a well-maintained ICE car. Not to mention the car's batteries should be able to be recharged during power outages and after natural disasters. In conclusion, I am skeptical of predictions of a full ICE-to-electric conversion (and am also skeptical of all pedictions about the future), and believe that the "outlaw" dates will come and go without everyone having given up their ICE cars.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 09:11:05 PM
Lithium ion battery costs have fallen 97% (https://news.mit.edu/2021/lithium-ion-battery-costs-0323) since 1991.

And based on the continued breakthroughs coming out of research labs all over the world, this progress is not going to stop any time soon. And these advances are being commercialized. Chevrolet is bringing out an electric Silverado pickup truck in 2023 with 400 miles of range. And trucks and buses, which make up a disproportionate share of harmful emissions, will probably go electric sooner as operators are more willing to pay higher upfront costs in exchange for lower fuel and maintenance bills. I think that the electric age is close enough to justify not permanently dismantling a freeway out of air pollution concerns.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 13, 2021, 09:34:27 PM
This thread is supposed to be about NY...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on April 13, 2021, 09:40:09 PM
This thread is supposed to be about NY...

Yes, New York has ICE cars, being on the Canadian border. You could also make an ice car sculpture, but it would melt quickly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2021, 09:43:16 PM
Yes. Let's all go back to talking about New York, everybody! Any other off-topic material (such as the ICE car vs. electric car debate) should be confined to the Off-Topic Board.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 13, 2021, 09:52:10 PM
No place has outlawed ICE car ownership or usage. A select few are setting mandates for forcing the sale of -new- electric-only vehicles. As it is, you can purchase a very cheap ICE car; battery-only vehicles are still very expensive and unattainable to all but the upper class.
That's what I meant about the ICE cars aging out of the fleet.  Even after the date where the sale of new ICE cars is reached, all the existing ones will still be on the road, and the last holdouts to electric may well hold onto the cars longer than they otherwise would, so it would probably be 15-20 years after that for the vast majority of them to be gone.

Lithium ion battery costs have fallen 97% (https://news.mit.edu/2021/lithium-ion-battery-costs-0323) since 1991.

And based on the continued breakthroughs coming out of research labs all over the world, this progress is not going to stop any time soon. And these advances are being commercialized. Chevrolet is bringing out an electric Silverado pickup truck in 2023 with 400 miles of range. And trucks and buses, which make up a disproportionate share of harmful emissions, will probably go electric sooner as operators are more willing to pay higher upfront costs in exchange for lower fuel and maintenance bills. I think that the electric age is close enough to justify not permanently dismantling a freeway out of air pollution concerns.


You're the first person to bring up cost here and you're not doing much to address any of our other points.  The only one you even bothered to bring up is range, and those stated ranges for vehicles tend to be in ideal conditions with a fully charged battery - and getting to fully charged takes a LONG time.  Realistically, the range on a battery charged to 80% driven the way normal people drive on normal terrain in average conditions is lower, especially when the battery is no longer new.  And even if it isn't, the fact that charging takes a lot longer even only going to 80% means that roadtrips will take longer.

Yes. Let's all go back to talking about New York, everybody! Any other off-topic material (such as the ICE car vs. electric car debate) should be confined to the Off-Topic Board.
This whole thing started because kernals12 decided that electric cars mean that all the people who objected to the plan to cap the Kensington Expressway can be ignored.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 13, 2021, 11:40:02 PM
Eh, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people out there who see high-speed rail as a replacement for the interstate system.  And actually, there is a trail following a similar route to the Thruway (https://empiretrail.ny.gov/)!

I suppose that could be. Although high-speed rail is not an outdated concept, so you don't get the humorous paradox in that case.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on April 14, 2021, 09:16:33 AM
does anybody know whats with the state not doing anything with the crossbronx expwy and not tunneling it or fixing it
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 14, 2021, 10:31:29 AM
Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.php
Quote
A bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 10:40:23 AM
Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.php
Quote
A bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump

That's gonna get secessionist currents rolling upstate
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 14, 2021, 11:30:20 AM
Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.php
Quote
A bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump

Well, this would be a very good way to ensure Albany flips to the GOP.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 14, 2021, 11:42:49 AM
Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.php
Quote
A bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
Pfft.  NY Legislature has the ability to do most of its work behind closed doors (which is why the vast majority of bills pass when they get to the vote).  I think this bill will die therein.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 14, 2021, 11:52:18 AM
Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.php
Quote
A bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
Pfft.  NY Legislature has the ability to do most of its work behind closed doors (which is why the vast majority of bills pass when they get to the vote).  I think this bill will die therein.
You never know. I said pretty much the same about Tappan Zee renaming... It was rubber-stamped within a week!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 14, 2021, 12:02:07 PM
Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.php
Quote
A bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
Pfft.  NY Legislature has the ability to do most of its work behind closed doors (which is why the vast majority of bills pass when they get to the vote).  I think this bill will die therein.
You never know. I said pretty much the same about Tappan Zee renaming... It was rubber-stamped within a week!
That one was more understandable.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 14, 2021, 12:07:44 PM
Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.php
Quote
A bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
Pfft.  NY Legislature has the ability to do most of its work behind closed doors (which is why the vast majority of bills pass when they get to the vote).  I think this bill will die therein.
You never know. I said pretty much the same about Tappan Zee renaming... It was rubber-stamped within a week!
That one was more understandable.
I suspect any measure to bring more revenue would be fairly understandable these days.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on April 14, 2021, 02:31:10 PM
Eeeeesh.....

https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/

That beam is nearly ripped into two.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 14, 2021, 02:47:02 PM
Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.php
Quote
A bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
Pfft.  NY Legislature has the ability to do most of its work behind closed doors (which is why the vast majority of bills pass when they get to the vote).  I think this bill will die therein.
You never know. I said pretty much the same about Tappan Zee renaming... It was rubber-stamped within a week!
That one was more understandable.
I suspect any measure to bring more revenue would be fairly understandable these days.
Yeah, keep in mind that the reason why the budget was late was because they were working out what tax increases to have, even though the latest stimulus bill combined with the $5 billion that randomly got found more than plugged the hole.  I'm not going to let myself be optimistic about this dying, and yes, it would almost certainly lead to more upstate secession threats and the government flipping to the GOP next year.

Seriously, yikes.  I don't mind increasing the gas tax as needed, but NY already has a high gas tax that goes straight to the general fund, and 55 cents is a LOT, enough that it might actually be cheaper for me to go to Vermont or Massachusetts for gas at least some of the time, even factoring in the gas used for the drive, even in my Civic.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 14, 2021, 02:56:49 PM
Eeeeesh.....

https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/

That beam is nearly ripped into two.
Normally, I'd expect something like that to happen to parkway interchanges, not an interstate highway like the Adirondack Northway. Although there are a few bridges over the Long Island Expressway that are unexpectedly low.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 14, 2021, 02:58:26 PM
Eeeeesh.....

https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/

That beam is nearly ripped into two.
Yeah, I had to deal with some backroads today.
Not sure how bad it is structure wise; it is pretty bad traffic wise.

And a close-up. Doesn't look good!
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/17/46/32/20866729/6/rawImage.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 14, 2021, 03:32:49 PM
That bridge isn't reopening anytime soon. They're going to need to completely replace the west span. 3 stringers an a pier are compromised. At this point, don't expect the Northway to reopen until they can demolish that span.

I really hope the driver of the truck has a large insurance policy, because that's gonna be a pricey fine.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 14, 2021, 03:48:11 PM
That bridge isn't reopening anytime soon. They're going to need to completely replace the west span. 3 stringers an a pier are compromised. At this point, don't expect the Northway to reopen until they can demolish that span.

I really hope the driver of the truck has a large insurance policy, because that's gonna be a pricey fine.
That is beyond "it suck"....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 14, 2021, 03:57:29 PM
Eeeeesh.....

https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/

That beam is nearly ripped into two.
Normally, I'd expect something like that to happen to parkway interchanges, not an interstate highway like the Adirondack Northway. Although there are a few bridges over the Long Island Expressway that are unexpectedly low.
That was a relatively low bridge at  14'4" - and they hit the bridge exactly below the sign. Well, if there will be a replacement - it will surely be up to the standard (pun intended).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 14, 2021, 04:59:20 PM
That bridge isn't reopening anytime soon. They're going to need to completely replace the west span. 3 stringers an a pier are compromised. At this point, don't expect the Northway to reopen until they can demolish that span.

I really hope the driver of the truck has a large insurance policy, because that's gonna be a pricey fine.
Word is one lane will reopen, would take 3 weeks for repairs before things are back to normal. Exit 9 will remain closed - to keep traffic off overloaded 146 in Clifton park, I assume.
WOuld be a total collapse before covid, downgraded to a huge cluster-f  with today's reduced traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on April 14, 2021, 05:34:42 PM
Here in Illinois, I just saw a VMS saying “Stop bridge hits”  and saying over 13’ 6”  needs permits. That sounds low for permits but is well below the Northway bridge.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 14, 2021, 06:27:34 PM
That bridge isn't reopening anytime soon. They're going to need to completely replace the west span. 3 stringers an a pier are compromised. At this point, don't expect the Northway to reopen until they can demolish that span.

I really hope the driver of the truck has a large insurance policy, because that's gonna be a pricey fine.
Word is one lane will reopen, would take 3 weeks for repairs before things are back to normal. Exit 9 will remain closed - to keep traffic off overloaded 146 in Clifton park, I assume.
WOuld be a total collapse before covid, downgraded to a huge cluster-f  with today's reduced traffic.

Wow, what a disaster. US 9 looks like a nightmare, and Grooms Rd. not much better. I find the decision to detour traffic at Exit 10 and keep Exit 9 closed really interesting. You'd think traffic would disseminate a bit better by using the Exit 9 ramps, but then again, that does put an incredible strain on 146.

Curious what the locals thoughts are as to the best alternate. US 4, maybe?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 14, 2021, 06:41:04 PM
That bridge isn't reopening anytime soon. They're going to need to completely replace the west span. 3 stringers an a pier are compromised. At this point, don't expect the Northway to reopen until they can demolish that span.

I really hope the driver of the truck has a large insurance policy, because that's gonna be a pricey fine.
Word is one lane will reopen, would take 3 weeks for repairs before things are back to normal. Exit 9 will remain closed - to keep traffic off overloaded 146 in Clifton park, I assume.
WOuld be a total collapse before covid, downgraded to a huge cluster-f  with today's reduced traffic.

Wow, what a disaster. US 9 looks like a nightmare, and Grooms Rd. not much better. I find the decision to detour traffic at Exit 10 and keep Exit 9 closed really interesting. You'd think traffic would disseminate a bit better by using the Exit 9 ramps, but then again, that does put an incredible strain on 146.

Curious what the locals thoughts are as to the best alternate. US 4, maybe?

Depends on the origin/destination. Where I live, I'd use US 4 or NY 40. Anything southwest would use something involving 146 or 50. 9, 146A, and parallel roads are still the best options for local traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on April 14, 2021, 08:47:56 PM
Eeeeesh.....

https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/

That beam is nearly ripped into two.
Normally, I'd expect something like that to happen to parkway interchanges, not an interstate highway like the Adirondack Northway. Although there are a few bridges over the Long Island Expressway that are unexpectedly low.
That was a relatively low bridge at  14'4" - and they hit the bridge exactly below the sign. Well, if there will be a replacement - it will surely be up to the standard (pun intended).

I heard that the state and Clifton Park fought against raising that span to 16'....  I also notice that the beams looked a bit long in the tooth too, because I really can't see how the boom on a manlift can do that much damage on new beams.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on April 14, 2021, 08:49:30 PM
Eeeeesh.....

https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/

That beam is nearly ripped into two.
Normally, I'd expect something like that to happen to parkway interchanges, not an interstate highway like the Adirondack Northway. Although there are a few bridges over the Long Island Expressway that are unexpectedly low.

Crazeenydriver needs to make a video on this!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 15, 2021, 11:18:57 AM
I just went through affected area of I-87. Traffic situation is nowhere close to the total collapse we feared.
Right lane is separated by jersey barriers, steel support columns are installed in the right lane. Other two lanes are open for traffic.
No entry at Exit 9, removing a lot of traffic and a heavy merge just upstream of accident location.  Exit 8A is probably a mess during commute, but traffic is still suppressed by covid.
The only thing I would do differently is extending lane closure by another mile to exit 8A to facilitate that merge.

Biggest issue would be on weekends, when a lot of NYC vacation traffic would be coming from Adirondack and Lake George.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: bob7374 on April 21, 2021, 12:57:28 AM
Mention of the Hutchinson River Parkway in the best route Boston to NYC thread had me following up about the sign replacement project that was supposed to start in June 2020. Couldn't find any information except for the sign plans, which have the new exit numbers listed on them, the plans are available at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=29755&p_is_digital=Y (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=29755&p_is_digital=Y)

The last exit number northbound for the NY 120A/King Street is 19A, the Greenwich CT exit is listed as 19B, a note on the plan indicates that gore sign will be put up by CTDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 22, 2021, 10:42:50 AM
I just went through affected area of I-87. Traffic situation is nowhere close to the total collapse we feared.
Right lane is separated by jersey barriers, steel support columns are installed in the right lane. Other two lanes are open for traffic.
No entry at Exit 9, removing a lot of traffic and a heavy merge just upstream of accident location.  Exit 8A is probably a mess during commute, but traffic is still suppressed by covid.
The only thing I would do differently is extending lane closure by another mile to exit 8A to facilitate that merge.

Biggest issue would be on weekends, when a lot of NYC vacation traffic would be coming from Adirondack and Lake George.
And the latest update: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/After-crash-section-of-bridge-over-Northway-to-16118979.php
Section of a bridge is coming down, as @cl94 said - I assume the span over southbound lanes?. Highway closed overnight on weekend.
That's a lot of aftermath from a single impact... 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 22, 2021, 11:00:26 AM
In other NY news, construction has begun at NY 286 and Five Mile Line Rd in Penfield, an intersection I've grumbled about in the past because of the lack of turning lanes and rush hour backups.  It was originally under study for a roundabout, but they're ultimately going with the more sensible option of just adding turning lanes on all four approaches, including a southbound right turn lane. Diagram here:


(https://imgur.com/FU5sH0V.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on April 22, 2021, 07:25:43 PM
Eeeeesh.....

https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/

That beam is nearly ripped into two.
Normally, I'd expect something like that to happen to parkway interchanges, not an interstate highway like the Adirondack Northway. Although there are a few bridges over the Long Island Expressway that are unexpectedly low.

Crazeenydriver needs to make a video on this!
This sort of thing may happen on NY 390 in Rochester one day.  This bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1915682,-77.6830971,3a,75y,175.5h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHoTnKoTKVUu3icOL6_8arw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0) on SB NY 390 is marked at 12 ft. 11 in. clearance in the left lane. This is in an industrial area with a lot of truck traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on April 22, 2021, 07:28:09 PM
In other NY news, construction has begun at NY 286 and Five Mile Line Rd in Penfield, an intersection I've grumbled about in the past because of the lack of turning lanes and rush hour backups.  It was originally under study for a roundabout, but they're ultimately going with the more sensible option of just adding turning lanes on all four approaches, including a southbound right turn lane. Diagram here:


(https://imgur.com/FU5sH0V.jpg)
It's about time. This needed to be done 20 years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 22, 2021, 10:15:27 PM
I just traveled on the Taconic State Parkway for the first time. Beautiful road, but seems a bit overbuilt up north in Columbia County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 22, 2021, 10:18:16 PM
Most sections of the Taconic have been rebuilt to modern standards. The notable exception is thru Putnam County where it's still the original four-lane road with later installed guide-rail in the middle. That is unless changes have been made in the last few years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 23, 2021, 12:44:42 AM
Most sections of the Taconic have been rebuilt to modern standards. The notable exception is thru Putnam County where it's still the original four-lane road with later installed guide-rail in the middle. That is unless changes have been made in the last few years.
To widen the Taconic south of I-84 would just be horrifically expensive given you would have to cut into the hill more.  It's a short section, so just take a deep breath, white-knuckle it and it's all over in about a minute.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 23, 2021, 01:29:47 AM
Most sections of the Taconic have been rebuilt to modern standards. The notable exception is thru Putnam County where it's still the original four-lane road with later installed guide-rail in the middle. That is unless changes have been made in the last few years.
To widen the Taconic south of I-84 would just be horrifically expensive given you would have to cut into the hill more.  It's a short section, so just take a deep breath, white-knuckle it and it's all over in about a minute.

That section is at least straight, it's not so bad. The peekskill hollow section after the curve farther south is the worst stretch of the road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 23, 2021, 07:19:32 AM
Similar comment, though:  To fix all that by straightening the road out more and upgrading the Peekskill Hollow interchange, would be extremely expensive.  Although NYSDOT upgraded Pudding Street, that was a relatively easier place to fix up (top of a flat hill) than in a ravine.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 23, 2021, 03:22:49 PM
Most sections of the Taconic have been rebuilt to modern standards. The notable exception is thru Putnam County where it's still the original four-lane road with later installed guide-rail in the middle. That is unless changes have been made in the last few years.
To widen the Taconic south of I-84 would just be horrifically expensive given you would have to cut into the hill more.  It's a short section, so just take a deep breath, white-knuckle it and it's all over in about a minute.
I'm amazed that area doesn't have enough crashes to outweigh the costs. Not sure those are even 10' lanes. It's expensive but likely environmental is a bigger headache.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 23, 2021, 04:07:15 PM
I just traveled on the Taconic State Parkway for the first time. Beautiful road, but seems a bit overbuilt up north in Columbia County.

In what way?

Most sections of the Taconic have been rebuilt to modern standards. The notable exception is thru Putnam County where it's still the original four-lane road with later installed guide-rail in the middle. That is unless changes have been made in the last few years.

Nothing recently, aside from Pudding Street, but that doesn't alter that character much. The next newest section is the Miller Hill Road interchange, just to the north in Dutchess County.

I'm amazed that area doesn't have enough crashes to outweigh the costs. Not sure those are even 10' lanes. It's expensive but likely environmental is a bigger headache.

I wouldn't be surprised if it does, but I'd rather see the focus placed on encouraging traffic to use US 9 instead. For many, it's already the better route; for enough others, it's enough better that it might not be hard to tip the scales.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 23, 2021, 04:31:29 PM
I just traveled on the Taconic State Parkway for the first time. Beautiful road, but seems a bit overbuilt up north in Columbia County.

In what way?

Most sections of the Taconic have been rebuilt to modern standards. The notable exception is thru Putnam County where it's still the original four-lane road with later installed guide-rail in the middle. That is unless changes have been made in the last few years.

Nothing recently, aside from Pudding Street, but that doesn't alter that character much. The next newest section is the Miller Hill Road interchange, just to the north in Dutchess County.

I'm amazed that area doesn't have enough crashes to outweigh the costs. Not sure those are even 10' lanes. It's expensive but likely environmental is a bigger headache.

I wouldn't be surprised if it does, but I'd rather see the focus placed on encouraging traffic to use US 9 instead. For many, it's already the better route; for enough others, it's enough better that it might not be hard to tip the scales.
How is US 9 a better route?  It's a mess in Ossining and Tarrytown.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 23, 2021, 05:34:25 PM
The only extended section of the Taconic that has been upgraded is between the Sprain and US 6. This section was widened to modern standards between the 70s and 2000s. Putnam County is hard because, in many cases, parkland is right up to the ROW line.

Upgrades north of US 6 are as follows (may not be an exhaustive list):
- Pudding Street
- Small NB realignment just south of NY 301
- Miller Hill Road interchange
- Hosner Mountain Road bridge
- Beekman Road Interchange
- Arthursburg Road RIRO and Noxon Road ramp
- Several full crossings converted to RIROs from Todd Hill Road north
- Double trumpet stubs removed at Exit B2

In a few of these cases (the new interchanges), the parkway was widened/upgraded around the location. In others, such as most/all of the RIROs, there were minimal changes to the parkway itself.


How is US 9 a better route?  It's a mess in Ossining and Tarrytown.

US 9 north of Ossining is fine. Use the Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway (3 lights) to make the jump from the Sprain/Taconic to US 9. 9 north of there is full freeway to the Bear Mountain Parkway and generally flows well to 84.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 23, 2021, 06:19:57 PM
The only extended section of the Taconic that has been upgraded is between the Sprain and US 6. This section was widened to modern standards between the 70s and 2000s. Putnam County is hard because, in many cases, parkland is right up to the ROW line.

Upgrades north of US 6 are as follows (may not be an exhaustive list):
- Pudding Street
- Small NB realignment just south of NY 301
- Miller Hill Road interchange
- Hosner Mountain Road bridge
- Beekman Road Interchange
- Arthursburg Road RIRO and Noxon Road ramp
- Several full crossings converted to RIROs from Todd Hill Road north
- Double trumpet stubs removed at Exit B2

In a few of these cases (the new interchanges), the parkway was widened/upgraded around the location. In others, such as most/all of the RIROs, there were minimal changes to the parkway itself.


How is US 9 a better route?  It's a mess in Ossining and Tarrytown.

US 9 north of Ossining is fine. Use the Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway (3 lights) to make the jump from the Sprain/Taconic to US 9. 9 north of there is full freeway to the Bear Mountain Parkway and generally flows well to 84.
Eh, not sure there's enough of a benefit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 23, 2021, 09:51:45 PM
How is US 9 a better route?  It's a mess in Ossining and Tarrytown.

Because none of that mess lies along the Putnam County section, which is undeveloped, and much straighter and flatter than the Taconic, with wider lanes. It also feeds directly into the population centers north of I-84, which are appreciably more dense than you might expect if you're thinking that the Putnam/Westchester line is the limit of exurbia.

Eh, not sure there's enough of a benefit.

I am. This is all daily commuting territory for me. I choose US 9 over the Taconic routinely, precisely because of the benefit. We generally look at the Taconic as best left to long-haulers, people headed between the city and Upstate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 23, 2021, 10:00:05 PM
There's also US 202 to connect between US 9 and the Taconic. Not sure how viable that is, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 23, 2021, 11:16:42 PM
I shall see what Google Maps has to say about this.  :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 24, 2021, 02:02:06 AM
There's also US 202 to connect between US 9 and the Taconic. Not sure how viable that is, though.

Usually not bad, but there is a two-lane section through Crompond. When that jams up it can jam up pretty good, but it is for a limited distance. But most of the route is really using the Bear Mountain Parkway, which gets you far enough that this can be a viable route between, say, Fishkill and Yorktown. Literally using 202 the whole way would put you through the middle of Peekskill (although that's not horrible if your destination is local).

I shall see what Google Maps has to say about this.  :D

I think most people do, and that probably explains what volume there is on the Taconic. Usually that's fine, but when there's a problem, that's when you have a problem.

There's not a whole lot of science behind it; it's simply that the land between US 6 and I-84 is thinly developed, so those highways that do cross it are all pretty free-flowing. As a result, the straightest route usually is also the quickest. And if the straightest route is the Taconic, the next-straightest route isn't so much slower that it's unlikely to outweigh the challenges of the parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 24, 2021, 10:56:31 AM


As a result, the straightest route usually is also the quickest. And if the straightest route is the Taconic, the next-straightest route isn't so much slower that it's unlikely to outweigh the challenges of the parkway.

This is my current assumption.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 24, 2021, 06:31:15 PM
If I'm going from Albany to, say, Peekskill, the fastest non-Thruway route (and indeed that recommended by Google) is to cut over from the Taconic to 9 at either 301 or 84. The time difference between 9 and the Taconic is minimal enough that, unless you're going far enough south that 9A or the Saw Mill is a viable cutover, your best option is to pick a corridor at 84/301 and stick with it.

9 south of the Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway or north of 84? Forget it. But the bit in between has little enough traffic and ample passing opportunities.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on April 24, 2021, 08:42:55 PM
Haven't had a chance to mention this, but the guide signs along NY 5S inside the Utica city limits were replaced this past week.  No more boxed signs except for EB at Dyke Rd.  The Herkimer County signs have not been replaced as of yet but given recent sign projects that I have noticed along NY 5 (Utica line to Lock 19), NY 5S (east of Mohawk to at least Washington St.), and NY 28 (south of Mohawk to the Otsego County line), I would suspect the guide signs will be replaced later this summer.

On a semi-related note, the NY 5S reconstruction project in downtown Utica (the focal point for last summer's meet) is nearing completion as crews have been spending the past week on landscaping and finishing touches.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 25, 2021, 03:35:00 PM


As a result, the straightest route usually is also the quickest. And if the straightest route is the Taconic, the next-straightest route isn't so much slower that it's unlikely to outweigh the challenges of the parkway.

This is my current assumption.

The double-negative threw me as well, but I think your assumption was likely, not unlikely.

(Or is, not isn't...)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on April 25, 2021, 06:58:23 PM
Is there anything in the future about resurfacing the Taconic in Columbia County?  There are a few sections I can think of that really need it

Also, I'm elated that R9 has FINALLY started work on I-88 between Oneonta and Richmondville.  Beyond elated.  That was needed like 10 years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 25, 2021, 10:25:12 PM
Now I'm waiting for R3 to do I-81 from Marathon north.  Pavement's in rough shape because I believe NYSDOT just overlaid old concrete.  Joints are bad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: bluecountry on April 26, 2021, 08:42:41 AM
What next? Turning the Harlem River Drive back into a speedway for horse traffic only? Taking a page out of The Netherlands's book and making the Thruway a bicycle highway? Just think of all the trees we'll be saving! :bigass:
I take it from your sarcasm you don't like the I-81 removal?
Why?

As for the Harlem River Drive and FDR, I would LOVE it to be decked over.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on April 27, 2021, 11:38:07 AM
Similar comment, though:  To fix all that by straightening the road out more and upgrading the Peekskill Hollow interchange, would be extremely expensive.  Although NYSDOT upgraded Pudding Street, that was a relatively easier place to fix up (top of a flat hill) than in a ravine.

I vaguely recall reading on nycroads that there was a proposal in the 60s to bore a tunnel through the mountain just north of Peekskill Hollow Rd so that the giant curve around the mountain wouldn't be necessary. But apparently there was local opposition and it never got built.

But on that segment, there is a stop sign facing away from the northbound lanes. The sign was replaced during the TSP's sign replacement in 2016-2017 but I'm not sure why it's there. Is that an ATV trail or something? https://goo.gl/maps/q3RJfeVYYjXZjTfr6
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 27, 2021, 07:28:10 PM
Haven't had a chance to mention this, but the guide signs along NY 5S inside the Utica city limits were replaced this past week.  No more boxed signs except for EB at Dyke Rd.  The Herkimer County signs have not been replaced as of yet but given recent sign projects that I have noticed along NY 5 (Utica line to Lock 19), NY 5S (east of Mohawk to at least Washington St.), and NY 28 (south of Mohawk to the Otsego County line), I would suspect the guide signs will be replaced later this summer.

On a semi-related note, the NY 5S reconstruction project in downtown Utica (the focal point for last summer's meet) is nearing completion as crews have been spending the past week on landscaping and finishing touches.

I don't think they ever advertised this project? I'm happy the signs are replaced; they looked awful from day one, but I didn't see any plans indicating their replacement.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 29, 2021, 11:54:25 PM
I don't want to hotlink a Facebook image but I posted this to my page, which is publicly viewable - anyone have an idea what the top sign once read? SA something, but not SAT-SUN. It was at the far western end of La Grange Rd. in Binghamton where it enters the cemetery.


https://scontent-lga3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/180085082_4290927537608304_5431881981748530890_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=szzB1u7hTnwAX9u0XkY&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.xx&oh=a00c69d91fcdb133cf4a776c3b8cfe4e&oe=60B2AC76
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 30, 2021, 01:59:09 AM
I don't want to hotlink a Facebook image but I posted this to my page, which is publicly viewable - anyone have an idea what the top sign once read? SA something, but not SAT-SUN. It was at the far western end of La Grange Rd. in Binghamton where it enters the cemetery.

"Saint Mary's Cemetery"?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on April 30, 2021, 12:55:43 PM
You’re lucky to find a Binghamtonian here!

I’m almost positive what you thought to be “S”  is part of the “B”  in Binghamton, and the “A”  being the left side and slant of the first “N” .  This appears to be an older style of the red signs with parking regulations that are posted at the city limits.  I can’t find a photo online of the ones I’m thinking of but if I happen to spot one remaining when I’m out, I’ll get a photo.  Most of them have been replaced with different signs that don’t have “BINGHAMTON”  on them anymore.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 30, 2021, 03:04:42 PM
I don't want to hotlink a Facebook image but I posted this to my page, which is publicly viewable - anyone have an idea what the top sign once read? SA something, but not SAT-SUN. It was at the far western end of La Grange Rd. in Binghamton where it enters the cemetery.

"Saint Mary's Cemetery"?
Definitely not an I after the "SA". (Or SN, or SW, or...)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 30, 2021, 03:05:22 PM
You’re lucky to find a Binghamtonian here!

I’m almost positive what you thought to be “S”  is part of the “B”  in Binghamton, and the “A”  being the left side and slant of the first “N” .  This appears to be an older style of the red signs with parking regulations that are posted at the city limits.  I can’t find a photo online of the ones I’m thinking of but if I happen to spot one remaining when I’m out, I’ll get a photo.  Most of them have been replaced with different signs that don’t have “BINGHAMTON”  on them anymore.
Yes! Thanks! BINGHAMTON NO PARKING... and it's at city limits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on May 04, 2021, 08:40:31 AM
I drove on the vanwyck Expressway and couldnt happen but notice that construction on the HOV has started especially in the area of the LIRR bridges and atlantic ave
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 10:34:49 AM
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 04, 2021, 10:51:52 AM
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.

Binghamton isn't used much until you get to I-84, but I'm not sure why. I'd use both Binghamton and Harriman.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 10:52:56 AM
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.

Binghamton isn't used much until you get to I-84, but I'm not sure why. I'd use both Binghamton and Harriman.
The fastest route from NYC to Binghamton is 80-380-81, but by that point NY 17 is the fastest route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on May 04, 2021, 11:02:46 AM
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.

Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to remember the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 04, 2021, 11:11:04 AM
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.

Binghamton isn't used much until you get to I-84, but I'm not sure why. I'd use both Binghamton and Harriman.
The fastest route from NYC to Binghamton is 80-380-81, but by that point NY 17 is the fastest route.

For Manhattan, yes. For Westchester and Rockland counties, NY 17 is faster.
As with everything in NYC, it depends on traffic, but under normal conditions, the GWB is roughly the dividing line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 04, 2021, 11:15:36 AM
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.

Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.

Interesting. I suspect this mostly applies to non-interstates, because there are cases like I-390 (Corning) and I-81 (Watertown) where the control city for the route is used... although maybe those weren't used historically either, I'm not sure.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 02:19:36 PM
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.

Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.
They sign control cities for I-87 (Montreal)?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on May 04, 2021, 02:26:27 PM
As I said, they’re getting better. I recall far away cities would be listed on an auxiliary sign about 1/2 mile before the exit saying something like:
Exit Here For
Montreal
Saratoga Springs
Lake George

I wish I had a picture of the old style Thruway exit signs. Not at all like today’s signs and not at all like what was used on NYDOT maintained roads.


iPad
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dkblake on May 04, 2021, 03:37:25 PM
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.

Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.
They sign control cities for I-87 (Montreal)?

It's Albany/Montreal: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6795999,-73.8455831,3a,75y,349.2h,85.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zDqWbuTx4w5x1_KW5CH0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6795999,-73.8455831,3a,75y,349.2h,85.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zDqWbuTx4w5x1_KW5CH0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 03:41:42 PM
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.

Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.
They sign control cities for I-87 (Montreal)?

It's Albany/Montreal: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6795999,-73.8455831,3a,75y,349.2h,85.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zDqWbuTx4w5x1_KW5CH0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6795999,-73.8455831,3a,75y,349.2h,85.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zDqWbuTx4w5x1_KW5CH0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Albany is for I-90 east.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 04, 2021, 04:34:30 PM
They sign control cities for I-87 (Montreal)?

It's Albany/Montreal: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6795999,-73.8455831,3a,75y,349.2h,85.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zDqWbuTx4w5x1_KW5CH0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6795999,-73.8455831,3a,75y,349.2h,85.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zDqWbuTx4w5x1_KW5CH0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Albany is for I-90 east.

Yes, but I-90 exits the Thruway in that direction, so it's still a Thruway exit control city.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 04, 2021, 08:21:49 PM
Istone19, I'm a few years older than you and I do remember the Thruway's blue signs with their unique style. They were actually among the original templates for what became the nationwide system, along with California's freeway signing. Though I favored complete standardization in signing when I was younger, I now miss both the Thruway's and Connecticut Turnpike's original blue signs and unique style.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on May 05, 2021, 07:54:51 PM
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.

Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.

Interesting. I suspect this mostly applies to non-interstates, because there are cases like I-390 (Corning) and I-81 (Watertown) where the control city for the route is used... although maybe those weren't used historically either, I'm not sure.

Exit 36 originally used Syracuse for the control city. Binghamton was added a few years later as a supplemental sign on the same posts.

      (81) (11)
      Syracuse
EXIT 36    1 MILE

    Binghamton


I have a hunch the I-81 and US 11 markers replaced "ROUTE 11"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 06, 2021, 11:17:20 AM
What have happened with NYSDOT traffic data viewer? It was a great tool... 
Looks like there is a new design now, which is slow, but  shows 100k+ AADT for every 2-lane side street to compensate for the wait. 

PS. Good thing they didn't make it a roundabout, though.

UPD: got it, they just display some random number next to the road, you have to click to get the traffic info. Simplified design™
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 06, 2021, 12:32:52 PM
UPD: got it, they just display some random number next to the road, you have to click to get the traffic info. Simplified design™

Yeah, I noticed that as well... it was much easier to use when the AADT values were readily visible. Not sure what the six digits refer to, must be a reference code of some sort.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 06, 2021, 01:59:28 PM
Those are count station numbers, usually formatted XX_YZZZ.  XX is the region/county code (same as on reference markers).  YZZZ is the actual station number.  Y actually has some information regarding the type of count.  0 is state routes, 1 and 2 are federal aid eligible local routes, 3 is for ramps, 5 was used for the non-federal aid local roads VMT study a few years ago, 6 is for bridges off the federal aid system, 8 (I think) is for rail crossings off the federal aid system, and 9 is for special counts and not assigned permanently (presuming nothing's changed since the last data services conference... I remember someone saying something about wanting to move away from that system).  I forget what 4 and 7 are used for.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on May 08, 2021, 08:25:26 AM
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.

Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.

Interesting. I suspect this mostly applies to non-interstates, because there are cases like I-390 (Corning) and I-81 (Watertown) where the control city for the route is used... although maybe those weren't used historically either, I'm not sure.

Yeah, you only have to go one exit up, and they sign Scranton for I-84.  There's no good reason not to be signing Binghamton for NY 17/Future I-86.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 09, 2021, 04:47:32 PM
I just went through affected area of I-87. Traffic situation is nowhere close to the total collapse we feared.
Right lane is separated by jersey barriers, steel support columns are installed in the right lane. Other two lanes are open for traffic.
No entry at Exit 9, removing a lot of traffic and a heavy merge just upstream of accident location.  Exit 8A is probably a mess during commute, but traffic is still suppressed by covid.
The only thing I would do differently is extending lane closure by another mile to exit 8A to facilitate that merge.

Biggest issue would be on weekends, when a lot of NYC vacation traffic would be coming from Adirondack and Lake George.
And the latest update: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/After-crash-section-of-bridge-over-Northway-to-16118979.php
Section of a bridge is coming down, as @cl94 said - I assume the span over southbound lanes?. Highway closed overnight on weekend.
That's a lot of aftermath from a single impact...
And an end of the story - for now: Sitterly is open with a temporary bridge installed, highway is fully open for  past 2 weeks. Temporary bridge being higher than the old one - maybe by a foot or so-  is a small perk for highway traffic
I assume permanent bridge is the next thing to happen, but I wouldn't be surprized if it takes a year or two to be built.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 09, 2021, 08:04:20 PM
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 09, 2021, 09:48:09 PM
The City of Troy and the City of Watervliet just did a study to re-imagine the area around the Congress Street Bridge.  The study imagines a road diet with a bike/ped path on the bridge, returning Ferry Street to two-way traffic, and other changes around the area.  It will be interesting to watch this area in the coming years.

https://www.troyny.gov/departments/planning-department/city-projects/congress-street-bridge-study/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on May 10, 2021, 11:14:30 AM
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.
Guess on my part; such is still 55 due to its relatively close proximity to Danbury, CT as well as the traffic loads east of I-684.  IMHO, the stretch from the CT border to I-684 should be widened to 6-lanes.  If such were to happen maybe that stretch would receive a 65 mph limit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on May 10, 2021, 11:18:55 AM
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.
Guess on my part; such is still 55 due to its relatively close proximity to Danbury, CT as well as the traffic loads east of I-684.  IMHO, the stretch from the CT border to I-684 should be widened to 6-lanes.  If such were to happen maybe that stretch would receive a 65 mph limit.

Does it have to do with the fact that 84 used to be maintained by the Thruway Authority even though it wasn't one of their toll roads? I know they're more conservative about using 65MPH speed limits than NYSDOT is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on May 10, 2021, 11:52:40 AM
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.
Guess on my part; such is still 55 due to its relatively close proximity to Danbury, CT as well as the traffic loads east of I-684.  IMHO, the stretch from the CT border to I-684 should be widened to 6-lanes.  If such were to happen maybe that stretch would receive a 65 mph limit.

Does it have to do with the fact that 84 used to be maintained by the Thruway Authority even though it wasn't one of their toll roads? I know they're more conservative about using 65MPH speed limits than NYSDOT is.
That would likely the reasoning for not doing such then; but not necessarily now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 10, 2021, 11:53:22 AM
The City of Troy and the City of Watervliet just did a study to re-imagine the area around the Congress Street Bridge.  The study imagines a road diet with a bike/ped path on the bridge, returning Ferry Street to two-way traffic, and other changes around the area.  It will be interesting to watch this area in the coming years.

https://www.troyny.gov/departments/planning-department/city-projects/congress-street-bridge-study/
I have some - or maybe a lot - of doubt there will be a lot of foot-bike traffic in tthose cool lanes. Trees on the bridge seem to be another case of DUI - design under influence.
Traffic over there is not too high - there is no direct connection to 787, making bridge inefficient for longer drives. So reducing to 2 lanes may be not that bad.
My bigger concern though is that Troy is acting like a firewall, throttling through traffic towards VT, without a good way to bypass city grid.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on May 10, 2021, 02:19:40 PM
The City of Troy and the City of Watervliet just did a study to re-imagine the area around the Congress Street Bridge.  The study imagines a road diet with a bike/ped path on the bridge, returning Ferry Street to two-way traffic, and other changes around the area.  It will be interesting to watch this area in the coming years.

https://www.troyny.gov/departments/planning-department/city-projects/congress-street-bridge-study/

I admit I only looked at this briefly, but one immediate concern I'd have with the lane reductions is the amount of truck traffic that struggles to accelerate up the fairly steep grades of that bridge would now become much more of a bottleneck if no one can pass them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 10, 2021, 02:28:01 PM
I'd be more okay with the proposed Congress Street Bridge diet if they didn't want to diet the Green Island Bridge at the same time. Both being done would cut cross-river capacity by a LOT.

My bigger concern though is that Troy is acting like a firewall, throttling through traffic towards VT, without a good way to bypass city grid.

Oh, there are people in Troy who want to diet 7, too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 10, 2021, 03:46:45 PM
I'd be more okay with the proposed Congress Street Bridge diet if they didn't want to diet the Green Island Bridge at the same time. Both being done would cut cross-river capacity by a LOT.

My bigger concern though is that Troy is acting like a firewall, throttling through traffic towards VT, without a good way to bypass city grid.

Oh, there are people in Troy who want to diet 7, too.
I sort of understand that 7 is an out of place thing. I just don't see good options being available or discussed. With Cohoes throttling 787, and Waterford apparently not interested in any future d.3velopment as well, this is a tough situation overall.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 10, 2021, 04:07:02 PM
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.
Guess on my part; such is still 55 due to its relatively close proximity to Danbury, CT as well as the traffic loads east of I-684.  IMHO, the stretch from the CT border to I-684 should be widened to 6-lanes.  If such were to happen maybe that stretch would receive a 65 mph limit.

Does it have to do with the fact that 84 used to be maintained by the Thruway Authority even though it wasn't one of their toll roads? I know they're more conservative about using 65MPH speed limits than NYSDOT is.
That would likely the reasoning for not doing such then; but not necessarily now.

The speed limit on the CT side of the border is 55, so it really doesn't make sense to raise the limit between 684 and the border to 65 when it will drop back to 55 within 2 miles (and 50 a couple miles later near the US 7 junction).  And it drops to 55 near MP 65 because 684 is a major junction (as it does through the Newburgh area and over the bridge). 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 10, 2021, 04:13:41 PM
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.
Guess on my part; such is still 55 due to its relatively close proximity to Danbury, CT as well as the traffic loads east of I-684.  IMHO, the stretch from the CT border to I-684 should be widened to 6-lanes.  If such were to happen maybe that stretch would receive a 65 mph limit.

Does it have to do with the fact that 84 used to be maintained by the Thruway Authority even though it wasn't one of their toll roads? I know they're more conservative about using 65MPH speed limits than NYSDOT is.
That would likely the reasoning for not doing such then; but not necessarily now.

The speed limit on the CT side of the border is 55, so it really doesn't make sense to raise the limit between 684 and the border to 65 when it will drop back to 55 within 2 miles (and 50 a couple miles later near the US 7 junction).  And it drops to 55 near MP 65 because 684 is a major junction (as it does through the Newburgh area and over the bridge).
84 should be 65 all the way across NY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 10, 2021, 10:04:59 PM
I'd be more okay with the proposed Congress Street Bridge diet if they didn't want to diet the Green Island Bridge at the same time. Both being done would cut cross-river capacity by a LOT.

My bigger concern though is that Troy is acting like a firewall, throttling through traffic towards VT, without a good way to bypass city grid.

Oh, there are people in Troy who want to diet 7, too.
The AADT on Green Island is 13k.  Congress Street, 15k.  Hoosick Street... yeah, that's a bit much for a road diet.  It's worth nothing, however, that in my experience NY 7 feels like it moves much better in Troy than in Brunswick.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 10, 2021, 11:00:40 PM

My bigger concern though is that Troy is acting like a firewall, throttling through traffic towards VT, without a good way to bypass city grid.

Oh, there are people in Troy who want to diet 7, too.
The AADT on Green Island is 13k.  Congress Street, 15k.  Hoosick Street... yeah, that's a bit much for a road diet.  It's worth nothing, however, that in my experience NY 7 feels like it moves much better in Troy than in Brunswick.

Are there any long term plans to address NY 7 in Brunswick? The section just beyond the Troy city limits reminds me a lot of NY 404 in Webster - a major commercial corridor with too much traffic for two lanes, even with the TWLTL. At a certain point, intersection improvements just won't cut it and a full-on widening is the only answer (see NY 404 and Five Mile Line Rd, which got new right turn lanes on all approaches and still backs up).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 11, 2021, 09:09:56 AM
Oh, there are people in Troy who want to diet 7, too.

Count me amongst them, but probably not in the way that you (or they) would expect.  Having done that road more times than I can count, I'm of the viewpoint that the left westbound (downhill) lane should be converted into TWLTL.  The two biggest issues by far with 7 along Hoosick St are the lack of left turn lanes above 10th St (NY 40) and the abhorrent signal timing.

Are there any long term plans to address NY 7 in Brunswick? The section just beyond the Troy city limits reminds me a lot of NY 404 in Webster - a major commercial corridor with too much traffic for two lanes, even with the TWLTL. At a certain point, intersection improvements just won't cut it and a full-on widening is the only answer (see NY 404 and Five Mile Line Rd, which got new right turn lanes on all approaches and still backs up).

Not worth it because you'd create additional bottleneck stress with the Troy segment.  Some of those buildings and parking lots are quite close to the roadway as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 11, 2021, 10:50:32 AM
The two biggest issues by far with 7 along Hoosick St are the lack of left turn lanes above 10th St (NY 40) and the abhorrent signal timing.

To a certain extent, those are inseparable issues, in that the lack of turn lanes reduces flow through the intersections and causes traffic delays that would upset a normal speed-based approach to timing.


Are there any long term plans to address NY 7 in Brunswick? ...

Not worth it because you'd create additional bottleneck stress with the Troy segment. ...

Only in the westbound direction, correct? The traffic issues seem to be more prevalent in the afternoon (during the eastbound peak) with the mix of commuting traffic, shoppers, truck drivers, etc.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on May 12, 2021, 12:57:37 PM
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.
Guess on my part; such is still 55 due to its relatively close proximity to Danbury, CT as well as the traffic loads east of I-684.  IMHO, the stretch from the CT border to I-684 should be widened to 6-lanes.  If such were to happen maybe that stretch would receive a 65 mph limit.

Does it have to do with the fact that 84 used to be maintained by the Thruway Authority even though it wasn't one of their toll roads? I know they're more conservative about using 65MPH speed limits than NYSDOT is.

I thought NYSTA was more liberal with their 65s than NYSDOT. Like a busy section of 87/287 between 287/Mahwah and the GSP connector is impressively 65. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought after NSML, NYSTA raised the Orange County section to 65 and left the rest at 55. In the 90s, 65 zones still had to be approved by the legislature and are still currently written into law. Then around 2008/2009, NYSDOT took back over and raised most of the eastern section to 65.

I think the current 55 zones are appropriate. 84 definitely needs 6 lanes between 684 and Danbury. 684 north-84 east ramp is always backed up.

Anyone know what the limit was on 84 when it first opened?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 12, 2021, 01:32:23 PM
NYSTA is more liberal with 65 than NYSDOT in my experience. The entire Thruway system Upstate aside from the free section of 90, 190 through Buffalo, and the Grand Island Bridges is 65. Thruway mainline north of the Garden State Parkway is entirely 65 aside from that aforementioned free section through Buffalo. NYSDOT wouldn't post the Castleton Bridge or a few other things at 65. The Thruway through Albany probably wouldn't be 65 if it were a NYSDOT road given how speed limits are set in Region 1.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 12, 2021, 06:06:03 PM
You're all talking about 65 vs. 55 as if anyone enforces below 75 in either case.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 12, 2021, 06:52:47 PM
You're all talking about 65 vs. 55 as if anyone enforces below 75 in either case.
On NY 85 they enforced over 70 in the 55.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 12, 2021, 07:29:59 PM
You're all talking about 65 vs. 55 as if anyone enforces below 75 in either case.
On NY 85 they enforced over 70 in the 55.
I am talking about I-84, not the Albany area. The general DC-Boston corridor seems to allow traffic to flow at 75-80.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 12, 2021, 08:14:44 PM
Back in the 1980's and into the 90's there was  a lot of police radar speed enforcement in the Northeast in general. Most of that was paid for by the Feds who bought hundreds of radar units for the states to enforce the double-nickel. But those radar units eventually wore out and speed limits gradually came back up to 65 and so enforcement became much less vigorous.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 12, 2021, 10:45:31 PM
NYSTA is more liberal with 65 than NYSDOT in my experience. The entire Thruway system Upstate aside from the free section of 90, 190 through Buffalo, and the Grand Island Bridges is 65. Thruway mainline north of the Garden State Parkway is entirely 65 aside from that aforementioned free section through Buffalo. NYSDOT wouldn't post the Castleton Bridge or a few other things at 65. The Thruway through Albany probably wouldn't be 65 if it were a NYSDOT road given how speed limits are set in Region 1.

Tell me about it.  Why NYSDOT keeps the eastern portion of the LIE at 55, especially beyond Farmingville, is beyond me. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on May 13, 2021, 01:31:10 PM
NYSTA is more liberal with 65 than NYSDOT in my experience. The entire Thruway system Upstate aside from the free section of 90, 190 through Buffalo, and the Grand Island Bridges is 65. Thruway mainline north of the Garden State Parkway is entirely 65 aside from that aforementioned free section through Buffalo. NYSDOT wouldn't post the Castleton Bridge or a few other things at 65. The Thruway through Albany probably wouldn't be 65 if it were a NYSDOT road given how speed limits are set in Region 1.

Tell me about it.  Why NYSDOT keeps the eastern portion of the LIE at 55, especially beyond Farmingville, is beyond me.
the design speed is accually 65 on the LIE but it was lowered during the oil crisis and now its kept at 55 for a margin of error
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 01:31:41 PM
NYSTA is more liberal with 65 than NYSDOT in my experience. The entire Thruway system Upstate aside from the free section of 90, 190 through Buffalo, and the Grand Island Bridges is 65. Thruway mainline north of the Garden State Parkway is entirely 65 aside from that aforementioned free section through Buffalo. NYSDOT wouldn't post the Castleton Bridge or a few other things at 65. The Thruway through Albany probably wouldn't be 65 if it were a NYSDOT road given how speed limits are set in Region 1.

Tell me about it.  Why NYSDOT keeps the eastern portion of the LIE at 55, especially beyond Farmingville, is beyond me.
the design speed is accually 65 on the LIE but it was lowered during the oil crisis and now its kept at 55 for a margin of error
Margin of error? What? Is there a 10 mph margin of error?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 13, 2021, 05:07:11 PM
Regardless, I think it could be 65 mph no problem. But NY just doesn't seem to see Long Island as "rural". I struggle to see it that way myself at times.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 13, 2021, 06:18:23 PM
I mean, wide swaths of NY 17 through the Catskills is underposted at 55 MPH despite the 85th percentile around 70 MPH (from what I recall when I searched for the data before). The curves can be posted with advisory panels just like any other highway in any other state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 13, 2021, 06:37:07 PM
NYSTA is more liberal with 65 than NYSDOT in my experience. The entire Thruway system Upstate aside from the free section of 90, 190 through Buffalo, and the Grand Island Bridges is 65. Thruway mainline north of the Garden State Parkway is entirely 65 aside from that aforementioned free section through Buffalo. NYSDOT wouldn't post the Castleton Bridge or a few other things at 65. The Thruway through Albany probably wouldn't be 65 if it were a NYSDOT road given how speed limits are set in Region 1.

Tell me about it.  Why NYSDOT keeps the eastern portion of the LIE at 55, especially beyond Farmingville, is beyond me.
the design speed is accually 65 on the LIE but it was lowered during the oil crisis and now its kept at 55 for a margin of error
the travel speed is accually 85 on the LIE
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 13, 2021, 08:29:39 PM
Originally the speed limit was 65mph on the L.I.E. in Suffolk County until the double-nickel came in the mid-1970's. And yes, it should be raised back to 65. But as Alps correctly points out, it doesn't seem to make much difference nowadays to the 85th percentile speed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on May 13, 2021, 09:53:46 PM
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.

Well, guess what?  Up until 10-20 years ago, the speed limit on I-84 east of Newburgh was 55 MPH the whole way to CT.  Then at some point post NYSTA-control, it was raised to 65.  We used to joke, saying you had to pay to go 65 MPH in New York (at the time, I-684 was also 55).  What they kept as 55 is from the Thruway mainline to the east side of the bridge in Beacon and a couple miles in Brewster around I-684. 

As others have stated, the amount of traffic and congestion around the I-84/I-684 interchange, and the roadway geometry/traffic around the NBB warrant these areas to be 55 MPH.  Ideally, we'd have a continuous 3 lanes on I-84 from I-684 east to Danbury (and continuing to Waterbury), and the speed limit could be 65.  Theoretically, you could raise it right now from Exit 1-3 but it really doesn't make sense for only a couple miles. 

It was sometime in the much less than 20 year timeframe (probably closer to the 10-15 year mark) when the Thruway upped the speed limit from Suffern to the GSP to 65, as prior to that, the 65 MPH zone started just north of the Suffern/NY 17 exit (15A). 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 09:54:51 PM
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.

Well, guess what?  Up until 10-20 years ago, the speed limit on I-84 east of Newburgh was 55 MPH the whole way to CT.  Then at some point post NYSTA-control, it was raised to 65.  We used to joke, saying you had to pay to go 65 MPH in New York (at the time, I-684 was also 55).  What they kept as 55 is from the Thruway mainline to the east side of the bridge in Beacon and a couple miles in Brewster around I-684. 

As others have stated, the amount of traffic and congestion around the I-84/I-684 interchange, and the roadway geometry/traffic around the NBB warrant these areas to be 55 MPH.  Ideally, we'd have a continuous 3 lanes on I-84 from I-684 east to Danbury (and continuing to Waterbury), and the speed limit could be 65.  Theoretically, you could raise it right now from Exit 1-3 but it really doesn't make sense for only a couple miles. 

It was sometime in the much less than 20 year timeframe (probably closer to the 10-15 year mark) when the Thruway upped the speed limit from Suffern to the GSP to 65, as prior to that, the 65 MPH zone started just north of the Suffern/NY 17 exit (15A).
What is the 85th percentile speed on that part of I-84?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 13, 2021, 10:21:12 PM
It was sometime in the much less than 20 year timeframe (probably closer to the 10-15 year mark) when the Thruway upped the speed limit from Suffern to the GSP to 65, as prior to that, the 65 MPH zone started just north of the Suffern/NY 17 exit (15A). 
Interesting.  I wonder what that means for the I-287 speed limit between the Thruway mainline and NJ.  I always assumed it was 65 on the NY side and dropped to 55 at the state line, but now I'm wondering if it's actually 55 all the way until I-87.  There isn't a speed limit sign on the NY side in either direction, and it could be it was just not thought of when the Thruway mainline was raised (after all, it's treated as an exit by NYSTA).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on May 14, 2021, 09:03:55 AM
It was sometime in the much less than 20 year timeframe (probably closer to the 10-15 year mark) when the Thruway upped the speed limit from Suffern to the GSP to 65, as prior to that, the 65 MPH zone started just north of the Suffern/NY 17 exit (15A). 
Interesting.  I wonder what that means for the I-287 speed limit between the Thruway mainline and NJ.  I always assumed it was 65 on the NY side and dropped to 55 at the state line, but now I'm wondering if it's actually 55 all the way until I-87.  There isn't a speed limit sign on the NY side in either direction, and it could be it was just not thought of when the Thruway mainline was raised (after all, it's treated as an exit by NYSTA).

It might be useful to find out who owns what in that section (NYSDOT vs NYSTA). I'm old enough to remember Exit 15 when it was a low-speed trumpet with a toll booth (when the ticket section ended at Spring Valley) and in those days, the ramps to/from NJ 17 actually went slightly into NJ (the gore areas extended south of the border based on the state line signage). In those days, NY 17 went over the hill past Hillburn rather than via the Thruway to 15A (which did not exist then). So it's entirely possible that all of I-287/NY 17 between the Thruway mainline and the NJ state line is just considered Thruway ramp rather than NYSDOT freeway mainline as historically, the Thruway ramps went all the way to the border.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 14, 2021, 03:12:03 PM
Judging by the signage (Clearview, no reference markers, used a NYSTA-spec welcome sign back when those existed, etc.), looks like it's still basically considered a Thruway ramp.  Doesn't really make a lot of sense for NYSDOT to take over just a quarter of a mile or so.  Judging by this signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.114414,-74.161506,3a,50.3y,14.19h,82.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLv3KewE8k3OuLl9NW-1gPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), it might actually be 65, but that's not wholly conclusive; it's possible such signage was plopped on all approaches reflexively.  I can't think of such a mistake in NY off the top of my head, but I've seen it elsewhere; in NH, heading south from Franconia Notch, there was a chain of work zones with "left lane ends, merge right" signs advertising a closer for a lane that didn't exist on the single-lane portion and was already closed when moving from one work zone to an adjacent one.  And on I-70, I think there were similar signs advertising the reduced speed of 60 for a work zone in MD... posted in the 55 portion in PA (yep, even with a work zone, the speed limit still went up!).  So who knows.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 14, 2021, 04:13:11 PM
Ah yes, the signs in vdeane's link above are the ones that wrongly show I-287 as going south instead of east. Good old NYSTA. Lot's of goofy signing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 14, 2021, 04:21:17 PM
Everything between Exit 15 and the state line is (and AFAIK always has been) maintained by NYSTA. NYSDOT may have controlled the ramps between the Hillburn Bypass and NJ, but those merged with the Thruway access right at the state line. It is (and always has been) considered part of the Exit 15 complex.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 14, 2021, 04:39:08 PM
NYSDOT may have controlled the ramps between the Hillburn Bypass and NJ, but those merged with the Thruway access right at the state line.

They did, you can see the SH number here (http://empirestateroads.com/week/week36h.html).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on May 15, 2021, 11:22:39 AM
You're all talking about 65 vs. 55 as if anyone enforces below 75 in either case.

Don't get me going on NY 5S and the revenue generators in Frankfort.
Title: New York
Post by: Sam on May 15, 2021, 01:40:52 PM

Don't get me going on NY 5S and the revenue generators in Frankfort.

Ha! They’ve got it down alright. If you go to court, they’ll plead it down to a $100 parking ticket. You get no points on your license, it costs you a little less money, they keep it all and beat the state out of the surcharges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dkblake on May 18, 2021, 11:38:27 AM

Don't get me going on NY 5S and the revenue generators in Frankfort.

Ha! They’ve got it down alright. If you go to court, they’ll plead it down to a $100 parking ticket. You get no points on your license, it costs you a little less money, they keep it all and beat the state out of the surcharges.

That's a nice upstate discount! A few years ago I met a "revenue generator" in Suffolk County and pled down to a $450 parking ticket with no points.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on May 24, 2021, 10:20:13 AM
Why doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper level
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 24, 2021, 12:59:04 PM
Why doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper level

Primarily because the state DOT doesn't manage the George Washington Bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 24, 2021, 01:35:27 PM

Don't get me going on NY 5S and the revenue generators in Frankfort.

Ha! They’ve got it down alright. If you go to court, they’ll plead it down to a $100 parking ticket. You get no points on your license, it costs you a little less money, they keep it all and beat the state out of the surcharges.

Oh yeah, this is a thing in most of Upstate. Tickets with points have a portion that goes to the state, tickets without points stay local. So if you're willing to go to court, they're very happy to plead it down to something with no points and potentially a smaller fine because the town comes out ahead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 24, 2021, 07:36:36 PM
Upon doing research this evening on the Southtowns Connector in Buffalo, I discovered that the original plan was for the expressway to run parallel with the CSX tracks in existence about a mile east of the current NY 5 alignment, between NY 179 and I-190. They would then remove the Skyway bridge and convert the existing highway into a boulevard. This was back in the 1990s. That project devolved into what we saw constructed about 10-15 years ago, which was a pathetic reconstruction of NY 5, in place, and the Skyway needed to be repaired every 5 or so years. Now they want to tear the Skyway down, again, but this time they (the politicians) don't feel like building any expressway alternative to carry the leftover traffic, but would rather funnel people onto a 40 MPH new side street. I don't understand how this area operates. Meanwhile you have Salt Lake City building dozens of miles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_View_Corridor) of expressways without any hitches.

https://esd.ny.gov/sites/default/files/C_Chapter_2_Project_Evolution.pdf
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 24, 2021, 07:38:24 PM

Don't get me going on NY 5S and the revenue generators in Frankfort.

Ha! They’ve got it down alright. If you go to court, they’ll plead it down to a $100 parking ticket. You get no points on your license, it costs you a little less money, they keep it all and beat the state out of the surcharges.

Oh yeah, this is a thing in most of Upstate. Tickets with points have a portion that goes to the state, tickets without points stay local. So if you're willing to go to court, they're very happy to plead it down to something with no points and potentially a smaller fine because the town comes out ahead.

And speaking of NY 5, the last time I was pulled over, I was doing 60 in the 40 MPH speed trap zone at 5 AM. The Lackawanna police gave me the option to do just that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on May 25, 2021, 08:24:47 AM
Why doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper level

Primarily because the state DOT doesn't manage the George Washington Bridge.
well i know that what im talking about is the Bridge at the Highbridge interchange
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 25, 2021, 08:35:26 AM
And speaking of NY 5, the last time I was pulled over, I was doing 60 in the 40 MPH speed trap zone at 5 AM. The Lackawanna police gave me the option to do just that.

Woodlawn is good for that. Dirtiest speed trap in the county.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 25, 2021, 09:38:45 AM
Reuters recently released an article (https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/INFRASTRUCTURE-FREEWAYS/qzjpqbzzyvx/) regarding Interstate 81 through Rochester Syracuse. It's an interesting read and I assume I-81 will be rerouted around the city if the plans mention are done.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 25, 2021, 10:00:11 AM
Reuters recently released an article (https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/INFRASTRUCTURE-FREEWAYS/qzjpqbzzyvx/) regarding Interstate 81 through Rochester. It's an interesting read and I assume I-81 will be rerouted around the city if the plans mention are done.

Syracuse, not Rochester. But yes, I-81 would be re-routed along I-481. This is a hot topic: there's a whole thread about it with almost 1k replies here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18020.0).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on May 25, 2021, 01:12:38 PM
Regardless, I think it could be 65 mph no problem. But NY just doesn't seem to see Long Island as "rural". I struggle to see it that way myself at times.

NY 27 is even more egregious: https://goo.gl/maps/rfQML9sCt42XK53E9

I asked NYSDOT about it, TL;DR Long Island is too densely populated: https://i.imgur.com/j32xRdC.png

I wonder what the real reason is.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 25, 2021, 03:53:18 PM
Regardless, I think it could be 65 mph no problem. But NY just doesn't seem to see Long Island as "rural". I struggle to see it that way myself at times.
I asked NYSDOT about it, TL;DR Long Island is too densely populated: https://i.imgur.com/j32xRdC.png
Lol what a dumbass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 26, 2021, 12:54:50 PM
And speaking of NY 5, the last time I was pulled over, I was doing 60 in the 40 MPH speed trap zone at 5 AM. The Lackawanna police gave me the option to do just that.

Woodlawn is good for that. Dirtiest speed trap in the county.

And NY 5 south of Woodlawn
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 26, 2021, 03:13:53 PM
https://www.adirondack.net/history/adirondack-northway/

Fond this interesting article about the Adirondack Northway as at the time NIMBYs gave the state a big fight into completing the freeway.  It took ten years and the connector to NY 9N was part of the main freeway until it was extended north of Lake George Village.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 28, 2021, 05:52:19 PM
Why doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper level

Primarily because the state DOT doesn't manage the George Washington Bridge.
well i know that what im talking about is the Bridge at the Highbridge interchange

The Alexander Hamilton Bridge? That doesn't have an upper and lower level.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on June 01, 2021, 10:50:08 AM
Why doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper level

Primarily because the state DOT doesn't manage the George Washington Bridge.
well i know that what im talking about is the Bridge at the Highbridge interchange

The Alexander Hamilton Bridge? That doesn't have an upper and lower level.
yeah ik that but why doesnt the state allow trucks on the lower level of the GWB which would stop the weaving on the alexander hamilton bridge where u have the choice of going to the upperlevel and lower lvl being that we have better security now
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 01, 2021, 08:37:33 PM
What better security? And anyway, it isn't the State that prohibits trucks on the lower level. It's the Port Authority of NY & NJ who runs the bridge and makes those rules. And I guess they don't care how inconvenient it is for trucks to have to weave on the Alexander Hamilton Bridge which is NY State's jurisdiction and so not the Port Authority's problem.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: stevashe on June 01, 2021, 08:58:57 PM
Why doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper level

Primarily because the state DOT doesn't manage the George Washington Bridge.
well i know that what im talking about is the Bridge at the Highbridge interchange

The Alexander Hamilton Bridge? That doesn't have an upper and lower level.
yeah ik that but why doesnt the state allow trucks on the lower level of the GWB which would stop the weaving on the alexander hamilton bridge where u have the choice of going to the upperlevel and lower lvl being that we have better security now

Does the lower level even have enough clearance to fit trucks? It looks too low to me...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 01, 2021, 09:58:50 PM
I believe trucks used to be allowed on the lower level. The restriction is a post 9/11 thing if I'm not mistaken.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on June 02, 2021, 12:26:40 AM
I believe trucks used to be allowed on the lower level. The restriction is a post 9/11 thing if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, the full truck ban is a post 9/11 change. I think there were height restrictions, but at a minimum, box trucks etc were able to use the lower level before 2001.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on June 02, 2021, 11:00:13 AM
On page 94 of the Thruway thread vdeane stated that...

There are ... "entering Catskill Park" signs on US 209 and NY 28 heading west crossing the Thruway.

vdeane or anyone, can I find them using Google Street View?  What if I start from a point heading WB on the NY 28 bridge over the NYST?  Are they before or after the 28/209 clover leaf heading WB on 28/SB on 209?

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 02, 2021, 11:10:13 AM
On page 94 of the Thruway thread vdeane stated that...

There are ... "entering Catskill Park" signs on US 209 and NY 28 heading west crossing the Thruway.

vdeane or anyone, can I find them using Google Street View?  What if I start from a point heading WB on the NY 28 bridge over the NYST?  Are they before or after the 28/209 clover leaf heading WB on 28/SB on 209?

ixnay

NY 28 (https://goo.gl/maps/Ltb3Vtao48tSDrez6), US 209 (https://goo.gl/maps/HuWRrnJj5XXqRMFS7)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on June 02, 2021, 11:22:48 AM
On page 94 of the Thruway thread vdeane stated that...

There are ... "entering Catskill Park" signs on US 209 and NY 28 heading west crossing the Thruway.

vdeane or anyone, can I find them using Google Street View?  What if I start from a point heading WB on the NY 28 bridge over the NYST?  Are they before or after the 28/209 clover leaf heading WB on 28/SB on 209?

ixnay

NY 28 (https://goo.gl/maps/Ltb3Vtao48tSDrez6), US 209 (https://goo.gl/maps/HuWRrnJj5XXqRMFS7)

Thanks.  I was envisioning NYSDOT signs.

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 02, 2021, 01:41:38 PM
Thanks.  I was envisioning NYSDOT signs.

This is the standard sign used at park boundaries and, like the similar Adirondack Park sign, it is only used along state routes. Any metal signs you see at park boundaries are one-offs and nonstandard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on June 03, 2021, 10:22:27 AM
Thanks.  I was envisioning NYSDOT signs.

This is the standard sign used at park boundaries and, like the similar Adirondack Park sign, it is only used along state routes. Any metal signs you see at park boundaries are one-offs and nonstandard.

That's right, I remember seeing that Adirondack Park sign on a Lake Placid vacation in the fall of 2006.

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: fmendes on June 03, 2021, 10:29:07 AM
Why doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper level
trucks have more than enough clearence they were allowed on there until 9/11

Primarily because the state DOT doesn't manage the George Washington Bridge.
well i know that what im talking about is the Bridge at the Highbridge interchange

The Alexander Hamilton Bridge? That doesn't have an upper and lower level.
yeah ik that but why doesnt the state allow trucks on the lower level of the GWB which would stop the weaving on the alexander hamilton bridge where u have the choice of going to the upperlevel and lower lvl being that we have better security now

Does the lower level even have enough clearance to fit trucks? It looks too low to me...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheGrassGuy on June 09, 2021, 08:45:06 PM
Why is the NY 64 bridge over I-90 near Rochester like that?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on June 17, 2021, 02:54:14 PM
I have two questions about this intersection on US 9 in Fishkill (Dutchess Co, just north of I-84): https://goo.gl/maps/4ue9B5n1X463UsV98

The ground-mounted NTOR sign says NO RIGHT ON RED whereas the overhead one says NO TURN ON RED. Was "No Right on Red" ever the standard or is this just a strange one-off sign?

Second, why is there an unlit red ball above the red right turn arrows?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on June 17, 2021, 03:05:03 PM
I have two questions about this intersection on US 9 in Fishkill (Dutchess Co, just north of I-84): https://goo.gl/maps/4ue9B5n1X463UsV98

The ground-mounted NTOR sign says NO RIGHT ON RED whereas the overhead one says NO TURN ON RED. Was "No Right on Red" ever the standard or is this just a strange one-off sign?

To my knowledge, NTOR was always the standard. Some 43 years ago, I had a summer job for NJDOT where a bunch of college summer hires went around the state and inventoried all the non-state managed traffic signals with particular attention to where NTOR signs were placed (and as I recall, with instructions to note non-standard signs and non-standard placement). We were told that "NO TURN ON RED" was the only acceptable wording as including RIGHT might imply to some people that a left turn on red was OK at that intersection.

Since crispy93 mentioned there being signs both ground-mounted and overhead, I believe we were told the proper placement was on the right on the near side of the intersection. Signs across the intersection were not acceptable as they could be blocked by passing traffic.

Local to me in suburban Chicago, one town installed lit NTOR signs that only light in conjunction with the on-demand pedestrian signals. And they're on the signal arm across the intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0477054,-88.04541,3a,75y,177.71h,90.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI_YHIti6vGuAGrbUcCH_2Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). IMHO, totally unenforceable since I should only need to look in the standard location and once I note no sign, should not need to keep scanning the intersection to see if a NTOR has magically appeared.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on June 17, 2021, 09:17:26 PM
Second, why is there an unlit red ball above the red right turn arrows?

Flash mode
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 18, 2021, 12:05:52 AM
I have two questions about this intersection on US 9 in Fishkill (Dutchess Co, just north of I-84): https://goo.gl/maps/4ue9B5n1X463UsV98

The ground-mounted NTOR sign says NO RIGHT ON RED whereas the overhead one says NO TURN ON RED. Was "No Right on Red" ever the standard or is this just a strange one-off sign?

Second, why is there an unlit red ball above the red right turn arrows?
Not here, but NO RIGHT ON RED does make sense in a state that allows lefts on red if the latter is allowed at a particular intersection.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on June 18, 2021, 08:09:07 AM
I have two questions about this intersection on US 9 in Fishkill (Dutchess Co, just north of I-84): https://goo.gl/maps/4ue9B5n1X463UsV98

The ground-mounted NTOR sign says NO RIGHT ON RED whereas the overhead one says NO TURN ON RED. Was "No Right on Red" ever the standard or is this just a strange one-off sign?

Second, why is there an unlit red ball above the red right turn arrows?
In the photo, the straight and left turn both are green.

My guesses are:
Right turn on red while straight and left are green are to protect the crosswalk and potential pedestrians.
When the left turn and straight movements are red, I'll guess that the red ball is lit above and instead of the right arrow red.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 18, 2021, 09:15:44 AM
I have two questions about this intersection on US 9 in Fishkill (Dutchess Co, just north of I-84): https://goo.gl/maps/4ue9B5n1X463UsV98

The ground-mounted NTOR sign says NO RIGHT ON RED whereas the overhead one says NO TURN ON RED. Was "No Right on Red" ever the standard or is this just a strange one-off sign?

Second, why is there an unlit red ball above the red right turn arrows?

Hmm. This is very near home but I've never noticed either of these things. (I don't often come out from that direction on Merritt.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RestrictOnTheHanger on June 19, 2021, 08:47:42 AM
I have two questions about this intersection on US 9 in Fishkill (Dutchess Co, just north of I-84): https://goo.gl/maps/4ue9B5n1X463UsV98

The ground-mounted NTOR sign says NO RIGHT ON RED whereas the overhead one says NO TURN ON RED. Was "No Right on Red" ever the standard or is this just a strange one-off sign?

Second, why is there an unlit red ball above the red right turn arrows?
In the photo, the straight and left turn both are green.

My guesses are:
Right turn on red while straight and left are green are to protect the crosswalk and potential pedestrians.
When the left turn and straight movements are red, I'll guess that the red ball is lit above and instead of the right arrow red.

I have been at this particular intersection before and the DOT region where this is usually uses red ball for flash mode. Other regions in NY don't usually set up their turn signals like this.

Also look to the far right, there is a pedestrian walk sign with the red right arrow lit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on June 20, 2021, 06:59:54 PM
Does anyone have details about the Albany Post Road?

From what I can glean on Wikipedia, it began in the Kingsbridge neighborhood of the Bronx, and ends at an extinct ferry at Rensselaer. It split from the Boston Post Road in Kingsbridge...even though the Boston Post Road ends at Third Avenue in the South Bronx.

Broadway is apparently its replacement, so any "Post Road" alignments are probably old Broadway alignments (but probably not US 9, since we're talking the 18th century here).

Here's my best guess of its route based on Google Maps:
-Independent alignment in Riverdale, The Bronx. Starts near the 242nd Street Station, runs up until West 260th Street. Interrupted by the HHP and a school. Can't find any traces in Yonkers, though US 9 and Post Road in the Bronx do line up
-US 9 from Yonkers to Crotonville (before it becomes the Croton Expressway). Broadway name ends in or south of Ossining.
-Independent through Croton-on-Hudson; cut off by the Croton River. Continues as NY 9A to its end in Peekskill
-Sprout Brook Road north of Peekskill. Independent, unimproved alignment from Sprout Brook to US 9 (south of NY 301)
-US 9 from south of NY 301 to NY 9H. Goes through Wappinger Falls and Poughkeepsie on main streets.
-NY 9H from US 9 to Kinderhook. Independent alignment through Kinderhook.
-US 9 from north of Kinderhook to NY 150. Independent alignment from NY 150 to US 9, goes around I-90 exit 11.
-US 9/US 20 to Rensselaer. No clue nor trace of any ferry in Rensselaer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 20, 2021, 07:15:33 PM
Does anyone have details about the Albany Post Road?

From what I can glean on Wikipedia, it began in the Kingsbridge neighborhood of the Bronx, and ends at an extinct ferry at Rensselaer. It split from the Boston Post Road in Kingsbridge...even though the Boston Post Road ends at Third Avenue in the South Bronx.

Broadway is apparently its replacement, so any "Post Road" alignments are probably old Broadway alignments (but probably not US 9, since we're talking the 18th century here).

Here's my best guess of its route based on Google Maps:
-Independent alignment in Riverdale, The Bronx. Starts near the 242nd Street Station, runs up until West 260th Street. Interrupted by the HHP and a school. Can't find any traces in Yonkers, though US 9 and Post Road in the Bronx do line up
-US 9 from Yonkers to Crotonville (before it becomes the Croton Expressway). Broadway name ends in or south of Ossining.
-Independent through Croton-on-Hudson; cut off by the Croton River. Continues as NY 9A to its end in Peekskill
-Sprout Brook Road north of Peekskill. Independent, unimproved alignment from Sprout Brook to US 9 (south of NY 301)
-US 9 from south of NY 301 to NY 9H. Goes through Wappinger Falls and Poughkeepsie on main streets.
-NY 9H from US 9 to Kinderhook. Independent alignment through Kinderhook.
-US 9 from north of Kinderhook to NY 150. Independent alignment from NY 150 to US 9, goes around I-90 exit 11.
-US 9/US 20 to Rensselaer. No clue nor trace of any ferry in Rensselaer.

Roughly correct. In many places, the original post road has been bypassed, with old sections generally named "Old Post Road". The ferry landing in Rensselaer has been gone for well over 100 years, with the first bridge opening no later than 1882.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 21, 2021, 09:37:09 AM
-Sprout Brook Road north of Peekskill. Independent, unimproved alignment from Sprout Brook to US 9 (south of NY 301)

The unimprovement is intentional, as Philipstown has a program of historic roads (https://oldroadsociety.org/) that are maintained in a rustic state. Only the southernmost stretch (a couple hundred yards) and a tiny bit at the Travis Corners intersection are paved. This is to retain the character of the road, as it is the longest and least-recently bypassed old section of the Post Road, so if you want an idea of how it looked, that's the place to visit.

Most of the other town roads between NY 9D and Canopus Hollow are likewise unimproved, but the Post Road is the centerpiece.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 28, 2021, 02:20:08 PM
Still can't believe after the recent sign replacements in the area, the I-287 mainline and I-684 signs weren't replaced.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51276906741_36bf8d9460_z.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51276369229_ae85506e4b_z.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 28, 2021, 09:22:08 PM
Wow! Old button-copy signs? That's on the eastern end of the Cross-Westchester Expwy. The signs on the western part of that road were replaced with the widening/modernization project some years back.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on June 29, 2021, 09:44:14 AM
Still can't believe after the recent sign replacements in the area, the I-287 mainline and I-684 signs weren't replaced.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51276906741_36bf8d9460_z.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51276369229_ae85506e4b_z.jpg)

I drove through there two weekends ago and they were replacing one of the last Tappan Zee Br signs on the service road. Some of the Westchester signs on the Hutch have been replaced, though the new exit number is patched over with the old sequential number for how. The new signs remain inconsistent (some of them use the line to separate the road name from the town, the s/b exit for the Cross-County doesn't have a LEFT above the exit panel... let's hope the spell Merritt Pkwy correctly and actually post 684's exit number because in NYSDOT's sign plans, there were a number of mistakes and inconsistencies. R8 told me the Bronx section is getting mile markers but I didn't see them on Sunday when I drove down.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 30, 2021, 09:32:22 PM
Not sure how we haven't noticed this for so long, but last week concepts for the removal of some or all (depending of the concept) of the remainder of the Inner Loop were revealed.  A lot of these go so far as to remove I-490 exit 13, and all of them eliminate the connection from University Avenue to the (likely soon to be former) Inner Loop.  Some even have the replacement road as only two lanes wide (total), which is going to be interesting as the Inner Loop has an AADT of 47,364 over the river and 30,745 in the sunken portion.  Now our senators are looking to get money to do this as part of the infrastructure package.

https://www.wxxinews.org/post/initial-designs-inner-loop-north-released
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 30, 2021, 11:55:27 PM
Not sure how we haven't noticed this for so long, but last week concepts for the removal of some or all (depending of the concept) of the remainder of the Inner Loop were revealed.  A lot of these go so far as to remove I-490 exit 13, and all of them eliminate the connection from University Avenue to the (likely soon to be former) Inner Loop.  Some even have the replacement road as only two lanes wide (total), which is going to be interesting as the Inner Loop has an AADT of 47,364 over the river and 30,745 in the sunken portion.  Now our senators are looking to get money to do this as part of the infrastructure package.

Like 81, this reeks of "we don't want to replace the bridges which are needing replacement, so let's remove the freeway instead".

As far as AADT over the river, my GUESS is that, without a direct freeway connection, models have traffic dispersing to other crossings or using the Douglass-Anthony bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 01, 2021, 07:24:34 AM
So what was the overarching excuse to delete the Inner Loop?  If its the "r" word, I don't find that to be a valid excuse for removing a vital corridor.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 01, 2021, 06:21:18 PM
So what was the overarching excuse to delete the Inner Loop?  If its the "r" word, I don't find that to be a valid excuse for removing a vital corridor.

"Improve the neighborhood" or something along those terms, which is code for "encourage gentrification and increase property values". Basically, the area around the removed section of the Inner Loop is gentrifying to hell, so they hope that removing more will spur more gentrification.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 01, 2021, 10:37:13 PM
Does it serve any purpose in its current form? Might as well fill it in. City needs more than development in that area as is. Just built a beautiful new Amtrak station nearby.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 02, 2021, 12:58:53 PM
Does it serve any purpose in its current form? Might as well fill it in. City needs more than development in that area as is. Just built a beautiful new Amtrak station nearby.
I'm pretty sure it serves a purpose for the 30-47k people that use it everyday.  I didn't even add in the AADT of the side roads.  That's going to be quite a bit of traffic to fit on the two-lane road in some concepts.  Even the four-lane might have issues in sections during heavier traffic times.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 02, 2021, 06:07:06 PM
Who here is familiar with Valley Stream State Park along Southern State Parkway? Because if you are, you know about the park road running parallel to the eastbound lanes between parking lots 1 and 2, as well as the on-ramp from Henry Street. So my question is how do you access parking lot number 2? Because all the signs I see leading to that parking lot read "Do Not Enter." You'd think that the one from the park road would have an entrance, but it doesn't.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 02, 2021, 07:15:51 PM
Who here is familiar with Valley Stream State Park along Southern State Parkway? Because if you are, you know about the park road running parallel to the eastbound lanes between parking lots 1 and 2, as well as the on-ramp from Henry Street. So my question is how do you access parking lot number 2? Because all the signs I see leading to that parking lot read "Do Not Enter." You'd think that the one from the park road would have an entrance, but it doesn't.

You get in from the park road, but you have to get there through field 1. That "do not enter" sign from the park road on GSV flips when field 2 is open.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 03, 2021, 01:19:29 PM
Who here is familiar with Valley Stream State Park along Southern State Parkway? Because if you are, you know about the park road running parallel to the eastbound lanes between parking lots 1 and 2, as well as the on-ramp from Henry Street. So my question is how do you access parking lot number 2? Because all the signs I see leading to that parking lot read "Do Not Enter." You'd think that the one from the park road would have an entrance, but it doesn't.

it looks like you get there from following the exit road out of Field 1
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 03, 2021, 11:40:41 PM
Does it serve any purpose in its current form? Might as well fill it in. City needs more than development in that area as is. Just built a beautiful new Amtrak station nearby.

Certainly it does, as did the eastern leg that's already been removed. The point is that you have to remove the purpose; there's no point leaving the road if you're just going to raise it to the surface. Send that traffic back down University/Andrews or Main Street, and just forget the Inner Loop ever existed. We don't need another North Chestnut or Ford Street; if the Inner Loop tears up neighborhood, then erase it and let them knit back together. Otherwise, refocus efforts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 04, 2021, 12:32:31 PM
The thing is, the section of Inner Loop they now want to remove carries several times more traffic than the section they already removed did.  I'm not sure where all that is supposed to go, especially since I-490 was pretty much built on the model that access to downtown would be from the Inner Loop.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 04, 2021, 12:41:51 PM
It should be noted that most surface streets inside the Inner Loop are well under capacity. Remove the exit for the Inner Loop and people will use University/Andrews, Broad, and the Clinton/St Paul-South one way pair, all of which can handle increased traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 04, 2021, 01:04:48 PM
It should be noted that most surface streets inside the Inner Loop are well under capacity. Remove the exit for the Inner Loop and people will use University/Andrews, Broad, and the Clinton/St Paul-South one way pair, all of which can handle increased traffic.
You still have to somehow get to those streets from I-490, though.  To/from the east there's exit 14, but how will I-490 flow with so much more traffic using that exit (particularly getting on; the exit 13 on ramp currently adds a lane).  To/from the west, there wouldn't be good access at all, as the only downtown exits on I-490 in that direction are the current/former Inner Loop ones.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 01:20:31 PM
It should be noted that most surface streets inside the Inner Loop are well under capacity. Remove the exit for the Inner Loop and people will use University/Andrews, Broad, and the Clinton/St Paul-South one way pair, all of which can handle increased traffic.

I think most people would consider having quiet surface streets to be a good thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 05, 2021, 10:10:21 AM
You get in from the park road, but you have to get there through field 1. That "do not enter" sign from the park road on GSV flips when field 2 is open.
Ahh, I was hoping that was the case. Thanks for the info. Now I have to update a certain image of the sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on July 05, 2021, 04:55:56 PM
I tried searching here but does anyone know why the NY 27 freeway (Lindenhurst to Shinnecock Hills) starts at Exit 37? Were there theoretical exit numbers assigned to an unbuilt freeway? Exit 37 is at mile 35 (according to Wiki) so that couldn't be it either.

I did once write to NYSDOT R11 asking if 27 will ever get mile-based exits. I was told there is no such project in the works, but when the time comes, they probably will be mile-based (R8 told me the same thing about the Palisades Parkway).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 05, 2021, 08:52:45 PM
I tried searching here but does anyone know why the NY 27 freeway (Lindenhurst to Shinnecock Hills) starts at Exit 37? Were there theoretical exit numbers assigned to an unbuilt freeway? Exit 37 is at mile 35 (according to Wiki) so that couldn't be it either.

I did once write to NYSDOT R11 asking if 27 will ever get mile-based exits. I was told there is no such project in the works, but when the time comes, they probably will be mile-based (R8 told me the same thing about the Palisades Parkway).

You're probably right about the unbuilt freeway. I don't remember any specific plan to make Sunrise Hwy. an expressway in Nassau but DOT may have had such a plan, that was never carried out. Too bad; it would have been a good idea given the traffic conditions on Long Island today.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on July 07, 2021, 12:12:04 AM
As of July 7 at midnight, the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge has been switched to AET!  :clap:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 07, 2021, 02:08:16 PM
Governor Cuomo Announces Dedication of New Park Space along Niagara Gorge Rim in Niagara Falls, Created Through Removal of Segment of Former Expressway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-dedication-new-park-space-along-niagara-gorge-rim-niagara-falls?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery)

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the dedication of a major project that removed an underutilized, two-mile stretch of the former Robert Moses Parkway - now called the Niagara Scenic Parkway - in the City of Niagara Falls and created a stunning new area in Niagara Falls State Park called "Gorgeview," which provides unimpeded access to the Niagara Gorge and improved recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike. The project removed the segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive and replaced it with new green space that features picnic areas, scenic overlooks with majestic views and a network of recreational trails. Additionally, the New York State Department of Transportation completed a full-depth reconstruction of Whirlpool Street and a segment of Third Street to accommodate local vehicular access, from the parkway and adjoining city streets. New street lighting, landscaping, traffic control devices, pedestrian crosswalks, on-street parking areas, drainage improvements and upgrades to entrance drives and park trolley paths around the Niagara Gorge Discovery Center also were among the improvements.

[...]

NYPA built the parkway in stages between 1958 and 1967 as part of the construction of the nearby Niagara Power Project.  It was then viewed as necessary to both enhance tourism to compete with the Canadian side of the Falls, and to also dramatically reduce commuting times in the area. A section of the parkway that ran through the State Park and the Falls was removed in the 1980s. By 2013, after a pilot project and a number of planning studies called for reconfiguration or removal of segments of the expressway to allow full enjoyment of the Niagara Gorge's great resources, Governor Cuomo announced two removal projects, first the "Riverway" completed in 2017, which removed a mile of the parkway on the Upper Niagara River, followed by the current Niagara Gorge Project, which removed an additional two miles along the gorge rim. These efforts join a number of similar completed and planned expressway removal projects across the United States targeted to remove physical barriers to full access in urban neighborhoods.

--

I knew that part of the original Moses Parkway went through the state park, whose remnants are slowly being erased with each improvement project to the state park - I just didn't realize that it had been removed back in the 1980s. I also remembered visiting the park as a kid - when it was quite run-down and worn out. The park has received significant investments over the past decade and it looks remarkably cleaner and more maintained.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 07, 2021, 02:28:38 PM
Governor Cuomo Announces Dedication of New Park Space along Niagara Gorge Rim in Niagara Falls, Created Through Removal of Segment of Former Expressway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-dedication-new-park-space-along-niagara-gorge-rim-niagara-falls?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery)

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the dedication of a major project that removed an underutilized, two-mile stretch of the former Robert Moses Parkway - now called the Niagara Scenic Parkway - in the City of Niagara Falls and created a stunning new area in Niagara Falls State Park called "Gorgeview," which provides unimpeded access to the Niagara Gorge and improved recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike. The project removed the segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive and replaced it with new green space that features picnic areas, scenic overlooks with majestic views and a network of recreational trails. Additionally, the New York State Department of Transportation completed a full-depth reconstruction of Whirlpool Street and a segment of Third Street to accommodate local vehicular access, from the parkway and adjoining city streets. New street lighting, landscaping, traffic control devices, pedestrian crosswalks, on-street parking areas, drainage improvements and upgrades to entrance drives and park trolley paths around the Niagara Gorge Discovery Center also were among the improvements.

[...]

NYPA built the parkway in stages between 1958 and 1967 as part of the construction of the nearby Niagara Power Project.  It was then viewed as necessary to both enhance tourism to compete with the Canadian side of the Falls, and to also dramatically reduce commuting times in the area. A section of the parkway that ran through the State Park and the Falls was removed in the 1980s. By 2013, after a pilot project and a number of planning studies called for reconfiguration or removal of segments of the expressway to allow full enjoyment of the Niagara Gorge's great resources, Governor Cuomo announced two removal projects, first the "Riverway" completed in 2017, which removed a mile of the parkway on the Upper Niagara River, followed by the current Niagara Gorge Project, which removed an additional two miles along the gorge rim. These efforts join a number of similar completed and planned expressway removal projects across the United States targeted to remove physical barriers to full access in urban neighborhoods.

--

I knew that part of the original Moses Parkway went through the state park, whose remnants are slowly being erased with each improvement project to the state park - I just didn't realize that it had been removed back in the 1980s. I also remembered visiting the park as a kid - when it was quite run-down and worn out. The park has received significant investments over the past decade and it looks remarkably cleaner and more maintained.
Did they spent anything on better restrooms over that decade?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 07, 2021, 08:52:35 PM
Governor Cuomo Announces Dedication of New Park Space along Niagara Gorge Rim in Niagara Falls, Created Through Removal of Segment of Former Expressway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-dedication-new-park-space-along-niagara-gorge-rim-niagara-falls?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery)

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the dedication of a major project that removed an underutilized, two-mile stretch of the former Robert Moses Parkway - now called the Niagara Scenic Parkway - in the City of Niagara Falls and created a stunning new area in Niagara Falls State Park called "Gorgeview," which provides unimpeded access to the Niagara Gorge and improved recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike. The project removed the segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive and replaced it with new green space that features picnic areas, scenic overlooks with majestic views and a network of recreational trails. Additionally, the New York State Department of Transportation completed a full-depth reconstruction of Whirlpool Street and a segment of Third Street to accommodate local vehicular access, from the parkway and adjoining city streets. New street lighting, landscaping, traffic control devices, pedestrian crosswalks, on-street parking areas, drainage improvements and upgrades to entrance drives and park trolley paths around the Niagara Gorge Discovery Center also were among the improvements.

[...]

NYPA built the parkway in stages between 1958 and 1967 as part of the construction of the nearby Niagara Power Project.  It was then viewed as necessary to both enhance tourism to compete with the Canadian side of the Falls, and to also dramatically reduce commuting times in the area. A section of the parkway that ran through the State Park and the Falls was removed in the 1980s. By 2013, after a pilot project and a number of planning studies called for reconfiguration or removal of segments of the expressway to allow full enjoyment of the Niagara Gorge's great resources, Governor Cuomo announced two removal projects, first the "Riverway" completed in 2017, which removed a mile of the parkway on the Upper Niagara River, followed by the current Niagara Gorge Project, which removed an additional two miles along the gorge rim. These efforts join a number of similar completed and planned expressway removal projects across the United States targeted to remove physical barriers to full access in urban neighborhoods.

--

I knew that part of the original Moses Parkway went through the state park, whose remnants are slowly being erased with each improvement project to the state park - I just didn't realize that it had been removed back in the 1980s. I also remembered visiting the park as a kid - when it was quite run-down and worn out. The park has received significant investments over the past decade and it looks remarkably cleaner and more maintained.
I'm going to puke.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 07, 2021, 09:51:32 PM
Because you can't drive 55 MPH through the park? Or because they took out a vastly underutilized expressway along the river? Even before it was downsized or removed, it had so little traffic to justify remaining in place. It also had little accommodations for cyclists and pedestrians. The interim measures of closing down half of the parkway (the southbound lanes) proved that it could be done with zero impact to traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 07, 2021, 10:40:17 PM
It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 07, 2021, 10:59:41 PM
It should be noted that most surface streets inside the Inner Loop are well under capacity. Remove the exit for the Inner Loop and people will use University/Andrews, Broad, and the Clinton/St Paul-South one way pair, all of which can handle increased traffic.
You still have to somehow get to those streets from I-490, though.  To/from the east there's exit 14, but how will I-490 flow with so much more traffic using that exit (particularly getting on; the exit 13 on ramp currently adds a lane).  To/from the west, there wouldn't be good access at all, as the only downtown exits on I-490 in that direction are the current/former Inner Loop ones.

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

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

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

That's a good point–they may think that indeed. But as it happens, quiet streets are already the norm downtown, and it's part of what makes it feel creepy to many people. The intent would rather be to make the streets a little more lively, not only with more traffic, but more local traffic. Whisking motorists into, through and out of the urban core is the design that's already there, and it is specifically what they're looking to revise.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 08, 2021, 08:36:15 AM
It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.

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

I still need to post my photos of the parkway north of the new Gorgeview section. I was completing aerials for a client up there and you could practically stand in the middle of the roadway and not get hit by traffic for minutes at a time in the middle of a weekday. The parkway going out toward Youngstown and Fort Niagara is also vastly overbuilt - that includes a massive Y-junction for the fort. It clearly hasn't been maintained very well since it was built with rough-as-cob concrete pavement and deteriorated bridges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 08:47:43 AM


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

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

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

One would expect traffic to be less in the middle of a weekday headed away from the city...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 08, 2021, 08:54:56 AM
But here? https://goo.gl/maps/yi4YCf7JJ3jkQFZi6

It will be interesting to see what happens to this segment of the highway now that it's been downsized to a two-lane road. It's eight lanes of traffic (counting NY 104) over the power canal (is there a more official name?) and all lanes are vastly underused.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 08, 2021, 09:42:14 AM
It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 10:29:49 AM


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

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be.  The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist.  The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 08, 2021, 01:03:24 PM
You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.

Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.
Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely.  And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.



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

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be.  The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist.  The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.
Yeah, Canada is where you go if you want to take a picture of the signature view or to make a vacation weekend with the kids.  If you want to enjoy the green space, that's what the US side is for.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 08, 2021, 02:11:29 PM
You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.

Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.
Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely.  And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.



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

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be.  The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist.  The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.
Yeah, Canada is where you go if you want to take a picture of the signature view or to make a vacation weekend with the kids.  If you want to enjoy the green space, that's what the US side is for.
If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara  as a tourist destination.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 02:16:38 PM
You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.

Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.
Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely.  And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.



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

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be.  The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist.  The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.
Yeah, Canada is where you go if you want to take a picture of the signature view or to make a vacation weekend with the kids.  If you want to enjoy the green space, that's what the US side is for.
If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara  as a tourist destination.
But people are there to see the falls...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 08, 2021, 03:20:37 PM
You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.

Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.
Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely.  And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.



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

The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..

Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be.  The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist.  The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.
Yeah, Canada is where you go if you want to take a picture of the signature view or to make a vacation weekend with the kids.  If you want to enjoy the green space, that's what the US side is for.
If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara  as a tourist destination.
But people are there to see the falls...
If we're talking in the context of Moses Parkway, then green space in the area of  Devil's Hole and Whirlpool have some remote relation to the falls themselves, do not really offer falls views - and are totally unfriendly to non-locals.  My bladder almost exploded after Devil's hole hike (and unlike larger parks, stepping into more wooded area wasn't a real option). The main argument for removing Moses Parkway is to make green area more accessible to _locals_
 
If we're talking seeing the falls themselves, then Canadian side wins without much competition, with Maid of the Mist ride being very remote second.
So I don't really see the point of discussion. NY doesn't want tourist dollars - that's OK, there are other options. We may talk when some quality food - at least McDonalds, that already would be a great improvement! - is available to those who want to spend a day there. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 08, 2021, 10:08:33 PM
The NY side feels like a park.  The Canadian side feels like a glitzy tourist trap with a nice view.

There are plenty of restaurants in the area, including Top of the Falls in the Goat Island portion of the park.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 11:34:46 PM
The NY side feels like a park.  The Canadian side feels like a glitzy tourist trap with a nice view.

There are plenty of restaurants in the area, including Top of the Falls in the Goat Island portion of the park.
^This.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 09, 2021, 12:52:51 PM
Are there any more sequential-to-mileage-based exit numbering conversions in the near future? I know the Thruway will be converted the-day-after-never, but what about all the other roads in New York State?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 09, 2021, 06:47:56 PM
Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely.

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

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

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

The design that makes the most sense to me would be Concept 6 with the Alternative 1 connection to I-490. Note, for example, that this option restores the grid at Delevan and Lyndhurst Streets; there's no reason to thread a boulevard through the middle of this block when both University/Andrews and Central Ave. are immediately adjacent.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 09, 2021, 07:56:57 PM
Double-posting because of the two divergent topics of conversation, but please merge if preferred.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that right there is the point of it: it doesn't come down to the dark side/light side dichotomy you've framed it as; there's more to the equation than you envision. And it doesn't boil down to a "winner" or otherwise, nor does the success or failure of the New York side center on whether the parkway exists and is used as a centerpiece of development. As you pointed out, this could be one option, but it isn't the only possibility. However, the only other option is not, as you also pointed out, to cede all possible benefit to our neighbours across the river.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 09, 2021, 09:39:48 PM
Double-posting because of the two divergent topics of conversation, but please merge if preferred.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that right there is the point of it: it doesn't come down to the dark side/light side dichotomy you've framed it as; there's more to the equation than you envision. And it doesn't boil down to a "winner" or otherwise, nor does the success or failure of the New York side center on whether the parkway exists and is used as a centerpiece of development. As you pointed out, this could be one option, but it isn't the only possibility. However, the only other option is not, as you also pointed out, to cede all possible benefit to our neighbours across the river.
Well, in no way I suggest chopping trees and paving entire Goat island. I am more talking about organizing a high throughput pipeline for tourists.

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

 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 09, 2021, 10:48:46 PM
Double-posting because of the two divergent topics of conversation, but please merge if preferred.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that right there is the point of it: it doesn't come down to the dark side/light side dichotomy you've framed it as; there's more to the equation than you envision. And it doesn't boil down to a "winner" or otherwise, nor does the success or failure of the New York side center on whether the parkway exists and is used as a centerpiece of development. As you pointed out, this could be one option, but it isn't the only possibility. However, the only other option is not, as you also pointed out, to cede all possible benefit to our neighbours across the river.
Well, in no way I suggest chopping trees and paving entire Goat island. I am more talking about organizing a high throughput pipeline for tourists.

What parkway could help accomplish is setting up the flow with multiple stops and multiple points of interest. Whirpool, maybe power plants, ridge trails  - not as great as falls, but still worthwhile, and those could take pressure off the prime spot. E.g. offer services which don't have to be in a prime spot. Such arrangement would increase comfort big time, and allow for better crowd handling. I have South rim in mind as an example.
Right now, going to downstream points of interest means little, if any services...
The parkway had those stops.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 10, 2021, 08:42:53 AM
Double-posting because of the two divergent topics of conversation, but please merge if preferred.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that right there is the point of it: it doesn't come down to the dark side/light side dichotomy you've framed it as; there's more to the equation than you envision. And it doesn't boil down to a "winner" or otherwise, nor does the success or failure of the New York side center on whether the parkway exists and is used as a centerpiece of development. As you pointed out, this could be one option, but it isn't the only possibility. However, the only other option is not, as you also pointed out, to cede all possible benefit to our neighbours across the river.
Well, in no way I suggest chopping trees and paving entire Goat island. I am more talking about organizing a high throughput pipeline for tourists.

What parkway could help accomplish is setting up the flow with multiple stops and multiple points of interest. Whirpool, maybe power plants, ridge trails  - not as great as falls, but still worthwhile, and those could take pressure off the prime spot. E.g. offer services which don't have to be in a prime spot. Such arrangement would increase comfort big time, and allow for better crowd handling. I have South rim in mind as an example.
Right now, going to downstream points of interest means little, if any services...
The parkway had those stops.
Stops - and little more than that. A food truck selling just bottled water, and no restrooms available can be hardly called "services".
That's what I am saying - parkway could be used for a profit, but state  paid for the demolition instead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 10, 2021, 10:48:47 AM
Because you can't drive 55 MPH through the park? Or because they took out a vastly underutilized expressway along the river?
More like because they created a gap that should've been filled and then downgraded it, like with the Bear Mountain State Parkway and the Nassau Expressway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 10, 2021, 01:07:46 PM
You literally need all of 2 lanes. This stuff was built for a different time period compared to now.

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

Pre-COVID, there was no demand leading to major backups. The casino and US side don't generate enough traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on July 10, 2021, 05:12:45 PM
You literally need all of 2 lanes. This stuff was built for a different time period compared to now.

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

Pre-COVID, there was no demand leading to major backups. The casino and US side don't generate enough traffic.
if 190 was six lanes maybe
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 10, 2021, 05:57:18 PM
Family went to the falls in 1977, the road was already closed, but the lights and BGS,s were still in place.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 11, 2021, 12:13:41 AM
You literally need all of 2 lanes. This stuff was built for a different time period compared to now.

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

Pre-COVID, there was no demand leading to major backups. The casino and US side don't generate enough traffic.
I seem to remember a significant backup approaching the roundabout on the Parkway during the 2015 Buffalo meet.  Turns out sending a parkway that's two lanes each way into a single-lane roundabout is much less efficient than an interchange.  Honestly, if it were me, the Riverway would be two-way (one lane each way) or the roundabout would have the U turn movement for John Daly Boulevard removed and two lanes come in from the parkway, with the right going to the city and the left to the Riverway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 11, 2021, 12:38:26 AM
I've not seen traffic into that roundabout since 2015. The demand is just not there. The only people crying foul are the ones who want freeways to exist because they exist. Sometimes the logic of reverting some things back is important too. It costs more to maintain a low-use parkway, especially one that had a bridge that would eventually need to be replaced, than to tear it out and convert it into a mixed-use pathway. It takes <5 minutes to get from 104 to Whirlpool Street in most cases, even on city streets, especially if you hit the lights well.

The LaSalle should come out next. It was a better idea when the beltway was an idea. Now it's a freeway stub to nowhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 11, 2021, 05:23:42 PM
I've not seen traffic into that roundabout since 2015. The demand is just not there. The only people crying foul are the ones who want freeways to exist because they exist. Sometimes the logic of reverting some things back is important too. It costs more to maintain a low-use parkway, especially one that had a bridge that would eventually need to be replaced, than to tear it out and convert it into a mixed-use pathway. It takes <5 minutes to get from 104 to Whirlpool Street in most cases, even on city streets, especially if you hit the lights well.

The LaSalle should come out next. It was a better idea when the beltway was an idea. Now it's a freeway stub to nowhere.
Well, that backup was pretty memorable.  Google also shows a fairly decent line (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0806465,-79.0501243,3a,90y,78.71h,76.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUQ5Q46JxeIdFfVGq3NDe6A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DUQ5Q46JxeIdFfVGq3NDe6A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D107.31105%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) in 2017.  Still, if it's better now than it was, that's fairly interesting.  The AADT seems to be stable - if anything, it's actually slightly higher now - so I can only assume that people have caught on to the fact that the chance of needing to yield entering the roundabout from the Parkway is close to zero.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 11, 2021, 11:40:08 PM
What parkway could help accomplish is setting up the flow with multiple stops and multiple points of interest. Whirpool, maybe power plants, ridge trails  - not as great as falls, but still worthwhile, and those could take pressure off the prime spot. E.g. offer services which don't have to be in a prime spot. Such arrangement would increase comfort big time, and allow for better crowd handling. I have South rim in mind as an example.
Right now, going to downstream points of interest means little, if any services...
The parkway had those stops.
Stops - and little more than that. A food truck selling just bottled water, and no restrooms available can be hardly called "services".
That's what I am saying - parkway could be used for a profit, but state  paid for the demolition instead.

Well, sure, they could have tried maybe going the other way with that, but they chose a direction that was more in keeping with the existing character of the U.S. side–and, let's face it, cheaper.

But what you're saying is that the only other possible option they had, short of trying your idea, was to give up altogether and just concede the entire tourist industry to Canada. Now of course, I realize you're saying that hyperbolically, but for those who might take you at your word, I'm just introducing for discussion the notion that things are obviously more nuanced than that.

(And part of that nuance is that the money that "pays" for demolition isn't a binary choice taken against the money that could have been "made" in profit. That's just not really how public expenditures work; it's similar to the idea that one shouldn't have to "pay" for the public schools if one doesn't have students enrolled in them, or for public roads if one doesn't own a car to drive on them, whereas of course the monies that come from the general public are meant for the greater benefit of the entire public. Likewise, the expenditure of funds to downgrade a parkway can realize a public benefit if the overall vitality of the area is improved, even if there isn't a directly quantifiable entry on the black side of the ledger.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 12, 2021, 09:24:09 AM
What parkway could help accomplish is setting up the flow with multiple stops and multiple points of interest. Whirpool, maybe power plants, ridge trails  - not as great as falls, but still worthwhile, and those could take pressure off the prime spot. E.g. offer services which don't have to be in a prime spot. Such arrangement would increase comfort big time, and allow for better crowd handling. I have South rim in mind as an example.
Right now, going to downstream points of interest means little, if any services...
The parkway had those stops.
Stops - and little more than that. A food truck selling just bottled water, and no restrooms available can be hardly called "services".
That's what I am saying - parkway could be used for a profit, but state  paid for the demolition instead.

Well, sure, they could have tried maybe going the other way with that, but they chose a direction that was more in keeping with the existing character of the U.S. side–and, let's face it, cheaper.

But what you're saying is that the only other possible option they had, short of trying your idea, was to give up altogether and just concede the entire tourist industry to Canada. Now of course, I realize you're saying that hyperbolically, but for those who might take you at your word, I'm just introducing for discussion the notion that things are obviously more nuanced than that.

(And part of that nuance is that the money that "pays" for demolition isn't a binary choice taken against the money that could have been "made" in profit. That's just not really how public expenditures work; it's similar to the idea that one shouldn't have to "pay" for the public schools if one doesn't have students enrolled in them, or for public roads if one doesn't own a car to drive on them, whereas of course the monies that come from the general public are meant for the greater benefit of the entire public. Likewise, the expenditure of funds to downgrade a parkway can realize a public benefit if the overall vitality of the area is improved, even if there isn't a directly quantifiable entry on the black side of the ledger.)
Let me shift the perspective a little bit, away from the road and towards a bit higher level:
As we know, Niagara Falls is a state park - designated some 30 years before the National Park concept was created.
And it may be a significant factor in this discussion.
NY State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation manages mostly "lakefront, grill, and hike" local parks, Niagara may be the only national and world class location they operats. Adirondak and Catskills are under DEC jurisdiction.
My impression is that NPS is much more experienced in managing such high class sites, creating a very different environment, while NY office takes on a task above their paygrade. ANd two major options here are NPS-style management vs "grill and hike" one.
Returning to roads, I suspect NPS style operation could use the parkway, while it is a hindrance for a local park...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 12, 2021, 09:58:56 AM
NPS would never have allowed a 55 MPH freeway to be built through the center of the park. As others have noted, the "parkway" had been severed by the 1970s, proving that the freeway did not meet its original or revised objectives. Nothing is permanent. For all of the boulevards and freeways and parkways that cut through Niagara Falls (NY), none have really aided locals. Partly because of its over-industrialization and forever-ruined super-polluted lands, the city has been declining economically and demographically for decades. And it has infrastructure that doesn't match reality or expectations.

If the goal is to revitalize the core of the city, expand greenspace, and offer full mobility (for pedestrians and cyclists), then modifying or removing the "parkway" should part of that goal. Subtracting the segment that was removed through the center of the park decades ago, the more recent projects have had negligible effects on overall traffic patterns. There is no more congestion through the city than before, and I-190 isn't any worse off.

I do agree, though, that Niagara Falls should have long ago been a national park. It would have had many more resources at its disposal, and I suspect that the entirety of the gorge would have been preserved. Now it's segmented off into multiple entities and reserves that have some cohesion but no unified branding or funding source. (BTW - the gorges are amazing to hike through)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 12, 2021, 10:47:47 AM
The idea that the NPS swaggers around with money billowing from its pockets goes against the reality that it is actually cash-strapped, does not have the funds to keep up with its huge maintenance backlog, increasingly relies upon unpaid volunteers -- including for law enforcement,  and has to deal with a Congress that keeps throwing additional sites at it, but without adequate funding (up to something like 423 sites now).

NY's done a good job partially reversing the original damage done by opportunists at Niagara.  Yes, the elevator for Maid of the Mist is an eyesore and I wonder if the site would be improved if the operation was shut down (of course, the outrage would be deafening).  I don't see the advantage of handing it over to the NPS.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 12, 2021, 10:48:39 AM
NPS would never have allowed a 55 MPH freeway to be built through the center of the park. As others have noted, the "parkway" had been severed by the 1970s, proving that the freeway did not meet its original or revised objectives. Nothing is permanent. For all of the boulevards and freeways and parkways that cut through Niagara Falls (NY), none have really aided locals. Partly because of its over-industrialization and forever-ruined super-polluted lands, the city has been declining economically and demographically for decades. And it has infrastructure that doesn't match reality or expectations.

If the goal is to revitalize the core of the city, expand greenspace, and offer full mobility (for pedestrians and cyclists), then modifying or removing the "parkway" should part of that goal. Subtracting the segment that was removed through the center of the park decades ago, the more recent projects have had negligible effects on overall traffic patterns. There is no more congestion through the city than before, and I-190 isn't any worse off.

I do agree, though, that Niagara Falls should have long ago been a national park. It would have had many more resources at its disposal, and I suspect that the entirety of the gorge would have been preserved. Now it's segmented off into multiple entities and reserves that have some cohesion but no unified branding or funding source. (BTW - the gorges are amazing to hike through)
Well, 55 is not really an objective, especially if the road is 6 miles long and would be clogged with tourist traffic. And AZ64 is 45 MPH within the park: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0034017,-111.9190434,3a,75y,50.3h,68.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFpIL_EC6asBaumfUkmoCbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 12, 2021, 10:53:05 AM
The idea that the NPS swaggers around with money billowing from its pockets goes against the reality that it is actually cash-strapped, does not have the funds to keep up with its huge maintenance backlog, increasingly relies upon unpaid volunteers -- including for law enforcement,  and has to deal with a Congress that keeps throwing additional sites at it, but without adequate funding (up to something like 423 sites now).

NY's done a good job partially reversing the original damage done by opportunists at Niagara.  Yes, the elevator for Maid of the Mist is an eyesore and I wonder if the site would be improved if the operation was shut down (of course, the outrage would be deafening).  I don't see the advantage of handing it over to the NPS.
Advantage of handing over to NPS would be similar to handing over busy road from the Village of Middle of Nowhere to NYSDOT. While later is also cash strapped, just fixing the mess with signage, turning lanes etc. can be a big deal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 12, 2021, 01:08:45 PM
Honestly, given all the schenanigans in Washington, I'm glad that our sites in NY are state parks and not national parks.  The national parks, monuments, etc. didn't fare that well through the last government shutdown.

Honestly, the removal of the additional section isn't going to hurt much.  It wasn't traveled much, and Whirlpool Street is right next to the former parkway and will work fine.  Heck, I'm not convinced it needs to exist south of I-190.  Just extend Whirlpool Street over the section to NY 104 at Devil's Hole and feed the northern piece of the Parkway into the I-190 interchange.

NY State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation manages mostly "lakefront, grill, and hike" local parks, Niagara may be the only national and world class location they operats. Adirondak and Catskills are under DEC jurisdiction.
Letchworth, Watkins Glen...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 12, 2021, 01:27:49 PM
- From its southern terminus, the parkway carries 20571 VPD close to I-190
- North of downtown, the parkway carries 3021 VPD
- North of the tracks, 4084 VPD
- North of I-190, 4943 VPD
- By Youngstown, 4808 VPD
- The massively overbuilt Fort Niagara interchange carries... a whopping 852 VPD
- And at its northern terminus, a whopping... 1043 VPD
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 12, 2021, 01:56:28 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/51195554817/in/album-72157719337442409/

New York (and other states), take note on the best way to show what lane ends. It can get confusing to learn what lane closes when certain states use ambiguous terms on their signs, such as "LANE ENDS 500 FEET" but that the sign is centered in between lanes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 12, 2021, 02:27:00 PM
NY State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation manages mostly "lakefront, grill, and hike" local parks, Niagara may be the only national and world class location they operats. Adirondak and Catskills are under DEC jurisdiction.
Letchworth, Watkins Glen...
That's exactly the problem - dealing with 10M visitors location similar to sub-1M places.
on to be roadgeeky... there is a difference between I-87 bridge over Mohawk and NY-67 bridge over Hudson. One over the Hudson should be more important!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 12, 2021, 02:44:04 PM
NY State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation manages mostly "lakefront, grill, and hike" local parks, Niagara may be the only national and world class location they operats. Adirondak and Catskills are under DEC jurisdiction.
Letchworth, Watkins Glen...
That's exactly the problem - dealing with 10M visitors location similar to sub-1M places.
on to be roadgeeky... there is a difference between I-87 bridge over Mohawk and NY-67 bridge over Hudson. One over the Hudson should be more important!
I guess I am not seeing the issue with the current level of management, outside of some less-than-ideal crowd management.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 12, 2021, 02:57:41 PM
Both of those parks have also been recipients of substantial reinvestment. For instance, the entire front entrance to Watkins Glen was reconfigured. The atrocious parking lot in front of the main trailhead has been replaced with much-needed greenspace and welcome center, with parking relocated alongside the main road in much larger lots. I can't find the specifics on my compressed schedule today, but it was something in the tune of $1 billion has been reinvested into the state park system in the past few years. Much of it is to address deferred maintenance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 12, 2021, 03:02:09 PM
Actually, come to think of it, I hate what they did to Thacher, where they built a visitor center right on the cliff in view from the most popular overlook.  Ruined the view.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 12, 2021, 03:04:19 PM
NY State Parks management is generally fine.

Letchworth, Watkins Glen...

Neither of those has topped 1 million in the past 20 years. The only Upstate parks that have seen those numbers are Niagara, Saratoga, Green Lakes, and Thacher. Downstate parks hit those numbers routinely, most of which are beaches or under the jurisdiction of PIPC.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 12, 2021, 03:13:30 PM
Wait, wait, I've got the answer:

Privatization!

Oh wait, they already showed us what that looked like... :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 12, 2021, 09:01:46 PM
NY State Parks management is generally fine.

Letchworth, Watkins Glen...

Neither of those has topped 1 million in the past 20 years. The only Upstate parks that have seen those numbers are Niagara, Saratoga, Green Lakes, and Thacher. Downstate parks hit those numbers routinely, most of which are beaches or under the jurisdiction of PIPC.
They're still world class and fairly famous attractions, though.  Letchworth in particular is know as the Grand Canyon of the East.

If we're focusing on just visitor numbers, the third most visited state park location, after Jones Beach and Niagara Falls, is the Walkway over the Hudson.  In fact, one of the people who works there has a story about a couple of people from the UK who went there on holiday (it was between that and skiing in Africa) and then asked "so what else is there to do in Poughkeepsie?".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 13, 2021, 12:09:13 AM
Niagara Falls downtown is: the Seneca Niagara Casino, the falls and ___________________________.

The Price is Right has at least twice offered a trip to Niagara Falls, New York in Season 49 due to COVID limits (no trips off the North American continent due to COVID). I've giggled more than a couple times, how are they going to spend 6 nights there, especially with the border closed? You can do Niagara Falls in a day. Like, there's so little to offer. They aren't going to spend 6 nights at the Casino I presume? (the trips were to stay at The Butler House Bed & Breakfast on Park Place).

Niagara Falls on the NY side, with the border closed doesn't provide enough to justify a lot of things, let alone a parkway that had been overbuilt and would never see the right kind of traffic unless it was connected to the Lake Ontario State Parkway. At least then you'd have a shunpiking route people would use, even if I don't think many would do that. Instead you have two parkways that don't connect, and one is coming out. The AADT numbers are worse than NY 17 in Hale Eddy, and you know I am very opposed to NYSDOT doing anything about that.

Letchworth and Watkins Glen are different completely because they are nowheresville and the biggest thing Watkins Glen has is Watkins Glen International, which brings much bigger audiences than the park will ever bring.

Niagara Falls has a lot of work to do to restore itself to anywhere near a strong city, and it's going to take a lot of things, besides tearing up two limited access roads. Not every road has to stay.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 13, 2021, 07:03:01 AM
Hm.  I wonder about the racetrack being a bigger draw than the state park.  You're talking about an arena that has a limited number of events versus a constant draw on the state park during the same season of the year.

Also, people have honeymooned in Niagara Falls since time eternal.  I agree that 6 days is a lot for people like us, but you'd be surprised by how many people go on vacation and spend half the time in the hotel in the name of relaxing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MASTERNC on July 13, 2021, 09:28:05 AM
Niagara Falls downtown is: the Seneca Niagara Casino, the falls and ___________________________.

The Price is Right has at least twice offered a trip to Niagara Falls, New York in Season 49 due to COVID limits (no trips off the North American continent due to COVID). I've giggled more than a couple times, how are they going to spend 6 nights there, especially with the border closed? You can do Niagara Falls in a day. Like, there's so little to offer. They aren't going to spend 6 nights at the Casino I presume? (the trips were to stay at The Butler House Bed & Breakfast on Park Place).

Niagara Falls on the NY side, with the border closed doesn't provide enough to justify a lot of things, let alone a parkway that had been overbuilt and would never see the right kind of traffic unless it was connected to the Lake Ontario State Parkway. At least then you'd have a shunpiking route people would use, even if I don't think many would do that. Instead you have two parkways that don't connect, and one is coming out. The AADT numbers are worse than NY 17 in Hale Eddy, and you know I am very opposed to NYSDOT doing anything about that.

Letchworth and Watkins Glen are different completely because they are nowheresville and the biggest thing Watkins Glen has is Watkins Glen International, which brings much bigger audiences than the park will ever bring.

Niagara Falls has a lot of work to do to restore itself to anywhere near a strong city, and it's going to take a lot of things, besides tearing up two limited access roads. Not every road has to stay.

Having family in WNY, I can agree with you about the American Falls.  Buffalo has a few more things to do (as do the surrounding areas) but I hope those trips include a rental car so the winner can see them easily.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 13, 2021, 03:11:53 PM
Yes it comes with rental car from Buffalo Niagara. Again, I live up here. But the point is.....both cities are basically 1 day affairs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on July 15, 2021, 09:28:05 PM
I just got done watching , a driver's eye view from Midtown Manhattan to the marina in Greenport, LI.

Coming into the North Prong, the road was signed NY Truck 25/Suffolk 48.  Where NYS roads are signed that way, who pays for the maintenance?  NYSDOT, the county, or are the expenses split?

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on July 16, 2021, 04:31:23 PM
Has anyone noticed that NYSDOT has started putting pavement markings in recessed grooves when repaving high-speed roads? I noticed this on expressways a little while ago, and apparently they are doing it on conventional roads as well.

On a recently repaved section of route 9W you can see the centerline is recessed down into pavement, rumble strips are also present. I drove through while it was raining and a bunch of water was pooled in the center groove with no way to drain out. I wonder if this will compromise the life of the pavement.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 16, 2021, 06:56:41 PM
Keeps the road markers from being chipped off by plows. Having the slightly recessed markers doesn't affect drivability; water doesn't pool in such excessive amounts that hydroplaning is an issue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on July 16, 2021, 07:37:24 PM
- From its southern terminus, the parkway carries 20571 VPD close to I-190
- North of downtown, the parkway carries 3021 VPD
- North of the tracks, 4084 VPD
- North of I-190, 4943 VPD
- By Youngstown, 4808 VPD
- The massively overbuilt Fort Niagara interchange carries... a whopping 852 VPD
- And at its northern terminus, a whopping... 1043 VPD

Muh induced demand
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 17, 2021, 09:13:01 AM
In many cases, the "old" road has more traffic :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on July 18, 2021, 12:22:06 PM
Are there any more sequential-to-mileage-based exit numbering conversions in the near future? I know the Thruway will be converted the-day-after-never, but what about all the other roads in New York State?

I haven't heard anything. I still have to drive down the Hutch and see how the signs are progressing. Looks like they mostly did 1:1 replacements, meaning there are still different styles of exit signs (eg, some have the street name, horizontal bar, control city, whereas others don't have the horizontal bar).

684 would be an easy conversion, but I don't know if the signs are reaching end-of-life. The signs at I-84 are definitely newish. Personally, I'd love to see the Palisades Parkway get new signs and the parkway is long enough that mile-based exits would work decently.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on July 18, 2021, 12:31:36 PM
Westchester DPW replaced the signs on the Bronx River Parkway at the Cross-County, so these abominations are gone:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9175149,-73.8477215,3a,75y,35.44h,84.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHslUJH7zOG5PLVxjt530w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9228893,-73.8451635,3a,75y,42.38h,88.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb2EU112NcLM1r0MaLdCgpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And these have been replaced, too:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9370963,-73.8369638,3a,39.4y,326.49h,90.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQNhtM68nVSi_0wA_jPTvgQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

^^ That one now has just Sprain Brook Pkwy (no reference to the Taconic/Albany) with down arrows over all three lanes (never understood why the right lane has a solid white line). I guess the Sprain sign could technically have a Left Exit # like it does when you're on the southbound Taconic, but it always looked weird to me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 18, 2021, 04:51:26 PM
Westchester DPW replaced the signs on the Bronx River Parkway at the Cross-County, so these abominations are gone:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9175149,-73.8477215,3a,75y,35.44h,84.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHslUJH7zOG5PLVxjt530w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9228893,-73.8451635,3a,75y,42.38h,88.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb2EU112NcLM1r0MaLdCgpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


I actually like the second sign with the exit numbers on the bottom row. That was the NYSDPW standard at one time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on July 18, 2021, 10:35:32 PM
Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on July 18, 2021, 10:55:14 PM
Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.
It was once part of NY 245 before it became I-390. New York often doesn’t change the reference route number even if the touring route number changes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_245
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on July 19, 2021, 05:03:39 AM
Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.
It was once part of NY 245 before it became I-390. New York often doesn’t change the reference route number even if the touring route number changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_245

Region 4 changed all the reference markers on I-390 in Livingston County to 390I in the late 1970s as the sections north of Dansville were starting to open up. The 245  reference markers are in Steuben County (Region 6).

NY 245 overlapped NY 21 between Naples and Wayland, (originally) NY 63 to Dansville, then west along current NY 436 through Nunda and Portageville. When the first section of the Genesee Expressway opened between Wayland and Dansville, 245 was moved onto it, exiting at what is now Exit 4, and continued west. The expressway between Exit 4 and the Exit 5 area carried NY 36, with  36  reference markers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on July 21, 2021, 01:22:18 PM
Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.
It was once part of NY 245 before it became I-390. New York often doesn’t change the reference route number even if the touring route number changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_245

Region 4 changed all the reference markers on I-390 in Livingston County to 390I in the late 1970s as the sections north of Dansville were starting to open up. The 245 reference markers are in Steuben County (Region 6).

NY 245 overlapped NY 21 between Naples and Wayland, (originally) NY 63 to Dansville, then west along current NY 436 through Nunda and Portageville. When the first section of the Genesee Expressway opened between Wayland and Dansville, 245 was moved onto it, exiting at what is now Exit 4, and continued west. The expressway between Exit 4 and the Exit 5 area carried NY 36, with 36 reference markers.
The history adds up - it looks like NY 36 once bypassed Dansville but was returned to downtown when I-390 was designated (1970-72 I guess, according to Wikipedia). Was Region 6 simply too lazy to change the markers from 245 to 390I, considering Region 4 did?

Also, it seems confusing that NYSDOT would still inventory this as NY 245 when the rest of the road is I-390 (or 390I). There's no real reason to do so, and I don't think anyone at NYSDOT remembers when or why it was NY 245.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on July 21, 2021, 01:35:49 PM
I know NY 82 and US 44 were re-configured near Millbrook (Dutchess County) and 82 has 44's reference markers. I remember reading in some DOT manual that for crash stats and history/projects, it makes sense to keep the old ones.

Anyway, I went over the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge last weekend and it's AET now. The tollbooths are being dismantled.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 21, 2021, 02:47:38 PM
Westchester DPW replaced the signs on the Bronx River Parkway at the Cross-County, so these abominations are gone:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9175149,-73.8477215,3a,75y,35.44h,84.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHslUJH7zOG5PLVxjt530w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9228893,-73.8451635,3a,75y,42.38h,88.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb2EU112NcLM1r0MaLdCgpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And these have been replaced, too:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9370963,-73.8369638,3a,39.4y,326.49h,90.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQNhtM68nVSi_0wA_jPTvgQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

^^ That one now has just Sprain Brook Pkwy (no reference to the Taconic/Albany) with down arrows over all three lanes (never understood why the right lane has a solid white line). I guess the Sprain sign could technically have a Left Exit # like it does when you're on the southbound Taconic, but it always looked weird to me.

This sign is also owned by the County of Westchester.  It says it on the sign.  So will this be gone too soon? It wasn't replaced with the other signs in the area.  Btw, are the I-684 button copy signs nearby also Westchester owned?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50996964053_5e78fd0888_c.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 21, 2021, 03:40:03 PM
Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.
It was once part of NY 245 before it became I-390. New York often doesn’t change the reference route number even if the touring route number changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_245

Region 4 changed all the reference markers on I-390 in Livingston County to 390I in the late 1970s as the sections north of Dansville were starting to open up. The 245 reference markers are in Steuben County (Region 6).

NY 245 overlapped NY 21 between Naples and Wayland, (originally) NY 63 to Dansville, then west along current NY 436 through Nunda and Portageville. When the first section of the Genesee Expressway opened between Wayland and Dansville, 245 was moved onto it, exiting at what is now Exit 4, and continued west. The expressway between Exit 4 and the Exit 5 area carried NY 36, with 36 reference markers.
The history adds up - it looks like NY 36 once bypassed Dansville but was returned to downtown when I-390 was designated (1970-72 I guess, according to Wikipedia). Was Region 6 simply too lazy to change the markers from 245 to 390I, considering Region 4 did?

Also, it seems confusing that NYSDOT would still inventory this as NY 245 when the rest of the road is I-390 (or 390I). There's no real reason to do so, and I don't think anyone at NYSDOT remembers when or why it was NY 245.

At one time, it was NYSDOT policy to leave reference markers as installed, and not update with new route numbers. This has varied between the regions over the years. I can think of plenty of places where the reference marker doesn't match the signed route anymore in Regions 2 and 5, not sure about 4. Region 3 seems to update their reference markers, not sure about Region 9.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 21, 2021, 05:20:57 PM
R5 is replace as is. ex-NY 33B just got its signs redone, still 33B reference markers, despite the route not existing since 7/1/74.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 21, 2021, 06:47:15 PM
R5 is replace as is.

Sometimes. 263 was re-mileposted in 2015.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on July 22, 2021, 12:57:13 AM
At one time, it was NYSDOT policy to leave reference markers as installed, and not update with new route numbers. This has varied between the regions over the years. I can think of plenty of places where the reference marker doesn't match the signed route anymore in Regions 2 and 5, not sure about 4. Region 3 seems to update their reference markers, not sure about Region 9.

R4 will generally update their markers though I can think of a couple of one offs where that isn't/wasn't the case.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 22, 2021, 08:12:54 AM
R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 22, 2021, 08:50:39 AM
R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.

Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 22, 2021, 08:59:12 AM
Similar to how R9 has the old 7 markers on I-88 between the 7 arterial and exit 4.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 22, 2021, 09:01:50 AM


R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.

Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.

Well, the keyword there is "former."  NYSDOT isn't going to keep RMs on a county route.

 An example of what I am talking about are NY 90 RMs being still in place on current NY 392.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 22, 2021, 09:43:05 AM
IDK, perhaps the Niagra SP/RMSP situation would be different if the LOSP were completed out to Porter.
It also makes no sense to me to have the NSP parallel to NY 104 from the Center St. exit to the split at Devil's Hole State Park. Just get rid of it and add a median to NY 104 and raise the speed limit to 65.
There's plenty of thru E-W streets connecting to I-190 to handle tourist traffic.
I would honestly demolish the whole thing south of I-190.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 22, 2021, 03:21:49 PM


R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.

Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.

Well, the keyword there is "former."  NYSDOT isn't going to keep RMs on a county route.

 An example of what I am talking about are NY 90 RMs being still in place on current NY 392.

What I was trying to convey was...

On NY 291 in Region 2, the part which used to be NY 12C still (for the most part) say 12C, there's a couple stragglers that were changed.
On NY 430 in Region 5, the part which used to be NY 17J still say 17J.

On NY 370 in Region 3, the part which used to be NY 57, the RMs were all changed to 370.
On NY 481 in Region 3, the part which used to be NY 57, the were all changed to 481.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 22, 2021, 04:46:06 PM


R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.

Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.

Well, the keyword there is "former."  NYSDOT isn't going to keep RMs on a county route.

 An example of what I am talking about are NY 90 RMs being still in place on current NY 392.

What I was trying to convey was...

On NY 291 in Region 2, the part which used to be NY 12C still (for the most part) say 12C, there's a couple stragglers that were changed.
On NY 430 in Region 5, the part which used to be NY 17J still say 17J.

On NY 370 in Region 3, the part which used to be NY 57, the RMs were all changed to 370.
On NY 481 in Region 3, the part which used to be NY 57, the were all changed to 481.
Well...yeah.  In R3, someone didn't like the gap left over.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 22, 2021, 09:44:59 PM
IDK, perhaps the Niagra SP/RMSP situation would be different if the LOSP were completed out to Porter.
It also makes no sense to me to have the NSP parallel to NY 104 from the Center St. exit to the split at Devil's Hole State Park. Just get rid of it and add a median to NY 104 and raise the speed limit to 65.
There's plenty of thru E-W streets connecting to I-190 to handle tourist traffic.
I would honestly demolish the whole thing south of I-190.
I could see keeping I-190 to NY 104 if it were modified to have the NSP southbound feed into the I-190 interchange.  That said, given the AADT, it might not be worth having north of I-190 either.  It would probably be cheaper to just have the state take over Church Street/Blairville Road and give that a number than to do significant rehabilitation/reconstruction work on the NSP.

I'm not sure why it still exists south of I-190 at all given the recent removal efforts.  There's no reason to have the I-190 to Devil's Hole section and the Devil's Hole to Findlay Drive section could just become an extension of Whirlpool Street.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on July 24, 2021, 09:06:06 PM
I stumbled on a couple cool clips on YouTube of NY 17 in Corning before the Corning Bypass was built:

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-NYuEfF2jc) one is part of a series along NY 17, and starts at I-390 and heads eastbound to the east side of Elmira, then jumps to the Newburgh-Beacon bridge.  A copy of Uglybridges from the Internet Archive (http://web.archive.org/web/20150604220111/http://uglybridges.com/1377018) says the bridge on the east side of Corning was reconstructed in 1990, so since construction is visible at 4:26, I'm guessing this clip is from that year.

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chfKq13dXWw) clip shows construction of the Corning Bypass in 1993.  It's slightly confusing since the High Street it references is the one in Riverside (NY 352), but the video starts on NY 414 near Corning's High Street.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 25, 2021, 01:16:14 PM
Also, it seems confusing that NYSDOT would still inventory this as NY 245 when the rest of the road is I-390 (or 390I). There's no real reason to do so, and I don't think anyone at NYSDOT remembers when or why it was NY 245.

They don't, it's inventoried as I-390. While touring route numbers are used as an element of the reference marker legend when it's devised, the markers themselves do not establish what the route number is. Rather, they serve to uniquely identify a point along the state highway system, so as long as there's no other identical marker somewhere, then there's no reason to change the legend. (If you did, then you'd have two different marker legends identifying the same unique location, which is contrary to the intent.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: noelbotevera on July 26, 2021, 10:04:22 PM
Also, it seems confusing that NYSDOT would still inventory this as NY 245 when the rest of the road is I-390 (or 390I). There's no real reason to do so, and I don't think anyone at NYSDOT remembers when or why it was NY 245.

They don't, it's inventoried as I-390. While touring route numbers are used as an element of the reference marker legend when it's devised, the markers themselves do not establish what the route number is. Rather, they serve to uniquely identify a point along the state highway system, so as long as there's no other identical marker somewhere, then there's no reason to change the legend. (If you did, then you'd have two different marker legends identifying the same unique location, which is contrary to the intent.)
I don't quite understand what you're saying. As stated earlier, the markers are used for crash statistics, projects, and identification...but are not meant to be used for inventory purposes. Then what's the point in having them? If the road (or rather a specific point) is identified as its old number - with this number also being used for stats and projects - but inventoried as another number, doesn't that lead to confusion?

For comparison, PennDOT's little white signs (the Location Reference System) are used as both identifying markers and an inventory  (purpose stated here) (https://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/ResearchandTesting/RoadwayManagementandTesting/Pages/Location-Reference-System.aspx) but sometimes don't reflect the posted route number. One example is PA 61 near Centralia.

I'm guessing that the NYSDOT inventory and reference markers are two entirely separate ways of identifying roads - one (the inventory) probably stored in a digital database in Albany for the IT people (and probably referenced when compiling AADT data), the other (markers) for the construction crews (who need physical signs that detail the scope of a project).

There's also a case of two reference markers together (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7586619,-74.6020939,3a,15y,64.41h,84.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sq2KrAtQm-NpVqjBGJqzBNg!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192) - I usually don't see both routes reflected on a multiplex, and I'm not sure why this is a special case (NY 42/NY 52 have a very short multiplex, but that's about it).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 27, 2021, 02:05:55 AM
I don't quite understand what you're saying. As stated earlier, the markers are used for crash statistics, projects, and identification...but are not meant to be used for inventory purposes. Then what's the point in having them?

It's just what you said: the point is to identify locations on the state highway system for compiling statistics and data, and for referencing physical inventories–not of the highways themselves, but of things like traffic signals and railroad crossings.

Quote
If the road (or rather a specific point) is identified as its old number - with this number also being used for stats and projects - but inventoried as another number, doesn't that lead to confusion?

Perhaps so, though perhaps less so among the intended users (the DOT) than the general public. It may help to realize that the "number" in this case is the touring route number–a fungible concept that is itself an aspect of the state highway system, but is distinct from the SR numbers that serve to legally and physically identify the roads themselves. To put it another way, the (touring) route number is just one way to describe that highway system as it exists at a point in time; the reference marker system is another.

Quote
I'm guessing that the NYSDOT inventory and reference markers are two entirely separate ways of identifying roads - one (the inventory) probably stored in a digital database in Albany for the IT people (and probably referenced when compiling AADT data), the other (markers) for the construction crews (who need physical signs that detail the scope of a project).

So yes, that's basically the case. Certainly the touring route inventory is the most recognizable system for human users, both internally and at large, while the reference marker system makes more sense to a computer database.

Quote
There's also a case of two reference markers together (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7586619,-74.6020939,3a,15y,64.41h,84.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sq2KrAtQm-NpVqjBGJqzBNg!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192) - I usually don't see both routes reflected on a multiplex, and I'm not sure why this is a special case (NY 42/NY 52 have a very short multiplex, but that's about it).

Probably no more special a case than that the reference marker guidelines are applied pretty willy-nilly by the different regions and various contractors. To add to the confusion, there seems to be a discrepancy between theoretical marker locations (which can be seen e.g. in NYSDOT's GIS datasets) and actual sign legends.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 27, 2021, 03:56:04 PM
Think of reference markers not as mileposts but rather as lat/long coordinates with a different system, giving a unique identifier to a specific physical location.  If the record changes, then everything tied to that record is no longer tied to that actual physical location.  This is important when you consider that a "database" in state government often isn't a centralized system like one would assume, but could actually mean a collection of spreadsheets, word documents, and scanned PDFs in a network folder.

The biggest issue is crash reporting.  When an incident happens on the state highway system, they way the location is recorded is by reference marker.  Thus, if the marker changes or moves, someone who needs to know where that incident happened will get incorrect information.  IIRC, the responsibility for who overall maintains the reference marker system (in the office) has shifted a couple times, as information has migrated over to GIS systems that no longer need the makers.  Heck, many people need to be fluent in multiple systems - route/milepoint and reference markers - as different groups use different systems.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on July 27, 2021, 04:37:10 PM


R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.

Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.

Well, the keyword there is "former."  NYSDOT isn't going to keep RMs on a county route.

 An example of what I am talking about are NY 90 RMs being still in place on current NY 392.

I didn’t think there were any NY-90 markers on NY-392, and confirmed that today.  Nor NY-215, for that matter.  The only evidence remaining that NY-90 extended south of its current terminus is a couple of rogue shields on US-11/NY-41 in Homer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 27, 2021, 06:44:40 PM


R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.

Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.

Well, the keyword there is "former."  NYSDOT isn't going to keep RMs on a county route.

 An example of what I am talking about are NY 90 RMs being still in place on current NY 392.

I didn’t think there were any NY-90 markers on NY-392, and confirmed that today.  Nor NY-215, for that matter.  The only evidence remaining that NY-90 extended south of its current terminus is a couple of rogue shields on US-11/NY-41 in Homer.
I've got the official ArcGIS file that states differently.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 27, 2021, 08:11:15 PM
I've got the official ArcGIS file that states differently.

I was going to say something, but it looks like someone else already said it...

To add to the confusion, there seems to be a discrepancy between theoretical marker locations (which can be seen e.g. in NYSDOT's GIS datasets) and actual sign legends.

I have found quite a few cases where the GIS files differ from what exists in the field. Should it happen? No, but it definitely happens.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 27, 2021, 10:04:50 PM
I've got the official ArcGIS file that states differently.

I was going to say something, but it looks like someone else already said it...

To add to the confusion, there seems to be a discrepancy between theoretical marker locations (which can be seen e.g. in NYSDOT's GIS datasets) and actual sign legends.

I have found quite a few cases where the GIS files differ from what exists in the field. Should it happen? No, but it definitely happens.

Yup, that's it. I've got that same official file (or one just like it) and it's got loads of markers that don't exist in physical reality.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 27, 2021, 10:07:16 PM


I've got the official ArcGIS file that states differently.

I was going to say something, but it looks like someone else already said it...

To add to the confusion, there seems to be a discrepancy between theoretical marker locations (which can be seen e.g. in NYSDOT's GIS datasets) and actual sign legends.

I have found quite a few cases where the GIS files differ from what exists in the field. Should it happen? No, but it definitely happens.

Yup, that's it. I've got that same official file (or one just like it) and it's got loads of markers that don't exist in physical reality.

That's to be expected.  Markers in the field have gone kerplunk and the GIS file stodgily retains their locations every tenth mile.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 27, 2021, 10:43:30 PM
^ If NYSDOT wants to hire me, I'll fix that on the spot... :nod:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 29, 2021, 09:02:14 PM
^ If NYSDOT wants to hire me, I'll fix that on the spot... :nod:
Ok.

*Sends froggie out into the field to place markers to match ArcGIS file*
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 31, 2021, 06:19:01 PM
I see R4 is finally repaving I-390 north of the Avon exit.  About damned time, these freeways built in the late 70s/early 80s are starting to put wear and tear on my bones (and vehicles).

R9 is doing I-88 between Oneonta and Richmondville now, so when is R1 gonna do I-890 between RT 5 and exit 4?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: bluecountry on August 02, 2021, 11:36:27 AM
Any reason why the LIE is in such a poor state of road maintenance?
Any plans to re-pave?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on August 06, 2021, 12:05:03 PM
Any reason why the LIE is in such a poor state of road maintenance?
Any plans to re-pave?

Yup, just five more years!
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=0T2373
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 06, 2021, 07:06:34 PM
The replacement for the Smiths Point Bridge sucks:
https://patch.com/new-york/shirley-mastic/all-systems-go-smith-point-bridge-replacements
Only two lanes when it should've been four. And I'll bet their still going to jack up the price of parking at the beach too.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 07, 2021, 01:46:23 AM
Any reason why the LIE is in such a poor state of road maintenance?
Any plans to re-pave?

the huge amount of truck traffic that barrels down it every day, there are also a couple of signs completely missing for quite some time now. The advance signs for Exit 41N on 495 East disappeared completely after a sign replacement in the early 2010s and never were replaced. I typically take Northern Parkway instead, the pavement is in better shape and no large trucks to get in the way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 07, 2021, 08:11:56 PM
Even the recently repaved Northern State Pkwy east of the Wantagh Pkwy. is now showing signs of wear even though that pavement is only a few years old. Must have been a poor quality job to begin with. Surprise! Surprise!

Also re: Mariethefoxy's reference to the signing on I-495 eastbound at Exit-41N, from Google Earth, it looks like it's the exit direction sign that missing. There is an advance sign ( 1/2 mile ) for Exits 41N-S.

In addition there is NO advance sign showing mileage to Exit-46, Sunnyside Blvd. which involves a lane-drop and an option-lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 07, 2021, 10:43:30 PM
Actually, NYSDOT Regions are finding there's not enough money to do recommended treatments.  They'll band-aid things over with a single overlay mill and fill when something more invasive might have been better for longevity. 

It's all a matter of available funds.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on August 10, 2021, 03:15:33 PM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ketchup99 on August 10, 2021, 04:08:42 PM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?
Yeah. It'll become the Jack Courtney Bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on August 10, 2021, 04:12:16 PM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?
Tappan Zee Bridge sounds like a good choice.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: billpa on August 10, 2021, 05:47:56 PM
They can recycle the signs that say "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Jr III Esquire" (all one line) into thirty smaller BGSs.

Pixel 2

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 10, 2021, 05:53:38 PM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?

https://dailyvoice.com/new-york/whiteplains/politics/hudson-valley-pol-calls-for-removal-of-cuomo-as-official-name-of-new-tappan-zee-bridge/814035/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 10, 2021, 06:51:34 PM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge? 
I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on August 10, 2021, 06:57:36 PM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge? 

Please please please
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 10, 2021, 11:50:36 PM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge? 
I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 10, 2021, 11:50:52 PM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?
Tappan Zee Bridge sounds like a good choice.

I mean, we never started calling it anything else…
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on August 11, 2021, 08:05:33 AM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge? 
I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.

Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 11, 2021, 08:17:51 AM
I was ready to look for this issue on the bridge as soon as I heard Cuomo was resigning. It also made me wonder about any other potential projects and how they're going to be impacted.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 11, 2021, 08:24:47 AM
I was ready to look for this issue on the bridge as soon as I heard Cuomo was resigning. It also made me wonder about any other potential projects and how they're going to be impacted.
September 30th is the day for PANYNJ board meeting with the vote for final approval of LGA Airtrain being scheduled. May be a big one in that respect
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 11, 2021, 10:32:40 AM
I was ready to look for this issue on the bridge as soon as I heard Cuomo was resigning. It also made me wonder about any other potential projects and how they're going to be impacted.

For comparison, note that Donald J. Trump State Park is still so named.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 10:46:01 AM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge? 
I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.

Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly.  That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 10:48:15 AM
I was ready to look for this issue on the bridge as soon as I heard Cuomo was resigning. It also made me wonder about any other potential projects and how they're going to be impacted.

For comparison, note that Donald J. Trump State Park is still so named.
Right.  Fact of the matter is that projects in progress will be stripped of Andrew Cuomo's name and replaced with Hochul's.  That's the extent of name changes that will happen.

This isn't the Pharaoh striking Moses' name off of absolutely everything, as apparently some opponents are salivating for.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: billpa on August 11, 2021, 11:41:22 AM
I just want a shorter name. The signs currently used look ridiculous.

Pixel 2

Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 11, 2021, 11:53:49 AM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge? 
I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.

Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly.  That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.
Nameing was completed in about a week, without any public input.
Since  state of NY, as well as entire USA,  is supposed to be a democracy (as in governed by entire population, not as in governed single-handedly by a governor running under D designation), I don't see anything wrong with listening to some public opinion for a change
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 11:55:29 AM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge? 
I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.

Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly.  That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.
Nameing was completed in about a week, without any public input.
Since  state of NY, as well as entire USA,  is supposed to be a democracy (as in governed by entire population, not as in governed single-handedly by a governor running under D designation), I don't see anything wrong with listening to some public opinion for a change
Oh.  Okay.  NY hears you and the name is staying.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 11, 2021, 11:58:57 AM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge? 
I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.

Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly.  That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.
Nameing was completed in about a week, without any public input.
Since  state of NY, as well as entire USA,  is supposed to be a democracy (as in governed by entire population, not as in governed single-handedly by a governor running under D designation), I don't see anything wrong with listening to some public opinion for a change
Oh.  Okay.  NY hears you and the name is staying.
Would be wise for Hochul to do a name change under  "message of necessity"  protocol, though. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 12:01:08 PM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge? 
I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.

Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly.  That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.
Nameing was completed in about a week, without any public input.
Since  state of NY, as well as entire USA,  is supposed to be a democracy (as in governed by entire population, not as in governed single-handedly by a governor running under D designation), I don't see anything wrong with listening to some public opinion for a change
Oh.  Okay.  NY hears you and the name is staying.
Would be wise for Hochul to do a name change under  "message of necessity"  protocol, though.
Better let her know that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 11, 2021, 12:08:09 PM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge? 
I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.

Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly.  That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.
Nameing was completed in about a week, without any public input.
Since  state of NY, as well as entire USA,  is supposed to be a democracy (as in governed by entire population, not as in governed single-handedly by a governor running under D designation), I don't see anything wrong with listening to some public opinion for a change
Oh.  Okay.  NY hears you and the name is staying.
Would be wise for Hochul to do a name change under  "message of necessity"  protocol, though.
Better let her know that.
Well, we will see.
Given the public irritation with the name, I wouldn't be surprised something would happen.
But I also expected Cuomo to get 4th term no matter what... So I am not willing to bet more than $5 on my opinion. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on August 11, 2021, 12:09:03 PM
I'm sure NYS employees are required to call it by its official name, at least in public. I, OTOH, as a private citizen, am free to call it anything I want. When I'm charitable, I'll call it the Tappan Zee Bridge. When I'm not so charitable, I'll call it "Daddy's Bridge." But its current official name will never pass my lips.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 11, 2021, 12:09:26 PM
The name of a bridge is obviously not a life-altering issue for me (nor for anyone else, I hope), but I don't like the name or the way it was done.  I can't imagine there would be much controversy if the new bridge had been named something like the "Mario Cuomo Bridge at Tappan Zee", leaving the signage as "Tappan Zee Bridge".  Also agreed that the lengthy name that apparently has to be used on all signs is a little cumbersome:

(https://www.teresco.org/pics/yankees-20210720/P1050094-800.jpg)

I doubt that it will change and question whether fighting it is a useful way to channel people's energy and the state's money.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 11, 2021, 12:13:34 PM
It’s in the MUTCD anyway for it’s use on signs as control destinations.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on August 11, 2021, 12:18:46 PM
Regarding the Tappan Zee Bridge: like many others who have commented, I tend to see how it is named and how that name is signed as separate issues.  I don't object to its being named after Mario Cuomo, but I do vigorously object to the name--complete with title and middle initial--being used on pull-through signs.

I have been told that a return to the Tappan Zee Bridge name is administratively impossible since "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" has been established in state law as the sole official name of the facility.  However, I don't know the specifics of how this prohibits "Tappan Zee Bridge" as a control point for pull-through signs with the Cuomo name on white-on-brown memorial signing somewhere in the corridor, as provided for in the MUTCD.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 11, 2021, 12:24:37 PM
Since  state of NY, as well as entire USA,  is supposed to be a democracy (as in governed by entire population, not as in governed single-handedly by a governor running under D designation), I don't see anything wrong with listening to some public opinion for a change

That's something of a misconception. While such a system is a stated ideal for many of our citizens, it doesn't happen to be the one we established. We have a considerable amount of both representation and delegation baked in, so when the system works that way, it is functioning as designed (if not as desired).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 11, 2021, 12:28:35 PM
Just because the name gets removed on a guide sign does not mean it’s legislatively changed. Go ahead keep the name, but don’t ram his name down everyone’s throat, and by forcing the NYSTA to disregard the MUTCD and insist his middle initial be used with his title.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 11, 2021, 12:34:24 PM
Regarding the Tappan Zee Bridge: like many others who have commented, I tend to see how it is named and how that name is signed as separate issues.  I don't object to its being named after Mario Cuomo, but I do vigorously object to the name--complete with title and middle initial--being used on pull-through signs.

I have been told that a return to the Tappan Zee Bridge name is administratively impossible since "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" has been established in state law as the sole official name of the facility.  However, I don't know the specifics of how this prohibits "Tappan Zee Bridge" as a control point for pull-through signs with the Cuomo name on white-on-brown memorial signing somewhere in the corridor, as provided for in the MUTCD.
Official name of the old Tappan Zee bridge included the name of 1940s governor - but that was only used on memorial plaque on the bridge.
As for state law... Easy come, easy go.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jmacswimmer on August 11, 2021, 12:38:50 PM
insist his middle initial be used with his title.

That was the part of this whole topic that perplexed me the most...right after NYSTA finished updating the signs to "Governor Mario Cuomo Bridge" (whole new panels in some cases*), they had to go back and patch "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" right over it.

*The EB/SB pull-thru at exit 11 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0963566,-73.9392169,3a,49y,113.92h,93.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sefCWupT4AbzCDpwmMgw4iw!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) is the example I'm thinking of here - click back thru the years in GSV to see all the differences.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on August 11, 2021, 02:06:43 PM
As for state law... Easy come, easy go.

It seems there is already a bill (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/A6594) (admittedly, pre-dating Andrew's resignation by a bit over five months) to remove Mario Cuomo's name from the bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on August 11, 2021, 06:51:56 PM
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge? 
I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.

Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly.  That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.

sins of the son....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 11, 2021, 07:01:27 PM
No it was his attitude towards it. He was obsessed with getting it on the signs and hissed at the NYSTA for leaving out his middle initial.  Oh yeah, and don’t forget the title Governor.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on August 11, 2021, 07:10:18 PM
I just posted this in the Tappan Zee thread…

https://nypost.com/2021/08/11/democrats-want-mario-cuomo-bridge-changed-back-to-tappan-zee/

There may be enough people ticked off about the name, and angry at Cuomo for other reasons to get a name change through the legislature.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 11, 2021, 07:16:49 PM
Well this is the USA, we go along with the flow.  Anyway IMO if the name stays I am not going to lose sleep over it like some do over confederate statues remaining. 

However, people will whine. Don’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican, Catholic, Muslim, Atheist, Independent, or whatever stereotypes are out there. You can’t please everyone, but people will rant until their grave.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on August 11, 2021, 08:02:20 PM
How about they go back to calling it the "Tappan Zee Bridge" on guide signs, but put up a sign at the bridge that says "Gov Mario M Cuomo Tappan Zee Bridge".  After all, the old bridge was the "Gov Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge". 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 11, 2021, 08:05:43 PM
How about they go back to calling it the "Tappan Zee Bridge" on guide signs, but put up a sign at the bridge that says "Gov Mario M Cuomo Tappan Zee Bridge".  After all, the old bridge was the "Gov Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge".
The way Cuomo bridge was slapped to the bridge caused a lot of indigestion. Cleanup is a good idea to prove  that certain tricks should never work.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on August 11, 2021, 08:18:37 PM
How about they go back to calling it the "Tappan Zee Bridge" on guide signs, but put up a sign at the bridge that says "Gov Mario M Cuomo Tappan Zee Bridge".  After all, the old bridge was the "Gov Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge".

The key difference to me is that in this case, the Cuomo name replaced the common name (TZ) rather than being in addition to the common name. Lots of roads and bridges have been renamed to add the name of someone in front of the common name but most people continue to use the common name and largely ignore the added name (e.g. Dewey on the NY Thruway, Shocknessy on the Ohio Turnpike (a name even the Ohio Turnpike itself doesn't use on their website other than on the "About" page).

Here in Illinois, it appears most people have ignored the renaming of three of the tollways with a person or group's name replacing rather than supplementing the common name by just using the number. For instance, the former Northwest Tollway is now the Jane Addams Tollway but except for the tollway itself and traffic reporters, almost everyone I know just calls it I-90. So at least the anecdotal evidence I've seen says the people reject renamings, particularly when they replace a good descriptive name with a name meaningless for navigation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 11, 2021, 09:12:23 PM
The Beachline Expressway in Florida was the Beeline Expressway, but on signs on the side of the road say Martin Anderson Beachline Expressway. No one refers to it as Martin Anderson in any form. Traffic reporters call it the Beachline,  or some call it the Five Twenty-eight.

Ditto for The Spressard L. Holland East- West Expressway in Orlando.  Most call it the four oh eight especially traffic reporters.  Here the East West name isn’t even used.

So Mr. Cuomo needs to realize that you can’t shove his fathers name on people.  Instead feel grateful the state legislature even named the bridge after him.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on August 11, 2021, 09:14:25 PM
...
the Five Twenty-eight.
...
the four oh eight
...

Thread: New York
Topic of discussion: Florida
Dialect: Southern California
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 11, 2021, 09:35:20 PM
Until the name is changed, we won't know, so please end discussion of that topic for now. If there is actual news it can be relevant again. Thanks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 12, 2021, 01:44:21 PM
Noticed Google Maps is not doing trip routing onto the loop ramp from EB NY 5/12 to WB NY 840 in Utica.  Is that loop ramp closed?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 12, 2021, 04:11:38 PM
Noticed Google Maps is not doing trip routing onto the loop ramp from EB NY 5/12 to WB NY 840 in Utica.  Is that loop ramp closed?

Yes. Bridge replacement at that interchange has most of the loop ramps closed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on August 13, 2021, 07:25:09 PM
Noticed Google Maps is not doing trip routing onto the loop ramp from EB NY 5/12 to WB NY 840 in Utica.  Is that loop ramp closed?

Yes. Bridge replacement at that interchange has most of the loop ramps closed.

The only loop ramp that *IS* open is NY 840 east to NY 5 east/NY 8 and NY 12 north.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 14, 2021, 09:59:39 AM
Good to know, thx.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 19, 2021, 03:42:27 AM
With the incoming governor hailing from Hamburg, I wonder if we might see renewed activity in a US 219 extension, AKA "Continental One".

Or is it still a pipe dream?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 19, 2021, 07:57:14 AM
With the incoming governor hailing from Hamburg, I wonder if we might see renewed activity in a US 219 extension, AKA "Continental One".

Or is it still a pipe dream?
I really wonder if she has developed a personal agenda.  I would think she's having a hard enough time getting on top of what's going on to start pursuing new initiatives...yet.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 19, 2021, 08:59:27 AM
The fact that the section from Springville to Peters Rd. was completed makes me think it's more than a pipe dream... but still a long ways from reality.

If it was ever completed, it would be a great alternate to Allegany Park, even from Rochester.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on August 19, 2021, 09:52:04 AM
The plans are there - isn't it just awaiting funding?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 19, 2021, 09:53:40 AM
US 219 is sitting in the same limbo as I-86.  The long-ago projects were all lumped together as "Statewide Significant" projects that were all put on hold as NYSDOT shifted to Preservation First.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: snowc on August 19, 2021, 10:10:09 AM
US 219 is sitting in the same limbo as I-86.  The long-ago projects were all lumped together as "Statewide Significant" projects that were all put on hold as NYSDOT shifted to Preservation First.
and I-86 seems to be the slowest of all highway projects to be completed.
Look at this
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/5/29/proc/3611681_f5d7518000403a29578b2dc54edaa2c4.jpg)
Shoulder is wide here. But...
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/5/29/proc/3611681_deebb9295c4923276880adb5ff1202d5.jpg)
It isn't wide at all here
Why is that?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 19, 2021, 10:11:23 AM
NYSDOT's just messin' with you.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 19, 2021, 01:18:49 PM
I would think we'd be more likely to see significant public-visible changes if Hochul wins re-election rather than immediately.  I imagine she's busy enough without trying to put together a transportation vision.  Short term, I'd expect more from the I-86 upgrade if some of these highway projects were revived, as it has momentum with the widening PEL study and a bit of a political push to move things forward, at least on the eastern side.  Schumer is interested in the project too.  US 219 is less significant, though maybe it would get something.  The next project to Snake Run Road was on the STIP pre-Cuomo.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 19, 2021, 09:05:16 PM
There is exactly zero chance 219 gets extended south of 242. Once you hit 242, there's a major problem with bulldozing hills and Section 4F. Then there's the Reservation, who will be opposed.

Not opposed to an extension south to 242, but it's still going to be 219 all the way from Ellicottville to Salamanca by 2 lane road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 19, 2021, 10:42:39 PM
Are the Seneca on record as being opposed?

On an unrelated note, I got gas there (Salamanca) this morning.  2.989.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 19, 2021, 10:49:33 PM
Are the Seneca on record as being opposed?

I'm not sure about opposition to the project as a whole, but I believe there was some sort of negotiation that resulted in a diamond interchange with I-86 being proposed instead of a standard freeway-freeway connection.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 20, 2021, 11:34:36 AM
Are the Seneca on record as being opposed?

On record? I dunno. That being said, knowing their relationship with the state, there is a very low chance of it happening. Remember how long it took to reconstruct 17 and the Thruway through their territory. They're still quite annoyed that the state broke their casino monopoly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 20, 2021, 12:50:58 PM
Are the Seneca on record as being opposed?

On record? I dunno. That being said, knowing their relationship with the state, there is a very low chance of it happening. Remember how long it took to reconstruct 17 and the Thruway through their territory. They're still quite annoyed that the state broke their casino monopoly.
Among other things.  The reason there are no tenth mile markers on I-86 through the reservation is because they got annoyed with the fact that the agreement to build the road says "route 17", not I-86, even though it's the same road.  There's still the dispute over having the Thruway pay them a toll for every car passing through the reservation (which makes zero sense; basically, they just think they took a bad deal and can just get out of it because they don't like it, much like the Shinnecock do with treating Sunrise Highway as if it passes through their reservation, even though it doesn't).  And the money they're supposed to pay to Niagara Falls for their casino (apparently they really, really don't know how contracts work under US law...).  And state taxes on cigarettes.  And they don't like how NY abandoned former NY 17 through the reservation and want the state to pay to replace a bridge that they use but which has been technically closed for decades.  And they want all road work and whatnot to be done by their people, not the state's, even for things that we'd normally use in-house crews for.  And probably even more things than I can think of.  And they're happy to re-open negotiations on all of it whenever anything comes up, which is why re-paving the Thruway took so long; the state wanted a narrow agreement pertaining to that one project and only that one project, and the Seneca Nation wanted a broad agreement covering everything transportation-related that they ever had a grievance over, even things far outside the Thruway's jurisdiction.

For this reason, the US 219 backers would actually like the remainder of the freeway to be built from I-86 north, just to get the reservation part over with while things seem to be at least possible (though hard) to do.

So in short: I'm sure the Seneca Nation would be more than willing to get the road built through their land... but such would very likely have strings attached that the state would consider to be deal-breakers, especially with what little push there is for the US 219 upgrade right now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 20, 2021, 01:36:12 PM
Red House Bridge is much more complicated.  As tribal leadership changes, so does their position (imagine that).  Region 5 has gotten close to actually doing the project even with all the add-ons the Seneca desired (the history is pretty ugly and damning, so NYSDOT has been more open to demands)...only to have things fall apart due to a leadership change.  I believe it was removed from the capital program altogether.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 20, 2021, 07:10:34 PM
Isn't part of the problem with the Red House Bridge that the Seneca want the state to take over the old alignment and rebuild the bridge, but tack on a thru traffic restriction?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 20, 2021, 07:37:48 PM
Isn't part of the problem with the Red House Bridge that the Seneca want the state to take over the old alignment and rebuild the bridge, but tack on a thru traffic restriction?
I have no idea what the current demands are.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 20, 2021, 08:04:11 PM
They already try a thru traffic restriction on the east end.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: yakra on August 23, 2021, 10:34:14 PM
A gold-on-brown reference marker?
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.1502246,-73.7675845,3a,15y,338.84h,77.05t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sYNkg4KvHd-qIDfqTlNDCuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 23, 2021, 10:41:14 PM
A gold-on-brown reference marker?
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.1502246,-73.7675845,3a,15y,338.84h,77.05t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sYNkg4KvHd-qIDfqTlNDCuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40

I believe that's standard for routes within Adirondack Park.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 23, 2021, 10:42:42 PM
Yep, those are used in the Adirondacks, at least off the interstate.  Essex County went all-in; others are handling things as they get replaced.  The Catskills use white on brown.  This was part of the compromise with FHWA over the gold on brown signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on August 24, 2021, 06:56:22 AM
Are the gold on brown signs staying, or is that now a bygone era?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 24, 2021, 06:58:19 AM
Are the gold on brown signs staying, or is that now a bygone era?
Why would they go anywhere?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on August 24, 2021, 07:00:07 AM
Why would they go anywhere?

I thought they were becoming a bit of a controversy and that we wouldn't be seeing much of them anymore.  Personally, I like them and are a good reminder that you're inside the blue line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 24, 2021, 07:05:11 AM
Why would they go anywhere?

I thought they were becoming a bit of a controversy and that we wouldn't be seeing much of them anymore.  Personally, I like them and are a good reminder that you're inside the blue line.
Haven't heard anything like that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 24, 2021, 11:06:29 AM
Are the gold on brown signs staying, or is that now a bygone era?
They're staying in the Adirondacks, though I don't think they're being used for everything they used to be (such as hospital signs).  They're gone in the Catskills, replaced with white on brown.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: yakra on August 24, 2021, 11:19:58 AM
The Catskills use white on brown.  This was part of the compromise with FHWA over the gold on brown signs.
What's this about? Got a link I can read up on?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 24, 2021, 09:57:23 PM
The Catskills use white on brown.  This was part of the compromise with FHWA over the gold on brown signs.
What's this about? Got a link I can read up on?
From the 2009 thread: https://web.archive.org/web/20100219041442/http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/511311.html%3Fnav=5008

The Catskill signs do indeed use white on brown with placards on top of some signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 27, 2021, 02:58:03 AM
I missed out on the US 219 discussion, but I'll just add that I thought that landslides were what ultimately led the extension to be put on a "hiatus", as well as disputes with the Seneca Nation. Although I was a bit young to know what was going on then, I still paid more attention to it than most people who were older than me did. I didn't know about all of the other details though, which is interesting.

Even if they could get it extended to Ellicottville, that would at least be somewhat worthwhile. The extension 10 years ago is known as the "bridge to nowhere". I'll admit, it may have shaved off a minute or two from my dad's commute from when he was used to work down in Cattaraugus County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 02, 2021, 08:02:16 AM
It appears that I-87/I-287 is closed in Rockland County from NY 59 to NY 303? Curious if this is related to the storm moving through the area or if something else is going on. Thruway website has this to say:

(https://imgur.com/zdlazcG.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 02, 2021, 08:08:40 AM
It appears that I-87/I-287 is closed in Rockland County from NY 59 to NY 303? Curious if this is related to the storm moving through the area or if something else is going on. Thruway website has this to say:

(https://imgur.com/zdlazcG.jpg)
Storm-related.  NYC is hurting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 02, 2021, 08:14:15 AM
I guess so.. now I see there's a bunch of other roads closed in Westchester, NYC, and northern Jersey.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on September 02, 2021, 08:25:20 AM
Greater New York has not seen this many traffic snarls since the pandemic started, and it's happening in the middle of the night!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on September 02, 2021, 10:23:14 AM
Check out some of the video from the NYC metro and you'll easily see why so many roads are having problems last night and this morning.

Fortunately, I'm north and west of where the sharp cutoff was in the heavy rains and saw just some light rain for several hours.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: snowc on September 02, 2021, 11:22:43 AM
It appears that I-87/I-287 is closed in Rockland County from NY 59 to NY 303? Curious if this is related to the storm moving through the area or if something else is going on. Thruway website has this to say:

(https://imgur.com/zdlazcG.jpg)
Storm-related.  NYC is hurting.
Will my trip to NYS be affected by this storm? Going next week.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 02, 2021, 11:35:40 AM


It appears that I-87/I-287 is closed in Rockland County from NY 59 to NY 303? Curious if this is related to the storm moving through the area or if something else is going on. Thruway website has this to say:

(https://imgur.com/zdlazcG.jpg)
Storm-related.  NYC is hurting.
Will my trip to NYS be affected by this storm? Going next week.

Check 511ny.org as you get closer to your trip.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 03, 2021, 02:11:14 AM
There's a lot of water. From my house I can hear Fishkill Creek crashing and thrashing through Beacon, almost half a mile away. Never heard that before!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: snowc on September 03, 2021, 04:33:34 PM


It appears that I-87/I-287 is closed in Rockland County from NY 59 to NY 303? Curious if this is related to the storm moving through the area or if something else is going on. Thruway website has this to say:

(https://imgur.com/zdlazcG.jpg)
Storm-related.  NYC is hurting.
Will my trip to NYS be affected by this storm? Going next week.

Check 511ny.org as you get closer to your trip.
My trip is now cancelled due to delta.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on September 03, 2021, 09:58:34 PM
There's a lot of water. From my house I can hear Fishkill Creek crashing and thrashing through Beacon, almost half a mile away. Never heard that before!

Hey neighbor! I saw the Bronx River Parkway under water at Mile Square Rd and places with abandoned cars where they were floated from where they were parked.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on September 05, 2021, 04:37:20 PM
I was driving on the Deegan yesterday, and lots of seemingly abandoned cars on the cobblestone shoulder.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 06, 2021, 12:33:23 AM
I was driving on the Deegan yesterday, and lots of seemingly abandoned cars on the cobblestone shoulder.
Both sides. The NB ones had glass smashed in. All were covered in dirt. Definitely abandoned cars from the storm and were causing significant gawking delays.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2021, 12:56:55 PM
So row, row, row your boat, gently down the freeway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 06, 2021, 07:44:46 PM
Maybe in the near future car dealers will be offering as an option on your new car purchase, a row boat with mounting rack on the car's roof.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 07, 2021, 08:31:20 AM
NYS just found another revenue source.
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 07, 2021, 09:38:17 AM
NYS just found another revenue source.
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php
MD law is similar.
Work zone speed limits apply even if no work is actively being performed. It's stupid.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on September 07, 2021, 04:27:13 PM
https://patch.com/new-york/peekskill/cashless-tolling-come-bear-mountain-bridge

The Bear Mountain Bridge will be the next one going cashless sometime in October. All of the New York State Bridge Authority's bridges will be going cashless by March 2022.

EDIT: Here's another news article on it.
https://www.hudsonvalley360.com/news/greenecounty/tollbooths-days-numbered/article_f360347e-501b-5c44-92cf-d329d400546f.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on September 07, 2021, 04:47:20 PM
NYS just found another revenue source.
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php
MD law is similar.
Work zone speed limits apply even if no work is actively being performed. It's stupid.

In Florida it’s when workers present.

At least it’s not SC where 30 days in jail is the penalty for speeding in work zones. Whether present or not, I am unsure of circumstances.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 07, 2021, 05:26:34 PM
https://patch.com/new-york/peekskill/cashless-tolling-come-bear-mountain-bridge

The Bear Mountain Bridge will be the next one going cashless sometime in October. All of the New York State Bridge Authority's bridges will be going cashless by March 2022.

I assume (though perhaps I should not) that the tollgate here will be retained, as it is historic. It also serves as a gateway into the interstate park complex. Can the cashless tolling equipment be incorporated into it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on September 07, 2021, 06:39:18 PM
I went up the Hutch northbound last night and most of the signs have been replaced. 684 has a covered up exit tab though there is no LEFT panel on it. Southbound, the advance sign for the Cross-County has a left-justified tab but no LEFT panel. Still no mile markers in the Bronx. I've been strangely looking forward to those haha.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 07, 2021, 07:01:43 PM
https://patch.com/new-york/peekskill/cashless-tolling-come-bear-mountain-bridge

The Bear Mountain Bridge will be the next one going cashless sometime in October. All of the New York State Bridge Authority's bridges will be going cashless by March 2022.

I assume (though perhaps I should not) that the tollgate here will be retained, as it is historic. It also serves as a gateway into the interstate park complex. Can the cashless tolling equipment be incorporated into it?

Existing tollhouse at Bear Mountain is a replica, so it will not be retained. The original is on display along 6/202 north of Peekskill.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 07, 2021, 08:44:56 PM
https://patch.com/new-york/peekskill/cashless-tolling-come-bear-mountain-bridge

The Bear Mountain Bridge will be the next one going cashless sometime in October. All of the New York State Bridge Authority's bridges will be going cashless by March 2022.

I assume (though perhaps I should not) that the tollgate here will be retained, as it is historic. It also serves as a gateway into the interstate park complex. Can the cashless tolling equipment be incorporated into it?

Existing tollhouse at Bear Mountain is a replica, so it will not be retained. The original is on display along 6/202 north of Peekskill.

Surely the original toll house at the bridge is the extant NYSBA building? The toll house in Cortlandt was for the approach road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 07, 2021, 08:53:52 PM
NYS just found another revenue source.
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php

I noticed people on the Taconic slowing way down at posted work zones. I did not. I think this may find surprisingly little opposition (nonzero but less).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 07, 2021, 09:01:16 PM
NYS just found another revenue source.
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php

I noticed people on the Taconic slowing way down at posted work zones. I did not. I think this may find surprisingly little opposition (nonzero but less).
I slow down for work zones because of the annual NYSDOT memorial for employees that were killed during the year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 07, 2021, 09:07:38 PM
NYS just found another revenue source.
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php

I noticed people on the Taconic slowing way down at posted work zones. I did not. I think this may find surprisingly little opposition (nonzero but less).
I slow down for work zones because of the annual NYSDOT memorial for employees that were killed during the year.
it would really help if "work zone" signs were actually a sign that some work is being done. So far, best one I saw was a full setup rotting on Washington ave. ext in Albany over the winter in order for  work to be resumed in spring.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 07, 2021, 10:09:04 PM
Then there was the Tappan Zee work zone on the Thruway.  Even when the east/southbound direction was fully complete and in its final configuration, the speed limit was STILL 45 due to the work on the other side.  The only way you could intrude on the other side would be to fall into the river.

And, of course, the perpetual work zone on the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge.  Until the recent project, there was never any work being done; one time the only stuff that was there was some cones and a policeman with a radar gun.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 08, 2021, 12:41:20 AM
NYS just found another revenue source.
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php

I noticed people on the Taconic slowing way down at posted work zones. I did not. I think this may find surprisingly little opposition (nonzero but less).
I slow down for work zones because of the annual NYSDOT memorial for employees that were killed during the year.
hard to kill people in an empty 12-mile work zone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 08, 2021, 12:12:56 PM
NYS just found another revenue source.
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php

I noticed people on the Taconic slowing way down at posted work zones. I did not. I think this may find surprisingly little opposition (nonzero but less).
I slow down for work zones because of the annual NYSDOT memorial for employees that were killed during the year.
hard to kill people in an empty 12-mile work zone

The question, of course, is will they be like Illinois (photo enforcement in theory, but not in reality) or will they abuse the hell out of this by ticketing empty work zones? This is probably gonna go over as well as school zone speed cameras in Buffalo if the latter is true.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 08, 2021, 02:03:16 PM
hard to kill people in an empty 12-mile work zone

It's reminiscent of school zones, too. How does one accurately and definitively determine whether children, or workers, are present?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 08, 2021, 02:37:14 PM
hard to kill people in an empty 12-mile work zone

It's reminiscent of school zones, too. How does one accurately and definitively determine whether children, or workers, are present?
FOr schools there are some reasonable assumptions. Certain hours, 5 days a week except holidays will cover most of it. Some override for flashing lights from the office on top. that would be reasonable one to follow.
Once upon a time there was a cop who prayed on elementary school speed limit. He loved enforcing that signage at 10 pm on weekends. I don't know why that revenue stream ended, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 08, 2021, 07:52:33 PM
FOr schools there are some reasonable assumptions. Certain hours, 5 days a week except holidays will cover most of it.

Yeah, I'm thinking about the cases outside of the easily-guessed, regular weekdays. For example, say it's a non-Christian holiday. Is the school closed? In NYC, safe bet, but you don't know every school district's calendar that you might drive by. What about summer break? Some buildings might have summer school, others might even have a regular term during the summer. And so forth.

(We don't have to hash out the answer–I'm mainly just observing the difficulty of having a rule based on some factor that needs to be observed case-by-case.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 08, 2021, 08:07:48 PM
In New York State at least the hours are well defined, if not the days. 7am to 6pm as posted on the School Zone signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 08, 2021, 10:58:22 PM
In New York State at least the hours are well defined, if not the days. 7am to 6pm as posted on the School Zone signs.

Outside of NYC that is. That falls apart in NYC.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on September 09, 2021, 02:13:31 PM
Back in the late '90s, it was pointed out that NY didn't permit "when flashing" beacons to indicate school hours - as noted above 7am to 6pm. I think when NY changed to the national MUTCD the "when flashing" could be used again.

For a fun throw-back: https://web.archive.org/web/20021121180247/http://www.dot.state.ny.us/info/faq.html#schoolzone

Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 09, 2021, 06:15:44 PM
So back to the work zone question, how might one establish that workers are not present–as opposed to present, but on break, or just working away from the roadway–and thus the speed limit not in effect?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 09, 2021, 06:56:23 PM
So back to the work zone question, how might one establish that workers are not present–as opposed to present, but on break, or just working away from the roadway–and thus the speed limit not in effect?
The speed limit should only be in effect when work vehicles are active or you see workers. Opinion.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 09, 2021, 07:45:08 PM
So back to the work zone question, how might one establish that workers are not present–as opposed to present, but on break, or just working away from the roadway–and thus the speed limit not in effect?
The speed limit should only be in effect when work vehicles are active or you see workers. Opinion.

Well, that's what I mean–how do you determine, by observation, that a work vehicle is active? And what about those with in interest in the case who aren't present to observe anything? I mean…suppose you hit a worker because you didn't see him?

(Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor of speed limits at empty work zones. I'm just trying to visualize how something that seems so subjective could be applied fairly and evenly–and effectively.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 09, 2021, 08:19:32 PM
I like what Ohio has done: variable speed limits based upon whether or not it is needed or not. On long stretches of I-71 and OH 11 (from last weekend), the variable speed limits were set to 70 MPH because the construction zone was not active. When they are active, the lights flash, and the variable speed limits are lower.

What determines active? On both highways, they were in various stages of being asphalted. Nothing major, and nothing that couldn't be attempted at 70 MPH. There were no workers. There is no reason that it needs to be signed for 55 MPH if it's not required.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on September 09, 2021, 08:58:26 PM
And not all "inactive" work zones are the same.  Take the NY 30 bridge rehab in Amsterdam.  Right now, the one open lane in each direction is very narrow between jersey barriers and slowing down is prudent even when there aren't workers just on the other side of the barriers.

Bottom line for me: keeping unreasonably low work zone speed limits in place for inactive work zones where driving conditions are more or less normal discourages slowing down in those cases where it's necessary for safety.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 10, 2021, 12:35:26 AM
So back to the work zone question, how might one establish that workers are not present–as opposed to present, but on break, or just working away from the roadway–and thus the speed limit not in effect?
The speed limit should only be in effect when work vehicles are active or you see workers. Opinion.

Well, that's what I mean–how do you determine, by observation, that a work vehicle is active? And what about those with in interest in the case who aren't present to observe anything? I mean…suppose you hit a worker because you didn't see him?

(Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor of speed limits at empty work zones. I'm just trying to visualize how something that seems so subjective could be applied fairly and evenly–and effectively.)
It's active if it shows any sign of moving or lights flashing or being occupied. It's not active if it's just sitting there doing nothing. And if you don't observe a worker, that is entirely your fault anyway and signs won't stop you.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 10, 2021, 01:44:00 AM
So back to the work zone question, how might one establish that workers are not present–as opposed to present, but on break, or just working away from the roadway–and thus the speed limit not in effect?
The speed limit should only be in effect when work vehicles are active or you see workers. Opinion.

Well, that's what I mean–how do you determine, by observation, that a work vehicle is active? And what about those with in interest in the case who aren't present to observe anything? I mean…suppose you hit a worker because you didn't see him?

(Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor of speed limits at empty work zones. I'm just trying to visualize how something that seems so subjective could be applied fairly and evenly–and effectively.)
It's active if it shows any sign of moving or lights flashing or being occupied. It's not active if it's just sitting there doing nothing. And if you don't observe a worker, that is entirely your fault anyway and signs won't stop you.

Yeah, so…that's probably why this isn't how they determine it. Those criteria are fine and all, but simply too subjective to hang a broad regulation on–with such judgment calls as you describe, you'd be talking about reckless driving, or too fast for conditions, that sort of citation. And if that is the preference, perhaps the better solution is to forgo the concept of a work zone speed limit altogether.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 10, 2021, 07:27:40 AM
So back to the work zone question, how might one establish that workers are not present–as opposed to present, but on break, or just working away from the roadway–and thus the speed limit not in effect?
The speed limit should only be in effect when work vehicles are active or you see workers. Opinion.

Well, that's what I mean–how do you determine, by observation, that a work vehicle is active? And what about those with in interest in the case who aren't present to observe anything? I mean…suppose you hit a worker because you didn't see him?

(Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor of speed limits at empty work zones. I'm just trying to visualize how something that seems so subjective could be applied fairly and evenly–and effectively.)
It's active if it shows any sign of moving or lights flashing or being occupied. It's not active if it's just sitting there doing nothing. And if you don't observe a worker, that is entirely your fault anyway and signs won't stop you.

Yeah, so…that's probably why this isn't how they determine it. Those criteria are fine and all, but simply too subjective to hang a broad regulation on–with such judgment calls as you describe, you'd be talking about reckless driving, or too fast for conditions, that sort of citation. And if that is the preference, perhaps the better solution is to forgo the concept of a work zone speed limit altogether.
The question is what are we trying to achieve with these speed limits.
If actual safety is at stake, most work zones I see have trucks with flashing lights parked a bit upstream. Since workers typically do not just walk into the work site, they typically arrive in one of those vehicles equipped with lights and what not. So active equipment definition would work just fine. If there is no visible vehicle and no vests are seen, then either there is no need for enforcement, or there is a much bigger safety concern about drivers not seeing hazards. 55 MPH crash into a person isn't much better than 75 MPH crash.   

NY typical hypocrycy, of course, means safety is an afterthought and actual fine receipts are the true thing. Then a most obscure and meaningless definition would be violated the most.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 10, 2021, 08:07:12 AM
NY typical hypocrycy, of course, means safety is an afterthought and actual fine receipts are the true thing. Then a most obscure and meaningless definition would be violated the most.

Not sure how you came to this conclusion given the previous statements.  It also ignores NY's stringent work zone safety practices (e.g., I have seen shirtless guys leaning on shovels and the like in Maine -- that would result in a work zone shutdown in NY).

Work zone speed limits are only one tool in trying to ensure safety of the work crews.

Work Zone Fatalities, 2018:

Texas: 157
Florida: 80
California: 71
Georgia: 58
Alabama: 27
PA: 23
...
NY: 5 (31 out of 50 states; I'd imagine even lower, if normalized per VMT)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 10, 2021, 08:18:12 AM
It also ignores NY's stringent work zone safety practices (e.g., I have seen shirtless guys leaning on shovels and the like in Maine -- that would result in a work zone shutdown in NY).

Why would that be, just because they aren't wearing a high-vis vest?

I've definitely seen construction workers in NY (and probably other states too) wearing a high-vis vest in place of a shirt, but that's a bit different.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 10, 2021, 08:34:37 AM


It also ignores NY's stringent work zone safety practices (e.g., I have seen shirtless guys leaning on shovels and the like in Maine -- that would result in a work zone shutdown in NY).

Why would that be, just because they aren't wearing a high-vis vest?


That and lack of other protective gear (hard hat).  From what I heard in a training from construction supervisors, NYSDOT policy is that work must stop when a safety violation is observed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on September 10, 2021, 08:36:21 AM
PA changed its work zone laws back in 2014. the "ACTIVE WORK ZONE WHEN FLASHING" sign was introduced with a little white light at the top.

Per PennDOT:
Quote
Active Work Zones:
Posting of active work zones. Active work zones must be designated as such to notify motorists when they enter and leave the work zone. A white flashing light attached to the "Active Work Zone When Flashing" sign will indicate an active work zone. The flashing light will only be activated when workers are present and turned off when workers are not present.

Fifteen-day loss of license for driving dangerously. Motorists caught driving 11 miles per hour or more above the posted speed limit in an active work zone, or who are involved in a crash in an active work zone and are convicted for failing to drive at a safe speed, automatically will lose their license for 15 days.

Fines doubled/jail time increased. Fines for certain traffic violations – including speeding, driving under the influence, and failure to obey traffic devices – are doubled for active work zones. Also, the law provides for up to five years of additional jail time for individuals convicted of homicide by vehicle for a crash that occurred in an active work zone.

In 2014, 377 suspensions were imposed on motorists for work zone violations.

Most times, the use of the white light seems accurate.  Not always. I don't know how widespread these are being used now, however.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 10, 2021, 09:04:45 AM
NY typical hypocrycy, of course, means safety is an afterthought and actual fine receipts are the true thing. Then a most obscure and meaningless definition would be violated the most.

Not sure how you came to this conclusion given the previous statements.  It also ignores NY's stringent work zone safety practices (e.g., I have seen shirtless guys leaning on shovels and the like in Maine -- that would result in a work zone shutdown in NY).

Work zone speed limits are only one tool in trying to ensure safety of the work crews.

Work Zone Fatalities, 2018:

Texas: 157
Florida: 80
California: 71
Georgia: 58
Alabama: 27
PA: 23
...
NY: 5 (31 out of 50 states; I'd imagine even lower, if normalized per VMT)
I don't believe speed limit per se is helping. 55MPH crash vs 75 MPH crash is the same if hardhat and vest are the main protective equipment. If anything, driver awareness of workers and equipment  should matter. Of course, that should include speed adjustment that appropriate for the conditions - I wonder if most drivers would do that regardless of signage. Any driver would hate to be involved in a fatal or injury crash - both personally and from the consequences standpoint.

As for data... It can always be looked at in many ways. Just looking at the numbers, and some look strange.
One datapoint I definitely don't understand is 38% of pedestrians killed in work zones are actual roadway workers (national number). Sounds like road work is more dangerous to those around the site and innocent bystanders are more likely to get hurt than actual workers. WHY??
Nationally, 1/4 of those killed in work zones are workers, up to about 1/2 in NY.
About 1/3 of fatalities are truck involved, lower in NY.

My first impression is that data is significantly skewed.  Of course, that would never happen in NY, as COVID reporting shows. But defining workzone accidents as work-related as opposed to in-area should be an easy trick.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 10, 2021, 09:34:20 AM
I'd imagine speed is a significant factor in how far a vehicle can intrude into a work zone and thus be a danger to workers.

Truth be told, I don't know how I feel about the new pilot camera enforcement, other than I know it has been allowed in other states and therefore legal arguments against it are pretty moot.  It also sounds like the next step in evolution from NY's Operation Hard Hats (targeted work zone enforcement by State Police).  Devil will always be in the details.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 10, 2021, 09:48:37 AM
The question is what are we trying to achieve with these speed limits.

In this case, we're just trying to achieve a regulation that doesn't require unnecessary slowing for work zones when they are not being used to do work.

If actual safety is at stake, most work zones I see have trucks with flashing lights parked a bit upstream. Since workers typically do not just walk into the work site, they typically arrive in one of those vehicles equipped with lights and what not. So active equipment definition would work just fine.

You mean, defining active equipment as the display of flashing caution lights? That would certainly be less subjective, and more similar to other existing laws (like those for school buses and emergency vehicles).

It would also be fairly similar to the below:

PA changed its work zone laws back in 2014. the "ACTIVE WORK ZONE WHEN FLASHING" sign was introduced with a little white light at the top.

That's not [/i]quite[/i] the same thing as "when workers are present", but probably a much more practical solution than "it's a work zone if you see people doing stuff."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 10, 2021, 10:07:30 AM
I do like the active work zone signs in PA, but when they're not flashing, it can cause minor confusion.  Still better than "when workers present" or similar phrases used in other states.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 10, 2021, 10:15:06 AM
I'd imagine speed is a significant factor in how far a vehicle can intrude into a work zone and thus be a danger to workers.

Truth be told, I don't know how I feel about the new pilot camera enforcement, other than I know it has been allowed in other states and therefore legal arguments against it are pretty moot.  It also sounds like the next step in evolution from NY's Operation Hard Hats (targeted work zone enforcement by State Police).  Devil will always be in the details.
Still, you touched a pretty interesting topic which I am digging a bit into.
Looking at the data, NY reports 35.5% ratio of workzone worker fatalities to number of fatalities in workzone crashes (all numbers are 9 or 10 years averages). Importantly, worker fatalities are a BLS number including con-crash fatalities. Same number in PA is 28.6%, 10.5% in TX and 18% nationally.
Gap between TX and NY  fatalities goes from 136:6.5 to 14:2.7.
Somehow my best explanation is how crashes in abandoned work zones are accounted for. Overall higher road fatality rate in the south is yet another story I don't understand.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on September 10, 2021, 10:46:27 AM
...
Most times, the use of the white light seems accurate.  Not always. I don't know how widespread these are being used now, however.

Pretty common at least on major projects (Turnpike, Interstates at least) - and the camera enforcement here requires at least two "Active Photo Enforced" signs before the "Enforcement Vehicle" (with an amusingly small sign) can grab your picture. Seems to get the job done, slow people down, if only long enough to pass that point.

PA also has "Covid-19 Safety Plan in Effect" signs... I guess that's ... nice?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 10, 2021, 02:57:36 PM
The question is what are we trying to achieve with these speed limits.

In this case, we're just trying to achieve a regulation that doesn't require unnecessary slowing for work zones when they are not being used to do work.
More like "reduce unnecessary slowing". even then there are two factors - slowing for people and harsh fines for endangering workers and slow down to road conditions.
There are situations when work zone slow down slow down is needed regardless of people present - hard lane changes, for example. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on September 11, 2021, 10:43:31 PM
I was on the lookout for work zones with unneeded reduced speed limits today on a ride from Amsterdam to Pleasantville to Chatham and back home.  Other than the NY 30 Mohawk River bridge, which was under active work even at 7 AM on a Saturday, none would be considered active and none had any lane adjustments or pavement issues that would require traffic to slow for safety.  Yet all had their work zone speed limits in effect.  I slowed down through the zones on the Thruway but much of the traffic did not.  The worst was on the Taconic, an 11-mile or so stretch posted at 45.  Once it was clear that there was no good reason to slow down (other than wanting to avoid a speeding ticket), I went through a good 10 miles of it pretty much at 65, never passed another car, and must have been passed by a couple dozen, many going much faster than me. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 12, 2021, 08:39:57 AM
There were vast swaths (+10 miles) of I-88 signed for 55 MPH because of "construction" for about two weeks when no work was being performed except for at the approaches to a bridge. They were finally doing work after on rehabilitating the concrete pavement but... this would have been a good candidate for the "work zone when flashing" signs with variable speed limits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on September 15, 2021, 03:28:02 PM
There were vast swaths (+10 miles) of I-88 signed for 55 MPH because of "construction" for about two weeks when no work was being performed except for at the approaches to a bridge. They were finally doing work after on rehabilitating the concrete pavement but... this would have been a good candidate for the "work zone when flashing" signs with variable speed limits.

I got stuck in that 10 mile long work zone on the Taconic as well as miles of 55 on 684 where there wasn't even construction equipment on site.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 15, 2021, 04:05:59 PM
There were vast swaths (+10 miles) of I-88 signed for 55 MPH because of "construction" for about two weeks when no work was being performed except for at the approaches to a bridge. They were finally doing work after on rehabilitating the concrete pavement but... this would have been a good candidate for the "work zone when flashing" signs with variable speed limits.

I got stuck in that 10 mile long work zone on the Taconic as well as miles of 55 on 684 where there wasn't even construction equipment on site.
And effect of such on true work zones was first described around 580 BC by Aesop who published a work entitled "A Boy Who Cried Wolf"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 15, 2021, 04:11:29 PM
A Boy Who Cried Construction Zone.

Yeah, one of my trips on I-57 in IL heading northward was known for that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 15, 2021, 07:39:13 PM
I-79 in northern WV says hi.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on September 28, 2021, 07:22:40 AM
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

My X button can only take so much.

I don't see consistency.  I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 28, 2021, 08:12:22 AM
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

My X button can only take so much.

I don't see consistency.  I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
Heh.  Brian gets an A for effort, there.  Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.

It will be a great day in NY when people can tell how far they need to go on the Thruway just by simple subtraction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 28, 2021, 09:30:48 AM
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

My X button can only take so much.

I don't see consistency.  I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
Heh.  Brian gets an A for effort, there.  Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.

It will be a great day in NY when people can tell how far they need to go on the Thruway just by simple subtraction.
A more interesting part  is how much they would need to pay for that.
https://www.thruway.ny.gov/news/meetings/public-hearing.html
Public hearing on workzone automatic speed enforcement is scheduled for Wednesday Oct. 6, 2021, 4 p.m. — 6 p.m. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 28, 2021, 09:31:36 AM
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

My X button can only take so much.

I don't see consistency.  I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.

That, however, is due to different exit sequences under different authorities, rather than a mixture of different numbering schemes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MASTERNC on September 28, 2021, 09:38:14 AM
PA changed its work zone laws back in 2014. the "ACTIVE WORK ZONE WHEN FLASHING" sign was introduced with a little white light at the top.

Per PennDOT:
Quote
Active Work Zones:
Posting of active work zones. Active work zones must be designated as such to notify motorists when they enter and leave the work zone. A white flashing light attached to the "Active Work Zone When Flashing" sign will indicate an active work zone. The flashing light will only be activated when workers are present and turned off when workers are not present.

Fifteen-day loss of license for driving dangerously. Motorists caught driving 11 miles per hour or more above the posted speed limit in an active work zone, or who are involved in a crash in an active work zone and are convicted for failing to drive at a safe speed, automatically will lose their license for 15 days.

Fines doubled/jail time increased. Fines for certain traffic violations – including speeding, driving under the influence, and failure to obey traffic devices – are doubled for active work zones. Also, the law provides for up to five years of additional jail time for individuals convicted of homicide by vehicle for a crash that occurred in an active work zone.

In 2014, 377 suspensions were imposed on motorists for work zone violations.

Most times, the use of the white light seems accurate.  Not always. I don't know how widespread these are being used now, however.

I find they are used inconsistently in long-term work zones.  Sometimes they're not turned on or off when they should be.

PA's speed camera law blends Maryland and Illinois.  Like Illinois, speed cameras can only be used when workers are present and the vehicles sit out in the open (not hidden by objects) with two signs right before them.  Like Maryland, the vehicle owner is cited and the fines are low, especially for the first two offenses.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 28, 2021, 09:47:50 AM
^ Does Pennsylvania have a minimum over-speed at which the speed camera will trigger?  Maryland does.  Outside Montgomery County, Maryland's speed cameras only trigger when the vehicle is going 12+ MPH over the limit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MASTERNC on September 28, 2021, 10:27:11 AM
^ Does Pennsylvania have a minimum over-speed at which the speed camera will trigger?  Maryland does.  Outside Montgomery County, Maryland's speed cameras only trigger when the vehicle is going 12+ MPH over the limit.


Yes, it is 11 over the speed limit.  First violation is a warning.  There are some in the legislature who think that is too lenient, but it still seems to be reducing repeat offenders.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 28, 2021, 12:58:21 PM
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

My X button can only take so much.

I don't see consistency.  I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
Heh.  Brian gets an A for effort, there.  Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.

It will be a great day in NY when people can tell how far they need to go on the Thruway just by simple subtraction.
Plus he's Region 1, and I don't believe Region 1 has had any large-scale guide sign rehabs since mile-based became required (at least not on a road with exit numbers; all the signs on NY 85 and half of them on NY 7 got replaced as part of other projects).  Additionally, I-890 is already mile-based, and I-787 is like those MassDOT roads that got left alone, so it might just be the Northway, free 90, and I-88 for us.

^ Does Pennsylvania have a minimum over-speed at which the speed camera will trigger?  Maryland does.  Outside Montgomery County, Maryland's speed cameras only trigger when the vehicle is going 12+ MPH over the limit.


Yes, it is 11 over the speed limit.  First violation is a warning.  There are some in the legislature who think that is too lenient, but it still seems to be reducing repeat offenders.
I'm curious how it will be here.  The NYC school cameras are also 11 over, so I imagine it would be the same for consistency, but it would be nice to see that confirmed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 28, 2021, 03:28:56 PM
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

My X button can only take so much.

I don't see consistency.  I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
Heh.  Brian gets an A for effort, there.  Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.

It will be a great day in NY when people can tell how far they need to go on the Thruway just by simple subtraction.
Plus he's Region 1, and I don't believe Region 1 has had any large-scale guide sign rehabs since mile-based became required (at least not on a road with exit numbers; all the signs on NY 85 and half of them on NY 7 got replaced as part of other projects).  Additionally, I-890 is already mile-based, and I-787 is like those MassDOT roads that got left alone, so it might just be the Northway, free 90, and I-88 for us.


Huh.  Weird that a Region 1 public relations guy got that assignment for a statewide question.  I suppose he was in the MO at one point, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 28, 2021, 04:01:21 PM
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

My X button can only take so much.

I don't see consistency.  I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
Heh.  Brian gets an A for effort, there.  Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.

It will be a great day in NY when people can tell how far they need to go on the Thruway just by simple subtraction.
Plus he's Region 1, and I don't believe Region 1 has had any large-scale guide sign rehabs since mile-based became required (at least not on a road with exit numbers; all the signs on NY 85 and half of them on NY 7 got replaced as part of other projects).  Additionally, I-890 is already mile-based, and I-787 is like those MassDOT roads that got left alone, so it might just be the Northway, free 90, and I-88 for us.


Huh.  Weird that a Region 1 public relations guy got that assignment for a statewide question.  I suppose he was in the MO at one point, though.
TU is a local newspaper, which likely always contacted local office.
And I saw same question being answered in contradictory ways, I believe by the same person, within few years... So PR doesn't have to give an accurate answer anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 28, 2021, 08:23:26 PM
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

My X button can only take so much.

I don't see consistency.  I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.

That, however, is due to different exit sequences under different authorities, rather than a mixture of different numbering schemes.

The "urban areas" issue NYSDOT is always spouting about when defending sequential numbers is irritating. Chicago does just fine at I-94 MP 51 at the Jane Byrne Interchange (exits 51 A-J). No one is driving off the road in confusion.  Kansas City has plenty of suffixes without an issue. Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Phoenix, they all handle suffixed exits just fine. There is nothing special about the five boroughs. It's just a weak excuse.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on September 28, 2021, 08:25:16 PM
... Boston ... they all handle suffixed exits just fine.

Those were sequential suffixed exits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 28, 2021, 09:09:51 PM
The "urban areas" issue NYSDOT is always spouting about when defending sequential numbers is irritating. Chicago does just fine at I-94 MP 51 at the Jane Byrne Interchange (exits 51 A-J). No one is driving off the road in confusion.  Kansas City has plenty of suffixes without an issue. Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Phoenix, they all handle suffixed exits just fine. There is nothing special about the five boroughs. It's just a weak excuse.
I suspect it basically boils down to "we don't want to convert NYC".

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 28, 2021, 09:18:41 PM
Wasn't I-95 in the Bronx (Cross Bronx Expwy.& Bruckner Expwy.) re-signed with mileage based numbers? I know I saw a lot of suffixed exits just east of the G.W. Bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on September 28, 2021, 09:28:02 PM
Wasn't I-95 in the Bronx (Cross Bronx Expwy.& Bruckner Expwy.) re-signed with mileage based numbers? I know I saw a lot of suffixed exits just east of the G.W. Bridge.

The Cross Bronx attempted to convert to sequential back in the 'naughts when the Bruckner interchange was rebuilt.  Exit 12 would've been I-295, but was switched back to Exit 6B.  Mileage-based exits continue up the Cross Bronx and the Bruckner section of I-95 to the New England Thruway.  The Thruway is sequential, though the numbers aren't that far off, and only a couple would need to be changed for true milepost accuracy. 

Maine didn't bother renumbering exits on I-295 in Portland when they converted, to avoid "alphabet soup".  New York could do something similar within the city, or fudge some numbers so that you're not diving any deeper than an "A" or "B" exit. 

The Trans-Manhattan Expressway also got new exit numbers at the same time (early 00s).. Northbound, Exit 1A became 1, Exit 1B became 2, and Exit 1C (I-87/Deegan) became Exit 3.  To this day, exit numbers northbound (compass eastbound) remain mile-based, but the Cross Bronx numbers retain the old #, so the Deegan has signs advertising "Exit 3", then "Exit 1C-D" at the exit itself.  Southbound there is only one exit on the "TMX" and its signed as Exit 1, but should be Exit 1A.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 28, 2021, 09:57:13 PM
The NYSDOT portions of I-95 were always mileage-based, part of an experiment in the 70s that would have led to conversion had NYSDOT not gotten cold feet at the prospect of changing things again when it was believed the US would switch to metric.  As was mentioned, for whatever reason it was decided in the 2000s to convert I-95 to sequential even though this would break continuity with the Thruway.  This was eventually abandoned and the numbers switched back, but the Port Authority never went along with that, thus beginning their trend of nonsensical exit numbers that they continued with I-278 in NJ.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 29, 2021, 12:42:08 AM
The NYSDOT portions of I-95 were always mileage-based, part of an experiment in the 70s that would have led to conversion had NYSDOT not gotten cold feet at the prospect of changing things again when it was believed the US would switch to metric.  As was mentioned, for whatever reason it was decided in the 2000s to convert I-95 to sequential even though this would break continuity with the Thruway.  This was eventually abandoned and the numbers switched back, but the Port Authority never went along with that, thus beginning their trend of nonsensical exit numbers that they continued with I-278 in NJ.
You got a problem with exits 1-2-3-3?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 29, 2021, 08:37:24 PM
And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 29, 2021, 08:57:50 PM
And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.

As GPS navigation proliferates and the need to refer to exit numbers when giving directions decreases, the importance of them will certainly diminish. While it's still helpful to have some kind of designation so that you can match your observation with your expectations, the details of how those designations are arrived at become less important as navigation apps start to provide lane-specific directions. Exit numbering then becomes more of a fallback than a primary means of navigation, and perhaps of greater interest to those keeping an inventory of interchanges rather than those actually traversing them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 29, 2021, 10:14:08 PM
Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions?  I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 29, 2021, 10:32:19 PM
Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions?  I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.

They do. And it depends on the app of course, but they also give pretty specific indications of which lane to be in and which direction to go, along with detailed sign legends, so even if there weren't exit numbers you'd still have plenty of points of reference.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on September 29, 2021, 11:58:34 PM
Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions?  I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.

They do. And it depends on the app of course, but they also give pretty specific indications of which lane to be in and which direction to go, along with detailed sign legends, so even if there weren't exit numbers you'd still have plenty of points of reference.

This is true, but it makes a lot more sense to hear the GPS say "use the right lane to take Exit 9", see Exit 9 on the sign you're driving past, and know you're going the right way. To me, it makes no sense to get rid of them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 30, 2021, 12:04:34 AM
Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions?  I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.

They do. And it depends on the app of course, but they also give pretty specific indications of which lane to be in and which direction to go, along with detailed sign legends, so even if there weren't exit numbers you'd still have plenty of points of reference.
It still makes sense to have visual labels. And - just for the sake of some brain gymnastics - I would argue that very dissimilar labels could be preferred. Like streets often having different names, and jay street would be distinctive from bluebird street just by the length of the sign. 41, 42 and 43d streets, or n.elmer and w.elmer streets are less functional for navigation.
So... Named exits anyone? In some sense, exit signs  already have  named destinations posted.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on September 30, 2021, 09:30:36 AM
And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.

I never had an issue navigating around in California back in the days before they're exit numbering plan. It was *different* but it wasn't any less or more complicated than navigating in states with interchange numbering.  As I recall, interchange numbering wasn't a solid given in the early days of the interstate system. Plus, plenty of states don't number interchanges on (some of) their non-Interstate freeways.

I'm definitely in the distance-based interchange numbering scheme column when it comes to preference, and New York should make an effort to standardize across the state, which in turn should match the rest of the country.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on September 30, 2021, 01:12:06 PM
I remember the first time I drove to California, which was in 1998, four years before Calnexus rolled out exit numbering statewide.  I crossed the Colorado River on I-10, headed for Los Angeles.  Although Blythe is small, it has a number of closely spaced exits, so there was and still is no post-interchange confirmation sign that gives distances to forward destinations until after the SR 78 exit, which is six miles into California (Desert Center 43, Indio 92, Los Angeles 219).  That is a long way to go to correct a misapprehension that LA is "only" 100-140 miles away.  With exit numbering, a driver in my situation today knows I-10 in California is at least 242 miles long as soon as he or she clears the inspection station just past the Colorado River bridge, which is a huge improvement.

I did see there were postmiles, but those weren't helpful since I-10 doesn't have a terminus in Riverside County.  (California still doesn't use mileposts.)  This first trip was before Google Maps and widespread GPS, so in the absence of distance-based exit numbers, finding distance to end of route was a tedious business of adding up red or black numbers on a paper map.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 30, 2021, 10:37:31 PM
And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.
As someone non-native, it's a problem in CA. Some highways interchange multiple roads with similar or same names.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on September 30, 2021, 10:41:45 PM
The Bear Mountain Bridge is going cashless starting tonight at midnight.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 30, 2021, 11:08:03 PM
Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions?  I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.

They do. And it depends on the app of course, but they also give pretty specific indications of which lane to be in and which direction to go, along with detailed sign legends, so even if there weren't exit numbers you'd still have plenty of points of reference.

This is true, but it makes a lot more sense to hear the GPS say "use the right lane to take Exit 9", see Exit 9 on the sign you're driving past, and know you're going the right way. To me, it makes no sense to get rid of them.

Right. Nothing wrong with them, and they certainly aren't without their usefulness. And perhaps not quite as critical to navigation as they may once have been.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on September 30, 2021, 11:51:04 PM
So row, row, row your boat, gently down the freeway?

If you row a boat down a turnpike, do you have to pay tolls?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 01, 2021, 12:37:04 AM
The Bear Mountain Bridge is going cashless starting tonight at midnight.
Backups have gotten really bad there on weekends with lines through the cash booth, and then when the gate arm doesn't go up on the EZPass booth (don't get me started on gate arms), so this is exciting! It will also result in backups on the far end when people can't turn left onto 9D and suddenly you've got a full demand backing up there instead of at the toll plaza.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 01, 2021, 06:47:08 AM
The Bear Mountain Bridge is going cashless starting tonight at midnight.
Backups have gotten really bad there on weekends with lines through the cash booth, and then when the gate arm doesn't go up on the EZPass booth (don't get me started on gate arms), so this is exciting! It will also result in backups on the far end when people can't turn left onto 9D and suddenly you've got a full demand backing up there instead of at the toll plaza.
...and then you have the paltry parking for the Appalachian Trail due to the terrain causing its own issues.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 01, 2021, 07:19:36 AM
The Bear Mountain Bridge is going cashless starting tonight at midnight.
Aww, crap! Now I'll never get any shots of the toll plaza!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 01, 2021, 08:38:33 AM
The Bear Mountain Bridge is going cashless starting tonight at midnight.
Aww, crap! Now I'll never get any shots of the toll plaza!
I thought they were leaving the old booths in due to their aesthetic appearance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 01, 2021, 01:01:49 PM
...and then you have the paltry parking for the Appalachian Trail due to the terrain causing its own issues.

I'm actually attending a group hike there tomorrow. Knowing the parking situation, my plan is to arrive early, park at Bear Mountain and walk over to the trailhead in Putchester.

I thought they were leaving the old booths in due to their aesthetic appearance.

That's what I'd hoped, but somebody here said they are to be removed. (There would still be the NYSBA building itself, which provides much of the aesthetic character.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 01, 2021, 02:07:58 PM
...and then you have the paltry parking for the Appalachian Trail due to the terrain causing its own issues.

I'm actually attending a group hike there tomorrow. Knowing the parking situation, my plan is to arrive early, park at Bear Mountain and walk over to the trailhead in Putchester.

I thought they were leaving the old booths in due to their aesthetic appearance.

That's what I'd hoped, but somebody here said they are to be removed. (There would still be the NYSBA building itself, which provides much of the aesthetic character.)
Ah, right.  I had it backwards.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 01, 2021, 08:19:39 PM
And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.
As someone non-native, it's a problem in CA. Some highways interchange multiple roads with similar or same names.

Point noted. California partly compensated for the lack of exit numbers with their well placed interchange sequence signs showing the distances to the next three exits. I made several trips to different parts of Calif. in their pre-exit number era and had very few problems navigating their freeways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: yakra on October 03, 2021, 01:08:50 PM
Maine didn't bother renumbering exits on I-295 in Portland when they converted, to avoid "alphabet soup".
Fictional: Milepost exits for "classic" I-295 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30286)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: bluecountry on October 04, 2021, 07:22:10 AM
Any reason why the LIE is in such horrible pavement condition in Suffolk County west of exit 65?
It is just terrible, any schedule to repair?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 04, 2021, 02:22:49 PM
Saturday evening, I drove the entire length of I-88 for the first time in forever. If you have ever driven that thing, you'd know about the miserable pavement quality between Oneonta and Cobleskill. Well, guess what? They're reconstructing it! As in almost the entire length at the same time. Three separate contraflow sections, but almost the entire distance between Exits 17 and 21 (close to 30 miles) is contraflowed. Two short segments with passing lanes separate three contraflow sections. I'm happy that they're finally doing something about this section (even if 10+ years late), but it is painful. WB rest area near the Otsego/Schoharie line is closed due to the construction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 04, 2021, 02:55:07 PM
It's been going on forever.  I have no idea why it has taken this long.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on October 04, 2021, 03:21:54 PM
The I-390 reconstruction south of the Thruway is also taking forever. Northbound is finally wrapping up, but southbound hasn't been touched, so it's on track to be a two-year project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 04, 2021, 05:48:57 PM
The I-390 reconstruction south of the Thruway is also taking forever. Northbound is finally wrapping up, but southbound hasn't been touched, so it's on track to be a two-year project.
I-88 sees your two years and deems you a promising amateur.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on October 04, 2021, 05:50:42 PM
The I-390 reconstruction south of the Thruway is also taking forever. Northbound is finally wrapping up, but southbound hasn't been touched, so it's on track to be a two-year project.
I-88 sees your two years and deems you a promising amateur.

If 10 miles of I-390 takes two years, I would expect 30 miles of I-88 to take... 6 years?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 04, 2021, 05:53:27 PM
88 has been reconstructed in segments for the better part of 20 years now. Some segments have seen very little work since the road was built in the 70s and 80s. It'll easily be another 5-10 years before the rest is done. Everything that has not yet been reconstructed is scheduled to be and it's mostly (if not entirely) in Otsego and Schoharie Counties.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 04, 2021, 09:23:52 PM
The I-390 reconstruction south of the Thruway is also taking forever. Northbound is finally wrapping up, but southbound hasn't been touched, so it's on track to be a two-year project.
Two years is pretty standard for that type of project.  The mainline part of 490 Gateway took 2-3 years (throwing in the Troup-Howell Bridge and the bridges over 490, and it easily took more than half a decade).  I-490 from Bushnell's Basin to Fairport took 2 years.  Exits 39-40 on the Thruway took 3.  I don't remember how long NY 104 took (I couldn't have been older than 5) but I imagine it was similar.

88 has been reconstructed in segments for the better part of 20 years now. Some segments have seen very little work since the road was built in the 70s and 80s. It'll easily be another 5-10 years before the rest is done. Everything that has not yet been reconstructed is scheduled to be and it's mostly (if not entirely) in Otsego and Schoharie Counties.
Not sure how much more there is.  The public site shows two contracts for I-88 in that area; the bridge/resurfacing job shows a completion date a year from now and the rehab contract throws a 404 not found error.  Otego has been done.  Belden hill has been done.  Exits 1-2 has been done.  There was a diamond grind around Cobleskill.  Exit 22-Region 1 has been done, and Schenectady County has been done.  What else does that leave?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on October 04, 2021, 09:59:30 PM
I-490 from Bushnell's Basin to Fairport took 2 years. ... I don't remember how long NY 104 took (I couldn't have been older than 5) but I imagine it was similar.

I-490 from Bushnells to Fairport was reconstructed? When was that? Also, what part of NY 104 was reconstructed?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on October 05, 2021, 02:10:51 AM
The Bear Mountain Bridge is going cashless starting tonight at midnight.
Backups have gotten really bad there on weekends with lines through the cash booth, and then when the gate arm doesn't go up on the EZPass booth (don't get me started on gate arms), so this is exciting! It will also result in backups on the far end when people can't turn left onto 9D and suddenly you've got a full demand backing up there instead of at the toll plaza.

couldnt they put a traffic light at the end of the bridge to prevent the backups for people wanting to turn left onto 9D? or a roundabout?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 05, 2021, 09:23:38 AM
couldnt they put a traffic light at the end of the bridge to prevent the backups for people wanting to turn left onto 9D? or a roundabout?

No room for a roundabout, and a traffic light would likely lead to objectionable backups on the Goat Trail (Peekskill) approach. Usually there isn't a whole lot of demand for NY 9D compared to the through route of US 6/202, so the need for this may turn out to be limited.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 05, 2021, 02:45:20 PM
I-490 from Bushnell's Basin to Fairport took 2 years. ... I don't remember how long NY 104 took (I couldn't have been older than 5) but I imagine it was similar.

I-490 from Bushnells to Fairport was reconstructed? When was that? Also, what part of NY 104 was reconstructed?

Whops, I meant Bushnell's Basin to Victor.  We must be talking about Bushnell's Basin to Fairport so often that I typed it on autopiliot.

I was very young when NY 104 was done, but I feel like was the whole freeway, or at least the part west of Five Mile Line Road (which is older than the part east of there).  That's when westbound the parking area/rest area just before the Bay Bridge was closed.  It became a construction staging area and never reopened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on October 05, 2021, 03:47:24 PM
I-490 from Bushnells to Fairport was reconstructed? When was that? Also, what part of NY 104 was reconstructed?

Whops, I meant Bushnell's Basin to Victor.  We must be talking about Bushnell's Basin to Fairport so often that I typed it on autopiliot.

Fair enough... I take partial responsibility for that ;)
 

I was very young when NY 104 was done, but I feel like was the whole freeway, or at least the part west of Five Mile Line Road (which is older than the part east of there).  That's when westbound the parking area/rest area just before the Bay Bridge was closed.  It became a construction staging area and never reopened.

Too bad I never saw the parking/rest area when it was in operation. It's kind of a cool location and I hope it's reopened someday.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 05, 2021, 06:02:12 PM
couldnt they put a traffic light at the end of the bridge to prevent the backups for people wanting to turn left onto 9D? or a roundabout?

No room for a roundabout, and a traffic light would likely lead to objectionable backups on the Goat Trail (Peekskill) approach. Usually there isn't a whole lot of demand for NY 9D compared to the through route of US 6/202, so the need for this may turn out to be limited.
I wouldn't speculate on the traffic light. It's something that can easily be modeled and studied to determine how it would function. Your main phase would be 6-202, second phase would be EB left/SB right, and then SB left would occasionally get a phase if needed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 05, 2021, 06:28:59 PM
I wouldn't speculate on the traffic light. It's something that can easily be modeled and studied to determine how it would function. Your main phase would be 6-202, second phase would be EB left/SB right, and then SB left would occasionally get a phase if needed.

The issue wouldn't be so much the timing/phasing, but rather the terrain. Coming down the Goat Trail requires enough attention as it is; to add a signal into the mix would possibly require a greater justification than is provided by the volume of traffic needing to go north on 9D. (That traffic would typically include me, now that I live in that direction.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 05, 2021, 07:41:27 PM
I was ready to look for this issue on the bridge as soon as I heard Cuomo was resigning. It also made me wonder about any other potential projects and how they're going to be impacted.
September 30th is the day for PANYNJ board meeting with the vote for final approval of LGA Airtrain being scheduled. May be a big one in that respect
And now Hochul basically derailed the Airtrain. I wonder if I-81 in Syracuse is next for review?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on October 05, 2021, 09:51:30 PM
And now Hochul basically derailed the Airtrain. I wonder if I-81 in Syracuse is next for review?

Well, this quote from Hochul would seem to support the viaduct, right?  :D

Quote
“We must ensure that our transportation projects are bold, visionary, and serve the needs of New Yorkers. I remain committed to working expeditiously to rebuild our infrastructure for the 21st century ..."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 05, 2021, 11:27:26 PM
I wouldn't speculate on the traffic light. It's something that can easily be modeled and studied to determine how it would function. Your main phase would be 6-202, second phase would be EB left/SB right, and then SB left would occasionally get a phase if needed.

The issue wouldn't be so much the timing/phasing, but rather the terrain. Coming down the Goat Trail requires enough attention as it is; to add a signal into the mix would possibly require a greater justification than is provided by the volume of traffic needing to go north on 9D. (That traffic would typically include me, now that I live in that direction.)
Pardon? Greater justification? Traffic volumes are a sufficient justification. Backups onto the bridge are undesirable. You do the analysis and see if you can make it work based on all of the demands present. It may or may not work, but it's easy to figure out.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 06, 2021, 10:17:28 AM
Pardon? Greater justification? Traffic volumes are a sufficient justification. Backups onto the bridge are undesirable.

Right, but do those traffic volumes or backups exist? If they don't, then of course they aren't a greater justification.

Quote
You do the analysis and see if you can make it work based on all of the demands present. It may or may not work, but it's easy to figure out.

Me do the study? I'm not a DOT actually undertaking this project, I'm a guy sitting at home having a conversation on a roads forum. The stakes here aren't all that high for me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 06, 2021, 06:48:52 PM
Pardon? Greater justification? Traffic volumes are a sufficient justification. Backups onto the bridge are undesirable.

Right, but do those traffic volumes or backups exist? If they don't, then of course they aren't a greater justification.
For the last time, this is why you do the study.

Quote
Quote
You do the analysis and see if you can make it work based on all of the demands present. It may or may not work, but it's easy to figure out.

Me do the study? I'm not a DOT actually undertaking this project, I'm a guy sitting at home having a conversation on a roads forum. The stakes here aren't all that high for me.
I didn't say you specifically. This is why NYSDOT does the analysis. I'm done here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 06, 2021, 10:00:04 PM
Pardon? Greater justification? Traffic volumes are a sufficient justification. Backups onto the bridge are undesirable.

Right, but do those traffic volumes or backups exist? If they don't, then of course they aren't a greater justification.
For the last time, this is why you do the study.

Quote
Quote
You do the analysis and see if you can make it work based on all of the demands present. It may or may not work, but it's easy to figure out.

Me do the study? I'm not a DOT actually undertaking this project, I'm a guy sitting at home having a conversation on a roads forum. The stakes here aren't all that high for me.
I didn't say you specifically. This is why NYSDOT does the analysis. I'm done here.

Yeah…maybe a good idea? I'm not sure what all went wrong. I feel like we suddenly jumped seven pages into an argument nobody else even realized was going on–least of all myself! :confused:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on October 07, 2021, 12:30:21 AM
Pardon? Greater justification? Traffic volumes are a sufficient justification. Backups onto the bridge are undesirable.

Right, but do those traffic volumes or backups exist? If they don't, then of course they aren't a greater justification.
For the last time, this is why you do the study.

Quote
Quote
You do the analysis and see if you can make it work based on all of the demands present. It may or may not work, but it's easy to figure out.

Me do the study? I'm not a DOT actually undertaking this project, I'm a guy sitting at home having a conversation on a roads forum. The stakes here aren't all that high for me.
I didn't say you specifically. This is why NYSDOT does the analysis. I'm done here.

Yeah…maybe a good idea? I'm not sure what all went wrong. I feel like we suddenly jumped seven pages into an argument nobody else even realized was going on–least of all myself! :confused:

Seems like Alps and empirestate are writing/reading "you" to mean two different things. Alps colloquially said "You do the analysis and ..." to mean "An analysis is done and ...". Empirestate interpreted it as Alps was saying "You (empirestate) need to do an analysis and ...". Just a simple misunderstanding of what was being said.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 07, 2021, 01:44:54 AM
Seems like Alps and empirestate are writing/reading "you" to mean two different things. Alps colloquially said "You do the analysis and ..." to mean "An analysis is done and ...". Empirestate interpreted it as Alps was saying "You (empirestate) need to do an analysis and ...". Just a simple misunderstanding of what was being said.

Oh, you're right–I may have misread that, indeed! And for some reason, it worked out to be something of a hair-trigger moment. I think there was already a mix-up about whether anyone was disputing that a study could determine the warrant for a signal installation. I certainly wasn't, I just wasn't anywhere near that far into the process. I was still way back at where somebody said they might put a traffic signal there, and I was thinking that mightn't be such a good idea, as there aren't all that many people going north, compared to the approach coming down the hill.

But yes, I really do need to start putting a disclaimer or something on all my posts (and really, most of my everyday conversations, too). What I consider to be my simple observations are far, far too often mistaken for arguments. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 07, 2021, 06:25:29 PM
Seems like Alps and empirestate are writing/reading "you" to mean two different things. Alps colloquially said "You do the analysis and ..." to mean "An analysis is done and ...". Empirestate interpreted it as Alps was saying "You (empirestate) need to do an analysis and ...". Just a simple misunderstanding of what was being said.

Oh, you're right–I may have misread that, indeed! And for some reason, it worked out to be something of a hair-trigger moment. I think there was already a mix-up about whether anyone was disputing that a study could determine the warrant for a signal installation. I certainly wasn't, I just wasn't anywhere near that far into the process. I was still way back at where somebody said they might put a traffic signal there, and I was thinking that mightn't be such a good idea, as there aren't all that many people going north, compared to the approach coming down the hill.

But yes, I really do need to start putting a disclaimer or something on all my posts (and really, most of my everyday conversations, too). What I consider to be my simple observations are far, far too often mistaken for arguments. :-)
Sweet, let's move on and remember this happened as a colloquial anecdote.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 08, 2021, 02:01:30 PM
I just went through affected area of I-87. Traffic situation is nowhere close to the total collapse we feared.
Right lane is separated by jersey barriers, steel support columns are installed in the right lane. Other two lanes are open for traffic.
No entry at Exit 9, removing a lot of traffic and a heavy merge just upstream of accident location.  Exit 8A is probably a mess during commute, but traffic is still suppressed by covid.
The only thing I would do differently is extending lane closure by another mile to exit 8A to facilitate that merge.

Biggest issue would be on weekends, when a lot of NYC vacation traffic would be coming from Adirondack and Lake George.
And the latest update: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/After-crash-section-of-bridge-over-Northway-to-16118979.php
Section of a bridge is coming down, as @cl94 said - I assume the span over southbound lanes?. Highway closed overnight on weekend.
That's a lot of aftermath from a single impact...
And an end of the story - for now: Sitterly is open with a temporary bridge installed, highway is fully open for  past 2 weeks. Temporary bridge being higher than the old one - maybe by a foot or so-  is a small perk for highway traffic
I assume permanent bridge is the next thing to happen, but I wouldn't be surprized if it takes a year or two to be built.
And yet another update:
apparently, plans for new bridge are in, and work is underway on west side of the highway. Looks like a new support wall is getting built.

While I didn't realize that original crash was almost half a year ago,  I didn't expect anything to happen before next year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 08, 2021, 08:49:52 PM
I'm curious what the forum consensus is on where the Sunken Meadow State Parkway ends.  The reference route for it ends at the fee booths (this is reflected in Traffic Data Viewer (https://gisportalny.dot.ny.gov/portalny/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=28537cbc8b5941e19cf8e959b16797b4); the part south of the fee booths is the reference route, and the part north of there isn't included); the part north is just a park road as far as the inventory is concerned, and it used to be signed as such (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8954564,-73.2641872,3a,27.4y,333.05h,81.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sefdJZ00awl6exNDjfhy8Ag!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  There's also a "parkway ends" sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8793657,-73.2758049,3a,75y,55.11h,78.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHp5PxBSLT6soQ_C7GjIjSg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DHp5PxBSLT6soQ_C7GjIjSg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D134.02095%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) more than a mile south of NY 25A.  Newer signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.895552,-73.2643854,3a,23.1y,354.93h,87.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st_yNTmFpLED7FTYTRM3aQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), however, muddies the water (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.896289,-73.2652467,3a,28.5y,156.19h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssOYf_sFCMAOWn1bDiKe6wA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (although the sign on NY 25A west lacks the directional banner seen on the signs for the SB parkway on both directions of NY 25A).

Contrast with the Bay Parkway, which has the reference route only between the Meadowbrook Parkway and Wantagh Parkway (not including the part west of the fee booths to the west end), but signage has always had the full extent to the west end (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5960363,-73.5423223,3a,23.2y,182.27h,92.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6UI88vU8Wh4AByta8BRKlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  Traffic Data Viewer also has the whole parkway, although the part west of the Meadowbrook Parkway is included as a local road, not a reference route or touring route.

So I guess the question is - is the park of the Sunken Meadow State Parkway just a park road like any other road in a state park north of the fee booths, or is the situation more like the Bay Parkway, where the parkway continues but not as a state route?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on October 09, 2021, 08:35:59 AM
I'm curious what the forum consensus is on where the Sunken Meadow State Parkway ends.  The reference route for it ends at the fee booths (this is reflected in Traffic Data Viewer (https://gisportalny.dot.ny.gov/portalny/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=28537cbc8b5941e19cf8e959b16797b4); the part south of the fee booths is the reference route, and the part north of there isn't included); the part north is just a park road as far as the inventory is concerned, and it used to be signed as such (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8954564,-73.2641872,3a,27.4y,333.05h,81.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sefdJZ00awl6exNDjfhy8Ag!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  There's also a "parkway ends" sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8793657,-73.2758049,3a,75y,55.11h,78.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHp5PxBSLT6soQ_C7GjIjSg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DHp5PxBSLT6soQ_C7GjIjSg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D134.02095%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) more than a mile south of NY 25A.  Newer signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.895552,-73.2643854,3a,23.1y,354.93h,87.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st_yNTmFpLED7FTYTRM3aQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), however, muddies the water (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.896289,-73.2652467,3a,28.5y,156.19h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssOYf_sFCMAOWn1bDiKe6wA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (although the sign on NY 25A west lacks the directional banner seen on the signs for the SB parkway on both directions of NY 25A).

Contrast with the Bay Parkway, which has the reference route only between the Meadowbrook Parkway and Wantagh Parkway (not including the part west of the fee booths to the west end), but signage has always had the full extent to the west end (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5960363,-73.5423223,3a,23.2y,182.27h,92.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6UI88vU8Wh4AByta8BRKlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  Traffic Data Viewer also has the whole parkway, although the part west of the Meadowbrook Parkway is included as a local road, not a reference route or touring route.

So I guess the question is - is the park of the Sunken Meadow State Parkway just a park road like any other road in a state park north of the fee booths, or is the situation more like the Bay Parkway, where the parkway continues but not as a state route?

It's ambiguous.  I'd just note that there are signs for the NY 25A exit on the southbound side that begin inside the park, for whatever that's worth.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 09, 2021, 08:33:43 PM
I'm curious what the forum consensus is on where the Sunken Meadow State Parkway ends.  The reference route for it ends at the fee booths (this is reflected in Traffic Data Viewer (https://gisportalny.dot.ny.gov/portalny/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=28537cbc8b5941e19cf8e959b16797b4); the part south of the fee booths is the reference route, and the part north of there isn't included); the part north is just a park road as far as the inventory is concerned, and it used to be signed as such (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8954564,-73.2641872,3a,27.4y,333.05h,81.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sefdJZ00awl6exNDjfhy8Ag!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  There's also a "parkway ends" sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8793657,-73.2758049,3a,75y,55.11h,78.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHp5PxBSLT6soQ_C7GjIjSg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DHp5PxBSLT6soQ_C7GjIjSg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D134.02095%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) more than a mile south of NY 25A.  Newer signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.895552,-73.2643854,3a,23.1y,354.93h,87.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st_yNTmFpLED7FTYTRM3aQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), however, muddies the water (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.896289,-73.2652467,3a,28.5y,156.19h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssOYf_sFCMAOWn1bDiKe6wA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (although the sign on NY 25A west lacks the directional banner seen on the signs for the SB parkway on both directions of NY 25A).

Contrast with the Bay Parkway, which has the reference route only between the Meadowbrook Parkway and Wantagh Parkway (not including the part west of the fee booths to the west end), but signage has always had the full extent to the west end (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5960363,-73.5423223,3a,23.2y,182.27h,92.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6UI88vU8Wh4AByta8BRKlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  Traffic Data Viewer also has the whole parkway, although the part west of the Meadowbrook Parkway is included as a local road, not a reference route or touring route.

So I guess the question is - is the park of the Sunken Meadow State Parkway just a park road like any other road in a state park north of the fee booths, or is the situation more like the Bay Parkway, where the parkway continues but not as a state route?

It's ambiguous.  I'd just note that there are signs for the NY 25A exit on the southbound side that begin inside the park, for whatever that's worth.

I'd go with the inventory data over any newer signage, especially if it contradicts, as it's unlikely to reflect an actual underlying change.

How does it work with the Heckscher Parkway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 09, 2021, 08:47:19 PM
Heckscher and Ocean both end at their respective fee booths officially as well, with no local continuation in Traffic Data Viewer; same deal as the Sunken Meadow except much shorter, with the roads physically ending at a circle just past the booths (the Ocean Parkway contributes to the case for ignoring signage, as the Robert Moses Causeway has the shield on the signs to Captree State Park - especially with the "parkway ends" sign indicating a point just below the cloverleaf with NY 25A).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on October 10, 2021, 12:41:31 PM
I'm curious what the forum consensus is on where the Sunken Meadow State Parkway ends[...] 

So I guess the question is - is the park of the Sunken Meadow State Parkway just a park road like any other road in a state park north of the fee booths, or is the situation more like the Bay Parkway, where the parkway continues but not as a state route?

Funny you mention the SMSP, I was think about it yesterday. Last time I was on it, as you reach the northbound terminus, there's an END / STATE SPEED LIMIT 55 sign attached to one of the 25A exit signs, rather than the traditional "[30 mph symbol] AHEAD." Then it continues as a divided road with an absurd 30 mph limit!

Would you guys move the LI parkways to mile-based exits? LI doesn't have any mile markers to my knowledge. I'm leaning towards no because the sequential ones are (apparently) confusing enough that some of them start with a prefix (SM1E in Commack is a personal fave haha). Maybe the RM, SM, and SA should share the same mile markers and exit numbers even though they have different reference routes since they pretty seamlessly flow into each other.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 10, 2021, 10:19:41 PM
Regarding the suffixes on the LI parkways: the north-south parkways were all originally spurs of the Northern State Parkway (Meadowbrook, Wantagh, Sagtikos, Sunken Meadow) and Southern State Parkway (Robert Moses Causeway), just like the Berkshire Spur is a part of the Thruway.  Hence the suffixes.  I'm not sure how much people think of them that way these days, and I don't really see any reason why they'd be harder to convert than anything else on the Island.

Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow already are one reference route.  Adding the RMC would be interesting given that it would then overlap the Southern State Parkway - and northbound that would include making multiple lane changes in a very short distance (right entrance, left exit - the exact same thing that made the old Can of Worms interchange in Rochester such a big problem).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 10, 2021, 11:06:57 PM
Pardon? Greater justification? Traffic volumes are a sufficient justification. Backups onto the bridge are undesirable.

Right, but do those traffic volumes or backups exist? If they don't, then of course they aren't a greater justification.
I've seen GSV images of overcrowded cars parked on the sides of NY 9D on both sides of the Breakneck Hill Tunnel. I have no reason to doubt they exist.  And yes, it should be pretty obvious there's no room for a roundabout. Unless they're not from the New York Tri-State Area, and don't do GSV's of the bridge, I can't imagine anyone thinking that there is.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 10, 2021, 11:27:18 PM
I've seen GSV images of overcrowded cars parked on the sides of NY 9D on both sides of the Breakneck Hill Tunnel. I have no reason to doubt they exist.  And yes, it should be pretty obvious there's no room for a roundabout. Unless they're not from the New York Tri-State Area, and don't do GSV's of the bridge, I can't imagine anyone thinking that there is.

I see those parked cars regularly, as part of my everyday travels, and here I am asking the question. Heck, just last week I went over the bridge on foot at mid-morning on a gorgeous October Saturday. If the volume was going to be there, that's when it would have been. So, I guess there's the reason to doubt that you're looking for, maybe?

But I'm not sure there's much value in that line of logic. It's possible that each of us could observe the exact same volume of traffic, and each use it as evidence of the opposite conclusion. What's more important, I think, is that the cashless tolling is brand new, and we don't have a lot of anecdotes yet as to whether that will, in fact, remove any kind of metering effect that the toll collection process used to have and thus result in new congestion–at least, no more so on account of the left turn to 9D than any other aspect of the traffic there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 10, 2021, 11:31:31 PM
Hey, another topic; What's being built on US 9W between Depew Avenue and Main Street in Nyack? Because the GSV images of that construction has a wooden wall blocking the sidewalk that's also blocking the road signs on the southeast corner of 9W and Main (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0920792,-73.9288427,3a,75y,27.28h,86.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVDIOuNfKRIhwKN7sJ6mxMg!2e0!5s20191101T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 10, 2021, 11:48:28 PM
I've seen GSV images of overcrowded cars parked on the sides of NY 9D on both sides of the Breakneck Hill Tunnel. I have no reason to doubt they exist.  And yes, it should be pretty obvious there's no room for a roundabout. Unless they're not from the New York Tri-State Area, and don't do GSV's of the bridge, I can't imagine anyone thinking that there is.

I see those parked cars regularly, as part of my everyday travels, and here I am asking the question. Heck, just last week I went over the bridge on foot at mid-morning on a gorgeous October Saturday. If the volume was going to be there, that's when it would have been. So, I guess there's the reason to doubt that you're looking for, maybe?

But I'm not sure there's much value in that line of logic. It's possible that each of us could observe the exact same volume of traffic, and each use it as evidence of the opposite conclusion. What's more important, I think, is that the cashless tolling is brand new, and we don't have a lot of anecdotes yet as to whether that will, in fact, remove any kind of metering effect that the toll collection process used to have and thus result in new congestion–at least, no more so on account of the left turn to 9D than any other aspect of the traffic there.
And I'm qualified to analyze traffic as an engineer and I'm telling you that I don't care what either of you observe with traffic, the proof is in the actual demands.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 11, 2021, 11:08:58 AM
And I'm qualified to analyze traffic as an engineer and I'm telling you that I don't care what either of you observe with traffic, the proof is in the actual demands.

Right, that's what we're saying. At the moment, we're not balancing our individual qualifications or trustworthiness of observation to rebut or support the results of any specific analysis. We're just at the point of casual discussion.

And, importantly, so far nobody's position is "a traffic study wouldn't demonstrate whether there's sufficient volume to warrant a traffic signal," which nevertheless seems to be a sticking point. If it clarifies, my position is best stated as, "I haven't noticed a whole lot of traffic going north on 9D, such that a traffic signal would be needed–particularly when compared to the traffic on the Goat Trail approach."

Indeed, even if somebody did a formal study and decided that a signal was in fact warranted, it would still be the case that I haven't noticed it. As I say, it's an anecdote.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on October 11, 2021, 02:09:07 PM
How did you get onto the grass? You're not supposed to pull over just to take pictures of road signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 11, 2021, 07:57:32 PM
Spelling error on a new BGS at the I-287/I-95 interchange project.  Put up by NYS DOT for Exit 2 in CT. Photo by me.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51577549286_ac9454cd84_z.jpg)

That sign was probably erected by the Thruway Authority, not NYS DOT. And the spelling of Byram is not the only error. The numeral "1" should be taller than the word "mile". They must have really sharp people doing the sign work these days.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 11, 2021, 08:00:19 PM
Regarding the suffixes on the LI parkways: the north-south parkways were all originally spurs of the Northern State Parkway (Meadowbrook, Wantagh, Sagtikos, Sunken Meadow) and Southern State Parkway (Robert Moses Causeway), just like the Berkshire Spur is a part of the Thruway.  Hence the suffixes.  I'm not sure how much people think of them that way these days, and I don't really see any reason why they'd be harder to convert than anything else on the Island.

Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow already are one reference route.  Adding the RMC would be interesting given that it would then overlap the Southern State Parkway - and northbound that would include making multiple lane changes in a very short distance (right entrance, left exit - the exact same thing that made the old Can of Worms interchange in Rochester such a big problem).

Vdeane, I'm not sure what you meant in your statement that the Sunken Meadow and Sagtikos Pkwys. are one reference route. In fact they have separate sets of exit numbers going north and south from Northern State Pkwy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: odditude on October 11, 2021, 10:20:01 PM
Spelling error on a new BGS at the I-287/I-95 interchange project.  Put up by NYS DOT for Exit 2 in CT. Photo by me.

(image omitted)

That sign was probably erected by the Thruway Authority, not NYS DOT. And the spelling of Byram is not the only error. The numeral "1" should be taller than the word "mile". They must have really sharp people doing the sign work these days.

the 1 actually is taller, although it shares the same baseline - that photo is straight-on enough you can confirm it with a straightedge (like the top of another window).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 11, 2021, 10:27:02 PM
Regarding the suffixes on the LI parkways: the north-south parkways were all originally spurs of the Northern State Parkway (Meadowbrook, Wantagh, Sagtikos, Sunken Meadow) and Southern State Parkway (Robert Moses Causeway), just like the Berkshire Spur is a part of the Thruway.  Hence the suffixes.  I'm not sure how much people think of them that way these days, and I don't really see any reason why they'd be harder to convert than anything else on the Island.

Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow already are one reference route.  Adding the RMC would be interesting given that it would then overlap the Southern State Parkway - and northbound that would include making multiple lane changes in a very short distance (right entrance, left exit - the exact same thing that made the old Can of Worms interchange in Rochester such a big problem).

Vdeane, I'm not sure what you meant in your statement that the Sunken Meadow and Sagtikos Pkwys. are one reference route. In fact they have separate sets of exit numbers going north and south from Northern State Pkwy.
I take it you're not familiar with NY's reference route system, then.  Anything NYSDOT (and a few other state agencies) maintain that doesn't have a signed route number, including the parkways, is given an internall number in the 900 series.  Normally separate parkways have separate numbers - this is true even of the Laurelton (907B), Shore (907C), and Southern (907D - not to be confused with the Southern State Parkway, 908M) sections of the Belt Parkway (as well as the Cross Island - 907A).  The Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow, however, are both reference route 908K.  The Robert Moses Causeway is 908J.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: yakra on October 14, 2021, 07:04:26 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9146312,-72.6616973,3a,27.2y,290.38h,90.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY_Z0QGeYjqgh6HOddxr8bg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 14, 2021, 07:51:19 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9146312,-72.6616973,3a,27.2y,290.38h,90.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY_Z0QGeYjqgh6HOddxr8bg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That's likely erroneous. I'd call it equivalent to the END NY 9L sign at Washington Street in Glens Falls. It's where NYSDOT maintenance ends, but not where the route officially ends. Signs along the LIE (https://goo.gl/maps/uzKAeKEh3LzJpQrKA) still say NY 24. GIS and route log send it west to the LIE.

Note that signs along the surface west of that point have rarely indicated that it was NY 24. As far as Suffolk County is concerned, it's just another county route. As another example of "Suffolk County is being dumb", see how the county-maintained section of NY 27 (https://goo.gl/maps/FZTQL5gYLAShpCNG7) is signed "TO NY 27".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: yakra on October 14, 2021, 08:45:09 PM
Sounds like hey need to get hip to some of those End State Maintenance signs like they have in TX & NE.
Quote
Note that signs along the surface west of that point have rarely indicated that it was NY 24
I saw a lot of TO NY24 in GMSV.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 14, 2021, 08:58:49 PM
Sounds like hey need to get hip to some of those End State Maintenance signs like they have in TX & NE.
Quote
Note that signs along the surface west of that point have rarely indicated that it was NY 24
I saw a lot of TO NY24 in GMSV.

I saw the "TO NY 24" signs along CR 94, but I did not see the END shield as I was driving eastbound. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 14, 2021, 09:04:14 PM
Sounds like hey need to get hip to some of those End State Maintenance signs like they have in TX & NE.
Quote
Note that signs along the surface west of that point have rarely indicated that it was NY 24
I saw a lot of TO NY24 in GMSV.

Those are new, but again, I wouldn't take it to mean anything. See my NY 27 example. They will not post signs for a state route along their roads and if the state doesn't feel like posting new signs, signs won't go up. The BGS along 495 indicates 24 is still a thing out there, I would take state signs over anything the county installs.

See also: US 6, which CDOT says ends in Mack, Colorado.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on October 19, 2021, 10:38:39 AM
Cross-posting this from another thread, regarding the intersection of NY 286 and Five Mile Line Road in Penfield:

intersection improvements at this intersection are now complete! There's new left turn lanes on all approaches and a southbound right turn lane. Sidewalks, crosswalks, and striping aren't quite finished yet, but functionally it's more or less complete, and it's about time! Now a much smoother experience than the previous shoulder-bumping stop-and-go slugfest.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on October 21, 2021, 02:59:09 PM
https://danburycountry.com/mid-hudson-bridge-will-soon-say-goodbye-to-toll-booths-heres-when/

So, the next bridge to convert to cashless tolling on the New York State Bridge Authority (NYSBA) system will be the Rip-Van Winkle bridge, which is set to go live on November 1st.
After that, the next one to convert to cashless tolling will be the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge, which construction of the toll gantry is underway, and it's expected to go live sometime in December.
The final one to convert to cashless tolling will be the Mid-Hudson Bridge, which is set to go live sometime in March 2022.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 23, 2021, 08:33:38 AM
https://danburycountry.com/mid-hudson-bridge-will-soon-say-goodbye-to-toll-booths-heres-when/

So, the next bridge to convert to cashless tolling on the New York State Bridge Authority (NYSBA) system will be the Rip-Van Winkle bridge, which is set to go live on November 1st.
After that, the next one to convert to cashless tolling will be the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge, which construction of the toll gantry is underway, and it's expected to go live sometime in December.
The final one to convert to cashless tolling will be the Mid-Hudson Bridge, which is set to go live sometime in March 2022.
Well, it's no Bear Mountain toll booth, but I wouldn't mind if somebody got a pic of that and posted it in Wikimedia Commons.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on October 28, 2021, 06:41:51 PM
So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length?  I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan.  I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 28, 2021, 08:40:31 PM
So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length?  I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan.  I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.
No.  It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79.  There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 29, 2021, 08:41:44 AM
So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length?  I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan.  I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.
No.  It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79.  There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
If you are referring to the at-grade section east of NY 8, then that is east of Binghampton.
That appears to be the last at-grade section left.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on October 29, 2021, 09:58:48 AM
So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length?  I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan.  I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.
No.  It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79.  There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
If you are referring to the at-grade section east of NY 8, then that is east of Binghampton.
That appears to be the last at-grade section left.

No, I believe there are still a few minor issues west of Binghamton - no at-grade intersections, but a few things that keep it from being interstate-standard, including substandard shoulder widths.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 29, 2021, 01:07:41 PM
So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length?  I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan.  I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.
No.  It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79.  There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
If you are referring to the at-grade section east of NY 8, then that is east of Binghampton.
That appears to be the last at-grade section left.

No, I believe there are still a few minor issues west of Binghamton - no at-grade intersections, but a few things that keep it from being interstate-standard, including substandard shoulder widths.

Interesting, because I'm pretty sure the shoulders along NY 17 anywhere west of I-81 are wider than the shoulders on the PA Turnpike Northeast Extension (I-476).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeCL on October 29, 2021, 06:58:23 PM
I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.
This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on October 29, 2021, 08:02:28 PM
I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.
This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Don't you know the answer?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on October 29, 2021, 08:37:33 PM
The I-390 reconstruction south of the Thruway is also taking forever. Northbound is finally wrapping up, but southbound hasn't been touched, so it's on track to be a two-year project.
I-88 sees your two years and deems you a promising amateur.

 :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 29, 2021, 10:33:09 PM
So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length?  I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan.  I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.
No.  It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79.  There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
If you are referring to the at-grade section east of NY 8, then that is east of Binghampton.
That appears to be the last at-grade section left.
There are lots of little things that keep the rest of NY 17 from being I-86 - not just at-grades.  West of I-81, there's still one more project left.  There's been speculation on what that could be on the I-86 thread, but it is known to be somewhere in the vicinity of exit 68.  East of I-81, it's a lot of those little things (shoulder width, acceleration/deceleration lanes, interchange geometry, sight distance, etc.) that keep the upgrade from happening.  That's why I mentioned the widening study - if I widening project were to result from that, a good chunk of the remaining work would get done (at the very least Middletown-Harriman, possibly Monticello-Harriman), and if that happened before the remaining project west of Binghamton (which doesn't appear to have any momentum, unlike the widening study), we could have a third section of I-86 designated.  There are even covered signs around Middletown, the paperwork just wasn't submitted to sign it for whatever reason.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 29, 2021, 10:37:09 PM
So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length?  I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan.  I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.
No.  It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79.  There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
If you are referring to the at-grade section east of NY 8, then that is east of Binghampton.
That appears to be the last at-grade section left.
There are lots of little things that keep the rest of NY 17 from being I-86 - not just at-grades.  West of I-81, there's still one more project left.  There's been speculation on what that could be on the I-86 thread, but it is known to be somewhere in the vicinity of exit 68.  East of I-81, it's a lot of those little things (shoulder width, acceleration/deceleration lanes, interchange geometry, sight distance, etc.) that keep the upgrade from happening.  That's why I mentioned the widening study - if I widening project were to result from that, a good chunk of the remaining work would get done (at the very least Middletown-Harriman, possibly Monticello-Harriman), and if that happened before the remaining project west of Binghamton (which doesn't appear to have any momentum, unlike the widening study), we could have a third section of I-86 designated.  There are even covered signs around Middletown, the paperwork just wasn't submitted to sign it for whatever reason.
No need to speculate.  A long time ago, I posted the remaining projects for I-86 somewhere on here. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 29, 2021, 11:08:35 PM
No need to speculate.  A long time ago, I posted the remaining projects for I-86 somewhere on here. :D
I believe the description of that one was "Upgrade of deficient features between Tioga County and the Binghamton city line".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeCL on October 30, 2021, 12:55:13 PM
I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.
This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Don't you know the answer?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on October 30, 2021, 03:06:09 PM
I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.
This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Don't you know the answer?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.

But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on October 30, 2021, 05:21:59 PM
I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.
This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Don't you know the answer?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.

But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.


Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeCL on October 30, 2021, 05:25:03 PM
I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.
This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Don't you know the answer?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.

But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.


Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
I got my Maryland one away back when they did not charge service fees (they do now) I did have a MTA toll tag but I can’t find it plus I used to live in NJ so the replenish amount was almost around $300 I ended up paying in cash or getting billed by plate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on November 04, 2021, 06:58:24 PM
I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.
This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Don't you know the answer?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.

But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.


Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
I got my Maryland one away back when they did not charge service fees (they do now) I did have a MTA toll tag but I can’t find it plus I used to live in NJ so the replenish amount was almost around $300 I ended up paying in cash or getting billed by plate.

When I first moved to Maryland, I also had a MD pass.  I also dropped it when they started imposing the monthly fee.  I was able to get a MTA tag, which doesn't charge a monthly fee.  [That is usually hard to get as an out-of-state resident, since they try to push the PANYNJ tags which do charge a monthly fee.  I was able to get one by using  my sister's NY address and then later changing it to my billing address.]

Once Larry Hogan became governor of MD, he put in place several motorist friendly provisions like reducing tolls and ending the monthly fee on EZ-Pass by executive order.  Even though MD's EZ-Pass is now free of the monthly fee, I decided to keep my MTA pass, since it is easy for a new governor to simply re-impose the fee in MD, but in NY the fee cannot be imposed without new legislation.  I do take advantage of the lower fees with a NY EZ-Pass when I am in the NY area, but I have to pay the out-of-state rates when crossing the toll bridges in MD.


https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-items/e-zpass-everyone

Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 05, 2021, 10:25:20 AM
So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length?  I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan.  I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.
No.  It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79.  There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
If you are referring to the at-grade section east of NY 8, then that is east of Binghampton.
That appears to be the last at-grade section left.
There are lots of little things that keep the rest of NY 17 from being I-86 - not just at-grades.  West of I-81, there's still one more project left.  There's been speculation on what that could be on the I-86 thread, but it is known to be somewhere in the vicinity of exit 68.  East of I-81, it's a lot of those little things (shoulder width, acceleration/deceleration lanes, interchange geometry, sight distance, etc.) that keep the upgrade from happening.  That's why I mentioned the widening study - if I widening project were to result from that, a good chunk of the remaining work would get done (at the very least Middletown-Harriman, possibly Monticello-Harriman), and if that happened before the remaining project west of Binghamton (which doesn't appear to have any momentum, unlike the widening study), we could have a third section of I-86 designated.  There are even covered signs around Middletown, the paperwork just wasn't submitted to sign it for whatever reason.
The bridges between Exits 68 and 70 appear to be substandard and lack a shoulder. There is only a guard rail median in the vic. of Exit 69. Perhaps they want to replace it with a concrete barrier. Maybe they also want to close Exit 68? The unnumbered exit on NY 26 reaches the same area as Exit 68.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeCL on November 05, 2021, 03:58:04 PM
I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.
This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Don't you know the answer?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.

But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.


Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
I got my Maryland one away back when they did not charge service fees (they do now) I did have a MTA toll tag but I can’t find it plus I used to live in NJ so the replenish amount was almost around $300 I ended up paying in cash or getting billed by plate.

When I first moved to Maryland, I also had a MD pass.  I also dropped it when they started imposing the monthly fee.  I was able to get a MTA tag, which doesn't charge a monthly fee.  [That is usually hard to get as an out-of-state resident, since they try to push the PANYNJ tags which do charge a monthly fee.  I was able to get one by using  my sister's NY address and then later changing it to my billing address.]

Once Larry Hogan became governor of MD, he put in place several motorist friendly provisions like reducing tolls and ending the monthly fee on EZ-Pass by executive order.  Even though MD's EZ-Pass is now free of the monthly fee, I decided to keep my MTA pass, since it is easy for a new governor to simply re-impose the fee in MD, but in NY the fee cannot be imposed without new legislation.  I do take advantage of the lower fees with a NY EZ-Pass when I am in the NY area, but I have to pay the out-of-state rates when crossing the toll bridges in MD.


https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-items/e-zpass-everyone
Yeah I’m thinking about using my MTA ezpass again since I’m mostly in NJ and NY
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 14, 2021, 10:19:00 PM
I was watching the Capital District (really Albany/Rensselaer) meet and the bits about the Southside Route reignited some questions in my head.  It seems to be conventional opinion that I-87 was supposed to follow the Southside Route to exit 23, but I'm not sure that's true.  The proposed interchange (http://www.capitalhighways.mysite.com/cgi-bin/i/highways/m-ca/map.jpg) to tie into I-787 and the Mid-Crosstown appears to have no provisions at all for connecting it to the Thruway.  Moreover, the Ultimate Highway Network map (https://nysroads.com/planned.php) (bottom of page) uses the same design and has the Thruway labeled as I-87, and doesn't show anything else that would tie the route in, except via the overlap with I-90 that exists in real life, unless perhaps something would have been worked into the Southside/NY 85 interchange (not depicted for whatever reason).  Does anyone know anything more about how this would have fit together?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 15, 2021, 06:12:48 AM
I was watching the Capital District (really Albany/Rensselaer) meet and the bits about the Southside Route reignited some questions in my head.  It seems to be conventional opinion that I-87 was supposed to follow the Southside Route to exit 23, but I'm not sure that's true.  The proposed interchange (http://www.capitalhighways.mysite.com/cgi-bin/i/highways/m-ca/map.jpg) to tie into I-787 and the Mid-Crosstown appears to have no provisions at all for connecting it to the Thruway.  Moreover, the Ultimate Highway Network map (https://nysroads.com/planned.php) (bottom of page) uses the same design and has the Thruway labeled as I-87, and doesn't show anything else that would tie the route in, except via the overlap with I-90 that exists in real life, unless perhaps something would have been worked into the Southside/NY 85 interchange (not depicted for whatever reason).  Does anyone know anything more about how this would have fit together?
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 15, 2021, 11:52:20 AM
AFAIK, the transition I-87 would have used was never fully defined.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2021, 11:53:02 AM
Are they still planning to downgrade Interstate 787 into an at-grade boulevard, or removing a portion of it? If Interstate 787 is maintained, I would suggest modifying the southern terminus so Interstate 787 doesn't have to exit to access the Interstate 87/New York State Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 15, 2021, 12:13:04 PM
Are they still planning to downgrade Interstate 787 into an at-grade boulevard, or removing a portion of it? If Interstate 787 is maintained, I would suggest modifying the southern terminus so Interstate 787 doesn't have to exit to access the Interstate 87/New York State Thruway.
787 is not going anywhere at this point, but there is a rabid urbanist crowd blaming all the city problems on 787.
While this is a pipe dream for Albany, this is their main point:
https://i.redd.it/m61dwhwu4tx71.jpg
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 15, 2021, 12:51:00 PM
Are they still planning to downgrade Interstate 787 into an at-grade boulevard, or removing a portion of it? If Interstate 787 is maintained, I would suggest modifying the southern terminus so Interstate 787 doesn't have to exit to access the Interstate 87/New York State Thruway.

787 is staying for a while. Even the very pro-transit MPO is against tearing it down. Part of it is because the entire downtown freeway system was *just* rehabbed and will be good for another 30-40 years. Aside from a very vocal small group of people who believe that ripping out 787 will magically bring the city back, there isn't much desire to remove it.

2019 AADT through downtown was in the area of 40-45k, a large portion of that being commuters to the various state office complexes or trucks serving the port. There's also the little issue of an elevated rail line running down the median and 787 being part of the city's flood protection system. Note that 787 through downtown was built on a railyard and port facilities.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 15, 2021, 01:30:44 PM
I'm still waiting for the ramp park to be built in the I-787/US 9 interchange.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 15, 2021, 06:33:41 PM
2019 AADT through downtown was in the area of 40-45k, a large portion of that being commuters to the various state office complexes or trucks serving the port. There's also the little issue of an elevated rail line running down the median and 787 being part of the city's flood protection system. Note that 787 through downtown was built on a railyard and port facilities.

Many of these revitalized riverfronts are reclaimed railroad/wharf/industrial areas; in fact, I'd even extend that to a lot of the preserved open spaces away from the waterfront, too. Whatever value one places on these passive recreation areas, it's worth noting that that, in itself, is another new use, not usually a reversion to an earlier use.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 15, 2021, 07:07:10 PM
I'm still waiting for the ramp park to be built in the I-787/US 9 interchange.
I-787/US 9 could probably be downgraded to a diamond interchange (or variant thereof) and free up some nice land.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 15, 2021, 07:20:07 PM
I'm still waiting for the ramp park to be built in the I-787/US 9 interchange.
I-787/US 9 could probably be downgraded to a diamond interchange (or variant thereof) and free up some nice land.
I don't think there is such thing as nice land in Albany - or in city centers of nearby cities.
If you want to get a flavor of it, look up the saga of 1 Monument square in Troy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 15, 2021, 08:15:41 PM
I'm still waiting for the ramp park to be built in the I-787/US 9 interchange.
I-787/US 9 could probably be downgraded to a diamond interchange (or variant thereof) and free up some nice land.
Oh, and one thing to keep in mind about that interchange:
Hudson is a navigable river at that point, so Dunn bridge (Rt. 9) has 60' vertical clearance above the channel (in high tide, I assume, and yes - Hudson is tidal in Albany)
if you look at the other side of the river, there is seemingly meaningless 360 deg ramp to the bridge. It is actually a descent ramp.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on November 15, 2021, 08:49:12 PM
Oh, and one thing to keep in mind about that interchange:
Hudson is a navigable river at that point, so Dunn bridge (Rt. 9) has 60' vertical clearance above the channel (in high tide, I assume, and yes - Hudson is tidal in Albany)
if you look at the other side of the river, there is seemingly meaningless 360 deg ramp to the bridge. It is actually a descent ramp.

I believe technically, it's not a river south of Troy, it's a tidal estuary (as is the East River which is even less of a river). More specifically, it appears to be a "drowned river valley" type of estuary.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 15, 2021, 08:58:03 PM
Oh, and one thing to keep in mind about that interchange:
Hudson is a navigable river at that point, so Dunn bridge (Rt. 9) has 60' vertical clearance above the channel (in high tide, I assume, and yes - Hudson is tidal in Albany)
if you look at the other side of the river, there is seemingly meaningless 360 deg ramp to the bridge. It is actually a descent ramp.

I believe technically, it's not a river south of Troy, it's a tidal estuary (as is the East River which is even less of a river). More specifically, it appears to be a "drowned river valley" type of estuary.
It is, and in a sense I mentioned that when I referred to tides in Albany. but I believe the legal name for that body of water is still "Hudson River".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 15, 2021, 09:03:11 PM
I'm still waiting for the ramp park to be built in the I-787/US 9 interchange.
I-787/US 9 could probably be downgraded to a diamond interchange (or variant thereof) and free up some nice land.
Oh, and one thing to keep in mind about that interchange:
Hudson is a navigable river at that point, so Dunn bridge (Rt. 9) has 60' vertical clearance above the channel (in high tide, I assume, and yes - Hudson is tidal in Albany)
if you look at the other side of the river, there is seemingly meaningless 360 deg ramp to the bridge. It is actually a descent ramp.
I am talking about the northern interchange at Clinton Ave.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on November 15, 2021, 10:17:00 PM
It is, and in a sense I mentioned that when I referred to tides in Albany. but I believe the legal name for that body of water is still "Hudson River".

Of course. But lots of things have names that are not or at least no longer correct for them now that we know more about them.

To bring this back to roads, I remember someone not quite getting it when he found out that my grandparent's upstate NY summer home was on a street named Lake Parkway. It was a one-lane unpaved dead-end road but as soon as he heard Parkway, assumed normal NYS parkway rules as in "how can you have a house on a parkway" and "how do commercial vehicles get to the house if it's on a parkway."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 16, 2021, 12:30:23 AM
I'm still waiting for the ramp park to be built in the I-787/US 9 interchange.
I-787/US 9 could probably be downgraded to a diamond interchange (or variant thereof) and free up some nice land.
Oh, and one thing to keep in mind about that interchange:
Hudson is a navigable river at that point, so Dunn bridge (Rt. 9) has 60' vertical clearance above the channel (in high tide, I assume, and yes - Hudson is tidal in Albany)
if you look at the other side of the river, there is seemingly meaningless 360 deg ramp to the bridge. It is actually a descent ramp.
Ya know, I was thinking of US 9/I-90. Don't mind me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 16, 2021, 01:50:33 AM
I noticed the error on the previous sign at the 287 exit from 95 south was carried over onto the new signage. The sign is completely missing an I-287 shield and only references Cross Westchester Expressway
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MASTERNC on November 16, 2021, 08:51:35 AM
I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.
This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Don't you know the answer?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.

But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.


Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
I got my Maryland one away back when they did not charge service fees (they do now) I did have a MTA toll tag but I can’t find it plus I used to live in NJ so the replenish amount was almost around $300 I ended up paying in cash or getting billed by plate.

When I first moved to Maryland, I also had a MD pass.  I also dropped it when they started imposing the monthly fee.  I was able to get a MTA tag, which doesn't charge a monthly fee.  [That is usually hard to get as an out-of-state resident, since they try to push the PANYNJ tags which do charge a monthly fee.  I was able to get one by using  my sister's NY address and then later changing it to my billing address.]

Once Larry Hogan became governor of MD, he put in place several motorist friendly provisions like reducing tolls and ending the monthly fee on EZ-Pass by executive order.  Even though MD's EZ-Pass is now free of the monthly fee, I decided to keep my MTA pass, since it is easy for a new governor to simply re-impose the fee in MD, but in NY the fee cannot be imposed without new legislation.  I do take advantage of the lower fees with a NY EZ-Pass when I am in the NY area, but I have to pay the out-of-state rates when crossing the toll bridges in MD.


https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-items/e-zpass-everyone



Maryland's E-ZPass still has a monthly fee if you don't have a MD address and don't have 3 Maryland toll transactions in a month.  I have the Hatem Bridge E-ZPass ($20/yr, only works on that bridge) on top of my New York one, because that crossing is the largest single toll on my drive between Baltimore/DC and Philadelphia.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 16, 2021, 02:22:19 PM


I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.
This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Don't you know the answer?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.

But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.


Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
I got my Maryland one away back when they did not charge service fees (they do now) I did have a MTA toll tag but I can’t find it plus I used to live in NJ so the replenish amount was almost around $300 I ended up paying in cash or getting billed by plate.

When I first moved to Maryland, I also had a MD pass.  I also dropped it when they started imposing the monthly fee.  I was able to get a MTA tag, which doesn't charge a monthly fee.  [That is usually hard to get as an out-of-state resident, since they try to push the PANYNJ tags which do charge a monthly fee.  I was able to get one by using  my sister's NY address and then later changing it to my billing address.]

Once Larry Hogan became governor of MD, he put in place several motorist friendly provisions like reducing tolls and ending the monthly fee on EZ-Pass by executive order.  Even though MD's EZ-Pass is now free of the monthly fee, I decided to keep my MTA pass, since it is easy for a new governor to simply re-impose the fee in MD, but in NY the fee cannot be imposed without new legislation.  I do take advantage of the lower fees with a NY EZ-Pass when I am in the NY area, but I have to pay the out-of-state rates when crossing the toll bridges in MD.


https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-items/e-zpass-everyone



Maryland's E-ZPass still has a monthly fee if you don't have a MD address and don't have 3 Maryland toll transactions in a month.  I have the Hatem Bridge E-ZPass ($20/yr, only works on that bridge) on top of my New York one, because that crossing is the largest single toll on my drive between Baltimore/DC and Philadelphia.

Why do you have to take the Hatem?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 16, 2021, 04:57:43 PM
My father still uses his PANYNJ EZ-Pass when he needs one because he's ok with the monthly fee and feels that having the bi-state one benefits him. I personally still own my iPass from IL and use that instead of a NY one. Neither of us are that bothered by the transponder discrimination, though it would never hurt to stop that practice.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on November 16, 2021, 08:18:39 PM
Cross-posting this from another thread, regarding the intersection of NY 286 and Five Mile Line Road in Penfield:

intersection improvements at this intersection are now complete! There's new left turn lanes on all approaches and a southbound right turn lane. Sidewalks, crosswalks, and striping aren't quite finished yet, but functionally it's more or less complete, and it's about time! Now a much smoother experience than the previous shoulder-bumping stop-and-go slugfest.
I was in that area today. Looks really nice there.

In addition the new signals they installed there (which as of today are not yet in operation) appears to have video detection cameras installed in addition to the surveillance cameras. If that is the case that will be a first intersection with video detection at least in the Rochester area as far as I know. We'll see how that works out when we have a heavy snow fall.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:41:53 PM
Maryland's E-ZPass still has a monthly fee if you don't have a MD address and don't have 3 Maryland toll transactions in a month.  I have the Hatem Bridge E-ZPass ($20/yr, only works on that bridge) on top of my New York one, because that crossing is the largest single toll on my drive between Baltimore/DC and Philadelphia.
Why do you have to take the Hatem?
Doesn't the Hatem have a good commuter plan that makes it significantly cheaper than I-95 for frequent travelers?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 16, 2021, 10:22:15 PM
Maryland's E-ZPass still has a monthly fee if you don't have a MD address and don't have 3 Maryland toll transactions in a month.  I have the Hatem Bridge E-ZPass ($20/yr, only works on that bridge) on top of my New York one, because that crossing is the largest single toll on my drive between Baltimore/DC and Philadelphia.
Why do you have to take the Hatem?
Doesn't the Hatem have a good commuter plan that makes it significantly cheaper than I-95 for frequent travelers?
Is it $20/yr for unlimited use?  I suppose as long as you drive up that way at least three times a year, it's a deal with a time cost.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 17, 2021, 09:55:49 PM
Region 10 seems to be doing the Connecticut thing where they are eliminating overhead signs and replacing them with ground mounted ones. There are a few examples of this on Northern Parkway by Exits 37-37A and 44-45 and Sunken Meadow Parkway by Exit SM1. A handful of the overhead gore signs on Sunrise Highway are now ground mounted or missing entirely.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 17, 2021, 10:14:42 PM
I noticed that today at Exit 37A eastbound on N.S. Pkwy. There is now both an overhead and ground mounted sign for 1/4 mile.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 18, 2021, 02:05:33 AM
I noticed that today at Exit 37A eastbound on N.S. Pkwy. There is now both an overhead and ground mounted sign for 1/4 mile.

It baffles me why they even did that since the overhead signs arent even that old, they were put in around 2012-2013 when NYSDOT basically wiped out all the button copy on the parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on November 18, 2021, 10:12:15 AM
Cross-posting this from another thread, regarding the intersection of NY 286 and Five Mile Line Road in Penfield:

intersection improvements at this intersection are now complete! There's new left turn lanes on all approaches and a southbound right turn lane. Sidewalks, crosswalks, and striping aren't quite finished yet, but functionally it's more or less complete, and it's about time! Now a much smoother experience than the previous shoulder-bumping stop-and-go slugfest.
I was in that area today. Looks really nice there.

In addition the new signals they installed there (which as of today are not yet in operation) appears to have video detection cameras installed in addition to the surveillance cameras. If that is the case that will be a first intersection with video detection at least in the Rochester area as far as I know. We'll see how that works out when we have a heavy snow fall.
I was at this intersection this morning and the new signals are in operation. They have three section FYA (permissive only) signals for the left turns in all directions. Given the amount of traffic this area has during morning and afternoon rush hours they really should have four section FYA.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 18, 2021, 12:16:11 PM
Cross-posting this from another thread, regarding the intersection of NY 286 and Five Mile Line Road in Penfield:

intersection improvements at this intersection are now complete! There's new left turn lanes on all approaches and a southbound right turn lane. Sidewalks, crosswalks, and striping aren't quite finished yet, but functionally it's more or less complete, and it's about time! Now a much smoother experience than the previous shoulder-bumping stop-and-go slugfest.
I was in that area today. Looks really nice there.

In addition the new signals they installed there (which as of today are not yet in operation) appears to have video detection cameras installed in addition to the surveillance cameras. If that is the case that will be a first intersection with video detection at least in the Rochester area as far as I know. We'll see how that works out when we have a heavy snow fall.
I was at this intersection this morning and the new signals are in operation. They have three section FYA (permissive only) signals for the left turns in all directions. Given the amount of traffic this area has during morning and afternoon rush hours they really should have four section FYA.

Nice! I actually just looped back to this thread to say that you were a day too soon with your last post!  :D

New signals must have gone up at some point yesterday as they were up last evening. No protected phase as of now, but as you note they do have the FYA's, I would guess that's to allow for a future protected phase.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 18, 2021, 12:45:31 PM
Region 10 seems to be doing the Connecticut thing where they are eliminating overhead signs and replacing them with ground mounted ones. There are a few examples of this on Northern Parkway by Exits 37-37A and 44-45 and Sunken Meadow Parkway by Exit SM1. A handful of the overhead gore signs on Sunrise Highway are now ground mounted or missing entirely.
Region 2 has been doing that the past few years as well.

I noticed that today at Exit 37A eastbound on N.S. Pkwy. There is now both an overhead and ground mounted sign for 1/4 mile.

It baffles me why they even did that since the overhead signs arent even that old, they were put in around 2012-2013 when NYSDOT basically wiped out all the button copy on the parkway.
That triangle-style gantry is an older design.  They likely re-used it when replacing the signs; it might be getting to the end of its life.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2021, 02:15:48 PM
Ground-mounted signs are cheaper than overheads, so it makes perfect sense if the gantry needs to be replaced anyway and there aren't too many lanes. Most states don't have MA's fetish for overhead signs.

Tons of gantries have come down statewide in the past decade or so without replacement, many of which were unnecessary. A few more are coming down within the next year or two. Overheads aren't needed unless you have a lane drop, 2+ exits in quick succession, or a ton of lanes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 18, 2021, 04:45:55 PM
NYSDOT's getting too carried away with this idea of eliminating overhead signs. In the case I cited above at Exit 37A, eastbound on the Northern State Pkwy, the new 1/4 mile sign is just beyond the gore sign for Exit 37. It's absurdly too close. The Manual used to recommend at least an 800 ft. distance between signs, but I don't see that in the 2009 Manual.

I've noticed in the past that Region-10 sometimes bends the signing rules on the Long Island Parkways. I'm guessing they figure that on these sometimes only two lane (each way) parkways with no big trucks on the road, that a slightly lower level of signing might be acceptable compared to a typical freeway carrying a lot of truck traffic. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 18, 2021, 05:18:39 PM
Ground-mounted signs are cheaper than overheads, so it makes perfect sense if the gantry needs to be replaced anyway and there aren't too many lanes. Most states don't have MA's fetish for overhead signs.

Tons of gantries have come down statewide in the past decade or so without replacement, many of which were unnecessary. A few more are coming down within the next year or two. Overheads aren't needed unless you have a lane drop, 2+ exits in quick succession, or a ton of lanes.

A few years ago Interstate 790 in Utica was shut down as an emergency and the overhead signs were taken down because the structures were failing inspection. Region 2 has removed a lot of overhead signs that were installed in the late 1980s and gone with ground mounts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 18, 2021, 08:35:16 PM
Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 18, 2021, 08:41:20 PM
Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
Uptown state office campus is still there...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2021, 09:06:33 PM
Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

This happens every few years. It's a case of "I'll believe it when I see it". There's also the little problem of needing movable bridges over the Hudson at the heights they're proposing. I don't see 787 going anywhere anytime soon. Developers want it because gentrification increases land values.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on November 18, 2021, 09:38:05 PM
Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

This happens every few years. It's a case of "I'll believe it when I see it". There's also the little problem of needing movable bridges over the Hudson at the heights they're proposing. I don't see 787 going anywhere anytime soon. Developers want it because gentrification increases land values.

Fucking downtown real estate developers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 18, 2021, 10:52:35 PM
Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
Uptown state office campus is still there...
Wut?

Campus is far away from I-787.

Last time I was in Corning Preserve, it was carpeted in litter and trash.  Turning the whole area into a park per the rendering...yeesh.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 19, 2021, 03:22:09 AM
Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
Uptown state office campus is still there...
Wut?

Campus is far away from I-787.

Last time I was in Corning Preserve, it was carpeted in litter and trash.  Turning the whole area into a park per the rendering...yeesh.
I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 19, 2021, 04:11:20 AM
Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
Uptown state office campus is still there...
Wut?

Campus is far away from I-787.

Last time I was in Corning Preserve, it was carpeted in litter and trash.  Turning the whole area into a park per the rendering...yeesh.
I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.
The desertion of the campus happened a long time before Cuomo.  NYSDOT moved to its current location (also far away from I-787) in about 2004, if not earlier.

How does the campus tie into the proposal for I-787?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 19, 2021, 06:25:20 AM
Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
Uptown state office campus is still there...
Wut?

Campus is far away from I-787.

Last time I was in Corning Preserve, it was carpeted in litter and trash.  Turning the whole area into a park per the rendering...yeesh.
I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.
The desertion of the campus happened a long time before Cuomo.  NYSDOT moved to its current location (also far away from I-787) in about 2004, if not earlier.

How does the campus tie into the proposal for I-787?
I suspect that if 787 is ever removed, Albany would see a lot of things shifting out of downtown. State facilities are the biggest thing there. WFH, uptown campus, maybe new locations in Saratoga county?
I wonder what is the service life of all those high rises anyway - plaza and around it. If a lot of road structures from the era gets to the limit....
My impression is that 787 removal crowd would eventually win - but beware of what you want, you may get it
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 19, 2021, 06:59:07 AM
Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
Uptown state office campus is still there...
Wut?

Campus is far away from I-787.

Last time I was in Corning Preserve, it was carpeted in litter and trash.  Turning the whole area into a park per the rendering...yeesh.
I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.
The desertion of the campus happened a long time before Cuomo.  NYSDOT moved to its current location (also far away from I-787) in about 2004, if not earlier.

How does the campus tie into the proposal for I-787?
I suspect that if 787 is ever removed, Albany would see a lot of things shifting out of downtown. State facilities are the biggest thing there. WFH, uptown campus, maybe new locations in Saratoga county?
I wonder what is the service life of all those high rises anyway - plaza and around it. If a lot of road structures from the era gets to the limit....
My impression is that 787 removal crowd would eventually win - but beware of what you want, you may get it
I don't think so.  I am sure access to downtown will be preserved somehow of this thing actually happens.

Makes me wonder about the Port, though, and the more industrial sector in the south end.  I'd imagine they'd be against it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 19, 2021, 07:53:20 AM
I suspect that if 787 is ever removed, Albany would see a lot of things shifting out of downtown. State facilities are the biggest thing there. WFH, uptown campus, maybe new locations in Saratoga county?
I wonder what is the service life of all those high rises anyway - plaza and around it. If a lot of road structures from the era gets to the limit....
My impression is that 787 removal crowd would eventually win - but beware of what you want, you may get it
I don't think so.  I am sure access to downtown will be preserved somehow of this thing actually happens.

Makes me wonder about the Port, though, and the more industrial sector in the south end.  I'd imagine they'd be against it.
Would be hard to find an un(der)used ROW in Albany. And given the project would be pretty expensive - probably above the I-81 one - there will be no extras included. I don't expect any new river crossings nor major tunnels.
So, I assume we're talking replacement of 100k+ highway with the 40k-capable boulevard. Half of that capacity will be plaza commuters, and that would be an upfront disaster.

Port area would likely retain a stub of 787, and will be sending traffic to Thruway mostly. Maybe a stub all the way to Dunn bridge.   

So I would expect plaza to be demoted, traffic circulation becoming even worse.
Two ways from there - gentrification in gated WFH communities, supplied mostly via deliveries; or detroitization. Either way Alice Green would hate it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 19, 2021, 12:47:14 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't be too optimistic about I-787 staying over the long haul.  Sure, as they laid out there are issues (the most notable of which is the Dunn being too low for a fixed span over a navigable river; they also severed the connection to US 9 and 20, which I would think would be an issue given how major that road it, and there's also the lack of direct access to Empire State Plaza), but those can be worked on, and momentum for freeway removals has only been growing over time nation-wide.  We're essentially looking at a second, larger, freeway revolt.  In fact, one of the reasons the progressives were willing to block the hard infrastructure bill was because they did not like how it preserves the status quo and doesn't go as far as they would like to transform our infrastructure away from cars in favor of bikes and transit; for them, opposing the bill wasn't just a tactic to get the soft infrastructure bill that they really wanted, it was their actual position because, in their view, letting the hard infrastructure bill pass at all was itself a compromise, one they were only willing to make to get the soft infrastructure bill through.

Specific to I-787, a boulevard would count as "access" as far as supporters of removing I-787 are concerned.  It's also worth noting that the AADT along I-787 south of I-90 is already well under 100k for the most part.  Yes, it's 90k immediately south of I-90, but it drops to 42k south US 9 (exit 4B).  It shows as 61k south of the Dunn and 47k south of the Port (and only 30k to the Thruway).  To the extent that removing I-787 as a freeway would move freight to the Thruway, it would probably be viewed as a good thing, especially if exit 2 remains as-is, because that would also make it more difficult for freight to go through the public housing (exit 2 drops traffic to/from the north right there, but traffic to/from the Thruway and US 9W go to Green Street instead).

Honestly, I don't see why getting rid of the circle stack would require removing I-787 entirely, especially since that seems to be the main complaint.  If the interchange were replaced with something smaller, it would solve a lot of issues, both in terms of accessibility through the interchange for bicycles and pedestrians, and in terms of the fiscal costs to keep those ramps maintained.  That interchange is massively overbuilt for the traffic it actually carries, and the South Mall doesn't really need to exist as it does given that it was never completed and never will be.  That could easily be made into a boulevard.  If I had my way, we'd boulevard the South Mall, replace the circle stack with something smaller (as much as the roadgeek in my loves it), and keep I-787 an interstate.

It's also worth noting how these freeway removals can sneak up on us.  A decade ago, nobody thought I-81 was going to come down, and now it's practically inevitable.  And the Inner Loop went from looking like it would never go away until three months before it was shut down.  I wouldn't have even had a chance to say goodbye if Buffalo hadn't gotten seven feet of snow dropped on it, preventing the demolition equipment from getting to Rochester before Thanksgiving.

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

This happens every few years. It's a case of "I'll believe it when I see it". There's also the little problem of needing movable bridges over the Hudson at the heights they're proposing. I don't see 787 going anywhere anytime soon. Developers want it because gentrification increases land values.
I expect it will happen at some point.  If not in the near term, eventually I-787 is going to come due for major work again, and it's going to be hard to argue with this much more organized front, barring a massive political shift in favor of cars.

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
Uptown state office campus is still there...
Wut?

Campus is far away from I-787.

Last time I was in Corning Preserve, it was carpeted in litter and trash.  Turning the whole area into a park per the rendering...yeesh.
I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.
The desertion of the campus happened a long time before Cuomo.  NYSDOT moved to its current location (also far away from I-787) in about 2004, if not earlier.

How does the campus tie into the proposal for I-787?
Region 1 too.  It moved from its original location at 84 Holland Ave to Schenectady for a few years before Cuomo moved us in with Main Office.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 19, 2021, 12:59:29 PM
If I had my way, we'd boulevard the South Mall, replace the circle stack with something smaller (as much as the roadgeek in my loves it), and keep I-787 an interstate.

I'm drawn to this particular quote, because I've long considered this general area of highway engineering to be the "flagship" of the state's roadway system (and that it's overbuilt probably has a lot to do with that perception). But I've also lived enough years and seen enough changes–to anything and everything that would once have felt permanent to me–that I can't really view any given proposal as intrinsically wrong or right. It really just depends on what can be made from it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 19, 2021, 01:00:18 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't be too optimistic about I-787 staying over the long haul.  Sure, as they laid out there are issues (the most notable of which is the Dunn being too low for a fixed span over a navigable river; they also severed the connection to US 9 and 20, which I would think would be an issue given how major that road it, and there's also the lack of direct access to Empire State Plaza), but those can be worked on, and momentum for freeway removals has only been growing over time nation-wide.  We're essentially looking at a second, larger, freeway revolt.  In fact, one of the reasons the progressives were willing to block the hard infrastructure bill was because they did not like how it preserves the status quo and doesn't go as far as they would like to transform our infrastructure away from cars in favor of bikes and transit; for them, opposing the bill wasn't just a tactic to get the soft infrastructure bill that they really wanted, it was their actual position because, in their view, letting the hard infrastructure bill pass at all was itself a compromise, one they were only willing to make to get the soft infrastructure bill through.

Bridges within Albany area are fairly consistent:
Dunn - 60'
Patroon island (I90) 60'
Troy-Manands Bridge    61’
Congress Bridge    55’
Collar City Bridge    61’

Green Island Lift Bridge and Albany RR Swing Bridge are lower
But my strong impression is that circular stack basically enables climb to 60 feet from the low river shore
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 19, 2021, 01:55:51 PM
Quote
Honestly, I don't see why getting rid of the circle stack would require removing I-787 entirely, especially since that seems to be the main complaint.  If the interchange were replaced with something smaller, it would solve a lot of issues, both in terms of accessibility through the interchange for bicycles and pedestrians, and in terms of the fiscal costs to keep those ramps maintained.  That interchange is massively overbuilt for the traffic it actually carries, and the South Mall doesn't really need to exist as it does given that it was never completed and never will be.  That could easily be made into a boulevard.  If I had my way, we'd boulevard the South Mall, replace the circle stack with something smaller (as much as the roadgeek in my loves it), and keep I-787 an interstate.

This with rerouting US 9 to follow NY 32 to its current alignment would probably be the best compromise to keep I-787 IMO.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on November 19, 2021, 06:22:30 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't be too optimistic about I-787 staying over the long haul.  Sure, as they laid out there are issues (the most notable of which is the Dunn being too low for a fixed span over a navigable river;

Why do you think it's too low? Bridges don't just get built over navigable waters without appropriate review and approval. If it were too low, the Army Corps of Engineers (I think that's who regulates this) would not have approved it. At worst, it just has to be as high as the lowest bridge or overhead obstruction downstream of it. Based on what kalvado posted, it's as high as other bridges in the area so even if it were higher, it would do no good.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on November 19, 2021, 07:04:08 PM
Why was the Hawthorne Circle Interchange built without ramps allowing traffic going NB on one parkway to go SB on another and vice versa? And has anyone proposed adding those missing movements?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 19, 2021, 07:17:50 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't be too optimistic about I-787 staying over the long haul.  Sure, as they laid out there are issues (the most notable of which is the Dunn being too low for a fixed span over a navigable river;

Why do you think it's too low? Bridges don't just get built over navigable waters without appropriate review and approval. If it were too low, the Army Corps of Engineers (I think that's who regulates this) would not have approved it. At worst, it just has to be as high as the lowest bridge or overhead obstruction downstream of it. Based on what kalvado posted, it's as high as other bridges in the area so even if it were higher, it would do no good.

She's talking about the replacement in the removal proposal, which involves a low-level bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on November 19, 2021, 07:25:09 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't be too optimistic about I-787 staying over the long haul.  Sure, as they laid out there are issues (the most notable of which is the Dunn being too low for a fixed span over a navigable river;

Why do you think it's too low? Bridges don't just get built over navigable waters without appropriate review and approval. If it were too low, the Army Corps of Engineers (I think that's who regulates this) would not have approved it. At worst, it just has to be as high as the lowest bridge or overhead obstruction downstream of it. Based on what kalvado posted, it's as high as other bridges in the area so even if it were higher, it would do no good.

She's talking about the replacement in the removal proposal, which involves a low-level bridge.
I misunderstood. Thanks.

I just took a look at that idea. I had to laugh at the picture of sailboats along with them depicting low bridges both for the Dunn and the Livingston Ave. railroad bridge (in a style that is totally unsuitable for trains due to their weight - railroad bridges may look massively overbuilt but they aren’t.


iPad
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 19, 2021, 07:26:12 PM
Hopefully 787 is kept but I don’t see why removing the circle would make that much of a difference if it is kept.

Edit: I haven’t even been to Albany so I’m not familiar with how useful this road is but why keep it an interstate all the way to the circle and then downgrade it to a boulevard north of it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 19, 2021, 08:23:29 PM
Why was the Hawthorne Circle Interchange built without ramps allowing traffic going NB on one parkway to go SB on another and vice versa? And has anyone proposed adding those missing movements?

My guess would be that the amount of traffic projected to be making those movements was so low that it did not justify the additional expense of building those ramps.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 19, 2021, 09:09:32 PM
Quote
Honestly, I don't see why getting rid of the circle stack would require removing I-787 entirely, especially since that seems to be the main complaint.  If the interchange were replaced with something smaller, it would solve a lot of issues, both in terms of accessibility through the interchange for bicycles and pedestrians, and in terms of the fiscal costs to keep those ramps maintained.  That interchange is massively overbuilt for the traffic it actually carries, and the South Mall doesn't really need to exist as it does given that it was never completed and never will be.  That could easily be made into a boulevard.  If I had my way, we'd boulevard the South Mall, replace the circle stack with something smaller (as much as the roadgeek in my loves it), and keep I-787 an interstate.

This with rerouting US 9 to follow NY 32 to its current alignment would probably be the best compromise to keep I-787 IMO.
That was actually looked at as part of the Skyway project.  For whatever reason the City of Albany didn't want US 9 to move there, so US 9 NB snakes along Quay Street, Water Street, Orange Street, and Broadway instead.

Hopefully 787 is kept but I don’t see why removing the circle would make that much of a difference if it is kept.

Edit: I haven’t even been to Albany so I’m not familiar with how useful this road is but why keep it an interstate all the way to the circle and then downgrade it to a boulevard north of it?
The complaints are basically about the circle stack and wanting more connections to the park.  South of there is the Port of Albany.  Not much demand to walk or bike there.  It's worth noting however that the proposal does indeed rip out the freeway south of the circle too; there's a light at Green Street.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on November 21, 2021, 02:21:08 PM
Question, I pass by this interchange a lot, why not slap a 684 shield on here?


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1074535,-73.7990098,3a,18.1y,322.38h,92.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREsmA_5BmuYt0ZVurPAFeQ!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 21, 2021, 04:44:41 PM
Question, I pass by this interchange a lot, why not slap a 684 shield on here?


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1074535,-73.7990098,3a,18.1y,322.38h,92.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREsmA_5BmuYt0ZVurPAFeQ!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192


Similar with the following...
The new sign on the new 2-lane ramp to I-287 at the I-95/I-287 interchange in Port Chester just says "Cross Westchester Expwy" with no I-287 shield.  It's a carbon copy of the original signage. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 21, 2021, 07:38:03 PM
So it looks like the latest effort to remove I-787 is definitely gaining attention.  It was in the main block of stories on the local news tonight.  It definitely feels like a bigger push than prior efforts that I've seen - other than the MPO study a few years back (which basically recommended "stick with the status quo with targeted improvements until it comes due for replacement"), it's basically just been letters to the editor, internet comments, and opinion pieces prior to now.

https://www.news10.com/video/the-albany-waterfront-collaborative/7171992/

What's interested in that the Skyway project only seems to have increased the appetite for removing I-787, when a (now retired) manager in Region 1 assumed that improving bike/ped access to the river would diffuse the whole thing and make the push to remove I-787 go away.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 21, 2021, 11:11:50 PM
What a bona fide opinion.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 22, 2021, 08:26:21 PM
I found another example today of Region-10 eliminating overhead sign gantries and replacing with (in this case) really cheezy looking ground mounted signs more suitable for local roads than a six-lane divided state highway with signalized intersections. NY 25, Jericho Tpk in Old Westbury, westbound at the NY 25B split.

Overhead signs there for the last fifty years now gone. The original button-copy signs from the 1968 road widening had been replaced some years ago, but I believe it was a fifty-year old triangular-truss gantry.

I figure it'll take about one winter season for all the new ground-mounted signs to get knocked down. They're only built on thin metal stanchions, not the beams usually used for large BGS's. Just like NYS DOT's traffic-signal back-plates that fall away after a few years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 22, 2021, 08:53:52 PM
I found another example today of Region-10 eliminating overhead sign gantries and replacing with (in this case) really cheezy looking ground mounted signs more suitable for local roads than a six-lane divided state highway with signalized intersections. NY 25, Jericho Tpk in Old Westbury, westbound at the NY 25B split.

Overhead signs there for the last fifty years now gone. The original button-copy signs from the 1968 road widening had been replaced some years ago, but I believe it was a fifty-year old triangular-truss gantry.

I figure it'll take about one winter season for all the new ground-mounted signs to get knocked down. They're only built on thin metal stanchions, not the beams usually used for large BGS's. NYS DOT at their short-sighted best, just like with their traffic-signal back-plates that fall away after a few years.
Sounds like a temporary sign that was put down because the overhead sign structure failed inspection (you really don't want those falling onto traffic).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 22, 2021, 09:06:24 PM
You might be right vdeane. Not just one sign though. A set of four, two on each side, some distance apart. If they are temporary, it'll be interesting to see if a new sign gantry is built or just more permanent looking ground-mounted signs.

And I agree, we wouldn't want fifty-year old gantries falling into the road. Interestingly, another old triangular gantry about a quarter-mile before this one, was replaced some years ago with a new box-truss gantry. Don't now why they didn't do both of them at the same time..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on December 02, 2021, 07:30:21 PM
Exploring one of the rural roads in Upstate New York with a very interesting history, the Pre-Emption Road in places like Yates and Ontario Counties. It's not often that you come across a random road based on an 18th Century surveying line.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/finding-pre-emption-road-of-new-york.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/finding-pre-emption-road-of-new-york.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 02, 2021, 09:22:14 PM
Exploring one of the rural roads in Upstate New York with a very interesting history, the Pre-Emption Road in places like Yates and Ontario Counties. It's not often that you come across a random road based on an 18th Century surveying line.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/finding-pre-emption-road-of-new-york.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/finding-pre-emption-road-of-new-york.html)

Yeah, that's a quirky one. Now do Transit Road!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: DJStephens on December 02, 2021, 11:02:10 PM
Question, I pass by this interchange a lot, why not slap a 684 shield on here?


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1074535,-73.7990098,3a,18.1y,322.38h,92.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREsmA_5BmuYt0ZVurPAFeQ!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Good question.  Amazing to view 50-55 year old concrete pavements, guard rail, and center rail still present, and in use.   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on December 02, 2021, 11:07:16 PM
Question, I pass by this interchange a lot, why not slap a 684 shield on here?


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1074535,-73.7990098,3a,18.1y,322.38h,92.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREsmA_5BmuYt0ZVurPAFeQ!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Good question.  Amazing to view 50-55 year old concrete pavements, guard rail, and center rail still present, and in use.   
Too easy😄 :wave: :bigass:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on December 03, 2021, 06:55:46 PM
Exploring one of the rural roads in Upstate New York with a very interesting history, the Pre-Emption Road in places like Yates and Ontario Counties. It's not often that you come across a random road based on an 18th Century surveying line.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/finding-pre-emption-road-of-new-york.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/finding-pre-emption-road-of-new-york.html)

Yeah, that's a quirky one. Now do Transit Road!

Googled Transit Road history quickly. There is some history to that road that I was unaware of. I might have to blog about that at some point in the future.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 03, 2021, 07:58:57 PM
Question, I pass by this interchange a lot, why not slap a 684 shield on here?


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1074535,-73.7990098,3a,18.1y,322.38h,92.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREsmA_5BmuYt0ZVurPAFeQ!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Good question.  Amazing to view 50-55 year old concrete pavements, guard rail, and center rail still present, and in use.   

Hard to believe that Taconic/Saw Mill Pkwy. interchange is now fifty years old. I remember when it was under construction circa 1970 and even before that driving through the old Hawthorne Traffic Circle that preceded it, with my parents in 1967.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on December 04, 2021, 10:01:30 PM
Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, a few days ago, I noticed NYSDOT installed a FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign getting on I-84 West from US 9 North in Fishkill. Or is it "the" 84 now? Lol. I noticed a similar PARKWAY ENTRANCE sign getting on the Saw Mill north from 9A near Hawthorne

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5fEbEX6Tvt0Pkmj1FH4rIqMwyEqIP3zzFAu_rynlMDt9S9WVvGjMUzvE1fp777aq_AT_Ma2cTg7oufNLls2T7g766E65u1BNbciSxszMtzDmbP_BFi3NDzvVzcb6T8OBZMFMFsI44xeJGnQDY5KCGs13JfXz9JVZ2BUAz5pzzHwkJxroyXowbInHaFjs8J_mOJXaan0uZOTI7XbzX7AYN4de-fMpOVwLaGVT60qoh0OJVsIorU2BghiBZR7Yq3aZIWOFRT5lTo472YooaFBlDVxubL8LbYO_RO7xp_i34ORGgjarXW7s95N0qPkTza8Zb0AynTCB6Cn1dZyYOo-LYOv_uq1_shvEpVKAVFBFOlsiAsjY_PK2v2zMLfpWwYUdXPmFWmTS-0jXWxXG3lmwII85GgWk1SL7tHU5zvC9t7rpN8GW2k3nYJk4dk5ybkAWNXvvUFbPu82KyfnXiCwDgok2FB9JmckxpzHa-HVCs-URFQ12q7piAH_FeGsVAkqW32KfjnDbwKcn3MmX_vbY6Js8W9QFU8mUajzBbHxGD73LTsg_K-4jZ48A-1-q9CFfvVgt_O2qTwAr9OKM8pL2Mg8KLlJy6P57pgOv5Ks3KjIJzEgeM6mwSIHsSWanP4EKJ99hPCTJMwl95EorJ_8VWOMlgxkwfS_hTkkjVDdp8g5lEGA1A0zd1-uooFG-u3NmkP7fmdB4vNVm1vlfGHXiNHZiiw=w1156-h867-no?authuser=0)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 04, 2021, 10:16:38 PM
LOL!.......Yeah, "the 84". I like that; very Californian, like the sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 04, 2021, 10:35:02 PM
Weird, I'll have to show my Californian wife. ;-) I wonder if there's one going the other direction?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 04, 2021, 11:43:38 PM
Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, a few days ago, I noticed NYSDOT installed a FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign getting on I-84 West from US 9 North in Fishkill. Or is it "the" 84 now? Lol. I noticed a similar PARKWAY ENTRANCE sign getting on the Saw Mill north from 9A near Hawthorne

either the image has been taken down or i'm hated by google
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on December 05, 2021, 12:17:29 AM
Can tell you now it's not just a region 8 thing. Have seen similar signs at I-990/North French Rd and NY 400/NY 277 within the past month or so.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on December 05, 2021, 07:55:55 AM
Speaking of signs on NYS roads, this 2-yo article may be of interest (I don't have time to read the whole thing now)...

https://thegate.boardingarea.com/why-this-highway-sign-in-new-york-was-controversial/

Have those signs been replaced?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 05, 2021, 08:42:32 AM
Can tell you now it's not just a region 8 thing. Have seen similar signs at I-990/North French Rd and NY 400/NY 277 within the past month or so.
Yep.  NYSDOT is installing them around the entire state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on December 05, 2021, 09:43:34 AM
Region 3 has them on I-690, at least the western end.

I've also noticed a lot of "wrong way" arrows on off ramps, lately.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on December 05, 2021, 09:52:12 AM
Yes, the new Exit 3 onramp for I-87 SB from Albany-Shaker has a "Freeway Entrance".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 05, 2021, 04:01:54 PM
Yes, freeway/expressway/parkway entrace signs are going up around the state, though locations like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1214716,-77.6496547,3a,34.1y,44.31h,87.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJojZwInmRpBoem1p7pmsYg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (which had "expressway entrance" signs installed after Google went through) are being prioritized.

Whether "freeway" or "expressway" is used seems to depend on Region.  Region 1 uses "freeway".  Region 2 used "expressway" initially (https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=ny49&state=NY&file=102_1250.JPG), but now seems to use "freeway" per street view (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1495638,-75.2931338,3a,15.1y,339.72h,89.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sU94aHEvW1ADxfezzTh-c0w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DU94aHEvW1ADxfezzTh-c0w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D170.38211%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).  Region 4 uses "expressway".  I haven't observed the ones in other regions.

Speaking of signs on NYS roads, this 2-yo article may be of interest (I don't have time to read the whole thing now)...

https://thegate.boardingarea.com/why-this-highway-sign-in-new-york-was-controversial/

Have those signs been replaced?


Those signs actually have their own thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19147.0), though there hasn't been a post in that thread in the two years since the signs were modified under the terms of an agreement with FHWA to authorize them on an experimental basis.  The large signs were modified to change the "welcome to" font and replace the website and app with the region name and retained where they were in most locations.  The small signs were removed from the roads and relocated to welcome centers, rest areas, service areas, etc.  The Mohawk Valley and North Country regions are "control" regions; Mohawk Valley only has signs on the borders, and North Country has no signs at all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on December 05, 2021, 04:30:46 PM
Yes, freeway/expressway/parkway entrace signs are going up around the state, though locations like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1214716,-77.6496547,3a,34.1y,44.31h,87.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJojZwInmRpBoem1p7pmsYg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (which had "expressway entrance" signs installed after Google went through) are being prioritized.

Whether "freeway" or "expressway" is used seems to depend on Region.  Region 1 uses "freeway".  Region 2 used "expressway" initially (https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=ny49&state=NY&file=102_1250.JPG), but now seems to use "freeway" per street view (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1495638,-75.2931338,3a,15.1y,339.72h,89.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sU94aHEvW1ADxfezzTh-c0w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DU94aHEvW1ADxfezzTh-c0w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D170.38211%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).  Region 4 uses "expressway".  I haven't observed the ones in other regions.
Region 5 is also using expressway from what I noticed over Thanksgiving weekend.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on December 05, 2021, 09:47:39 PM
Darn, I don't mind the signs, but it would have been nice to see either "freeway" or "expressway" used consistently statewide. I'd prefer freeway personally, but value consistency over term.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 06, 2021, 07:05:48 AM
Darn, I don't mind the signs, but it would have been nice to see either "freeway" or "expressway" used consistently statewide. I'd prefer freeway personally, but value consistency over term.
I don't like the signs.  Trailblazers do well enough.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on December 06, 2021, 01:28:53 PM
Region 10 has their own version that just says ENTRANCE atop the trailblazer. https://goo.gl/maps/p7JutWnpTgj7Cz3h9
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on December 06, 2021, 02:45:07 PM
If we’re going to mock regional dialects, I want to complain about "pop" and "tennis shoes".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on December 06, 2021, 03:44:00 PM
Darn, I don't mind the signs, but it would have been nice to see either "freeway" or "expressway" used consistently statewide. I'd prefer freeway personally, but value consistency over term.
I don't like the signs.  Trailblazers do well enough.

They're totally unnecessary but I like them for the curiosity factor. At the I-84/US 9 interchange, only one entrance has that FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign. The other I-84 entrances are "exits" from US 9 and do not have the new signs. I'd want consistency with placement and terminology.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on December 06, 2021, 05:01:54 PM
Darn, I don't mind the signs, but it would have been nice to see either "freeway" or "expressway" used consistently statewide. I'd prefer freeway personally, but value consistency over term.

Eh, none of it is as egregious as this (https://goo.gl/maps/ZAWpVocq7xADWkjm9) in my mind. It should not be called a freeway when there is a traffic signal about 3/4 of a mile from this spot.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 06, 2021, 08:26:27 PM
I agree. A freeway is defined in the MUTCD as a divided highway with full control of access.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on December 06, 2021, 10:48:31 PM
what makes it even more confusing is you have the Nassau Expressway which isnt limited access like the others. Then theres the strange "Rockaway Freeway" down here in Queens.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 07, 2021, 04:36:12 PM
An expressway is defined in the Manual as a divided highway with partial control of access. (Sec. 1A-13, page 14) So Rockaway Freeway and Nassau Expressway are decidedly mis-named as both are really boulevards. LOL

Historical note: Nassau Expwy. was originally planned to be built as a controlled access highway, but was later changed to a boulevard I believe in response to community concerns. A real shame. Would have been good to have a freeway from the Atlantic Beach Bridge to the interchange of the Van Wyck Expwy. and the Belt Pkwy instead of having to use Rockaway Blvd/Tpke. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on December 07, 2021, 05:07:34 PM
An expressway is defined in the Manual as a divided highway with partial control of access. (Sec. 1A-13, page 14) So Rockaway Freeway and Nassau Expressway are decidedly mis-named as both are really boulevards. LOL

A good example of what seems to be proper naming is in Santa Clara County in the SF Bay Area where roads named Freeway have fully-controlled access and roads named Expressway are divided but have cross-streets controlled by traffic lights, ramp entrances and exits (both to major streets at grade separations as well as to side streets where the side street does not cross the expressway), and no private driveway access to businesses or residences.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on December 07, 2021, 06:11:03 PM
Then there is West Virginia that claims freeways on roads like US 48/Corridor H and US 119/Corridor G which have intersections and interchanges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on December 07, 2021, 09:28:31 PM
The Irondequoit Bay Outlet Bridge (or IBOB for short) is a bobtail swing truss bridge and is located at the north end of Irondequoit Bay, just outside of Rochester, New York. Yes, I blogged about it and uncovered more than I could have imagined.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/irondequoit-bay-outlet-bridge-monroe.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/irondequoit-bay-outlet-bridge-monroe.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on December 07, 2021, 09:52:29 PM
The Irondequoit Bay Outlet Bridge (or IBOB for short) is a bobtail swing truss bridge and is located at the north end of Irondequoit Bay, just outside of Rochester, New York. Yes, I blogged about it and uncovered more than I could have imagined.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/irondequoit-bay-outlet-bridge-monroe.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/irondequoit-bay-outlet-bridge-monroe.html)

Thanks for sharing! That's definitely one of the more unique road features in the Rochester area. The bridge is still open to pedestrians and connects to the pier when it's not in use as a road, so it's the rare road segment outside my neighborhood that I've walked more times than I've driven!  :)

I would certainly like to see an improved bridge that would allow for year-round vehicle crossings, or even just improved connectivity between NY 104 and Sea Breeze Drive (former NY 590). When the bridge is closed, you can literally hear and talk to people on the other side of the channel, yet they're a full 15 minutes away by road. Obviously most of the long terms solutions are expensive, but a direct connection from the Bay Bridge to Sea Breeze Drive (instead of having to backtrack on the much slower Culver Road) is needed anyways and would save five minutes or more while preserving the outlet bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 08, 2021, 12:40:40 AM
What was this building on US 219 near I-86/NY 17? '

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1510828,-78.7071389,3a,75y,259.04h,101.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spPQbrwGq5zzO7gpY-6oJxQ!2e0!5s20090801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1510828,-78.7071389,3a,75y,259.04h,101.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spPQbrwGq5zzO7gpY-6oJxQ!2e0!5s20090801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)

Was it transpotation related, or Allegheney State Park
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 08, 2021, 10:23:22 AM
What was this building on US 219 near I-86/NY 17? '

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1510828,-78.7071389,3a,75y,259.04h,101.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spPQbrwGq5zzO7gpY-6oJxQ!2e0!5s20090801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1510828,-78.7071389,3a,75y,259.04h,101.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spPQbrwGq5zzO7gpY-6oJxQ!2e0!5s20090801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)

Was it transpotation related, or Allegheney State Park

Hospital: https://www.health.ny.gov/facilities/hospital/docs/medical_records_from_closed_hospitals.pdf
(see p. 18)

EDIT: Better link - https://www.salamancapress.com/news/top-11-of-2011-no-2-salamanca-district-hospital-demolished/article_25bb4c0a-30b5-11e1-8a1e-001871e3ce6c.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on December 08, 2021, 10:40:03 PM
In New Smyrna Beach, FL you have Dixie Freeway which is the US 1 arterial through the city.
In Hutchinson, KS you have the Ken Kennedy Freeway that is an expressway segment of K-61 bypassing Downtown.

Its not just New York.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 11, 2021, 07:13:04 PM
Sign error on NY 22 in Patterson Township:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4930161,-73.5789152,3a,75y,243.89h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc-ZCmEI8M_Y-pacgsctxvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4930161,-73.5789152,3a,75y,243.89h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc-ZCmEI8M_Y-pacgsctxvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Isn't there another thread for this?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on December 11, 2021, 11:15:29 PM
Sign error on NY 22 in Patterson Township:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4930161,-73.5789152,3a,75y,243.89h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc-ZCmEI8M_Y-pacgsctxvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4930161,-73.5789152,3a,75y,243.89h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc-ZCmEI8M_Y-pacgsctxvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Isn't there another thread for this?



I'm wondering if New York is the state that struggles the most with U.S. and state route marker mix up. There's a lot of erroneous shields throughout the Empire State.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on December 12, 2021, 09:03:33 AM
this is true

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0566955,-73.7660377,3a,42.3y,180.81h,96.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRdmsGTiFEaZho0l7z98BJA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DRdmsGTiFEaZho0l7z98BJA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D200.4863%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 12, 2021, 05:28:29 PM
Time for a tour of I-390/NY 390 south.  Apologies for the photo quality - it was shortly after 8:00 AM on Black Friday when I went through there.

NY 390 south has arrow per lane signs approaching I-490.  Oddly enough, the last guide sign for exit 21 and the last guide sign for exit 20 on the mainline are on the same gantry.  Even exits 19 and 20 on I-81 (https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i81&state=NY&file=101_7386.JPG) don't do that.
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i390/102_2738-s.JPG)
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i390/102_2739-s.JPG)

On the new mainline itself, there are enhanced tenth mile markers.  The ramp from I-490 west was realigned to enter on the right of the new lanes and the Buffalo Road (NY 33) overpass was redone.
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i390/102_2740-s.JPG)
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i390/102_2741-s.JPG)
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i390/102_2742-s.JPG)

I-390 south was also widened to provide an auxiliary lane between exits 20 and 19.  The enhanced tenth mile markers continue through here.
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i390/102_2743-s.JPG)
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i390/102_2744-s.JPG)

The former roadway for NY 390/I-390 south is now used as a c/d road for exits 20 and 21.
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i390/102_2745-s.JPG)
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i390/102_2746-s.JPG)
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i390/102_2747-s.JPG)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 13, 2021, 12:08:17 AM
what makes it even more confusing is you have the Nassau Expressway which isnt limited access like the others. Then theres the strange "Rockaway Freeway" down here in Queens.
Nassau Expressway was supposed to be entirely a limited-access highway, but too many people forgot about this and they let developers build structures that got in the way of potential upgrades.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on December 13, 2021, 04:53:41 AM
this is true

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0566955,-73.7660377,3a,42.3y,180.81h,96.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRdmsGTiFEaZho0l7z98BJA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DRdmsGTiFEaZho0l7z98BJA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D200.4863%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

And a bit farther down the road, the street blade crew didn’t know what the heck kind of route it is, so they went with this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0556319,-73.7662376,3a,15y,139.34h,89.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbxvppdfUr1J8KbmbBjZPIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on December 17, 2021, 07:02:15 AM
Taking a hike along an old highway alignment of what was NY 10 south of Tupper Lake, New York. The route is now part of NY 30, and goes around the other side of the mountain. Part of the old road was turned into part of a hiking trail that goes up Goodman Mountain, named in memory of slain civil rights activist Andrew Goodman, who spent summers in the Tupper Lake area while growing up.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/old-ny-10-and-goodman-mountain-in.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/old-ny-10-and-goodman-mountain-in.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on December 18, 2021, 10:57:23 AM
^ The pavement on that trail looks better than that of a nearby still-active state route...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on December 19, 2021, 09:59:23 PM
they need to do something about the really bad weaving and merge of 95 and Pelham Parkway and Hutchison Parkway in The Bronx. If they used the extra room within the ROW of the pelham cloverleaf they could do those braided ramps you see in other states.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on December 21, 2021, 04:48:03 PM
they need to do something about the really bad weaving and merge of 95 and Pelham Parkway and Hutchison Parkway in The Bronx. If they used the extra room within the ROW of the pelham cloverleaf they could do those braided ramps you see in other states.


The only thing I've heard about it....https://www.bxtimes.com/state-reveals-backup-plan-i-95-north-improvements-to-end-bottleneck/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 21, 2021, 07:56:29 PM
they need to do something about the really bad weaving and merge of 95 and Pelham Parkway and Hutchison Parkway in The Bronx. If they used the extra room within the ROW of the pelham cloverleaf they could do those braided ramps you see in other states.

The only thing I've heard about it....https://www.bxtimes.com/state-reveals-backup-plan-i-95-north-improvements-to-end-bottleneck/



I still like the idea of extending the Bruckner Boulevard frontage roads to Baychester Avenue and Gun Hill Road with no access to either of the parkways.



Hey, I just discovered a link regarding the Long Island Motor Parkway and NY 25 in Westbury:
https://www.vanderbiltcupraces.com/blog/article/greg_os_garage_and_kleiners_korner_look_at_jericho_turnpike_then_now

Quote from: vanderbilt cup races
Some Newsday readers, like this June 15th, 1966 letter to Newsday provided by Art's Kleiner's Korner, even went so far to complain about the 'destruction of century-old trees [along Jericho]' and claim it to be 'another pork barrel for labor unions, contractors, and politicians'
Um, didn't they also destroy "century old trees" to make Motor Parkway?  Also, if the Long Island Expressway hadn't been built traffic would've been even worse, not better. The same goes for the widening of NY 25. And why is it "pork barrel for labor unions, contractors, and politicians" when these roads are built, but not when Motor Parkway was built?


Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 21, 2021, 08:39:22 PM
The widening thru Old Westbury (NOT Westbury) was done in 1967-68. It replaced the original road, a four-lane undivided state highway typical of the time it was built, probably the 1930's if I had to guess.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 23, 2021, 12:12:32 AM
they need to do something about the really bad weaving and merge of 95 and Pelham Parkway and Hutchison Parkway in The Bronx. If they used the extra room within the ROW of the pelham cloverleaf they could do those braided ramps you see in other states.


The only thing I've heard about it....https://www.bxtimes.com/state-reveals-backup-plan-i-95-north-improvements-to-end-bottleneck/

The project was scheduled to be let this fall; no idea if it actually happened. Expect construction to begin this spring.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 25, 2021, 11:14:00 PM
Historic Aerials has some evidence of NY 22B continuing past NY 3 in Morrisonville into Plattsburg towards NY 22. Anybody have any more details about this?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 26, 2021, 12:04:52 AM
Historic Aerials has some evidence of NY 22B continuing past NY 3 in Morrisonville into Plattsburg towards NY 22. Anybody have any more details about this?

IINM, 22B used to be concurrent with 3 [and 365] into downtown Plattsburgh. 22B was cut back at some point when NY was eliminating unnecessary concurrencies.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 29, 2021, 05:04:33 AM
I have noticed here in Region 5, several traffic signals have gotten reflective backplates over the past week. They're on US 20 and US 62.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on December 29, 2021, 12:04:56 PM
I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.
This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Don't you know the answer?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.

But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.


Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
I got my Maryland one away back when they did not charge service fees (they do now) I did have a MTA toll tag but I can’t find it plus I used to live in NJ so the replenish amount was almost around $300 I ended up paying in cash or getting billed by plate.

When I first moved to Maryland, I also had a MD pass.  I also dropped it when they started imposing the monthly fee.  I was able to get a MTA tag, which doesn't charge a monthly fee.  [That is usually hard to get as an out-of-state resident, since they try to push the PANYNJ tags which do charge a monthly fee.  I was able to get one by using  my sister's NY address and then later changing it to my billing address.]

Once Larry Hogan became governor of MD, he put in place several motorist friendly provisions like reducing tolls and ending the monthly fee on EZ-Pass by executive order.  Even though MD's EZ-Pass is now free of the monthly fee, I decided to keep my MTA pass, since it is easy for a new governor to simply re-impose the fee in MD, but in NY the fee cannot be imposed without new legislation.  I do take advantage of the lower fees with a NY EZ-Pass when I am in the NY area, but I have to pay the out-of-state rates when crossing the toll bridges in MD.


https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-items/e-zpass-everyone



Maryland's E-ZPass still has a monthly fee if you don't have a MD address and don't have 3 Maryland toll transactions in a month.  I have the Hatem Bridge E-ZPass ($20/yr, only works on that bridge) on top of my New York one, because that crossing is the largest single toll on my drive between Baltimore/DC and Philadelphia.

Good to know.  Thanks.

This information furthers my resolve to keep the NY MTA pass.  I place avoiding monthly fees far over the relatively small discounts on the MD crossings.  Sure, a trip to NY will likely also involve the Tydings bridge (and trips to DE or Philly will involve the Tydings Bridge and none of the NY crossings that I can get a discount for), but I really don't make trips into toll territory that often.  Pre-COVID I tended to visit NYC family about twice a year, but I haven't been up there for 2 years now.

Locally, I almost never take the ICC and generally use I-695 to get around Baltimore, so it is only the bigger regional trips to DE and beyond that will have me crossing the Tydings where I even consider tolls.  But that is not often enough to justify a monthly fee or able to avoid a monthly fee.

So even though I necessarily will cross the Tydings (where I would get a discount with a MD pass) more than the NY area crossings (where I get a discount with my NY MTA pass), the overall benefit to me, who is not a frequent traveller on toll facilities, would be on avoiding the monthly charge.  I am glad to have a NY MTA pass, even though I am not a NY resident.

Ironically, I was a student at a master's program at NYU prior to moving to MD.  I lived in NYC for 10 months, but never changed my license plates (from CA) or did anything formal to declare NY residency.  I rarely used a toll crossing when I was there.  I used it more often when I moved to MD, since I started making more trips back up to NY for family visits.  So I have a NY tag as a MD resident, but never had a tag of any sort when I actually lived in NYC.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 29, 2021, 09:40:15 PM
As some of you know I've been uploading a bunch of roadpix from my recent New York Tri-State Area trip in November 2021. One of the roads I took pictures of was Bay Parkway in Jones Beach. I'm not finished with that, but I was looking at some Google Map coverage of the Bay-Meadowbrook-Ocean Parkway interchange. and I noticed that the bike path along Bay Parkway in the West End of the beach runs a little more than halfway along the eastbound ramp from Bay Parkway to Ocean Parkway before making a sharp curve to the west side of Parking Field Number One.  Believe it or not, I originally thought it was an additional entrance to that parking field from the ramp between the two parkways.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5924849,-73.5331376,822m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5924849,-73.5331376,822m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)

And I was starting to like the idea of an extra ramp from there.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 09, 2022, 09:23:05 PM
The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it.  I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on January 09, 2022, 10:48:17 PM
The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it.  I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx

It sounds like the Skyway, the Kensington, and the Scajaquada are all going to stay.

No mention of the BQE though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 09, 2022, 11:35:35 PM
The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it.  I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
As part of a group which spent quite a few hours discussing 3 lines from that policy book, I wonder how much of it is a carryover from Cuomo and reflects what was going on under his rule.
As a matter of fact, LGA airtrain - a hot topic, suspended after Cuomo fall - is not even mentioned.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 10, 2022, 12:53:41 PM
The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it.  I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx

It sounds like the Skyway, the Kensington, and the Scajaquada are all going to stay.

No mention of the BQE though.
The Skyway basically lost all support other than Cuomo between when he talked about it and now.  It's safe for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if it came up again the next time it needs major maintenance.

The Kensington is the NY 33 cover effort.

I would expect the Scajaquada to be removed eventually.  Right now nobody can agree on what a freeway removal project there would look like, however.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 10, 2022, 02:17:59 PM
The Scajaquada is a matter of no agreement about what should happen. MPO doesn't want to completely rip out the only E-W truck route north of downtown, local political donors want it completely gone so they don't have to see it. This is compounded by the fact that it's one of the main truck accesses to the Peace Bridge. I expect SOMETHING to eventually happen, but it might be a decade or two. Note that several of the bridges have been replaced in the past 20 years, so the MPO is very hesitant to throw money at removing it. Note that the MPO has proposed an expressway-grade rebuild several times that would downgrade the road from a full freeway and create far more green space and bike/ped accommodations, yet this has been NIMBYed away.

Skyway removal died when Cuomo started supporting the "high line" proposal (which didn't remove the bridge and retained it as a park). The entire limited-access segment of NY 5 has been either extensively rehabilitated or reconstructed from the ground up in the past 15 years, so this is another case of "why are we throwing more money at this already?"

Kensington capping would be a relatively easy feat and quick political points with no negative effects. Like the Cross Bronx capping, there aren't many people who would be against it short of those who don't like money being thrown at poor neighborhoods.

Note that the Buffalo MPO does not have the same priorities as other MPOs in the state. Their focuses have been on improving freight mobility (particularly to/from border crossings) and increasing bike/ped access on surface streets while encouraging through traffic to stay on freeways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on January 16, 2022, 12:10:37 AM

This is interesting, Cortlandt's Master Plan (https://www.townofcortlandt.com/documents/2016_mp/cortlandt%20master%20plan_40423_final_web%20march%2015%202016%20adopted.pdf) calls for the completion of the Bear Mountain Parkway
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 16, 2022, 12:37:50 PM

This is interesting, Cortlandt's Master Plan (https://www.townofcortlandt.com/documents/2016_mp/cortlandt%20master%20plan_40423_final_web%20march%2015%202016%20adopted.pdf) calls for the completion of the Bear Mountain Parkway
Quote
[2016] Recommendation
-    Extending the parkway and completing the original plan of a limited access connection directly to the Taconic State Parkway–There is an existing undeveloped parkway right-of-way owned by New York State that extends from the eastern terminus of the parkway at Route 35/202, eastward to the Taconic Parkway. At this time, the NYSDOT is studying alternatives for connecting the Bear Mountain Parkway with the Taconic State Parkway as part of the Sustainable Development Study of the Route 6, Bear Mountain Parkway and the Route 35/202 corridors which involves the Towns of Cortlandt and Yorktown, the City of Peekskill, the Westchester County Planning Department, and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council.
Anyone know if that's still in play?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 16, 2022, 04:33:42 PM

This is interesting, Cortlandt's Master Plan (https://www.townofcortlandt.com/documents/2016_mp/cortlandt%20master%20plan_40423_final_web%20march%2015%202016%20adopted.pdf) calls for the completion of the Bear Mountain Parkway
Quote
[2016] Recommendation
-    Extending the parkway and completing the original plan of a limited access connection directly to the Taconic State Parkway–There is an existing undeveloped parkway right-of-way owned by New York State that extends from the eastern terminus of the parkway at Route 35/202, eastward to the Taconic Parkway. At this time, the NYSDOT is studying alternatives for connecting the Bear Mountain Parkway with the Taconic State Parkway as part of the Sustainable Development Study of the Route 6, Bear Mountain Parkway and the Route 35/202 corridors which involves the Towns of Cortlandt and Yorktown, the City of Peekskill, the Westchester County Planning Department, and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council.
Anyone know if that's still in play?

Not sure, but it should be. I don't think any more than an upgrade of existing 202 is necessary; not a fully segregated roadway (since it's not like the BMP is a "real" parkway anyway).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 16, 2022, 06:05:56 PM
At this point, just extend the 35/202 widening west to the western segment of the parkway and call it a day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 17, 2022, 11:20:44 AM
At this point, just extend the 35/202 widening west to the western segment of the parkway and call it a day.

Basically, yes. Maybe if there was a way do divert to shopping traffic at Stony Street from the thru traffic on 202, but it's not really that bad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on January 22, 2022, 01:33:58 PM
Following the historic 1948-1952 race course used by the first auto racers at Watkins Glen, New York. The historic race course is well marked and you can follow the course in person (or virtually) today.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/driving-watkins-glen-historic-road.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/driving-watkins-glen-historic-road.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on January 23, 2022, 02:54:00 AM
The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it.  I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
As part of a group which spent quite a few hours discussing 3 lines from that policy book, I wonder how much of it is a carryover from Cuomo and reflects what was going on under his rule.
As a matter of fact, LGA airtrain - a hot topic, suspended after Cuomo fall - is not even mentioned.

The LGA air train was always a Cuomo strong-arm thing to make some of his political cronies happy and do nothing useful for getting mass transit service to the airport. A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb. The JFK AirTrain was not a perfect thing, but it hooked up with both and took a mostly direct route to and from the airport. Honestly it would be nice for them to just really move the needle on getting the BMT Astoria line extended out to the airport and telling the Astoria NIMBYs where to shove it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 23, 2022, 07:10:14 AM
The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it.  I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
As part of a group which spent quite a few hours discussing 3 lines from that policy book, I wonder how much of it is a carryover from Cuomo and reflects what was going on under his rule.
As a matter of fact, LGA airtrain - a hot topic, suspended after Cuomo fall - is not even mentioned.

The LGA air train was always a Cuomo strong-arm thing to make some of his political cronies happy and do nothing useful for getting mass transit service to the airport. A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb. The JFK AirTrain was not a perfect thing, but it hooked up with both and took a mostly direct route to and from the airport. Honestly it would be nice for them to just really move the needle on getting the BMT Astoria line extended out to the airport and telling the Astoria NIMBYs where to shove it.
Yeah, Cuomo isn't what NYC need. Robert Moses, city really needs you back!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 23, 2022, 02:41:53 PM
The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it.  I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
As part of a group which spent quite a few hours discussing 3 lines from that policy book, I wonder how much of it is a carryover from Cuomo and reflects what was going on under his rule.
As a matter of fact, LGA airtrain - a hot topic, suspended after Cuomo fall - is not even mentioned.

The LGA air train was always a Cuomo strong-arm thing to make some of his political cronies happy and do nothing useful for getting mass transit service to the airport. A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb. The JFK AirTrain was not a perfect thing, but it hooked up with both and took a mostly direct route to and from the airport. Honestly it would be nice for them to just really move the needle on getting the BMT Astoria line extended out to the airport and telling the Astoria NIMBYs where to shove it.
Yeah, Cuomo isn't what NYC need. Robert Moses, city really needs you back!
Minus the racism, I’d love to have a Moses back. I do like the Midtown Expressway but I wish he could have built it around or through the Empire State building and not have it torn down. Thankfully it wasn’t. I wish we could build a tolled elevated freeway through New York like Tokyo has.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on January 23, 2022, 05:09:52 PM
The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it.  I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
As part of a group which spent quite a few hours discussing 3 lines from that policy book, I wonder how much of it is a carryover from Cuomo and reflects what was going on under his rule.
As a matter of fact, LGA airtrain - a hot topic, suspended after Cuomo fall - is not even mentioned.

The LGA air train was always a Cuomo strong-arm thing to make some of his political cronies happy and do nothing useful for getting mass transit service to the airport. A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb. The JFK AirTrain was not a perfect thing, but it hooked up with both and took a mostly direct route to and from the airport. Honestly it would be nice for them to just really move the needle on getting the BMT Astoria line extended out to the airport and telling the Astoria NIMBYs where to shove it.
Yeah, Cuomo isn't what NYC need. Robert Moses, city really needs you back!
Minus the racism, I’d love to have a Moses back. I do like the Midtown Expressway but I wish he could have built it around or through the Empire State building and not have it torn down. Thankfully it wasn’t. I wish we could build a tolled elevated freeway through New York like Tokyo has.

The last thing Manhattan needs is an elevated highway bisecting through the heart of it. If the tech was more there, a tunneled route across midtown from tunnel to tunnel would have served very well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 23, 2022, 05:31:12 PM
We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 23, 2022, 05:36:04 PM
We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.
The man of La Mancha rides again.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 23, 2022, 05:44:53 PM
We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.
The man of La Mancha rides again.

More realistic than some of the Robert Moses projects people are proposing in this thread.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 23, 2022, 06:57:57 PM
We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.
The man of La Mancha rides again.

More realistic than some of the Robert Moses projects people are proposing in this thread.
Whatever people are proposing - "correct" LGA train, through highway, new rail, improvement of this and that - would need an astronomical amount of money and a harsh war with affected people. SO it would either be a deep compromise, or things will never happen (even with compromise, I'm afraid precious little would change in foreseeable future)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 23, 2022, 08:29:06 PM
We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.

Canning taxi service in Manhattan? What?!?!?!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 23, 2022, 09:37:00 PM
We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.
I’d rather eliminate all bus and bike lanes and build an elevated viaduct over every road for freeways. Checkmate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 23, 2022, 10:02:57 PM
We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.
I’d rather eliminate all bus and bike lanes and build an elevated viaduct over every road for freeways. Checkmate.

Well LOL they tried that a hundred-plus years ago with the trains and found it worked better with them underground....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 24, 2022, 12:21:03 AM
Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on January 24, 2022, 01:44:43 AM
If the cab drivers in Manhattan are anything like the cab drivers in DC, then yes for the sake of ALL transpo modes get rid of them...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 24, 2022, 07:00:36 AM
Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.
And how will that convenient point-to-point mode of transportation be replaced?  By crowding unreliable public trans even further?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 24, 2022, 12:12:52 PM
Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.
And how will that convenient point-to-point mode of transportation be replaced?  By crowding unreliable public trans even further?

You can open streets to streetcars or more buses. I also didn't leave out the idea of for-hires like Uber and Lyft, which usually are not as terrible drivers. The idea though is to get rid of more cars (not eliminate them) and leave private owned cars as the main ones on the road, along with trucks. With less cars on the streets, you can make delivery via trucks faster, making it healthier on the environment cause trucks won't be idling in the streets in massive traffic all the time trying to get to their destination.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 24, 2022, 12:31:26 PM
If the cab drivers in Manhattan are anything like the cab drivers in DC, then yes for the sake of ALL transpo modes get rid of them...

Oh they are, if not worse. They went from being some of the best drivers on the road to some of the worst in the span of 30-40 years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 24, 2022, 12:33:09 PM
Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.
And how will that convenient point-to-point mode of transportation be replaced?  By crowding unreliable public trans even further?

You can open streets to streetcars or more buses. I also didn't leave out the idea of for-hires like Uber and Lyft, which usually are not as terrible drivers. The idea though is to get rid of more cars (not eliminate them) and leave private owned cars as the main ones on the road, along with trucks. With less cars on the streets, you can make delivery via trucks faster, making it healthier on the environment cause trucks won't be idling in the streets in massive traffic all the time trying to get to their destination.
So, there is a significant number of taxies, and they run with descent load factor. You suggest to replace them with Uber - OK, but do you think that would mean fewer cars? Or you assume that Uber drivers are born in a different manner compared to taxi folks? My bet taxies would just be repainted, with same cohort driving them..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 24, 2022, 12:35:02 PM
If the cab drivers in Manhattan are anything like the cab drivers in DC, then yes for the sake of ALL transpo modes get rid of them...

Oh they are, if not worse. They went from being some of the best drivers on the road to some of the worst in the span of 30-40 years.
Usually older people tend to recall how much better everything was back then - including sex...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 24, 2022, 02:13:21 PM
Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.
And how will that convenient point-to-point mode of transportation be replaced?  By crowding unreliable public trans even further?

You can open streets to streetcars or more buses. I also didn't leave out the idea of for-hires like Uber and Lyft, which usually are not as terrible drivers. The idea though is to get rid of more cars (not eliminate them) and leave private owned cars as the main ones on the road, along with trucks. With less cars on the streets, you can make delivery via trucks faster, making it healthier on the environment cause trucks won't be idling in the streets in massive traffic all the time trying to get to their destination.
So, there is a significant number of taxies, and they run with descent load factor. You suggest to replace them with Uber - OK, but do you think that would mean fewer cars? Or you assume that Uber drivers are born in a different manner compared to taxi folks? My bet taxies would just be repainted, with same cohort driving them..


I was assuming different manner, but regardless, again, you can outlaw that too. People will have to live without direct to home service.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 24, 2022, 02:27:02 PM
Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.
And how will that convenient point-to-point mode of transportation be replaced?  By crowding unreliable public trans even further?

You can open streets to streetcars or more buses. I also didn't leave out the idea of for-hires like Uber and Lyft, which usually are not as terrible drivers. The idea though is to get rid of more cars (not eliminate them) and leave private owned cars as the main ones on the road, along with trucks. With less cars on the streets, you can make delivery via trucks faster, making it healthier on the environment cause trucks won't be idling in the streets in massive traffic all the time trying to get to their destination.
So, there is a significant number of taxies, and they run with descent load factor. You suggest to replace them with Uber - OK, but do you think that would mean fewer cars? Or you assume that Uber drivers are born in a different manner compared to taxi folks? My bet taxies would just be repainted, with same cohort driving them..


I was assuming different manner, but regardless, again, you can outlaw that too. People will have to live without direct to home service.
Outlaw it for people. Yeah... just what happened with "we, the people"....
Enlightened dictatorship seems to be the new american dream!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1995hoo on January 24, 2022, 03:08:35 PM
Anyone know where this is? It's supposedly around an hour north of New York City. (Sorry about the small thumbnail. I had trouble getting it to upload at all.)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rcmRLtT-HgdOvebbsWjo11G4iqsFKesZ_k5QY6siDbAhXsAS9t90sTGR-OyTO3v709qw5uc=s135)


Edited to add: OK, never mind, I think I found it–looks to be along this road (https://goo.gl/maps/rPGg4AYwyVzqKTxh6) seen here on Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4289619,-73.6971824,931m/data=!3m1!1e3).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 24, 2022, 04:26:37 PM
Anyone know where this is? It's supposedly around an hour north of New York City. (Sorry about the small thumbnail. I had trouble getting it to upload at all.)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rcmRLtT-HgdOvebbsWjo11G4iqsFKesZ_k5QY6siDbAhXsAS9t90sTGR-OyTO3v709qw5uc=s135)


Edited to add: OK, never mind, I think I found it–looks to be along this road (https://goo.gl/maps/rPGg4AYwyVzqKTxh6) seen here on Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4289619,-73.6971824,931m/data=!3m1!1e3).

Before I click the links, I'm thinking that's NY 301 over West Branch Reservoir in Carmel.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 25, 2022, 08:02:10 PM
Check out this Adopt-a-Highway sign on NY 22 north of NY 164. You won't believe who, or what the sponsor is:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4740147,-73.5806143,3a,75y,18.36h,95.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stsmAwtrxoGzZYZu-9Uu-bA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4740147,-73.5806143,3a,75y,18.36h,95.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stsmAwtrxoGzZYZu-9Uu-bA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on January 25, 2022, 08:03:44 PM
Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.
And how will that convenient point-to-point mode of transportation be replaced?  By crowding unreliable public trans even further?

You can open streets to streetcars or more buses. I also didn't leave out the idea of for-hires like Uber and Lyft, which usually are not as terrible drivers. The idea though is to get rid of more cars (not eliminate them) and leave private owned cars as the main ones on the road, along with trucks. With less cars on the streets, you can make delivery via trucks faster, making it healthier on the environment cause trucks won't be idling in the streets in massive traffic all the time trying to get to their destination.
So, there is a significant number of taxies, and they run with descent load factor. You suggest to replace them with Uber - OK, but do you think that would mean fewer cars? Or you assume that Uber drivers are born in a different manner compared to taxi folks? My bet taxies would just be repainted, with same cohort driving them..


I was assuming different manner, but regardless, again, you can outlaw that too. People will have to live without direct to home service.


how far is East Amherst from NYC? As someone who is currently living in the bronx, how about no.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Declan127 on January 27, 2022, 09:04:56 PM
A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the LGA AirTrain was set to hook up with the LIRR and the 7 at Mets-Willets Pt.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 27, 2022, 11:17:23 PM
A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the LGA AirTrain was set to hook up with the LIRR and the 7 at Mets-Willets Pt.
You're not wrong.

Minus the racism, I’d love to have a Moses back. I do like the Midtown Expressway but I wish he could have built it around or through the Empire State building and not have it torn down. Thankfully it wasn’t.
A lot more than just the Midtown Manhattan Expressway, although not everything that was being proposed. Even during the debate over construction of the AirTrainJFK, which I didn't disagree with, I still felt the Clearview Expressway should've been revived. As far as I was concerned, the Van Wyck and the AirTrain to JFK weren't enough.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on January 27, 2022, 11:35:27 PM
The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it.  I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
As part of a group which spent quite a few hours discussing 3 lines from that policy book, I wonder how much of it is a carryover from Cuomo and reflects what was going on under his rule.
As a matter of fact, LGA airtrain - a hot topic, suspended after Cuomo fall - is not even mentioned.

The LGA air train was always a Cuomo strong-arm thing to make some of his political cronies happy and do nothing useful for getting mass transit service to the airport. A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb. The JFK AirTrain was not a perfect thing, but it hooked up with both and took a mostly direct route to and from the airport. Honestly it would be nice for them to just really move the needle on getting the BMT Astoria line extended out to the airport and telling the Astoria NIMBYs where to shove it.
Yeah, Cuomo isn't what NYC need. Robert Moses, city really needs you back!
Minus the racism, I’d love to have a Moses back. I do like the Midtown Expressway but I wish he could have built it around or through the Empire State building and not have it torn down. Thankfully it wasn’t. I wish we could build a tolled elevated freeway through New York like Tokyo has.

The last thing Manhattan needs is an elevated highway bisecting through the heart of it. If the tech was more there, a tunneled route across midtown from tunnel to tunnel would have served very well.

Manhattan is already a swiss cheese of tunnels for the subways, intercity railroad lines, sewers, and other utility lines.  The granite is pretty friendly to tunnelling, but you've gotta leave something to hold up the streets.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 28, 2022, 12:03:30 AM
^^^ the best alternative is an elevated freeway. Seriously put it 30 stories high like some science fiction movie and it wouldn’t impact a thing. Retrofit skyscrapers. It’s money stopping us. Not it being fiction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 28, 2022, 01:05:04 AM
Okay. another NY 22 question.

What's up with the intersections of Corbin Road and Reservoir Road in the Town of Pawling?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.574881,-73.5925452,809m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en


Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on January 28, 2022, 01:16:11 AM
^^^ the best alternative is an elevated freeway. Seriously put it 30 stories high like some science fiction movie and it wouldn’t impact a thing. Retrofit skyscrapers. It’s money stopping us. Not it being fiction.

through Midtown?  Most buildings are at least 40 stories...

I think the truth is there's no easy way to put a freeway across Midtown, and there doesn't need to be.  Different modes of transportation have different advantages, and freeways don't have the advantage in a super dense environment like Manhattan.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 28, 2022, 01:30:32 AM
^^^ you know, I’m pretty much just talking shit because won’t happen anytime soon if ever. But yea give me a magic wand and I’d make it happen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 28, 2022, 07:03:36 AM
^^^ the best alternative is an elevated freeway. Seriously put it 30 stories high like some science fiction movie and it wouldn’t impact a thing. Retrofit skyscrapers. It’s money stopping us. Not it being fiction.

through Midtown?  Most buildings are at least 40 stories...

I think the truth is there's no easy way to put a freeway across Midtown, and there doesn't need to be.  Different modes of transportation have different advantages, and freeways don't have the advantage in a super dense environment like Manhattan.
Big reason to talk about that is a link to long island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on January 28, 2022, 08:47:26 AM
^^^ the best alternative is an elevated freeway. Seriously put it 30 stories high like some science fiction movie and it wouldn’t impact a thing. Retrofit skyscrapers. It’s money stopping us. Not it being fiction.

through Midtown?  Most buildings are at least 40 stories...

I think the truth is there's no easy way to put a freeway across Midtown, and there doesn't need to be.  Different modes of transportation have different advantages, and freeways don't have the advantage in a super dense environment like Manhattan.
Big reason to talk about that is a link to long island.

Long Island shot themselves in the foot when they opposed Oyster Bay-Rye.  I have no sympathy for them, nor is it NYC's responsibility to ensure they have a link.

If they want a link, they can build their own.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 28, 2022, 10:11:44 AM
^^^ the best alternative is an elevated freeway. Seriously put it 30 stories high like some science fiction movie and it wouldn’t impact a thing. Retrofit skyscrapers. It’s money stopping us. Not it being fiction.

through Midtown?  Most buildings are at least 40 stories...

I think the truth is there's no easy way to put a freeway across Midtown, and there doesn't need to be.  Different modes of transportation have different advantages, and freeways don't have the advantage in a super dense environment like Manhattan.
Big reason to talk about that is a link to long island.

Long Island shot themselves in the foot when they opposed Oyster Bay-Rye.  I have no sympathy for them, nor is it NYC's responsibility to ensure they have a link.

If they want a link, they can build their own.

The Town Seat of Oyster Bay does not speak for the rest of Long Island.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on January 28, 2022, 11:31:31 AM
Highways are almost always canceled due to cost, not NIMBYism. I don't think a few rich people in Oyster Bay could override the support for the Bridge that would've come from countless interest groups.

The ultimate issue was that Long Island grew far less than anticipated after 1970. They had been expecting LI to rival NYC in population by 2020. That didn't happen. Fewer people means less toll revenue to pay for the bridge
Title: Re: New York
Post by: yakra on January 28, 2022, 11:32:35 AM
Okay. another NY 22 question.

What's up with the intersections of Corbin Road and Reservoir Road in the Town of Pawling?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.574881,-73.5925452,809m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Looking at the topos on HistoricAerials, it looks like the side roads are angled to not have to travel straight up & down the incline.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 28, 2022, 11:50:58 AM
Okay. another NY 22 question.

What's up with the intersections of Corbin Road and Reservoir Road in the Town of Pawling?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.574881,-73.5925452,809m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Looking at the topos on HistoricAerials, it looks like the side roads are angled to not have to travel straight up & down the incline.

Certainly this, and the realignment of NY 22 at some point is doubtless a factor.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 28, 2022, 08:02:45 PM
Highways are almost always canceled due to cost, not NIMBYism. I don't think a few rich people in Oyster Bay could override the support for the Bridge that would've come from countless interest groups.



The ultimate issue was that Long Island grew far less than anticipated after 1970. They had been expecting LI to rival NYC in population by 2020. That didn't happen. Fewer people means less toll revenue to pay for the bridge

Kernals12, I think you are mistaken about the politics of the Oyster Bay-Rye Bridge (or tunnel). More than a few rich people on the North Shore of Long Island have great influence with our politicians who control the purse strings. And yes they probably do wield enough juice to greatly influence whether projects like this ever get built.

Also if that bridge were built there would surely be lots of toll revenue to pay for the project. Long Island, especially Suffolk County has grown far more than you think since 1970. As an example the busiest traffic spot on the Long Island Expwy. in 1970 was at the Queens-Nassau County Line. Today the busiest spot is at the interchange of NY Rt. 135, just west of the Nassau-Suffolk Line.

I guess you haven't driven on Long Island recently.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on January 28, 2022, 09:57:17 PM
Highways are almost always canceled due to cost, not NIMBYism. I don't think a few rich people in Oyster Bay could override the support for the Bridge that would've come from countless interest groups.



The ultimate issue was that Long Island grew far less than anticipated after 1970. They had been expecting LI to rival NYC in population by 2020. That didn't happen. Fewer people means less toll revenue to pay for the bridge

Kernals12, I think you are mistaken about the politics of the Oyster Bay-Rye Bridge (or tunnel). More than a few rich people on the North Shore of Long Island have great influence with our politicians who control the purse strings. And yes they probably do wield enough juice to greatly influence whether projects like this ever get built.

Also if that bridge were built there would surely be lots of toll revenue to pay for the project. Long Island, especially Suffolk County has grown far more than you think since 1970. As an example the busiest traffic spot on the Long Island Expwy. in 1970 was at the Queens-Nassau County Line. Today the busiest spot is at the interchange of NY Rt. 135, just west of the Nassau-Suffolk Line.

I guess you haven't driven on Long Island recently.

Suffolk County grew by 35%. Nassau County actually declined.

New York's 1968 demographic forecast estimated 6.7 million for both (https://archive.org/details/demographicproje00newy/page/n9/mode/2up) by 2020. In reality, it was less than half that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 28, 2022, 10:19:42 PM
Bet the traffic at the Nassau-Suffolk Line has increased more than 35% in the last fifty years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on January 29, 2022, 06:53:23 AM
New York's 1968 demographic forecast estimated 6.7 million for both (https://archive.org/details/demographicproje00newy/page/n9/mode/2up) by 2020. In reality, it was less than half that.

This sounds like a nationwide miss. 1968 was in the baby boom (although on the tail end), and they might have expected it to continue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on January 29, 2022, 11:41:06 AM
New York's 1968 demographic forecast estimated 6.7 million for both (https://archive.org/details/demographicproje00newy/page/n9/mode/2up) by 2020. In reality, it was less than half that.

This sounds like a nationwide miss. 1968 was in the baby boom (although on the tail end), and they might have expected it to continue.

If New York State grew as fast as the nation as a whole after 1968, they'd have 29 million people today, about what was forecast back then. What they really missed was the huge number fleeing to Florida.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on January 30, 2022, 10:10:11 PM
Long Island isn't even capable of building sanitary sewer. There seems to be no political interest in accommodating growth or improving infrastructure at all. So I don't care about their highway woes. Cost is a big factor but if there's no push to build anything or stand up to NIMBYs, you will definitely get nothing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 31, 2022, 10:34:21 AM
Long Island isn't even capable of building sanitary sewer. There seems to be no political interest in accommodating growth or improving infrastructure at all. So I don't care about their highway woes. Cost is a big factor but if there's no push to build anything or stand up to NIMBYs, you will definitely get nothing.

I would say I support a long island sound crossing, but I also know it's not worth wasting taxpayer money on study after study when the same result occurs again and again (north shore nimbys killing it). Another bridge would be really nice, but alas. We know the results and it's time to move on.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on February 17, 2022, 06:31:40 PM
Very random question... I noticed this project (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=505851) while browsing the NYSDOT site, and curious if anyone knows how many passing lanes were installed and where they are? 

Interesting that NY 60 got passing lanes over a handful of routes that probably need them worse... US 20/NY 5, US 20A, US 219, NY 14, NY 104 to name a few.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on February 17, 2022, 07:16:26 PM
"Relief passing lanes" could mean either passing lanes for passing slower traffic, or bypass lanes to bypass traffic waiting to turn left.  Hard to say which is the case.

Aerial imagery is too old to determine where, but the latest GMSV is from fall 2021 and shows a shiny new roundabout at the US 20/NY 60 junction that may or may not be related to the project you cite.


(EDIT):  found an article (https://www.observertoday.com/news/page-one/2020/08/widening-portions-of-rt-60-begins/) on the project.  They built a ~1/2mi long passing lane in each direction near Sinclairville.  The northbound lane begins just north of the Cassadaga Valley Central School (2021 GMSV of the beginning (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2592504,-79.2843215,3a,59.6y,298.89h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa8zVzLbyg-4MoynvRbaVHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)), while the southbound lane is between Moon Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2833008,-79.2957551,3a,29.8y,184.06h,92.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVab8lC3aAppnWTEEmZtbng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and Charlotte Hill Rd.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on February 17, 2022, 08:31:57 PM
(EDIT):  found an article (https://www.observertoday.com/news/page-one/2020/08/widening-portions-of-rt-60-begins/) on the project.  They built a ~1/2mi long passing lane in each direction near Sinclairville.  The northbound lane begins just north of the Cassadaga Valley Central School (2021 GMSV of the beginning (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2592504,-79.2843215,3a,59.6y,298.89h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa8zVzLbyg-4MoynvRbaVHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)), while the southbound lane is between Moon Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2833008,-79.2957551,3a,29.8y,184.06h,92.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVab8lC3aAppnWTEEmZtbng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and Charlotte Hill Rd.

That's interesting, thanks! I'd like to see more passing lanes in other areas of the state, so hopefully this is a positive indicator.

I noticed something else interesting while browsing that area: "End divided highway (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2576417,-79.2805106,3a,19.7y,109.68h,87.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXhv1XgqKRLFER6BGN7ccBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)" signs in use at the end of a turning lane. Never seen that before.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on February 18, 2022, 01:07:10 PM
(EDIT):  found an article (https://www.observertoday.com/news/page-one/2020/08/widening-portions-of-rt-60-begins/) on the project.  They built a ~1/2mi long passing lane in each direction near Sinclairville.  The northbound lane begins just north of the Cassadaga Valley Central School (2021 GMSV of the beginning (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2592504,-79.2843215,3a,59.6y,298.89h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa8zVzLbyg-4MoynvRbaVHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)), while the southbound lane is between Moon Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2833008,-79.2957551,3a,29.8y,184.06h,92.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVab8lC3aAppnWTEEmZtbng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and Charlotte Hill Rd.

That's interesting, thanks! I'd like to see more passing lanes in other areas of the state, so hopefully this is a positive indicator.

I noticed something else interesting while browsing that area: "End divided highway (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2576417,-79.2805106,3a,19.7y,109.68h,87.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXhv1XgqKRLFER6BGN7ccBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)" signs in use at the end of a turning lane. Never seen that before.

I wish they'd stripe the yellow line in a way that naturally guides traffic into the right lane. On US 9 in Putnam County, there's a few of these passing/climbing lanes but the slow drivers (usually already oblivious) just proceed straight into the left lane and camp out. Also I like the 45 mph school speed limit, like that's going to do anything. I think in NYS, a school limit can only be up to 15 mph lower than the posted limit (55 here)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on February 22, 2022, 05:48:27 PM
https://www.dailyfreeman.com/2022/02/22/mid-hudson-bridge-switches-to-cashless-tolling-on-march-1/

Cashless tolling will be coming to the Mid-Hudson Bridge starting on March 1st. This is the last toll bridge that has not been switched to cashless tolling on the New York State Bridge Authority (NYSBA) system.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Declan127 on February 24, 2022, 04:25:43 PM
Has anyone else noticed that some of the signs in the NYC area are peeling badly? I noticed a rather jarring example the other day going upstate when we got on the Van Wyck and the first thing I see is a nearly blank sign for Exits 1W-2, and that's bad considering that's the exit leading to the road to New Jersey... I noticed a couple of other examples on the way up as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: BlueOutback7 on February 24, 2022, 04:39:45 PM
Has anyone else noticed that some of the signs in the NYC area are peeling badly? I noticed a rather jarring example the other day going upstate when we got on the Van Wyck and the first thing I see is a nearly blank sign for Exits 1W-2, and that's bad considering that's the exit leading to the road to New Jersey... I noticed a couple of other examples on the way up as well.

There are a lot of signs in New York that are falling apart. There’s still button copy signage on I-287 at Exit 9 that hasn’t been replaced for decades.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 01, 2022, 08:50:11 AM
How many of you are familiar with the old restaurants on Saw Mill River Parkway? I took pictures of the old Leighton's/Woodlands Lake/La Cantina Restaurant in V.E. Macy Park back in November 2021, and I'm now trying to expand the Wikipedia article on Woodlands Lake which is in that park. But I just found out about Dugan's restaurant, and I can't find out where it was.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2022, 10:54:55 AM
Long Island isn't even capable of building sanitary sewer. There seems to be no political interest in accommodating growth or improving infrastructure at all. So I don't care about their highway woes. Cost is a big factor but if there's no push to build anything or stand up to NIMBYs, you will definitely get nothing.
Heaven forbid, but if some civil emergency occurred in the future where an evacuation of Long Island was necessary, and people died because the infrastructure couldn't handle the evacuation, maybe then you would get something.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 10, 2022, 08:16:05 AM
I've been doing a little research on Jones Beach and Tobay Beach, since I took pictures of both on my November 2021 road trip, and to my surprise Bay Parkway was originally split between the Meadowbrook-Ocean Parkway termini. The segment at the West End Beach was originally a RIRO configuration, and the segment east of that point had a south to west flyunder ramp beneath the west-to-north lane of Ocean-Meadowbrook with U-Turns on both sides.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=15&lat=40.61107&lon=-73.42985

This should be added to the Wikipedia article.




Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 10, 2022, 12:54:36 PM
I've been doing a little research on Jones Beach and Tobay Beach, since I took pictures of both on my November 2021 road trip, and to my surprise Bay Parkway was originally split between the Meadowbrook-Ocean Parkway termini. The segment at the West End Beach was originally a RIRO configuration, and the segment east of that point had a south to west flyunder ramp beneath the west-to-north lane of Ocean-Meadowbrook with U-Turns on both sides.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=15&lat=40.61107&lon=-73.42985

This should be added to the Wikipedia article.





Interesting.  I guess that explains why the state reference route for the Bay Parkway only goes between the Meandowbrook and Wantagh without a stub to the fee booths like the other parkways have; the remainder is inventoried like a local road extending it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on March 12, 2022, 01:09:32 PM
Another Long Island observation. On both the Wantagh and Northern State Parkways I have noticed the little white signs telling you the clearance height are gone, replaced by a larger Low Clearance warning sign a little bit before the underpass, they have that high visibility shade of yellow, not the yellow green one that brighter yellow thats hard to explain.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on March 12, 2022, 07:58:23 PM
NYS DOT may be trying to call attention to the bridge heights. The last couple of years there is an increasing problem of large trucks illegally getting on the parkways and ripping off their roofs trying to go under the bridges. It's become way too common. It seems like every day the troopers are escorting big trucks off the parkways and presumably ticketing the drivers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 12, 2022, 09:13:33 PM
NYS DOT may be trying to call attention to the bridge heights. The last couple of years there is an increasing problem of large trucks illegally getting on the parkways and ripping off their roofs trying to go under the bridges. It's become way too common. It seems like every day the troopers are escorting big trucks off the parkways and presumably ticketing the drivers.

Bridge strikes have been a growing issue nationwide. Blame drivers blindly following GPS and phone directions that do not include truck restrictions.

Upstate, there are at least 2 bridges notorious for frequent strikes (one each near Albany and Syracuse), and the Albany-area one has received far more signs in recent months.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on March 12, 2022, 10:00:45 PM
It's a more extreme problem on the Long Island Parkways where virtually all of the bridges are way too low for big trucks. Again, what used to be weekly occurrences are now daily events. And yes, truckers using GPS's seems to be a major part of the problem along with their total disregard of posted signs at parkway entrances. They prohibit commercial vehicles and warn of low bridge heights but the truckers just don't see them.

I sometimes wonder if they don't understand the term no commercial vehicles on the signs. Maybe they should just say NO TRUCKS for more basic understanding. Problem is the signs are directed at any and all vehicles being used for commercial purposes, including vans and pick-up's with business names and graphics on them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 13, 2022, 12:04:10 AM
NYS DOT may be trying to call attention to the bridge heights. The last couple of years there is an increasing problem of large trucks illegally getting on the parkways and ripping off their roofs trying to go under the bridges. It's become way too common. It seems like every day the troopers are escorting big trucks off the parkways and presumably ticketing the drivers.

Bridge strikes have been a growing issue nationwide. Blame drivers blindly following GPS and phone directions that do not include truck restrictions.

Upstate, there are at least 2 bridges notorious for frequent strikes (one each near Albany and Syracuse), and the Albany-area one has received far more signs in recent months.
A project is in the works to addess Onondaga Lake Parkway.  Detailed design due this FFY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 13, 2022, 12:18:55 AM
Has anybody ever heard of a dirt road in Eastern Long Island named Toppings Path? It runs from Suffok CR 51 in Eastport to CR 94 and NY 24 southeast of Exit 71 in Calverton. Back in the 1990's I used to ride and sometimes walk along that path just to see what it was like. Tonight, I did a GSV search of that road, and I realized the south end of the road is completely blocked by scrub brush. I have a neighbor who's kids have dirt bikes and one Bombardier quad with a roll cage, and I was going to tell them that parts of the trail can fit that quad of theirs. I don't think I can do that now.




Title: Re: New York
Post by: interstate73 on March 16, 2022, 12:16:02 AM
Long Island isn't even capable of building sanitary sewer. There seems to be no political interest in accommodating growth or improving infrastructure at all. So I don't care about their highway woes. Cost is a big factor but if there's no push to build anything or stand up to NIMBYs, you will definitely get nothing.
Heaven forbid, but if some civil emergency occurred in the future where an evacuation of Long Island was necessary, and people died because the infrastructure couldn't handle the evacuation, maybe then you would get something.

This is actually the reason a fully built nuclear plant on Long Island was mothballed before ever being turned on - they didn't think they'd be able to evacuate the island safely in the event of disaster (thankfully they used the site for two wind turbines that produce 1/35000th of the power instead  :spin:)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on March 16, 2022, 03:35:12 PM
How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 16, 2022, 03:50:42 PM
How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6

Nohow.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on March 16, 2022, 05:43:21 PM
How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6

It’s been that way for many, many decades. It’s pretty much reached landmark status. It’s not going to be changed. Every time it’s been changed, it’s been vandalized.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on March 16, 2022, 08:49:59 PM
How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6

It’s been that way for many, many decades. It’s pretty much reached landmark status. It’s not going to be changed. Every time it’s been changed, it’s been vandalized.
To be honest I'm surprised that still exists. That intersection doesn't really warrant a signal and could be an all way stop instead. I guess they keep it for historical reasons.

Interestingly, normal red on top signals are used in Ireland itself.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on March 16, 2022, 09:27:17 PM
How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6

It’s been that way for many, many decades. It’s pretty much reached landmark status. It’s not going to be changed. Every time it’s been changed, it’s been vandalized.
To be honest I'm surprised that still exists. That intersection doesn't really warrant a signal and could be an all way stop instead. I guess they keep it for historical reasons.

Interestingly, normal red on top signals are used in Ireland itself.
IMO 4 way Stops are worse than reversed colors, though I guess for those who are red-green colorblind this could be a serious issue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 16, 2022, 09:37:07 PM
How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6

It’s been that way for many, many decades. It’s pretty much reached landmark status. It’s not going to be changed. Every time it’s been changed, it’s been vandalized.
To be honest I'm surprised that still exists. That intersection doesn't really warrant a signal and could be an all way stop instead. I guess they keep it for historical reasons.

Interestingly, normal red on top signals are used in Ireland itself.
IMO 4 way Stops are worse than reversed colors, though I guess for those who are red-green colorblind this could be a serious issue.
If they are that colorblind, then they probably have a host of other issues on the road.

I'm red-green colorblind.  No problems here.

I do think that some dumb drivers would assume that the position of the lights would mean stop or go, rather than the color...colorblind or not.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on March 21, 2022, 08:16:46 PM
How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6

It’s been that way for many, many decades. It’s pretty much reached landmark status. It’s not going to be changed. Every time it’s been changed, it’s been vandalized.
To be honest I'm surprised that still exists. That intersection doesn't really warrant a signal and could be an all way stop instead. I guess they keep it for historical reasons.

Interestingly, normal red on top signals are used in Ireland itself.
IMO 4 way Stops are worse than reversed colors, though I guess for those who are red-green colorblind this could be a serious issue.
If they are that colorblind, then they probably have a host of other issues on the road.

I'm red-green colorblind.  No problems here.

I do think that some dumb drivers would assume that the position of the lights would mean stop or go, rather than the color...colorblind or not.

Isn't that supposed to be part of it? Like that's why red is always on top (or on the far left for horizontally hung signals) so that if you are color blind you can tell what the signal is telling you to do by its position?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on March 21, 2022, 08:44:38 PM
Storm2k, I believe you are correct.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 24, 2022, 09:21:13 AM
I need some transportation engineers here. Back in November I drove the entirety of Jones Beach Island, and despite not being a Town of Oyster Bay resident, I stopped at Tobay Beach. In the center pedestrian path between the parking lot and the Atlantic Ocean, I saw some exposed wire mesh beneath the bridges of Ocean Parkway.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-1.jpg/640px-Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-1.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-2.jpg/640px-Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-2.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-3.jpg/640px-Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-3.jpg)
So will this require some concrete patches, or some more extensive reconstruction?





 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 24, 2022, 11:02:36 AM
I need some transportation engineers here. Back in November I drove the entirety of Jones Beach Island, and despite not being a Town of Oyster Bay resident, I stopped at Tobay Beach. In the center pedestrian path between the parking lot and the Atlantic Ocean, I saw some exposed wire mesh beneath the bridges of Ocean Parkway.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-1.jpg/640px-Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-1.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-2.jpg/640px-Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-2.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-3.jpg/640px-Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-3.jpg)
So will this require some concrete patches, or some more extensive reconstruction?
I would think that orange spray lines on top and bottom image outline the scale of planned work. Lines are pretty faded - looks like things were planned but put on a back burner for some reason.   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on March 24, 2022, 08:44:41 PM
I would think that orange spray lines on top and bottom image outline the scale of planned work. Lines are pretty faded - looks like things were planned but put on a back burner for some reason.

Pray that back-burning those repairs doesn't end up biting the *** of whoever made the decision.  That rebar looks terrible.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on March 24, 2022, 09:20:59 PM
That's fairly routine but is something that should be addressed at some point with patching. It's rebar that's been exposed to the elements - and most notably, a combination of salt and water. Left unpatched, the rebar will continue to degrade and expand - up to several times its size, causing more concrete to spall. This isn't anything to write home about and it looks like it has been identified before, so hopefully, something is in the pipeline for a patch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on March 25, 2022, 11:25:57 AM
Drove by this this morning, it's kind of interesting. NY 113 in Poughkeepsie. If you turn right off Wilbur Blvd onto 113 west, you get an added lane. No "added lane" signage, but they do get a right-turn green arrow though: https://goo.gl/maps/tFoV5a7jK4wNE84N9
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 25, 2022, 12:21:34 PM
Drove by this this morning, it's kind of interesting. NY 113 in Poughkeepsie. If you turn right off Wilbur Blvd onto 113 west, you get an added lane. No "added lane" signage, but they do get a right-turn green arrow though: https://goo.gl/maps/tFoV5a7jK4wNE84N9
Before I looked at that, I was trying to find the reason for the 5 ton weight limit a mile ahead along Wilbur Boulevard, but I couldn't see it.


Was there a similar failed proposal to the one that used to exist for NY 117 with the Potantico Expressway?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 25, 2022, 02:26:38 PM
Drove by this this morning, it's kind of interesting. NY 113 in Poughkeepsie. If you turn right off Wilbur Blvd onto 113 west, you get an added lane. No "added lane" signage, but they do get a right-turn green arrow though: https://goo.gl/maps/tFoV5a7jK4wNE84N9
Before I looked at that, I was trying to find the reason for the 5 ton weight limit a mile ahead along Wilbur Boulevard, but I couldn't see it.

It's the city of Poughkeepsie border. I tried to find the weight limit in the city code but I couldn't see it. Either they've hidden it somewhere or just decided to put the signs up illegally. And I doubt there is a "reason" for the limit besides residents complaining about truck traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on March 25, 2022, 02:37:22 PM
Drove by this this morning, it's kind of interesting. NY 113 in Poughkeepsie. If you turn right off Wilbur Blvd onto 113 west, you get an added lane. No "added lane" signage, but they do get a right-turn green arrow though: https://goo.gl/maps/tFoV5a7jK4wNE84N9
Yeah I really wish they would let drivers turning right know they could proceed without stopping, as inevitably every other person stops, even with the green arrow. It seems to be a plague at this intersection.

Drove by this this morning, it's kind of interesting. NY 113 in Poughkeepsie. If you turn right off Wilbur Blvd onto 113 west, you get an added lane. No "added lane" signage, but they do get a right-turn green arrow though: https://goo.gl/maps/tFoV5a7jK4wNE84N9
Before I looked at that, I was trying to find the reason for the 5 ton weight limit a mile ahead along Wilbur Boulevard, but I couldn't see it.

It's the city of Poughkeepsie border. I tried to find the weight limit in the city code but I couldn't see it. Either they've hidden it somewhere or just decided to put the signs up illegally. And I doubt there is a "reason" for the limit besides residents complaining about truck traffic.
I took a quick look as well, and found nothing. Most of the residential streets in the area have weight limits posted, but I am not sure if there are specific laws in any nearby municipality either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 26, 2022, 12:38:52 AM
Spotted something interesting today: someone has put up a hand-written sign here (https://goo.gl/maps/z7xwbqiswdhdFk8Y8) reminding drivers that travel is prohibited on the shoulder. (It goes on to say that it can sometimes be fatal, and to please obey the traffic signal, so it presumably refers to a specific accident.)

Indeed, illegal use of the shoulder is rampant throughout this part of the state–and I don't mean carefully creeping around someone waiting to turn left in heavy traffic when you're obviously going to be there a while. I mean aiming straight for the shoulder by default, without even breaking speed, as soon as someone turns on their blinker on even a completely clear road. (It's also not unusual, though less common, to see drivers cross a sold yellow line to pass someone turning right. In general, drivers tend not to have a Plan B for if someone ahead of them makes a turn…)

The most striking thing about this sign, to me, was that there's a second person in the world who's even aware of this rule! :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 26, 2022, 12:54:39 AM
Spotted something interesting today: someone has put up a hand-written sign here (https://goo.gl/maps/z7xwbqiswdhdFk8Y8) reminding drivers that travel is prohibited on the shoulder. (It goes on to say that it can sometimes be fatal, and to please obey the traffic signal, so it presumably refers to a specific accident.)

Indeed, illegal use of the shoulder is rampant throughout this part of the state–and I don't mean carefully creeping around someone waiting to turn left in heavy traffic when you're obviously going to be there a while. I mean aiming straight for the shoulder by default, without even breaking speed, as soon as someone turns on their blinker on even a completely clear road. (It's also not unusual, though less common, to see drivers cross a sold yellow line to pass someone turning right. In general, drivers tend not to have a Plan B for if someone ahead of them makes a turn…)

The most striking thing about this sign, to me, was that there's a second person in the world who's even aware of this rule! :-)
I do that all the time, but it's legal to do so in my state
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 26, 2022, 10:23:23 AM
I do that all the time, but it's legal to do so in my state

Yes, I assume not all states have this law, although I'm not sure how common it is overall. Have you found it leads to certain traffic conflicts, or are those eliminated because the behavior is legal and therefore expected?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: BlueOutback7 on March 26, 2022, 02:07:53 PM
It’s illegal in Massachusetts to pass on the shoulder. Though it is legal to pass in the shoulder on I-93 at certain times.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on March 26, 2022, 02:08:44 PM
It’s illegal in Massachusetts to pass on the shoulder. Though it is legal to pass in the shoulder on I-93 at certain times.

The GSV link given was for a surface road, not a freeway.

That said, I'm not finding the sign in that link...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 26, 2022, 08:55:24 PM
I took a quick look as well, and found nothing. Most of the residential streets in the area have weight limits posted, but I am not sure if there are specific laws in any nearby municipality either.
Oh. I just thought there might've been some weak bridge along that road or something like that there.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 26, 2022, 09:04:26 PM
How many of you are familiar with the old restaurants on Saw Mill River Parkway? I took pictures of the old Leighton's/Woodlands Lake/La Cantina Restaurant in V.E. Macy Park back in November 2021, and I'm now trying to expand the Wikipedia article on Woodlands Lake which is in that park. But I just found out about Dugan's restaurant, and I can't find out where it was.


So, still no answers on this question yet?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 26, 2022, 09:33:43 PM
The GSV link given was for a surface road, not a freeway.

That said, I'm not finding the sign in that link...

No, it only just appeared. I tried to snap a photo of it today, but it didn't come out.

Close as I can recall, it reads:
"Driving on the shoulder is a VIOLATION and can be fatal. Please obey the signal."

It's stuck in the narrow grass strip between the sidewalk and the curb. Funny enough, not ten seconds after I took the photo, a car ahead of me veered onto the shoulder to get around a car making an unimpeded left turn in front of it. It really is an almost universally ignored statute.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 26, 2022, 10:14:56 PM
The GSV link given was for a surface road, not a freeway.

That said, I'm not finding the sign in that link...

No, it only just appeared. I tried to snap a photo of it today, but it didn't come out.

Close as I can recall, it reads:
"Driving on the shoulder is a VIOLATION and can be fatal. Please obey the signal."

It's stuck in the narrow grass strip between the sidewalk and the curb. Funny enough, not ten seconds after I took the photo, a car ahead of me veered onto the shoulder to get around a car making an unimpeded left turn in front of it. It really is an almost universally ignored statute.

Interesting. I agree it must have been in response to a specific incident, because not driving on the shoulder is so universally ignored. What is the sign made of/supported by?

As for passing on the shoulder, take NY 286 for just one example:
1) Tree Brook Dr (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1535577,-77.4903015,3a,37.5y,104.3h,84.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5td1m6v4HItFXQ8eSWaIhQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) - note the potholes that have developed from the shoulder being used so heavily (and rightly so - traffic can back up badly if people don't)
2) Five Mile Line Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1535003,-77.4760123,3a,75y,91.56h,86.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFQpFpkAkRK5PeqZvHmSATw!2e0!5s20180901T000000!7i13312!8i6656) - note again the heavily used shoulder, previously used by almost all through traffic (although this one has gotten much better with the new turn lane)
3) Baird Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1598692,-77.4636644,3a,37.5y,226.08h,85.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8OH_BGi8iJftY63RpomZdQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) - shoulder has been intentionally widened to allow for passing on the shoulder
4) Millford Crossing (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1603853,-77.4557512,3a,37.5y,80.07h,86.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4LWBm2csGhqAHScRTBoFfg!2e0!5s20120601T000000!7i13312!8i6656) - again, intentional widening to allow for passing

Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on March 26, 2022, 10:17:57 PM
I took a quick look as well, and found nothing. Most of the residential streets in the area have weight limits posted, but I am not sure if there are specific laws in any nearby municipality either.
Oh. I just thought there might've been some weak bridge along that road or something like that there.
Yeah, there are no bridges on Wilbur Blvd. I am sure that it is simply people not wanting trucks on their residential roads.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 26, 2022, 10:50:06 PM
I saw somewhere in NYSDOT's Highway Design Manual that left turn bypasses weren't allowed (where the roadway is widened to allow passing but a turn lane isn't striped). I know of one in NY at Route 55 and Vail Rd in Poughkeepsie.

It functions fine and saves a lot of space versus a left turn lane with the proper width and tapers. I don't understand why they're against it. I'm sure the cost-benefit analysis works out with the reduction of rear-end crashes and better flow, even if the geometry isn't 100% optimal. Maybe it's some obscure legal interpretation of the VTL? Either way these shoulder widenings look like a sneaky loophole for this rule.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 26, 2022, 11:47:33 PM
The GSV link given was for a surface road, not a freeway.

That said, I'm not finding the sign in that link...

No, it only just appeared. I tried to snap a photo of it today, but it didn't come out.

Close as I can recall, it reads:
"Driving on the shoulder is a VIOLATION and can be fatal. Please obey the signal."

It's stuck in the narrow grass strip between the sidewalk and the curb. Funny enough, not ten seconds after I took the photo, a car ahead of me veered onto the shoulder to get around a car making an unimpeded left turn in front of it. It really is an almost universally ignored statute.

Interesting. I agree it must have been in response to a specific incident, because not driving on the shoulder is so universally ignored. What is the sign made of/supported by?

As for passing on the shoulder, take NY 286 for just one example:
1) Tree Brook Dr (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1535577,-77.4903015,3a,37.5y,104.3h,84.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5td1m6v4HItFXQ8eSWaIhQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) - note the potholes that have developed from the shoulder being used so heavily (and rightly so - traffic can back up badly if people don't)
2) Five Mile Line Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1535003,-77.4760123,3a,75y,91.56h,86.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFQpFpkAkRK5PeqZvHmSATw!2e0!5s20180901T000000!7i13312!8i6656) - note again the heavily used shoulder, previously used by almost all through traffic (although this one has gotten much better with the new turn lane)
3) Baird Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1598692,-77.4636644,3a,37.5y,226.08h,85.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8OH_BGi8iJftY63RpomZdQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) - shoulder has been intentionally widened to allow for passing on the shoulder
4) Millford Crossing (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1603853,-77.4557512,3a,37.5y,80.07h,86.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4LWBm2csGhqAHScRTBoFfg!2e0!5s20120601T000000!7i13312!8i6656) - again, intentional widening to allow for passing

Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)
That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 26, 2022, 11:59:00 PM
Interesting. I agree it must have been in response to a specific incident, because not driving on the shoulder is so universally ignored. What is the sign made of/supported by?

Stiff paper and wire. Or maybe that corrugated plastic sheeting. You know, just like those "AJ buys houses" signs.

Quote
Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)

It was common to see the sheriff's deputies drive on the shoulder to skip the line at the red light on NY 441 near their substation on Linden Ave.

Around here, I've noticed no especial encouragement. Either the shoulders are already wide enough to accommodate travel, or the motorists are perfectly willing to run into the ditch to save–well, no time, actually. Indeed, the really glaring examples (and probably the most common) are those where there's no need at all. I don't think anybody minds, as I said, creeping around somebody turning left when there's a huge lineup. It's the bypassing at top speed, not even bothering to adjust for a turning vehicle ahead of you, that likely prompted this sign, because if you're not adjusting for the turning vehicle, you're also probably not adjusting for the pedestrians or crossing traffic (such as an opposing left turn) that might be in the shoulder you're heading for.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on March 27, 2022, 10:37:55 AM
The state could go a little bit further and officially sanction them like Indiana does: https://goo.gl/maps/KhTf7w75QGdr41ox9
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 27, 2022, 11:08:59 AM
Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)
That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.

Why would law enforcement enforce something that NYSDOT doesn't care about? The short answer is they don't.



The state could go a little bit further and officially sanction them like Indiana does: https://goo.gl/maps/KhTf7w75QGdr41ox9

I don't mind rumble strips, but they should be outside the white line like they are on freeways. It's obtuse to have them right on top of the line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 27, 2022, 11:15:02 AM
Around here, I've noticed no especial encouragement. Either the shoulders are already wide enough to accommodate travel, or the motorists are perfectly willing to run into the ditch to save–well, no time, actually. Indeed, the really glaring examples (and probably the most common) are those where there's no need at all. I don't think anybody minds, as I said, creeping around somebody turning left when there's a huge lineup. It's the bypassing at top speed, not even bothering to adjust for a turning vehicle ahead of you, that likely prompted this sign, because if you're not adjusting for the turning vehicle, you're also probably not adjusting for the pedestrians or crossing traffic (such as an opposing left turn) that might be in the shoulder you're heading for.

Actually, most of the examples that I can think of are at side streets. Most signalized intersections don't have shoulders wide enough for passing at high speeds, and those that do are usually used by traffic turning right, not going straight. Your Newburgh example is a bit unique in that regard because it also doesn't have a left turn lane.

The part I'm most curious about regarding the sign is the inclusion of "please obey the signal" at the end. I can't think of a scenario where using the shoulder would also mean ignoring the signal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 27, 2022, 11:19:09 AM


Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)
That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.

Why would law enforcement enforce something that NYSDOT doesn't care about? The short answer is they don't.

Because it's the law.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 27, 2022, 11:21:44 AM
Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)
That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.

Why would law enforcement enforce something that NYSDOT doesn't care about? The short answer is they don't.

Because it's the law.

I can see this is going nowhere. We all know it's not enforced, even though it technically could be.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 27, 2022, 11:26:01 AM
Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)
That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.

Why would law enforcement enforce something that NYSDOT doesn't care about? The short answer is they don't.

Because it's the law.

I can see this is going nowhere. We all know it's not enforced, even though it technically could be.
A lack of enforcement of traffic regulations is not any DOT's problem.

DOTs control the purse strings and there is some oversight/enforcement along those lines, but once a project is built, it is squarely the job of law enforcement to enforce the law.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 27, 2022, 11:40:25 AM
Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)
That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.

Why would law enforcement enforce something that NYSDOT doesn't care about? The short answer is they don't.

Because it's the law.

I can see this is going nowhere. We all know it's not enforced, even though it technically could be.
A lack of enforcement of traffic regulations is not any DOT's problem.

DOTs control the purse strings and there is some oversight/enforcement along those lines, but once a project is built, it is squarely the job of law enforcement to enforce the law.

Yes, and I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is that neither NYSDOT nor law enforcement cares or has any incentive to care about people driving on the shoulder.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 27, 2022, 11:43:35 AM
Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)
That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.

Why would law enforcement enforce something that NYSDOT doesn't care about? The short answer is they don't.

Because it's the law.

I can see this is going nowhere. We all know it's not enforced, even though it technically could be.
A lack of enforcement of traffic regulations is not any DOT's problem.

DOTs control the purse strings and there is some oversight/enforcement along those lines, but once a project is built, it is squarely the job of law enforcement to enforce the law.

Yes, and I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is that neither NYSDOT nor law enforcement cares or has any incentive to care about people driving on the shoulder.
Not sure why law enforcement doesn't.  Ticket revenue is ticket revenue.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on March 27, 2022, 01:32:06 PM
In Minnesota, bypass lanes are built out to the side and are explicitly signed as such (example on TH 23 just west of Milaca (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.7328061,-93.7190676,3a,75y,233.49h,89.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svIwyQFkkry_nzsnVO1QeNg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)), though the signing may have more to do with heavy snow cover for much of the year.

It's been almost five years since I last drove in New York and I have never studied the Vehicle and Traffic Law before doing so, but Empirestate's example--a signalized intersection on NY 32 in an urban area--doesn't strike me as a safe location to use the shoulder as a bypass because of the potential for one vehicle waiting to turn left to hide another also waiting to do the same thing.

It seems to me that bypass lanes are to turn lanes what turnouts are to passing lanes--a parsimonious intermediate stage of provision between nothing and the full solution that some, but not all, state DOTs use.  In Kansas, for example, a rural intersection that is viewed as having turning volumes too high for safety (but does not otherwise justify a signal or roundabout) will typically be redeveloped with widening for hundreds of feet to provide not just turn lanes, but also full continuity of the paved shoulder and long lengths of painted island (if left turns are involved) to enhance sightlines (example on US 24 just east of Riley (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.296942,-96.7554864,3a,75y,9.76h,90.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJkBbTZwBR_AG8WWtqFH5cQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).  It strikes me as reasonable for NYSDOT to explicitly disallow bypass lanes and thereby force full build-out for the intersections that need them, though I realize this leads to practical difficulties (opposing the perfect to the good) when the interurban network of two-lane state highways is chronically underfunded.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: yakra on March 27, 2022, 02:18:56 PM
Indeed, illegal use of the shoulder is rampant throughout this part of the state–and I don't mean carefully creeping around someone waiting to turn left in heavy traffic when you're obviously going to be there a while. I mean aiming straight for the shoulder by default, without even breaking speed, as soon as someone turns on their blinker on even a completely clear road.
Combine that with a salmoning cyclist. :ded:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 27, 2022, 04:42:02 PM
The cyclist salmons?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: yakra on March 27, 2022, 05:11:34 PM
I mean, he'd flounder at the very least.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 28, 2022, 12:46:11 AM
Actually, most of the examples that I can think of are at side streets. Most signalized intersections don't have shoulders wide enough for passing at high speeds, and those that do are usually used by traffic turning right, not going straight. Your Newburgh example is a bit unique in that regard because it also doesn't have a left turn lane.

Yes, same here, and I wonder if the location of this sign is something of a red herring? (I couldn't immediately find any recent fatal events reported at this intersection.) It's more likely to be mid-block, or if it is at a signal, it involves someone back in the line wanting to make a right on red.

Quote
The part I'm most curious about regarding the sign is the inclusion of "please obey the signal" at the end. I can't think of a scenario where using the shoulder would also mean ignoring the signal.

I'm not sure, unless it's something to do with right on red, as above.

Yes, and I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is that neither NYSDOT nor law enforcement cares or has any incentive to care about people driving on the shoulder.

Well, I think the whole takeaway here is that, according to whoever put up this sign, there is indeed (or should be) such an incentive, even if we haven't figured out exactly what. My assumption would be a conflict between a vehicle and a pedestrian using the shoulder. It is easy to imagine how an accident might unfold from those circumstances, but again, you often see this scenario away from intersections, and where there aren't also sidewalks, and so again, the location here remains curious.

Not sure why law enforcement doesn't.  Ticket revenue is ticket revenue.

Certainly, it has to be the single most frequent violation I see on a daily basis, if you exclude commonplace excesses of the speed limit. The only other thing I see with comparable frequency is not burning headlights in the rain, but that's not a daily occurrence. So it would be easy to collect a lot of revenue, if that were the aim.

It's been almost five years since I last drove in New York and I have never studied the Vehicle and Traffic Law before doing so, but Empirestate's example--a signalized intersection on NY 32 in an urban area--doesn't strike me as a safe location to use the shoulder as a bypass because of the potential for one vehicle waiting to turn left to hide another also waiting to do the same thing.

Yes, this is the other scenario that's likely to arise, when two opposing vehicles both want to turn left. With a single travel lane in each direction, they can expect to both proceed without conflict, because there will not be any traffic passing them. I've been close to being hit once or twice for this very reason.

A more minor conflict might arise between someone using the shoulder to skip the line when turning right on red, and another vehicle farther ahead making the turn from the travel lane. You will even occasionally find bollards in the shoulder meant to prevent this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on March 28, 2022, 06:40:48 AM
Is it illegal?

The NY State Driver’s Manual says specifically “You can pass on the right when a vehicle ahead makes a left turn”

It does say you can’t “drive”  on the shoulder in its discussion of passing on the right in general, but then gives a left-turning vehicle as an example of when passing on the right is permitted.

That’s not to say you should pass three cars stopped waiting for one car to turn left, but maybe that’s why you don’t see enforcement.

https://dmv.ny.gov/brochure/mv21.pdf
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 28, 2022, 08:21:15 AM
Not sure why law enforcement doesn't.  Ticket revenue is ticket revenue.

Certainly, it has to be the single most frequent violation I see on a daily basis, if you exclude commonplace excesses of the speed limit. The only other thing I see with comparable frequency is not burning headlights in the rain, but that's not a daily occurrence. So it would be easy to collect a lot of revenue, if that were the aim.

Perhaps the biggest question - bigger even than whether it should be enforced - is how, exactly, it would be enforced. Using the shoulder for "driving" is so vague that it leaves a lot of room for argument. I can't see ticketing people for clipping the white line going over well; it would really need to reach the level of clearly dangerous/unsafe to be worth pursuing IMO, and that definitely still happens, but a lot less frequently.


Is it illegal?

The NY State Driver’s Manual says specifically “You can pass on the right when a vehicle ahead makes a left turn”

It does say you can’t “drive”  on the shoulder in its discussion of passing on the right in general, but then gives a left-turning vehicle as an example of when passing on the right is permitted.

That’s not to say you should pass three cars stopped waiting for one car to turn left, but maybe that’s why you don’t see enforcement.

I must confess that I have probably used the shoulder if there is a line to turn left and the first and last cars in line are clearly turning left. If someone in the middle of that mess is going straight, well, oops, but that's kind of their problem  :-P
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 28, 2022, 09:51:44 AM
Well, I think the whole takeaway here is that, according to whoever put up this sign, there is indeed (or should be) such an incentive, even if we haven't figured out exactly what. My assumption would be a conflict between a vehicle and a pedestrian using the shoulder. It is easy to imagine how an accident might unfold from those circumstances, but again, you often see this scenario away from intersections, and where there aren't also sidewalks, and so again, the location here remains curious.
There are certainly some arguments about "traffic calming", "enhanced safety" etc. Little, if anything about safety, just the letter of the law.
 There is a non-insignificant amount of people who don't care about the "spirit of the law" - pencil entire legal community into that list, for example. Sometimes it gets really scary . I certainly heard a lot from airline pilots who, in essence, would rather crash by the rule than save the day against the SOP. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 28, 2022, 10:41:23 AM
Is it illegal?

The NY State Driver’s Manual says specifically “You can pass on the right when a vehicle ahead makes a left turn”

It does say you can’t “drive”  on the shoulder in its discussion of passing on the right in general, but then gives a left-turning vehicle as an example of when passing on the right is permitted.

That all seems to agree. You can pass on the right sometimes, and while doing so you can't drive on the shoulder. (It would be the same for passing on the left.) The VAT codifies this in section 1123(b).

The VAT does give NYSDOT the right to permit–and post–passing on the shoulder in specific locations, including for turns at signalized intersections. (I have never seen this done.) Otherwise, it's prohibited overall on controlled-access highways by section 1131. The NYS MUTCD supplement provides for signage to remind drivers of these two sections, plus section 1120 (which basically refers to 1131).

Perhaps the biggest question - bigger even than whether it should be enforced - is how, exactly, it would be enforced. Using the shoulder for "driving" is so vague that it leaves a lot of room for argument. I can't see ticketing people for clipping the white line going over well; it would really need to reach the level of clearly dangerous/unsafe to be worth pursuing IMO, and that definitely still happens, but a lot less frequently.

In my observation, what can make it dangerous is less about use of the shoulder per se, and more about the lack of a "plan B". It will not always be necessary to overtake a turning vehicle at all, since you can always fall back a little, keep a proper distance, and just let the car make its turn before you even get there. But quite a lot of drivers will just maintain speed, steer directly towards the shoulder, and keep going. I've even had people veer onto my neighbor's lawn when I'm turning into my own driveway, and it's very common to see someone go through the gravel slope at a T-intersection, rather than wait for a left-turning vehicle to clear a single oncoming car or two.

Quote
I must confess that I have probably used the shoulder if there is a line to turn left and the first and last cars in line are clearly turning left. If someone in the middle of that mess is going straight, well, oops, but that's kind of their problem  :-P

Well, yes, I mean this is downstate NY, so you will always have a few of "those" drivers. :-P

But I guess my point is that, with respect to this particular rule, it goes beyond just the occasional jerk just trying to get around everyone else, and is understood to be the accepted, appropriate maneuver by the general driving public–in other words, something that everyone does, not just the jerks.

For example, I've seen drivers mount the sidewalk on very rare occasions to do the same thing, which is equally prohibited and in the same general spirit of the shoulder law. But the vast majority of drivers would never think of doing this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 28, 2022, 11:51:59 AM
Is it illegal?

The NY State Driver’s Manual says specifically “You can pass on the right when a vehicle ahead makes a left turn”

It does say you can’t “drive”  on the shoulder in its discussion of passing on the right in general, but then gives a left-turning vehicle as an example of when passing on the right is permitted.

That all seems to agree. You can pass on the right sometimes, and while doing so you can't drive on the shoulder. (It would be the same for passing on the left.) The VAT codifies this in section 1123(b).

The VAT does give NYSDOT the right to permit–and post–passing on the shoulder in specific locations, including for turns at signalized intersections. (I have never seen this done.) Otherwise, it's prohibited overall on controlled-access highways by section 1131. The NYS MUTCD supplement provides for signage to remind drivers of these two sections, plus section 1120 (which basically refers to 1131).

Perhaps the biggest question - bigger even than whether it should be enforced - is how, exactly, it would be enforced. Using the shoulder for "driving" is so vague that it leaves a lot of room for argument. I can't see ticketing people for clipping the white line going over well; it would really need to reach the level of clearly dangerous/unsafe to be worth pursuing IMO, and that definitely still happens, but a lot less frequently.

In my observation, what can make it dangerous is less about use of the shoulder per se, and more about the lack of a "plan B". It will not always be necessary to overtake a turning vehicle at all, since you can always fall back a little, keep a proper distance, and just let the car make its turn before you even get there. But quite a lot of drivers will just maintain speed, steer directly towards the shoulder, and keep going. I've even had people veer onto my neighbor's lawn when I'm turning into my own driveway, and it's very common to see someone go through the gravel slope at a T-intersection, rather than wait for a left-turning vehicle to clear a single oncoming car or two.

Quote
I must confess that I have probably used the shoulder if there is a line to turn left and the first and last cars in line are clearly turning left. If someone in the middle of that mess is going straight, well, oops, but that's kind of their problem  :-P

Well, yes, I mean this is downstate NY, so you will always have a few of "those" drivers. :-P

But I guess my point is that, with respect to this particular rule, it goes beyond just the occasional jerk just trying to get around everyone else, and is understood to be the accepted, appropriate maneuver by the general driving public–in other words, something that everyone does, not just the jerks.

For example, I've seen drivers mount the sidewalk on very rare occasions to do the same thing, which is equally prohibited and in the same general spirit of the shoulder law. But the vast majority of drivers would never think of doing this.
I guess a lot of these things are location-specific. Not sure what is the fraction of commuter/local resident traffic in that particular location, my two "favorite" spots are mostly local traffic well aware of road conditions. in both cases, failure to use shoulder as a turn lane may easily lead to backups extending to nearest intersection (which happen to be a highway interchange). So it may be collectively understood that following the law is against common good. 
I agree it gets much more shaky when things involve grass,  sidewalk is even worse. However, using shoulder in the area with sidewalk should reduce pedestrian concerns.
Locally,  NYSDOT seem to be unwilling to use land grab for a turning lane - their preferred solution is a roundabout. Which, apparently, requires much more land...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on March 28, 2022, 12:53:30 PM
Locally,  NYSDOT seem to be unwilling to use land grab for a turning lane - their preferred solution is a roundabout. Which, apparently, requires much more land...

I think this has more to do with the realities of the land acquisition process and is not necessarily specific to NYSDOT.  Back in the MTR days, a regular shared the story of Caltrans expecting agreement to the purchase of a 90-foot-wide strip of ROW just to add a turn lane at an intersection.  The underlying philosophy--bank enough land for full build-out--was summarized as "We will not ask you twice."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 28, 2022, 01:42:41 PM
I guess a lot of these things are location-specific. Not sure what is the fraction of commuter/local resident traffic in that particular location, my two "favorite" spots are mostly local traffic well aware of road conditions. in both cases, failure to use shoulder as a turn lane may easily lead to backups extending to nearest intersection (which happen to be a highway interchange). So it may be collectively understood that following the law is against common good.

Well, again, I think it's much less about the "what" than the "how". As I mentioned before, I don't think there'd be widespread opposition to carefully creeping around some turning vehicles in heavy traffic, when the clear alternative is a long delay for many people. I've certainly done this, although at least in some cases I do it because I know that if I don't, someone behind me will, leading to a possible conflict when the car in front of me clears while the person on the shoulder is trying to merge into me from the right.

But that's quite different than doing it every time, whether necessary or not, and without attempting first to adjust to conditions in the prescribed way. I'd be willing to wager that whatever prompted the handmade sign, it was something in the second category rather than the first.

And it's probably that many, if not most, of the instances of this are due to simply lack of awareness of this rule; otherwise, you'd expect to see a comparable frequency of people driving on the sidewalk or median. The fact that the rule is not universal among states would also lend credence to this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 28, 2022, 02:06:12 PM
I guess a lot of these things are location-specific. Not sure what is the fraction of commuter/local resident traffic in that particular location, my two "favorite" spots are mostly local traffic well aware of road conditions. in both cases, failure to use shoulder as a turn lane may easily lead to backups extending to nearest intersection (which happen to be a highway interchange). So it may be collectively understood that following the law is against common good.

Well, again, I think it's much less about the "what" than the "how". As I mentioned before, I don't think there'd be widespread opposition to carefully creeping around some turning vehicles in heavy traffic, when the clear alternative is a long delay for many people. I've certainly done this, although at least in some cases I do it because I know that if I don't, someone behind me will, leading to a possible conflict when the car in front of me clears while the person on the shoulder is trying to merge into me from the right.

But that's quite different than doing it every time, whether necessary or not, and without attempting first to adjust to conditions in the prescribed way. I'd be willing to wager that whatever prompted the handmade sign, it was something in the second category rather than the first.

And it's probably that many, if not most, of the instances of this are due to simply lack of awareness of this rule; otherwise, you'd expect to see a comparable frequency of people driving on the sidewalk or median. The fact that the rule is not universal among states would also lend credence to this.
Or it could be a driver who believes in the letter of the law, who ended up in a situation " I don't do it because it is illegal, but someone behind me still did AND ENDED UP AHEAD OF ME!!!111"
I don't have too much faith in people who have enough time and energy to create and put these handmade signs...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 28, 2022, 02:23:30 PM
And it's probably that many, if not most, of the instances of this are due to simply lack of awareness of this rule; otherwise, you'd expect to see a comparable frequency of people driving on the sidewalk or median. The fact that the rule is not universal among states would also lend credence to this.
The fact that rule is not universal among the states tells me there is no unconditional upfront hazard associated with the situation.
Pedestrians walking the shoulder could be an apparent issue, but there is a decent sidewalk in that particular location, so scratch that. Bicyclists may be affected, that's for sure - but, interestingly,  more so by those who slow down and try to do things carefully, not by those passing at full speed.
Both side streets look residential, so little through traffic on side street, but likely enough left turns to make it an issue. Traffic wise - they blocked off Noel st. at the end to avoid bypass traffic, so there must be enough of a volume.
Overall, this looks like a location where one must pass left-turning car on a shoulder to avoid issues, not the other way around .

 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 28, 2022, 05:11:46 PM
Or it could be a driver who believes in the letter of the law, who ended up in a situation " I don't do it because it is illegal, but someone behind me still did AND ENDED UP AHEAD OF ME!!!111"

I…guess?? But I think the conversation will make better sense if we limit our examples to what we can observe.

Quote
I don't have too much faith in people who have enough time and energy to create and put these handmade signs...

Can you say more about why? That's kind of what brought this on–what does this person know that led them to observe this? If you have experience with the person, what might that be?

The fact that rule is not universal among the states tells me there is no unconditional upfront hazard associated with the situation.

On the other hand, observing the hazard directly can tell you that it does. The truth, of course, is broader than both–neither statement alone is dispositive.

Quote
Pedestrians walking the shoulder could be an apparent issue, but there is a decent sidewalk in that particular location, so scratch that.

Right, you'll recall that we're trying to guess the connection to this location, if any. So we're looking at other places where this occurs, where the shoulder is the appropriate place for pedestrians, and which also happen to be where I've observed shoulder use to be more likely.

Quote
Overall, this looks like a location where one must pass left-turning car on a shoulder to avoid issues, not the other way around .

The other way around being what, passing in the intersection? Or just not passing at all?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 28, 2022, 06:00:27 PM
Or it could be a driver who believes in the letter of the law, who ended up in a situation " I don't do it because it is illegal, but someone behind me still did AND ENDED UP AHEAD OF ME!!!111"

I…guess?? But I think the conversation will make better sense if we limit our examples to what we can observe.

Quote
I don't have too much faith in people who have enough time and energy to create and put these handmade signs...

Can you say more about why? That's kind of what brought this on–what does this person know that led them to observe this? If you have experience with the person, what might that be?

The fact that rule is not universal among the states tells me there is no unconditional upfront hazard associated with the situation.

On the other hand, observing the hazard directly can tell you that it does. The truth, of course, is broader than both–neither statement alone is dispositive.

Quote
Pedestrians walking the shoulder could be an apparent issue, but there is a decent sidewalk in that particular location, so scratch that.

Right, you'll recall that we're trying to guess the connection to this location, if any. So we're looking at other places where this occurs, where the shoulder is the appropriate place for pedestrians, and which also happen to be where I've observed shoulder use to be more likely.

Quote
Overall, this looks like a location where one must pass left-turning car on a shoulder to avoid issues, not the other way around .

The other way around being what, passing in the intersection? Or just not passing at all?
Without knowing your specific location first hand, I am thinking about a different spot, which to me is a prime example of "must use shoulder" condition. I can post google maps link, but my impression is there were some changes compared to last google image. I'll try to make some pictures when I drove there tomorrow morning.
Unlike spot you show, that is a T, not a full X intersection; so there is no "pass in the intersection" option, only "wait" or "shoulder".  "Intersection" option in X one also depends on what turning driver does. I clearly remember that  20 years ago NY driver manual said  "must move into intersection", and that is no longer the case. There was some discussion here - "move past stop line" is not universally accepted thing as well, so driver of turning car may choose to stay at the stop line, eliminating "in the intersection" option as well. So, legally, a single turning car may block the road for multiple traffic light cycles if oncoming traffic is heavy - until drivers behind turning car choose to break the law. Which is... counterproductive way of thinking. 

As for the sign you discuss... You assume someone had a reason to put that up due to unusual - or uncommon - hazard associated with that particular location. A hazard which a responsible adult driver would recognize as an unusual one for the condition. On the contrary - I assume that there is someone which too much time to spare who doesn't like the fact that people are "breaking the rules". Same cohort likes complaining that "people are driving like crazy, going 65 in 55 MPH zone". A very observable behavior on many forums.  Since there is no way to actually find out, my guess is as good as yours.

I don't see any specific hazard associated with discussed behavior beyond hitting something/someone on a shoulder. Bicyclist is an apparent one.
Other than that, conflicts with turning oncoming traffic and issues with RTOR are possible ones. But those are not unusual and should be routinely accounted for by anay responsible driver while passing through any intersection.
As a side note, oncoming traffic in your location has a dedicated right turn lane - so I would assume volume of traffic turning to Gidney ave. warrants that, and - speculating - there is significant left turn traffic into Gidney in the direction we discuss to cause delays. Very possibly that makes this int6ersection a "must drive around" location. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 28, 2022, 11:41:48 PM
Without knowing your specific location first hand, I am thinking about a different spot, which to me is a prime example of "must use shoulder" condition. I can post google maps link, but my impression is there were some changes compared to last google image. I'll try to make some pictures when I drove there tomorrow morning.
Unlike spot you show, that is a T, not a full X intersection; so there is no "pass in the intersection" option, only "wait" or "shoulder".

Yeah, we've come back to that a few times now. We all seem to think the 4-way intersection where the sign was posted is not the typical candidate for shoulder passing. Maybe the sign refers to a spot up ahead, which is more like what you're thinking of–and indeed, where I saw it happen seconds after my failed attempt to take a picture of the sign. Or maybe it's just a general reminder, with no particular location in mind.

Quote
"Intersection" option in X one also depends on what turning driver does. I clearly remember that  20 years ago NY driver manual said  "must move into intersection", and that is no longer the case. There was some discussion here - "move past stop line" is not universally accepted thing as well, so driver of turning car may choose to stay at the stop line, eliminating "in the intersection" option as well. So, legally, a single turning car may block the road for multiple traffic light cycles if oncoming traffic is heavy - until drivers behind turning car choose to break the law. Which is... counterproductive way of thinking.

I mean, a single car shouldn't, as there should be an all-red interval when it can complete its turn. But that's another topic.

But yes, that's another point we've come around to several times. The examples that I find striking aren't those where one might face a delay of several light cycles, or even one. It's when there's no significant time cost to staying in the travel lane, because the turning vehicle isn't likely to cause a delay–i.e., when you don't even bother slowing down a bit to let the car turn, you just steer right for the shoulder and pass it, even after it's already pulling out of the travel lane.

Quote
As for the sign you discuss... You assume someone had a reason to put that up due to unusual - or uncommon - hazard associated with that particular location. A hazard which a responsible adult driver would recognize as an unusual one for the condition. On the contrary - I assume that there is someone which too much time to spare who doesn't like the fact that people are "breaking the rules". Same cohort likes complaining that "people are driving like crazy, going 65 in 55 MPH zone". A very observable behavior on many forums.  Since there is no way to actually find out, my guess is as good as yours.

Well, except that it's about a very specific violation, and also mentions fatality, which suggests there may be a specific event in mind. (There also may not be, of course.) And it's not as if there are hundreds of these signs scattered about, so it's not like someone's just out for some general complaining. So it does give some weight to my supposition that it was precipitated by something specific.

Quote
I don't see any specific hazard associated with discussed behavior beyond hitting something/someone on a shoulder.

Which, I should imagine, is enough. But there are others, which have been mentioned, and which you even go on to list.

Quote
As a side note, oncoming traffic in your location has a dedicated right turn lane - so I would assume volume of traffic turning to Gidney ave. warrants that, and - speculating - there is significant left turn traffic into Gidney in the direction we discuss to cause delays. Very possibly that makes this int6ersection a "must drive around" location.

It backs up at peak periods, for sure. Normally you can get around fine just within the intersection, but if someone did hang back at the stop line, you might find yourself on the shoulder for a bit. But the geometry here doesn't really allow for a full-speed swerve around, so this intersection is probably going to fall into what we all seem to agree is an acceptable "sneak-around" scenario.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on April 04, 2022, 03:38:10 PM
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17?  I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now.  Is there bridge repair going on or something?

EDIT:  I found it.  Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals.  I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.

https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 04, 2022, 06:46:18 PM
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17?  I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now.  Is there bridge repair going on or something?

EDIT:  I found it.  Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals.  I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.

https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf

Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on April 04, 2022, 06:50:13 PM
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17?  I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now.  Is there bridge repair going on or something?

EDIT:  I found it.  Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals.  I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.

https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf

Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.

I didn't think there was an issue either, but I guess it was "too much weaving" for someone. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 04, 2022, 07:19:17 PM
And I have another "what exactly is going on"... with NY 251? There's a short (approx. 1/2 mile) segment closed in Mendon, NY that doesn't have any apparent bridges or anything that might be undergoing reconstruction. It took me by surprise during my attempted clinch of NY 251 on Saturday, so I just followed the rather long posted detour, which is NY 15A south to Sibley Rd to NY 65 north, picking up a new section of NY 15A in the process.

But based on the posted mileages ("CLOSED 2-3/4 MILES AHEAD" from NY 15A and "CLOSED 3/4 MILE AHEAD" ahead from NY 65) I was pretty sure it must be a short closure that I could probably get around with a much shorter detour. My curiosity got the better of me today, so I tried again, following NY 251 eastbound as far as I could (and going past 2 more "road closed ahead - local traffic only" signs) before I finally got to the actual closure, which started at Plains Rd (exactly what I was hoping for!). There did appear to be significant construction equipment and signs of activity, but it was almost 6PM so, unsurprisingly, no active work was going on. I then took Plains Rd to Junction Rd back to NY 251 and found I was past the other end of the closure, so I continued on to NY 65 as planned to "complete" my clinch of NY 251. (I am going to call it clinched given that I (a) followed the posted detour and (b) went as far as possible on both ends. Plus it's such a short closure that I have been on over 90% of the 3.07 mile "NY15A <-> StoLonRd" segment in Travel Mapping, and I've logged much more egregious segments for the purposes of tracking what routes I've been on.)

I can obviously see why NYSDOT can't use the detour I used as their posted detour - there's an 8 ton weight limit on Plains Rd and there would be significant traffic concerns on both roads - but still, it seems like a very long detour for such a short closure, and just a strange closure in general. I can usually find something from either a Google search or NYSDOT's site, but I'm coming up empty there too. Any insight from vdeane, rothman or others would certainly be of interest/appreciated!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 04, 2022, 09:36:53 PM
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17?  I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now.  Is there bridge repair going on or something?

EDIT:  I found it.  Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals.  I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.

https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf

Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.

I didn't think there was an issue either, but I guess it was "too much weaving" for someone.
A roundabout would have been considered for this location.  Someone can contact Region 1 and find out why it was not pursued in the end, but it was definitely considered as part of NYSDOT policy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on April 04, 2022, 09:38:54 PM
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17?  I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now.  Is there bridge repair going on or something?

EDIT:  I found it.  Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals.  I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.

https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf

Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.

I didn't think there was an issue either, but I guess it was "too much weaving" for someone.
A roundabout would have been considered for this location.  Someone can contact Region 1 and find out why it was not pursued in the end, but it was definitely considered as part of NYSDOT policy.

Do you think roundabouts would have been a preferred option?  Its not surprising given how much a lot of people out there just don't like them and many more don't even know how to properly negotiate one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 04, 2022, 09:45:01 PM
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17?  I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now.  Is there bridge repair going on or something?

EDIT:  I found it.  Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals.  I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.

https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf

Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.

I didn't think there was an issue either, but I guess it was "too much weaving" for someone.
A roundabout would have been considered for this location.  Someone can contact Region 1 and find out why it was not pursued in the end, but it was definitely considered as part of NYSDOT policy.

Do you think roundabouts would have been a preferred option?  Its not surprising given how much a lot of people out there just don't like them and many more don't even know how to properly negotiate one.
Well, no.  The preferred alternative is the design they're carrying forward.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on April 04, 2022, 09:47:25 PM
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17?  I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now.  Is there bridge repair going on or something?

EDIT:  I found it.  Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals.  I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.

https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf

Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.

I didn't think there was an issue either, but I guess it was "too much weaving" for someone.
A roundabout would have been considered for this location.  Someone can contact Region 1 and find out why it was not pursued in the end, but it was definitely considered as part of NYSDOT policy.

Do you think roundabouts would have been a preferred option?  Its not surprising given how much a lot of people out there just don't like them and many more don't even know how to properly negotiate one.
Well, no.  The preferred alternative is the design they're carrying forward.

I think @webny99 had the right question....  what was the problem with the existing configuration?  (aside from the obvious weaving problem, which wasn't a horrible issue before lanes were taken out)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 04, 2022, 09:48:39 PM
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17?  I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now.  Is there bridge repair going on or something?

EDIT:  I found it.  Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals.  I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.

https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf

Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.

I didn't think there was an issue either, but I guess it was "too much weaving" for someone.
A roundabout would have been considered for this location.  Someone can contact Region 1 and find out why it was not pursued in the end, but it was definitely considered as part of NYSDOT policy.

Do you think roundabouts would have been a preferred option?  Its not surprising given how much a lot of people out there just don't like them and many more don't even know how to properly negotiate one.
Well, no.  The preferred alternative is the design they're carrying forward.

I think @webny99 had the right question....  what was the problem with the existing configuration?  (aside from the obvious weaving problem, which wasn't a horrible issue before lanes were taken out)
You'd have to ask them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 04, 2022, 11:44:49 PM
And I have another "what exactly is going on"... with NY 251? There's a short (approx. 1/2 mile) segment closed in Mendon, NY that doesn't have any apparent bridges or anything that might be undergoing reconstruction. It took me by surprise during my attempted clinch of NY 251 on Saturday, so I just followed the rather long posted detour, which is NY 15A south to Sibley Rd to NY 65 north, picking up a new section of NY 15A in the process.

But based on the posted mileages ("CLOSED 2-3/4 MILES AHEAD" from NY 15A and "CLOSED 3/4 MILE AHEAD" ahead from NY 65) I was pretty sure it must be a short closure that I could probably get around with a much shorter detour. My curiosity got the better of me today, so I tried again, following NY 251 eastbound as far as I could (and going past 2 more "road closed ahead - local traffic only" signs) before I finally got to the actual closure, which started at Plains Rd (exactly what I was hoping for!). There did appear to be significant construction equipment and signs of activity, but it was almost 6PM so, unsurprisingly, no active work was going on. I then took Plains Rd to Junction Rd back to NY 251 and found I was past the other end of the closure, so I continued on to NY 65 as planned to "complete" my clinch of NY 251. (I am going to call it clinched given that I (a) followed the posted detour and (b) went as far as possible on both ends. Plus it's such a short closure that I have been on over 90% of the 3.07 mile "NY15A <-> StoLonRd" segment in Travel Mapping, and I've logged much more egregious segments for the purposes of tracking what routes I've been on.)

I can obviously see why NYSDOT can't use the detour I used as their posted detour - there's an 8 ton weight limit on Plains Rd and there would be significant traffic concerns on both roads - but still, it seems like a very long detour for such a short closure, and just a strange closure in general. I can usually find something from either a Google search or NYSDOT's site, but I'm coming up empty there too. Any insight from vdeane, rothman or others would certainly be of interest/appreciated!
Nothing apparent there, but my policy on this is I only count it as clinched if I can see the same closure point from both sides (so either see the other side, or from both sides I can see the midpoint). You should have headed back west on 251 from Junction Rd. and U-turned. P.S. i think it's in Rush, not Mendon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 05, 2022, 08:04:06 AM
Nothing apparent there, but my policy on this is I only count it as clinched if I can see the same closure point from both sides (so either see the other side, or from both sides I can see the midpoint). You should have headed back west on 251 from Junction Rd. and U-turned. P.S. i think it's in Rush, not Mendon.

Sorry, I wasn't clear that it was closed from Junction Rd on the other side, so I couldn't have gone any further on that side either (you can't quite see both sides at once, but it's close enough for me).

It may be a Rush ZIP but the closure is in the town of Mendon, it starts about 3/4 mile southeast of the town line (https://goo.gl/maps/1p55GRpkjnUpVBGd7).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 05, 2022, 01:00:48 PM
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17?  I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now.  Is there bridge repair going on or something?

EDIT:  I found it.  Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals.  I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.

https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
There were concerns regarding the transition from a high-speed interchange to a corridor with traffic lights and increasing development.  The project improves safety and reconfigures the interchange to be more in line with how US 9 functions today.  The new bridge will also have wider shoulders, meaning that it should be possible to ride a bike to/from Moreau Lake State Park.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 05, 2022, 02:27:37 PM
I'm actually OK with the change, if only because having one exit instead of two will make it less easily confused with the other (busier?) US 9/I-87 cloverleaf near Malta.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on April 05, 2022, 05:28:08 PM
It also doesn't make sense to maintain two aging bridges over the interstate when they were only striped for one through lane each. I am going to assume plans to widen US 9 from each side of the interstate are long dead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on April 09, 2022, 07:35:44 PM
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-record-328-billion-transportation-infrastructure-part-fy-2023-budget

Governor announced her transportation capital projects for FY 2023. It's official: the Kensington Expressway is staying! They just intend to put a lid on it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 09, 2022, 07:57:13 PM
Quote
Over the past several years, projects have been completed by the Department of Transportation to further upgrade sections of Route 17, including reconstruction of the interchange at Exit 131, where Route 17 meets Interstate 87 and Route 32 (Woodbury Common) and reconstruction of Exits 122 and 125 (Legoland) to meet interstate standards. Up to $1 billion of the capital plan will be used to accelerate the conversion of the Route 17 corridor in Orange and Sullivan counties to Interstate 86, fueling transformative levels of economic growth in the region and improving quality of life by alleviating congestion.

Interestingly, this push to upgrade NY 17 to I-86 is specific to Orange and Sullivan counties, while the biggest barrier to conversion (the at-grades near Hale Eddy) is actually in Delaware County. Maybe it will end up being designated as far as Liberty or Roscoe, with "Future I-86" posted on the remaining section.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 09, 2022, 09:29:23 PM
Quote
Over the past several years, projects have been completed by the Department of Transportation to further upgrade sections of Route 17, including reconstruction of the interchange at Exit 131, where Route 17 meets Interstate 87 and Route 32 (Woodbury Common) and reconstruction of Exits 122 and 125 (Legoland) to meet interstate standards. Up to $1 billion of the capital plan will be used to accelerate the conversion of the Route 17 corridor in Orange and Sullivan counties to Interstate 86, fueling transformative levels of economic growth in the region and improving quality of life by alleviating congestion.

Interestingly, this push to upgrade NY 17 to I-86 is specific to Orange and Sullivan counties, while the biggest barrier to conversion (the at-grades near Hale Eddy) is actually in Delaware County. Maybe it will end up being designated as far as Liberty or Roscoe, with "Future I-86" posted on the remaining section.
Hale Eddy is the most visible barrier, but I remember Rothman saying that the majority of the remaining cost was in Orange County.  The sections needing work in the two counties mostly corresponds to the area studied for widening; there are a couple interchanges to the west around Liberty, then everything should meet standards to Roscoe, barring surprises like what was mentioned around Middletown.

Personally, I'm not a fan of what North Carolina did regarding future I-26, and I feel like that signage basically acts as a permission slip to delay the upgrade project as often as they like.  As such, were future I-86 to receive such signage, the chances of it ever being completed in full would probably sink even lower.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on April 10, 2022, 01:17:07 AM
Quote
Over the past several years, projects have been completed by the Department of Transportation to further upgrade sections of Route 17, including reconstruction of the interchange at Exit 131, where Route 17 meets Interstate 87 and Route 32 (Woodbury Common) and reconstruction of Exits 122 and 125 (Legoland) to meet interstate standards. Up to $1 billion of the capital plan will be used to accelerate the conversion of the Route 17 corridor in Orange and Sullivan counties to Interstate 86, fueling transformative levels of economic growth in the region and improving quality of life by alleviating congestion.

Interestingly, this push to upgrade NY 17 to I-86 is specific to Orange and Sullivan counties, while the biggest barrier to conversion (the at-grades near Hale Eddy) is actually in Delaware County. Maybe it will end up being designated as far as Liberty or Roscoe, with "Future I-86" posted on the remaining section.
Hale Eddy is the most visible barrier, but I remember Rothman saying that the majority of the remaining cost was in Orange County.  The sections needing work in the two counties mostly corresponds to the area studied for widening; there are a couple interchanges to the west around Liberty, then everything should meet standards to Roscoe, barring surprises like what was mentioned around Middletown.

Personally, I'm not a fan of what North Carolina did regarding future I-26, and I feel like that signage basically acts as a permission slip to delay the upgrade project as often as they like.  As such, were future I-86 to receive such signage, the chances of it ever being completed in full would probably sink even lower.
I would imagine ROW costs are more in Orange County than in Delaware County, plus I would imagine that the freeway was constructed generally east to west, meaning that the sections in Orange County are older and in more need of some help. Plus, traffic counts are around 6x higher in Orange than Delaware, so it would make sense to prioritize the segments with more traffic, which would also benefit more from upgrades IMO. If it were up to me, I would certainly prioritize upgrades where the LOS borders on abysmal during rush hour as opposed to a segment that operates at LOS A 24/7/365 barring a whiteout or major accident.

I do hope that Hale Eddy gets upgraded soon (more so due to the abhorrent geometry than the at-grades), but I would much rather my tax money go to 6-laning and modernization in Orange, where it is actually necessary and the impacts (and return on investment) would be much greater.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 10, 2022, 11:09:28 AM
Absolutely, to be clear I am not suggesting the upgrades in Orange and Sullivan counties are not important, only that bringing I-86 to those counties will not mean I-86 is complete until Delaware County/Hale Eddy is also addressed.

With regards to "future" signage, I'd actually be OK with it on that short segment as long as everything else is signed as I-86. I think if it gets to a point where it's just Hale Eddy remaining, it will get done eventually even if it's not right away.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 10, 2022, 04:48:50 PM
With regards to "future" signage, I'd actually be OK with it on that short segment as long as everything else is signed as I-86. I think if it gets to a point where it's just Hale Eddy remaining, it will get done eventually even if it's not right away.
But if it's already signed like an interstate, to the point where only a roadgeek would be able to tell the difference, that wouldn't give whoever the governor is whenever Hale Eddy is the last piece standing the big ribbon cutting moment that would be the only motivating factor to actually do the project.  This is especially true because NYSDOT is in preservation mode, so there's only so much money available for beyond preservation projects - and a good chunk of that is used up just with things like bridge replacements.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on April 10, 2022, 07:23:07 PM
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17?  I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now.  Is there bridge repair going on or something?

EDIT:  I found it.  Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals.  I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.

https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
There were concerns regarding the transition from a high-speed interchange to a corridor with traffic lights and increasing development.  The project improves safety and reconfigures the interchange to be more in line with how US 9 functions today.  The new bridge will also have wider shoulders, meaning that it should be possible to ride a bike to/from Moreau Lake State Park.

Honestly, I get this.  The real head scratcher was no mention of roundabouts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 10, 2022, 08:54:41 PM
I don't know, if there was ever a road that was "not busy enough for a cloverleaf, but too busy for roundabouts™", I feel like US 9 in that part of the state would be it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 13, 2022, 04:43:27 PM
Maybe it's just the part of New York that I grew up in, but I'm not used to seeing "Bridge Out" signs anywhere in the State of New York:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3907623,-73.6165434,3a,75y,312.68h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5WaD4mFldFBTrAp9oXKZag!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5WaD4mFldFBTrAp9oXKZag%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D320.8732%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Normally, I'd think most highway departments would find "Road Closed" would be a sufficient enough sign.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on April 13, 2022, 09:44:01 PM
Maybe it's just the part of New York that I grew up in, but I'm not used to seeing "Bridge Out" signs anywhere in the State of New York:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3907623,-73.6165434,3a,75y,312.68h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5WaD4mFldFBTrAp9oXKZag!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5WaD4mFldFBTrAp9oXKZag%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D320.8732%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Normally, I'd think most highway departments would find "Road Closed" would be a sufficient enough sign.




Honestly that thing has been out since the 2012 GSV. Maybe they should just call that permanently closed, put up some guiderail to prevent traffic from going through and call it a day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 3467 on April 14, 2022, 10:42:26 AM
The U.S. 219 extension to Interstate 86 was dropped. It's in today's  Federal Register.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 14, 2022, 10:45:17 AM
The U.S. 219 extension to Interstate 86 was dropped. It's in today's  Federal Register.

Too bad, but not a huge surprise given that the state's priorities are clearly elsewhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on April 14, 2022, 10:47:26 AM
Rescission of the Notice of Intent for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Erie and Cattaraugus Counties, NY (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/14/2022-07981/rescission-of-the-notice-of-intent-for-a-supplemental-environmental-impact-statement-erie-and)

The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that we are rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the highway improvement project: US Route 219 Springville to Salamanca, NY Route 39 to NY Route 17 (Interstate 86), Erie and Cattaraugus Counties, New York [New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Project Identification Number 5101.84].
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 14, 2022, 12:12:45 PM
Rescission of the Notice of Intent for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Erie and Cattaraugus Counties, NY (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/14/2022-07981/rescission-of-the-notice-of-intent-for-a-supplemental-environmental-impact-statement-erie-and)

The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that we are rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the highway improvement project: US Route 219 Springville to Salamanca, NY Route 39 to NY Route 17 (Interstate 86), Erie and Cattaraugus Counties, New York [New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Project Identification Number 5101.84].
Heh.  'Bout time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2022, 01:18:57 PM
Does this mean that the US 219 Southern Expressway will have a permanent southern terminus at Peters Rd.?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 14, 2022, 01:46:45 PM
Does this mean that the US 219 Southern Expressway will have a permanent southern terminus at Peters Rd.?
If by "permanent" you mean, "for at least a generation," yes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 14, 2022, 01:51:04 PM
Does this mean that the US 219 Southern Expressway will have a permanent southern terminus at Peters Rd.?

This article explains WNY’s challenges well. US 219 is mentioned.

https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-challenges-of-being-buffalo-in-todays-new-york-state/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 14, 2022, 07:04:38 PM
There's no demand or heavy enough traffic. As someone who uses the 219/Southern Expressway regularly, there is rarely any traffic south of New Armor Duells Road (NY 952J) and even less traffic south of Creekside/391. There is no demand for the rest to be finished, maybe.maybe....maybe with a bypass of Ellicottville. Otherwise, there's no way anything's being built south of Cattaraugus CR 101 (Peters Road). Not to mention Ashford Hollow is a speed trap the NY State Police use to their advantage (speaking from experience).

Only thing 219 needs at this point is exit numbers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on April 14, 2022, 07:16:41 PM


Only thing 219 needs at this point is exit numbers.

I've never understood NYSDOT's hesitation to put exit numbers in Western New York on the freeway portions of US 219, NY 33, and NY 400. NY Route 33 has more interchanges than I-290, yet 33 doesn't get exit numbers. It's such an outdated practice.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 14, 2022, 07:26:10 PM
Lack of incentive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: BlueOutback7 on April 14, 2022, 07:31:36 PM


Only thing 219 needs at this point is exit numbers.

I've never understood NYSDOT's hesitation to put exit numbers in Western New York on the freeway portions of US 219, NY 33, and NY 400. NY Route 33 has more interchanges than I-290, yet 33 doesn't get exit numbers. It's such an outdated practice.

Don’t forget NY 104 and the Lake Ontario State Parkway. If that even counts as WNY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 14, 2022, 08:30:23 PM
There's no demand or heavy enough traffic. As someone who uses the 219/Southern Expressway regularly, there is rarely any traffic south of New Armor Duells Road (NY 952J) and even less traffic south of Creekside/391. There is no demand for the rest to be finished, maybe.maybe....maybe with a bypass of Ellicottville. Otherwise, there's no way anything's being built south of Cattaraugus CR 101 (Peters Road). Not to mention Ashford Hollow is a speed trap the NY State Police use to their advantage (speaking from experience).

Only thing 219 needs at this point is exit numbers.
I personally find US 219 to be quite not fun to drive between I-86 and Peters Road.  Being stuck behind slowpokes is rather common.

And to think that, 15 years ago, the next section to Snake Run Road was under design and scheduled to be finished well before now.  Things sure have changed!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 14, 2022, 08:57:46 PM
There's more than enough places to deal with slowpokes on 219. Heaven knows I have.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 14, 2022, 11:16:32 PM
To be blunt, NY's volatile relationship with the Seneca Nation also came into play with US 219.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on April 15, 2022, 01:05:53 PM
Not surprised. The 219 advocacy page, continental1.org , has been down for some time now.

It would be interesting if Thruway tolls in WNY were lifted for a month or two. I suspect much of the 219 truck traffic would simply go to I-79 or US 15.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 16, 2022, 01:15:40 PM
I suspect much of the 219 truck traffic would simply go to I-79 or US 15.

I-99/US 15 is obviously the corridor of choice, given the efforts to complete NY's section of I-99 last decade combined with PA's efforts to improve the branches of that corridor with the I-80/I-99 and CSVT projects.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 16, 2022, 01:26:19 PM
There's no demand or heavy enough traffic. As someone who uses the 219/Southern Expressway regularly, there is rarely any traffic south of New Armor Duells Road (NY 952J) and even less traffic south of Creekside/391. There is no demand for the rest to be finished, maybe.maybe....maybe with a bypass of Ellicottville. Otherwise, there's no way anything's being built south of Cattaraugus CR 101 (Peters Road). Not to mention Ashford Hollow is a speed trap the NY State Police use to their advantage (speaking from experience).

Only thing 219 needs at this point is exit numbers.
I personally find US 219 to be quite not fun to drive between I-86 and Peters Road.  Being stuck behind slowpokes is rather common.

And to think that, 15 years ago, the next section to Snake Run Road was under design and scheduled to be finished well before now.  Things sure have changed!

I do think a lack of demand is the reason this ultimately isn't moving forward now, combined with the state's priorities in WNY now being NY 33 and elsewhere in the Buffalo area. There's also the fact that even if it was finished, there's still a large gap in PA that's currently much worse than any of NY's portion, so that reduces the incentive.

I've only been on that portion of US 219 a couple of times, but one was a fall weekend and it was extremely slow. The worst part was the jog on Peters Rd. Southbound was backed up all the way onto the freeway with traffic trying to make the left turn. There was no apparent accidents or incidents of any sort, although it was mid day on a fall Saturday which I'm sure was a factor in how busy it was.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 16, 2022, 02:50:58 PM
Another Saw Mill River Parkway question;

Was this the site of the old Worthington New York and Putnam Railroad station?
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=12&lat=40.991111&lon=-73.874167

Because the New York State Thruway interchange is there now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 16, 2022, 11:45:39 PM
Another Saw Mill River Parkway question;

Was this the site of the old Worthington New York and Putnam Railroad station?
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=12&lat=40.991111&lon=-73.874167

Bewcause the New York State Thruway interchange is there now.

I'm guessing just a shade south of there, by the foot of Park Avenue West.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 17, 2022, 06:16:41 PM
There's been a lot of repaving of concrete roads around I-684 and I-287.  However, the ramps they haven't done yet.  This is I-684 SB to Westchester Ave.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52010300497_f226241e9d_z.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 19, 2022, 11:34:33 PM
Time to address a bunch of replies from the past couple weeks...

219 between Ashford and Salamanca has effectively been dead for a decade. A full freeway is probably unnecessary, but maaaaaaaybe there will be some much-needed spot improvements (fat chance, but I can wish). Notably, an Ellicottville bypass (so Ellicottville can shut the road down for festivals without gridlocking the entire county like happens now).

Northway Exit 17: part of that comes down to "it's cheaper to maintain 4 ramps than 8." I've known that interchange was being dieted for quite some time (I have some level of professional interaction with both relevant MPOs). A cloverleaf was always excessive for that location and removing half of the ramps allows for a narrower bridge that both includes shoulders and bike facilities.

NY 33: I don't think removing that was ever in the cards. It was always "cap it". The MPO there is very pro-freight compared to the other ones in the state and part of that extends to "keep trucks away from bikes/peds". Remember that the MPO wouldn't allow a Skyway removal without an expressway-grade replacement when there was a push to remove the Skyway, nor have they allowed anything more than cosmetic changes to NY 198.

NY 17: I'd argue that Hale Eddy is unnecessary. East of Monticello definitely needs upgrades; that is by far the worst part of the road at this point and the Rock Hill RIRO needs to go. I assume some of these upgrades would include much-needed 6-laning.

Does this mean that the US 219 Southern Expressway will have a permanent southern terminus at Peters Rd.?

This article explains WNY’s challenges well. US 219 is mentioned.

https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-challenges-of-being-buffalo-in-todays-new-york-state/

The political issues are an entirely different problem, but one that is going to become more prominent as we move forward. Having lived in Buffalo for close to a decade and having spent time at their MPO, I know some of these issues quite well; let's just say that regional priorities are quite different from the state's due to the blue collar/industrial economy/culture and it creates tension. The metro has far more in common with Cleveland or Detroit than even Syracuse in terms of culture, let alone Albany or NYC.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on April 21, 2022, 10:24:08 AM
Couldn't get a picture, but I-84 at the state borders and on either side of the Taconic Parkway exit has new signs warning of low bridges. Standard black text on white background stating something to the effect of "No Trucks, Trailers, RVs on Parkways" with a black text on yellow banner below saying "Low Bridges". These have been put up within the last month, I assume in response to all the recent bridge strikes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 21, 2022, 01:55:05 PM
Couldn't get a picture, but I-84 at the state borders and on either side of the Taconic Parkway exit has new signs warning of low bridges. Standard black text on white background stating something to the effect of "No Trucks, Trailers, RVs on Parkways" with a black text on yellow banner below saying "Low Bridges". These have been put up within the last month, I assume in response to all the recent bridge strikes.

I'll have to keep an eye out for these. As an incidental observation, this is a non-exhaustive list of prohibited vehicles on the parkways (and of reasons for the prohibition). It is probably no coincidence that the unmentioned vehicles and reasons coincide with those less known by many motorists.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on April 21, 2022, 03:21:29 PM
That's exclusionary. RVs are prohibited? What about van conversions? Those are not commercial in nature.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 21, 2022, 06:01:26 PM
That's exclusionary. RVs are prohibited? What about van conversions? Those are not commercial in nature.

RVs are explicitly prohibited under state law. Passenger cars only.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 21, 2022, 07:01:19 PM
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:
Quote
(a) bicycles;
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 21, 2022, 08:57:20 PM
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:
Quote
(a) bicycles;
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.

Me either, though I haven't seen it NOT enforced either, as the only motorcycles I've seen on the parkways are way above 5hp.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 21, 2022, 11:01:12 PM
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:
Quote
(a) bicycles;
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
I've witnessed e) on the lower Taconic as part of a procession!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on April 22, 2022, 12:10:12 AM
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:
Quote
(g) motor-driven cycles;
Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.

In most states, as near as I can tell, a motorcycle and a motor-driven cycle are not the same thing. Motor-driven cycles are things like powered scooters.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 22, 2022, 12:17:51 AM
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:
Quote
(g) motor-driven cycles;
Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.

In most states, as near as I can tell, a motorcycle and a motor-driven cycle are not the same thing. Motor-driven cycles are things like powered scooters.

Motor-driven cycles are mopeds and the like. Motorcycles are generally considered to be equivalent to "passenger cars" in this state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 22, 2022, 06:33:32 AM
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:
Quote
(a) bicycles;
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
I've witnessed e) on the lower Taconic as part of a procession!
Ditto
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 22, 2022, 06:58:58 AM
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:
Quote
(g) motor-driven cycles;
Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.

In most states, as near as I can tell, a motorcycle and a motor-driven cycle are not the same thing. Motor-driven cycles are things like powered scooters.

Motor-driven cycles are mopeds and the like. Motorcycles are generally considered to be equivalent to "passenger cars" in this state.
How would something like a Can-Am Spyder or Polaris Slingshot be classified? And does Connecticut DOT restrict such vehicles on their parkways?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Can-Am_Spyder

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Polaris_Slingshot

Those links are for anybody who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 22, 2022, 07:07:01 AM
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:
Quote
(g) motor-driven cycles;
Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.

In most states, as near as I can tell, a motorcycle and a motor-driven cycle are not the same thing. Motor-driven cycles are things like powered scooters.

Motor-driven cycles are mopeds and the like. Motorcycles are generally considered to be equivalent to "passenger cars" in this state.
How would something like a Can-Am Spyder or Polaris Slingshot be classified? And does Connecticut DOT restrict such vehicles on their parkways?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Can-Am_Spyder

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Polaris_Slingshot

Those links are for anybody who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
"A fool and their money are soon parted."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 22, 2022, 09:37:04 AM
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:
Quote
(g) motor-driven cycles;
Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.

In most states, as near as I can tell, a motorcycle and a motor-driven cycle are not the same thing. Motor-driven cycles are things like powered scooters.

Motor-driven cycles are mopeds and the like. Motorcycles are generally considered to be equivalent to "passenger cars" in this state.
How would something like a Can-Am Spyder or Polaris Slingshot be classified? And does Connecticut DOT restrict such vehicles on their parkways?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Can-Am_Spyder

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Polaris_Slingshot

Those links are for anybody who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
For the cop patrolling the parkway, it will boil down to what is the plate registration class. Motorcycle, passenger and commercial plates are well distingwishable in NY.  That is an equally difficult question, but it is fully answered by the time vehicle is on the road.
NY used to register light trucks as commercial vehicles only up to some point, even if they were used as personal cars. So those trucks were not allowed on parkways. Rules changed, so now one can register light truck as a car and drive it on a parkway.
Actually I wonder if, given all the negative comments Robert Moses' policies get these days, rules he established for parkways would be changed to actual height & weight limitations only.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 22, 2022, 09:52:10 AM
Tons of light trucks (and vans, for that matter) have commercial plates but are used as personal cars. I highly doubt that's ever stopped any owner of any such vehicle from driving it on a NY parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 22, 2022, 12:00:09 PM
Tons of light trucks (and vans, for that matter) have commercial plates but are used as personal cars. I highly doubt that's ever stopped any owner of any such vehicle from driving it on a NY parkway.

I'm sure it's stopped at least one, somewhere, sometime. :-) But would it have stopped many more if these vehicles were listed on big signs along with RVs and such?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 22, 2022, 12:23:27 PM
Tons of light trucks (and vans, for that matter) have commercial plates but are used as personal cars. I highly doubt that's ever stopped any owner of any such vehicle from driving it on a NY parkway.

I'm sure it's stopped at least one, somewhere, sometime. :-) But would it have stopped many more if these vehicles were listed on big signs along with RVs and such?
This would be a really big BGS:
Quote
(a) bicycles;
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on April 22, 2022, 01:31:53 PM
Couldn't get a picture, but I-84 at the state borders and on either side of the Taconic Parkway exit has new signs warning of low bridges. Standard black text on white background stating something to the effect of "No Trucks, Trailers, RVs on Parkways" with a black text on yellow banner below saying "Low Bridges". These have been put up within the last month, I assume in response to all the recent bridge strikes.

I saw that on Sunday getting on the Taconic from 84. Since we're talking about parkway prohibitions, the Vehicle & Traffic Law lists specific parkways in Westchester that people with learner's permits are not allowed to drive on: the Taconic, Cross-County, Hutch, and the Saw Mill. I'm guessing the law is old enough that the Sprain wasn't included (finished 1980 iirc). The Bear Mountain and Bronx River Pkwys are not mentioned. Very arbitrary.

Here's the DMV's list of weird permit restrictions (https://dmv.ny.gov/learner-permit-restrictions):

NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on April 22, 2022, 02:31:13 PM
NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.

As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 22, 2022, 04:11:52 PM
Tons of light trucks (and vans, for that matter) have commercial plates but are used as personal cars. I highly doubt that's ever stopped any owner of any such vehicle from driving it on a NY parkway.
There were some stories on this very site - probably in this very thread - about people ticketed for pizza delivery in their personal car on a parkway as well as about buziness owner driving in their own car without any marks, but with stack of business printed material on the back seat...

UPD:
I mean, my dad's stepfather was pulled over on one of the parkways in the 80s for having a box of catalogs for his used book store on the back seat. Using the parkway for commercial purposes. So if they're gonna be that strict, they can pull over anyone delivering anything.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on April 22, 2022, 04:15:54 PM
And by definition of an RV - does this include Ford Transits used as a camper? Or people towing a RV? Or just those full drivable models? This law is so open to interpretation that I'm sure it's been challenged before. It really needs to be restricted upon height/width and weight.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 22, 2022, 11:18:04 PM
This would be a really big BGS:
Quote
(a) bicycles;
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.

Yeah, it should be pretty noticeable, and so presumably get the point across!

Of course, you could also (in this imaginary exercise) switch it up and have different vehicles mentioned on different signs: trucks and RVs on one, mopeds and snowmobiles on another, plumbers' vans and school buses on a third, etc. The thought experiment is merely whether plumbers tend to drive their vans on the parkways because they simply don't realize they mustn't–and if so, is that because there are signs saying who mustn't, that doesn't include plumbers' vans? Do they take the absence of evidence as evidence of absence?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 22, 2022, 11:55:50 PM
NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.

As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.
I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 23, 2022, 12:37:53 AM
NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.

As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.
I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.
Wonder how other states handle NY's junior DLs.  Probably illegal to drive with them.

I hate that set up.  Just doesn't make sense to me to restrict kids like that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 23, 2022, 08:50:08 AM
  • A road test area (not sure how this can be enforced)

When you're in a road test area, there are signs telling you so and saying that practicing there is prohibited.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on April 23, 2022, 11:17:19 AM
  • A road test area (not sure how this can be enforced)

When you're in a road test area, there are signs telling you so and saying that practicing there is prohibited.
The Fishkill test site only has this measly little blue sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5289239,-73.9181455,3a,37.6y,153.61h,81.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smYmWplMnbiUjzySUqBuu0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the start point. I never knew where people actually went from there until I did it myself.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on April 23, 2022, 12:55:46 PM
Similar to where I was tested many years ago in Syracuse. (https://goo.gl/maps/yp2TrA3zb1xnu1os6) I do recall the "Brownie" (a likely now retired term for the tester, wearing a drab brown uniform) yelling to someone parallel parking on the route.  It is in the manual that you can't practice on the test route for your area. For me, this was the mid-'90s, it was the same course my older siblings used; and seems similar to this day.

Now living in the Philly burbs, there is a PennDOT testing site in a nearby mall, and apparently there is no (or no enforced?) prohibition on taking practice rounds on the course. This adds to the fun of driving in the center's parking lot, because you never know if the person ignoring rights-of-way is a new driver, or just unskilled.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 23, 2022, 01:06:29 PM
NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.

As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.
I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.
Wonder how other states handle NY's junior DLs.  Probably illegal to drive with them.

I was told I couldn't drive in other states or Canada until I had my full license, but it probably depends on the state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on April 23, 2022, 01:11:34 PM
NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.

As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.
I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.
Wonder how other states handle NY's junior DLs.  Probably illegal to drive with them.

I was told I couldn't drive in other states or Canada until I had my full license, but it probably depends on the state.
Keep in mind I was talking about almost 50 years ago. There was no such thing as junior licenses back then (at least in NJ although 17 was the driving age there).


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 23, 2022, 01:21:02 PM
I hate that set up.  Just doesn't make sense to me to restrict kids like that.

Unless you're also going to restrict the adults that are just as bad! ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on April 23, 2022, 04:31:26 PM
  • A road test area (not sure how this can be enforced)

When you're in a road test area, there are signs telling you so and saying that practicing there is prohibited.
The Fishkill test site only has this measly little blue sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5289239,-73.9181455,3a,37.6y,153.61h,81.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smYmWplMnbiUjzySUqBuu0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the start point. I never knew where people actually went from there until I did it myself.

Other NYSDMV offices seem to have a similar setup.  Just a sign at the starting point...was the case in Canandaigua when I took my road test way back when...Still the case in Utica.

At least they warn you in North Tonawanda...  http://www.newyorkroutes.net/images/misc/roadtest.jpg
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 23, 2022, 05:19:12 PM
They warn you and it's near the NT Police station in case you crash.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 24, 2022, 06:37:05 PM
NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.

As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.
I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.
Wonder how other states handle NY's junior DLs.  Probably illegal to drive with them.

I was told I couldn't drive in other states or Canada until I had my full license, but it probably depends on the state.
Keep in mind I was talking about almost 50 years ago. There was no such thing as junior licenses back then (at least in NJ although 17 was the driving age there).


iPhone
Yeah me too. Junior License is not something I know of. Provisional License is what NJ now has from 17-18 so I assume that has restrictions too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 27, 2022, 01:59:02 AM
Couldn't get a picture, but I-84 at the state borders and on either side of the Taconic Parkway exit has new signs warning of low bridges. Standard black text on white background stating something to the effect of "No Trucks, Trailers, RVs on Parkways" with a black text on yellow banner below saying "Low Bridges". These have been put up within the last month, I assume in response to all the recent bridge strikes.

I'll have to keep an eye out for these. As an incidental observation, this is a non-exhaustive list of prohibited vehicles on the parkways (and of reasons for the prohibition). It is probably no coincidence that the unmentioned vehicles and reasons coincide with those less known by many motorists.
I'd like to see those too. I was recently looking on the CDOT's Merritt Parkway website, and I found a slightly more elaborate version of their truck restrictions site.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Commissions/STC/Connecticut-Parkways
(https://portal.ct.gov/lib/dot/images/istc/passvehonly.jpg)


Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 27, 2022, 10:04:22 AM
I'd like to see those too. I was recently looking on the CDOT's Merritt Parkway website, and I found a slightly more elaborate version of their truck restrictions site.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Commissions/STC/Connecticut-Parkways
(https://portal.ct.gov/lib/dot/images/istc/passvehonly.jpg)

Sort of a mirror case to the New York question–not ALL passenger vehicles are permitted, surely (or are they?), but do some people mentally make that leap in CT?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 27, 2022, 10:37:21 AM
I'd like to see those too. I was recently looking on the CDOT's Merritt Parkway website, and I found a slightly more elaborate version of their truck restrictions site.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Commissions/STC/Connecticut-Parkways
( image removed )

Sort of a mirror case to the New York question–not ALL passenger vehicles are permitted, surely (or are they?), but do some people mentally make that leap in CT?
This is the image from what looks like as NYSDOT official material:
(https://www.hudsonvalleytraveler.com/images/PO_Signs.png)
As for the law,
Quote
Nonrestricted vehicles, except taxicabs and vehicles owned and operated by governmental agencies, having any name, insignia or sign painted or displayed thereon are prohibited within the parkway system, except for identification purposes
So contractors using cars (I just saw "the maids" cleaning services well-decorated one) would not be allowed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 27, 2022, 11:14:50 AM
As for the law,
Quote
Nonrestricted vehicles, except taxicabs and vehicles owned and operated by governmental agencies, having any name, insignia or sign painted or displayed thereon are prohibited within the parkway system, except for identification purposes
So contractors using cars (I just saw "the maids" cleaning services well-decorated one) would not be allowed.

Yeah, that's probably the most common violation, by far. (However, there is a carve-out for name and address only, not exceeding a certain size lettering.)

If there were (and always had been) giant signs saying "No cars with your business name on them", would these violations almost completely disappear? Or would most of the same people use the parkways anyway, because they know they won't strike any bridges?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 27, 2022, 11:33:39 AM
As for the law,
Quote
Nonrestricted vehicles, except taxicabs and vehicles owned and operated by governmental agencies, having any name, insignia or sign painted or displayed thereon are prohibited within the parkway system, except for identification purposes
So contractors using cars (I just saw "the maids" cleaning services well-decorated one) would not be allowed.

Yeah, that's probably the most common violation, by far. (However, there is a carve-out for name and address only, not exceeding a certain size lettering.)

If there were (and always had been) giant signs saying "No cars with your business name on them", would these violations almost completely disappear? Or would most of the same people use the parkways anyway, because they know they won't strike any bridges?
A better question is if that should be a violation to begin with. Just looking at the roads around me, small commercial trucks and cars are only a small %% of traffic. I am not one of those with aesthetic hypertrophy, and don't get insulted whith minor things like cables in the air or business signage on cars (and only mildly irritated with piss-yellow NY license plates).
If purely recreational nature of parkways needs to be enforced, commute and shopping trips should be banned as well. As they are not, I see no point in focusing on business name stickers. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 27, 2022, 12:42:10 PM
A better question is if that should be a violation to begin with. Just looking at the roads around me, small commercial trucks and cars are only a small %% of traffic. I am not one of those with aesthetic hypertrophy, and don't get insulted whith minor things like cables in the air or business signage on cars (and only mildly irritated with piss-yellow NY license plates).
If purely recreational nature of parkways needs to be enforced, commute and shopping trips should be banned as well. As they are not, I see no point in focusing on business name stickers. 

I wouldn't consider that question better than mine, as it has a wholly different purpose. Yours goes into what the policy is or should be, whereas mine is an observation/exploration of information and messaging (and I guess human behavior).

To me the better option would be to simply have both conversations, rather than supplant one with the other.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 27, 2022, 05:07:55 PM
A better question is if that should be a violation to begin with. Just looking at the roads around me, small commercial trucks and cars are only a small %% of traffic. I am not one of those with aesthetic hypertrophy, and don't get insulted whith minor things like cables in the air or business signage on cars (and only mildly irritated with piss-yellow NY license plates).
If purely recreational nature of parkways needs to be enforced, commute and shopping trips should be banned as well. As they are not, I see no point in focusing on business name stickers. 

I wouldn't consider that question better than mine, as it has a wholly different purpose. Yours goes into what the policy is or should be, whereas mine is an observation/exploration of information and messaging (and I guess human behavior).

To me the better option would be to simply have both conversations, rather than supplant one with the other.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not suppressing any conversations, and actual tickets handed out do deserve attention.
My strong feeling, though, is that original policy IS wrong, and that is a bigger issue - hence "better question". It  doesn't cancel "would I get a ticket?" one. I am sorry if my choice of words is  confusing...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 27, 2022, 06:12:04 PM
Please don't get me wrong. I am not suppressing any conversations, and actual tickets handed out do deserve attention.
My strong feeling, though, is that original policy IS wrong, and that is a bigger issue - hence "better question". It  doesn't cancel "would I get a ticket?" one. I am sorry if my choice of words is  confusing...

No, it's probably me–I get this all the time. I often mention some little observation that's interesting to me, and it often gets mistaken for something I consider important. Generally, I don't use the internet for important stuff, but I know a lot of people do so that might be why.

Anyhoo, the question isn't about tickets, it's just whether people would tend to do a certain thing if the signs were different. Do people drive cars with business names on the parkway simply because there are no giant signs saying "no cars with your business name on it"? Do they think that only large vehicles are prohibited, because those are the only ones mentioned on signs–in other words, do they mistakenly think that the signs contain a complete list of prohibited vehicles, and that anything not mentioned is therefore permitted?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on April 27, 2022, 09:09:05 PM
Is there a specific reason why the rim of the Kenisco Dam in White Plains is not open to motor vehicles?  I noticed that bicycles and pedestrians are only allowed to use the once public road between NY 22 and the west side of the reservoir and even GSV has no caption of it other than submitted still photos at both sides of the dam.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 27, 2022, 09:19:28 PM
Is there a specific reason why the rim of the Kenisco Dam in White Plains is not open to motor vehicles?  I noticed that bicycles and pedestrians are only allowed to use the once public road between NY 22 and the west side of the reservoir and even GSV has no caption of it other than submitted still photos at both sides of the dam.


I believe it has to do with 9/11 security concerns.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on April 27, 2022, 09:31:01 PM
I kind of figured as much as cars are no longer allowed on the Staten Island Ferry since 9/11, but I think we all know that won't stop an enemy attack by any means.

Yes, from where the dam is situated it is a perfect way to wipe out White Plains as blowing up that particular structure would wash away the Bronx River Valley below it.  White Plains is along the lower River valley and so would other Westchester communities as well.   

However, considering that one hell bent on destruction will go for it any way possible, why not allow us to enjoy the beauty of the dam from above as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on April 27, 2022, 10:38:06 PM
Hey I noticed something when virtually touring I-81. I see the Cartland Next 2 Exits sign now is revised to include both exits for Ithaca as well.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZpDmXbUBtyX189kv8

Then also the Exit 12 guides now include Ithaca as well asHomer and Cortland.

https://goo.gl/maps/Pnid81TVgVA2itrYA

I always thought NYSDOT should include Ithaca along with Cortland on the Next 2 exits signs.  Now I see someone is finally thinking clearly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 27, 2022, 10:52:28 PM
Is there a specific reason why the rim of the Kenisco Dam in White Plains is not open to motor vehicles?
I believe it has to do with 9/11 security concerns.

In other words, no. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 27, 2022, 11:21:29 PM
Yes, from where the dam is situated it is a perfect way to wipe out White Plains as blowing up that particular structure would wash away the Bronx River Valley below it.  White Plains is along the lower River valley and so would other Westchester communities as well.   

However, considering that one hell bent on destruction will go for it any way possible, why not allow us to enjoy the beauty of the dam from above as well.

Kensico is probably the single most important dam in the NYC water supply system. That's where all the water from the other aqueducts is dumped before being sent down to the City. And yes, a dam failure would wipe out anything below it along the Bronx River.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 27, 2022, 11:36:13 PM
Yes, from where the dam is situated it is a perfect way to wipe out White Plains as blowing up that particular structure would wash away the Bronx River Valley below it.  White Plains is along the lower River valley and so would other Westchester communities as well.   

However, considering that one hell bent on destruction will go for it any way possible, why not allow us to enjoy the beauty of the dam from above as well.

Kensico is probably the single most important dam in the NYC water supply system. That's where all the water from the other aqueducts is dumped before being sent down to the City. And yes, a dam failure would wipe out anything below it along the Bronx River.
Of course, causing a dam failure would be ridiculously difficult.  This security theater is just that -- lip service to a public that has been manipulated into thinking a threat is much more likely than it is...by those that profit from such.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 28, 2022, 02:38:04 PM
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:
Quote
(a) bicycles;
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
IIRC "motor-driven" cycles refers to traditional bicycles that have had a motor attached to them, not motorcycles as colloquially known.
Example: CT's legal definition of a motor-driven cycle: “Motor-driven cycle”  means any of the following vehicles that have a seat height of not less than twenty-six inches and a motor having a capacity of less than fifty cubic centimeters piston displacement: (A) A motorcycle, other than an autocycle; (B) a motor scooter; or (C) a bicycle with attached motor, except an electric bicycle;
Motorcycles have engines with a displacement of 50cc or greater.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dzheng35 on April 29, 2022, 08:52:42 PM
Just wondering about NY. If NY was allowed to post speed limits higher than 65, do you think any roads could be signed higher than 65? I think the Thruway could easily be 70 for the most part. What other roads do you think could be signed higher? If so, what do you think it could be signed at?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 29, 2022, 09:20:02 PM
Just wondering about NY. If NY was allowed to post speed limits higher than 65, do you think any roads could be signed higher than 65? I think the Thruway could easily be 70 for the most part. What other roads do you think could be signed higher? If so, what do you think it could be signed at?
I-87 Northway has come up because of how remote it is. I-81 between cities would be another, and I've done I-88 at enough speed to recommend it for anything you'd like.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dzheng35 on April 29, 2022, 09:29:04 PM
What about NY-17 outside of hale eddy? those could easily be higher than 55 right? What seems to be the absolute limit for that road (the speeds police will tolerate before ticketing you) as well as the 85th percentile speed since no one drives 55 in those areas outside of hale eddy anyways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 29, 2022, 09:30:52 PM
Just wondering about NY. If NY was allowed to post speed limits higher than 65, do you think any roads could be signed higher than 65? I think the Thruway could easily be 70 for the most part. What other roads do you think could be signed higher? If so, what do you think it could be signed at?
I-87 Northway has come up because of how remote it is. I-81 between cities would be another, and I've done I-88 at enough speed to recommend it for anything you'd like.

Sure, NY 531 could easily be 70, and the western stretches of I-490. I-390 may be too curvy or hilly, but it's certainly remote enough.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on April 29, 2022, 09:37:26 PM
Just wondering about NY. If NY was allowed to post speed limits higher than 65, do you think any roads could be signed higher than 65? I think the Thruway could easily be 70 for the most part. What other roads do you think could be signed higher? If so, what do you think it could be signed at?
I made a post a little while ago with some examples if NYSDOT is given free reign up to 75. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27178.msg2718112#msg2718112) If I was personally in charge, many of those would go up 5-10mph higher than I listed them at, but alas my opinion means 0 to the DOT.

What about NY-17 outside of hale eddy? those could easily be higher than 55 right? What seems to be the absolute limit for that road (the speeds police will tolerate before ticketing you) as well as the 85th percentile speed since no one drives 55 in those areas outside of hale eddy anyways.
85th percentile speeds along this section tend to be in the low to mid 70s, just like the 65mph sections around them, which is pretty typical in NY; operating speeds rarely change between 55 and 65 zones if the road characteristics are similar enough.

I've done I-88 at enough speed to recommend it for anything you'd like.
:-D
I-84 from Fishkill to Brewster, the 6 lane Taconic, and Thruway from Exit 15A-16 are the same for me......well, 85 anyway  :bigass:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dzheng35 on April 29, 2022, 10:34:06 PM
Just wondering about NY. If NY was allowed to post speed limits higher than 65, do you think any roads could be signed higher than 65? I think the Thruway could easily be 70 for the most part. What other roads do you think could be signed higher? If so, what do you think it could be signed at?
I made a post a little while ago with some examples if NYSDOT is given free reign up to 75. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27178.msg2718112#msg2718112) If I was personally in charge, many of those would go up 5-10mph higher than I listed them at, but alas my opinion means 0 to the DOT.

Now 75 really should be the real absolute minimum should cops decide to aggressively enforce them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 29, 2022, 11:43:28 PM
Just wondering about NY. If NY was allowed to post speed limits higher than 65, do you think any roads could be signed higher than 65? I think the Thruway could easily be 70 for the most part. What other roads do you think could be signed higher? If so, what do you think it could be signed at?
I-87 Northway has come up because of how remote it is. I-81 between cities would be another, and I've done I-88 at enough speed to recommend it for anything you'd like.

Sure, NY 531 could easily be 70, and the western stretches of I-490. I-390 may be too curvy or hilly, but it's certainly remote enough.

Agreed on the first two, and I definitely wouldn't say I-390 is too curvy/hilly to be 70 mph. US 15 in northern PA is already 70 mph, and it's much more curvy/hilly than I-390. When traveling back to Rochester via that route, I find you can drive faster on I-390 than US 15 despite the lower limit. I-390 could be 70 or 75 mph no problem IMO.

And since we're talking hypotheticals, the Thruway could be 80 or 85 mph if not for the heavy truck traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on April 30, 2022, 10:49:56 AM
And since we're talking hypotheticals, the Thruway could be 80 or 85 mph if not for the heavy truck traffic.
The 4 lane section of the Thruway between Harriman and Kingston is abysmal whenever it is overrun with city folk who have never seen a speed limit above 50, not when it has heavy truck traffic in my experience. The trucks on the Thruway are surprisingly patient when it comes to passing other trucks (no micro-passing), whereas the heavy tourist traffic results in a stream of 60mph passing the 55mph queue in the right, with a 2 mile long left lane queue and a slowdown to 40 or so every time someone decides to change lanes. This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
The trucks on the other hand usually cruise in the 70-75 range by themselves on the right (aided by the fact that the Thruway is relatively flat) and rarely pass at less than 70 unless there is a really slow car or truck in the right, and if they are passing, they actually pass rather than micro-pass. When the LOS is in the B to C range, the State Police will tailgate people in the left lane to help clear up some space, since at LOS A they sit in the median and at LOS D or worse they might as well not exist.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: BlueOutback7 on April 30, 2022, 11:12:38 AM
And since we're talking hypotheticals, the Thruway could be 80 or 85 mph if not for the heavy truck traffic.
The 4 lane section of the Thruway between Harriman and Kingston is abysmal whenever it is overrun with city folk who have never seen a speed limit above 50, not when it has heavy truck traffic in my experience. The trucks on the Thruway are surprisingly patient when it comes to passing other trucks (no micro-passing), whereas the heavy tourist traffic results in a stream of 60mph passing the 55mph queue in the right, with a 2 mile long left lane queue and a slowdown to 40 or so every time someone decides to change lanes. This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
The trucks on the other hand usually cruise in the 70-75 range by themselves on the right (aided by the fact that the Thruway is relatively flat) and rarely pass at less than 70 unless there is a really slow car or truck in the right, and if they are passing, they actually pass rather than micro-pass. When the LOS is in the B to C range, the State Police will tailgate people in the left lane to help clear up some space, since at LOS A they sit in the median and at LOS D or worse they might as well not exist.

I haven’t been on the Thruway in a while, but I do believe that they should be able to go up to 70 or 75 along with the rest of New York. From Suffern to NYC, forget it. Traffic is way to heavy to bump the speed limit to ANYTHING above 55. Cockroachking is right about the trucks. But sometimes, there will be two trucks elephant racing and there’s nothing you can do.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 30, 2022, 11:16:09 AM
And since we're talking hypotheticals, the Thruway could be 80 or 85 mph if not for the heavy truck traffic.
The 4 lane section of the Thruway between Harriman and Kingston is abysmal whenever it is overrun with city folk who have never seen a speed limit above 50, not when it has heavy truck traffic in my experience. The trucks on the Thruway are surprisingly patient when it comes to passing other trucks (no micro-passing), whereas the heavy tourist traffic results in a stream of 60mph passing the 55mph queue in the right, with a 2 mile long left lane queue and a slowdown to 40 or so every time someone decides to change lanes. This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
The trucks on the other hand usually cruise in the 70-75 range by themselves on the right (aided by the fact that the Thruway is relatively flat) and rarely pass at less than 70 unless there is a really slow car or truck in the right, and if they are passing, they actually pass rather than micro-pass. When the LOS is in the B to C range, the State Police will tailgate people in the left lane to help clear up some space, since at LOS A they sit in the median and at LOS D or worse they might as well not exist.

Out of curiosity, has there been any thought to the W word (widening) the thruway from Harriman to the Albany area?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 30, 2022, 11:42:15 AM
And since we're talking hypotheticals, the Thruway could be 80 or 85 mph if not for the heavy truck traffic.
The 4 lane section of the Thruway between Harriman and Kingston is abysmal whenever it is overrun with city folk who have never seen a speed limit above 50, not when it has heavy truck traffic in my experience. The trucks on the Thruway are surprisingly patient when it comes to passing other trucks (no micro-passing), whereas the heavy tourist traffic results in a stream of 60mph passing the 55mph queue in the right, with a 2 mile long left lane queue and a slowdown to 40 or so every time someone decides to change lanes. This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
The trucks on the other hand usually cruise in the 70-75 range by themselves on the right (aided by the fact that the Thruway is relatively flat) and rarely pass at less than 70 unless there is a really slow car or truck in the right, and if they are passing, they actually pass rather than micro-pass. When the LOS is in the B to C range, the State Police will tailgate people in the left lane to help clear up some space, since at LOS A they sit in the median and at LOS D or worse they might as well not exist.

Out of curiosity, has there been any thought to the W word (widening) the thruway from Harriman to the Albany area?
NYSTA has a looser policy when it comes to widening than NYSDOT.  See the "recent" widening from I-787 westward.

Haven't heard anything definitive on widening the section you mention, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on April 30, 2022, 11:50:37 AM
Out of curiosity, has there been any thought to the W word (widening) the thruway from Harriman to the Albany area?
Only among people on here if I had to guess, though I don't work for NYSTA.
IMO, the long term goals should be:
8 Lanes: Exits 10-15, 15A-16, 24-25, and 50-55
6 Lanes: Exits 16-23, 25-27, 32-44, 45-50, 55-57.
No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 30, 2022, 12:06:13 PM
No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.

Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 30, 2022, 12:24:34 PM
No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.

Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
When I looked at the traffic counts in Catskills, they were surprisingly low.
Of course, summer weekend rush from NYC will be multiple times higher, but the usual question is if those rush days justify an upgrade. Especially with Daddy bridge credits being there for long term payoff
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 30, 2022, 12:47:44 PM
The 4 lane section of the Thruway between Harriman and Kingston is abysmal whenever it is overrun with city folk who have never seen a speed limit above 50, not when it has heavy truck traffic in my experience. The trucks on the Thruway are surprisingly patient when it comes to passing other trucks (no micro-passing), whereas the heavy tourist traffic results in a stream of 60mph passing the 55mph queue in the right, with a 2 mile long left lane queue and a slowdown to 40 or so every time someone decides to change lanes. This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.

This is a downstate thing overall, or even just any urban area where 3 lanes per side prevails. While left lane clogging happens occasionally, it's really the middle lane that's far worse. Many (or even most) people tend to think of it as the default lane, so that you get almost equal amounts of passing on the left and on the right. (This is especially evident if you remove trucks from the equation–i.e., parkways.)

One of the biggest difficulties with this approach is that someone needing to pass a single vehicle ahead of them often needs to move two lanes over to get around the middle lane, so that passing a single vehicle then becomes passing a whole line of vehicles. And then those who intended to use the left lane as their default are tempted to pass on the right as Plan A, so you have just a lot of back and forth where you oughtn't need it.

Lots of speed and direction changes, in other words, which are more intrinsically dangerous than pure speed (because two objects going the same speed and direction will never collide).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on April 30, 2022, 02:32:16 PM
Speaking of places the Thruway needs widening, on the section I travel most between Albany and Amsterdam, a few relatively short sections with climbing lanes would help quite a bit between 25 and 27.  Eastbound, from the 26 onramp up to the top of the hill.  Westbound, from the 25A onramp to the top of the hill, and on the hill leading up to the 27 offramp.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 30, 2022, 04:10:09 PM
The entire Boston-DC corridor tends to be crap with passing/keeping right in my experience. When 128 around Boston allowed breakdown lane travel, that was often the fastest lane. People who are always driving in congestion don't know how to drive on roads where you can pass.

Re: the W word, good luck. Widening in NY tends to come down to the P word and NYSTA barely has enough money to fix what it has. The other thing to consider with traffic counts is that a lot of people (myself included) stick to 9W during times of congestion because I'm not paying a toll to sit in traffic. Toll roads SHOULD be willing to widen at lower traffic counts, because people are more willing to pay tolls if the road is free-flow or close to it.

It should be noted that other states are willing to widen or implement managed lane schemes for heavy weekend traffic. The I-70 express lanes project west of Denver was mostly for weekend ski traffic. There is no realistic transit alternative for most of these O/D pairs by weekend Thruway users, so it's not like not widening is encouraging transit use.

It's funny that Thruway widening came up, because the Upstate NY Memes Instagram page posted a meme about it yesterday.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 30, 2022, 04:56:49 PM
The entire Boston-DC corridor tends to be crap with passing/keeping right in my experience. When 128 around Boston allowed breakdown lane travel, that was often the fastest lane. People who are always driving in congestion don't know how to drive on roads where you can pass.

Yeah, it's usually fine when there's only two lanes, but that's such a low percentage of the highways around here. I think it's partly because people who are used to congestion, once they get away from it, prefer to have a set it-and-forget it approach to driving, so they avoid the right lane with its frequent exits and entrances, and just camp out in the middle by default and let everyone else do all the work. :-P

(And then they swear up and down that they never want self-driving vehicles…)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on April 30, 2022, 06:45:27 PM
The entire Boston-DC corridor tends to be crap with passing/keeping right in my experience. When 128 around Boston allowed breakdown lane travel, that was often the fastest lane. People who are always driving in congestion don't know how to drive on roads where you can pass.

Yeah, it's usually fine when there's only two lanes, but that's such a low percentage of the highways around here. I think it's partly because people who are used to congestion, once they get away from it, prefer to have a set it-and-forget it approach to driving, so they avoid the right lane with its frequent exits and entrances, and just camp out in the middle by default and let everyone else do all the work. :-P

(And then they swear up and down that they never want self-driving vehicles…)
Yes, this does seem to be a plague in the Northeast on 6 lane roads. At least, IMO, having 3 lanes in each direction seemingly adds at lot more capacity than it would on paper in my experience. This is just my observation though, so I'm not sure from an engineering standpoint if this is true.
I will admit that I do stay in the center lane more than I probably should, but I'm usually going fast enough that I'm not usually impeding traffic.
That being said, I do understand why people from urban areas, especially NYC, avoid the right lane like the plague, given the terrible ramp/accel/decel lane situations common in the NY metro.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on April 30, 2022, 06:48:58 PM
I have noticed the exact opposite in the Boston area – if you try to go 55 in the left lane, you will get run over. Slow left lane hogs do not exist here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on April 30, 2022, 08:07:09 PM
I have noticed the exact opposite in the Boston area – if you try to go 55 in the left lane, you will get run over. Slow left lane hogs do not exist here.

That would be the case in New York, too, but when we talk about left lane hogs we're usually talking about traffic going at least 5 and often 10-15 mph over the limit. In fact the most common type of left lane hogs in NY would be those who do 65-70 mph in a 55 mph zone and/or 75-80 mph in a 65 mph zone and do not move over for faster traffic under any circumstances. They're going fast enough that it's not as egregious, but it's still annoying that they do not adhere to KRETP. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 30, 2022, 10:42:29 PM
I will admit that I do stay in the center lane more than I probably should, but I'm usually going fast enough that I'm not usually impeding traffic.

They're going fast enough that it's not as egregious, but it's still annoying that they do not adhere to KRETP. 

I think that's a common theme, indeed–a lot of drivers seem to feel that as long as they're going fast, then they ought to be on the left. I think that just as some people decide they want to cruise idly, so they choose the middle lane, some others decide in advance that they just plan to go faster than everyone else, so they head straight for the left lane because, in theory, they will be passing everybody.

Of course, those who decide to be faster than everyone else are, with one exception, all incorrect…
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 30, 2022, 11:51:53 PM
No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.

Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
When I looked at the traffic counts in Catskills, they were surprisingly low.
Of course, summer weekend rush from NYC will be multiple times higher, but the usual question is if those rush days justify an upgrade. Especially with Daddy bridge credits being there for long term payoff
Yeah, I've run into major headaches on summer or even autumn weekends (leaves changing). It could widen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 01, 2022, 12:29:34 AM
This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.

My experience with NY drivers is that it isn't just the "city folk" who don't understand KRETP.  The whole state as a general rule ignores it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 01, 2022, 12:55:52 AM
This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.

My experience with NY drivers is that it isn't just the "city folk" who don't understand KRETP.  The whole state as a general rule ignores it.
Meh.  I don't know.  There's a lot of people who pass a line of cars and they pass them slower than you're going, but I don't consider that LLB-ing since they're at least passing people.

No one beats Ohioans when it comes to camping out in the left lane "just because."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 01, 2022, 08:55:12 AM
No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.

Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
When I looked at the traffic counts in Catskills, they were surprisingly low.
Of course, summer weekend rush from NYC will be multiple times higher, but the usual question is if those rush days justify an upgrade. Especially with Daddy bridge credits being there for long term payoff
Yeah, I've run into major headaches on summer or even autumn weekends (leaves changing). It could widen.
In terms of NYC weekend traffic, things maybe more involved. On one hand, city has virtually endless traffic source capacity. So widening would be negated by redistributed traffic from other destinations - Poconos and what not, as well as extra travellers.
The other aspect is status of Catskills and Adirondack. They are natural conservation, rather than recreational parks, and many popular destinations are running at and above capacity.
People are actually forced to leave when there is no parking.
A first result from Google search regarding the issue:
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2021/04/01/adirondacks-registration-parking-lot-permit-pass-required-popular-hikes-this-year/7058308002/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 01, 2022, 09:38:17 AM
No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.

Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
When I looked at the traffic counts in Catskills, they were surprisingly low.
Of course, summer weekend rush from NYC will be multiple times higher, but the usual question is if those rush days justify an upgrade. Especially with Daddy bridge credits being there for long term payoff
Yeah, I've run into major headaches on summer or even autumn weekends (leaves changing). It could widen.
In terms of NYC weekend traffic, things maybe more involved. On one hand, city has virtually endless traffic source capacity. So widening would be negated by redistributed traffic from other destinations - Poconos and what not, as well as extra travellers.
The other aspect is status of Catskills and Adirondack. They are natural conservation, rather than recreational parks, and many popular destinations are running at and above capacity.
People are actually forced to leave when there is no parking.
A first result from Google search regarding the issue:
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2021/04/01/adirondacks-registration-parking-lot-permit-pass-required-popular-hikes-this-year/7058308002/
Makes you wonder who gets to make that determination of whether a park is conservation or recreation and how on Earth they think they can keep the two purposes exclusive from one another.  Seems quixotic all around.

I am all for crowd controls -- even using lotteries and quotas and the like to keep them down.  The Kaaterskill Falls area is getting trashed by overwhelming crowds, for just one known example.  The ADK helps with managing Adirondack Park, but I don't know their involvement with the Catskills.  I'd be surprised if they or a counterpart wasn't in the Catskills.  Then again, the Catskills had a network of private resorts, maybe their interests filled that role?

I've been worried about the declining etiquette amongst hikers in the woods.  Hikers trampling this and that or blasting music out of Bluetooth speakers (modern say boom boxes).  I don't think we have the resources to protect nature from ourselves and training new generations seems to be failing (not that older generations are perfect).

Still, despite the way Adirondack and Catskill Parks were established, managing them like any other natural park system to ensure the natural resources aren't destroyed seems obvious to me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 01, 2022, 10:54:21 AM
No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.

Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
When I looked at the traffic counts in Catskills, they were surprisingly low.
Of course, summer weekend rush from NYC will be multiple times higher, but the usual question is if those rush days justify an upgrade. Especially with Daddy bridge credits being there for long term payoff
Yeah, I've run into major headaches on summer or even autumn weekends (leaves changing). It could widen.
In terms of NYC weekend traffic, things maybe more involved. On one hand, city has virtually endless traffic source capacity. So widening would be negated by redistributed traffic from other destinations - Poconos and what not, as well as extra travellers.
The other aspect is status of Catskills and Adirondack. They are natural conservation, rather than recreational parks, and many popular destinations are running at and above capacity.
People are actually forced to leave when there is no parking.
A first result from Google search regarding the issue:
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2021/04/01/adirondacks-registration-parking-lot-permit-pass-required-popular-hikes-this-year/7058308002/
Makes you wonder who gets to make that determination of whether a park is conservation or recreation and how on Earth they think they can keep the two purposes exclusive from one another.  Seems quixotic all around.

I am all for crowd controls -- even using lotteries and quotas and the like to keep them down.  The Kaaterskill Falls area is getting trashed by overwhelming crowds, for just one known example.  The ADK helps with managing Adirondack Park, but I don't know their involvement with the Catskills.  I'd be surprised if they or a counterpart wasn't in the Catskills.  Then again, the Catskills had a network of private resorts, maybe their interests filled that role?

I've been worried about the declining etiquette amongst hikers in the woods.  Hikers trampling this and that or blasting music out of Bluetooth speakers (modern say boom boxes).  I don't think we have the resources to protect nature from ourselves and training new generations seems to be failing (not that older generations are perfect).

Still, despite the way Adirondack and Catskill Parks were established, managing them like any other natural park system to ensure the natural resources aren't destroyed seems obvious to me.
Adirondack role may be defined by NYS constitution as "forever wild" - with lots of amendments and fine print.
And Catskills resorts were a bit different, with people more confined to resort area - not walking all over the forest. Besides, large areas of Catskills are now bought out by NYC to protect water sources from human activities.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 01, 2022, 12:18:30 PM


No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.

Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
When I looked at the traffic counts in Catskills, they were surprisingly low.
Of course, summer weekend rush from NYC will be multiple times higher, but the usual question is if those rush days justify an upgrade. Especially with Daddy bridge credits being there for long term payoff
Yeah, I've run into major headaches on summer or even autumn weekends (leaves changing). It could widen.
In terms of NYC weekend traffic, things maybe more involved. On one hand, city has virtually endless traffic source capacity. So widening would be negated by redistributed traffic from other destinations - Poconos and what not, as well as extra travellers.
The other aspect is status of Catskills and Adirondack. They are natural conservation, rather than recreational parks, and many popular destinations are running at and above capacity.
People are actually forced to leave when there is no parking.
A first result from Google search regarding the issue:
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2021/04/01/adirondacks-registration-parking-lot-permit-pass-required-popular-hikes-this-year/7058308002/
Makes you wonder who gets to make that determination of whether a park is conservation or recreation and how on Earth they think they can keep the two purposes exclusive from one another.  Seems quixotic all around.

I am all for crowd controls -- even using lotteries and quotas and the like to keep them down.  The Kaaterskill Falls area is getting trashed by overwhelming crowds, for just one known example.  The ADK helps with managing Adirondack Park, but I don't know their involvement with the Catskills.  I'd be surprised if they or a counterpart wasn't in the Catskills.  Then again, the Catskills had a network of private resorts, maybe their interests filled that role?

I've been worried about the declining etiquette amongst hikers in the woods.  Hikers trampling this and that or blasting music out of Bluetooth speakers (modern say boom boxes).  I don't think we have the resources to protect nature from ourselves and training new generations seems to be failing (not that older generations are perfect).

Still, despite the way Adirondack and Catskill Parks were established, managing them like any other natural park system to ensure the natural resources aren't destroyed seems obvious to me.
Adirondack role may be defined by NYS constitution as "forever wild" - with lots of amendments and fine print.
And Catskills resorts were a bit different, with people more confined to resort area - not walking all over the forest. Besides, large areas of Catskills are now bought out by NYC to protect water sources from human activities.

That's a very oversimplified view, especially of Adirondack Park, where forever wild only pertains to public lands within the Blue Line while the APC is heavily involved with all the land within the Blue Line.  Management of land within the Blue Line has definitely evolved over the decades and become more and more complicated than the simple forever wild statement in the Constitution.

Sure, there are the reservoirs in the Catskills and the resorts only covering part of the area.  My point was that the remaining resorts (they've been declining with some very notable major closures over the last 20 years) may still be a significant lobbyist group.  You just don't hear about a "Catskill Park Commission" like you do the APC or hear about a Catskill Mountain Club like you do the ADK.  Both reserves are being overrun, but it really does seem like the Daks have more resources and organization to be brought to bear.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 01, 2022, 12:43:11 PM
That's a very oversimplified view, especially of Adirondack Park, where forever wild only pertains to public lands within the Blue Line while the APC is heavily involved with all the land within the Blue Line.  Management of land within the Blue Line has definitely evolved over the decades and become more and more complicated than the simple forever wild statement in the Constitution.

Sure, there are the reservoirs in the Catskills and the resorts only covering part of the area.  My point was that the remaining resorts (they've been declining with some very notable major closures over the last 20 years) may still be a significant lobbyist group.  You just don't hear about a "Catskill Park Commission" like you do the APC or hear about a Catskill Mountain Club like you do the ADK.  Both reserves are being overrun, but it really does seem like the Daks have more resources and organization to be brought to bear.
Well, in the context of Thruway widening, where this discussion have started  - I am pretty sure throttling of weekend traffic will be discussed as well.
My understanding of Thruway movements, though, is that
Unlike I-90 portion of Thruway, which connects New England and Midwest, hence has significant through traffic, I87 part is sort of dead end. There is not a lot of weekday business traffic between Albany and NYC or through traffic to Montreal. Amtrak and Greyhound take lots of passenger traffic off the highway. I believe  minimum Thruway count in Catskills is below 10k daily. New England, WNY and Midwest traffic to NYC has options of I-81 and 80 9n west side, 94, 91, 95 east, and few reasons to detour through Albany.
So I would bet on I-90 Thruway getting more attention if any attention and money would be out there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 01, 2022, 05:11:49 PM
My experience with NY drivers is that it isn't just the "city folk" who don't understand KRETP.  The whole state as a general rule ignores it.

It's worse than it used to be (which I theorize is related to the increasing hands-off philosophy of driving), but still generally OK as long as there are only two lanes.

Meh.  I don't know.  There's a lot of people who pass a line of cars and they pass them slower than you're going, but I don't consider that LLB-ing since they're at least passing people.

No one beats Ohioans when it comes to camping out in the left lane "just because."

Yeah, I haven't noticed any issue with the left lane especially, it really is the middle. (And that isn't especially NY-centric, either, it's just how people drive generally.)

I am all for crowd controls -- even using lotteries and quotas and the like to keep them down.  The Kaaterskill Falls area is getting trashed by overwhelming crowds, for just one known example.

Bashbish Falls is another. At this point the falls is essentially closed to the public, which is not the right solution. But the status quo of being completely overrun and trashed was also not the right solution. I don't know what is the right solution, because the problem there is as much compliance as it is volume of visitors. One idea would be to require some kind of permit to use these areas–kind of like requiring a safe boating course to use a certain waterway. But you'd have to make it free and universally available, which adds to the cost.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 01, 2022, 05:36:24 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if middle lane camping is a contributing factor to speed limits in the northeast being so low.  I was talking with someone about speed limits a while back, and at one point she said "I wouldn't want the speed limit on I-787 raised [from 55] because then I couldn't just go 60 in the middle lane".

Regarding traffic counts on the Thruway, it doesn't get below 10k.  For the Thruway portion of I-87 north of exit 11:
-11-12: 122k
-12-13: 132k
-13-14: 134k
-14-14A: 138k
-14A-14B: 101k
-14B-15: 92k
-15-16: 84k
-16-17: 50k
-17-18: 40k
-18-19: 40k
-19-20: 38k
-20-21: 33k
-21-21B: 38k
-21B-21A: 43k
-21A-22: 54k
-22-23: 51k
-23-24: 57k
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 01, 2022, 06:40:30 PM
This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.

My experience with NY drivers is that it isn't just the "city folk" who don't understand KRETP.  The whole state as a general rule ignores it.


I still think it's mostly faster traffic that ignores KRETP. You rarely encounter traffic going at or below speed in the left lane and refusing to move left.

(The one big exception is left exits, where people tend to move left miles earlier than necessary, causing traffic to flow past on the right.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 01, 2022, 07:01:36 PM
I still think it's mostly faster traffic that ignores KRETP. You rarely encounter traffic going at or below speed in the left lane and refusing to move left.

True as pertains to the left lane. In the middle, however, this is pretty much the rule (at least if you replace "speed limit" with "prevailing speed").
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 01, 2022, 07:03:21 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if middle lane camping is a contributing factor to speed limits in the northeast being so low.  I was talking with someone about speed limits a while back, and at one point she said "I wouldn't want the speed limit on I-787 raised [from 55] because then I couldn't just go 60 in the middle lane".

It's definitely a factor in the right lane being used as a secondary passing lane. You almost expect the slow traffic to be in the middle, so it ironically messes up the flow when someone slow is on the right as they should be!

Rural freeways with six lanes are also almost non-existent, which creates a mindset of "six lanes = urban = very busy with frequent exits" leading to middle lane camping on almost all six lane freeways. The rural four-lane freeways are much better when it comes to KRETP adherence.


Regarding traffic counts on the Thruway, it doesn't get below 10k.  For the Thruway portion of I-87 north of exit 11:
-11-12: 122k
-12-13: 132k
-13-14: 134k
-14-14A: 138k
-14A-14B: 101k
-14B-15: 92k
-15-16: 84k
-16-17: 50k
-17-18: 40k
-18-19: 40k
-19-20: 38k
-20-21: 33k
-21-21B: 38k
-21B-21A: 43k
-21A-22: 54k
-22-23: 51k
-23-24: 57k

Yeah, I don't see how any portion of the Thruway south of Albany would ever be below 10k. You'd have to figure at least 20k even on a winter weekday, and closer to 50-60k on the busiest travel days/weekends.

These figures support my thought that the top priorities for widening should be 16 to 17 and 21A to 23.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 01, 2022, 07:06:43 PM
I still think it's mostly faster traffic that ignores KRETP. You rarely encounter traffic going at or below speed in the left lane and refusing to move left.

True as pertains to the left lane. In the middle, however, this is pretty much the rule (at least if you replace "speed limit" with "prevailing speed").

Yes, and I think this is partly due to six+ lanes being strongly associated with urban areas (see the first part of my post above).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 01, 2022, 07:24:52 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if middle lane camping is a contributing factor to speed limits in the northeast being so low.  I was talking with someone about speed limits a while back, and at one point she said "I wouldn't want the speed limit on I-787 raised [from 55] because then I couldn't just go 60 in the middle lane".

It's definitely a factor in the right lane being used as a secondary passing lane. You almost expect the slow traffic to be in the middle, so it ironically messes up the flow when someone slow is on the right as they should be!

Rural freeways with six lanes are also almost non-existent, which creates a mindset of "six lanes = urban = very busy with frequent exits" leading to middle lane camping on almost all six lane freeways. The rural four-lane freeways are much better when it comes to KRETP adherence.


Regarding traffic counts on the Thruway, it doesn't get below 10k.  For the Thruway portion of I-87 north of exit 11:
-11-12: 122k
-12-13: 132k
-13-14: 134k
-14-14A: 138k
-14A-14B: 101k
-14B-15: 92k
-15-16: 84k
-16-17: 50k
-17-18: 40k
-18-19: 40k
-19-20: 38k
-20-21: 33k
-21-21B: 38k
-21B-21A: 43k
-21A-22: 54k
-22-23: 51k
-23-24: 57k

Yeah, I don't see how any portion of the Thruway south of Albany would ever be below 10k. You'd have to figure at least 20k even on a winter weekday, and closer to 50-60k on the busiest travel days/weekends.

These figures support my thought that the top priorities for widening should be 16 to 17 and 21A to 23.
I really wonder why did I remember below 10k
Yet, these numbers still don't really support 3 lanes throughout at normal conditions. Suburban commute is a whole different story
And I doubt there is  a real potential for growth in 21- 22-23 area, terrain doesn't allow for significant development.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on May 01, 2022, 07:56:57 PM
It's definitely a factor in the right lane being used as a secondary passing lane. You almost expect the slow traffic to be in the middle, so it ironically messes up the flow when someone slow is on the right as they should be!

Rural freeways with six lanes are also almost non-existent, which creates a mindset of "six lanes = urban = very busy with frequent exits" leading to middle lane camping on almost all six lane freeways. The rural four-lane freeways are much better when it comes to KRETP adherence.

What I find bizarre are the people who seem to prefer to pass on the right. Far too frequently, I’ll move from the right lane to the middle lane with the left lane open (either well in advance of a pass since the left lane is open or due to an interchange where I can see entering traffic coming down the ramp) only to have someone charge up behind me and then pass me on the right even though the left lane is open.


iPad
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 01, 2022, 08:00:06 PM
This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.

My experience with NY drivers is that it isn't just the "city folk" who don't understand KRETP.  The whole state as a general rule ignores it.


I still think it's mostly faster traffic that ignores KRETP. You rarely encounter traffic going at or below speed in the left lane and refusing to move left.

(The one big exception is left exits, where people tend to move left miles earlier than necessary, causing traffic to flow past on the right.)
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on May 01, 2022, 08:05:10 PM
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit”  lane on the left rather than on the right.


iPad
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 01, 2022, 09:00:13 PM
It's definitely a factor in the right lane being used as a secondary passing lane. You almost expect the slow traffic to be in the middle, so it ironically messes up the flow when someone slow is on the right as they should be!

Rural freeways with six lanes are also almost non-existent, which creates a mindset of "six lanes = urban = very busy with frequent exits" leading to middle lane camping on almost all six lane freeways. The rural four-lane freeways are much better when it comes to KRETP adherence.

What I find bizarre are the people who seem to prefer to pass on the right. Far too frequently, I’ll move from the right lane to the middle lane with the left lane open (either well in advance of a pass since the left lane is open or due to an interchange where I can see entering traffic coming down the ramp) only to have someone charge up behind me and then pass me on the right even though the left lane is open.


iPad
Which is perfectly legal, at least in most states
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on May 01, 2022, 09:26:55 PM
What I find bizarre are the people who seem to prefer to pass on the right. Far too frequently, I’ll move from the right lane to the middle lane with the left lane open (either well in advance of a pass since the left lane is open or due to an interchange where I can see entering traffic coming down the ramp) only to have someone charge up behind me and then pass me on the right even though the left lane is open.


iPad
Which is perfectly legal, at least in most states

It may be legal but at least in my opinion, passing on the right is always more dangerous than passing on the left. Plus, as I said above, I left the right lane for safety reasons (either gaining on another vehicle in the right lane or merging traffic ahead) so even more reason why a pass on the right in that situation is more dangerous than a pass on the left.


iPad
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 01, 2022, 09:31:02 PM
Which is perfectly legal, at least in most states

Which part, passing on the right or "charging up behind me"?

But you're right, there's no law against passing on the right per se. And many drivers may have the common mindset that if one has the right to do something, it is therefore the right thing to do. Although I tend to think that's a rather deeper thought process than they're going through… :-)

It may be legal but at least in my opinion, passing on the right is always more dangerous than passing on the left. Plus, as I said above, I left the right lane for safety reasons (either gaining on another vehicle in the right lane or merging traffic ahead) so even more reason why a pass on the right in that situation is more dangerous than a pass on the left.

And perhaps more to the point, passing on two different sides of a line of traffic is more dangerous than everyone passing to the same side. The more that another motorist's actions can be predicted based on a shared set of expectations, the less chance there will be for conflict.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 01, 2022, 09:51:58 PM
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit”  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 01, 2022, 09:56:55 PM
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit”  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 01, 2022, 10:07:53 PM
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 01, 2022, 10:24:10 PM
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit”  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 01, 2022, 10:40:53 PM
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit”  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
So...clog the right lanes.

No, what needs to happen is the left exit needs to be a right exit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on May 01, 2022, 11:15:17 PM
Hey I noticed something when virtually touring I-81. I see the Cartland Next 2 Exits sign now is revised to include both exits for Ithaca as well.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZpDmXbUBtyX189kv8

Then also the Exit 12 guides now include Ithaca as well as Homer and Cortland.

https://goo.gl/maps/Pnid81TVgVA2itrYA

I always thought NYSDOT should include Ithaca along with Cortland on the Next 2 exits signs.  Now I see someone is finally thinking clearly.
NYSDOT has been on a few sign replacement projects in Region 3 over the last 3-4 years.  As one sees from the EXIT 12 guide sign, NYSDOT has added 2 MILE advance signage whereas there was none before on sections of I-81 south of Syracuse and on NY 481 between North Syracuse and Fulton.  NYSDOT has also changed signage at the entrance areas on interchanges such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/PCrGHwSQiyzNTcnM9.  This is what this spot looked like in late 2016: https://goo.gl/maps/XkbRVNMjnP5aJwAt7.  NYSDOT also got rid of the mileage signs at these interchanges such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/QnR53r7BRRSgdEtQ6.  This seems to be more in line with what states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana do at interchanges.

It is good to see that NYSDOT, especially in Region 3, is replacing, upgrading, and updating signage throughout.  Even some state highways have received updated signage.  Many mileage signs and destination signs now employ mixed case lettering instead of all CAPS.

Also, no Series F on the shields on the updated signs.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 01, 2022, 11:28:30 PM
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit”  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
So...clog the right lanes.

No, what needs to happen is the left exit needs to be a right exit.

It's a high-speed split, so switching sides wouldn't change anything except which side traffic collects on.

The issue is that I-90 traffic needs more than one lane, and the easiest way to address that without adding new lanes is with an option lane. Then the traffic that currently clogs the left lane could stay in the center lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 01, 2022, 11:41:36 PM
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit”  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
So...clog the right lanes.

No, what needs to happen is the left exit needs to be a right exit.

It's a high-speed split, so switching sides wouldn't change anything except which side traffic collects on.

The issue is that I-90 traffic needs more than one lane, and the easiest way to address that without adding new lanes is with an option lane. Then the traffic that currently clogs the left lane could stay in the center lane.
Nah.  Make it a right exit and follow the rules of the road with KRETP.  All better, just like how they fixed the I-95/I-695 interchange in Maryland.  No more people lining up on the left...and no crazy middle left turning nuttiness.  Just take people off to the right like Interstates should.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on May 02, 2022, 12:11:09 AM
If you ignore the names and designations, and analyze it from a traffic perspective, almost 2 cars remain on I-90 (Exit 24) for every 1 car that remains on the Thruway mainline towards I-87 south, so IMO having I-90 "exit" on the left is appropriate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 02, 2022, 12:15:39 AM
If you ignore the names and designations, and analyze it from a traffic perspective, almost 2 cars remain on I-90 (Exit 24) for every 1 car that remains on the Thruway mainline towards I-87 south, so IMO having I-90 "exit" on the left is appropriate.
Left exits aren't appropriate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on May 02, 2022, 01:21:41 AM
If you ignore the names and designations, and analyze it from a traffic perspective, almost 2 cars remain on I-90 (Exit 24) for every 1 car that remains on the Thruway mainline towards I-87 south, so IMO having I-90 "exit" on the left is appropriate.
Left exits aren't appropriate.

As a proud Nutmegger, I'm sick of you New Yorkers insulting my state's traditions, first steamed hams and now left exits. For shame
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on May 02, 2022, 07:45:58 AM
Traffic transitioning from I-90 EB to I-87 SB should be treated as a right exit and traffic remaining on I-90 EB should be treated as the mainline.  The right lane becomes an exit only and that expands to 2 exit only lanes where now the I-90 exit traffic expands to 2 lanes.

Is the only significant reason this won't happen the silly insistence that the Thruway designation is more important than the I-87 and I-90 designations?  Would it take more than paint and signs?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 02, 2022, 08:03:26 AM
It's a high-speed split, so switching sides wouldn't change anything except which side traffic collects on.

The issue is that I-90 traffic needs more than one lane, and the easiest way to address that without adding new lanes is with an option lane. Then the traffic that currently clogs the left lane could stay in the center lane.
Nah.  Make it a right exit and follow the rules of the road with KRETP.  All better, just like how they fixed the I-95/I-695 interchange in Maryland.  No more people lining up on the left...and no crazy middle left turning nuttiness.  Just take people off to the right like Interstates should.

I maintain the issue is the single lane, not the fact that it's on the left. It's not at all a traditional "exit", as the volumes support that the majority of traffic is staying on I-90, which is technically the through movement. So traffic "exiting the interstate" is already on the right... as Jim suggests, they should be the ones with the single lane instead of the through I-90 movement. Whether that's done with an option lane or a restriping with the extra lane being added on the right shouldn't really matter. Either way, it would fix the issue of I-90 traffic collecting in a single lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: BlueOutback7 on May 02, 2022, 08:07:24 AM
Traffic transitioning from I-90 EB to I-87 SB should be treated as a right exit and traffic remaining on I-90 EB should be treated as the mainline.  The right lane becomes an exit only and that expands to 2 exit only lanes where now the I-90 exit traffic expands to 2 lanes.

Is the only significant reason this won't happen the silly insistence that the Thruway designation is more important than the I-87 and I-90 designations?  Would it take more than paint and signs?

It’s actually the shorter and faster route than staying on free I-90. Staying on the Thruway to the Berkshire Spur uses Boston as a control city. Personally, I-90 should have followed that way to begin with.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 02, 2022, 08:44:53 AM
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit”  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.

PS edited ramp description for clarity
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 02, 2022, 09:30:23 AM
Traffic transitioning from I-90 EB to I-87 SB should be treated as a right exit and traffic remaining on I-90 EB should be treated as the mainline.  The right lane becomes an exit only and that expands to 2 exit only lanes where now the I-90 exit traffic expands to 2 lanes.

Is the only significant reason this won't happen the silly insistence that the Thruway designation is more important than the I-87 and I-90 designations?  Would it take more than paint and signs?

It’s actually the shorter and faster route than staying on free I-90. Staying on the Thruway to the Berkshire Spur uses Boston as a control city. Personally, I-90 should have followed that way to begin with.
That would be the case if Castleton on Hudson bridge was in a better shape. As it stands right now, both routes are within a minute in drive time and a mile of driving distance of each other. Timing is valid outside of Albany rush hour, of course; and one is tolled and the other is free.  Toll barriers are no longer a time consuming thing. Rush hour traffic or road work may be a deal breaker, but without that there is no clear advantage of choosing either routing. 
Of course, sending through traffic to detour is a good idea from traffic management perspective.
 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 02, 2022, 09:33:22 AM
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.
Can you elaborate a bit? I can see arguments against widening NYSTA would be putting on a table (money, money, and money), but I don't quite see full pro-widening picture.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on May 02, 2022, 09:43:26 AM
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.
Can you elaborate a bit? I can see arguments against widening NYSTA would be putting on a table (money, money, and money), but I don't quite see full pro-widening picture.
New York isn’t a poor state. Why can’t they afford that? What would it cost? 3-5 billion for the entire thing? It’s also a tolled facility so could they not issue bonds? Furthermore does the NYSTA only operate that one road or all tolled roads in the state?

PS, I hope my message didn’t come across as being a smart ass. I’m genuinely curious about these things. I know in California I’m surprised at the lack of 6 lane rural stretches connecting major cities.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 02, 2022, 09:43:41 AM
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.

Could it be the hills clogging traffic? I was surprised to see traffic counts that don't suggest three-lanes the entire way but the grades between Albany and Route 17 slowed traffic down a lot.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 02, 2022, 10:00:29 AM
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.
Can you elaborate a bit? I can see arguments against widening NYSTA would be putting on a table (money, money, and money), but I don't quite see full pro-widening picture.
New York isn’t a poor state. Why can’t they afford that? What would it cost? 3-5 billion for the entire thing? It’s also a tolled facility so could they not issue bonds? Furthermore does the NYSTA only operate that one road or all tolled roads in the state?

PS, I hope my message didn’t come across as being a smart ass. I’m genuinely curious about these things. I know in California I’m surprised at the lack of 6 lane rural stretches connecting major cities.
NYS is certainly not a rich state; and Upstate NY in particular is even worse.
Widening of exit 23-24 stretch in Albany was about $14M/mile to $25M/mile, depending which numbers you look at; with much easier terrain. There would be a lot of heavy work on NYC-Albany stretch in mountain areas, including lots of rock blasting - so $3B may be on a low side of things.
Besides, NYSTA just paid $4B for the Daddy's bridge, and it will take a while to pay that off those debts. Oh, and to put things in perspective - NYSTA annual operating budget is about $0.8B without bridge debt service. To make things worse, a lot of rate hikes were held off for political reasons...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on May 02, 2022, 10:42:45 AM
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.

Could it be the hills clogging traffic? I was surprised to see traffic counts that don't suggest three-lanes the entire way but the grades between Albany and Route 17 slowed traffic down a lot.

What traffic counts would suggest a widening is warranted? I used 30k for a threshold in the rural six-lane freeway thread, and I would say that's on the low end and 40-45k on the high end of when a widening would be considered. Certainly anything over 50k would be warranted, which includes NY 17 to I-84 and Berkshire Spur to I-787.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 02, 2022, 10:51:20 AM
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.

Could it be the hills clogging traffic? I was surprised to see traffic counts that don't suggest three-lanes the entire way but the grades between Albany and Route 17 slowed traffic down a lot.

What traffic counts would suggest a widening is warranted? I used 30k for a threshold in the rural six-lane freeway thread, and I would say that's on the low end and 40-45k on the high end of when a widening would be considered. Certainly anything over 50k would be warranted, which includes NY 17 to I-84 and Berkshire Spur to I-787.
For cars, 2 lane highway can handle more than 4k an hour. Then you talk truck fraction, rush hour intensity (mostly concentrated commute vs spread out long haul).
I suspect 30k of mostly long haul is on a very low side.  Not that I driven Thruway a lot, but looks like other than summer weekend traffic, things are flowing ok around Albany - if there is no major road work or crash.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 02, 2022, 11:03:43 AM
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.

Could it be the hills clogging traffic? I was surprised to see traffic counts that don't suggest three-lanes the entire way but the grades between Albany and Route 17 slowed traffic down a lot.

What traffic counts would suggest a widening is warranted? I used 30k for a threshold in the rural six-lane freeway thread, and I would say that's on the low end and 40-45k on the high end of when a widening would be considered. Certainly anything over 50k would be warranted, which includes NY 17 to I-84 and Berkshire Spur to I-787.

At least 40,000 VPD but other factors can come into play. Looking at I-75 in southern Kentucky as an example, four lanes were relatively sufficient but it suffered from slow-downs on its many hills - especially because +20% of traffic is comprised of trucks. Those sections were prioritized for widening before others.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 02, 2022, 01:44:42 PM
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit”  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.

PS edited ramp description for clarity
Nah, just an intersection that's up to modern standards.  Get rid of the left exit and things'll flow better all the way from Schenectady.  All those slow people on the left will now be on the right where they should be.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 02, 2022, 01:49:04 PM
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit”  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.

PS edited ramp description for clarity
Nah, just an intersection that's up to modern standards.  Get rid of the left exit and things'll flow better all the way from Schenectady.  All those slow people on the left will now be on the right where they should be.

Left exit has VERY little to do with the issues. What we really need int that area is  to deal with Northway -> Thruway ramp. However that requires some engineering with at least GED diplomas working for NYSDOT...
 As for slow people... Where exactly are you heading?
I suspect you are exiting towards Albany, and what you're arguing about is your god-given right to cut through 4 lanes of traffic in the last moment, making other drivers brake to the floor. Am I missing something?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 02, 2022, 02:13:45 PM
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit”  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.

PS edited ramp description for clarity
Nah, just an intersection that's up to modern standards.  Get rid of the left exit and things'll flow better all the way from Schenectady.  All those slow people on the left will now be on the right where they should be.

Left exit has VERY little to do with the issues. What we really need int that area is  to deal with Northway -> Thruway ramp. However that requires some engineering with at least GED diplomas working for NYSDOT...
 As for slow people... Where exactly are you heading?
I suspect you are exiting towards Albany, and what you're arguing about is your god-given right to cut through 4 lanes of traffic in the last moment, making other drivers brake to the floor. Am I missing something?

Yep, Exit 1 from I-87 SB is bad, but I wonder if better signage would help (split traffic into Thruway/Free 90 lanes earlier).  Of course, just adding a lane to the ramp to the Thruway would be better.

Left exit causes a lot of issues.  Take the converse, with the right exit on I-90 WB for I-890 to Schenectady.  Works a lot better.  So would getting rid of the left on I-90 EB for I-90. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 02, 2022, 02:40:45 PM
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890.  It's frustrating.

You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit”  lane on the left rather than on the right.

As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.

The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.

PS edited ramp description for clarity
Nah, just an intersection that's up to modern standards.  Get rid of the left exit and things'll flow better all the way from Schenectady.  All those slow people on the left will now be on the right where they should be.

Left exit has VERY little to do with the issues. What we really need int that area is  to deal with Northway -> Thruway ramp. However that requires some engineering with at least GED diplomas working for NYSDOT...
 As for slow people... Where exactly are you heading?
I suspect you are exiting towards Albany, and what you're arguing about is your god-given right to cut through 4 lanes of traffic in the last moment, making other drivers brake to the floor. Am I missing something?

Yep, Exit 1 from I-87 SB is bad, but I wonder if better signage would help (split traffic into Thruway/Free 90 lanes earlier).  Of course, just adding a lane to the ramp to the Thruway would be better.

Left exit causes a lot of issues.  Take the converse, with the right exit on I-90 WB for I-890 to Schenectady.  Works a lot better.  So would getting rid of the left on I-90 EB for I-90. :)

You're comparing an "exit" handling 87k AADT two-way, 44k one way probably,  per NYSDOT traffic viewer -  with an exit handling 19k. Of course one with 4x less traffic will be a much easier one.
Yes, 44k AADT on 2 lanes, that is pretty much at capacity. There will be volume slow down there, with left, right, or top to bottom exit routing. 

Overall... It's an attitude thing. What  is "slow" in your perspective, 70-75 MPH over 65 MPH speed limit? I never saw a backup there, traffic keeps flowing. Take a deep breath and ease your foot. You are not going to gain a lot by going 80 instead of 60 over those 5 miles. In fact, you may gain at most a minute on the 25-24 stretch, probably 30 seconds at most.  I would understand being worried for a teen who has more testosterone than gray matter, but for a grown up... Plowing the way through traffic isn't going to improve your karma!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 02, 2022, 05:46:50 PM
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.
Can you elaborate a bit? I can see arguments against widening NYSTA would be putting on a table (money, money, and money), but I don't quite see full pro-widening picture.
New York isn’t a poor state. Why can’t they afford that? What would it cost? 3-5 billion for the entire thing? It’s also a tolled facility so could they not issue bonds? Furthermore does the NYSTA only operate that one road or all tolled roads in the state?

Keep in mind that the Thruway Authority also burned a lot of bonds recently in replacing the Tappan Zee Bridge.  That's going to take some time to pay down.

The Thruway Authority operates more than just the Thruway proper.  They're also responsible for the Berkshire Spur (mentioned upthread), I-190, I-287, the New England Thruway (I-95 from Exit 8 to the CT line), and the Garden State Parkway Connector.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 02, 2022, 06:07:08 PM
to recap huge thread: 50k AADT is not valid on many weekends in different seasons. can be much higher, that is just an AVERAGE. hence the need for 3 lanes.
do not care whether i-90 or i-87 exit themselves on the left or right. technically Thruway is the mainline, but these are the thru numbers, so either way is justifiable.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on May 02, 2022, 06:20:09 PM
Hey I noticed something when virtually touring I-81. I see the Cartland Next 2 Exits sign now is revised to include both exits for Ithaca as well.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZpDmXbUBtyX189kv8

Then also the Exit 12 guides now include Ithaca as well as Homer and Cortland.

https://goo.gl/maps/Pnid81TVgVA2itrYA

I always thought NYSDOT should include Ithaca along with Cortland on the Next 2 exits signs.  Now I see someone is finally thinking clearly.
NYSDOT has been on a few sign replacement projects in Region 3 over the last 3-4 years.  As one sees from the EXIT 12 guide sign, NYSDOT has added 2 MILE advance signage whereas there was none before on sections of I-81 south of Syracuse and on NY 481 between North Syracuse and Fulton.  NYSDOT has also changed signage at the entrance areas on interchanges such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/PCrGHwSQiyzNTcnM9.  This is what this spot looked like in late 2016: https://goo.gl/maps/XkbRVNMjnP5aJwAt7.  NYSDOT also got rid of the mileage signs at these interchanges such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/QnR53r7BRRSgdEtQ6.  This seems to be more in line with what states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana do at interchanges.

It is good to see that NYSDOT, especially in Region 3, is replacing, upgrading, and updating signage throughout.  Even some state highways have received updated signage.  Many mileage signs and destination signs now employ mixed case lettering instead of all CAPS.

Also, no Series F on the shields on the updated signs.  :thumbsup:

Yes, Region 3 has definitely been leading the state on the "2 miles" advance signs for interchanges. Interestingly, some projects called for the addition of a 2 miles and 1/2 mile sign to the standard 1 mile, but other projects did not, adding only a 2 miles sign to the mix.  I wonder if it was to better space service and secondary destination signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on May 02, 2022, 06:29:40 PM
Do we know enough about the temporal distribution of traffic on the Thruway to determine lane count required to maintain LOS B at the 30th highest hour (a) now, and (b) in a hypothetical design year of 2045 (assuming annualized traffic growth at a consistent rate along the entire corridor)?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 02, 2022, 06:44:18 PM
Do we know enough about the temporal distribution of traffic on the Thruway to determine lane count required to maintain LOS B at the 30th highest hour (a) now, and (b) in a hypothetical design year of 2045 (assuming annualized traffic growth at a consistent rate along the entire corridor)?
I don't think there is growth in the plans for upstate NY. My strong impression is that many plans assume further population decline.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 02, 2022, 07:04:36 PM
Page 66 and on from https://www.thruway.ny.gov/about/financial/bond/traffic-revenue-report.pdf -

Passenger traffic will continue to slowly grow in the near-term forecast, while commercial traffic plateaus and starts to decline.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 02, 2022, 08:41:01 PM
Do we know enough about the temporal distribution of traffic on the Thruway to determine lane count required to maintain LOS B at the 30th highest hour (a) now, and (b) in a hypothetical design year of 2045 (assuming annualized traffic growth at a consistent rate along the entire corridor)?
I don't think there is growth in the plans for upstate NY. My strong impression is that many plans assume further population decline.
*snickers*

Somebody doesn't know NYSDOT's Highway Data Service's golden rule when it comes to traffic counts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 03, 2022, 09:43:53 AM
Well, the population in much of New York will be declining but that doesn't necessarily mean traffic will drop. For instance, New York is seeing record park visitation all throughout its state-managed units and the Adirondacks so this could be a deciding factor in future projects. But I suspect that new long-distance corridors will be put on the back burner - like the US 219 project, because there isn't the traffic nor growth coming to much of upstate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on May 03, 2022, 12:33:55 PM
Well, the population in much of New York will be declining but that doesn't necessarily mean traffic will drop. For instance, New York is seeing record park visitation all throughout its state-managed units and the Adirondacks so this could be a deciding factor in future projects. But I suspect that new long-distance corridors will be put on the back burner - like the US 219 project, because there isn't the traffic nor growth coming to much of upstate.
That sure is not stopping states like West Virginia from building new roads left and right.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 03, 2022, 02:10:13 PM
Different politics and funding policies.

Corridor H is the last Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) corridor to be finished in the state, and there is a huge push into getting the central portion completed between Elkins and Thomas/Davis. Construction is underway on the portion from Elkins to Parsons, and construction should start on the Parsons to Thomas/Davis portion by 2023 or 2024. The east Wardenville segment is contingent on Virginia building its portion but the engineering has been completed.

The Coalfields Expressway (US 121) isn't an ADHS corridor and is being mostly funded via federal and state dollars and the Roads to Prosperity program - which is partly funded through tolls from the West Virginia Turnpike. Tolls now have semi-regular increases, taking politics out of any increases - which is partly the reason why tolls were stuck at $1.25 per mainline booth for a very long time. It was the cheapest toll road to drive on in the nation for decades - and it's still not a bad deal at $4.25 per mainline booth. But it is funding the Coalfields extension from Mullens to Welch.

The King Coal Highway/Tolsia Highway (US 52) is being extended a few miles to Airport Road/WV 123 around Bluefield, but that's about it. Proposed for 2024 or 2025 is the completion of the Williamson bypass from US 119 to the completed segment south of the city. Again, funded with a combination of federal and state dollars and the Roads to Prosperity program.

Others, like the US 522 project in the eastern part of the state, is all reliant on federal and state dollars.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 03, 2022, 03:51:24 PM
Re: the NYSTA budget, yes, they have no money thanks to a large bridge and had issues even before then. Not only have they not increased tolls to keep up with inflation, there are a crapton of bridge/paving projects on the backlog upstate and a few places that need full-depth reconstruction. A lot of people up here think think that the stuff upstate was put on hold for "Daddy's Bridge" and that is going to create resistance to toll increases to close the gap.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 03, 2022, 04:46:45 PM
Different politics and funding policies.

Corridor H is the last Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) corridor to be finished in the state, and there is a huge push into getting the central portion completed between Elkins and Thomas/Davis. Construction is underway on the portion from Elkins to Parsons, and construction should start on the Parsons to Thomas/Davis portion by 2023 or 2024. The east Wardenville segment is contingent on Virginia building its portion but the engineering has been completed.

The Coalfields Expressway (US 121) isn't an ADHS corridor and is being mostly funded via federal and state dollars and the Roads to Prosperity program - which is partly funded through tolls from the West Virginia Turnpike. Tolls now have semi-regular increases, taking politics out of any increases - which is partly the reason why tolls were stuck at $1.25 per mainline booth for a very long time. It was the cheapest toll road to drive on in the nation for decades - and it's still not a bad deal at $4.25 per mainline booth. But it is funding the Coalfields extension from Mullens to Welch.

The King Coal Highway/Tolsia Highway (US 52) is being extended a few miles to Airport Road/WV 123 around Bluefield, but that's about it. Proposed for 2024 or 2025 is the completion of the Williamson bypass from US 119 to the completed segment south of the city. Again, funded with a combination of federal and state dollars and the Roads to Prosperity program.

Others, like the US 522 project in the eastern part of the state, is all reliant on federal and state dollars.

Outside of the flexible toll revenue mentioned, I am not sure what you think the difference is with the other projects between WV and NY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 03, 2022, 08:22:15 PM
Major differences.

- New York sends a substantial amount of money downstate - and whether that is too much or too little, that's a lot different than West Virginia where the money is more evenly distributed.

- The New York State Thruway also does not send money to projects across the state. The West Virginia Turnpike, when it fell under the broader tourism and parkway authority, funded projects that were not necessarily transportation-related... such as the Tamarack. Now that it has been divested of its tourism responsibilities, the Turnpike directs 100% of its revenue to maintaining the Turnpike and in supporting projects throughout the southern tier of the state.

- West Virginia is still completing its ADHS corridors. New York finished Corridor T (NY 17/I-86) and Corridor U (SR 328) and U-1 (US 15/I-99). So of course it looks like West Virginia is still building like crazy - but it's just that our highways have taken a lot longer to come to fruition because of their high costs and routing changes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 03, 2022, 11:32:57 PM


Major differences.

- New York sends a substantial amount of money downstate - and whether that is too much or too little, that's a lot different than West Virginia where the money is more evenly distributed.

- The New York State Thruway also does not send money to projects across the state. The West Virginia Turnpike, when it fell under the broader tourism and parkway authority, funded projects that were not necessarily transportation-related... such as the Tamarack. Now that it has been divested of its tourism responsibilities, the Turnpike directs 100% of its revenue to maintaining the Turnpike and in supporting projects throughout the southern tier of the state.

- West Virginia is still completing its ADHS corridors. New York finished Corridor T (NY 17/I-86) and Corridor U (SR 328) and U-1 (US 15/I-99). So of course it looks like West Virginia is still building like crazy - but it's just that our highways have taken a lot longer to come to fruition because of their high costs and routing changes.

Like I said, outside the sharing of toll revenue for other transportation projects (which you restate for some reason here), the other two reasons you list don't fully explain why WV has been able to build new roads and NY has not.

Distribution of funding across a state doesn't matter.  Fine, NY sends money downstate.  NY could build new roads down there, too.

Do you know what fund sources WV is using to complete the ADHS?  ADHS specific funding is quite old by now and I wouldn't be surprised if it has been depleted and WV is utilizing core federal fund sources to complete the job (hence the elongated schedule)...which means NY and WV are still similar in available funding.

So, I don't think we're getting closer to the real reasons behind the difference.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 04, 2022, 10:25:19 AM
ADHS is still being funded (see: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2284/text?r=38&s=1, which was signed into law) via appropriations and measures such as that. It also helps to have strong senators and representatives that have championed highway construction as a core tenant of their campaigns. Manchin and Byrd have been major proponents of getting their ADHS corridors completed - and both have sat and wielded power in their respective committees. New York, despite its many more senators and representatives, doesn't have as much pull and its priorities have been put elsewhere.

For other projects, there is little funding to pull from and so projects do get dragged out much longer than the corridor routes. US 35 is probably an exception and there were serious talks of making it into a toll road. It took a new governor and the Roads to Prosperity program to finally get the last (long) leg built. But then you have the King Coal/Tolsia Highways, and for the 30 years it's been out there, only a few short segments and the longer Williamson-Gilbert segment have been built. And it looks like the remainder of it, from Williamson north and Gilbert south to Bluefield will be built with two lanes - and the segment north of Williamson may follow portions of the existing road instead of being all new terrain to expedite construction. I don't forsee it being completed in my lifetime.

And then there is WV 10, which was once projected to be all four lanes from Huntington south. Only the segment from Logan to Man has been completed and there is nothing else proposed. Or the completion of the WV 9 freeway around Martinsburg. US 522. I-68's westward extension to Wheeling. WV 2... etc.

Take away the corridors and what's being funded via the Turnpike, and West Virginia isn't building much.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 04, 2022, 12:30:20 PM
ADHS is still being funded (see: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2284/text?r=38&s=1, which was signed into law) via appropriations and measures such as that. It also helps to have strong senators and representatives that have championed highway construction as a core tenant of their campaigns. Manchin and Byrd have been major proponents of getting their ADHS corridors completed - and both have sat and wielded power in their respective committees. New York, despite its many more senators and representatives, doesn't have as much pull and its priorities have been put elsewhere.

For other projects, there is little funding to pull from and so projects do get dragged out much longer than the corridor routes. US 35 is probably an exception and there were serious talks of making it into a toll road. It took a new governor and the Roads to Prosperity program to finally get the last (long) leg built. But then you have the King Coal/Tolsia Highways, and for the 30 years it's been out there, only a few short segments and the longer Williamson-Gilbert segment have been built. And it looks like the remainder of it, from Williamson north and Gilbert south to Bluefield will be built with two lanes - and the segment north of Williamson may follow portions of the existing road instead of being all new terrain to expedite construction. I don't forsee it being completed in my lifetime.

And then there is WV 10, which was once projected to be all four lanes from Huntington south. Only the segment from Logan to Man has been completed and there is nothing else proposed. Or the completion of the WV 9 freeway around Martinsburg. US 522. I-68's westward extension to Wheeling. WV 2... etc.

Take away the corridors and what's being funded via the Turnpike, and West Virginia isn't building much.
That bill in your link is not law nor funding.  It does shoe Manchin's interest in the ADHS, but as the tracker says right in your link, it hasn't moved past introduction and it has sat there since June of last year.

I don't have time, but you certainly could sift through the FHWA apportionment notices to see the last time ADHS was included.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on May 04, 2022, 02:16:43 PM
Signed into law: https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-manchins-finish-adhs-act-signed-law-part-bipartisan-infrastructure#:~:text=Finish%20the%20ADHS%20Act%20is,in%20funding%20through%20this%20legislation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 04, 2022, 04:22:22 PM
Signed into law: https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-manchins-finish-adhs-act-signed-law-part-bipartisan-infrastructure#:~:text=Finish%20the%20ADHS%20Act%20is,in%20funding%20through%20this%20legislation.
*sigh*

The other issue is what was funding more recent work, given that the BIA was just signed some months ago.

Found that FHWA notice yet?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on May 05, 2022, 09:10:09 AM
Here's a weird signal near me, on NY 52. The shopping plaza gets a signal and the empty lot across the street gets one signal head. The empty lot gets a flashing red and does not have a sensor. However, if the shopping plaza trips the green, the empty lot's signal will turn green, yellow, then back to flashing red.

https://goo.gl/maps/hR81TgWLRetCaMPKA
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 05, 2022, 10:25:57 AM
Here's a weird signal near me, on NY 52. The shopping plaza gets a signal and the empty lot across the street gets one signal head. The empty lot gets a flashing red and does not have a sensor. However, if the shopping plaza trips the green, the empty lot's signal will turn green, yellow, then back to flashing red.

https://goo.gl/maps/hR81TgWLRetCaMPKA
A pretty similar one was here. CHanged to a full light when another store was added. 

https://goo.gl/maps/qSmdoZbxs6iQDiEh9

Looks like when there is a major traffic source (plaza with a large grocery store in this case) on one side, and something that doesn't meet traffic numbers for a traffic light across the street, they try to get the best of both situations with a traffic light (because it is already there), but no (expensive) sensor mixed with a stop sign (flashing red) such smaller location would get otherwise.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on May 06, 2022, 09:04:22 PM
Here's a weird signal near me, on NY 52. The shopping plaza gets a signal and the empty lot across the street gets one signal head. The empty lot gets a flashing red and does not have a sensor. However, if the shopping plaza trips the green, the empty lot's signal will turn green, yellow, then back to flashing red.

https://goo.gl/maps/hR81TgWLRetCaMPKA
A pretty similar one was here. CHanged to a full light when another store was added. 

https://goo.gl/maps/qSmdoZbxs6iQDiEh9

Looks like when there is a major traffic source (plaza with a large grocery store in this case) on one side, and something that doesn't meet traffic numbers for a traffic light across the street, they try to get the best of both situations with a traffic light (because it is already there), but no (expensive) sensor mixed with a stop sign (flashing red) such smaller location would get otherwise.

And then you have instances like this one on NY 31 in Pittsford which has had this setup for as long as I can remember.  Like the NY 52 signal, the red phase is a flashing red.  First thoughts would be that the signal facing away from traffic was to serve as a pedestrian signal.  Until you see where the crosswalk is.

https://earth.google.com/web/@43.0958458,-77.52745598,134.07229614a,0d,90y,156.66543949h,87.3118397t,0r/data=IjAKLEFGMVFpcE50V3lMM29LSTJsNnRmYVp4dkI3dWpYenY0SW8xWjItX1dtQjhoEAU
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 10, 2022, 10:20:06 AM
On another topic, what's with the awkward interchange with US 9 and US 44/NY 55 in Poughkeepsie? Obviously it's an old interchange with the left exits/merges and short accel lanes, but why choose said design in the first place? It does no favors for US 9 -> Mid Hudson Bridge traffic (US 9 NB competes with exiting SB traffic) and if they were to redesign the interchange it could do with flyovers directly accessing 44/55 WB.

I drove through that interchange daily for about 10 years. I don't think it can be fixed because there's no space on either side. I was surprised when there wasn't someone rear-ended there. Accident rate was 10.97 per million vehicle miles when I asked for accident data
I think the bowtie design was innovative given the space constraints, but the left lane exits and merges are problematic.  I wonder if speed reducing measures on US 9 would help matters.
The cleanest way to fix it is to make it a SPUI, but I'm sure a free-flowing interchange for all directions is preferred.

Update on an old topic: the redesign study has been released, including a preferred alternative:
https://www.poughkeepsie94455.com/library
Also included is a redesign of the 44/55 arterial.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on May 12, 2022, 06:07:52 PM
Ok...  anyone have a clue when Sacandaga Road between Vley Road and the Scotia village line will ever be repaved?  It's literally a cobblestone road now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 12, 2022, 10:37:28 PM
Ok...  anyone have a clue when Sacandaga Road between Vley Road and the Scotia village line will ever be repaved?  It's literally a cobblestone road now.
Put a bobblehead on your dashboard and drive it, taking a video of it shaking.  That always gets NYSDOT's attention.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on May 12, 2022, 10:39:26 PM
Ok...  anyone have a clue when Sacandaga Road between Vley Road and the Scotia village line will ever be repaved?  It's literally a cobblestone road now.
Put a bobblehead on your dashboard and drive it, taking a video of it shaking.  That always gets NYSDOT's attention.

 :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 20, 2022, 08:36:01 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/etJHfw67w9vbkgoz9

I take the design of this water tower was by Robert Moses?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on May 20, 2022, 11:54:02 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/etJHfw67w9vbkgoz9

I take the design of this water tower was by Robert Moses?

Yes, supposedly patterned after a campanile (Italian bell tower) he saw in Venice.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on May 20, 2022, 06:20:42 PM
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 20, 2022, 08:20:21 PM
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.
So it begins in NY.  New pilot program.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MASTERNC on May 20, 2022, 08:38:30 PM
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.
So it begins in NY.  New pilot program.

Did they ever announce it had officially been launched?  I don't even see a website.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 20, 2022, 09:56:23 PM
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.
So it begins in NY.  New pilot program.

Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.

My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MASTERNC on May 21, 2022, 08:31:34 AM
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.
So it begins in NY.  New pilot program.

Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.

My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.

They might still be in beta test like PA was for a few months. When the program went live, there was a press release and a website.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 21, 2022, 05:22:13 PM
^ There have been numerous stories in the news about it.  The fact that these cameras are coming shouldn't be a surprise at this point to people who live in the state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 30, 2022, 07:18:52 PM
I don't remember whether this question has been asked in the past or not, but I see two metal poles sticking up from this long-sought Harlem Line bridge over US 202 and NY 22 in Croton Falls;
https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?61697
So are these signposts for a low clearance sign above the road? If not, it should be.





Title: Re: New York
Post by: MASTERNC on May 31, 2022, 09:15:29 PM
^ There have been numerous stories in the news about it.  The fact that these cameras are coming shouldn't be a surprise at this point to people who live in the state.

Looks like the contract was just awarded at the beginning of April.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/consult-results
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 04, 2022, 09:19:28 AM
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.
So it begins in NY.  New pilot program.

Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.

My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.

I have been told of instances where people have gotten nailed for work zone speed infractions even when workers are not present.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 04, 2022, 10:58:33 AM


I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.
So it begins in NY.  New pilot program.

Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.

My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.

I have been told of instances where people have gotten nailed for work zone speed infractions even when workers are not present.

Already?  I don't think there is that restriction on the enforcement usage, though.  In NY, work zone safety is such a hot topic (intrusions and deaths happen every year) that I am sure the argument would be made that those who speed through work zones would do so if workers are present or not.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MASTERNC on June 04, 2022, 12:19:39 PM


I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.
So it begins in NY.  New pilot program.

Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.

My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.

I have been told of instances where people have gotten nailed for work zone speed infractions even when workers are not present.

Already?  I don't think there is that restriction on the enforcement usage, though.  In NY, work zone safety is such a hot topic (intrusions and deaths happen every year) that I am sure the argument would be made that those who speed through work zones would do so if workers are present or not.

According to the RFP, the cameras are only used when workers are present. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 04, 2022, 12:39:51 PM


I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.
So it begins in NY.  New pilot program.

Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.

My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.

I have been told of instances where people have gotten nailed for work zone speed infractions even when workers are not present.

Already?  I don't think there is that restriction on the enforcement usage, though.  In NY, work zone safety is such a hot topic (intrusions and deaths happen every year) that I am sure the argument would be made that those who speed through work zones would do so if workers are present or not.
One can argue that posting and enforcing empty work zones trains people to ignore those when not enforced.
Chicken and egg.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 04, 2022, 12:48:28 PM
I don't know, personally I'm much more cautious in active work zones. If there's just a lane closure with no active work, I'll mostly try to just keep up with traffic or go up to 10 over just to prevent braking/slowdowns/backups. But caution takes precedence when there's active work going on.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 04, 2022, 04:46:42 PM
I don't know, personally I'm much more cautious in active work zones. If there's just a lane closure with no active work, I'll mostly try to just keep up with traffic or go up to 10 over just to prevent braking/slowdowns/backups. But caution takes precedence when there's active work going on.
You can only see active work from 0.5 mile away, probably less. That gives you little time to actually slow down.
Point of signage is to give an advance warning.
Great if you are dealing with roadwork on your daily drive and know what to expect. Outside of that familiar area, "roadwork next 6 miles" sign being the only sign of any work is... Confusing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 04, 2022, 04:54:51 PM
On the Thruway at least, it seems like work zone speed reductions are happening closer to the actual work zone than in the past.  Before it felt like one was driving for half a mile before the work zone at the reduced speed, and then again after, but now the reductions seems to be right at the lane shifts (sometimes a little within them).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 04, 2022, 04:56:51 PM
The same psychology that applies to speed limits applies to work zone limits. If the limit is lowered excessively, people are trained to ignore it. If it is only lowered when necessary, people make damn sure to follow it. This is why speed limit adherence is garbage in the Northeast US and Canada- limits are underposted by 10-20 with the expectation people will drive 10-20 over. In my experience, average speeds on rural freeways are pretty consistent across the US despite differing speed limits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 04, 2022, 07:58:22 PM


I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.
So it begins in NY.  New pilot program.

Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.

My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.

I have been told of instances where people have gotten nailed for work zone speed infractions even when workers are not present.

Already?  I don't think there is that restriction on the enforcement usage, though.  In NY, work zone safety is such a hot topic (intrusions and deaths happen every year) that I am sure the argument would be made that those who speed through work zones would do so if workers are present or not.

According to the RFP, the cameras are only used when workers are present.
Wonder what that means legally.  Contractor is enforcing limits via camera during times it shouldn't per the contract, but speeders are still breaking the law.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 04, 2022, 10:15:38 PM
The same psychology that applies to speed limits applies to work zone limits. If the limit is lowered excessively, people are trained to ignore it. If it is only lowered when necessary, people make damn sure to follow it. This is why speed limit adherence is garbage in the Northeast US and Canada- limits are underposted by 10-20 with the expectation people will drive 10-20 over. In my experience, average speeds on rural freeways are pretty consistent across the US despite differing speed limits.
Agreed.  This change is certainly welcome, and may well increase compliance.  Before, I tended to have to be very careful to keep my speed to 62 or less (my usual 7 over).  Now, I find that I'm naturally keeping to the 55-60 range, because I don't have a long lead-in where I feel like I'm crawling.

Honestly, I would love it if the northeast dumped its "underpost because everyone will go 10-20 over" mindset, freeways especially.  I'm a natural rule follower, so keeping exactly to a reasonable limit is far preferable to having to come up with a system for how much I should speed in a given area, especially as such tends not to be consistent.

It can get really bad if an underposted limit is combined with a long staging for a reduced limit or stop.  Driving I-81 approaching the Thousand Islands Bridge is downright painful because the 40 zone extends for a MILE before the bridge.  Ditto for either end of I-781.  And that's WITH my "7 over on freeways" system.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on June 06, 2022, 08:48:55 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/MQqYS8CMNzS997EQA

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4280686,-73.7202356,15z

I see Google is showing the unsigned reference route number for the Exit 22 spur along I-87 in Lake George.  If it’s correct that is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 09:34:29 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/MQqYS8CMNzS997EQA

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4280686,-73.7202356,15z

I see Google is showing the unsigned reference route number for the Exit 22 spur along I-87 in Lake George.  If it’s correct that is.
It is in fact NY-912Q. (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.43269,-73.7166206,3a,15y,280.37h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZIBFUEUKJZ8lTORc-yU3zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Google Maps also labels NY-954H (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1613511,-79.3795656,15.62z), NY-920D/NY-920J (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0320775,-74.3352281,14.56z), and NY-912M (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4920449,-73.7455601,13.49z), to name a few.

They also label NY-990V and the likes, but they are actually posted as touring routes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 17, 2022, 09:05:58 PM
Any news on further exit number conversions in NY?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 17, 2022, 10:20:22 PM
Hasn't even started yet in NYS DOT Region-10 on Long Island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on June 17, 2022, 10:26:39 PM
Have we considered the regional impacts of congestion pricing in Manhattan?

I expect a lot less traffic on the Long Island Expressway, and perhaps relief as far away as Southwestern Connecticut.

But on the other hand, the circumferential routes around New York would see more traffic, especially on the Whitestone and Throggs' Neck Bridges now that the Queensboro Bridge-FDR Drive-Willis Bridge shunpike is gone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 17, 2022, 10:40:57 PM
Have we considered the regional impacts of congestion pricing in Manhattan?

I expect a lot less traffic on the Long Island Expressway, and perhaps relief as far away as Southwestern Connecticut.

But on the other hand, the circumferential routes around New York would see more traffic, especially on the Whitestone and Throggs' Neck Bridges now that the Queensboro Bridge-FDR Drive-Willis Bridge shunpike is gone.
Never have I seen an example of such glorious speculation gone quite amok.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 17, 2022, 10:50:07 PM
Never have I seen an example of such glorious speculation gone quite amok.

Wasn't that half of M.T.R...?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on June 18, 2022, 08:21:34 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/6csvyJbMTCiQXpzs8
Does anyone know if this intersection is still used during the ten days of September when the the Great NY State Fair is in session?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on June 18, 2022, 08:22:46 AM
But on the other hand, the circumferential routes around New York would see more traffic, especially on the Whitestone and Throggs' Neck Bridges now that the Queensboro Bridge-FDR Drive-Willis Bridge shunpike is gone.

Is it?  I thought that you only get charged if you go on the streets and are OK if you get directly onto a highway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on June 18, 2022, 08:36:31 AM
But on the other hand, the circumferential routes around New York would see more traffic, especially on the Whitestone and Throggs' Neck Bridges now that the Queensboro Bridge-FDR Drive-Willis Bridge shunpike is gone.

Is it?  I thought that you only get charged if you go on the streets and are OK if you get directly onto a highway.

I was assuming they'd start tolling the East River bridges, which they frankly should've done years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on June 18, 2022, 08:51:47 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/6csvyJbMTCiQXpzs8
Does anyone know if this intersection is still used during the ten days of September when the the Great NY State Fair is in session?

No, it has been replaced with ramps from the Orange lot to 690 East (and there is also access to 609 West) - first in effect last Fair.

The Fair ends on Labor Day, and last year expanded to be a total of 18 Days, however based on the website it is back to 13 days this coming year. (No Fair in 2020, and attendance was way down last year despite the expansion).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on June 18, 2022, 12:55:10 PM
But on the other hand, the circumferential routes around New York would see more traffic, especially on the Whitestone and Throggs' Neck Bridges now that the Queensboro Bridge-FDR Drive-Willis Bridge shunpike is gone.

Is it?  I thought that you only get charged if you go on the streets and are OK if you get directly onto a highway.

The current congestion pricing plan from the MTA only charges you if you go onto the street grid below 60th Street. Travel on the West Side Hwy and FDR/HRD are not included. And while I haven't seen for sure, I'll bet that the approaches to both outbound tunnels from the highways will also be exempt (so Canal west of Varick, and the streets that lead to Lincoln Tunnel entrances west of 9th Ave). In any event, Kathy Hochul has more or less declared that she's not going to actively push for this plan anyway as she's up for election this year, so this whole scheme is almost certainly dead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 18, 2022, 03:44:27 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6csvyJbMTCiQXpzs8
Does anyone know if this intersection is still used during the ten days of September when the the Great NY State Fair is in session?
It's been replaced with ramps IIRC.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 18, 2022, 04:09:58 PM
But on the other hand, the circumferential routes around New York would see more traffic, especially on the Whitestone and Throggs' Neck Bridges now that the Queensboro Bridge-FDR Drive-Willis Bridge shunpike is gone.

Is it?  I thought that you only get charged if you go on the streets and are OK if you get directly onto a highway.

I was assuming they'd start tolling the East River bridges, which they frankly should've done years ago.
Yep, you assumed that and a whole lot of other things.  You should read more before coming to such conclusions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 18, 2022, 07:51:54 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6csvyJbMTCiQXpzs8
Does anyone know if this intersection is still used during the ten days of September when the the Great NY State Fair is in session?
It's been replaced with ramps IIRC.

Signal was removed a few years ago and replaced with a ramp. Some of the folding button copy still existed as of last August.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 18, 2022, 09:25:59 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6csvyJbMTCiQXpzs8
Does anyone know if this intersection is still used during the ten days of September when the the Great NY State Fair is in session?
It's been replaced with ramps IIRC.

Signal was removed a few years ago and replaced with a ramp. Some of the folding button copy still existed as of last August.
Button copy will be replaced relatively soon, actually. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on June 19, 2022, 06:50:50 AM
I see on the WB I-690 ramp to NY 695, there is an at grade with a gated driveway into the Orange Lot.  I assume that gate is opened and also allows traffic either in or out of it.

Also GSV has imagery of the access road that services the lot as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 19, 2022, 08:20:40 AM
I see on the WB I-690 ramp to NY 695, there is an at grade with a gated driveway into the Orange Lot.  I assume that gate is opened and also allows traffic either in or out of it.

Also GSV has imagery of the access road that services the lot as well.
Lot's open all the time now and provides access to the Empire State Trail.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on June 19, 2022, 11:04:07 AM
I’m surprised it’s not designated park and ride for commuters.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 19, 2022, 11:07:46 AM
I’m surprised it’s not designated park and ride for commuters.
Lack of demand.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 23, 2022, 08:59:57 AM
Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background.  :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 23, 2022, 09:21:48 AM
Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background.  :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!


Using the correct US or NY Route shield for a route doesn't seem to be as high of a priority as it used to be for the contractors doing work for NYSDOT. Along with US/NY 20A, "US 10", and "US 34" seem to be quite popular.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 23, 2022, 09:39:41 AM
Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background.  :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!


Using the correct US or NY Route shield for a route doesn't seem to be as high of a priority as it used to be for the contractors doing work for NYSDOT. Along with US/NY 20A, "US 10", and "US 34" seem to be quite popular.
Maybe because there is little distinction between those. Unlike more highway-ish US routes towards west, they are just roads here. For example, US 9 and US 20 run along regular streets through city center over here, and don't have the feel of anything special. OK, it got numbered, lets post the number.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 23, 2022, 09:46:24 AM
Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background.  :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!


Using the correct US or NY Route shield for a route doesn't seem to be as high of a priority as it used to be for the contractors doing work for NYSDOT. Along with US/NY 20A, "US 10", and "US 34" seem to be quite popular.

I spotted a US 52 over by me the other day. But there do seem to be certain routes that are far more susceptible to this, and US 20A is definitely one of them. In my area, the biggest culprit is surely US 202, but its frequent overlappers US 6 and US 9 even get into the action.

I would venture to say also that the problem has gotten much more frequent lately; I don't remember this being such a mundane occurrence in the early days of this hobby…
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 23, 2022, 11:45:58 AM
The sign goof I would find the most amusing is if they were to erect an erroneous US 104 sign along NY 104, given that was the road's old designation. By the way, is the old US 104 sign still posted at the 2nd St./Ferry Ave. intersection? Or has it been replaced with a "correct" NY 104 sign?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on June 23, 2022, 02:45:55 PM
Just passed by a new, highly visible, US/NY mixup on the Thruway at Exit 16.  At least one of the SB advance exit signs has a US 17 shield instead of NY 17.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 23, 2022, 02:50:23 PM
Just passed by a new, highly visible, US/NY mixup on the Thruway at Exit 16.  At least one of the SB advance exit signs has a US 17 shield instead of NY 17.

That seems like the kind of thing that NYSTA would probably fix if you contacted them about it. But then again, it's probably much more noticeable to us roadgeeks than it is to the general population, so maybe they don't care that much.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on June 23, 2022, 03:34:39 PM
Just passed by a new, highly visible, US/NY mixup on the Thruway at Exit 16.  At least one of the SB advance exit signs has a US 17 shield instead of NY 17.

That seems like the kind of thing that NYSDOT would probably fix if you contacted them about it. But then again, it's probably much more noticeable to us roadgeeks than it is to the general population, so maybe they don't care that much.
Well if it is one of the Thruway guide signs, NYSDOT definitely wouldn't fix that.  :bigass:
In all honesty, NYSTA probably would if someone mentioned it, but NYSDOT would be the one to say let's leave it up until replacement time......................



and then replace the error in kind, especially R8.  :banghead:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on June 23, 2022, 03:44:46 PM
^ Whoops, yes I goofed, I meant NYSTA.  :pan:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 23, 2022, 06:04:33 PM
Oh, that US 17 sign has been there for at least 9 months now. I don't think it's getting fixed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on June 23, 2022, 07:28:11 PM
I believe NYSTA had one or more error US 60 shields out in western NY for years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 24, 2022, 12:35:51 AM
The sign goof I would find the most amusing is if they were to erect an erroneous US 104 sign along NY 104, given that was the road's old designation. By the way, is the old US 104 sign still posted at the 2nd St./Ferry Ave. intersection? Or has it been replaced with a "correct" NY 104 sign?

Or the pair of them (http://empirestateroads.com/photos/oswego/us104.jpg) in Oswego at the end of NY 48?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: GenExpwy on June 24, 2022, 08:59:19 AM
Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background.  :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!

And the first one has three characters squeezed into a two-digit shield, which is a lot more rare in New York (several of them around Geneseo).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 24, 2022, 12:48:18 PM
NY 48 ends at old US 104 in Oswego, not Fulton. Also, it appears that the last time the Google Car visited the intersection (October 2013), the NY 48 end sign had a US 48 shield.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on June 24, 2022, 06:53:51 PM
NY 48 ends at old US 104 in Oswego, not Fulton. Also, it appears that the last time the Google Car visited the intersection (October 2013), the NY 48 end sign had a US 48 shield.

http://newyorkroutes.net/images/photos/routes/048/048-02831n.JPG ...Taken last August

The Niagara Falls install was replaced about five years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on June 24, 2022, 06:55:51 PM
Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background.  :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!

And the first one has three characters squeezed into a two-digit shield, which is a lot more rare in New York (several of them around Geneseo).

Wake me up when someone finds a NY 1 shield.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 24, 2022, 07:53:02 PM
Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background.  :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!

And the first one has three characters squeezed into a two-digit shield, which is a lot more rare in New York (several of them around Geneseo).

Wake me up when someone finds a NY 1 shield.
I have. One only, and probably construction related, but I've seen it and photoed it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 24, 2022, 11:35:08 PM
NY 48 ends at old US 104 in Oswego, not Fulton. Also, it appears that the last time the Google Car visited the intersection (October 2013), the NY 48 end sign had a US 48 shield.

Oswego, yes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 24, 2022, 11:38:23 PM
NY 48 ends at old US 104 in Oswego, not Fulton. Also, it appears that the last time the Google Car visited the intersection (October 2013), the NY 48 end sign had a US 48 shield.

Oswego, yes.
Where we goin'?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 25, 2022, 09:11:11 AM
Oswego, yes.
Where we goin'?

Into the wild, blue Wawayanda.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 25, 2022, 03:49:08 PM
I believe NYSTA had one or more error US 60 shields out in western NY for years.

Yes, Exit 59 showed as US 60 on the eastbound advance guide sign for years. NYSTA and I went back and forth on this in email and it looks like it was corrected in 2020 or 2021. It's a shame they didn't replace the whole sign, as it's one of the NYSTA signs constructed with non-reflective lettering.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 25, 2022, 10:23:28 PM
I believe NYSTA had one or more error US 60 shields out in western NY for years.

Yes, Exit 59 showed as US 60 on the eastbound advance guide sign for years. NYSTA and I went back and forth on this in email and it looks like it was corrected in 2020 or 2021. It's a shame they didn't replace the whole sign, as it's one of the NYSTA signs constructed with non-reflective lettering.

So you ruined my fun passing that sign all the time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 25, 2022, 11:09:09 PM
I believe NYSTA had one or more error US 60 shields out in western NY for years.


Yes, Exit 59 showed as US 60 on the eastbound advance guide sign for years. NYSTA and I went back and forth on this in email and it looks like it was corrected in 2020 or 2021. It's a shame they didn't replace the whole sign, as it's one of the NYSTA signs constructed with non-reflective lettering.

So you ruined my fun passing that sign all the time.
Guilty as charged but at least you're no longer confused as to whether it's really NY Route 60 or US Route 62 (also in the relative area).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 26, 2022, 06:46:32 AM
You realize few people passing that sign legit care? I know of other errors but I am not going to run to the authorities to get it fixed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on June 26, 2022, 11:40:50 AM
You realize few people passing that sign legit care? I know of other errors but I am not going to run to the authorities to get it fixed.

I’d say the same thing about I-81 existing on a viaduct in Syracuse!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheGrassGuy on June 26, 2022, 12:05:29 PM
Between exits 18 and 19, I'm noticing that a lot of the pylons have had their wires removed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 26, 2022, 12:24:19 PM
You realize few people passing that sign legit care? I know of other errors but I am not going to run to the authorities to get it fixed.

I’d say the same thing about I-81 existing on a viaduct in Syracuse!

I support the 81 demolition. I just would prefer it go to the expansion of new housing of Section 8 variety and not gentrification. We have enough housing for hipsters as is.

Also these are not the same situation
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 26, 2022, 02:56:12 PM
You realize few people passing that sign legit care? I know of other errors but I am not going to run to the authorities to get it fixed.

I’d say the same thing about I-81 existing on a viaduct in Syracuse!

I support the 81 demolition. I just would prefer it go to the expansion of new housing of Section 8 variety and not gentrification. We have enough housing for hipsters as is.

Also these are not the same situation
Heh.  Syracuse has been weird about new apartments, though.  You have the new apartments across from the State Office Building and then in the Corbett building and the Smith's building...but then Hamilton House sits there, entirely vacant (needs to be demolished).

Pioneer Homes was betting on a $50m grant for new Section 8 housing like you want, but that fell through.  They say they will somehow go through the renovations nonetheless.

All that said, I think downtown Syracuse's big problem is that it's still a food desert.  Needs a real grocery store.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 26, 2022, 03:14:34 PM
I'm with Adam in my assessment of I-81. I'd support it...if there were grants for Section 8 and other assistance programs involved. Otherwise, it's just going to gentrify and price out the people who live in the area. Not as much money/tax revenue in Section 8 housing as there is in luxury apartments and rich people don't like living near "the poors", so...

Food desert could have been addressed with assistance programs. Really wouldn't be that hard to throw in tax breaks for supermarkets. But again, the "target demographic" for the renewal either has cars or the money to order delivery.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 26, 2022, 07:18:12 PM


I'm with Adam in my assessment of I-81. I'd support it...if there were grants for Section 8 and other assistance programs involved. Otherwise, it's just going to gentrify and price out the people who live in the area. Not as much money/tax revenue in Section 8 housing as there is in luxury apartments and rich people don't like living near "the poors", so...

Food desert could have been addressed with assistance programs. Really wouldn't be that hard to throw in tax breaks for supermarkets. But again, the "target demographic" for the renewal either has cars or the money to order delivery.

(personal opinion emphasized)

I'm not so sure I'm seeing the same thing here.  There's really not a lot of space being freed up here, as Almond St will still exist (it's not like there's acreage behind the likes of Madison Towers or the Upstate properties).  Outside of Pioneer Homes, there's not a lot of opportunity and if the proposal is to build more brand new residential public projects, I don't think there's the political will to do so. 

The building across from the State Office Building is insane when it comes to rents ($3k+).  People have no idea who lives there and, more importantly, why.  Rich people in Syracuse that want to rent?  Doing what for jobs?  Why move in the middle of a food desert?  There's the Internet delivery services, but I'm not so sure downtown residents enjoy being dependent upon them.

Other developments downtown seem to be much saner, but it does seem people are generally moving into downtown Syracuse (i.e., we're talking apartments, not condos).  That'll drive rents up at private properties no matter what due to our reliance on capitalism.

I mean, I-81 is going to do a lot of work on roads downtown, but it is a transportation project and not a residential development project.  It'll be interesting to see what the City does as the viaduct comes down, but I don't think much will change on say, Crouse and Irving or Erie in the short-term.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on June 28, 2022, 07:38:53 PM
Between exits 18 and 19, I'm noticing that a lot of the pylons have had their wires removed.

If you mean exits 18 and 19 of current I-81, those exits roughly bracket the 81/690 weave zone, and per http://tinyurl.com/3jxednu8 . there weren't *any* pylons in that vicinity in November 2021.

Otoh, if you mean exits 18 and 19 of the NYST, are you referring to these in https://tinyurl.com/yv59dexz ?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 28, 2022, 08:47:22 PM
^ FYI, there's no need ot use tinyurl for Google Maps links.  You can either embed them in bbcode (see below) or use the "share or embed link" feature if you want to display a url.

Code: [Select]
[url=url_location]text[/url]
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 29, 2022, 07:53:59 AM
I think NYSBA has a problem with the readers at the Mid-Hudson Bridge.  I was on the bridge back on May 28th, and I just had it posted to my EZPass account but they charged me the Pay by Plate amount.  I fired an inquiry off to EZPass to see if I can get that fixed to the proper amount ($1.55), but I don't know of any other way to get it fixed.

I wish Bestpass offered services to individuals since their toll operations team is great at getting issues fixed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 29, 2022, 08:04:03 AM
I think NYSBA has a problem with the readers at the Mid-Hudson Bridge.  I was on the bridge back on May 28th, and I just had it posted to my EZPass account but they charged me the Pay by Plate amount.  I fired an inquiry off to EZPass to see if I can get that fixed to the proper amount ($1.55), but I don't know of any other way to get it fixed.

I wish Bestpass offered services to individuals since their toll operations team is great at getting issues fixed.
If you have that plate linked to E-ZPass account, even plate charge should be at reduced rate and charged to the account.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 29, 2022, 08:05:45 AM
I think NYSBA has a problem with the readers at the Mid-Hudson Bridge.  I was on the bridge back on May 28th, and I just had it posted to my EZPass account but they charged me the Pay by Plate amount.  I fired an inquiry off to EZPass to see if I can get that fixed to the proper amount ($1.55), but I don't know of any other way to get it fixed.

I wish Bestpass offered services to individuals since their toll operations team is great at getting issues fixed.
If you have that plate linked to E-ZPass account, even plate charge should be at reduced rate and charged to the account.
Yessir...  it should have been billed at $1.55 and not the full mailed bill of $2.

I'm also keeping an eye out for any Thruway shenanigans with my motorcycle plate.  My trip to Verona on Saturday hasn't popped up yet.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MASTERNC on June 29, 2022, 09:58:11 AM
I think NYSBA has a problem with the readers at the Mid-Hudson Bridge.  I was on the bridge back on May 28th, and I just had it posted to my EZPass account but they charged me the Pay by Plate amount.  I fired an inquiry off to EZPass to see if I can get that fixed to the proper amount ($1.55), but I don't know of any other way to get it fixed.

I wish Bestpass offered services to individuals since their toll operations team is great at getting issues fixed.
If you have that plate linked to E-ZPass account, even plate charge should be at reduced rate and charged to the account.
Yessir...  it should have been billed at $1.55 and not the full mailed bill of $2.

I'm also keeping an eye out for any Thruway shenanigans with my motorcycle plate.  My trip to Verona on Saturday hasn't popped up yet.

The only other explanation is they are charging for a mis-read.  At least the Thruway Authority has a policy that says it will bill the mail rate if an E-ZPass is not properly mounted and the toll has to be assessed through a license plate image.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 30, 2022, 07:15:13 AM
I think NYSBA has a problem with the readers at the Mid-Hudson Bridge.  I was on the bridge back on May 28th, and I just had it posted to my EZPass account but they charged me the Pay by Plate amount.  I fired an inquiry off to EZPass to see if I can get that fixed to the proper amount ($1.55), but I don't know of any other way to get it fixed.

I wish Bestpass offered services to individuals since their toll operations team is great at getting issues fixed.
If you have that plate linked to E-ZPass account, even plate charge should be at reduced rate and charged to the account.
Yessir...  it should have been billed at $1.55 and not the full mailed bill of $2.

I'm also keeping an eye out for any Thruway shenanigans with my motorcycle plate.  My trip to Verona on Saturday hasn't popped up yet.

The only other explanation is they are charging for a mis-read.  At least the Thruway Authority has a policy that says it will bill the mail rate if an E-ZPass is not properly mounted and the toll has to be assessed through a license plate image.

That's BS....  they just got it handed to them over the one gantry in Buffalo not working right causing 52,000 misreads.  Of course, I can't tell you how many times I've had to chase after problematic tolls and the erroneous mailed invoice for vehicles at work, and we have Bestpass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 01, 2022, 10:24:42 AM
That worked.  I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 01, 2022, 10:58:29 AM
That worked.  I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.
Hm.  Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 01, 2022, 11:09:14 AM
That worked.  I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.
Hm.  Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
That looks like a strategy toll agencies use to make money. So arguing for every cent is a must to keep them in check.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 01, 2022, 01:20:24 PM
That worked.  I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.
Hm.  Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
That looks like a strategy toll agencies use to make money. So arguing for every cent is a must to keep them in check.
Well, if it's worth it to you, okay, then.  Fighting over a single 45 cent toll isn't worth it in my book.

If it was recurring due to commuting or frequency, then that would be an issue.  But, 45 cents is the value of less than a minute of my time.  If it takes longer than that to resolve the issue, I'm actually wasting my time.

(Unlike moving some money of mine into a higher-yield account...more than worth it).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 01, 2022, 01:36:16 PM
That worked.  I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.
Hm.  Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
That looks like a strategy toll agencies use to make money. So arguing for every cent is a must to keep them in check.
Well, if it's worth it to you, okay, then.  Fighting over a single 45 cent toll isn't worth it in my book.

If it was recurring due to commuting or frequency, then that would be an issue.  But, 45 cents is the value of less than a minute of my time.  If it takes longer than that to resolve the issue, I'm actually wasting my time.

(Unlike moving some money of mine into a higher-yield account...more than worth it).

NYSBA charged my EZPass for the pay by plate rate of $2 even though I have the tag in the car.  I emailed EZPass about it and they corrected it to the proper EZPass amount of $1.55
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 01, 2022, 01:40:32 PM
That worked.  I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.
Hm.  Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
That looks like a strategy toll agencies use to make money. So arguing for every cent is a must to keep them in check.
Well, if it's worth it to you, okay, then.  Fighting over a single 45 cent toll isn't worth it in my book.

If it was recurring due to commuting or frequency, then that would be an issue.  But, 45 cents is the value of less than a minute of my time.  If it takes longer than that to resolve the issue, I'm actually wasting my time.

(Unlike moving some money of mine into a higher-yield account...more than worth it).
I had a situation when NYSTA wanted $13 in tolls - and it took $20 in postage to get it resolved, plus time, plus... A matter of principle, if you will - I would make THEM spend time on it as well, and make bullshit not worth it. Otherwise 45 cents here, 15 bucks there, and a violation on top since you have a history of problems...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 01, 2022, 01:43:39 PM
That worked.  I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.
Hm.  Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
That looks like a strategy toll agencies use to make money. So arguing for every cent is a must to keep them in check.
Well, if it's worth it to you, okay, then.  Fighting over a single 45 cent toll isn't worth it in my book.

If it was recurring due to commuting or frequency, then that would be an issue.  But, 45 cents is the value of less than a minute of my time.  If it takes longer than that to resolve the issue, I'm actually wasting my time.

(Unlike moving some money of mine into a higher-yield account...more than worth it).
I had a situation when NYSTA wanted $13 in tolls - and it took $20 in postage to get it resolved, plus time, plus... A matter of principle, if you will - I would make THEM spend time on it as well, and make bullshit not worth it. Otherwise 45 cents here, 15 bucks there, and a violation on top since you have a history of problems...

Or my favorite lately with the tags on the work account where it would only read at the exit causing max charge for the rate class.  Did also have the one off where the tag said exit 26 yet the truck GPS showed it getting off 25A.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 01, 2022, 01:53:29 PM
That worked.  I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.
Hm.  Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
That looks like a strategy toll agencies use to make money. So arguing for every cent is a must to keep them in check.
Well, if it's worth it to you, okay, then.  Fighting over a single 45 cent toll isn't worth it in my book.

If it was recurring due to commuting or frequency, then that would be an issue.  But, 45 cents is the value of less than a minute of my time.  If it takes longer than that to resolve the issue, I'm actually wasting my time.

(Unlike moving some money of mine into a higher-yield account...more than worth it).
I had a situation when NYSTA wanted $13 in tolls - and it took $20 in postage to get it resolved, plus time, plus... A matter of principle, if you will - I would make THEM spend time on it as well, and make bullshit not worth it. Otherwise 45 cents here, 15 bucks there, and a violation on top since you have a history of problems...

Or my favorite lately with the tags on the work account where it would only read at the exit causing max charge for the rate class.  Did also have the one off where the tag said exit 26 yet the truck GPS showed it getting off 25A.
25A/26 is a deliberately created  problem.
Full charge on single read is an easy to create one - and with open road readers it is impossible to catch until the bill shows up. So there is a real need to keep them honest 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 01, 2022, 02:27:43 PM
Then again, I've never had an issue with E-ZPass and I check my statements.

You guys must be wrapping your tag in foil or something. :D

Making E-ZPass related staff "work" really doesn't do anything.  The salaries and hours are constants.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 01, 2022, 06:45:04 PM
One little annoyance I have with the new system is that getting off at 25A for gas/food no longer results in a discounted toll for using 25A. A bigger issue others have noticed is that, if you enter at 25A and stop at the Guilderland Service Area, a stay of more than a few minutes will result in the system thinking you exited and reentered.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 01, 2022, 08:07:20 PM
I've had a couple issues to my memory since things went AET.  The first was them processing the mainline gantries around Albany too early, resulting in a free ride between 24-25A even though I should have been charged.  The second was them charging me twice for 45-44; they credited the duplicate charge when I pointed it out.

One little annoyance I have with the new system is that getting off at 25A for gas/food no longer results in a discounted toll for using 25A. A bigger issue others have noticed is that, if you enter at 25A and stop at the Guilderland Service Area, a stay of more than a few minutes will result in the system thinking you exited and reentered.
That would seem to go against the terms of the agreement that allowed for the use of federal funds to widen the Thruway rather than build the rest of I-88.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: bluecountry on July 02, 2022, 09:39:48 PM
Hey, they did it!  Had not been on the LIE in Suffolk Co since the fall, nice to see they have done the much needed repaving! :clap:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on July 02, 2022, 10:27:07 PM
There's been a bunch of paving projects east of Rochester recently... NY 104 in Ontario, NY 350 in Walworth, NY 286 and Blossom Rd (finally!), plus seemingly the entire Can of Worms interchange, although that's still in progress.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 05, 2022, 11:37:54 AM
I see some desperately needed repaving getting done on I-890 as well.  The Northway between 15 and 17 is getting some resurfacing done too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 05, 2022, 11:49:38 AM
I see some desperately needed repaving getting done on I-890 as well.  The Northway between 15 and 17 is getting some resurfacing done too.

890 is getting a full reconstruction west of downtown. That has barely been touched since it was built close to 50 years ago, so yes, it is sorely needed. Now get Region 1 to do a full-depth reconstruction on the 7 expressway- that has gotten quite rough in places.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 05, 2022, 11:52:19 AM
I see some desperately needed repaving getting done on I-890 as well.  The Northway between 15 and 17 is getting some resurfacing done too.

890 is getting a full reconstruction west of downtown. That has barely been touched since it was built close to 50 years ago, so yes, it is sorely needed. Now get Region 1 to do a full-depth reconstruction on the 7 expressway- that has gotten quite rough in places.

Thank God.  That was getting as bad as I-88.  The last time I remember anything getting done west of exit 2 was when 890 was extended to connect with 5.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on July 05, 2022, 12:38:23 PM
They seem to be digging a lot more than I'd expect in the median on I-890 near its western end.  Better drainage?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 05, 2022, 02:35:29 PM
They seem to be digging a lot more than I'd expect in the median on I-890 near its western end.  Better drainage?

Yeah, new drainage is a part of the work.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 05, 2022, 07:26:58 PM
Wonderful little twist on the EZPass saga.... I just got a Pay by Plate invoice in the mail for my trip down to Newburgh in May.  Strange because I have been having good reads lately, and I also have the plate on my EZPass account.  The plate on the invoice matches.  Oh well, I put it through to my account.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 06, 2022, 11:27:13 PM
Then again, I've never had an issue with E-ZPass and I check my statements.

You guys must be wrapping your tag in foil or something. :D
Well, I've told you people in the past that the E-Z Pass toll plazas have missed my plate a few times when I drive through them. So I'd hold off on the tin foil accusations for now.

In the meantime, onto another subject; I'm still looking for info on the former southbound RIRO ramps on the New England Thruway to Split Rock Road in the vicinity of Pelham Manor.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=15&lat=40.909351&lon=-73.848342

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 07, 2022, 09:10:02 AM
Speaking of toll issues, NYSTA hasn't been giving the Grand Island resident discount (https://buffalonews.com/news/local/billing-issue-takes-toll-on-grand-island-e-zpass-users/article_5224f60c-fc78-11ec-bf37-83e4d45c692a.html), instead charging them the cash rate of $1.24.

Edit: toll rate
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on July 08, 2022, 08:35:16 PM
I see Region 9 is going all out with I-88 resurfacing.  Tons of brand new surface in Cobleskill and Schoharie.  I'm guessing they're going to resurface other areas alongside the rebuild of the section between Oneonta and Richmondville?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 08, 2022, 09:05:47 PM
Good news at last! Long Island's Region-10 has finally started repaving on Southern State Pkwy. in Nassau County at least around Exits 25-27 in the North Bellmore-Wantagh area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on July 10, 2022, 02:09:57 PM
In Dutchess County, they're almost done installing a traffic circle on NY 376/CR 104/CR 94 by the airport in Wappinger. I think it's a DCDPW project, not NYSDOT. It's been free-flowing every time I've gone through there. It replaces this mess: https://goo.gl/maps/n4aRhujNEvx1oj1m6

And DCDPW widened the shoulders on CR 28, added two signals for side streets, and added badly needed turn lanes at the CR 28/94 intersection.

Also noticed new signs for Exit 41 (NY 9D) coming off the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge. The control city says Wappinger Falls though it's technically WappingerS Falls.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 10, 2022, 02:45:49 PM
In Dutchess County, they're almost done installing a traffic circle on NY 376/CR 104/CR 94 by the airport in Wappinger. I think it's a DCDPW project, not NYSDOT. It's been free-flowing every time I've gone through there. It replaces this mess: https://goo.gl/maps/n4aRhujNEvx1oj1m6

It's a NYSDOT project. Saw the contract docs and plans last year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on July 10, 2022, 04:55:03 PM
In Dutchess County, they're almost done installing a traffic circle on NY 376/CR 104/CR 94 by the airport in Wappinger. I think it's a DCDPW project, not NYSDOT. It's been free-flowing every time I've gone through there. It replaces this mess: https://goo.gl/maps/n4aRhujNEvx1oj1m6

That was quick. I was there mere weeks ago and there was no sign of a roundabout yet.

Quote
Also noticed new signs for Exit 41 (NY 9D) coming off the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge. The control city says Wappinger Falls though it's technically WappingerS Falls.

Yeah, that gets everyone around here. The town is Wappinger, the village is Wappingers Falls, and the school district (headquartered in neither but in an apparent attempt to refer to both) is Wappingers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on July 14, 2022, 01:26:09 AM
In Dutchess County, they're almost done installing a traffic circle on NY 376/CR 104/CR 94 by the airport in Wappinger. I think it's a DCDPW project, not NYSDOT. It's been free-flowing every time I've gone through there. It replaces this mess: https://goo.gl/maps/n4aRhujNEvx1oj1m6
As mentioned by cl94, it was done by NYSDOT. Dutchess County itself has never installed a roudabout, NYSDOT has installed 3 each on NY-55 and NY-376 (now 4), and the City of Poughkeepsie has installed one as well.
And yes, the previous intersection was a mess capitalized by poor signal timing. I went through there last Friday, and while it was functionally a roundabout, there was still some paving and landscaping that needed to be completed.

And DCDPW widened the shoulders on CR 28, added two signals for side streets, and added badly needed turn lanes at the CR 28/94 intersection.
I have mixed feelings about this project. While it is nice to finally have shoulders, they should have taken advantage of the shovels and at least attempted to mitigate the roller coaster of a road it is. I guess they wanted an excuse not to raise the speed limit. Also, I am not overly enamored by the two new signal installations. The new signal at Losee Rd and MacFarlane Rd replaced an offset 4 way (effectively 2 T intersections about 50ft apart), but I think that a roundabout would have been better here IMO. The new signal Spook Hill Rd IMO is useless, other than delaying both CR-28 traffic and Spook Hill Rd traffic, since the cars who would otherwise simply have a stop sign to turn left now have a probable red signal, which probably would end up resulting in a longer wait, especially late at night. They also missed a golden opportunity to convert the CR-28/CR-94 intersection into a roundabout to replace the current signal. At least they added turn lanes...

[/DCDPW Rant]
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on July 14, 2022, 08:13:22 AM

Quote
Also noticed new signs for Exit 41 (NY 9D) coming off the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge. The control city says Wappinger Falls though it's technically WappingerS Falls.

Yeah, that gets everyone around here. The town is Wappinger, the village is Wappingers Falls, and the school district (headquartered in neither but in an apparent attempt to refer to both) is Wappingers.

If I remember correctly, the original sign coming off the bridge for that exit also said "Wappinger Falls".

EDIT: Looking at Street View to confirm suspicions, yes, the old Exit 11 sign indeed said "Wappinger"...yet the mile-based sign that replaced it is correct. Meaning they replaced a correct sign with a carbon copy of an older incorrect one!

Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on July 19, 2022, 04:31:31 PM
Don't know if this post belongs on this thread or on the NYC Roads thread, since substantial portions of the road I am about to mention are within as well as outside NYC.  Nor do I know if this issue has been addressed on AARoads in the past.  Anyway...

Why does the Bronx River Parkway tend to become flood prone to the point of closures?  And are there long term plans to make the BRP flood resistant?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on July 19, 2022, 09:53:49 PM
Why does the Bronx River Parkway tend to become flood prone to the point of closures?  And are there long term plans to make the BRP flood resistant?
The most likely reason is due to the fact that the original section, the one that floods the most, was completed directly adjacent to the Bronx River in 1925. Engineering was not the best back then. That would be my guess.

And are there long term plans to make the BRP flood resistant?
The section in question is maintained by Westchester County, so I would imagine there would be less push from the County DPW to do something than from NYSDOT, which is making an effort in regard to flood mitigation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Declan127 on July 24, 2022, 06:30:43 PM
In Dutchess County, they're almost done installing a traffic circle on NY 376/CR 104/CR 94 by the airport in Wappinger. I think it's a DCDPW project, not NYSDOT. It's been free-flowing every time I've gone through there. It replaces this mess: https://goo.gl/maps/n4aRhujNEvx1oj1m6

Was just there today, got confused for a minute because Apple didn't know the circle was there until we were literally going around it (the map showed us driving on grass but correctly identified the traffic circle.

Also saw a VMS on the Taconic by US 6 which (describing roadwork that already ended) called the Sprain/Taconic junction the formers Exit 13. I'm assuming this is an internal number which happened to make it onto the VMS (a second VMS near 9A/100 identifies the start of the work at the Taconic, which is how I surmised the meaning of the first VMS, although it seems the work started closer to 100 than the Taconic), which would mean that the Sprain has mile based exit numbers (although the Taconic is before the nonexistent MP 13, so maybe not).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 24, 2022, 08:56:18 PM
^ Assuming this is the one you saw (I just looked up one on 511NY), I read it as saying roadwork to exit 13 on the Taconic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Declan127 on July 24, 2022, 10:10:07 PM
^ Assuming this is the one you saw (I just looked up one on 511NY), I read it as saying roadwork to exit 13 on the Taconic.

iirc it said something along the lines of "Exit13SBP to RT 100B", but I'm checking 511ny myself now, and ah--- seems you're right. I was confused by the way it said "SBP RT 100B". But oddly enough,saw no remnants of work by 13, only once I got to the Srain.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Declan127 on July 24, 2022, 10:20:27 PM
And speaking of VMSs, why does a VMS in Eastern Nassau (5 minutes from Glen Cove Rd) use 108th St as a destination and not the Van Wyck/Grand Central?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on August 02, 2022, 11:03:45 AM
And speaking of VMSs, why does a VMS in Eastern Nassau (5 minutes from Glen Cove Rd) use 108th St as a destination and not the Van Wyck/Grand Central?

Not sure, but "CVE" for "Clearview Expressway" always gets me, it's the same number of characters as 295. But speaking of LI, the western-most mile or so of the Northern State got MINIMUM SPEED 45 signs about 4 years ago. I find this strange since the limit drops to 50 at the Queens border AND the min speeds on LI are on the expressways (27/135/495) and have a 40 MPH min. https://goo.gl/maps/VZ4sasVMvbEsVujU6
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on August 02, 2022, 11:10:50 AM
And DCDPW widened the shoulders on CR 28, added two signals for side streets, and added badly needed turn lanes at the CR 28/94 intersection.
I have mixed feelings about this project. While it is nice to finally have shoulders, they should have taken advantage of the shovels and at least attempted to mitigate the roller coaster of a road it is. I guess they wanted an excuse not to raise the speed limit. Also, I am not overly enamored by the two new signal installations. The new signal at Losee Rd and MacFarlane Rd replaced an offset 4 way (effectively 2 T intersections about 50ft apart), but I think that a roundabout would have been better here IMO. The new signal Spook Hill Rd IMO is useless, other than delaying both CR-28 traffic and Spook Hill Rd traffic, since the cars who would otherwise simply have a stop sign to turn left now have a probable red signal, which probably would end up resulting in a longer wait, especially late at night. They also missed a golden opportunity to convert the CR-28/CR-94 intersection into a roundabout to replace the current signal. At least they added turn lanes...

[/DCDPW Rant]

I wish the sensitivity of the new lights was adjusted. Like if someone makes a right-on-red off of the side street, the signal will immediately stop all traffic on 28 for one car that was going to make it through anyway. And now that there's a turn lane, people pass me using the turn lane when I make a right off of 28.

And the locals had the same complaint about CR 93, they wanted fixes to the road but all the fixes make the road safer and invite higher speeds. Sadly, even road re-design won't trigger a speed limit study, still gotta do the town board > NYSDOT dead end method. Up in Pok, there's a short 30 mph section of US 9 where a crosswalk USED to be. Lost some brain cells trying to explain this to the town board.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 02, 2022, 12:29:50 PM
And DCDPW widened the shoulders on CR 28, added two signals for side streets, and added badly needed turn lanes at the CR 28/94 intersection.
I have mixed feelings about this project. While it is nice to finally have shoulders, they should have taken advantage of the shovels and at least attempted to mitigate the roller coaster of a road it is. I guess they wanted an excuse not to raise the speed limit. Also, I am not overly enamored by the two new signal installations. The new signal at Losee Rd and MacFarlane Rd replaced an offset 4 way (effectively 2 T intersections about 50ft apart), but I think that a roundabout would have been better here IMO. The new signal Spook Hill Rd IMO is useless, other than delaying both CR-28 traffic and Spook Hill Rd traffic, since the cars who would otherwise simply have a stop sign to turn left now have a probable red signal, which probably would end up resulting in a longer wait, especially late at night. They also missed a golden opportunity to convert the CR-28/CR-94 intersection into a roundabout to replace the current signal. At least they added turn lanes...

[/DCDPW Rant]

I wish the sensitivity of the new lights was adjusted. Like if someone makes a right-on-red off of the side street, the signal will immediately stop all traffic on 28 for one car that was going to make it through anyway. And now that there's a turn lane, people pass me using the turn lane when I make a right off of 28.

And the locals had the same complaint about CR 93, they wanted fixes to the road but all the fixes make the road safer and invite higher speeds. Sadly, even road re-design won't trigger a speed limit study, still gotta do the town board > NYSDOT dead end method. Up in Pok, there's a short 30 mph section of US 9 where a crosswalk USED to be. Lost some brain cells trying to explain this to the town board.
Not sure what's meant by "NYSDOT dead end method," especially since for municipalities to discuss safety studies with NYSDOT's Regional offices is somewhat easy.  The municipalities may not like the answer (e.g., "There is no safety problem at the location."), but just because a safety analysis does not confirm perception doesn't make it a "dead end."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr. Matté on August 05, 2022, 07:09:51 PM
I see Region 9 is going all out with I-88 resurfacing.  Tons of brand new surface in Cobleskill and Schoharie.

Driving on for the first time and clinching I-88 eastbound today, there were lots of PA-style single lane for multiple miles, each separated by a couple-mile-long segments of untouched old pavement at two lanes (I guess the "passing lane"). However, having read/heard about all the old warnings about always staying in the left lane on that road (though plenty of drivers doing that all over NY and on 81 north of Scranton), the right lane didn't seem that bad to me on the older pavement sections.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 05, 2022, 07:19:37 PM
I see Region 9 is going all out with I-88 resurfacing.  Tons of brand new surface in Cobleskill and Schoharie.

Driving on for the first time and clinching I-88 eastbound today, there were lots of PA-style single lane for multiple miles, each separated by a couple-mile-long segments of untouched old pavement at two lanes (I guess the "passing lane"). However, having read/heard about all the old warnings about always staying in the left lane on that road (though plenty of drivers doing that all over NY and on 81 north of Scranton), the right lane didn't seem that bad to me on the older pavement sections.

The two sections they're doing first were the worst, particularly the one crossing the Otsego/Schoharie county line. There more than anywhere else was where I hogged the left lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 06, 2022, 09:42:54 AM
The MTA replaced a one-lane bridge under the LIRR Main Line in Garden City Park, with ANOTHER One Lane Bridge!  :banghead:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mtaphotos/albums/72177720300979436
How stupid can they possibly be?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 06, 2022, 11:16:49 AM
^ That bridge had significant opposition to replacement, with the village refusing to issue a permit to the LIRR due to public opposition to redesigning the roadway.  It went to court where the judge ruled that that roadway redesign was not necessary to replacing the bridge for the third track.

https://theislandnow.com/featured/judge-orders-garden-city-to-grant-permits-for-denton-avenue-bridge-reconstruction/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 06, 2022, 12:01:11 PM
^ That bridge had significant opposition to replacement, with the village refusing to issue a permit to the LIRR due to public opposition to redesigning the roadway.  It went to court where the judge ruled that that roadway redesign was not necessary to replacing the bridge for the third track.

https://theislandnow.com/featured/judge-orders-garden-city-to-grant-permits-for-denton-avenue-bridge-reconstruction/
It's still a bad idea. If they wanted to leave it for one lane, they should just keep it only for bikes and pedestrians and such.

In the meantime, Nassau Boulevard should still get that puny section widened to six lanes.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on August 06, 2022, 07:03:17 PM
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/southern-state-parkway-hov-toll-lanes-could-fund-drastic-improvements-to-notoriously-dangerous-roadway/

A high-occupancy toll lane could be coming to the Southern State Parkway in the Long Island region to fund improvements on a section of road known as "Blood Alley".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 06, 2022, 07:58:18 PM
^ That bridge had significant opposition to replacement, with the village refusing to issue a permit to the LIRR due to public opposition to redesigning the roadway.  It went to court where the judge ruled that that roadway redesign was not necessary to replacing the bridge for the third track.

https://theislandnow.com/featured/judge-orders-garden-city-to-grant-permits-for-denton-avenue-bridge-reconstruction/
It's still a bad idea. If they wanted to leave it for one lane, they should just keep it only for bikes and pedestrians and such.

In the meantime, Nassau Boulevard should still get that puny section widened to six lanes.




We've talked about this one-lane underpass at length on the Railroad.net Forum. Couple of reasons why it was built that way. One is that the affluent Village of Garden City doesn't want to encourage anyone to drive into the idyllic residential neighborhood on their side of the tracks.  Another related reason is the north side is an industrial area and they don't want heavy truck traffic to use this route to/from that area. And even I have to agree it would be a bad thing to have box trucks and semi's driving thru that residential neighborhood.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on August 07, 2022, 06:18:17 PM
^ That bridge had significant opposition to replacement, with the village refusing to issue a permit to the LIRR due to public opposition to redesigning the roadway.  It went to court where the judge ruled that that roadway redesign was not necessary to replacing the bridge for the third track.

https://theislandnow.com/featured/judge-orders-garden-city-to-grant-permits-for-denton-avenue-bridge-reconstruction/
It's still a bad idea. If they wanted to leave it for one lane, they should just keep it only for bikes and pedestrians and such.

In the meantime, Nassau Boulevard should still get that puny section widened to six lanes.




We've talked about this one-lane underpass at length on the Railroad.net Forum. Couple of reasons why it was built that way. One is that the affluent Village of Garden City doesn't want to encourage anyone to drive into the idyllic residential neighborhood on their side of the tracks.  Another related reason is the north side is an industrial area and they don't want heavy truck traffic to use this route to/from that area. And even I have to agree it would be a bad thing to have box trucks and semi's driving thru that residential neighborhood.

The truck traffic is probably easily blunted with rules about no trucks. This is pure NIMBYism and little more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on August 07, 2022, 06:59:35 PM
Anybody in contact with Region 9?  LOTS (though not all…which is somehow both better AND worse) of brand new NY-11 shields near and around the two new roundabouts at I-81 Exit 5.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on August 08, 2022, 10:01:58 AM
On the west side of Newburgh, there was once an interchange planned with I-84: https://historicaerials.com/location/41.519493815157304/-74.03596940297939/1965/15

What was this exit to be for?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 08, 2022, 10:22:41 AM
On the west side of Newburgh, there was once an interchange planned with I-84: https://historicaerials.com/location/41.519493815157304/-74.03596940297939/1965/15

What was this exit to be for?
A US 9W freeway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2022, 12:25:06 PM
Whatever the proposed interchange was for, I wonder when they eliminated all evidence that an interchange was planned there? I have a strong suspicion that this interchange would have been the "missing" Exit 9, as there was no Exit 9 on Interstate 84 before exits were renumbered to mileage-based in 2019.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on August 08, 2022, 07:12:39 PM
https://www.liherald.com/stories/nassau-county-bridge-authority-disbands-citizens-committee,142738

The Nassau County Bridge Authority is currently in talks with EZ-Pass to get the system on the bridge. They are the last remaining toll bridge in the NYC area (and frankly, the whole state of New York) that is still accepting cash.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 08, 2022, 07:38:29 PM
https://www.liherald.com/stories/nassau-county-bridge-authority-disbands-citizens-committee,142738

The Nassau County Bridge Authority is currently in talks with EZ-Pass to get the system on the bridge. They are the last remaining toll bridge in the NYC area (and frankly, the whole state of New York) that is still accepting cash.
There is one bridge on the Jersey Shore that does not accept EZ Pass. The Margate Toll Bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 08, 2022, 07:54:38 PM
The international bridges also still accept cash.  With the Thousand Islands Bridge, the border is between two large islands while toll collection is on the mainland in each direction, so crossing the border is not necessary to pay the toll.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 08, 2022, 08:28:42 PM
The international bridges also still accept cash.  With the Thousand Islands Bridge, the border is between two large islands while toll collection is on the mainland in each direction, so crossing the border is not necessary to pay the toll.

Actually, wasn't it only fairly recently that the Thousand Islands Bridge started accepting EZPass? I seem to recall it being cash or prepaid ticket only up until a few years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 08, 2022, 09:07:10 PM
On the west side of Newburgh, there was once an interchange planned with I-84: https://historicaerials.com/location/41.519493815157304/-74.03596940297939/1965/15

What was this exit to be for?
A US 9W freeway?

A 1972 study I found references a US 9W bypass route for Newburgh, but it wasn't intended to be a freeway.  They called it the "Route 9W Alternative Arterial Bypass."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 08, 2022, 09:52:24 PM
Whatever the proposed interchange was for, I wonder when they eliminated all evidence that an interchange was planned there? I have a strong suspicion that this interchange would have been the "missing" Exit 9, as there was no Exit 9 on Interstate 84 before exits were renumbered to mileage-based in 2019.
Look at the historic aerial link and choose years. Still evident in 2004. Starting to disappear by 2011. I think it was just left alone for trees to make their way into the cleared road area. The faintest traces are left in 2019.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on August 08, 2022, 11:38:38 PM
The international bridges also still accept cash.  With the Thousand Islands Bridge, the border is between two large islands while toll collection is on the mainland in each direction, so crossing the border is not necessary to pay the toll.

Actually, wasn't it only fairly recently that the Thousand Islands Bridge started accepting EZPass? I seem to recall it being cash or prepaid ticket only up until a few years ago.

Correct, they started taking it in 2019. They still accept cash though and probably won't go cashless anytime soon. The commuter card system has since been replaced with an EZPass-like system.

The other two international bridges serve primarily local traffic and as such have little reason to implement EZPass. In particular, roughly 2/3rds of the users of the Seaway International Bridge are exempted from tolls to begin with.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 09, 2022, 07:10:00 AM
The truck traffic is probably easily blunted with rules about no trucks. This is pure NIMBYism and little more.
Yes, but one lane isn't so great for cars either. So, as I've said in the past, either close it off, or make it for bicycles and pedestrians only. And maybe include skateboarders while you're at it.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on August 09, 2022, 09:00:25 AM
On the west side of Newburgh, there was once an interchange planned with I-84: https://historicaerials.com/location/41.519493815157304/-74.03596940297939/1965/15

What was this exit to be for?
A US 9W freeway?

A 1972 study I found references a US 9W bypass route for Newburgh, but it wasn't intended to be a freeway.  They called it the "Route 9W Alternative Arterial Bypass."
Please share, if possible. I cannot seem to find anything regarding it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dan Blather on August 10, 2022, 08:12:33 PM
Dumb question, but one i always want to ask after a vacation or trip outside of New York Stte: is there any reason why there's no internally illuminated overhead street name signs anywhere in the state?  Does the state ban internally illuminated road signs for some irrational reason, much like they ban pavement reflectors?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 10, 2022, 08:28:16 PM
Dumb question, but one i always want to ask after a vacation or trip outside of New York Stte: is there any reason why there's no internally illuminated overhead street name signs anywhere in the state?  Does the state ban internally illuminated road signs for some irrational reason, much like they ban pavement reflectors?
The big one coming down I-87 to Exit 1 in Albany is internally illuminated...but older than dirt.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on August 10, 2022, 10:24:34 PM
Highly reflective signs should not need to be illuminated. It is expensive to light signs, even with newer LED fixtures, because of the need to run wire to the site or the need to install solar panels and batteries to power the lights. West Virginia is one of the few states that still install new LED fixtures on overhead signs even though they use highly reflective signs; most other states have opted out.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 10, 2022, 10:29:05 PM
I think the original poster was asking about street name signs typically hung from traffic light mast-arms and lighted internally by a fluorescent tube. Used to be common in California; don't know if they still are. I don't think I've ever seen them in the Northeast.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on August 11, 2022, 09:31:58 AM
Oh - I would still think cost is the main factor. I've been a fan of them since they began installing them at major intersections in Lexington KY (https://goo.gl/maps/DmuXLWsjPeKFjfD46) but the original ones were fluorescent (upgraded to LED) and quite pricey. Does it offer much benefit over well-placed overhead and ground-mounted signs like in Ithaca NY (https://goo.gl/maps/V3F8wyUqeSsRCqw96)?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MASTERNC on August 11, 2022, 09:33:44 AM
I think the original poster was asking about street name signs typically hung from traffic light mast-arms and lighted internally by a fluorescent tube. Used to be common in California; don't know if they still are. I don't think I've ever seen them in the Northeast.

Upper Merion (King of Prussia) in PA used to have them but they have slowly been replaced by unlit blades.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ran4sh on August 11, 2022, 10:55:32 AM
Dumb question, but one i always want to ask after a vacation or trip outside of New York Stte: is there any reason why there's no internally illuminated overhead street name signs anywhere in the state?  Does the state ban internally illuminated road signs for some irrational reason, much like they ban pavement reflectors?

It's not like they're common in most other states. Reflective street signs perform better than illuminated street signs when the illumination fails (which I have frequently encountered in the areas that use them).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr. Matté on August 11, 2022, 11:11:35 AM
Does the state ban internally illuminated road signs for some irrational reason, much like they ban pavement reflectors?

Is there an actual ban on those? Never would have noticed that before but doing a quick search of random roads (state and local), no RPMs to be found.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 11, 2022, 12:42:21 PM
Does the state ban internally illuminated road signs for some irrational reason, much like they ban pavement reflectors?

Is there an actual ban on those? Never would have noticed that before but doing a quick search of random roads (state and local), no RPMs to be found.
No, there isn't a ban.  They've just fallen out ot favor.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: odditude on August 11, 2022, 06:13:23 PM
apologies for going back off-topic for a moment, but...

Highly reflective signs should not need to be illuminated. It is expensive to light signs, even with newer LED fixtures, because of the need to run wire to the site or the need to install solar panels and batteries to power the lights. West Virginia is one of the few states that still install new LED fixtures on overhead signs even though they use highly reflective signs; most other states have opted out.

condensation late at night (or early in the morning, depending on your perspective) can lead to virtually indecipherable signs - retroreflective sheeting doesn't work very well beneath an irregular coating of water when it's brand new, let alone when it starts to age.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on August 12, 2022, 06:55:05 PM
I tend to start seeing embedded reflectors in the pavement more once I start getting into Virginia.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on August 12, 2022, 06:56:20 PM
Oh....  I see 147 in Glenville is starting to get some TLC.  Is it just from the village line to Ridge Road or are there plans to finally repave it all the way to the school?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on August 13, 2022, 08:28:41 AM
https://www.liherald.com/stories/nassau-county-bridge-authority-disbands-citizens-committee,142738

The Nassau County Bridge Authority is currently in talks with EZ-Pass to get the system on the bridge. They are the last remaining toll bridge in the NYC area (and frankly, the whole state of New York) that is still accepting cash.

Wow!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 13, 2022, 09:32:11 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/tX4CBr8MR769ResEA

What is up lately with the usage of PASSENGER CARS ONLY?

I noticed that the NO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC is hardly used like it always was back in the seventies and eighties.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 13, 2022, 09:55:19 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/tX4CBr8MR769ResEA

What is up lately with the usage of PASSENGER CARS ONLY?

I noticed that the NO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC is hardly used like it always was back in the seventies and eighties.
It's less ambiguous and hopefully reduces low bridge hits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 13, 2022, 11:25:07 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/tX4CBr8MR769ResEA

What is up lately with the usage of PASSENGER CARS ONLY?

I noticed that the NO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC is hardly used like it always was back in the seventies and eighties.
It's less ambiguous and hopefully reduces low bridge hits.

After seeing the low elevated MTA line over the Belt Parkway in Coney Island it may deter buses from using as any bus would be scalped.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on August 13, 2022, 12:35:16 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/tX4CBr8MR769ResEA

What is up lately with the usage of PASSENGER CARS ONLY?

I noticed that the NO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC is hardly used like it always was back in the seventies and eighties.

I think they've been using the passenger cars only messaging for close to 20 years if not more at this point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 13, 2022, 06:44:45 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/tX4CBr8MR769ResEA

What is up lately with the usage of PASSENGER CARS ONLY?

I noticed that the NO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC is hardly used like it always was back in the seventies and eighties.
It's less ambiguous and hopefully reduces low bridge hits.
Which is funny, because ConnDOT has been using NO COMMERCIAL VEHICLES on new sign installs for the MP/WCPs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on August 13, 2022, 07:08:37 PM
Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on August 13, 2022, 07:13:57 PM
It's not as bad as the weight limit restrictions in Massachusetts that variously say "no trucks" (heavy non-trucks are fine, but trucks under 2 1/2 tons are not), "no commercial vehicles over 2 1/2 tons" (heavy non-commercial vehicles are fine), "weight limit 2 1/2 tons", and a wording I forget that does ban those that weigh exactly 2 1/2 tons, with all of the variations being posted as if they meant the same thing and seemingly being interchangeable.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on August 13, 2022, 07:19:25 PM
Does the state ban internally illuminated road signs for some irrational reason, much like they ban pavement reflectors?

Is there an actual ban on those? Never would have noticed that before but doing a quick search of random roads (state and local), no RPMs to be found.
No, there isn't a ban.  They've just fallen out ot favor.
NY has started using a new technique for pavement markings where they grind down recessions into the pavement for the marking to sit in. It prevents the markings from getting worn out by snowplows, and it's super reflective at night. It's a better option for northern climates and makes the raised reflectors obsolete.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 13, 2022, 10:29:40 PM
Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 13, 2022, 10:31:17 PM
I've noticed that some pavement markings, presumably the newer ones, make a pleasant whirring sound when you drive directly on them. I must admit to intentionally driving on them if/when there's no other traffic nearby.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 14, 2022, 09:50:47 AM
Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 14, 2022, 08:14:27 PM
Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?

Not just cars permitted. Any vehicle with private passenger plates including light vans and pick-up trucks are permitted as long as they are not being used for commercial purposes, since changes were made in the law or policy some years back. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 14, 2022, 08:52:15 PM
Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?
Heck no.  Passenger cars only.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 15, 2022, 12:17:40 PM
Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?
Heck no.  Passenger cars only.
Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 15, 2022, 08:56:29 PM


Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?
Heck no.  Passenger cars only.
Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.

No commercial cars.  Get them off the parkways, too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2022, 10:30:10 PM


Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?
Heck no.  Passenger cars only.
Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.

No commercial cars.  Get them off the parkways, too.
That’s asinine if you are being serious.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 15, 2022, 10:59:11 PM


Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?
Heck no.  Passenger cars only.
Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.

No commercial cars.  Get them off the parkways, too.
That’s asinine if you are being serious.
Controls traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 15, 2022, 11:09:27 PM


Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?
Heck no.  Passenger cars only.
Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.

No commercial cars.  Get them off the parkways, too.
That’s asinine if you are being serious.
It's serious, that's the law. So you think the law is asinine.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2022, 11:36:05 PM


Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?
Heck no.  Passenger cars only.
Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.

No commercial cars.  Get them off the parkways, too.
That’s asinine if you are being serious.
It's serious, that's the law. So you think the law is asinine.
Lol the old “it’s the law”  crap. That shit never gets old. I love it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2022, 11:38:43 PM


Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?
Heck no.  Passenger cars only.
Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.

No commercial cars.  Get them off the parkways, too.
That’s asinine if you are being serious.
Controls traffic.
I mean logically speaking wouldn’t we want to ban passenger traffic and expand mass transit? After all commercial traffic is something mass transit isn’t feasible for. That said I’m against that as well. Just saying it’s weird to ban commercial traffic we rely on that for our day to day needs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on August 15, 2022, 11:52:39 PM
I was just looking around the Corning area on GSV and noticed a mileage sign change on WB I-86 just west of Painted Post.  Before, the mileage sign had Coopers Plain 2/Bath 18/Jamestown 140. https://goo.gl/maps/WVzaGbpD32Pn1cDz9  Now, Jamestown has been replaced with Erie 195. https://goo.gl/maps/ydrpSevcxSBy49sh9

Any reason why this was done as Erie is not mentioned on the BGS's or on the interchange mileage signs around the Corning area?  I found this odd.  BTW, Erie should be 185 (167 miles on I-86 in NY, 18 miles from NY/PA line to downtown Erie).

I have also noticed NYSDOT is using smaller posts for mileage signs in some areas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 16, 2022, 03:00:16 PM


Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?
Heck no.  Passenger cars only.
Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.

No commercial cars.  Get them off the parkways, too.
That’s asinine if you are being serious.
It's serious, that's the law. So you think the law is asinine.
Law is great. THis particular one is totally beautiful.  It is as great as Robert Moses who built those parkways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 16, 2022, 03:06:55 PM


Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?
Heck no.  Passenger cars only.
Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.

No commercial cars.  Get them off the parkways, too.
That’s asinine if you are being serious.
It's serious, that's the law. So you think the law is asinine.
Law is great. THis particular one is totally beautiful.  It is as great as Robert Moses who built those parkways.
I’m being facetious obviously and I’m sure Alps knows that.

But Mr. Moses(a racist) didn’t get to build all of his parkways and freeways unfortunately. The point I’m driving at is the commercial vehicle ban makes no sense and should be the opposite or rather there shouldn’t be any restrictions at all other than maybe large semis if the road can’t handle it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 16, 2022, 03:31:46 PM


Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger”  or “cars” ?
Cars.  Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?
Heck no.  Passenger cars only.
Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.

No commercial cars.  Get them off the parkways, too.
That’s asinine if you are being serious.
It's serious, that's the law. So you think the law is asinine.
Law is great. THis particular one is totally beautiful.  It is as great as Robert Moses who built those parkways.
I’m being facetious obviously and I’m sure Alps knows that.

But Mr. Moses(a racist) didn’t get to build all of his parkways and freeways unfortunately. The point I’m driving at is the commercial vehicle ban makes no sense and should be the opposite or rather there shouldn’t be any restrictions at all other than maybe large semis if the road can’t handle it.
Question is about the role of those parkways today. Are they still roads to the beach where (n-word) are not desired? Are they still scenic roads to the beach or through the park or just regular commute roads? For one, Bronx River Parkway has 100k+ AADT, and I don't believe those are all leisure drives.  Is there a real reason to keep them limited - I mean limited beyond their technically justified height and weight limits? Or should we keep things as they were originally envisioned and ban passenger cars based on driver's skin color?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 16, 2022, 03:46:55 PM
Well obviously we shouldn’t do it based on the last part but otherwise if NYC wants it’s problem solved it needs to add more capacity which will include building more GP lanes. That seems to be a fairy tale so if their solution is just to ban as much traffic as they can well it’s one I’ll disagree with. In a way they would be harming the working class including African Americans as they’d be shutting off of roads if they’re working.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 16, 2022, 03:54:51 PM
I was just looking around the Corning area on GSV and noticed a mileage sign change on WB I-86 just west of Painted Post.  Before, the mileage sign had Coopers Plain 2/Bath 18/Jamestown 140. https://goo.gl/maps/WVzaGbpD32Pn1cDz9  Now, Jamestown has been replaced with Erie 195. https://goo.gl/maps/ydrpSevcxSBy49sh9

Any reason why this was done as Erie is not mentioned on the BGS's or on the interchange mileage signs around the Corning area?  I found this odd.  BTW, Erie should be 185 (167 miles on I-86 in NY, 18 miles from NY/PA line to downtown Erie).

I have also noticed NYSDOT is using smaller posts for mileage signs in some areas.

Interesting, you're right. Erie should be 185 miles.

I wonder if NYSDOT is planning to phase out Jamestown as a control city and use Erie instead. Whenever the overhead BGS's at I-86/I-390 get replaced (which is long overdue), maybe we'll get more some insight on this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 16, 2022, 03:59:23 PM
Well obviously we shouldn’t do it based on the last part but otherwise if NYC wants it’s problem solved it needs to add more capacity which will include building more GP lanes. That seems to be a fairy tale so if their solution is just to ban as much traffic as they can well it’s one I’ll disagree with. In a way they would be harming the working class including African Americans as they’d be shutting off of roads if they’re working.
More like those vehicles which could travel on now-parkway would have to take longer routes, take more road space, increase traffic elsewhere. More emissions as well.
There is a theory that making car commute more difficult would shift more people towards public transportation. Commercial delivery, though, is not going to shift to subway no matter what.
Of course, there is a beauty of the park to be enjoyed while waiting in traffic - which would be ruined by U-Haul orange.... And I have problems with inserting google link for some less than lovely parkway view. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 16, 2022, 04:36:26 PM
Well obviously we shouldn’t do it based on the last part but otherwise if NYC wants it’s problem solved it needs to add more capacity which will include building more GP lanes. That seems to be a fairy tale so if their solution is just to ban as much traffic as they can well it’s one I’ll disagree with. In a way they would be harming the working class including African Americans as they’d be shutting off of roads if they’re working.
More like those vehicles which could travel on now-parkway would have to take longer routes, take more road space, increase traffic elsewhere. More emissions as well.
There is a theory that making car commute more difficult would shift more people towards public transportation. Commercial delivery, though, is not going to shift to subway no matter what.
Of course, there is a beauty of the park to be enjoyed while waiting in traffic - which would be ruined by U-Haul orange.... And I have problems with inserting google link for some less than lovely parkway view.
Then I’m not quite sure where we disagree.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 16, 2022, 07:54:13 PM
Well obviously we shouldn’t do it based on the last part but otherwise if NYC wants it’s problem solved it needs to add more capacity which will include building more GP lanes. That seems to be a fairy tale so if their solution is just to ban as much traffic as they can well it’s one I’ll disagree with. In a way they would be harming the working class including African Americans as they’d be shutting off of roads if they’re working.
More like those vehicles which could travel on now-parkway would have to take longer routes, take more road space, increase traffic elsewhere. More emissions as well.
There is a theory that making car commute more difficult would shift more people towards public transportation. Commercial delivery, though, is not going to shift to subway no matter what.
Of course, there is a beauty of the park to be enjoyed while waiting in traffic - which would be ruined by U-Haul orange.... And I have problems with inserting google link for some less than lovely parkway view.
Then I’m not quite sure where we disagree.
@alps is a person, not a place!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 16, 2022, 09:03:00 PM
Does anyone recall the nature of the 3-2-3 traffic configuration of the upper deck of the GWB as seen in the 1972 Maude Sitcom opener?


Looks like only the three outside lanes on each side had some sort of physical divider and that was from the center two lanes that was two ways and a double yellow line with pylons in the middle during the 1950’s when the film was captured.  I do remember that layout as a kid when my parents crossed it in the early seventies. So the change had to be mid seventies to the jersey wall and four lanes each way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on August 17, 2022, 07:17:33 AM
Does anyone recall the nature of the 3-2-3 traffic configuration of the upper deck of the GWB as seen in the 1972 Maude Sitcom opener?



Speaking of which, in that opening at 0:28, what road is that?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 17, 2022, 10:14:55 AM
Does anyone recall the nature of the 3-2-3 traffic configuration of the upper deck of the GWB as seen in the 1972 Maude Sitcom opener?



Speaking of which, in that opening at 0:28, what road is that?

That’s a good question.  It could be a highway in just about any state.

I believe the final road on this, the neighborhood of Maude’s house is in California.   In the shows closer, the red no parking curbs give that one away as New York ( or any state on the East Coast for that matter) don’t use anything but yellow curbs for no parking.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 17, 2022, 08:39:55 PM
First, that video on the GW Bridge has to be 1959 or later. I see a '59 Chevy and about a 1959 or '60 Ford Falcon coming the other way in the reversible lanes. 

Second, I may be mistaken but I think the lanes were changed to 4/4 configuration in the late 1960's after the lower level was opened in 1964.

And the highway shown right after the bridge scene is likely the Palisades Interstate Parkway which goes north from the New Jersey side of the bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on August 19, 2022, 09:01:01 PM
Does anyone recall the nature of the 3-2-3 traffic configuration of the upper deck of the GWB as seen in the 1972 Maude Sitcom opener?



Speaking of which, in that opening at 0:28, what road is that?

That’s a good question.  It could be a highway in just about any state.

I believe the final road on this, the neighborhood of Maude’s house is in California.   In the shows closer, the red no parking curbs give that one away as New York ( or any state on the East Coast for that matter) don’t use anything but yellow curbs for no parking.

I always thought that rural freeway clip could have been the Thruway or possibly the Taconic in Westchester before it was widened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on August 22, 2022, 04:52:28 PM
I took a drive through Millbrook and noticed this janky traffic circle on NY 343: https://goo.gl/maps/DnFXvgZQXTkAE7ad7

Also drove through Dutchess CR 9 and 21 and could've sworn there was a half-baked DCDPW circle there many years ago, and it looks like it wasn't a fever dream lol: https://goo.gl/maps/Fg7yzYt4Y4xbYzx88
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2022, 05:02:51 PM
I've seen a few of those here in Madison. I believe they are for "traffic calming" purposes. I would call using them traffic annoyance measures.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 22, 2022, 10:33:32 PM
I've seen a few of those here in Madison. I believe they are for "traffic calming" purposes. I would call using them traffic annoyance measures.

That isn't the case here.  Both of crispy's examples date at least back to the 1950s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on August 23, 2022, 08:03:04 AM
Does the MUTCD require that interstate highways have posted mile markers? I've always wondered why interstates in NYC only have reference markers. I know the New England Thruway has its own mileposts and the Hutch now has proper mile markers all the way down to the Bruckner Interchange. I can't imagine there's a huge desire for them but they should still be posted.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 23, 2022, 09:48:00 AM
Does the MUTCD require that interstate highways have posted mile markers? I've always wondered why interstates in NYC only have reference markers. I know the New England Thruway has its own mileposts and the Hutch now has proper mile markers all the way down to the Bruckner Interchange. I can't imagine there's a huge desire for them but they should still be posted.
Up until recently, there were huge swaths of unmarked Interstate mileage on CT due to years of neglect.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 24, 2022, 02:53:16 AM
Does the MUTCD require that interstate highways have posted mile markers? I've always wondered why interstates in NYC only have reference markers. I know the New England Thruway has its own mileposts and the Hutch now has proper mile markers all the way down to the Bruckner Interchange. I can't imagine there's a huge desire for them but they should still be posted.
Up until recently, there were huge swaths of unmarked Interstate mileage on CT due to years of neglect.

Still are.  Much of I-95 between Branford and Groton, and I-84 between Waterbury and Southington are quite devoid of quality mile markers (plus from Sisson Ave to I-384 has only whole mile enhanced markers).  I-691 has never had any of any kind.  I-291 only recently got them, and I-384 has been upgraded recently.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 24, 2022, 06:45:55 AM
Just had a meeting where an operations engineer bemoaned the fact that mile markers are targets for vandalism in urban areas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheGrassGuy on August 28, 2022, 11:45:46 PM
I still have no clue how I-790 worked and looked pre reconstruction
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on August 29, 2022, 12:27:07 AM
I still have no clue how I-790 worked and looked pre reconstruction
I-790 was a two lane road from the Thruway tollbooths to the NY 8/NY 12 freeway.  The road traveled on the grassy strip between the two retention ponds south of the current I-790 EB lanes.  The road got closer to the EB Thruway lanes until I-790 WB was next to them as it went under the NY 8/NY 12 freeway and made a left loop to enter the freeway SB, where the SB to EB loop ramp currently is.  I-790 EB exited at a RIRO ramp across from the SB RIRO ramp and joined the WB lane right above the cut in the canal just south of the current NB to EB ramp movement.  If one was heading south on NY 8/NY 12, one would have to exit at the SB RIRO to get to I-790 EB and the Thruway.

I don't rely on the accuracy of the years posted on Historic Aerials as I remember driving on I-790 when it was still two lanes in the early 2000's as I needed to stop at a motel there in Utica before heading to Boston for a delivery.  I do remember that the configuration was different as the highway was closer to the EB lanes of the Thruway sooner than in the early 1980's.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TMETSJETSYT on August 29, 2022, 07:23:26 AM
Hey guys, just a question. Why does NYSDOT make mistakes with so many of their state route signs, and then they just role with it? I was driving on NY-23 Eastbound about to go over the Rip Van Winkle Br, and then I noticed, at the NY-23 and NY-385 Junction, going Eastbound  23, the signs for NY-385 East and West were messed up! The shield was upside down, but the numbers were fine! Ill povide a image down below, but why is this so common? Thanks.

https://chat.google.com/u/1/api/get_attachment_url?url_type=FIFE_URL&content_type=image%2Fjpeg&attachment_token=AD3oLg2EyC4LjXXSiiar9YCajyRRExoITFpjP5rLYdBOYkPDLDRuKjgOj2G%2BNOmjv1jO8MmOMY5oHo1jkv49q218Tc%2BkbmLWVyEEawEFTvzhVFR%2F8st5tkmEnsV8E2KaVi9%2FwAmiyCKn%2FC%2FoYvbOkQc64%2Fdi9Njr8wCPLzDq%2BF3FvzRQwrZSNoSkFf9motvxTHgSc5zl%2Fdm%2BTuZ6eLiTReOOu80q6npkm5%2BcxstIs2zbxAiCtPzvdtdvH%2FzDga994MkmngguHsAC1qO69jpgGoNdiYh6NqWpImHoaCiDYum0kUgDl15PpxrxKB0Ff9fGFpZi37%2Bph4lVSlXtNkIl%2BHdRXYVVjGJzGsr3K1Frih06sb6HLvBLAzeoPCTDwqENnQfp4i3adOz5etJMJH7VtLm%2B8ixPZgXdf1iSXF%2Fk6%2BH7hiUZuaOttU3fes2viqiz8chufqBoKueBS7opPd9MLf6UHmpoRcUnGLftiaX6GwXuUm7drCqHN0ixHVuMgj%2FC7T%2FQIR6ccPzTyeoNVV2U%2FICqIA%3D%3D&sz=w512&authuser=1 (https://chat.google.com/u/1/api/get_attachment_url?url_type=FIFE_URL&content_type=image%2Fjpeg&attachment_token=AD3oLg2EyC4LjXXSiiar9YCajyRRExoITFpjP5rLYdBOYkPDLDRuKjgOj2G%2BNOmjv1jO8MmOMY5oHo1jkv49q218Tc%2BkbmLWVyEEawEFTvzhVFR%2F8st5tkmEnsV8E2KaVi9%2FwAmiyCKn%2FC%2FoYvbOkQc64%2Fdi9Njr8wCPLzDq%2BF3FvzRQwrZSNoSkFf9motvxTHgSc5zl%2Fdm%2BTuZ6eLiTReOOu80q6npkm5%2BcxstIs2zbxAiCtPzvdtdvH%2FzDga994MkmngguHsAC1qO69jpgGoNdiYh6NqWpImHoaCiDYum0kUgDl15PpxrxKB0Ff9fGFpZi37%2Bph4lVSlXtNkIl%2BHdRXYVVjGJzGsr3K1Frih06sb6HLvBLAzeoPCTDwqENnQfp4i3adOz5etJMJH7VtLm%2B8ixPZgXdf1iSXF%2Fk6%2BH7hiUZuaOttU3fes2viqiz8chufqBoKueBS7opPd9MLf6UHmpoRcUnGLftiaX6GwXuUm7drCqHN0ixHVuMgj%2FC7T%2FQIR6ccPzTyeoNVV2U%2FICqIA%3D%3D&sz=w512&authuser=1)



https://chat.google.com/u/1/api/get_attachment_url?url_type=FIFE_URL&content_type=image%2Fjpeg&attachment_token=AD3oLg2EyC4LjXXSiiar9YCajyRRExoITFpjP5rLYdBOYkPDLDRuKjgOj2G%2BNOmjv1jO8MmOMY5oHo1jkv49q218Tc%2BkbmLWVyEEawEFTvzhVFR%2F8st5tkmEnsV8E2KaVi9%2FwAmiyCKn%2FC%2FoYvbOkQc64%2Fdi9Njr8wCPLzDq%2BF3FvzRQwrZSNoSkFf9motvxTHgSc5zl%2Fdm%2BTuZ6eLiTReOOu80q6npkm5%2BcxstIs2zbxAiCtPzvdtdvH%2FzDga994MkmngguHsAC1qO69jpgGoNdiYh6NqWpImHoaCiDYum0kUgDl15PpxrxKB0Ff9fGFpZi37%2Bph4lVSlXtNkIl%2BHdRXYVVjGJzGsr3K1Frih06sb6HLvBLAzeoPCTDwqENnQfp4i3adOz5etJMJH7VtLm%2B8ixPZgXdf1iSXF%2Fk6%2BH7hiUZuaOttU3fes2viqiz8chufqBoKueBS7opPd9MLf6UHmpoRcUnGLftiaX6GwXuUm7drCqHN0ixHVuMgj%2FC7T%2FQIR6ccPzTyeoNVV2U%2FICqIA%3D%3D&sz=w512&authuser=1 (https://chat.google.com/u/1/api/get_attachment_url?url_type=FIFE_URL&content_type=image%2Fjpeg&attachment_token=AD3oLg2EyC4LjXXSiiar9YCajyRRExoITFpjP5rLYdBOYkPDLDRuKjgOj2G%2BNOmjv1jO8MmOMY5oHo1jkv49q218Tc%2BkbmLWVyEEawEFTvzhVFR%2F8st5tkmEnsV8E2KaVi9%2FwAmiyCKn%2FC%2FoYvbOkQc64%2Fdi9Njr8wCPLzDq%2BF3FvzRQwrZSNoSkFf9motvxTHgSc5zl%2Fdm%2BTuZ6eLiTReOOu80q6npkm5%2BcxstIs2zbxAiCtPzvdtdvH%2FzDga994MkmngguHsAC1qO69jpgGoNdiYh6NqWpImHoaCiDYum0kUgDl15PpxrxKB0Ff9fGFpZi37%2Bph4lVSlXtNkIl%2BHdRXYVVjGJzGsr3K1Frih06sb6HLvBLAzeoPCTDwqENnQfp4i3adOz5etJMJH7VtLm%2B8ixPZgXdf1iSXF%2Fk6%2BH7hiUZuaOttU3fes2viqiz8chufqBoKueBS7opPd9MLf6UHmpoRcUnGLftiaX6GwXuUm7drCqHN0ixHVuMgj%2FC7T%2FQIR6ccPzTyeoNVV2U%2FICqIA%3D%3D&sz=w512&authuser=1)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on August 29, 2022, 07:24:27 AM
I'm getting a 403 error from Google when I click those links.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TMETSJETSYT on August 29, 2022, 07:30:35 AM
ILl upload them to a google doc or something and ill post the link.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TMETSJETSYT on August 29, 2022, 07:34:45 AM
Here ya go.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16zZHrVydXrmOEq93uwUFXsMkhDNf-mBwOKafdisG-Hg/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/16zZHrVydXrmOEq93uwUFXsMkhDNf-mBwOKafdisG-Hg/edit?usp=sharing)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 29, 2022, 08:06:44 AM
Hey guys, just a question. Why does NYSDOT make mistakes with so many of their state route signs, and then they just role with it? I was driving on NY-23 Eastbound about to go over the Rip Van Winkle Br, and then I noticed, at the NY-23 and NY-385 Junction, going Eastbound  23, the signs for NY-385 East and West were messed up! The shield was upside down, but the numbers were fine! Ill povide a image down below, but why is this so common? Thanks.
I wonder if you're the first one to notice...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TMETSJETSYT on August 29, 2022, 08:20:52 AM
I can't tell if hes being sarcastic or not. He probably is though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheGrassGuy on August 29, 2022, 11:28:34 PM
I still have no clue how I-790 worked and looked pre reconstruction
I-790 was a two lane road from the Thruway tollbooths to the NY 8/NY 12 freeway.  The road traveled on the grassy strip between the two retention ponds south of the current I-790 EB lanes.  The road got closer to the EB Thruway lanes until I-790 WB was next to them as it went under the NY 8/NY 12 freeway and made a left loop to enter the freeway SB, where the SB to EB loop ramp currently is.  I-790 EB exited at a RIRO ramp across from the SB RIRO ramp and joined the WB lane right above the cut in the canal just south of the current NB to EB ramp movement.  If one was heading south on NY 8/NY 12, one would have to exit at the SB RIRO to get to I-790 EB and the Thruway.

I don't rely on the accuracy of the years posted on Historic Aerials as I remember driving on I-790 when it was still two lanes in the early 2000's as I needed to stop at a motel there in Utica before heading to Boston for a delivery.  I do remember that the configuration was different as the highway was closer to the EB lanes of the Thruway sooner than in the early 1980's.
Is there a map? And what does Alp mean by "that could hardly be considered interstate standard"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on August 29, 2022, 11:59:42 PM
I still have no clue how I-790 worked and looked pre reconstruction
I-790 was a two lane road from the Thruway tollbooths to the NY 8/NY 12 freeway.  The road traveled on the grassy strip between the two retention ponds south of the current I-790 EB lanes.  The road got closer to the EB Thruway lanes until I-790 WB was next to them as it went under the NY 8/NY 12 freeway and made a left loop to enter the freeway SB, where the SB to EB loop ramp currently is.  I-790 EB exited at a RIRO ramp across from the SB RIRO ramp and joined the WB lane right above the cut in the canal just south of the current NB to EB ramp movement.  If one was heading south on NY 8/NY 12, one would have to exit at the SB RIRO to get to I-790 EB and the Thruway.

I don't rely on the accuracy of the years posted on Historic Aerials as I remember driving on I-790 when it was still two lanes in the early 2000's as I needed to stop at a motel there in Utica before heading to Boston for a delivery.  I do remember that the configuration was different as the highway was closer to the EB lanes of the Thruway sooner than in the early 1980's.
Is there a map? And what does Alp mean by "that could hardly be considered interstate standard"
The only "map" I used was going on to the Historic Aerials website and looking at both aerial photos and topo maps of the area, plus my recollection of when I drove through the area back in 1982 and in 2003.  This is why I mentioned that I do not rely on the years given by Historic Aerials based on what I see when I bring up a particular year.  Some of the years are not correct.

"Interstate standard" is a term used about our Interstate Highways.  The highway has to be constructed to a certain standard.  Generally, that means the highway (or freeway/expressway depending on which part of the USA one lives) must have controlled access, minimum 2 lanes divided in each direction with a minimum design speed, a maximum grade (usually a maximum of 6%), and minimum lane width (min. 12 feet).  There should be at least a 10 foot paved right shoulder and, at minimum, a 4 foot paved left shoulder.  Also, there are standards for median width (min 50 ft, preferably 60 ft, urban areas-10 ft with a barrier), for pavement sloping for proper drainage, for vertical clearance for overpasses, overhead signs, tunnels, and bridges, and for recovery areas (signs, trees). 

So, I-790 was not "Interstate Standard" from when it was first posted in 1965.  It wasn't until the freeways on both sides of the Thruway from the Leland Ave overpass to the NY 8/NY 12 freeway were completed did I-790 become "Interstate Standard".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 30, 2022, 08:59:42 AM
when I drove through the area back in 1982 and in 2003.  This is why I mentioned that I do not rely on the years given by Historic Aerials based on what I see when I bring up a particular year.  Some of the years are not correct.

I think your memory may be a bit off, though, as it was DEFINITELY in its current configuration by 2003.  I imagine one of our NY contingent (especially baugh17) would have a better idea when things were completed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TonyTrafficLight on August 30, 2022, 10:24:06 AM
I think that I-790 was given it's current configuration in the late 1980's when the entire area was reconstructed
during a $100 Million project dubbed the "MUD Project

MUD = Marcy, Utica, Deerfield
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 30, 2022, 01:01:11 PM
Empire State Roads has some "interchange of the week" features that touch on this, including maps of the old configurations.  Interestingly, none of I-790 is in its original configuration.

http://empirestateroads.com/week/week17.html
http://empirestateroads.com/week/week72.html
http://empirestateroads.com/week/week40.html

Regarding interstate standards, I don't believe the original standards specified four lanes divided; there were many two-lane stretches, including I-95 in northern Maine, that eventually got upgraded as a result.  Meanwhile, I-790 now only connects to its parent in one direction.  I wonder how hard it would be to build a flyover from the ramp to Genesee Street south from the Thruway to I-790 west?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 30, 2022, 01:08:46 PM
Empire State Roads has some "interchange of the week" features that touch on this, including maps of the old configurations.  Interestingly, none of I-790 is in its original configuration.

http://empirestateroads.com/week/week17.html
http://empirestateroads.com/week/week72.html
http://empirestateroads.com/week/week40.html

Regarding interstate standards, I don't believe the original standards specified four lanes divided; there were many two-lane stretches, including I-95 in northern Maine, that eventually got upgraded as a result.  Meanwhile, I-790 now only connects to its parent in one direction.  I wonder how hard it would be to build a flyover from the ramp to Genesee Street south from the Thruway to I-790 west?
With open road tolling currently in use, there is a good reason to give that frontage road another look. And a short stretch of untolled road within Utica will not kill NYSTA bottom line...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 30, 2022, 09:22:51 PM
I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 30, 2022, 09:32:39 PM
I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.

This would be great, but it seems like the Thruway limited their easy options here by keeping the Utica area on a ramp-only tag reader rather than going with mainline readers between exits like they did in Albany and Syracuse.  I have no concept of how expensive/complicated it would be to modify the system with appropriate readers to allow these ramps that I'd really like to see.  I-90 West to I-790 should not involve 3 right turns including what tends to be a bit of a busy traffic light at the second of the turns.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 30, 2022, 09:35:06 PM
I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.

This would be great, but it seems like the Thruway limited their easy options here by keeping the Utica area on a ramp-only tag reader rather than going with mainline readers between exits like they did in Albany and Syracuse.  I have no concept of how expensive/complicated it would be to modify the system with appropriate readers to allow these ramps that I'd really like to see.  I-90 West to I-790 should not involve 3 right turns including what tends to be a bit of a busy traffic light at the second of the turns.
Call those ramps Exit 31A ...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 30, 2022, 09:41:34 PM
I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.

This would be great, but it seems like the Thruway limited their easy options here by keeping the Utica area on a ramp-only tag reader rather than going with mainline readers between exits like they did in Albany and Syracuse.  I have no concept of how expensive/complicated it would be to modify the system with appropriate readers to allow these ramps that I'd really like to see.  I-90 West to I-790 should not involve 3 right turns including what tends to be a bit of a busy traffic light at the second of the turns.
Call those ramps Exit 31A ...

The issue isn't the numbering (there would still be only one exit per direction), but the fact that the current Exit 31 gantries are located on ramps that would be removed with this proposal. They'd have to be replaced with four individual gantries or two mainline gantries.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on August 30, 2022, 10:54:40 PM
when I drove through the area back in 1982 and in 2003.  This is why I mentioned that I do not rely on the years given by Historic Aerials based on what I see when I bring up a particular year.  Some of the years are not correct.

I think your memory may be a bit off, though, as it was DEFINITELY in its current configuration by 2003.  I imagine one of our NY contingent (especially baugh17) would have a better idea when things were completed.

I couldn't tell you exactly since I did not move to the area until 2007.   However, judging by information in some of the links previously mentioned as well as the presence of button copy signage (most of which was replaced in the past few years), I would say the current configuration was built sometime in the 1980s.

EDIT: A little further reading would suggest late 1980s to around 1990.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 30, 2022, 11:34:02 PM
Is there a map?

Here 'tis (http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/quads/drg24/p37.htm). Both the NYSDOT and USGS versions of the quad show the original configuration.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 31, 2022, 07:09:03 AM
I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.

This would be great, but it seems like the Thruway limited their easy options here by keeping the Utica area on a ramp-only tag reader rather than going with mainline readers between exits like they did in Albany and Syracuse.  I have no concept of how expensive/complicated it would be to modify the system with appropriate readers to allow these ramps that I'd really like to see.  I-90 West to I-790 should not involve 3 right turns including what tends to be a bit of a busy traffic light at the second of the turns.
Call those ramps Exit 31A ...

The issue isn't the numbering (there would still be only one exit per direction), but the fact that the current Exit 31 gantries are located on ramps that would be removed with this proposal. They'd have to be replaced with four individual gantries or two mainline gantries.
Adding a few more gantries should be cheaper than moving dirt and pouring concrete from my perspective.  Programming an extra access point may be a problem, depending on how configurable their system is. Would really suck if things cannot be changed because software rewrite is too expensive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 31, 2022, 01:00:23 PM
^ They'd probably have to break the Albany-Syracuse VTS into an Albany-Utica VTS and a Syracuse-Utica VTS.  Incidentally, access from I-90 west to Genesee Street is going to be a challenge if the existing interchange were removed in favor of making existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes, because of all the commercial plazas that have been built in the area.  They would also need to deal with the tandem lot and the welcome center.  Attempting to keep existing exit 31 AND also make existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes also introduces weaving no matter where you put the eastern slip ramps, so we have to choose between one or the other.  For what it's worth, I don't think the Thruway would have built a ramp gantry at exit 31 if they thought they were going to rip it out any time soon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 31, 2022, 02:40:16 PM
^ They'd probably have to break the Albany-Syracuse VTS into an Albany-Utica VTS and a Syracuse-Utica VTS.  Incidentally, access from I-90 west to Genesee Street is going to be a challenge if the existing interchange were removed in favor of making existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes, because of all the commercial plazas that have been built in the area.  They would also need to deal with the tandem lot and the welcome center.  Attempting to keep existing exit 31 AND also make existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes also introduces weaving no matter where you put the eastern slip ramps, so we have to choose between one or the other.  For what it's worth, I don't think the Thruway would have built a ramp gantry at exit 31 if they thought they were going to rip it out any time soon.
From my perspective, Thruway should hold on any major project until Daddy's bridge finance is more or less cleared.  Debt service is 27% their 2022 budget...  That can easily be a decade or more... So whatever we can dream of - NY85/Thruway interchange, ramp reconfiguration, major widening - is 15 years away as a best case scenario. And by then... Who knows if EZpass v.2 will be coming, or something else would change
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 31, 2022, 02:46:27 PM
^ They'd probably have to break the Albany-Syracuse VTS into an Albany-Utica VTS and a Syracuse-Utica VTS.  Incidentally, access from I-90 west to Genesee Street is going to be a challenge if the existing interchange were removed in favor of making existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes, because of all the commercial plazas that have been built in the area.  They would also need to deal with the tandem lot and the welcome center.  Attempting to keep existing exit 31 AND also make existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes also introduces weaving no matter where you put the eastern slip ramps, so we have to choose between one or the other.  For what it's worth, I don't think the Thruway would have built a ramp gantry at exit 31 if they thought they were going to rip it out any time soon.

I was picturing that the tie-in ramps to/from the west would be located just east of Leland Ave, but hadn't considered that that wouldn't provide access from the Thruway to Genesee St. You could maybe have a ramp connecting to River Rd just beyond Genesee St, possibly tying directly into the River Rd/Riverside Dr. intersection (as if that intersection isn't confusing enough as it is).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 31, 2022, 09:31:25 PM
I think I just came up with the cheap solution that provides the most access (all routes using existing designations):
-New gantries on the Thruway, one east of exit 31, one west of where NY 49 splits off to split the Albany-Syracuse VTS
-Remove the existing WB on ramp and EB off ramp from existing exit 31 along with the existing ramp from I-790 to the Thruway (too much weaving otherwise) along with the interchange toll gantry (the tandem lot should still function in this configuration, though it may need to go break-up only)
-Slip ramps from I-90 west to I-790 and from I-790 to I-90 east between the Genesee Street ramps and Leland Avenue; instead of two lanes going to/from Leland Avenue, one lane would go to/from these ramps
-Slip ramps from I-90 east to NY 49 and NY 49 to I-90 west near the split
-A flyover from NY 49 east to NY 49 west to allow for the missing movements in both directions (approximately here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1289261,-75.2524431,674m/data=!3m1!1e3) to allow weaving room while minimizing demolition)

That said, I'm not sure what the answer is to allowing access from SUNY-IT to I-90 and NY 49 WB.

In terms of designation, it would probably be a good idea to truncate I-790 and NY 49 so that the roads can be I-90 local lanes, especially since I-790 would only connect to half of I-90 keeping things the way they are.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on August 31, 2022, 10:23:29 PM
I'm just not getting why some think a change to Thruway exit 31 would require that the virtual ticket system be broken into two sections. Ramps to/from the west at the west end and ramps to/from the east at east end each with its own gantry. The backend processing doesn't change at all - the two off ramps for processing purposes are one (exit 31) and the two on ramps are one (entry 31). A 31 to 31 move won't be possible so that doesn't need to be considered.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 01, 2022, 05:42:08 PM
^ Have you seen the Thruway's ramp gantries?  They're pretty big (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.111247,-75.2087623,3a,75y,320.88h,79.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNyKZirjT18vIBL5RikXboA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  Plus I was picturing that a slip ramp would be something small like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.215649,-77.4400444,3a,76.4y,257.61h,81.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXEXsU6k6wfrWCr4awW-FMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  Plus the Thruway doesn't seem to be that interested in ramp gantries upstate... otherwise, they could have done something far simpler regarding the free travel between exits 24 and 25A, rather than having to guess whether to give that section for free (which isn't 100% accurate and significantly delays toll processing).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on September 01, 2022, 07:51:36 PM
^ Have you seen the Thruway's ramp gantries?  They're pretty big (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.111247,-75.2087623,3a,75y,320.88h,79.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNyKZirjT18vIBL5RikXboA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  Plus I was picturing that a slip ramp would be something small like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.215649,-77.4400444,3a,76.4y,257.61h,81.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXEXsU6k6wfrWCr4awW-FMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  Plus the Thruway doesn't seem to be that interested in ramp gantries upstate... otherwise, they could have done something far simpler regarding the free travel between exits 24 and 25A, rather than having to guess whether to give that section for free (which isn't 100% accurate and significantly delays toll processing).

Not sure what your point is. Are you talking about length as width shouldn't be an issue - you just build it wide enough for the number of lanes. As for length, I still don't see an issue. It's certainly shorter than any ramp should be and if it's a single-lane ramp, there's no lane changing to consider.

I concur that they unnecessarily complicated 25A but that's not a factor with 31.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 01, 2022, 09:30:04 PM
^ I was showing you how big the interchange gantries are.  Perhaps exit 20 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0861763,-73.974387,3a,44.1y,110.63h,82.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZKaIenSAn2UgGvVE9_hPfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a better example, since that's actually a single lane.  I have a hard time picturing that on a slip ramp.

Exits 24-25A was mentioned to show how uninterested the Thruway is in ramp gantries.  If they were interested, they would just have put ramp gantries on the tolled movements at exit 25, mainline gantries inside exit 25A, and had the Albany-Syracuse VTS end west of exit 26, with no other gantries between exits 24-26 except the ones I mentioned earlier in this sentence.  Instead, they included exit 26 in the VTS, and put mainline gantries between the other exits.  I think the fact that they did this the hardest way possible shows their attitude to ramp gantries quite clearly.

It's worth noting as well that they way I stacked the version I put a few posts ago was specifically to avoid having to replace the Leland Avenue and NY 49 EB bridges over the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 01, 2022, 10:03:30 PM
^ I was showing you how big the interchange gantries are.  Perhaps exit 20 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0861763,-73.974387,3a,44.1y,110.63h,82.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZKaIenSAn2UgGvVE9_hPfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a better example, since that's actually a single lane.  I have a hard time picturing that on a slip ramp.

Exits 24-25A was mentioned to show how uninterested the Thruway is in ramp gantries.  If they were interested, they would just have put ramp gantries on the tolled movements at exit 25, mainline gantries inside exit 25A, and had the Albany-Syracuse VTS end west of exit 26, with no other gantries between exits 24-26 except the ones I mentioned earlier in this sentence.  Instead, they included exit 26 in the VTS, and put mainline gantries between the other exits.  I think the fact that they did this the hardest way possible shows their attitude to ramp gantries quite clearly.

It's worth noting as well that they way I stacked the version I put a few posts ago was specifically to avoid having to replace the Leland Avenue and NY 49 EB bridges over the Thruway.
I am trying to recall if I saw anything on MassPike. Those seem to be same gantries.
As for 25... My gut feeling someone ordered one less set of equipment than was required, and lead times during COVID didn't allow top up order.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on September 01, 2022, 10:04:34 PM
^ I was showing you how big the interchange gantries are.  Perhaps exit 20 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0861763,-73.974387,3a,44.1y,110.63h,82.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZKaIenSAn2UgGvVE9_hPfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a better example, since that's actually a single lane.  I have a hard time picturing that on a slip ramp.

Exits 24-25A was mentioned to show how uninterested the Thruway is in ramp gantries.  If they were interested, they would just have put ramp gantries on the tolled movements at exit 25, mainline gantries inside exit 25A, and had the Albany-Syracuse VTS end west of exit 26, with no other gantries between exits 24-26 except the ones I mentioned earlier in this sentence.  Instead, they included exit 26 in the VTS, and put mainline gantries between the other exits.  I think the fact that they did this the hardest way possible shows their attitude to ramp gantries quite clearly.

It's worth noting as well that they way I stacked the version I put a few posts ago was specifically to avoid having to replace the Leland Avenue and NY 49 EB bridges over the Thruway.

When you say "ramp gantries," do you mean gantries on individual ramps rather than a single gantry at a central point of an interchange? If so, well I don't know that they aren't interested as opposed to lacking the imagination to improve things. Perhaps they were stuck with the idea that the gantry at the interchange had to be at about the same location as the toll plaza. Which is actually odd considering how 50 or so years ago, the Thruway nicely solved both the Harriman and Spring Valley toll plaza backup problems (I'm old enough the remember them) with the between the ramps Woodbury plaza and deal with the northbound entry problem that created by collecting the Harriman entry toll up front from northbound traffic and then discounting the ticket toll by that pre-paid amount.

As far as the length of the gantries and slip ramps, a quick measure of one on Google Earth puts the gantries at 65 feet. Since no slip ramps exist yet at 31, you obviously make them long enough to include the gantry which really shouldn't be an issue since a quick measurement of a few around me in the Chicago area puts them at at least 200 feet.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 01, 2022, 10:57:42 PM
^ Keep in mind that the interchange gantry I linked to at exit 20 is about 50 feet wide.  There's only about 20-25 feet between the pavement with I-90 and I-790/NY 49.  And yeah, I'm not sure how they got stuck on that idea.  It probably has something to do with how the Thruway has been pushed into AET from outside forces, rather than pushing to implement it.  The Tappan Zee gantries resulted from the design-build process; the original Thruway-designed one was a traditional toll barrier with cash lanes and ORT E-ZPass lanes similar to Woodbury.  AET for the rest of the system was one of Cuomo's pet projects (and if that went the same way as the Empire State Trail did, the Thruway probably had less lead time between when it found out and when the general public did than one would think).

(personal opinion)

^ I was showing you how big the interchange gantries are.  Perhaps exit 20 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0861763,-73.974387,3a,44.1y,110.63h,82.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZKaIenSAn2UgGvVE9_hPfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a better example, since that's actually a single lane.  I have a hard time picturing that on a slip ramp.

Exits 24-25A was mentioned to show how uninterested the Thruway is in ramp gantries.  If they were interested, they would just have put ramp gantries on the tolled movements at exit 25, mainline gantries inside exit 25A, and had the Albany-Syracuse VTS end west of exit 26, with no other gantries between exits 24-26 except the ones I mentioned earlier in this sentence.  Instead, they included exit 26 in the VTS, and put mainline gantries between the other exits.  I think the fact that they did this the hardest way possible shows their attitude to ramp gantries quite clearly.

It's worth noting as well that they way I stacked the version I put a few posts ago was specifically to avoid having to replace the Leland Avenue and NY 49 EB bridges over the Thruway.
I am trying to recall if I saw anything on MassPike. Those seem to be same gantries.
As for 25... My gut feeling someone ordered one less set of equipment than was required, and lead times during COVID didn't allow top up order.
The way I outlined is actually less than what's there (six mainline gantries (one each direction at three locations) and one interchange gantry vs. four mainline gantries and two ramp gantries) and IIRC the map of gantry locations was on the Thruway website well before COVID.  It seems they got hung up on their way of doing it and didn't think things through.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 02, 2022, 07:33:10 AM
The way I outlined is actually less than what's there (six mainline gantries (one each direction at three locations) and one interchange gantry vs. four mainline gantries and two ramp gantries) and IIRC the map of gantry locations was on the Thruway website well before COVID.  It seems they got hung up on their way of doing it and didn't think things through.
There are per gantry costs - running cables to location, setting up those steel arches; per-lane costs; and possibly per-read costs.
For per-lane, looks like there are 2 sets per lane plus something per shoulder; this one looks like a total of 9 sets for 3 lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.715008,-73.8697665,3a,75y,295.45h,95.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOZT9_NekR9ZnvnjZ3-UhZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There are 4 sets on an exit (5 in the other direction):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.952635,-76.9795197,3a,75y,291.06h,92.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy-unX9bSgphwEJBPOJ7sLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Given that equipment sets are configures by the person with advanced stages of paranoia, they must be expensive, probably more expensive than gantry steel.
And while we are at it.... Some strange gantry decisions may be explained if per-read costs are high...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on September 02, 2022, 08:23:40 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/cctaux5bi6q9VDmS8

Found this on GSV.  Crews replacing a shield assembly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 02, 2022, 09:23:47 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/cctaux5bi6q9VDmS8

Found this on GSV.  Crews replacing a shield assembly.
Slightly better view of the same scene:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6331356,-73.7752167,3a,75y,112.37h,89.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIa9kRPfBR4I42XEOe9zcbg!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Interesting that newly installed TOLL tabs are orange....
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 02, 2022, 03:57:16 PM
The way I outlined is actually less than what's there (six mainline gantries (one each direction at three locations) and one interchange gantry vs. four mainline gantries and two ramp gantries) and IIRC the map of gantry locations was on the Thruway website well before COVID.  It seems they got hung up on their way of doing it and didn't think things through.
There are per gantry costs - running cables to location, setting up those steel arches; per-lane costs; and possibly per-read costs.
For per-lane, looks like there are 2 sets per lane plus something per shoulder; this one looks like a total of 9 sets for 3 lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.715008,-73.8697665,3a,75y,295.45h,95.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOZT9_NekR9ZnvnjZ3-UhZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There are 4 sets on an exit (5 in the other direction):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.952635,-76.9795197,3a,75y,291.06h,92.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy-unX9bSgphwEJBPOJ7sLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Given that equipment sets are configures by the person with advanced stages of paranoia, they must be expensive, probably more expensive than gantry steel.
And while we are at it.... Some strange gantry decisions may be explained if per-read costs are high...
Still, I would think it would be cheaper to go with my hypothetical six gantry setup than the actual seven gantry setup, especially since then no read chargers would be incurred for traffic not paying a toll.  Although I think I just realized the problem with my hypothetical and why they didn't use it: the interior exit 25A mainline gantries wouldn't have any way of differentiating exit 25-26 traffic from exit 24-26 traffic.

That said, it IS too bad they didn't pull a MassDOT and just make all the areas where they broke up the VTS into free zones.  A 23-26 free zone would solve all the problems with this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 02, 2022, 04:18:03 PM
The way I outlined is actually less than what's there (six mainline gantries (one each direction at three locations) and one interchange gantry vs. four mainline gantries and two ramp gantries) and IIRC the map of gantry locations was on the Thruway website well before COVID.  It seems they got hung up on their way of doing it and didn't think things through.
There are per gantry costs - running cables to location, setting up those steel arches; per-lane costs; and possibly per-read costs.
For per-lane, looks like there are 2 sets per lane plus something per shoulder; this one looks like a total of 9 sets for 3 lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.715008,-73.8697665,3a,75y,295.45h,95.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOZT9_NekR9ZnvnjZ3-UhZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There are 4 sets on an exit (5 in the other direction):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.952635,-76.9795197,3a,75y,291.06h,92.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy-unX9bSgphwEJBPOJ7sLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Given that equipment sets are configures by the person with advanced stages of paranoia, they must be expensive, probably more expensive than gantry steel.
And while we are at it.... Some strange gantry decisions may be explained if per-read costs are high...
Still, I would think it would be cheaper to go with my hypothetical six gantry setup than the actual seven gantry setup, especially since then no read chargers would be incurred for traffic not paying a toll.  Although I think I just realized the problem with my hypothetical and why they didn't use it: the interior exit 25A mainline gantries wouldn't have any way of differentiating exit 25-26 traffic from exit 24-26 traffic.

That said, it IS too bad they didn't pull a MassDOT and just make all the areas where they broke up the VTS into free zones.  A 23-26 free zone would solve all the problems with this.
Looks like Masspike is much more integrated into DOT operations and funding, while Thruway is an independent kingdom - and was a source of funding for the state. So I can imagine Masspike being more conductive to giving  up on some revenue for goodwill. I still remember a fight for free I-90 in Buffalo.. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 02, 2022, 04:35:10 PM
Looks like Masspike is much more integrated into DOT operations and funding, while Thruway is an independent kingdom - and was a source of funding for the state. So I can imagine Masspike being more conductive to giving  up on some revenue for goodwill. I still remember a fight for free I-90 in Buffalo..

Yes, the Mass Pike is part of MassDOT.  It (along with a number of other transportation-related agencies in Massachusetts) was a separate entity prior to 2009, when everything was consolidated under the MassDOT banner.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 02, 2022, 06:09:40 PM
Looks like Masspike is much more integrated into DOT operations and funding, while Thruway is an independent kingdom - and was a source of funding for the state. So I can imagine Masspike being more conductive to giving  up on some revenue for goodwill. I still remember a fight for free I-90 in Buffalo..

Yes, the Mass Pike is part of MassDOT.  It (along with a number of other transportation-related agencies in Massachusetts) was a separate entity prior to 2009, when everything was consolidated under the MassDOT banner.

Given how insulated and insular the Mass Turnpike Authority was before the merger, the fact that it happened at all was a relative miracle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: lstone19 on September 03, 2022, 04:12:15 PM
Driving one of the Illinois tollways today, I noticed how massively overbuilt the Thruway gantries are compared to what ISTHA did. The most recent, only seen on ramps, have a single cross beam while some older one including the mainline gantries, have two (one for the scanners and one for lights and cameras). From what I can tell, there’s no fundamental difference in the amount of overhead equipment, just NYSTA decided to spread it out over a much longer distance (that said, I believe there is a difference in how they work since I believe I read that the virtual tickets work by writing entry information to the transponder on entry. Exiting might also involve clearing that information).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on September 04, 2022, 09:34:31 PM
The Environmental Impact Statement for Manhattan's Congestion Pricing has been released. (https://new.mta.info/document/93446)

Under the preferred scenario; D, they say that traffic bound for Manhattan's CBD on the Brooklyn Bridge will fall by 87 percent. But they say traffic on FDR drive will increase due to that remaining untolled.
(https://i.imgur.com/HI5cJWE.png)
All those trips aren't going to disappear. They merely are going to be shifted to the Hugh Carey Tunnel. Traffic there will rise by 2/3rds
(https://i.imgur.com/NN9ig8x.png)
Overall, the number of vehicles entering the cordon area will fall by 20%. The number of people commuting by car will fall by just 10%, since these people are already paying bridge/tunnel tolls and the extortionate cost of parking, an additional congestion charge won't really dissuade them much. The big difference will be from the almost complete disappearance of trucks cutting through Lower Manhattan to use the untolled crossings. Also notable, public transit ridership will negligibly increase, which isn't so surprising since 85% of all people entering the cordon zone already use transit.
(https://i.imgur.com/8NuIXmf.png)

I for one am very excited about this. Perhaps all those corporate executives will finally realize they don't need to pay for ridiculously expensive office Manhattan office space and subject their employees to torturous commutes to get to them and flee to the suburbs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 04, 2022, 09:51:35 PM
Ugh.  I weep for the future.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 17, 2022, 12:52:05 AM
Newburgh-Beacon Bridge update: they were painting lines on the new westbound roadway this afternoon; the span will have reopened in full by now.

Eastbound will remain two lanes until they can get things shifted back into normal position.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 21, 2022, 06:58:16 PM
Anybody knows if something happened on Thaddeus Lostushko bridge aka Twin bridges on I-87 just north of Albany? There was an oversized truck stopped under end of northbound arch, and some really impressive number of police cars- no ambulance or firefighters. My gut tells me "bridge strike", and I hope it is not. ..
Couldn't really tell what happened as I drove by ..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 22, 2022, 06:56:31 AM
Anybody knows if something happened on Thaddeus Lostushko bridge aka Twin bridges on I-87 just north of Albany? There was an oversized truck stopped under end of northbound arch, and some really impressive number of police cars- no ambulance or firefighters. My gut tells me "bridge strike", and I hope it is not. ..
Couldn't really tell what happened as I drove by ..
Oh well... At least it isn't I-5 bad. Serious damage to that bridge would hurt big time
(https://us1-photo.nextdoor.com/post_photos/49/a3/49a3af8700840165c8289d0442e2254a.jpeg)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on September 23, 2022, 09:08:48 AM
I visited the Ashokan Reservoir for the first time, I immediately noticed NYCDOT speed limit signs on 28A: (https://i.imgur.com/ztWYV5A.jpg). Looks like a 1909 court ruling ordered the city to maintain the roads around the reservoir, had no idea!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 23, 2022, 10:24:37 AM
I visited the Ashokan Reservoir for the first time, I immediately noticed NYCDOT speed limit signs on 28A. Looks like a 1909 court ruling ordered the city to maintain the roads around the reservoir, had no idea!
It's a bit more involved. Basically, NYC owns a lot of land in Catskills for water use. There are a lot of tensions with locals there, as NYC water supply is built to ancient Rome standards (except for lead pipes) and NYC has a lot of say in land use in that area to keep that water drinkable. There was a video in another thread touching on the topic (with a positive spin on the situation):
Here is New York City's water supply map.

(https://news.climate.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/map.jpg)

Wendover has an excellent video (https://youtu.be/IDLkOWW0_xg) explaining NYC's water supply system

Title: Re: New York
Post by: MASTERNC on October 05, 2022, 06:10:07 PM
Looks like projects to convert more of NY 17 to I-86 are moving forward

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-major-milestone-transformative-conversion-state-route-17-interstate
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on October 05, 2022, 07:49:51 PM
Looks like projects to convert more of NY 17 to I-86 are moving forward

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-major-milestone-transformative-conversion-state-route-17-interstate

Great to see this moving forward, for the six-laning even if not for the conversion to I-86. I'm not holding my breath for the Hale Eddy project which would be needed to complete I-86, but this is a big step in the right direction (finally).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: bluecountry on October 08, 2022, 07:22:22 PM
Looks like projects to convert more of NY 17 to I-86 are moving forward

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-major-milestone-transformative-conversion-state-route-17-interstate
So if done, what gaps would remain in I-86?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 08, 2022, 08:24:22 PM
Looks like projects to convert more of NY 17 to I-86 are moving forward

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-major-milestone-transformative-conversion-state-route-17-interstate
So if done, what gaps would remain in I-86?
Hale Eddy to Hancock would be the major gap left.  I'd have to check the rest of the project list.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on October 12, 2022, 01:39:05 PM
Given how insulated and insular the Mass Turnpike Authority was before the merger, the fact that it happened at all was a relative miracle.

Maybe less of a miracle than you think.  The Turnpike Authority was responsible for the Big Dig, and given the massive cost overruns and mismanagement on that project, the Turnpike Authority became the "fall guy," and rightfully so.  When the transportation agency consolidation was proposed in the legislature, they were hardly in any position to object.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jmp367 on October 15, 2022, 09:24:26 PM
Anybody in contact with Region 9?  LOTS (though not all…which is somehow both better AND worse) of brand new NY-11 shields near and around the two new roundabouts at I-81 Exit 5.

I think I ended up purchasing a set of those signs from a scrap dealer:

See https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.msg2778154#msg2778154 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.msg2778154#msg2778154)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 21, 2022, 01:34:58 AM
I still haven't had any responses about this;

Who here has ridden the rail trails of the former New York and Putnam Railroad Main Line, besides one user that I already know has done it (Yes, I'm referring to you, RoadGeekAdam)?

Is the Putnam Trail as fun to ride as it looks?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on October 21, 2022, 09:11:29 PM
Anybody in contact with Region 9?  LOTS (though not all…which is somehow both better AND worse) of brand new NY-11 shields near and around the two new roundabouts at I-81 Exit 5.

I think I ended up purchasing a set of those signs from a scrap dealer:

See https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.msg2778154#msg2778154 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.msg2778154#msg2778154)

I bought a NY 11 shield for my home office last winter on eBay as well.  Sticker on the back indicates R9.  I believe the seller was the guy who runs Twin Green Traffic Signal out of Columbia County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 22, 2022, 01:08:13 AM
I still haven't had any responses about this;

Who here has ridden the rail trails of the former New York and Putnam Railroad Main Line, besides one user that I already know has done it (Yes, I'm referring to you, RoadGeekAdam)?

Is the Putnam Trail as fun to ride as it looks?


probably no one has :(
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on October 22, 2022, 01:33:03 AM
Is there plans to reopen the closed rest area on 495 Westbound across from that new Long Island Welcome Center one? I drove by there last week and noticed the concrete barriers were gone (it was coned off), and the whole thing was repaved with new lines and everything in addition to the main repaving project on 495 in Suffolk county. If they were planning to keep it closed why bother repaving it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TonyTrafficLight on October 22, 2022, 09:53:06 AM

I bought a NY 11 shield for my home office last winter on eBay as well.  Sticker on the back indicates R9.  I believe the seller was the guy who runs Twin Green Traffic Signal out of Columbia County.


Yeah those were his. I was with him when he got those. We did a double take when we realized what they were.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 22, 2022, 05:14:11 PM
Is there plans to reopen the closed rest area on 495 Westbound across from that new Long Island Welcome Center one? I drove by there last week and noticed the concrete barriers were gone (it was coned off), and the whole thing was repaved with new lines and everything in addition to the main repaving project on 495 in Suffolk county. If they were planning to keep it closed why bother repaving it?
That's a very interesting question.  Unfortunately, the project plans don't have any signage items that might shed some light on this.  Perhaps a question for Region 10?

There's another one like this - the SB Schroon Lake Rest Area, permanently closed, but it's never been striped out or had the signage removed.  And there's still the "temporarily closed" rest areas at Hastings and Lewis.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on October 22, 2022, 07:29:04 PM
Is there plans to reopen the closed rest area on 495 Westbound across from that new Long Island Welcome Center one? I drove by there last week and noticed the concrete barriers were gone (it was coned off), and the whole thing was repaved with new lines and everything in addition to the main repaving project on 495 in Suffolk county. If they were planning to keep it closed why bother repaving it?
That's a very interesting question.  Unfortunately, the project plans don't have any signage items that might shed some light on this.  Perhaps a question for Region 10?

There's another one like this - the SB Schroon Lake Rest Area, permanently closed, but it's never been striped out or had the signage removed.  And there's still the "temporarily closed" rest areas at Hastings and Lewis.

Many of the signs are already still there like the Eisenhower interstate one, the no littering, the 495 entrance. If I recall right the Parking area/former weigh station on 495 west by exit 65 has no advanced signs for it either but it’s just open. (There are signs for the eastbound one, and the slapped together parking area by NY 111 that was built from the DOT garage area)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 24, 2022, 09:53:01 AM
There are signs for the eastbound one, and the slapped together parking area by NY 111 that was built from the DOT garage area.
You know, that area is where NY 347 was supposed to end.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on October 24, 2022, 02:19:46 PM
There are signs for the eastbound one, and the slapped together parking area by NY 111 that was built from the DOT garage area.
You know, that area is where NY 347 was supposed to end.
were they planning to run 347 down Simeon Woods Road and thru the county offices area?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 25, 2022, 09:24:54 AM
There are signs for the eastbound one, and the slapped together parking area by NY 111 that was built from the DOT garage area.
You know, that area is where NY 347 was supposed to end.
were they planning to run 347 down Simeon Woods Road and thru the county offices area?
Yes, it was going to leave Simeon Woods Road just north of Rabro Drive, then curve northeast towards the current terminus at NY 454.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: MASTERNC on October 25, 2022, 10:41:32 AM
Supposedly NY is using the work zone speed cameras in isolated areas (such as I-84 near Connecticut), yet there is no mention of the program on any New York website.  Would have thought a list of locations online was a requirement like in other states.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 25, 2022, 05:20:26 PM
Supposedly NY is using the work zone speed cameras in isolated areas (such as I-84 near Connecticut), yet there is no mention of the program on any New York website.  Would have thought a list of locations online was a requirement like in other states.
Public media campaign's coming up shortly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on October 26, 2022, 08:17:26 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/UJo7pz8jPUvVfXH87
Is that little path here along Route 17 supposed to be the Appalachian Trail?

Googlemaps implies it is, but I would figure the trail would be much wider.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on October 27, 2022, 06:18:38 AM
What happens to US 9 South in Yonkers?
https://goo.gl/maps/tCUJFSCbyfQysFPs6

I noticed that there is a one way segment of US and NY 9A in Downtown starting at Wells Avenue. Traffic is forced to turn onto Wells.

Then you get this intersection. https://goo.gl/maps/aoW5TWBmugVHpQZV9
However no shields for either route.

Did the State of New York forget that US 9 and NY 9A need to circumvent the one way part of Broadway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 27, 2022, 12:41:31 PM
What happens to US 9 South in Yonkers?
https://goo.gl/maps/tCUJFSCbyfQysFPs6

I noticed that there is a one way segment of US and NY 9A in Downtown starting at Wells Avenue. Traffic is forced to turn onto Wells.

Then you get this intersection. https://goo.gl/maps/aoW5TWBmugVHpQZV9
However no shields for either route.

Did the State of New York forget that US 9 and NY 9A need to circumvent the one way part of Broadway?
I took a look at the jurisdiction of the roads there in the RIS viewer (https://gis.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=risviewer), and... wow.  Short version: US 9 is maintained by the City of Yonkers, and cities are necessarily good about signing routes that pass through them.

Longer version: Part of US 9 south (after the turn but not approaching it) shows as NYSDOT jurisdiction.  None of US 9 north does.  The part of US 9 south maintained by the state is marked as reference route 984H, which continues along Riverdale Avenue to the NYC line (I guess touring routes and reference routes can overlap...).  Nepperhan Avenue is 983B.  Yonkers Avenue is 983C and 984E.  Tuckahoe Road is 984L.  NY 9A north of Nepperhan and NY 100 are maintained by the NYSDOT, as are the parkways (except the Bronx River, which is maintained by the county).  The Thruway, of course, is maintained by NYSTA.  But US 9 and much of NY 9A are City of Yonkers.  Roadway jurisdiction can be odd... but this is more so than usual.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on October 27, 2022, 04:37:57 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/UJo7pz8jPUvVfXH87
Is that little path here along Route 17 supposed to be the Appalachian Trail?

Googlemaps implies it is, but I would figure the trail would be much wider.

Yes it is.  And there are plenty of locations where the App Trail is basically a narrow walking path.  I've been on several such segments.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on October 30, 2022, 11:46:13 PM
Is Turnpike Road (Cayuga County Rte. 10A, 10B, and 10C, a highway that goes from NY 5 in Sennett to US 20/NY 5 in the town of Aurelius--effectively a road that acts as a northerly bypass of Auburn) scheduled to be a Touring route or reference route soon?  The reason I ask is, while I was looking at Google Maps and GSV in that area, there appears to be some upgrades to the road including an improved shoulder (not necessarily wider but improved) and improved signage.  Many of the intersections have the street blades over the STOP sign now instead of having a street blade sign and a separate STOP sign.  These new combo signs also are mounted with "Z-bars", a staple on New York State Touring routes and reference routes.  Regulatory signage along the highway has also been erected with the "Z-bars" behind the sign.

I am familiar with New York governmental policy that any transfer of maintenance (or "highway maintenance swap") between the state and the county has to go through the government offices in Albany.  With Turnpike Road's length at 10.5 miles, which other state highway in Cayuga County would be part of this swap?

I cannot see NY 5 rerouted along Turnpike as it is a main thoroughfare between Syracuse and Auburn.  If Turnpike Road becomes a Touring route, I could see a NY 520 signed along it.

Perhaps one of our members from New York State could shed some light on this--assuming that Turnpike Road is slated to become a state maintained highway.  After all, these new signs have been posted since 2019 according to GSV, so something is in the works.  I cannot see these upgrades in signage and in the road if Turnpike was still going to be maintained as a Cayuga County highway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 31, 2022, 07:07:03 AM
Heh.  No swap is happening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on October 31, 2022, 12:06:08 PM
It's a pretty good bypass of Auburn, and the western terminus is arguably way overbuilt for a county route, so it would make sense as NY 520.  If this was PA, it would almost certainly be a state route.

In that same area, I wouldn't mind if existing NY 317 was swapped back to the county and Brutus St. between Weedsport and NY 5 became NY 317 (or any other number of choice) instead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on October 31, 2022, 03:06:27 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/unFKMtL7JxWhV2cD7
I take this is the main office for the entire Thruway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on October 31, 2022, 03:50:56 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/unFKMtL7JxWhV2cD7
I take this is the main office for the entire Thruway?

No, I don't think so. The multi-story building next to Exit 23 is the Thruway headquarters, last I knew.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on October 31, 2022, 04:05:36 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/unFKMtL7JxWhV2cD7
I take this is the main office for the entire Thruway?
No.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on October 31, 2022, 11:18:30 PM
It's a pretty good bypass of Auburn, and the western terminus is arguably way overbuilt for a county route, so it would make sense as NY 520.  If this was PA, it would almost certainly be a state route.

In that same area, I wouldn't mind if existing NY 317 was swapped back to the county and Brutus St. between Weedsport and NY 5 became NY 317 (or any other number of choice) instead.

Cayuga CR 10A/10B/10C carried the original NY 5A designation during the mid 1930s and was later replaced with the second incarnation of NY 135 before being turned over to the county in 1939.

As for any potential for a realignment or new designation, I wouldn't get too excited.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on November 01, 2022, 01:24:02 AM
It's a pretty good bypass of Auburn, and the western terminus is arguably way overbuilt for a county route, so it would make sense as NY 520.  If this was PA, it would almost certainly be a state route.

In that same area, I wouldn't mind if existing NY 317 was swapped back to the county and Brutus St. between Weedsport and NY 5 became NY 317 (or any other number of choice) instead.

Cayuga CR 10A/10B/10C carried the original NY 5A designation during the mid 1930s and was later replaced with the second incarnation of NY 135 before being turned over to the county in 1939.

As for any potential for a realignment or new designation, I wouldn't get too excited.
The upgraded signage was what piqued my interest on this matter.  One does not usually see signs with "Z-bars" behind the signs on county highways except at junctions with Touring routes or reference routes.  Usually the signs are mounted to the (sometimes rusty) poles with no "Z-bars" on county and town roads.

As far as the western terminus, I am quite positive that the two "ramps" carried the traffic, based on what I remember when I was in my teens.  If one was travelling west on Turnpike and wanted to go toward Auburn, one would take the left ramp and make the oblique turn onto US 20/NY 5 East.  Turnpike Road did not end as a T-intersection until the early 1980's.

I used Turnpike Road a lot when visiting relatives in the Camillus area.  I would use the Thruway until Exit 42, use NY 318, US 20/NY 5, Turnpike, NY 5, then left on Bennett Corners Road to see the relatives.  I did this to save some money from the Thruway tolls.

I guess we can close on this topic.  Turnpike Road has basically become a more "high class" county road now.  Nice!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on November 01, 2022, 09:25:13 AM
Eh, upgraded signage is a thing all over the state on county and township roads. Tompkins County has been installing new signage throughout with "Z-bars" and has been upgrading roads to include shoulders for cyclists/pedestrians.

Example: https://goo.gl/maps/ZUHNJWRP1ar7cRHE9 , https://goo.gl/maps/qhmrDQsLBzeGxkpb7
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 01, 2022, 09:56:58 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/DbSYqtVDjhSoUN4N8

One of the things that always fascinated me was that US 20 got the lone US designated Alternate bannered route.

US 9 has a New York State designated Alternate.
US 1 used to have NY 1A and not US 1A.
US 62 used to have a state A banner in Niagara Falls.

It seems odd that NY didn’t make a NY 20A instead of the US 20 ALT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: okc1 on November 02, 2022, 10:02:10 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/DbSYqtVDjhSoUN4N8

It seems odd that NY didn’t make a NY 20A instead of the US 20 ALT.

20A was originally 20 west of what is now NY 15. When 20 was completed west of Avon, NY decided to make the old route NY 35. The folks along the old route didn't like losing the US status, so US 20A was created. Search NY US 20 in the AASHTO database documents (1930's) for details.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on November 02, 2022, 06:57:38 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/DbSYqtVDjhSoUN4N8

One of the things that always fascinated me was that US 20 got the lone US designated Alternate bannered route.

US 9 has a New York State designated Alternate.
US 1 used to have NY 1A and not US 1A.
US 62 used to have a state A banner in Niagara Falls.

It seems odd that NY didn’t make a NY 20A instead of the US 20 ALT.
There was also US-15 (now NY-15) and NY-15A. (The remaining portion of US-15 in NY south of I-86 was designated as I-99.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on November 02, 2022, 09:25:31 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/DbSYqtVDjhSoUN4N8

It seems odd that NY didn’t make a NY 20A instead of the US 20 ALT.

20A was originally 20 west of what is now NY 15. When 20 was completed west of Avon, NY decided to make the old route NY 35. The folks along the old route didn't like losing the US status, so US 20A was created. Search NY US 20 in the AASHTO database documents (1930's) for details.

NY 35's west end was truncated to Caledonia.  The original US 20 became NY 20A for about a year before becoming US 20A.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on November 03, 2022, 02:02:59 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/unFKMtL7JxWhV2cD7
I take this is the main office for the entire Thruway?

No, I don't think so. The multi-story building next to Exit 23 is the Thruway headquarters, last I knew.
Here is a view from the Thruway mainline. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6293737,-73.7791611,3a,43.1y,76.51h,94.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slySQw7Tf_AcdIp-1oueuMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 03, 2022, 05:07:27 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/DbSYqtVDjhSoUN4N8

It seems odd that NY didn’t make a NY 20A instead of the US 20 ALT.

20A was originally 20 west of what is now NY 15. When 20 was completed west of Avon, NY decided to make the old route NY 35. The folks along the old route didn't like losing the US status, so US 20A was created. Search NY US 20 in the AASHTO database documents (1930's) for details.

NY 35's west end was truncated to Caledonia.  The original US 20 became NY 20A for about a year before becoming US 20A.

I thought 35 was a route in Westchester
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on November 03, 2022, 02:45:14 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/DbSYqtVDjhSoUN4N8

It seems odd that NY didn’t make a NY 20A instead of the US 20 ALT.

20A was originally 20 west of what is now NY 15. When 20 was completed west of Avon, NY decided to make the old route NY 35. The folks along the old route didn't like losing the US status, so US 20A was created. Search NY US 20 in the AASHTO database documents (1930's) for details.

NY 35's west end was truncated to Caledonia.  The original US 20 became NY 20A for about a year before becoming US 20A.

I thought 35 was a route in Westchester
The current NY-35 was assigned its number in the early 1940s. Before that, it was assigned in Western NY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 09, 2022, 07:26:17 PM
Sentinel Heights bridge over I-81, south of Syracuse, opens tomorrow with a ceremony on the east side of the bridge at 2 p.m with NYSDOT Regional Director and Onondaga Nation Chief in attendance.  Bridge is decorated with the Hiawatha Belt.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on November 10, 2022, 07:05:11 PM
I wrote a letter requesting that NYSDOT install an Added Lane sign on the southbound Taconic, at US 6 in Yorktown: https://goo.gl/maps/dQYEm1NqVaHwpREw7 Curiously, there is an Entering Added Lane sign on the ramp, but not the mainline.

Here's the reply I received: https://i.imgur.com/2kAWUqS.jpg
Am I crazy for thinking there should still be an added lane sign here? It's an added lane!

There's a similar setup on 84 in Fishkill at US 9: one added lane ramp (from 9 sb) followed by a merge (from 9 nb) and yet there is an Added Lane sign on the 84 mainline. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2022, 09:25:00 PM
I wrote a letter requesting that NYSDOT install an Added Lane sign on the southbound Taconic, at US 6 in Yorktown: https://goo.gl/maps/dQYEm1NqVaHwpREw7 (https://goo.gl/maps/dQYEm1NqVaHwpREw7) Curiously, there is an Entering Added Lane sign on the ramp, but not the mainline.

Here's the reply I received: https://i.imgur.com/2kAWUqS.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/2kAWUqS.jpg)
Am I crazy for thinking there should still be an added lane sign here? It's an added lane!

There's a similar setup on 84 in Fishkill at US 9: one added lane ramp (from 9 sb) followed by a merge (from 9 nb) and yet there is an Added Lane sign on the 84 mainline. 
I'm on your side with this. You would see added lane before the first ramp THEN a merge sign for the second.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 10, 2022, 10:51:05 PM
It'd be nice if we could get all the relevant regions in NYSDOT to understand that "Thruway" makes for a poor control city in 2022.  Region 4 likes to replace like in kind; add a TOLL banner to keep it compliant.

(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/thruway.png)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 11, 2022, 07:29:35 PM
Some may consider the Thruway itself to be a kind of destination, even though it's not strictly compliant with the Manual.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on November 14, 2022, 01:25:24 AM
It'd be nice if we could get all the relevant regions in NYSDOT to understand that "Thruway" makes for a poor control city in 2022.  Region 4 likes to replace like in kind; add a TOLL banner to keep it compliant.

(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/thruway.png)

Old habits will forever die hard. Even though the New Jersey Turnpike Authority finally adopted official control cities for both the Turnpike and Parkway like 7-8 years ago and now signs them more consistently than they ever used to, NJDOT will forever sign interchanges for either toll road as simply "New Jersey Turnpike" or "Garden State Parkway" even when signing them with appropriate shields. Some things may never change. The difference in agencies may play a big role for both NJ and NY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on November 14, 2022, 02:58:24 AM
It'd be nice if we could get all the relevant regions in NYSDOT to understand that "Thruway" makes for a poor control city in 2022.  Region 4 likes to replace like in kind; add a TOLL banner to keep it compliant.

(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/thruway.png)
I would like to see the signs posted like this...

  TOLL  NY Thruway     TOLL  NY Thruway     TOLL  NY Thruway
    90        Logo             90        Logo             87        Logo
       Albany                       Buffalo                    New York
       Buffalo                         Erie                        Albany

These can be either ground-mounted or on overheads with the appropriate exit number if and where needed.

By doing this, a motorist will know that they are going to be entering the NY Thruway and will have control cities to go by before exiting the road that they are on currently.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 14, 2022, 09:02:25 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/SJVYiz4PQChzG8a58
I see that the Welcome you get to Niagara Fallls on I-190 is sine salad.

https://goo.gl/maps/6Ja1P99SjUeA48BW8
Plus a second welcome sign on the far side of the Grand Island Bridge as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 14, 2022, 09:11:59 PM
It'd be nice if we could get all the relevant regions in NYSDOT to understand that "Thruway" makes for a poor control city in 2022.  Region 4 likes to replace like in kind; add a TOLL banner to keep it compliant.

(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/thruway.png)
I would like to see the signs posted like this...

     TOLL  NY Thruway     TOLL  NY Thruway     TOLL  NY Thruway
       90        Logo             90        Logo             87        Logo
          Albany                       Buffalo                    New York
          Buffalo                         Erie                        Albany

These can be either ground-mounted or on overheads with the appropriate exit number if and where needed.

By doing this, a motorist will know that they are going to be entering the NY Thruway and will have control cities to go by before exiting the road that they are on currently.



Region 3 includes Albany-Buffalo on interchange signing for the Thruway. Region 1 includes New York-Buffalo sporadically, though they didn't on the new signs on I-890. Region 4 doesn't include control cities at all, but there's a few interstate-to-interstate interchanges where they don't include control cities there either, but I think Region 5 does include Albany-Erie. I'm not sure about the downstate regions.

I can see the Thruway being a destination 70 years ago, but times have changed and the Thruway has been part of the Interstate System for many decades. Years ago a NYSDOT engineer said they were unnecessary because once you pass through the toll booths there's control cities there, but that doesn't make for good guidance for motorists just looking for I-90 west toward Buffalo from another Interstate. There's no reason not to include control cities other than "Thruway" other than perpetuating what was done in the past and just replacing signs with the same message decade after decade. Laziness.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 14, 2022, 09:35:23 PM
Region 4 doesn't include control cities at all, but there's a few interstate-to-interstate interchanges where they don't include control cities there either ...

Region 4 has gotten much better about using Thruway control cities with sign replacements since the AET conversion. They included Albany-Buffalo at both ends of I-490 and NY 332 (https://goo.gl/maps/RTJk7yPJWFVHN1tt5), although they're still lacking on mainline I-390.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kirbykart on November 15, 2022, 10:00:31 AM
Region 5 does use control cities well. Something I find odd is that NYSTA tries to use Rochester at Exit 53 in Buffalo, and at I-190 Exit 16, but then fails to do so anywhere else. The control for I-290 is Thru Traffic.

 Another strange thing, this time by Syracuse (no idea what Region this would be) the control cities for the Thruway from I-81 are Buffalo-Boston, skipping Albany entirely!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on November 15, 2022, 02:05:24 PM
Region 5 does use control cities well. Something I find odd is that NYSTA tries to use Rochester at Exit 53 in Buffalo, and at I-190 Exit 16, but then fails to do so anywhere else. The control for I-290 is Thru Traffic.

 Another strange thing, this time by Syracuse (no idea what Region this would be) the control cities for the Thruway from I-81 are Buffalo-Boston, skipping Albany entirely!
Syracuse is in Region 3.

Where are you seeing signs posted for Buffalo-Boston?  All I see on GSV (July 2022) is Buffalo-Albany.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on November 15, 2022, 09:22:34 PM
Region 5 does use control cities well. Something I find odd is that NYSTA tries to use Rochester at Exit 53 in Buffalo, and at I-190 Exit 16, but then fails to do so anywhere else. The control for I-290 is Thru Traffic.

 Another strange thing, this time by Syracuse (no idea what Region this would be) the control cities for the Thruway from I-81 are Buffalo-Boston, skipping Albany entirely!

There's definitely no signs for Boston in the Syracuse area. The mileage signs on the Thruway are Utica-Albany-Buffalo to the east of Syracuse, and the NYSDOT signs leading up to the Thruway are for Albany-Buffalo, aside from a straggler or two that wasn't replaced in the last sign rehab project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 15, 2022, 10:18:58 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/nK8DwFXEJL95mhg18
Why is North GrandIsland Bridge Truss Less? I always wondered why it’s counterpart on the south end has a stringed cantilever Chanel span, but the North Crossing doesn’t feature one.

Same river, with same ship traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kirbykart on November 16, 2022, 08:36:59 AM
Region 5 does use control cities well. Something I find odd is that NYSTA tries to use Rochester at Exit 53 in Buffalo, and at I-190 Exit 16, but then fails to do so anywhere else. The control for I-290 is Thru Traffic.

 Another strange thing, this time by Syracuse (no idea what Region this would be) the control cities for the Thruway from I-81 are Buffalo-Boston, skipping Albany entirely!
Syracuse is in Region 3.

Where are you seeing signs posted for Buffalo-Boston?  All I see on GSV (July 2022) is Buffalo-Albany.

 This is really bizarre. I can't find one on GSV but I know I saw one!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 16, 2022, 12:52:15 PM
The only Buffalo-Boston instances I can think of are at interchanges with free 90 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6693255,-73.7320898,3a,75y,244.69h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUJNi_EyuM60kIEur-Yz_Fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kirbykart on November 16, 2022, 02:34:16 PM
The only Buffalo-Boston instances I can think of are at interchanges with free 90 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6693255,-73.7320898,3a,75y,244.69h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUJNi_EyuM60kIEur-Yz_Fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

 Yeah I know of those, it's just that I could have sworn I saw one in Syracuse.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 16, 2022, 09:37:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/nK8DwFXEJL95mhg18
Why is North GrandIsland Bridge Truss Less? I always wondered why it’s counterpart on the south end has a stringed cantilever Chanel span, but the North Crossing doesn’t feature one.

Same river, with same ship traffic.

Maybe for a better view of Niagara Falls. On a clear day you can often see a plume of mist along with the Niagara Falls, ON skyline.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 16, 2022, 09:38:42 PM
The only Buffalo-Boston instances I can think of are at interchanges with free 90 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6693255,-73.7320898,3a,75y,244.69h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUJNi_EyuM60kIEur-Yz_Fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

 Yeah I know of those, it's just that I could have sworn I saw one in Syracuse.

Also not Syracuse, and not NYSTA, but Buffalo and Boston both appear on the same sign here (https://goo.gl/maps/dyiHXsHbSy5tKhTM9) as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TMETSJETSYT on November 17, 2022, 09:35:57 AM
Some may consider the Thruway itself to be a kind of destination, even though it's not strictly compliant with the Manual.
The Thruway signs should say 90/87 and above that shield say North/South/East/West, and then have the Thruway shield and have that yellow toll sign above it and have an actual control city on the sign such as Albany, New York City, Buffalo, Syracuse, or Rochester. Ive always been confused on why they never (rarely) do this, but I did hear that they are trying to phase out the Thruway signs, so I can see why they arent putting the shield on signs, but I personally don't agree with it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 17, 2022, 10:42:15 AM
Some may consider the Thruway itself to be a kind of destination, even though it's not strictly compliant with the Manual.
The Thruway signs should say 90/87 and above that shield say North/South/East/West, and then have the Thruway shield and have that yellow toll sign above it and have an actual control city on the sign such as Albany, New York City, Buffalo, Syracuse, or Rochester. Ive always been confused on why they never (rarely) do this, but I did hear that they are trying to phase out the Thruway signs, so I can see why they arent putting the shield on signs, but I personally don't agree with it.
One reason I could see is that all traffic to/from any Thruway exit is funneled into a single toll plaza. So it doesn't make sense to show east-west before the booth (except for a few spots, like exit 24). Any traffic goes to that toll booth first, and would be making a choice after the booth only.  Things are a bit different with AET, but the single entry point still exists.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 17, 2022, 12:56:26 PM
The only Buffalo-Boston instances I can think of are at interchanges with free 90 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6693255,-73.7320898,3a,75y,244.69h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUJNi_EyuM60kIEur-Yz_Fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

 Yeah I know of those, it's just that I could have sworn I saw one in Syracuse.

Also not Syracuse, and not NYSTA, but Buffalo and Boston both appear on the same sign here (https://goo.gl/maps/dyiHXsHbSy5tKhTM9) as well.
That one also had Albany and New York, so it's not exactly skipping over Albany, is it?  Plus I did say "interchanges with free 90", after all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 17, 2022, 02:22:07 PM
The only Buffalo-Boston instances I can think of are at interchanges with free 90 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6693255,-73.7320898,3a,75y,244.69h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUJNi_EyuM60kIEur-Yz_Fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

 Yeah I know of those, it's just that I could have sworn I saw one in Syracuse.

Also not Syracuse, and not NYSTA, but Buffalo and Boston both appear on the same sign here (https://goo.gl/maps/dyiHXsHbSy5tKhTM9) as well.
That one also had Albany and New York, so it's not exactly skipping over Albany, is it?  Plus I did say "interchanges with free 90", after all.

Yes, I knew what you meant, I was just trying to think of examples where both were on the same sign in hopes of helping the OP's quest.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kirbykart on November 17, 2022, 09:19:47 PM
^Welp... it seems I must have been misremembering. It happens to everyone at one point or another.  :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 18, 2022, 07:06:06 PM
Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.

Every Thruway VMS, meanwhile, was announcing a commercial vehicle ban west of Buffalo beginning at 4pm yesterday.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jmp367 on November 18, 2022, 07:57:00 PM
Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.

Every Thruway VMS, meanwhile, was announcing a commercial vehicle ban west of Buffalo beginning at 4pm yesterday.

It wasn't a ban just west of Buffalo, it was a ban from Thruway exit 46 to the Pennsylvania state line (Ripley, NY). That's what all the VMS boards in the Syracuse area display.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 18, 2022, 08:00:44 PM
I said "west of Buffalo" b/c they were also banning commercial vehicles on 190 and I also couldn't remember offhand where Exit 46 was.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 18, 2022, 08:31:13 PM
Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.

Yes, that seems to be a yearly campaign as they ran it last year as well. It's been going for several weeks now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 19, 2022, 08:41:32 AM
Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.

Yes, that seems to be a yearly campaign as they ran it last year as well. It's been going for several weeks now.
CDL and $18-20/hour isn't a great combo these days.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 19, 2022, 09:22:14 AM
Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.

Yes, that seems to be a yearly campaign as they ran it last year as well. It's been going for several weeks now.
CDL and $18-20/hour isn't a great combo these days.
Salary for plow drivers at DOT is a huge problem and has been for the past couple of years now.

The Department of Civil Service was set up with good intentions and purpose, but it's more of a hindrance nowadays due to the old days of people knocking down the doors to work for the State being over.  Their procedures are now archane and obsolete given the current job market.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 19, 2022, 09:55:31 AM
Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.

Yes, that seems to be a yearly campaign as they ran it last year as well. It's been going for several weeks now.
CDL and $18-20/hour isn't a great combo these days.
Salary for plow drivers at DOT is a huge problem and has been for the past couple of years now.

The Department of Civil Service was set up with good intentions and purpose, but it's more of a hindrance nowadays due to the old days of people knocking down the doors to work for the State being over.  Their procedures are now archane and obsolete given the current job market.

(personal opinion emphasized)
I heard that seasonal plow drivers actually get most of their compensation from overtime, with 100+ hours/week after a snowfall not being uncommon.  yet it ends up as a tough job...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: andrepoiy on November 19, 2022, 01:20:45 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/jBVdzIm.png)

Buffalo and snowstorm...

My question is, what's the criteria for needing to shut down that many freeways?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 19, 2022, 03:24:31 PM
Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.

Yes, that seems to be a yearly campaign as they ran it last year as well. It's been going for several weeks now.
CDL and $18-20/hour isn't a great combo these days.
Salary for plow drivers at DOT is a huge problem and has been for the past couple of years now.

The Department of Civil Service was set up with good intentions and purpose, but it's more of a hindrance nowadays due to the old days of people knocking down the doors to work for the State being over.  Their procedures are now archane and obsolete given the current job market.

(personal opinion emphasized)
I heard that seasonal plow drivers actually get most of their compensation from overtime, with 100+ hours/week after a snowfall not being uncommon.  yet it ends up as a tough job...
Sure, but NYSDOT is losing drivers to other jurisdictions due to the higher base pay elsewhere.  Everyone gets OT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 19, 2022, 04:15:54 PM
Plus the unpredictable nature of the schedule makes it undesirable too.  It's not like snowplow drivers work regular hours - they get called in as needed.  A given week could have no work, or a lot of overtime, during the day, or overnight, with no way to know more than a few days in advance at best.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 21, 2022, 07:28:06 AM
Massachusetts has also advertised for snowplow drivers on its VMS signs, and I doubt we’re alone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 21, 2022, 10:17:08 PM
Wow, updated Street View shows new (https://goo.gl/maps/hgZA2hwDoEaydcPH6) APL's (https://goo.gl/maps/BmQsZs5drCgqWMeVA) on the Niagara Scenic Parkway for the junction with I-190. The first one is a bit wordy, but I'm OK with the replacements because they were badly needed here, especially the second one where drivers seemed to often get confused getting to I-190 southbound.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 25, 2022, 12:10:27 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/ghvMBZc8VGxccL4P9
Noticed that you can’t follow NY 324 completely.  NY 324 turns left off Exit 17, yet a turn prohibition is in place for safety reasons.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kirbykart on November 25, 2022, 12:56:11 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/ghvMBZc8VGxccL4P9
Noticed that you can’t follow NY 324 completely.  NY 324 turns left off Exit 17, yet a turn prohibition is in place for safety reasons.

 Does it actually turn off there? Signage for it is practically nonexistent.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on November 25, 2022, 01:58:15 PM
It's only signed for NY 266/Grand Blvd. NY 324 is signed for Exit 15 a few miles south.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 25, 2022, 01:58:29 PM
324 does not exit there.  While there are still some NY 324 signs and trailblazers as well as reference markers along that section of Grand Island Blvd indicating that is still NY 324, NYS Roadway Inventory GIS shows it as NY 950C.  NY 324 is concurrent with I-190 to Exit 15.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 25, 2022, 02:50:42 PM
Note also this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/QGKWrTbLnutjUtit5), which has a TO banner indicating this is not part of NY 324 EB. However, 324 WB is signed (https://goo.gl/maps/esCJ8wnKBBjnpn6w8) as continuing to NY 266 and joining I-190 at Exit 17. So, at least according to signage, EB follows I-190, while WB follows Grand Island Blvd.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 25, 2022, 06:59:27 PM
324 does not exit there.  While there are still some NY 324 signs and trailblazers as well as reference markers along that section of Grand Island Blvd indicating that is still NY 324, NYS Roadway Inventory GIS shows it as NY 950C.  NY 324 is concurrent with I-190 to Exit 15.
Yeah, I suspected something like this was happening when Roadman brought it up.  It's one of those routes you have to go by the log for.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 25, 2022, 07:00:05 PM
Note also this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/QGKWrTbLnutjUtit5), which has a TO banner indicating this is not part of NY 324 EB. However, 324 WB is signed (https://goo.gl/maps/esCJ8wnKBBjnpn6w8) as continuing to NY 266 and joining I-190 at Exit 17. So, at least according to signage, EB follows I-190, while WB follows Grand Island Blvd.
Can't trust the shields.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 26, 2022, 08:03:53 PM
Sunrise Mall is dead.
So now is the time to use the land to convert NY 27 into the Expressway it was intended to be.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 26, 2022, 08:28:30 PM
Sunrise Mall is dead.
So now is the time to use the land to convert NY 27 into the Expressway it was intended to be.



What are you talking about?........ Sunrise Hwy. only runs adjacent to the Mall parking lot for about a quarter mile.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 26, 2022, 09:11:07 PM
Sunrise Mall is dead.
So now is the time to use the land to convert NY 27 into the Expressway it was intended to be.

if anything it would be nice if they had a "jersey freeway" from NY 135 east to where the real freeway begins at NY 109. Or even just from 110 to 109.

What really needs to be a full freeway on Long Island is Nichols Road, the way that highway is set up, is very dangerous with the surprise traffic lights that show up around curves. The intersections already are designed that there is enough room to make overpasses and there are "service roads" in the section around Centerreach.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 26, 2022, 09:19:09 PM
Also, I have a Belt Parkway question, was there any sort of exit renumbering when the JFK Expressway was put in. Before the city went in and replaced it all, some of the older button copy signs had newish exit tabs. Was the Nassau Expressway originally exit 18 and they changed it to 19 since exit 19 on the other direction connects to 678. Also why is there an exit 18B and no 18A? The numbering in general seems really wonky like it seems like they were going for a mileage based thing in Queens but then in Brooklyn it's back to sequential.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 26, 2022, 09:48:16 PM
LOL See all the confusion caused by exit numbering? California had it right all those years! LOL
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 26, 2022, 10:23:10 PM
Sunrise Mall is dead.
So now is the time to use the land to convert NY 27 into the Expressway it was intended to be.



Excuse me while I laugh hysterically at the thought this would ever happen in any universe ever on Long Island in 2022 or 2052 or 2092 or 2142.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahano.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 26, 2022, 11:35:17 PM
Sunrise Mall is dead.
So now is the time to use the land to convert NY 27 into the Expressway it was intended to be.



Excuse me while I laugh hysterically at the thought this would ever happen in any universe ever on Long Island in 2022 or 2052 or 2092 or 2142.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahano.

especially considering how much trouble the DOT is having just building two grade seperations on 347, its safe to say the freeway system on Long Island is pretty much stuck the way it is till climate change sinks the island into the Atlantic Ocean.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 28, 2022, 04:30:01 PM
What really needs to be a full freeway on Long Island is Nichols Road, the way that highway is set up, is very dangerous with the surprise traffic lights that show up around curves. The intersections already are designed that there is enough room to make overpasses and there are "service roads" in the section around Centerreach.
Oh, you know I've wanted that too. Between Suffolk CR 16 and NY 25. they need partial interchanges for Suffolk County Community College. Between NY 25 and NY 347, the need to use the "service roads" for a partial interchange with Hawkins and Wireless Road (northbound) and Mark Tree Road (southbound), North of NY 347, interchanges at Oxhead Road, and the entrance of Stony Brook University. Everything else should either wind up on frontage roads, bridges with no access or dead end streets.

Excuse me while I laugh hysterically at the thought this would ever happen in any universe ever on Long Island in 2022 or 2052 or 2092 or 2142.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahano.
They can grab the land for it and use part of it for new lanes as well as a new interchange with NY 27A.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 28, 2022, 04:33:51 PM
347 will be a neverending project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 28, 2022, 04:54:44 PM
347 will be a neverending project.
Sad, isn't it? They should've just upgraded the road the way they wanted to in the 1960's and 1970's. Hence the decal below all my posts which reads "NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 347; EXPRESSWAY NOW!"


Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 28, 2022, 07:00:23 PM
347 will be a neverending project.
Sad, isn't it? They should've just upgraded the road the way they wanted to in the 1960's and 1970's. Hence the decal below all my posts which reads "NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 347; EXPRESSWAY NOW!"
I mean, what's crazy are the projects that are on the books of NYSDOT's active capital program just over the course of my own career and the goals just are never achieved with incredibly slow delivery and then weirdo local issues.  My window has been only 20 years of a multi-decade trainwreck.

And yet, $10 says within the next month or so, Region 10 will inevitably say on a statewide call, "We need to talk about 347 again, MO..."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 28, 2022, 09:35:29 PM
And nothing will happen again.

I've said this a billion times to the people who give me the stink eye for opposing the Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge. I'm opposed to wasting taxpayer money on stuff that's never going to happen. No one in Nassau or Westchester (or Suffolk) will ever support a new bridge or the land it would take to extend NY 135 to the bridge. We're in a situation where there's a better chance freeways like the 231 Deer Park get taken out more than anything gets built. Just not worth NYSDOT's time. Not worth our taxpayer money. As is we have enough stuff to replace and rebuild just to maintain a healthy road system.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 28, 2022, 09:43:14 PM
Not so sure about that. They didn't even rule out a New Haven - Shoreham Sound Link at the time they were proposing it. A Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge is not needed in my opinion. Any other sound links other than Orient Point- East Lyme seem like a waste of resources. I never got their logic of extending I-287 into Long Island. Even the current cross-weschester doesn't make much sense as I-287.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 28, 2022, 09:45:22 PM
Not so sure about that. They didn't even rule out a New Haven - Shoreham Sound Link at the time they were proposing it. A Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge is not needed in my opinion. Any other sound links other than Orient Point- East Lyme seem like a waste of resources. I never got their logic of extending I-287 into Long Island. Even the current cross-weschester doesn't make much sense as I-287.

LOL. You really think the people in the richest areas of the Peconics are going to support a bridge from Orient Point? There's a better chance I go to Plum Island and get hosed by staffers. Long Island is not getting a 3rd bridge in our lifetimes and I would oppose each one as being a waste of resources.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 28, 2022, 09:52:09 PM
Not so sure about that. They didn't even rule out a New Haven - Shoreham Sound Link at the time they were proposing it. A Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge is not needed in my opinion. Any other sound links other than Orient Point- East Lyme seem like a waste of resources. I never got their logic of extending I-287 into Long Island. Even the current cross-weschester doesn't make much sense as I-287.
Not so sure about that. They didn't even rule out a New Haven - Shoreham Sound Link at the time they were proposing it. A Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge is not needed in my opinion. Any other sound links other than Orient Point- East Lyme seem like a waste of resources. I never got their logic of extending I-287 into Long Island. Even the current cross-weschester doesn't make much sense as I-287.

LOL. You really think the people in the richest areas of the Peconics are going to support a bridge from Orient Point? There's a better chance I go to Plum Island and get hosed by staffers. Long Island is not getting a 3rd bridge in our lifetimes and I would oppose each one as being a waste of resources.

Trying to reconcile his post with the post he's responding to makes his point quite obfuscated, indeed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 28, 2022, 09:56:36 PM
Even the current cross-weschester doesn't make much sense as I-287.

...you do realize that the Cross Westchester was I-287 first, dating back to the 1950s, and that I-287 in New Jersey wasn't finished until 1993, yes?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 28, 2022, 10:08:25 PM
I was agreeing with the person above me that a Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge isn't needed. An Orient Point bridge is needed however, because having to drive from Riverhead to Rhode Island would be insane without it. A central Sound Link would be most beneficial to people who happen to live in the center of Long Island who just so happened to be going to somewhere in Central Connecticut. Not worth a 6 lane 20 mile tunnel. 287 still doesn't make sense as it is an east west road. It should have became Interstate 82.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 28, 2022, 10:12:28 PM
I was agreeing with the person above me that a Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge isn't needed. An Orient Point bridge is needed however, because having to drive from Riverhead to Rhode Island would be insane without it. A central Sound Link would be most beneficial to people who happen to live in the center of Long Island who just so happened to be going to somewhere in Central Connecticut. Not worth a 6 lane 20 mile tunnel. 287 still doesn't make sense as it is an east west road. It should have became Interstate 82.

The majority of people who live in that area can afford the ferry from Orient Point to New London. They also wouldn't want the extra traffic a bridge would produce. They have the money to keep politicians happy. It's not going to happen and there's no point in wasting taxpayer money on a cockamamie concept. The original Orient Point to Watch Hill bridge was an absurdity produced in studies a long time ago. It's too late to build anything. Every single part of Long Island east of Hempstead will oppose some sound link anywhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 28, 2022, 10:15:09 PM
I was agreeing with the person above me that a Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge isn't needed. An Orient Point bridge is needed however, because having to drive from Riverhead to Rhode Island would be insane without it. A central Sound Link would be most beneficial to people who happen to live in the center of Long Island who just so happened to be going to somewhere in Central Connecticut.

The flaw in this thinking is that land doesn't generate traffic, people do. And, well, most of the people in Long Island live closer to the western end of it. The further east you put a new crossing, the less use it would get.

Quote
287 still doesn't make sense as it is an east west road. It should have became Interstate 82.

And I-287 being an east-west road breaks zero rules. The odd/even thing doesn't apply to 3dis.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 28, 2022, 10:29:48 PM
I know it doesn't. But the shape of I-287 is illogical. Thats why I said it should be I-82. The Orient-Watch hill Bridge has got to be the least logical proposal I have ever heard. Why bother building 22+ miles over several tiny islands when you can just go directly over the sound north to CT? A north fork extension of the L.I.E would open suffolk country to more massive development. Given the low level of traffic anyway in both areas, it probably wouldn't get intolerable. It would also relieve traffic on I-95 in CT as it would be a bypass of New Haven to NYC. Of all the sound links proposed, the Orient-New London one is the most logical, and the New Haven-Shoreham one is the least logical, as it would be infeasible. Also, the last two statements about traffic contradict each other.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 28, 2022, 10:34:57 PM
The Orient-Watch hill Bridge has got to be the least logical proposal I have ever heard. Why bother building 22+ miles over several tiny islands when you can just go directly over the sound north to CT?

This is an excellent point and yeah is part of why that proposal is silly.

Quote
Also, the last two statements about traffic contradict each other.

Explain. What two statements are you referring to and where is the contradiction?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 28, 2022, 10:39:55 PM
I'm going to bullet point the reasons your post is illogical:

1. The Orient Point-Watch Hill Bridge would've been 25 miles all over water.
2. An alternate proposal did exist to bring it to Connecticut (at Groton Long Point) instead of Watch Hill, RI. Here are the projected drivership for said bridge (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/113809633/watch-hill-bridge-july-17-1965/).
3. The reason there is low level of traffic is because of the lack of development and people in the Peconic forks would prefer it stay that way to keep the undesirables out. (Undesirables in their mind: anyone not rich or white.)
4. These people have political connections. They will ensure the bridges are never built. Money talks. We could build a Sound bridge anywhere from Orient Point to Sands Point. There's rich people all over the north shore who would sink this.
5. This bridge nowadays would be unable to ever make a profit most likely.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 28, 2022, 10:53:36 PM
The Orient-Watch hill Bridge has got to be the least logical proposal I have ever heard. Why bother building 22+ miles over several tiny islands when you can just go directly over the sound north to CT?

This is an excellent point and yeah is part of why that proposal is silly.

Quote
Also, the last two statements about traffic contradict each other.

Explain. What two statements are you referring to and where is the contradiction?

One post saying the bridge would generate too much traffic, and the other saying due to being that far east, less traffic would use it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 28, 2022, 10:58:38 PM
My post was that it would generate more traffic compared to what exists now. His point was that the traffic projections at an Orient Point bridge would not generate as much traffic as a western sound bridge would.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 28, 2022, 11:59:17 PM
Let's not turn the general NY thread into another MMM thread.  Perhaps the discussion over sound crossings could be separated out?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on November 29, 2022, 12:33:13 PM
Let's not turn the general NY thread into another MMM thread.  Perhaps the discussion over sound crossings could be separated out?
Agreed. anyone with any knowledge of NY would know that a Long Island Sound Crossing, needed or not, is fictional for the time being.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 30, 2022, 04:23:53 AM
Let's not turn the general NY thread into another MMM thread.  Perhaps the discussion over sound crossings could be separated out?
Agreed. anyone with any knowledge of NY would know that a Long Island Sound Crossing, needed or not, is fictional for the time being.
True and it’s a sad state when Europe can build several mega projects like this at once but the US can’t.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on November 30, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Let's not turn the general NY thread into another MMM thread.  Perhaps the discussion over sound crossings could be separated out?
Agreed. anyone with any knowledge of NY would know that a Long Island Sound Crossing, needed or not, is fictional for the time being.
True and it’s a sad state when Europe can build several mega projects like this at once but the US can’t.
Well, NY managed to build a new Tappan Zee aka Daddy's bridge.
Sad that such bridge becomes a megaproject, though - looks like that was much less of a deal 100 years ago
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on December 01, 2022, 07:03:23 PM
I-390 SB between the Thruway (Exit 12) and NY 15/251 (Exit 11) was shut down today due to a tractor trailer fire and subsequent investigation.
https://13wham.com/news/local/tractor-trailer-fire-closes-portion-of-390-south-in-rush



Local news indicated the closure could be a while, so I took an extended detour on my commute home to check out the situation. Here's a brief report:

On 390 SB, I hit traffic just past Exit 14 as traffic exiting at Hylan Dr (Exit 13) was backed up onto the mainline, while the mainline was visibly stopped dead up ahead. I exited and waited about 3 cycles to turn left onto Hylan, which was mostly clear because traffic was only coming off 390 about 12-15 cars at a time. Then right on Calkins, then a left on Middle Rd which was also backed up, but fortunately had a green arrow. I then followed Middle Rd all the way down to NY 251. There was a string of traffic behind me but clear ahead, although it was still a slog with congestion at the NY 253 intersection, several all way stops, and a 40 mph limit the whole way.

From Exit 11, I took NY 15 NB back towards Rochester. I could see the incident from the 390 overpass, although not clearly since it was dusk. NY 15 SB was the primary detour option, so unsurprisingly it was much busier than Middle Rd. Oncoming traffic was steady all the way to the lane drop at Erie Station, which was backed up a bit. The four lane section of 15 was very busy but moving well. I then took NY 253 back to I-390 which was surprisingly clear, I realized that was because traffic was only coming off 390 single file in a steady drizzle, and some of that was going straight to get on the Thruway. I guess they couldn't force a closure at the Thruway exit for detouring reasons, so they closed it at NY 253 instead and let Thruway traffic figure it out. Hopefully no one entered from NY 253 expecting to take 390 SB - if they did, they'd have to pull an illegal U-turn somewhere or take a very long detour via the Thruway!

From there I got back on 390 NB, noting that SB traffic was still backed up past Hylan. I hit a bit of the usual traffic on 590 NB approaching the Can of Worms but otherwise made it back without incident. Hopefully it's reopened by tomorrow because it's a gnarly situation for anyone heading south out of Rochester - and as long as it's closed, anyone heading for the Thruway should take I-490 if they can.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on December 01, 2022, 09:53:46 PM
Another Long Island question, on 495 at exit 49, I noticed half of the super tall streetlights were removed and standard lights installed around the cloverleaf loops on the eastbound side. One is left on the eastbound side just past the loops. Are they planning to remove all of them? It seems like those are more efficient, less bulbs and more light but probably other concerns I’m not aware of. The lights like that by exits 53 and 62 are still there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 04, 2022, 05:13:02 AM
The Orient-Watch hill Bridge has got to be the least logical proposal I have ever heard. Why bother building 22+ miles over several tiny islands when you can just go directly over the sound north to CT?
The proposed East Marion-Old Saybrook Bridge would've been shorter.



A north fork extension of the L.I.E would open suffolk country to more massive development.
I've seen plenty of development going on there even without the North Fork extension of the L.I.E.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 04, 2022, 05:38:29 AM
New topic, specifically the US 6/202/NY 22 overlap in Brewster;

What sign was next to the US 202 sign at this sign tree?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3942949,-73.6070717,3a,75y,44.58h,94.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssAbMzQXakL-Az_KgNlvZGA!2e0!5s20220901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Because even the oldest GSV captures show a blank space.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SGwithADD on December 04, 2022, 10:44:16 AM
New topic, specifically the US 6/202/NY 22 overlap in Brewster;

What sign was next to the US 202 sign at this sign tree?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3942949,-73.6070717,3a,75y,44.58h,94.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssAbMzQXakL-Az_KgNlvZGA!2e0!5s20220901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Because even the oldest GSV captures show a blank space.

The other side of the intersection has a sign for the Brewster Metro North station. Maybe that? Looks like the current signage for the station on US 202 East is at Morningthorpe Rd.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on December 04, 2022, 11:46:30 AM
A north fork extension of the L.I.E would open suffolk country to more massive development.
I've seen plenty of development going on there even without the North Fork extension of the L.I.E.

If anything they should have extended 495 around Riverhead to CR 105 or so, and widened NY 25 to 4 lanes in each direction with a center turning lane to at least Mattituck since they been building out that way with main roads that cannot handle the increase in traffic. Nothing worse coming off the ferry to be stuck behind some slowpoke going under the speed limit for miles and miles where you can't get around them
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 04, 2022, 03:03:29 PM
I think it would be nice if I-495 extended to Mattituck to feed into the CR 48 divided highway (perhaps that could be NY 495 or something?).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 06, 2022, 09:09:36 AM
New topic, specifically the US 6/202/NY 22 overlap in Brewster;

What sign was next to the US 202 sign at this sign tree?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3942949,-73.6070717,3a,75y,44.58h,94.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssAbMzQXakL-Az_KgNlvZGA!2e0!5s20220901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Because even the oldest GSV captures show a blank space.

The other side of the intersection has a sign for the Brewster Metro North station. Maybe that? Looks like the current signage for the station on US 202 East is at Morningthorpe Rd.
That's what I suspected. And yes, the sign for Brewster Metro North Station along eastbound US 202 and northbound NY 22 is at Morningthorpe Road.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3880797,-73.6202326,3a,75y,47.82h,90.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szRAmGRFpzsoLRpl2GoAwdQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on December 06, 2022, 06:07:28 PM
Definitely.

Sunrise Highway should also be extended in both directions to complete a continuous limited access expressway on the south shore.

Honestly the 110 to 109 section might be the only one that might have a slim chance of that, route 27 is far too heavily developed in Nassau county for them to do that. Plus the Hamptons will never go for a freeway no matter how gridlocked it is.

The most realistic way to solve the Hampton traffic would be more frequent like hourly service to Montauk on the railroad, and bus service timed with the trains to hit downtown Montauk and Montauk point lighthouse.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on December 06, 2022, 07:32:39 PM
<------can we move this to fictional highways please?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 06, 2022, 07:37:24 PM
<------can we move this to fictional highways please?
It cuts off here, and MMM will learn the hard way to stop doing this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on December 07, 2022, 10:27:28 AM
An observation on the new 347 construction. Has the grade separated interchange with 25 been cancelled? Driving thru that area the new curbs are in that seem to indicate that the traffic light is staying, especially since they already installed one of the new green poles for the new traffic lights. The extra right off way in the southeast quadrant is becoming what looks to be a storm retention pond. Also none of the local Long Island news articles about the construction continuing mention an interchange being built there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on December 07, 2022, 01:58:49 PM
An observation on the new 347 construction. Has the grade separated interchange with 25 been cancelled? Driving thru that area the new curbs are in that seem to indicate that the traffic light is staying, especially since they already installed one of the new green poles for the new traffic lights. The extra right off way in the southeast quadrant is becoming what looks to be a storm retention pond. Also none of the local Long Island news articles about the construction continuing mention an interchange being built there.
It is listed on the NYSDOT website (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=0T2493) as beginning construction in Fall 2029, which could mean anything.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 07, 2022, 02:38:19 PM
An observation on the new 347 construction. Has the grade separated interchange with 25 been cancelled? Driving thru that area the new curbs are in that seem to indicate that the traffic light is staying, especially since they already installed one of the new green poles for the new traffic lights. The extra right off way in the southeast quadrant is becoming what looks to be a storm retention pond. Also none of the local Long Island news articles about the construction continuing mention an interchange being built there.
It is listed on the NYSDOT website (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=0T2493) as beginning construction in Fall 2029, which could mean anything.
That's beyond the end of the current TIP and is therefore nothing more than a placeholder.

(personal opinion emphasized).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 15, 2022, 07:59:38 PM
Is there plans to reopen the closed rest area on 495 Westbound across from that new Long Island Welcome Center one? I drove by there last week and noticed the concrete barriers were gone (it was coned off), and the whole thing was repaved with new lines and everything in addition to the main repaving project on 495 in Suffolk county. If they were planning to keep it closed why bother repaving it?
I emailed Region 10 and just heard back today.  It's going to be a truck inspection site.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on December 16, 2022, 08:52:04 AM
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the freeway system of central New York State and the Syracuse metropolitan area. We'll also be continuing our discussion from last week about "The Three R's" (Replace/Relocate/Remove) of urban freeway replacement; there will be an in-depth discussion (that will likely take up the majority of the show) about how Syracuse's "Community Grid" plan to remove the downtown segment of Interstate 81 came to be, this proposal's pros & cons, and how this controversial plan may or may not serve as a template for future urban planning movements across North America. Since we know this topic is a lightning rod of sorts within the roads/travel community, we'd also welcome your thoughtful comments & questions in the live chat during our discussion, that way we can make things a bit more interactive than we normally allow.

If you'd like to join us live, we'll get started on Saturday (12/17) at 6 PM ET. Regardless, the link to this show can be found below:

Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on December 16, 2022, 10:55:27 AM
Is there plans to reopen the closed rest area on 495 Westbound across from that new Long Island Welcome Center one? I drove by there last week and noticed the concrete barriers were gone (it was coned off), and the whole thing was repaved with new lines and everything in addition to the main repaving project on 495 in Suffolk county. If they were planning to keep it closed why bother repaving it?
I emailed Region 10 and just heard back today.  It's going to be a truck inspection site.

Hopefully the flashing lights for it work unlike the one by exit 48 where all the signs are busted and they cart out a portable vms for it
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 19, 2022, 01:47:52 PM
I think I've asked this before, but does Region 10 plan to replace these two signs near the Camp Hero East Overlook?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EB_NY_27_in_Montauk;_Old_Overlook_1000_Ft_Sign.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EB_NY_27_in_Montauk;_Old_Overlook_Directional_Sign.jpg
Preferably with brown and white signs of comparable size?


Title: Re: New York
Post by: amroad17 on December 20, 2022, 03:14:05 AM
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the freeway system of central New York State and the Syracuse metropolitan area. We'll also be continuing our discussion from last week about "The Three R's" (Replace/Relocate/Remove) of urban freeway replacement; there will be an in-depth discussion (that will likely take up the majority of the show) about how Syracuse's "Community Grid" plan to remove the downtown segment of Interstate 81 came to be, this proposal's pros & cons, and how this controversial plan may or may not serve as a template for future urban planning movements across North America. Since we know this topic is a lightning rod of sorts within the roads/travel community, we'd also welcome your thoughtful comments & questions in the live chat during our discussion, that way we can make things a bit more interactive than we normally allow.

If you'd like to join us live, we'll get started on Saturday (12/17) at 6 PM ET. Regardless, the link to this show can be found below:

I have watched this webinar broadcast and, along with three others I have watched, I am impressed at the time you put into these and I am impressed with the quality and content presented.

I was born and lived in the area (Town of Camillus) up until I was 10 and visited regularly throughout my teens and early 20's.  I have seen the construction of some of your highways presented in the Syracuse webinar in would like to offer a few observations.

1.  The southeastern bypass of Syracuse was originally I-281.  The first section built was between NY 5 and Jamesville Rd., then was completed to the Thruway by the early 1970's.  NY 481 and I-481 north of the Thruway was originally going to be a "Relocated Route 57" when plans were developed in the mid-1960's.  Partly because of the fairly close location of NY 281, where its northern terminus in Tully is approximately 15 miles south of the I-81/I-481 south interchange, I-281 was renumbered to I-481 with I-481 was extended to I-81 in North Syracuse and "Relocated Route 57" west of I-81 was renumbered to NY 481 effective January 1, 1970.

2.  NY 690 is built as a bypass of Baldwinsville but was not numbered NY 690 when it opened in the spring of 1971.  It was numbered as a relocated NY 48.  The part of current NY 48 through Seneca Knolls and Baldwinsville must have been retained as a reference route for the next step to occur--the renumbering of NY 48 to NY 690 in 1975 and then having NY 48 put back on its original routing.

3.  I-690 originally ended at a stoplight where the old Exit 39 Thruway ramps north of current Exit 5 (State Fair Blvd) were.  Before I-690 was built in the early 1960's, NY 48, which originated in Syracuse and followed State Fair Blvd, used to follow the Walters Road ROW, the current I-690 ROW, and went straight through where the ramps for John Glenn Blvd are now meeting up where the ramp split is for NY 48/I-690.  When the Baldwinsville Bypass was complete it started at the stoplight and was considered NY 48 then NY 690 to where the current Thruway ramps are that were completed in 1987.  That section was changed to I-690 at that time.  Also, I-690 had a split at the Fairgrounds.  WB I-690 has always been in that location.  EB I-690 split just west of the NY 695 ramps and went under the current Fairgrounds parking lot bridges before rejoining the WB lanes just east of the NY 297/Solvay interchange.  When NY 695 was completed in 1977, I-690 was reconfigured next to the WB lanes to accommodate the ramps from NY 695.

4.  NY 695 originally was a reference route (NY 930T) when it first opened and was signed as TO I-690 or TO NY 5 on the BGSs.  It was the early 1980's, I believe 1983, it was signed NY 695.  Yes, it was chosen as 695 because of I-690 and NY 5.

5.  The NY 5 freeway was completed in 1979 from Hinsdale Road to its end in Camillus.  The NY 695 to Hinsdale section opened the year before.  The section from NY 5 in Geddes to current NY 695 and all of current NY 695 opened in 1977.  This I saw from its construction beginnings to its finished product on my visits to see the relatives.  NY 5 was to be part of a larger expressway system extending west to Auburn and east to I-81 south of Syracuse.  If built the NY 5 expressway was supposed to tie into Grant Ave. near Chestnut Ridge Road northeast of Auburn.  The eastern end had three different proposed endings.  One had a freeway ending at I-81 between the I-481 and US 11/Nedrow interchanges, approximately between Conifer Drive and Richfield Ave off of US 11 in Nedrow.  Another had it tying into the I-81/I-481 interchange.  The third had an expressway/arterial mix following Grand Ave. north of the Western Lights Shopping Plaza then somehow following Onondaga Street and West Street tying into the freeway part of West Street leading to I-690.  Due to cost constraints and suburb development, these proposals never occurred.  If this had been started in the early 1960's, there is a chance that one of these three Syracuse proposals could have come to fruition.  The Auburn proposal may have been completed also, even though traffic counts then did not warrant its construction.

6.  I-81 was completed between then NY 57 (current NY 370) and Brewerton around 1960 as well as from Tully to Nedrow in the mid 1950's.  The divided highway on US 11 north of the Nedrow interchange was considered a temporary section of I-81 when it opened because the freeway curved onto that four-lane section before the Nedrow interchange was built.  I-81 was completed from then NY 57 to downtown Syracuse in 1961.  The section of I-81 from Exit 19 to Nedrow was completed in 1967 which included the viaduct.  I-81 was relocated to its current location near Carousel Center (DestiNY USA) around 1980.  I-81 used to have a sharper curve.  Going NB it followed the current ramps to NY 370 and Old Liverpool Road, and then curved north following the current Exit 23A-23B-22 SB off-ramp.  Personally, I would have liked to see the I-81 viaduct rebuilt in place, however, with the space constraint, the Community Grid seems to be the only option.

7.  Yes, it is fairly hilly south and west of Syracuse which is why a western bypass of the city probably was never considered.

8.  You are correct in your statement of why there are quite a few Thruway interchanges around Syracuse (originally 5, now 6).  Carrier needed one in DeWitt and GE needed one at Electronics Pkwy. (Lockheed Martin was GE up until 1972 when GE transferred their TV producing operations from Syracuse to Suffolk, VA--I should know, my father worked at that GE plant, was part of the transfer, and was the reason I moved to Chesapeake, VA when I was 10).  Also, there needed to be an interchange for the Fairgrounds and for I-81, therefore the relative closeness of the interchanges (it is 13 miles from Exit 34A, I-481, to Exit 39, I-690; it is 15 miles to the next interchanges [34 and 40] each side of Syracuse).

These observations are in no means critical of your presentation.  I wanted to provide some insight, and maybe a deeper story, on the Syracuse freeways you covered.  Even though I have not lived in the area for 50 years, I still have ties as far as relatives and also with my favorite college team (Go Orange!).  BTW, I visit Heid's every time I am in the area.

If there is a Hampton Roads webinar, and I am not working, I would like to try to find a way to be a part of that webinar.  I lived in the area for 22 years and saw the completion of all the freeways in the area, especially VA 164, I-664, and the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel--as I lived only two miles east of I-664.  If I am not able to join in, I will watch the telecast and may offer some more observations about that area.

Thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do!  :thumbsup:  :clap:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on December 20, 2022, 01:45:15 PM
I noticed in Albany, despite its bad signage on city street routes, NY 32 acknowledges US 9 quite well, but at State Street there are no shields to acknowledge NY’s longest running E-W state highway at that location.

In fact NY 5 itself has no trailblazing except at the west end of State Street where NY 5 turns. However drive further west to where NY 5 changes alignment from Washington to Central and no shield to inform through travelers of the change. Oh wait, Lark Street is US 9W. That intersects just before Central, and you would never know it.

It seems all routes get some kind of signage, but NY 5 gets none like it’s the forgotten route within the capital. To me NY 5 is one of the most important routes in the state, but the capital treats it like garbage. It serves Buffalo, Syracuse, and Utica along with other smaller cities like Batavia, Auburn and Ripley.  It is a very important link for the Empire State and gets the worst by the states center for government.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on December 22, 2022, 04:45:20 PM
I noticed in Albany, despite its bad signage on city street routes, NY 32 acknowledges US 9 quite well, but at State Street there are no shields to acknowledge NY’s longest running E-W state highway at that location.

In fact NY 5 itself has no trailblazing except at the west end of State Street where NY 5 turns. However drive further west to where NY 5 changes alignment from Washington to Central and no shield to inform through travelers of the change. Oh wait, Lark Street is US 9W. That intersects just before Central, and you would never know it.

It seems all routes get some kind of signage, but NY 5 gets none like it’s the forgotten route within the capital. To me NY 5 is one of the most important routes in the state, but the capital treats it like garbage. It serves Buffalo, Syracuse, and Utica along with other smaller cities like Batavia, Auburn and Ripley.  It is a very important link for the Empire State and gets the worst by the states center for government.

Speaking of the Capital District, do the media therein refer to "Free 90" as that, or is it just us on AARoads who do?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on December 22, 2022, 04:49:53 PM
I noticed in Albany, despite its bad signage on city street routes, NY 32 acknowledges US 9 quite well, but at State Street there are no shields to acknowledge NY’s longest running E-W state highway at that location.

In fact NY 5 itself has no trailblazing except at the west end of State Street where NY 5 turns. However drive further west to where NY 5 changes alignment from Washington to Central and no shield to inform through travelers of the change. Oh wait, Lark Street is US 9W. That intersects just before Central, and you would never know it.

It seems all routes get some kind of signage, but NY 5 gets none like it’s the forgotten route within the capital. To me NY 5 is one of the most important routes in the state, but the capital treats it like garbage. It serves Buffalo, Syracuse, and Utica along with other smaller cities like Batavia, Auburn and Ripley.  It is a very important link for the Empire State and gets the worst by the states center for government.

Speaking of the Capital District, do the media therein refer to "Free 90" as that, or is it just us on AARoads who do?
I-90, Northway, Thruway and Alt-7 seem to be common
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 22, 2022, 08:11:35 PM
I noticed in Albany, despite its bad signage on city street routes, NY 32 acknowledges US 9 quite well, but at State Street there are no shields to acknowledge NY’s longest running E-W state highway at that location.

In fact NY 5 itself has no trailblazing except at the west end of State Street where NY 5 turns. However drive further west to where NY 5 changes alignment from Washington to Central and no shield to inform through travelers of the change. Oh wait, Lark Street is US 9W. That intersects just before Central, and you would never know it.

It seems all routes get some kind of signage, but NY 5 gets none like it’s the forgotten route within the capital. To me NY 5 is one of the most important routes in the state, but the capital treats it like garbage. It serves Buffalo, Syracuse, and Utica along with other smaller cities like Batavia, Auburn and Ripley.  It is a very important link for the Empire State and gets the worst by the states center for government.

Speaking of the Capital District, do the media therein refer to "Free 90" as that, or is it just us on AARoads who do?
I-90, Northway, Thruway and Alt-7 seem to be common
Free 90 is heard in the Capital District.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on December 22, 2022, 11:36:03 PM
I drove through Cortland twice yesterday going to and from Greek Peak.  NY 13 to NY 215 the mid morning, US 11 NB through town in the later afternoon.  Signs for the state routes and US 11 are there for the most part but also are either missing sufficient signage for some key turns or I was just not good at seeing them.

I was also really surprised how poorly traffic was moving through the city.  Long red lights waiting for nonexistent cross traffic, too-short green arrows for the number of cars stacked up to turn, and lights seemingly not timed appropriately for the dominant traffic flow.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on December 23, 2022, 05:06:37 PM
I was also really surprised how poorly traffic was moving through the city.  Long red lights waiting for nonexistent cross traffic, too-short green arrows for the number of cars stacked up to turn, and lights seemingly not timed appropriately for the dominant traffic flow.

Concur, this has been the story of Cortland pretty much every time I've been through. NY 281 usually moves pretty well, so you can use that to connect to I-81 Exit 12 without any issues, but anything within city limits is usually just as you describe.. no doubt amplified yesterday by everyone doing their last-minute shopping and errands before the holiday.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on December 30, 2022, 12:45:15 PM
The Storm King Highway portion of NY Route 218 is now closed, probably for the Winter.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 02, 2023, 10:25:19 AM
Some interesting proposals I found when looking up a site on Long Island parks, specifically Wildwood State Park;

https://liparks.com/history/the-hidden-past-of-wildwood-state-park/

Quote
The first mention of Wildwood Park is seen in an article from April 9th, 1925 from the County Review, which reported that the state had plans to improve and even create highways in the area, including a “Highway from the proposed park at Wading River, which will be known as Wildwood Park, to the Wading River — Roanoke — Mattituck highway” .
Now, I've heard of William Floyd Parkway (CR 46) being declared a state parkway and extended to Wildwood, and I've heard of the Northern State Parkway being extended to Wildwood, but this is the first I've heard of a parkway between Wildwood State Park and Mattituck.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on January 17, 2023, 10:43:24 PM
Advisory from the PA: All New Jersey-Bound Traffic at Holland Tunnel to Be Suspended Six Overnights Each Week for Critical Superstorm Sandy Repairs (https://www.panynj.gov/port-authority/en/press-room/press-release-archives/2022-press-releases1/travel-advisory----all-new-jersey-bound-traffic-at-holland-tunne.html)

Quote
Beginning at 11 p.m. on Sunday, Feb. 5, through 2025, the New Jersey-bound tube of the Holland Tunnel will close during off-peak hours six overnights each week to accommodate extensive and critical repairs from damage caused by Superstorm Sandy.

The work that must be undertaken in both tubes of the 1.6-mile-long tunnel during the overnight closures include repairs to and replacement of mechanical, electrical, communications and plumbing systems damaged by latent salt from Sandy seawater flooding, as well as repairs to architectural, structural and civil elements of the tunnel infrastructure. These systems suffered major damage when 30 million gallons of brackish water entered the tunnel through the New Jersey portals and ventilation buildings in the aftermath of Sandy, which struck the New York metropolitan area in October 2012.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 27, 2023, 09:42:42 PM
Looks like this is the week for members of the state legislature to propose bills that are of interest to roadgeeks.

https://auburnpub.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/70-mph-ny-senator-eyes-higher-speed-limit-on-thruway-state-highways/article_90ee55b1-41a6-5a26-a6ab-85f22c9eb0ee.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on January 27, 2023, 10:56:10 PM
Looks like this is the week for members of the state legislature to propose bills that are of interest to roadgeeks.

https://auburnpub.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/70-mph-ny-senator-eyes-higher-speed-limit-on-thruway-state-highways/article_90ee55b1-41a6-5a26-a6ab-85f22c9eb0ee.html

Never going to happen. Someone in another thread posted something about a 75 mph bill that was proposed back in like 2016, and 6 years later it's still "in committee" (the 2nd out of like 5-6 steps in signing a bill into law). Probably wouldn't change the number of tickets either really as most cops likely already give you up to 80 mph in 65 zones, they'd probably keep the enforcement threshold at 80 even if it went up to 70.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 28, 2023, 04:25:54 PM
^ I didn't want to get political, but given the party of the legislative members who proposed this bill (and the one for mile-based numbers on the Thruway) and the party that actually has power at the state level in NY, especially given that Hochul has called to pass Sammy's Law (20 mph speed limits in NYC) in this year's State of the State, I agree it's a long shot.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 30, 2023, 09:18:14 AM
The fact that you now have traffic jams as far east as Exit 68, doesn't give me much confidence in seeing the speed limit raised anywhere on the Long Island Expressway.

Portions of the Thruway getting a raise, I can understand.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on January 30, 2023, 12:06:05 PM
The thruway is curvier than the Long Island Expressway, so I-495 should be the first to get a speed limit raise. And as of now, I am not saying 75 mph (which it really should be), I am saying 65 mph just to match NYS's own speed limit law.

Wait, what? The Thruway has very few curves and great sightlines throughout. I agree I-495 should be 65 mph at least, but not because it's straighter than the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 30, 2023, 12:41:12 PM
The Thruway is as straight as Illinois is flat.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on January 30, 2023, 02:13:49 PM
Straight or curvy or whatever, it seems unlikely to me that there are any engineering reasons that 80% or more of the Thruway's mileage needs a speed limit below 70 or even 75.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on January 30, 2023, 03:10:43 PM
Straight or curvy or whatever, it seems unlikely to me that there are any engineering reasons that 80% or more of the Thruway's mileage needs a speed limit below 70 or even 75.
Someone mentioned that Northway, build roughly in the same timeframe, is designed for 75 MPH, and safety margin needs to be kept in mind
I believe stability of cars did improve over time, so 80-85 is not uncommon on Northway, and it  doesn't feel too bad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kirbykart on January 30, 2023, 06:25:19 PM
The Northway's a lot curvier than the Thruway. MMM, have you even driven the Thruway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on January 30, 2023, 08:40:35 PM
Yes, to and from Albany. But I haven't driven I-90 yet. The Long Island Expressway and Sunrise Highway are much straighter. Have you even driven those. Speaking of the thruway, what's the status on electronic toll collection? Has it been fully converted to by mail (its been a year ot two since I drive on it).

The Thruway went all electronic in November 2020.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on January 30, 2023, 10:02:49 PM
But I haven't driven I-90 yet.

Well, that explains quite a bit. I-495 is fairly straight east of Melville, but no straighter than this (https://goo.gl/maps/c9mENXXciKoes3Ai7), for example, or this (https://goo.gl/maps/TJYiwPD5r72aYH8N6).

Title: Re: New York
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on January 30, 2023, 10:14:51 PM
Those two are almost the same as sunrise highway in suffolk county. The roads are obviously much longer so they could use a higher speed limit for that reason, but in terms of design, it's not that different than long island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on February 04, 2023, 08:22:06 AM
The fact that you now have traffic jams as far east as Exit 68, doesn't give me much confidence in seeing the speed limit raised anywhere on the Long Island Expressway.

Portions of the Thruway getting a raise, I can understand.

I have seen traffic jams up to exit 64, but never 68. And speed limit shouldn't be set based on traffic levels because then you are punishing people for driving faster at times when there is less traffic. The thruway is curvier than the Long Island Expressway, so I-495 should be the first to get a speed limit raise. And as of now, I am not saying 75 mph (which it really should be), I am saying 65 mph just to match NYS's own speed limit law.

Maybe at rush hour.  If you head out east on a weekend, you're generally not going to see traffic jams that far out, especially if it's not at a time of the year when there's Hamptons traffic.  There's no good reason why going 65 MPH on there is any less safe than in any of the places where it's allowed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 07, 2023, 01:41:11 PM
New topic since it happened all of the sudden; Were there any road or railway structures damaged by the recent West Seneca Earthquake?


Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on February 07, 2023, 02:05:43 PM
We've lost a chimney in North Buffalo that collapsed on a car. Wasn't powerful enough to cause any serious damage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 07, 2023, 03:34:59 PM
How often do earthquakes occur in New York state? This is the first time I've heard of one happening in New York.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 07, 2023, 04:49:22 PM
How often do earthquakes occur in New York state? This is the first time I've heard of one happening in New York.
Depends on strength. Some low profile events are there all the time. Albany area saw 3 local noticable events in past 100 years, and a few more remote were felt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Au_Sable_Forks_earthquake
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_Cornwall%E2%80%93Massena_earthquake
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-abstract/48/1-2/37/141677/Intensity-Rating-of-the-Attica-Earthquake-of-Aug?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 07, 2023, 07:43:21 PM
How often do earthquakes occur in New York state? This is the first time I've heard of one happening in New York.
NYSDOT MO was shaken by one about ten years ago.  A few employees ran outside.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 07, 2023, 07:51:05 PM
How often do earthquakes occur in New York state? This is the first time I've heard of one happening in New York.
NYSDOT MO was shaken by one about ten years ago.  A few employees ran outside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Virginia_earthquake
I had that one in mind when I said "non-local"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on February 07, 2023, 08:06:49 PM
Why does the Meadowbrook Parkway have inconsistent use of overheads?
https://goo.gl/maps/EESSdGaqwn18cnhp6

In this photo at Exit M9 W NB it has one installed.
Yet at NB Exit M9E there is none.

https://goo.gl/maps/TARxW5byeQVb9tBv8

The latter is part of a cloverleaf, and should get overheads, but don’t.


Also if trucks are not allowed on the Meadowbrook why are there signs stating that they, buses, and trailers need to depart the roadway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on February 07, 2023, 08:26:59 PM
The reason there is an overhead in the first photo is because they needed a sign gantry anyway re: the advance sign for the next exit. There is no overhead in the second photo because it seems to be NYS DOT Region 10's policy not to use overheads at the first exit of a two exit cloverleaf interchange on the Long Island Parkways.

It appears to be their philosophy that a slightly lower level of signing is acceptable on the Parkways because there is no heavy truck and bus traffic.

Although commercial trucks are prohibited on the L.I. Parkways, there is an exception for the Meadowbrook and Wantagh Pkwy's south of Merrick Rd. to allow deliveries of food, merchandise etc. to Jones Beach. Ditto for passenger busses transporting beachgoers to/from Long Island Railroad Stations on the mainland to/from Jones Beach.

There is some seriously deficient signing further north on the Meadowbrook Pkwy northbound at Exits M6W and M6E, the Southern State Pkwy.  At that interchange there is a right exit and a left/lane-drop exit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on February 07, 2023, 10:58:02 PM
How often do earthquakes occur in New York state? This is the first time I've heard of one happening in New York.
More often than you'd think. A fault line runs right down the middle of the St Lawrence River. They're usually pretty minor when they do happen though.

SM-S908U

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 07, 2023, 11:23:11 PM
I'm starting to wonder if there should be some ramps eliminated from the Meadowbrook Parkway interchange with Merrick Road. The biggest problem with doing that is messing up the median at the Merrick Road Parklands.

More often than you'd think. A fault line runs right down the middle of the St Lawrence River. They're usually pretty minor when they do happen though.

There's also a notable one near the Ramapo River.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on February 07, 2023, 11:30:05 PM
To me the Meadowbrook is a lot like I-95 in Connecticut with exits very close.  Just in Merrick alone you have 3 cloverleaf interchanges within a mile providing 6 continuous exits with 6 merges.

Also above in SignBridge reply, he brings up Region 10 not using overheads due to the lack of big vehicles using the parkways may be said about the Palisades Interstate Parkway in Rockland and Orange Counties not in the jurisdiction of Region 10.  I always noticed that on the PIP all cloverleafs have no overheads even after the 1987 resigning of the highway within the NY parts of the parkway.  Plus NJ lacks them as well, at the southern end where the US 9W connector splits from the median of the parkway before the GWB approach, could use overheads directing motorists to the various points the southern end connects with.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on February 08, 2023, 08:49:31 PM
The north end of the Meadowbrook Pkwy also has exits in close succession around the Roosevelt Field Mall. (Exits M1-2-3) As a result, in some cases the first advance signs for some of those exits is only 1/4 mile instead of NYS DOT's usual 1/2 mile or more.

Again they seem to feel this is acceptable on a road with no heavy trucks or busses. That section of the Meadowbrook was built in 1956 and I guess at that time such close spacing of interchanges was considered reasonable on the parkways by Robt. Moses' engineers using 1950's design standards. 

It's worth noting that area around the Mall has an unusually high number of fender-bender collisions due to the very high traffic volume of the New York City/Long Island area even without  trucks and busses. Lots of weaving patterns and traffic backing up on exit ramps sometimes down onto the parkway itself. Especially bad southbound at Exit M1W, Old Country Rd.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on February 09, 2023, 08:28:21 AM
Anyone know if R9 is going to finish paving between Oneonta and Richmondville?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on February 17, 2023, 03:22:33 PM
https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23

Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on February 18, 2023, 07:51:31 AM
https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23

Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.

"Increased mass transit?"  In a rural area like the Catskills?  Keep dreaming...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 18, 2023, 08:14:18 AM
https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23

Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.

"Increased mass transit?"  In a rural area like the Catskills?  Keep dreaming...
If 6 lanes are called for, it's not rural Catskills. More public transportation options for west side of Hudson was also called for when Tappan Zee replacement was discussed. It's not as crazy logistics wise to have a rail crossing and more rail commute for that area (crazy finance wise, though)
Now completion of I-86 is a completely different story, pun intended
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 18, 2023, 09:41:55 AM
https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23

Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.

"Increased mass transit?"  In a rural area like the Catskills?  Keep dreaming...
Decades ago, there was talk about providing more rail lines of some sort between the City or Westchester and Rockland Counties and the resorts/camps in the Catskills.

Due to the expected religious affiliation of the possible passengers back then, this led to someone making a very tasteless joke about the proposal that actually had a hand in killing the entire idea.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 18, 2023, 09:58:19 AM
https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23

Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.

"Increased mass transit?"  In a rural area like the Catskills?  Keep dreaming...
If 6 lanes are called for, it's not rural Catskills. More public transportation options for west side of Hudson was also called for when Tappan Zee replacement was discussed. It's not as crazy logistics wise to have a rail crossing and more rail commute for that area (crazy finance wise, though)
Now completion of I-86 is a completely different story, pun intended

I would disagree. Weekend traffic can completely overwhelm NY 17 from Monticello eastward. Even though the Catskills tourism industry has shifted from its over-reliance on Jewish-owned resorts in the Borscht Belt, it still has a considerable amount of traffic for its many other destinations - including the new Legoland. The many, many Jewish summer camps and settlements also generate a lot of traffic - to the point of creating very slow-moving traffic for dozens of miles on Friday and Sunday nights (unfortunately finding this out too many times). There is enough traffic to justify six lanes east of Monticello. I just wish the state was more aggressive in the closure of obsolete and duplicate highway ramps now, but at the least most will be taken care of in future projects.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on February 18, 2023, 10:07:23 AM
However, I would also argue that east of Monticello is not truly "rural" either, at least relative to northern Sullivan and Delaware counties.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on February 18, 2023, 10:49:25 AM
Not sure widening 17 is worth it unless/until NYSTA widens the Thruway between 287 and Harriman.  Especially eastbound/southbound, any widening of 17 will just shift the bottleneck to the Thruway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on February 18, 2023, 11:33:31 AM

https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23

Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.

"Increased mass transit?"  In a rural area like the Catskills?  Keep dreaming...
If 6 lanes are called for, it's not rural Catskills. More public transportation options for west side of Hudson was also called for when Tappan Zee replacement was discussed. It's not as crazy logistics wise to have a rail crossing and more rail commute for that area (crazy finance wise, though)
Now completion of I-86 is a completely different story, pun intended

I would disagree. Weekend traffic can completely overwhelm NY 17 from Monticello eastward. Even though the Catskills tourism industry has shifted from its over-reliance on Jewish-owned resorts in the Borscht Belt, it still has a considerable amount of traffic for its many other destinations - including the new Legoland. The many, many Jewish summer camps and settlements also generate a lot of traffic - to the point of creating very slow-moving traffic for dozens of miles on Friday and Sunday nights (unfortunately finding this out too many times). There is enough traffic to justify six lanes east of Monticello. I just wish the state was more aggressive in the closure of obsolete and duplicate highway ramps now, but at the least most will be taken care of in future projects.
So, correct me if I am wrong, but there are multiple factors pulling preferences in multiple directions

- more public transportation for commute would be great
- but that is too expensive, we have to use existing roads instead, improvement is cheaper
- but weekend traffic is overwhelming, and cannot be served by trains
- but as @Alps tells us, look at 90% service availability, not at peaks
- and Adirondacks and Catskills are running beyond visitor's capacity (I have to reluctantly agree with that), so more visitor throughput isn't  the goal
- traffic distribution capacity may not be there, as @froggie points out.
- I-86 for long haul traffic!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on February 18, 2023, 02:14:22 PM
https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23

Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.

"Increased mass transit?"  In a rural area like the Catskills?  Keep dreaming...
They want everyone else to live in crowded cities and get around on the bus so they can keep their bucolic paradise
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on February 18, 2023, 10:00:01 PM
if I'm reading the protest right, there's no guarantees it has to be Route 17-focused mass transit, but buses to Monticello probably would not hurt anyone.

That said I support not widening 17 west of 119. We don't need 6 lanes through that stretch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 10, 2023, 03:15:14 PM
A little NY 25A/Washington Spy Trail History;
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/vacation-ideas--336221928443286018/


https://washingtonspytrail.com/

https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23

Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.

"Increased mass transit?"  In a rural area like the Catskills?  Keep dreaming...
They want everyone else to live in crowded cities and get around on the bus so they can keep their bucolic paradise
That pretty much describes every anti-highway organization, most notably the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, the Affiliated Brookhaven Civics Organizations, and the "Campaign to Save Route 25A."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on March 19, 2023, 09:39:11 AM
It's been a while since I traveled to any of the Northway north of Exit 30, and was surprised to see a highest elevation on I-87 sign.  Anyone know if that's relatively new or if I just never noticed it on earlier trips up that way?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 22, 2023, 12:48:30 PM
Something interesting I became aware of today... apparently Mt. McGregor Road in Wilton has reference markers (https://goo.gl/maps/KXcS22Ej12zQHwNTA) denoting it as route 948.  There's no current or former reference route for the road listed on Empire State Roads (http://empirestateroads.com/sr/refroute1.html), and the number doesn't even correspond to the current format.  I know of two others that are similarly marked - Freemans Bridge Road (949) and Glen Cove Road (904), but those are both current reference routes (911F and 900B, respectively).  Does anyone know about these old 900 series numbers?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 22, 2023, 02:40:08 PM
Something interesting I became aware of today... apparently Mt. McGregor Road in Wilton has reference markers (https://goo.gl/maps/KXcS22Ej12zQHwNTA) denoting it as route 948.  There's no current or former reference route for the road listed on Empire State Roads (http://empirestateroads.com/sr/refroute1.html), and the number doesn't even correspond to the current format.  I know of two others that are similarly marked - Freemans Bridge Road (949) and Glen Cove Road (904), but those are both current reference routes (911F and 900B, respectively).  Does anyone know about these old 900 series numbers?
Did you blow off some dust on an old copy of the Sufficiency Manual?  Probably is in there somewhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on March 25, 2023, 08:21:05 AM
Something interesting I became aware of today... apparently Mt. McGregor Road in Wilton has reference markers (https://goo.gl/maps/KXcS22Ej12zQHwNTA) denoting it as route 948.  There's no current or former reference route for the road listed on Empire State Roads (http://empirestateroads.com/sr/refroute1.html), and the number doesn't even correspond to the current format.  I know of two others that are similarly marked - Freemans Bridge Road (949) and Glen Cove Road (904), but those are both current reference routes (911F and 900B, respectively).  Does anyone know about these old 900 series numbers?

Back when I was in college, I tried to do a FOIL request for old reference route numbers, but they didn't have anything.  I assume that these numbers predate the current reference route system, and they've been retained on the reference markers in the same way that NY 900F = NY 25C and NY 900W = NY 27A.  According to the reference route listings on Empire State Roads, there were a bunch of others, but when I've poked around on Google Street View, I haven't been able to find any reference markers for most of them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on March 25, 2023, 08:29:08 AM
For example, at http://www.empirestateroads.com/sr/refroute8.html, it says that Ulster Avenue in Kingston should be NY 979, but when I look at it in Google Street View, I see NY 981M reference markers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on March 26, 2023, 01:29:12 AM
I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash

The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/

I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.

https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X

The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 26, 2023, 01:31:18 AM
It's been a while since I traveled to any of the Northway north of Exit 30, and was surprised to see a highest elevation on I-87 sign.  Anyone know if that's relatively new or if I just never noticed it on earlier trips up that way?

That's new in the past 2 years. Probably new in the past 7 months, because I'm not seeing it on August 2022 GSV.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 26, 2023, 08:33:42 AM
I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash

The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/

I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.

https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X

The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
They were going the wrong direction on the Parkway.  That's on them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on March 26, 2023, 08:03:56 PM
I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash

The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/

I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.

https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X

The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
They were going the wrong direction on the Parkway.  That's on them.

The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.

That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the impaired driver. End of story.

There was another excellent book written about the accident and its investigation. The Taconic Tragedy, A Son's Search For The Truth, by Jeanne Bastardi, a relative of one of the people killed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on March 26, 2023, 08:20:19 PM
I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash

The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/

I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.

https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X

The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
They were going the wrong direction on the Parkway.  That's on them.

The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.

That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the errant driver. End of story.

There was another excellent book written about the accident and its investigation. The Taconic Tragedy, A Son's Search For The Truth, by Jeanne Bastardi, a relative of one of the people killed.
Apparently the Bastardi family sued the Warren Hance, the car's owner, in a lawsuit. They say it is because it was Warren's car which was driven, and that they were required too, but seems extremely shitty to sue the parents who just lost all 3 of their young children to a crash that from all the information given, was 0% their fault. The person at fault was Diane, and maybe her piece of shit husband who denied that his wife was drinking or doing drugs at the time. Apparently the HBO documentry has more about how this guy (Danny Schuler) is a terrible person. Then again everyone sued everyone so who knows at this point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 27, 2023, 12:07:30 PM
Don't see this too often: Traffic heading the wrong way using an entrance ramp to exit I-590 due to a closure.
https://www.whec.com/local/traffic-diverted-on-590-after-incident/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr. Matté on March 27, 2023, 04:30:16 PM
I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash

The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/

I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.

https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X

The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
They were going the wrong direction on the Parkway.  That's on them.

The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.

That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the errant driver. End of story.

I do recall hearing in the news that the state specifically went back to the exit ramp where she allegedly entered the wrong way and put more and larger Do Not Enter / Wrong Way signs and new no left/right turns signs up. Compare the 2008 imagery to more recent times: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.142646,-73.8138526,3a,75y,338.02h,81.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgZQv-syvITLSjlkLUWVhIw!2e0!5s20081101T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

(Edited for grammar)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 27, 2023, 05:43:30 PM
I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash

The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/

I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.

https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X

The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
They were going the wrong direction on the Parkway.  That's on them.

The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.

That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the errant driver. End of story.

I do recall hearing in the news that the state specifically go back to the exit ramp where she allegedly entered the wrong way and put more and larger Do Not Enter / Wrong Way signs and new no left/right turns signs up. Compare the 2008 imagery to more recent times: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.142646,-73.8138526,3a,75y,338.02h,81.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgZQv-syvITLSjlkLUWVhIw!2e0!5s20081101T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en
I remember seeing statistics on people entering wrong way on a ramp. It is not a trivial problem statistically, 1.5% of total road deaths or so. Of course, alcohol is a strong correlation with wrong way as well...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 28, 2023, 08:57:57 AM
FWIW, it is generally illegal for minors (either with a permit or a license) to drive on any parkway in NYS or within NYC city limits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on March 28, 2023, 10:18:29 AM
FWIW, it is generally illegal for minors (either with a permit or a license) to drive on any parkway in NYS or within NYC city limits.
The restrictions (as follows) are for permit holders, rather than age: (https://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/learner-permit-and-driver-license-restrictions)
Quote
You may not drive with a learner permit:

on any street within a park in New York City
on any bridge or tunnel under the jurisdiction of the Tri-borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority
on the Cross County, Hutchinson River, Saw Mill River, or Taconic State parkways in Westchester County
in a DMV road test area
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 28, 2023, 10:41:39 AM
FWIW, it is generally illegal for minors (either with a permit or a license) to drive on any parkway in NYS or within NYC city limits.
The restrictions (as follows) are for permit holders, rather than age: (https://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/learner-permit-and-driver-license-restrictions)
Quote
You may not drive with a learner permit:

on any street within a park in New York City
on any bridge or tunnel under the jurisdiction of the Tri-borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority
on the Cross County, Hutchinson River, Saw Mill River, or Taconic State parkways in Westchester County
in a DMV road test area
Any street within a park? As in, the traverses across Central Park? Seems weird to only exclude those roads, but whatever.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 28, 2023, 12:46:15 PM
FWIW, it is generally illegal for minors (either with a permit or a license) to drive on any parkway in NYS or within NYC city limits.
The restrictions (as follows) are for permit holders, rather than age: (https://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/learner-permit-and-driver-license-restrictions)
Quote
You may not drive with a learner permit:

on any street within a park in New York City
on any bridge or tunnel under the jurisdiction of the Tri-borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority
on the Cross County, Hutchinson River, Saw Mill River, or Taconic State parkways in Westchester County
in a DMV road test area
There are also restrictions for people with a junior license (those under 18 who haven't taken an approved Driver's Ed course - a full one, not the required five-hour pre-licensing course).  Upstate this consists of restrictions on passengers and driving at night, but downstate is quite strict - Long Island treats them the same as a permit unless driving to/from work or school, and NYC doesn't allow driving with one at all (to the point where they advise delaying the road test to age 18 unless someone has taken an approved Driver's Ed course).

https://dmv.ny.gov/younger-driver/new-york-city-five-boroughs-junior-license-restriction-0
https://dmv.ny.gov/younger-driver/long-island-nassau-suffolk-junior-driver-license-restrictions
https://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/upstate-new-york-junior-driver-license-restrictions
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on March 28, 2023, 12:46:26 PM
I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash

The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/

I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.

https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X

The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
They were going the wrong direction on the Parkway.  That's on them.

The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.

That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the errant driver. End of story.

I do recall hearing in the news that the state specifically went back to the exit ramp where she allegedly entered the wrong way and put more and larger Do Not Enter / Wrong Way signs and new no left/right turns signs up. Compare the 2008 imagery to more recent times: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.142646,-73.8138526,3a,75y,338.02h,81.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgZQv-syvITLSjlkLUWVhIw!2e0!5s20081101T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

(Edited for grammar)
Different theory about the crash that her husband might have been happier with: she wasn't drunk, she just forgot for a second that the American Revolution happened and thought that we still were the UK where people drive on the left. Call it a time trance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 28, 2023, 01:58:01 PM
The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.

That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the errant driver. End of story.

I do recall hearing in the news that the state specifically went back to the exit ramp where she allegedly entered the wrong way and put more and larger Do Not Enter / Wrong Way signs and new no left/right turns signs up. Compare the 2008 imagery to more recent times: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.142646,-73.8138526,3a,75y,338.02h,81.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgZQv-syvITLSjlkLUWVhIw!2e0!5s20081101T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

(Edited for grammar)


By exit ramp standards, that one does look rather easy to accidentally enter, since it's fairly long and straight and there's no corresponding entrance ramp across from it. But even though the design isn't great, the driver is still fully responsible for blowing past the wrong way signage and especially for getting up to freeway speeds without realizing something was majorly wrong.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on March 28, 2023, 02:50:09 PM
The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.

That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the errant driver. End of story.

I do recall hearing in the news that the state specifically went back to the exit ramp where she allegedly entered the wrong way and put more and larger Do Not Enter / Wrong Way signs and new no left/right turns signs up. Compare the 2008 imagery to more recent times: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.142646,-73.8138526,3a,75y,338.02h,81.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgZQv-syvITLSjlkLUWVhIw!2e0!5s20081101T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

(Edited for grammar)


By exit ramp standards, that one does look rather easy to accidentally enter, since it's fairly long and straight and there's no corresponding entrance ramp across from it. But even though the design isn't great, the driver is still fully responsible for blowing past the wrong way signage and especially for getting up to freeway speeds without realizing something was majorly wrong.
Mulltiple cars going the other direction were honking at her, just didn't notice. Must have been very drunk. She was also going about 85 mph, which is a good 30 mph above the speed limit on the Taconic. The horrifying thing his is that her brother (the dad of her nieces) clearly noticed on a phone call that she was in no shape to drive, and told her to stop. She didn't listen and ended up killing herself and seven other people. Never drive drunk.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 29, 2023, 12:20:23 AM
I'm pissed off. At Montauk Point State Park, there are a pair of "Do Not Enter" signs at a pedestrian crosswalk near the entrance to the parking areas. One on the north side of this loop of NY 27 was supplemented by an "Exit Only" sign while the other was supplemented by the standard "Wrong Way" sign. Somebody captured the "Exit Only" sign, which was posted in the Wikimedia Commons;
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/New_York._East_Hamptons._Mountauk_Point_Lighthouse_%284270368692%29.jpg/512px-New_York._East_Hamptons._Mountauk_Point_Lighthouse_%284270368692%29.jpg)

I wanted to capture an image of both in one shot;
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0726797,-71.8595788,3a,75y,106.24h,88.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suvBllpg9SRweYO4zV91siQ!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Now I find that the "Exit Only" supplemental sign is gone, and has been gone since November 2019. I was there in November 2019, and I didn't notice whether or not it was there.
 :angry:



Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 29, 2023, 09:45:46 AM
The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.

That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the impaired driver. End of story.
Given that, and Mr. Matte's link to the ramp where Diane Schuler went the wrong way, I know you're right. There was nothing wrong with this section of the road. There are other sections of the road that need major work, which was the reason many here incorrectly blamed the road itself.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeekteen on March 29, 2023, 11:36:34 AM
The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.

That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the impaired driver. End of story.
Given that, and Mr. Matte's link to the ramp where Diane Schuler went the wrong way, I know you're right. There was nothing wrong with this section of the road. There are other sections of the road that need major work, which was the reason many here incorrectly blamed the road itself.
Hey I wasn't blaiming the road itself. I just saw several other people on other sites do that.

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/report-widower-sues-state-after-tragic-wrong-way-crash-on-taconic-parkway/

Diane's husband did sue the state however, though he was likely just coping.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 29, 2023, 12:59:04 PM
Oh, I know you weren't blaming the road, and neither am I. I was just reminding everyone here that there are too many segments where NYSDOT refuses to upgrade, and too many communities refused to allow upgrades, and this is more than likely what made others blame the road at first.

While doing a GSV scan of Taconic, and other parkways in Westchester, I noticed a pair of U-turns south of Millwood;
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=12&lat=40.791667&lon=-73.405556
Why? I thought it might've been something leftover from Taconic State Park Commission and Westchester County Parks Commission days (toll booth, service plaza, or whatever), but I see that it wasn't there until the road was widened in the 1990's.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on March 29, 2023, 08:08:52 PM
Probably built with the modernization for use by official vehicles only.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on March 30, 2023, 01:44:27 PM
The CSX crossing on Blue Barns Road in Clifton Park remains untouched.  I fear its gonna get worse as the weather lumbers its way through April.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 30, 2023, 01:46:14 PM
The CSX crossing on Blue Barns Road in Clifton Park remains untouched.  I fear its gonna get worse as the weather lumbers its way through April.
Rail crossings are the responsibility of the railroad to maintain.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on March 30, 2023, 01:48:54 PM
The CSX crossing on Blue Barns Road in Clifton Park remains untouched.  I fear its gonna get worse as the weather lumbers its way through April.
Rail crossings are the responsibility of the railroad to maintain.

I am aware.  Guilford/Pan Am just let it sit there while CP fixed theirs up nicely.  I'm hoping CSX steps it up with maintenance now that they own that line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 30, 2023, 01:52:02 PM
The CSX crossing on Blue Barns Road in Clifton Park remains untouched.  I fear its gonna get worse as the weather lumbers its way through April.
And what exactly is the problem we're talking about?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on March 30, 2023, 02:01:46 PM
The CSX crossing on Blue Barns Road in Clifton Park remains untouched.  I fear its gonna get worse as the weather lumbers its way through April.
And what exactly is the problem we're talking about?

Its been falling apart for years and Pan Am neglected it.  There are times when the frost gets the better of it and it'll almost knock your teeth out.

I suspect that not only do they need to coordinate with DOT on it, but they also need to coordinate with Saratoga County as well because it's a county highway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 30, 2023, 08:42:45 PM
I will note one thing: CSX is not actually taking over this crossing.  This PanAm line is being spun off into a child railway, the Berkshire and Eastern, as part of the deal between CSX and Norfolk Southern to allow the CSX/PanAm merger to go through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_and_Eastern_Railroad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Systems#CSX_acquisition
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on April 03, 2023, 09:19:22 PM
The Storm King Highway portion of NY218 has reopened for the season.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on April 04, 2023, 07:18:53 AM
I will note one thing: CSX is not actually taking over this crossing.  This PanAm line is being spun off into a child railway, the Berkshire and Eastern,

You do Kalmbach Publishing (owners of Trains and Classic Trains) and White River Productions (owners of Railfan & Railroad, Trains and Railroads of the Past, and Railpace, the Northeast's Own Rail Magazine) justice with that term, vdeane. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on April 04, 2023, 05:25:21 PM
be careful if you are driving on the Northern State Parkway in Suffolk County, there are a few really bad potholes between Exit 41 and 42, there were a few vehicles pulled over on the side of the road after one particularly bad one.

It's getting bad by Long Island pavement standards.

Edit: the crater by the Wolf Hill Road off-ramp has been filled
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 04, 2023, 08:11:45 PM
Yeah, the Suffolk County section of Northern State Pkwy. is apparently in very bad shape. People have even been writing letters to local newspapers about it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on April 05, 2023, 01:52:37 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/hWWs9RMjZHoAuGgB6
What’s up with NY 17M ending randomly instead of at Exit 118 on NY 17 as it should being it’s mother to child relationship?
https://goo.gl/maps/ygR6surxSVZMXADMA
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on April 05, 2023, 10:15:38 AM
Do a search on historicaerials.com for 41.50055558979486, -74.4094283166162. NY 17M once extended onto now-removed ramps for NY 17.

I am kind of shocked that New York had removed ramps on NY 17 at some point. Many more need to go.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on April 06, 2023, 08:34:03 PM
Unless I missed something, I didn't think that stretch was all that bad when I drove through there a few weeks ago.

NY 109 and the southern part of NY 110, OTOH...

be careful if you are driving on the Northern State Parkway in Suffolk County, there are a few really bad potholes between Exit 41 and 42, there were a few vehicles pulled over on the side of the road after one particularly bad one.

It's getting bad by Long Island pavement standards.

Edit: the crater by the Wolf Hill Road off-ramp has been filled
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 06, 2023, 08:52:50 PM
^Well David Golub drove that part of the Northern State Pkwy so I did not have to.   ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kernals12 on April 28, 2023, 10:15:17 AM
Have there been any proposals to build a bridge over the Hudson between Crotonville and Haverstraw? Right now the gap between the Bear Mountain and Tappen Zee bridges is 18 miles
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 28, 2023, 10:20:28 AM
Have there been any proposals to build a bridge over the Hudson between Crotonville and Haverstraw? Right now the gap between the Bear Mountain and Tappen Zee bridges is 18 miles
None that have been taken seriously.  If anything, there's been more funding put towards the ferry.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 28, 2023, 10:21:19 AM
Have there been any proposals to build a bridge over the Hudson between Crotonville and Haverstraw? Right now the gap between the Bear Mountain and Tappen Zee bridges is 18 miles
As a first order approximation - that is still a wide area of Hudson, and even NYS governor's ego can be only that big.
Tappan Zee is already way too expensive, and located in a wide bad spot only because, you know, governor's "FU" can be pretty big.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 28, 2023, 10:49:39 AM
Tappan Zee is already way too expensive, and located in a wide bad spot only because, you know, governor's "FU" can be pretty big.

This has been discussed before.  Tappan Zee is where it is not because of anybody's ego (per se) but because it's the closest the Thruway could get a bridge to NYC without it falling under Port Authority jurisdiction.  If there's any "ego" involved, it's PANYNJ's.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on April 28, 2023, 11:30:48 AM
Tappan Zee is already way too expensive, and located in a wide bad spot only because, you know, governor's "FU" can be pretty big.

This has been discussed before.  Tappan Zee is where it is not because of anybody's ego (per se) but because it's the closest the Thruway could get a bridge to NYC without it falling under Port Authority jurisdiction.  If there's any "ego" involved, it's PANYNJ's.
If I remember correctly, that was governor's decision NOT to go into PANYNJ jurisdiction.
But it is interesting as history fine print at most.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on April 28, 2023, 11:35:57 AM
Tappan Zee is already way too expensive, and located in a wide bad spot only because, you know, governor's "FU" can be pretty big.

This has been discussed before.  Tappan Zee is where it is not because of anybody's ego (per se) but because it's the closest the Thruway could get a bridge to NYC without it falling under Port Authority jurisdiction.  If there's any "ego" involved, it's PANYNJ's.
If I remember correctly, that was governor's decision NOT to go into PANYNJ jurisdiction.
But it is interesting as history fine print at most.
Even if that's true, there would be other justifications for the NY Governor to avoid PANYNJ than just ego.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 29, 2023, 03:50:20 PM
Have there been any proposals to build a bridge over the Hudson between Crotonville and Haverstraw? Right now the gap between the Bear Mountain and Tappen Zee bridges is 18 miles
18 miles isn't that bad for bridges along the Hudson.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 30, 2023, 12:29:51 AM
Have there been any proposals to build a bridge over the Hudson between Crotonville and Haverstraw? Right now the gap between the Bear Mountain and Tappen Zee bridges is 18 miles
18 miles isn't that bad for bridges along the Hudson.

It's not even the furthest. Rip Van Winkle to Castleton is over 20. Mid-Hudson to Kingston-Rhinecliff is about 19. Also worth noting that there are multiple gaps of >10 river miles north of Albany, including three south of Corinth.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 05, 2023, 12:18:03 AM
^Well David Golub drove that part of the Northern State Pkwy so I did not have to.   ;-)
It can't be as bad as Country Road in Medford was until the late-1990's. or Southern Boulevard in the South Bronx.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 16, 2023, 10:58:03 PM
This project has been in the works at Region 10 for years, and I didn't even know about it until David Golub mentioned it today.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region10/projects/022948-Home/022948-Repository/0229.48_CHR_PIM_Brochure_FINAL.pdf

Don't they realize how many weaving accidents they're going to create on the Sagtikos Flyover?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on May 17, 2023, 06:34:24 PM
Tappan Zee is already way too expensive, and located in a wide bad spot only because, you know, governor's "FU" can be pretty big.

This has been discussed before.  Tappan Zee is where it is not because of anybody's ego (per se) but because it's the closest the Thruway could get a bridge to NYC without it falling under Port Authority jurisdiction.  If there's any "ego" involved, it's PANYNJ's.

Honestly where the Tappan Zee Bridge is located is perfectly fine, I don't think a bridge further south (Dobbs Ferry?) would be better at all. The East-West freeway connection through Westchester is better at this location and connects directly to White Plains and I-95 in Port Chester. Its at a good spot imho.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 18, 2023, 07:59:05 AM
Unless NYSDOT decides to revive the proposal to extend the Cross County Parkway west of the Henry Hudson and Saw Mill Parkways and a connecting road is built on the Jersey side, there's no chance of any new bridge between the GWB and Tappan Zee.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 18, 2023, 08:00:20 AM
Unless NYSDOT decides to revive the proposal to extend the Cross County Parkway west of the Henry Hudson and Saw Mill Parkways and a connecting road is built on the Jersey side, there's no chance of any new bridge between the GWB and Tappan Zee.
I don't think it would be a NYSDOT project and would fall under PANYNJ.

In any matter, I haven't heard anyone official talk about this sort of proposal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on May 18, 2023, 10:15:05 AM
Unless NYSDOT decides to revive the proposal to extend the Cross County Parkway west of the Henry Hudson and Saw Mill Parkways and a connecting road is built on the Jersey side, there's no chance of any new bridge between the GWB and Tappan Zee.
I don't think it would be a NYSDOT project and would fall under PANYNJ.

In any matter, I haven't heard anyone official talk about this sort of proposal.
Tappan Zee was literally feet north of the PANYNJ jurisdiction, new one is also just outside the area. (some say PANYNJ area is XX miles radius from some landmark - no, legally it is defined as a polygon with long-lat coordinates of corners, approximating some circle).
SO coming back  - it was built specifically just outside port authority  territory, as decided by then-governor.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 18, 2023, 02:54:40 PM
I can tell you why a new Alpine-Yonkers Bridge won't happen: all the NIMBYs and all the richass NIMBYs.

As for Haverstraw, there's never really been one. There was one for a dam and Thruway bridge at Haverstraw.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 18, 2023, 06:37:33 PM
I can tell you why a new Alpine-Yonkers Bridge won't happen: all the NIMBYs and all the richass NIMBYs.

As for Haverstraw, there's never really been one. There was one for a dam and Thruway bridge at Haverstraw.
For Haverstraw, the ferry has always been deemed adequate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 18, 2023, 07:24:08 PM
Unless NYSDOT decides to revive the proposal to extend the Cross County Parkway west of the Henry Hudson and Saw Mill Parkways and a connecting road is built on the Jersey side, there's no chance of any new bridge between the GWB and Tappan Zee.
I don't think it would be a NYSDOT project and would fall under PANYNJ.

In any matter, I haven't heard anyone official talk about this sort of proposal.

It'd have to be coordinated to some degree between all agencies, but NJ never moved forward with the 14 freeway so I don't see anything changing on our side, which is much more of a lift than a few miles of CCP.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 19, 2023, 09:07:11 AM
Unless NYSDOT decides to revive the proposal to extend the Cross County Parkway west of the Henry Hudson and Saw Mill Parkways and a connecting road is built on the Jersey side, there's no chance of any new bridge between the GWB and Tappan Zee.
I don't think it would be a NYSDOT project and would fall under PANYNJ.

In any matter, I haven't heard anyone official talk about this sort of proposal.

It'd have to be coordinated to some degree between all agencies, but NJ never moved forward with the 14 freeway so I don't see anything changing on our side, which is much more of a lift than a few miles of CCP.
You know, I had to go out of my way to find your old link on that freeway.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060131095007/http://web.mit.edu/smalpert/www/roads/nj/nj-14.html

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 20, 2023, 09:43:11 PM
I can tell you why a new Alpine-Yonkers Bridge won't happen: all the NIMBYs and all the richass NIMBYs.

As for Haverstraw, there's never really been one. There was one for a dam and Thruway bridge at Haverstraw.
For Haverstraw, the ferry has always been deemed adequate.

The NYS Budget Commission in 1950 did propose a dual Hudson River dam/Thruway bridge at Haverstraw around the same time the tests were conducted to determine what type of bridge would be built at Salisbury Point. The cost would have been about $200 million in 1950. They threw out the idea of the suspension bridge at the Salisbury Point (Tappan Zee) crossing. (A second dam would've been built at Chelsea.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on May 20, 2023, 11:39:35 PM


I can tell you why a new Alpine-Yonkers Bridge won't happen: all the NIMBYs and all the richass NIMBYs.

As for Haverstraw, there's never really been one. There was one for a dam and Thruway bridge at Haverstraw.
For Haverstraw, the ferry has always been deemed adequate.

The NYS Budget Commission in 1950 did propose a dual Hudson River dam/Thruway bridge at Haverstraw around the same time the tests were conducted to determine what type of bridge would be built at Salisbury Point. The cost would have been about $200 million in 1950. They threw out the idea of the suspension bridge at the Salisbury Point (Tappan Zee) crossing. (A second dam would've been built at Chelsea.)

Ok...since the Tappan Zee Bridge was completed sixty years ago...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 21, 2023, 10:28:26 PM
Look, kernals asked if there had been any proposals. I brought it up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 22, 2023, 11:30:49 PM
Unless NYSDOT decides to revive the proposal to extend the Cross County Parkway west of the Henry Hudson and Saw Mill Parkways and a connecting road is built on the Jersey side, there's no chance of any new bridge between the GWB and Tappan Zee.
I don't think it would be a NYSDOT project and would fall under PANYNJ.

In any matter, I haven't heard anyone official talk about this sort of proposal.

It'd have to be coordinated to some degree between all agencies, but NJ never moved forward with the 14 freeway so I don't see anything changing on our side, which is much more of a lift than a few miles of CCP.
You know, I had to go out of my way to find your old link on that freeway.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060131095007/http://web.mit.edu/smalpert/www/roads/nj/nj-14.html


You know, you didn't have to. I consolidated all that into https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/log/2.html#14
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on May 23, 2023, 08:30:03 AM
I drove on the Cross County last week and noticed the signs for the Sprain/Bronx River were replaced with overhead signs with parkway shields on them. I really don't care for these because, compared to the old signs which you can also see on GSV, the shields are much harder to read: https://goo.gl/maps/rFP9k7VATpzNso3a6
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dantheman on June 03, 2023, 05:59:32 PM
Does anyone know the story behind the short four-lane divided section of NY 17A, for the easternmost two-ish miles before its junction at NY 17? It seems to go back to two lanes at a completely unremarkable spot, rather than at a major intersection or destination. (I doubt the NY Renaissance Faire or the former ski area visible on the satellite view ever generated enough traffic to warrant this, and the four-lane stretch doesn't quite make it to those anyway.) It also just-barely misses making it the whole way to NY 17. While there's a bit of a climb WB here, it doesn't seem steep enough to warrant a climbing lane, and much steeper parts further west don't have one... and this would also fail to explain the second lane EB.
https://goo.gl/maps/eRijUaXVVoEdnkzeA (https://goo.gl/maps/eRijUaXVVoEdnkzeA)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 04, 2023, 11:43:24 AM
New York made a big mistake tearing down the old toll booth for the Bear Mountain Bridge:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3201378,-73.9890365,109m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&entry=ttu
Observe this unlucky fellow (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.320015,-73.9898039,3a,37.5y,99.26h,89.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA9vZH1G1uxAYZf0cQ3rqkw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu) trying to cross US 6 and 202 when the signs at the gantry tell everybody to keep moving.

Perhaps the better solution would've been to revive the old booth as a pedestrian bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 04, 2023, 11:46:37 AM
New York made a big mistake tearing down the old toll booth for the Bear Mountain Bridge:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3201378,-73.9890365,109m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&entry=ttu
Observe this unlucky fellow (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.320015,-73.9898039,3a,37.5y,99.26h,89.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA9vZH1G1uxAYZf0cQ3rqkw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu) trying to cross US 6 and 202 when the signs at the gantry tell everybody to keep moving.

Perhaps the better solution would've been to revive the old booth as a pedestrian bridge.
Isn't there a pedestrian tunnel over on the other side that links the zoo with the State Park?

Might need another one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 04, 2023, 07:24:47 PM
There is a path but I think this is the official crossing for the Appalachian Trail.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 04, 2023, 08:34:03 PM
Traffic is required to yield right-of-way to pedestrians in a marked crosswalk. And much as I dislike HAWK Beacons, this might be a good spot to install one. Or if not that, maybe just an RRFB (Rectangular, rapid flashing beacon).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 04, 2023, 08:39:19 PM
It would probably also help if the crosswalk and the toll gantry weren't right on top of each other.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 04, 2023, 08:42:47 PM
Traffic is required to yield right-of-way to pedestrians in a marked crosswalk. And much as I dislike HAWK Beacons, this might be a good spot to install one. Or if not that, maybe just an RRFB (Rectangular, rapid flashing beacon).
Pelican or RRFB.  Never HAWK.

Actually, probably RRFB due to proximity to that traffic circle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on June 04, 2023, 08:50:48 PM
Will New York City ever include the HAWK into its vocabulary 😂?

Considering that mono tube mast arms still haven’t made an appearance as well as modern signal controllers with loops, I think the timed crosswalk traffic signals will always be the norm to control crosswalks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 04, 2023, 11:43:33 PM


Will New York City ever include the HAWK into its vocabulary 😂?

Considering that mono tube mast arms still haven’t made an appearance as well as modern signal controllers with loops, I think the timed crosswalk traffic signals will always be the norm to control crosswalks.

There's probably a HAWK somewhere in the Five Boroughs, wreaking havoc.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 05, 2023, 10:52:48 AM
Does anyone know the story behind the short four-lane divided section of NY 17A, for the easternmost two-ish miles before its junction at NY 17? It seems to go back to two lanes at a completely unremarkable spot, rather than at a major intersection or destination. (I doubt the NY Renaissance Faire or the former ski area visible on the satellite view ever generated enough traffic to warrant this, and the four-lane stretch doesn't quite make it to those anyway.) It also just-barely misses making it the whole way to NY 17. While there's a bit of a climb WB here, it doesn't seem steep enough to warrant a climbing lane, and much steeper parts further west don't have one... and this would also fail to explain the second lane EB.
https://goo.gl/maps/eRijUaXVVoEdnkzeA (https://goo.gl/maps/eRijUaXVVoEdnkzeA)

My recollection was that this was to serve some emerging suburban areas that never fully came to fruition. There were some very large developments that were planned back in the 1950s-1970s - thousands of residential units, corporate complexes, etc. and only some were ever built. There was a push to preserve what was left of the green space, leading to the creation of the Sterling Forest State Park and other preserves.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on June 05, 2023, 11:16:33 AM
Bigger question. Why is there a NJ style mast arm here?
https://goo.gl/maps/Dm95wbtCpB8ZEoEg6


Also does anyone know if NY 17 A is a N-S or E-W route? It seems to lack directional banners on shields.

Edit:
Found some on NY 210.
https://goo.gl/maps/DM6xSsoLg8C3ttEh7
Never mind.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on June 13, 2023, 12:11:10 AM
This weekend will feature a special "Meet Preview" *live* webinar that will profile the Buffalo, NY metro area in preparation for the meet that will be held there on July 29. This presentation will be hosted by yours truly and will feature contributions from folks across the AARoads Forum spectrum, many of whom will be in attendance for portions/all of the meet itself.

This presentation will be broadcast *live* on the 'roadwaywiz' YouTube channel on Saturday 6/17 at 6 PM ET. Whether you're on the fence about attending the meet, or are already looking forward to it, we hope that this will give you folks a good idea of what to expect and what to look for during your visit. We may also have some time for a *live* Q&A session regarding the meet itself if there is demand for it.

Lastly, during the opening of this program, I'll be taking the opportunity to reveal the host city & dates for the 2024 Meet I'll be putting together for you folks so if that bit of news appeals to you folks out there, we'll be taking care of that item of business during the show as well.

Link to YouTube Webinar:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 13, 2023, 05:28:06 PM
Bigger question. Why is there a NJ style mast arm here?
https://goo.gl/maps/Dm95wbtCpB8ZEoEg6


Also does anyone know if NY 17 A is a N-S or E-W route? It seems to lack directional banners on shields.

Edit:
Found some on NY 210.
https://goo.gl/maps/DM6xSsoLg8C3ttEh7
Never mind.

That traffic light is quite old and doesn't work, even during the Renaissance Faire.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 13, 2023, 07:51:09 PM
As per the MUTCD, if the signal is not in service, it must be bagged or otherwise made invisible to approaching traffic. Dark signals are not permitted except on HAWK style signals.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 13, 2023, 08:48:25 PM
Bigger question. Why is there a NJ style mast arm here?
https://goo.gl/maps/Dm95wbtCpB8ZEoEg6


Also does anyone know if NY 17 A is a N-S or E-W route? It seems to lack directional banners on shields.

Edit:
Found some on NY 210.
https://goo.gl/maps/DM6xSsoLg8C3ttEh7
Never mind.

That traffic light is quite old and doesn't work, even during the Renaissance Faire.
I remember when it did! :(
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 13, 2023, 08:48:42 PM
As per the MUTCD, if the signal is not in service, it must be bagged or otherwise made invisible to approaching traffic. Dark signals are not permitted except on HAWK style signals.
reason #3338 why HAWK signals are stupid and should be abolished
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 13, 2023, 09:09:09 PM
As per the MUTCD, if the signal is not in service, it must be bagged or otherwise made invisible to approaching traffic. Dark signals are not permitted except on HAWK style signals.
reason #3338 why HAWK signals are stupid and should be abolished

I agree with you 100% Alps. Consistency should be the rule in this game and it usually is. That's what the Manual is all about. Ya' Gotta wonder what the heck they were thinkin' at FHWA when they came up with the HAWK concept.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 13, 2023, 09:11:14 PM
As per the MUTCD, if the signal is not in service, it must be bagged or otherwise made invisible to approaching traffic. Dark signals are not permitted except on HAWK style signals.
reason #3338 why HAWK signals are stupid and should be abolished

I agree with you 100% Alps. Consistency should be the rule in this game and it usually is. That's what the Manual is all about. Ya' Gotta wonder what the heck they were thinkin' at FHWA when they came up with the HAWK concept.
Thinking? You expect something wrong from an organization with the name starting with F
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 14, 2023, 08:55:47 PM
I like the HAWK signals in New York I've seen so far.

*ducks*
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on June 14, 2023, 09:51:22 PM
I like the HAWK signals in New York I've seen so far.

*ducks*

Are there any HAWKs outside of the Buffalo area?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 14, 2023, 10:29:50 PM
I haven't seen any on Long Island yet. Are the ones in the Buffalo area erected by NYS DOT or a local traffic agency?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 14, 2023, 11:23:26 PM
Don't know if there are any in Central NY, but there certainly won't be any more than there are.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 15, 2023, 06:55:04 PM
I haven't seen any on Long Island yet. Are the ones in the Buffalo area erected by NYS DOT or a local traffic agency?

All but one are on DOT-operated roads (NY 324, NY 5 have them; Kenmore is CR 307). Unless R5 installed more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on June 15, 2023, 08:19:01 PM
All but one are on DOT-operated roads (NY 324, NY 5 have them; Kenmore is CR 307). Unless R5 installed more.

Is/are the one(s) on NY 5 new installs within the last year?  I drove it from Batavia to downtown Buffalo about this time last year and didn't recall seeing any.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 15, 2023, 08:33:06 PM
No, the NY 5 ones have been there since pre-pandemic. Built in 2018.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 20, 2023, 09:22:49 AM
I haven't seen any on Long Island yet. Are the ones in the Buffalo area erected by NYS DOT or a local traffic agency?

There is one in Old Bethpage on Old Bethpage Rd by Trail View State Park (the former Bethpage parkway ROW)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 20, 2023, 08:15:46 PM
I haven't seen any on Long Island yet. Are the ones in the Buffalo area erected by NYS DOT or a local traffic agency?

There is one in Old Bethpage on Old Bethpage Rd by Trail View State Park (the former Bethpage parkway ROW)

No kidding?! Thanks; I will check it out.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 20, 2023, 09:06:39 PM
Looks like this is the week for members of the state legislature to propose bills that are of interest to roadgeeks.

https://auburnpub.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/70-mph-ny-senator-eyes-higher-speed-limit-on-thruway-state-highways/article_90ee55b1-41a6-5a26-a6ab-85f22c9eb0ee.html
Since this came up in the recent roadwaywiz webinar on Buffalo, I should mention that despite the unusually large amount of press coverage this time, that did not translate into actual enthusiasm from the legislature and it didn't get out of committee in either (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S2209) chamber (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/A5044).  :-( I think there's still a theoretical chance next year when the legislature resumes (aside from the special session the Assembly is doing right now to finish a few things leftover this year), but if it doesn't go to the governor then, it would die and need to be reintroduced.

Meanwhile, AAA is speaking out against the bill (https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2023/06/debatable-should-the-northway-speed-limit-go-up.html).

It's too bad.  I thought it had an actual chance this time, yet it went no further than past efforts.

(personal opinion)

On another note, another bill I was really hoping to see get signed into law did actually pass both chambers at the last second, but the most recent status on it is "returned to Senate", so it looks like it won't go to Hochul to be signed either.  I guess my track record with legislative bills is much the same as my Mom's record with sports teams: rooting for it causes it to lose/fail.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 20, 2023, 09:23:12 PM
Looks like this is the week for members of the state legislature to propose bills that are of interest to roadgeeks.

https://auburnpub.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/70-mph-ny-senator-eyes-higher-speed-limit-on-thruway-state-highways/article_90ee55b1-41a6-5a26-a6ab-85f22c9eb0ee.html
Since this came up in the recent roadwaywiz webinar on Buffalo, I should mention that despite the unusually large amount of press coverage this time, that did not translate into actual enthusiasm from the legislature and it didn't get out of committee in either (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S2209) chamber (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/A5044).  :-( I think there's still a theoretical chance next year when the legislature resumes (aside from the special session the Assembly is doing right now to finish a few things leftover this year), but if it doesn't go to the governor then, it would die and need to be reintroduced.

Meanwhile, AAA is speaking out against the bill (https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2023/06/debatable-should-the-northway-speed-limit-go-up.html).

It's too bad.  I thought it had an actual chance this time, yet it went no further than past efforts.

(personal opinion)

On another note, another bill I was really hoping to see get signed into law did actually pass both chambers at the last second, but the most recent status on it is "returned to Senate", so it looks like it won't go to Hochul to be signed either.  I guess my track record with legislative bills is much the same as my Mom's record with sports teams: rooting for it causes it to lose/fail.
Judging from my travels on the Thruway, it's not like the enforced speed limit will change with another 5-15 on the posted limit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 20, 2023, 09:39:49 PM
^ I was hoping for a limit increase so that I could start driving exactly the speed limit everywhere without affecting my travel time significantly on the interstates.  Given the number of municipalities in the US and Canada that strictly enforce thing, pushes for more speed cameras (successful in the case of work zones and school zones, not so much on the MTA crossings) both here and elsewhere, etc., that's the only consistent way to do things.  Any other policy (such as my long-standing "5 over on surface roads, 7 over on freeways") would just need a gazillion exceptions at this point (the entire country of Canada is already such an exception, largely because of speed cameras in Québec and Edmonton, but also because I never came up with a metric equivalent I was happy with and wasn't a greater ticket risk than my existing driving in NY).

Plus, why should NY have the lowest speed limits for a state its size in the contiguous US?

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 20, 2023, 09:44:44 PM
I've been saying this needs to happen since other states east of the Mississippi started raising their limits to 70 or 75.  Honestly I'm comfortable with 78 on most roadways outside of NY, and I typically do 72-75 in 65 mph zones in NY.

On a similar note, I get run over in 55 mph zones doing 60, ESPECIALLY work zones.

EDIT:  Any change to the state speed limit codified in the chapter laws should ABSOLUTELY include I-495 from like MM 40 east.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 21, 2023, 09:17:32 AM
In other news, new signage has gone up with pictorial no truck shields at I-81 NB/370/Onondaga Lake Parkway/Old Liverpool Road in Syracuse.  The ramps remain closed, however, probably due to worries about more bridge hits at this point.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 21, 2023, 10:32:39 AM
In other news, new signage has gone up with pictorial no truck shields at I-81 NB/370/Onondaga Lake Parkway/Old Liverpool Road in Syracuse.  The ramps remain closed, however, probably due to worries about more bridge hits at this point.

Completing a bridge repair project on the ramp bridges over the railroad (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.0744974,-76.1721334//@43.0745422,-76.1724114,344m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e1?entry=ttu) is why it's closed.  I'd noticed it last month when I was in town, and this local news article (https://www.localsyr.com/news/your-stories/your-stories-qa-why-the-onondaga-lake-pkwy-exit-is-closed-again/) confirmed it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 21, 2023, 10:34:55 AM
I was there two days ago flying over and hoping to see a bridge strike.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 21, 2023, 01:17:13 PM
In other news, new signage has gone up with pictorial no truck shields at I-81 NB/370/Onondaga Lake Parkway/Old Liverpool Road in Syracuse.  The ramps remain closed, however, probably due to worries about more bridge hits at this point.

Completing a bridge repair project on the ramp bridges over the railroad (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.0744974,-76.1721334//@43.0745422,-76.1724114,344m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e1?entry=ttu) is why it's closed.  I'd noticed it last month when I was in town, and this local news article (https://www.localsyr.com/news/your-stories/your-stories-qa-why-the-onondaga-lake-pkwy-exit-is-closed-again/) confirmed it.


Yes, the project did cause the ramps to be closed, that's true.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on June 22, 2023, 12:56:23 PM
Meanwhile, AAA is speaking out against the bill (https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2023/06/debatable-should-the-northway-speed-limit-go-up.html).

Note that AAA still hasn't gotten past: "Drivers often travel faster than posted speed limits, but when officials raise limits to match travel speeds, people still go faster."  Ah, no.  Debunked eons ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 22, 2023, 01:02:13 PM
^ That belief is especially prevalent in the northeast, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a major contributor to why we're still only 65 (it doesn't help that a lot of people are convinced that raising the speed limit on rural interstates will make people go faster on urban interstates with lower speed limits and even local roads).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 22, 2023, 03:09:28 PM
Meanwhile, AAA is speaking out against the bill (https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2023/06/debatable-should-the-northway-speed-limit-go-up.html).

Note that AAA still hasn't gotten past: "Drivers often travel faster than posted speed limits, but when officials raise limits to match travel speeds, people still go faster."  Ah, no.  Debunked eons ago.
Well, maybe there is some truth in that.
My nearest interstate has a speed limit of 65, typical free flow of 75-80, and was flowing 90-95 in the early covid days with no enforcement.
I suspect that once speed limit goes up by 5 MPH, so would "+15" speed convention with speed limits increased up to +15. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: elsmere241 on June 22, 2023, 03:45:38 PM
When I-95 in Delaware went from 55 to 65, I started paying more attention to my speed, trying to keep it under 75.  Before, it seemed like the speed limit was ignored by everyone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 22, 2023, 06:54:32 PM
Quote
A 2019 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study found that rising speed limits have cost nearly 37,000 lives over 25 years. AAA and IIHS urge policymakers to factor in this danger when considering speed limit changes.

So ridiculous. Those people just didn’t know how to drive. We need to eliminate speed limits on most interstates and increase requirements to get a license and enforce laws like staying out of the passing lane and reckless/aggressive driving which is what causes a lot of accidents.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 22, 2023, 09:57:18 PM
Meanwhile, AAA is speaking out against the bill (https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2023/06/debatable-should-the-northway-speed-limit-go-up.html).

Note that AAA still hasn't gotten past: "Drivers often travel faster than posted speed limits, but when officials raise limits to match travel speeds, people still go faster."  Ah, no.  Debunked eons ago.
Well, maybe there is some truth in that.
My nearest interstate has a speed limit of 65, typical free flow of 75-80, and was flowing 90-95 in the early covid days with no enforcement.
I suspect that once speed limit goes up by 5 MPH, so would "+15" speed convention with speed limits increased up to +15. 

That sounds like an enforcement issue, not an issue with 70 mph limits.  A higher legal limit coupled with stricter enforcement would be fine by me.  Plus my understanding is that this wouldn't be an automatic increase, rather subject to DOT study and discretion, so who knows if said interstate would even get an increase.  Note the following:
Quote
However, the commissioner of the
 department of transportation may establish a maximum speed limit of  not
 more than [sixty-five] SEVENTY miles per hour on any state roadway which
 meets department criteria for such maximum speed.
May, not shall.  Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the 65 zones in denser areas would stay 65 rather than go 70 if something like this ever became law.  When PA went 70, only the PTC did a blanket increase; PennDOT was much more selective.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 23, 2023, 12:56:01 PM
That sounds like an enforcement issue, not an issue with 70 mph limits.  A higher legal limit coupled with stricter enforcement would be fine by me. 
And, if you will, if nothing would change on the road - why bother?
Enforcement practices are loose, and yes, there are reasons for that.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on June 23, 2023, 12:59:27 PM
That sounds like an enforcement issue, not an issue with 70 mph limits.  A higher legal limit coupled with stricter enforcement would be fine by me. 
And, if you will, if nothing would change on the road - why bother?
Enforcement practices are loose, and yes, there are reasons for that.

The 10% or so of drivers sticking to the speed limit can result in congestion. If those 10% stick to the new speed limit instead, the "one driver driving slowly causes congestion before rush hour" issue is less likely to happen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:14:39 PM
When did the Hutch switch exits to miles based; and when will the Meritt?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 26, 2023, 01:42:55 PM
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 26, 2023, 07:56:16 PM
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.

As is New York.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 27, 2023, 07:12:32 AM
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.

As is New York.

I can't wait for that fight discussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 27, 2023, 07:44:36 AM
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.

As is New York.

I can't wait for that fight discussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
NYSTA: Either fund it or get lost
FHWA: 0_o
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 27, 2023, 08:03:38 AM
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.

As is New York.

I can't wait for that fight discussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
NYSTA: Either fund it or get lost
FHWA: 0_o

 :-D

Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 27, 2023, 11:56:01 AM
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.

As is New York.

I can't wait for that fight discussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
NYSTA: Either fund it or get lost
FHWA: 0_o

 :-D

Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
So?  No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 27, 2023, 12:01:45 PM
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.

As is New York.

I can't wait for that fight discussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
NYSTA: Either fund it or get lost
FHWA: 0_o

 :-D

Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
So?  No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.

I'm guessing its "NYSTA can do whatever it wants and to heck with FHWA and NYSDOT"?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 27, 2023, 12:14:52 PM
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.

As is New York.

I can't wait for that fight discussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
NYSTA: Either fund it or get lost
FHWA: 0_o

 :-D

Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
So?  No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.

I'm guessing its "NYSTA can do whatever it wants and to heck with FHWA and NYSDOT"?

Well, yes.  NYSTA is a public authority, a rogue entity that exists outside of State government, with the exception of Governor recommendations for leadership appointments.  Although it may receive pennies in federal funding through NYSDOT for certain, specific tasks (e.g., striping and bridges over the Thruway), the fact of the matter is federal and state funding are not large parts of their available funding, the bulk of which is toll revenues.

So, FHWA and NYSDOT don't have any pull over them.

FHWA: "You're non-compliant with the MUTCD!"
NYSTA: "So?"
FHWA: "You have to be compliant!"
NYSTA: "Or what?"
FHWA: "..."
FHWA: "We'll pull your federal funding...?"
NYSTA: BWAAAAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!  Go pound sand.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 27, 2023, 12:16:43 PM
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.

As is New York.

I can't wait for that fight discussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
NYSTA: Either fund it or get lost
FHWA: 0_o

 :-D

Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
So?  No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.

I'm guessing its "NYSTA can do whatever it wants and to heck with FHWA and NYSDOT"?

Well, yes.  NYSTA is a public authority, a rogue entity that exists outside of State government, with the exception of Governor recommendations for leadership appointments.  Although it may receive pennies in federal funding through NYSDOT for certain, specific tasks (e.g., striping and bridges over the Thruway), the fact of the matter is federal and state funding are not large parts of their available funding, the bulk of which is toll revenues.

So, FHWA and NYSDOT don't have any pull over them.

FHWA: "You're non-compliant with the MUTCD!"
NYSTA: "So?"
FHWA: "You have to be compliant!"
NYSTA: "Or what?"
FHWA: "..."
FHWA: "We'll pull your federal funding...?"
NYSTA: BWAAAAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!  Go pound sand.

And now we see the benefits of Masspike getting folded into MassDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2023, 12:59:04 PM
The FHWA could go nuclear and revoke all the Interstate designations for the Thruway system.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 27, 2023, 01:10:16 PM
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.

As is New York.

I can't wait for that fight discussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
NYSTA: Either fund it or get lost
FHWA: 0_o

 :-D

Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
So?  No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.

I'm guessing its "NYSTA can do whatever it wants and to heck with FHWA and NYSDOT"?

Well, yes.  NYSTA is a public authority, a rogue entity that exists outside of State government, with the exception of Governor recommendations for leadership appointments.  Although it may receive pennies in federal funding through NYSDOT for certain, specific tasks (e.g., striping and bridges over the Thruway), the fact of the matter is federal and state funding are not large parts of their available funding, the bulk of which is toll revenues.

So, FHWA and NYSDOT don't have any pull over them.

FHWA: "You're non-compliant with the MUTCD!"
NYSTA: "So?"
FHWA: "You have to be compliant!"
NYSTA: "Or what?"
FHWA: "..."
FHWA: "We'll pull your federal funding...?"
NYSTA: BWAAAAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!  Go pound sand.

Well, Cuomo's ads were pulled off the Thruway somehow due to FHWA intervention - but I assume it wasn't NYSTA thing to begin with...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 27, 2023, 01:13:08 PM
The FHWA could go nuclear and revoke all the Interstate designations for the Thruway system.

Oh, ouch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 27, 2023, 01:27:54 PM
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.

As is New York.

I can't wait for that fight discussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
NYSTA: Either fund it or get lost
FHWA: 0_o

 :-D

Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
So?  No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.

I'm guessing its "NYSTA can do whatever it wants and to heck with FHWA and NYSDOT"?

Well, yes.  NYSTA is a public authority, a rogue entity that exists outside of State government, with the exception of Governor recommendations for leadership appointments.  Although it may receive pennies in federal funding through NYSDOT for certain, specific tasks (e.g., striping and bridges over the Thruway), the fact of the matter is federal and state funding are not large parts of their available funding, the bulk of which is toll revenues.

So, FHWA and NYSDOT don't have any pull over them.

FHWA: "You're non-compliant with the MUTCD!"
NYSTA: "So?"
FHWA: "You have to be compliant!"
NYSTA: "Or what?"
FHWA: "..."
FHWA: "We'll pull your federal funding...?"
NYSTA: BWAAAAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!  Go pound sand.

Well, Cuomo's ads were pulled off the Thruway somehow due to FHWA intervention - but I assume it wasn't NYSTA thing to begin with...
No, it wasn't.  That was pressure exerted upon NYSDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 27, 2023, 01:29:39 PM
The FHWA could go nuclear and revoke all the Interstate designations for the Thruway system.

Oh, ouch.
Again, no.  The answer from NYSTA would be, "Um, okay, weirdoes."

It would have an affect on NYSDOT's apportionments, but I doubt much would be made of it in the end.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 27, 2023, 02:09:06 PM
No, it wasn't.  That was pressure exerted upon NYSDOT.
So it boils down to "how efficiently the pressure applied to NYSDOT and governor transfers to NYSTA
Hard to believe there is no transfer at all. My impression is that the governor has the upper hand anyway, but also has little reason to play the game.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 27, 2023, 03:47:16 PM
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.

As is New York.

I can't wait for that fight discussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
NYSTA: Either fund it or get lost
FHWA: 0_o

 :-D

Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
So?  No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.

I'm guessing its "NYSTA can do whatever it wants and to heck with FHWA and NYSDOT"?

Well, yes.  NYSTA is a public authority, a rogue entity that exists outside of State government, with the exception of Governor recommendations for leadership appointments.  Although it may receive pennies in federal funding through NYSDOT for certain, specific tasks (e.g., striping and bridges over the Thruway), the fact of the matter is federal and state funding are not large parts of their available funding, the bulk of which is toll revenues.

So, FHWA and NYSDOT don't have any pull over them.

FHWA: "You're non-compliant with the MUTCD!"
NYSTA: "So?"
FHWA: "You have to be compliant!"
NYSTA: "Or what?"
FHWA: "..."
FHWA: "We'll pull your federal funding...?"
NYSTA: BWAAAAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!  Go pound sand.

Well, Cuomo's ads were pulled off the Thruway somehow due to FHWA intervention - but I assume it wasn't NYSTA thing to begin with...
No, it wasn't.  That was pressure exerted upon NYSDOT.

And if we are talking about those four closely spaced signs, they were not ads for Cuomo. They were vague, generic signs that did not advertise anything specific. I'm not sure why the administration decided to fight the FHWA on that specific case.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 27, 2023, 04:06:28 PM
No, it wasn't.  That was pressure exerted upon NYSDOT.
So it boils down to "how efficiently the pressure applied to NYSDOT and governor transfers to NYSTA
Hard to believe there is no transfer at all. My impression is that the governor has the upper hand anyway, but also has little reason to play the game.
Heh.  I've heard authority directors -- not only the Thruway's, but also DASNY's and others -- just straight-faced say they really don't answer to anyone as heads of public authorities.

Short of it is, unless they really, really, really screw up -- and yes, more than the $200m rest area overage debacle, directors keep their jobs.

We're still the state that created Robert Moses, after all.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 27, 2023, 06:15:45 PM
Not to overquote: If NYSTA does not change exit numbers, the FHWA could pressure NYS into losing Federal dollars unless they force NYSTA's hand. This has been mentioned for other agencies as well in my experience, but it's all conjecture for now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 27, 2023, 10:57:32 PM


Not to overquote: If NYSTA does not change exit numbers, the FHWA could pressure NYS into losing Federal dollars unless they force NYSTA's hand. This has been mentioned for other agencies as well in my experience, but it's all conjecture for now.

NYSDOT to FHWA: Given that NYSTA isn't even part of State Government in New York State, this treatment is unfair and we're suing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 28, 2023, 09:25:22 AM
I've never understood why the Thruway Authority has such a grand attachment to their interchange numbering system. There's no toll booths anymore, and it's not like locals say "I live at Exit 34" like they do around the New Jersey Turnpike. I got it back in the day when there were toll booths and tickets and all that, but now it's just another interstate that happens to have tolls.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 28, 2023, 09:37:13 AM
I've never understood why the Thruway Authority has such a grand attachment to their interchange numbering system. There's no toll booths anymore, and it's not like locals say "I live at Exit 34" like they do around the New Jersey Turnpike. I got it back in the day when there were toll booths and tickets and all that, but now it's just another interstate that happens to have tolls.
Here's the thing. When I'm on the Thruway, I KNOW where I am and I KNOW which exit I need based on the last city I passed and the city coming next. For example, I know to look for the exit, regardless of number, for I-490 towards Rochester when I'm west of Syracuse. That is Exit 45 right now, but it could be Exit 277 for all I care, but I still know to take that exit.

The number is irrelevant to me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2023, 11:00:57 AM
Somehow, I feel the New Jersey Turnpike will get mileage-based exits before the New York State Thruway does. Since the NJT will likely never get mileage-based exits, I have a feeling neither will the NYST.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 28, 2023, 08:49:33 PM
Not to overquote: If NYSTA does not change exit numbers, the FHWA could pressure NYS into losing Federal dollars unless they force NYSTA's hand. This has been mentioned for other agencies as well in my experience, but it's all conjecture for now.

If I recall a while back, isn't that what happened with the NJ Turnpike Authority to force compliance with BGS design practices?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 29, 2023, 07:01:41 AM
I've never understood why the Thruway Authority has such a grand attachment to their interchange numbering system. There's no toll booths anymore, and it's not like locals say "I live at Exit 34" like they do around the New Jersey Turnpike. I got it back in the day when there were toll booths and tickets and all that, but now it's just another interstate that happens to have tolls.
In NY, the big fear is business blowback due to their having to change advertising.  Even the cost of changing signage is secondary to that fear in NY in my experience.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 29, 2023, 10:57:09 AM
Did businesses cause "blowback" in other states when exits were renumbered? I have a feeling that is just an excuse to keep the numbers unchanged.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 29, 2023, 07:25:16 PM
Not to overquote: If NYSTA does not change exit numbers, the FHWA could pressure NYS into losing Federal dollars unless they force NYSTA's hand. This has been mentioned for other agencies as well in my experience, but it's all conjecture for now.

If I recall a while back, isn't that what happened with the NJ Turnpike Authority to force compliance with BGS design practices?
No. They wanted to improve MUTCD compliance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on June 29, 2023, 08:34:08 PM
Not to overquote: If NYSTA does not change exit numbers, the FHWA could pressure NYS into losing Federal dollars unless they force NYSTA's hand. This has been mentioned for other agencies as well in my experience, but it's all conjecture for now.

If I recall a while back, isn't that what happened with the NJ Turnpike Authority to force compliance with BGS design practices?
No. They wanted to improve MUTCD compliance.

Alps, I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like we're saying the same thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 29, 2023, 10:40:56 PM
Did businesses cause "blowback" in other states when exits were renumbered? I have a feeling that is just an excuse to keep the numbers unchanged.
Ah, no.  It's really a big fear at NYSDOT and is the first thing anyone brings up in a discussion.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on June 30, 2023, 09:06:58 AM
Did businesses cause "blowback" in other states when exits were renumbered? I have a feeling that is just an excuse to keep the numbers unchanged.
Ah, no.  It's really a big fear at NYSDOT and is the first thing anyone brings up in a discussion.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Given how the renumbering went down in PA, that seems to be a cop out to me.  IIRC it was viewed as a generally positive move and they did put a lot of press and presoaking out there to prepare the public for the change.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 30, 2023, 11:22:54 AM
Did businesses cause "blowback" in other states when exits were renumbered? I have a feeling that is just an excuse to keep the numbers unchanged.
Ah, no.  It's really a big fear at NYSDOT and is the first thing anyone brings up in a discussion.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Given how the renumbering went down in PA, that seems to be a cop out to me.  IIRC it was viewed as a generally positive move and they did put a lot of press and presoaking out there to prepare the public for the change.

PA isn't NY.  There are a myriad of reasons unique to NY as to why NY is one of the last states to convert
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on June 30, 2023, 12:18:05 PM
Did businesses cause "blowback" in other states when exits were renumbered? I have a feeling that is just an excuse to keep the numbers unchanged.
Ah, no.  It's really a big fear at NYSDOT and is the first thing anyone brings up in a discussion.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Given how the renumbering went down in PA, that seems to be a cop out to me.  IIRC it was viewed as a generally positive move and they did put a lot of press and presoaking out there to prepare the public for the change.

PA isn't NY.  There are a myriad of reasons unique to NY as to why NY is one of the last states to convert


I've always heard that NY has a unique situation with the interchange spacing, especially in the boroughs and on Long Island. The thing is, Chicago and other metro areas handle interchange spacing issues just fine, so I don't know why NY has always thought they were special in this regard.

I used to think sequential numbering was really no big deal when I lived in The Empire State (though I wish the longer non-Interstate freeways like US 219 had interchange numbering), but now that I don't live there, it's just downright weird to drive I-90 from PA to NY and come across a random "Exit 61" as the first interchange, after seeing an exit 1 (or something close) at every other state border since coming in from far flung places like South Dakota.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 30, 2023, 12:23:06 PM
NYSTA: We don't want to convert the numbers, so we'll just get rid of exit numbers in general.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on June 30, 2023, 01:16:48 PM
NYSTA: We don't want to convert the numbers, so we'll just get rid of exit numbers in general.
NYSTA a week later: We'll keep the numbers, but we're getting rid of all exits.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 30, 2023, 05:07:58 PM
Not to overquote: If NYSTA does not change exit numbers, the FHWA could pressure NYS into losing Federal dollars unless they force NYSTA's hand. This has been mentioned for other agencies as well in my experience, but it's all conjecture for now.

If I recall a while back, isn't that what happened with the NJ Turnpike Authority to force compliance with BGS design practices?
No. They wanted to improve MUTCD compliance.

Alps, I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like we're saying the same thing.
You were saying, or I read as such, that FHWA was forcing NJTA's hand. I was replying that NJTA was doing so on their own accord.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 30, 2023, 07:03:23 PM
finally some relief for us Long Islanders, the Northern State Parkway repave in Suffolk is underway, they have it milled and such, in spots revealing the original concrete. Still I wonder why they didn't just keep the concrete? Sunrise Highway has concrete pavement and it still holds up and doesn't end up with the same amount of damage the asphalt roads do.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 30, 2023, 07:53:37 PM
NYSTA: We don't want to convert the numbers, so we'll just get rid of exit numbers in general.
NYSTA a week later: We'll keep the numbers, but we're getting rid of all exits.
NYSTA a month later: What's this about cars being unable to leave the Thruway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 30, 2023, 08:36:37 PM
I'm curious as to why some of the old concrete has held up so well. The Thruway west of Syracuse was rebuilt ... 10 years ago (?) but is already failing at the joints. Meanwhile, I-495 on Long Island is still pressing on with original concrete that's 40 years old, and there are other highways in the state with concrete that's well outlasting what I would have expected in such a salt heavy state. Would it be the type of concrete used?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 30, 2023, 08:53:32 PM
I'm curious as to why some of the old concrete has held up so well. The Thruway west of Syracuse was rebuilt ... 10 years ago (?) but is already failing at the joints. Meanwhile, I-495 on Long Island is still pressing on with original concrete that's 40 years old, and there are other highways in the state with concrete that's well outlasting what I would have expected in such a salt heavy state. Would it be the type of concrete used?

Climate and relative lack of salt use. It's warmer on Long Island and they limit the use of salt down there due to water quality concerns. The section of the Thruway in question is in a lake effect snow belt and NYSTA is excessive with their use of salt.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on June 30, 2023, 10:18:22 PM
Gotcha. Even in "low salt" areas around the Finger Lakes and Adirondacks, they were piling it on. It's seriously harming the ecology of some lakes. I wish we had a better solution, but I suspect it would be to revert to the days of carrying chains and using studded snow tires - and be politically unpopular.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on June 30, 2023, 10:55:03 PM
I don't know. There was additional work done on the Thruway west of Syracuse just a couple of years ago.  Something seems amiss there.

And then you have the I-690 interchange work that is taking forever...

And then the rest area $200m debacle...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on July 02, 2023, 10:25:26 PM
I traveled the length of the Erie Canal and frequented the service areas (to sleep, eat, etc.). The new plazas are nice - and the ones that are larger are... much more spacious. I don't think they are places where you'd hang out for a long time doing work on your laptop, but I saw a few people doing just that at night in one of the many comfortable lounge chairs. The smallest of the service areas are awful, though. Very cramped interiors, tiny restrooms... and generally overcrowded for being the least used. Maybe it was because others were out of commission, but still.

I wish more of the plazas would have showers. I think 2 will have them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on July 04, 2023, 11:05:23 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/JssU1putE33w2p5j8
Finally got rid of the sine salad I see.

https://goo.gl/maps/6J89JS4CBoYizT8C7
This was what was there originally.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 04, 2023, 01:52:30 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/JssU1putE33w2p5j8
Finally got rid of the sine salad I see.

https://goo.gl/maps/6J89JS4CBoYizT8C7
This was what was there originally.

Given there is too much information there in the first one (have been under that sign many times), it's a good decision.

You have to look at what's easier to read at XX mph. Less is more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on July 04, 2023, 07:01:33 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/JssU1putE33w2p5j8
Finally got rid of the sine salad I see.

https://goo.gl/maps/6J89JS4CBoYizT8C7
This was what was there originally.

Given there is too much information there in the first one (have been under that sign many times), it's a good decision.

You have to look at what's easier to read at XX mph. Less is more.

Oh I’m glad.  I’m surprised that either NYSDOT or NYSTA finally figured it out. Plus adding Binghamton is a good idea as Middletown was fine, but many are destined for Binghamton and it should be used.

In fact it should be used with Harriman on the Thruway Exit 16 guides heading NB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 05, 2023, 12:51:54 AM
Do you people know where else bridges for the Appalachian Trail are needed? The Palisades Interstate Parkway south of the Visitor's Center, Bookstore, and former gas station.

Southbound Lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2838639,-74.0281499,3a,75y,197.9h,90.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCKpLc03Dz8xdv9V8q2Ia8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Northbound Lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2801954,-74.0296056,3a,37.5y,15.08h,89.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snxRzaKefw2eZjMRmiIPXIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Crossing according to GSV:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2822594,-74.028683,434m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

You can't have hikers trying to dodge speeding cars on the PIP.  I keep thinking of a land bridge or two similar to what you have with the Cross Florida Greenway over I-75 between Marion Oaks and Ocala.





Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on July 05, 2023, 02:08:43 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/jz3tFkgoiLqvqN8Y6
Actual trail as you can see it drop down to grade.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on July 05, 2023, 02:23:00 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/TjfZcfoBwz8FFrgS6
The bigger problem is where the NB left merge is from US 6 and  7 Lakes Drive. If one heading North on 7 Lakes wants to continue on 7 Lakes, has to weave across the two lanes of the PIP.

There is not much room between the left merge and the right exit to do it one lane at a time, so it’s a drastic crossing to undertake.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 05, 2023, 08:11:03 AM
That may have been the location at one point, but no longer.  According to the AT themselves, the crossing is at the Anthony Wayne overpass (https://www.nynjtc.org/trail-alerts/AT-PIPDetour), albeit "temporarily" until "a permanent route is determined by State Park staff."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 05, 2023, 08:20:54 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/TjfZcfoBwz8FFrgS6
The bigger problem is where the NB left merge is from US 6 and  7 Lakes Drive. If one heading North on 7 Lakes wants to continue on 7 Lakes, has to weave across the two lanes of the PIP.

There is not much room between the left merge and the right exit to do it one lane at a time, so it’s a drastic crossing to undertake.
Hey, I think I've brought up this subject before too. I've always felt there should be some kind of reconstruction in that area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on July 05, 2023, 09:09:29 PM
Do you people know where else bridges for the Appalachian Trail are needed? The Palisades Interstate Parkway south of the Visitor's Center, Bookstore, and former gas station.

Southbound Lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2838639,-74.0281499,3a,75y,197.9h,90.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCKpLc03Dz8xdv9V8q2Ia8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Northbound Lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2801954,-74.0296056,3a,37.5y,15.08h,89.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snxRzaKefw2eZjMRmiIPXIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Crossing according to GSV:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2822594,-74.028683,434m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

You can't have hikers trying to dodge speeding cars on the PIP.  I keep thinking of a land bridge or two similar to what you have with the Cross Florida Greenway over I-75 between Marion Oaks and Ocala.

That's a pretty yikes idea as a hiker as cars routinely exceed the 55 posted speed up and down the PIP. Plus, you can see those taut wire style guiderails on both sides of the parkway without an easy place to get around them as a hiker.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on July 10, 2023, 09:27:43 PM
Google Maps currently is showing the northern portion of the PIP, US 6 in that area, US 9W from Cornwall down passed the Bear Mountain Bridge, the Bridge itself, NY 32 around the Thruway overpass, all of NY 218 from Cornwall southward, and, over in Westchester, the Goat Trail all closed.

I doubt if the Storm King Highway portion of NY 218 will reopen this year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 11, 2023, 10:24:22 AM
Given 218 is missing a section that would need to be rebuilt, guaranteed we won't see it open until 2024.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on July 11, 2023, 02:22:15 PM
Given 218 is missing a section that would need to be rebuilt, guaranteed we won't see it open until 2024.

From pictures I have now seen, I think that it has been destroyed.  A part of the mountain it was built on is gone.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 11, 2023, 06:23:39 PM
They can probably support it. Not gonna be simple though with the eroded side of the mountain. Considering West Point is nearby, wouldn't surprise me if USACE gets involved.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 11, 2023, 06:37:52 PM
They can probably support it. Not gonna be simple though with the eroded side of the mountain. Considering West Point is nearby, wouldn't surprise me if USACE gets involved.
USACE really only gets involved with bridges over navigable waterways.

Given NY 218 was only a seasonal road that was already problematic due to rock falls, as well as the other devastation from the storms (e.g., NY 28 near Long Lake), it'll be interesting to see what NYSDOT does with it, if anything.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: LilianaUwU on July 12, 2023, 12:47:54 AM
I've seen pictures of the damage, and all I can say is "still in better shape than Québec's roads".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on July 12, 2023, 12:55:11 PM
If it was on I-95 in South Carolina, it probably wouldn't even warrant a "rough road" warning sign.

I drove that section several years back and enjoyed it, but it does seem unlikely to be a top priority to get it reopened end-to-end any time soon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 12, 2023, 03:07:09 PM
Personally, if NY 218 does not get rebuilt, I guess it would get partially decommissioned meaning that I would not have to clinch the damaged section.   ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 12, 2023, 05:10:24 PM
Not totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 12, 2023, 06:20:50 PM
Not totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)

Where'd you get the photo?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on July 12, 2023, 06:24:18 PM
Not totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
Where'd you get the photo?
This one is on a front page of TU:
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/construction-albany-county-rail-trail-bridge-18197215.php?IPID=Times-Union-HP-spotlight
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 12, 2023, 07:34:20 PM
Not totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)


Very similar to what happened on the original pedestrian bridge over NY 49 Utica-Rome Expressway in Marcy back in 2002.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_49
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 12, 2023, 07:53:12 PM
Ya think somebody screwed up?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on July 12, 2023, 10:18:20 PM
If it was on I-95 in South Carolina, it probably wouldn't even warrant a "rough road" warning sign.

I drove that section several years back and enjoyed it, but it does seem unlikely to be a top priority to get it reopened end-to-end any time soon.

What priority it does have is because it provides alternate access to the Washington Gate at West Point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on July 13, 2023, 03:57:18 PM
If it was on I-95 in South Carolina, it probably wouldn't even warrant a "rough road" warning sign.

I drove that section several years back and enjoyed it, but it does seem unlikely to be a top priority to get it reopened end-to-end any time soon.

What priority it does have is because it provides alternate access to the Washington Gate at West Point.
The 5 people a day that actually use it to get from the southeast part of Cornwall-on-Hudson to the Washington Gate can drive the extra 5 minutes on US-9W when it reopens.

Even taking all 1446 cars per day into account, other roads that have 10x or more traffic and longer detours due to a lack of redundancy should and will be prioritized by NYSDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on July 13, 2023, 06:43:50 PM
If it was on I-95 in South Carolina, it probably wouldn't even warrant a "rough road" warning sign.

I drove that section several years back and enjoyed it, but it does seem unlikely to be a top priority to get it reopened end-to-end any time soon.

What priority it does have is because it provides alternate access to the Washington Gate at West Point.
The 5 people a day that actually use it to get from the southeast part of Cornwall-on-Hudson to the Washington Gate can drive the extra 5 minutes on US-9W when it reopens.

Even taking all 1446 cars per day into account, other roads that have 10x or more traffic and longer detours due to a lack of redundancy should and will be prioritized by NYSDOT.

Tell it to the Army!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 13, 2023, 07:53:50 PM
If it was on I-95 in South Carolina, it probably wouldn't even warrant a "rough road" warning sign.

I drove that section several years back and enjoyed it, but it does seem unlikely to be a top priority to get it reopened end-to-end any time soon.

What priority it does have is because it provides alternate access to the Washington Gate at West Point.
The 5 people a day that actually use it to get from the southeast part of Cornwall-on-Hudson to the Washington Gate can drive the extra 5 minutes on US-9W when it reopens.

Even taking all 1446 cars per day into account, other roads that have 10x or more traffic and longer detours due to a lack of redundancy should and will be prioritized by NYSDOT.

Tell it to the Army!
Let us know when the Army is getting in the way of NYSDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 13, 2023, 08:51:54 PM
Speaking from my own experience visiting or passing through West Point (I would often stay at the inn on base while traveling to Vermont), not rebuilding Storm King Hwy would be inconsequential to the Army.  The majority of traffic to/from base uses the two southern gates.  The main purpose of the Washington gate is for those who live in base housing (which largely is near that gate) to get to 9W to get to/from Newburgh.  From the 218/Mountain Rd intersection to the Washington gate is roughly 6-7 miles and 12 minutes via Mountain Rd to 9W.  Because of how curvy and slow most of Stork King Hwy was, drivers will lose AT MOST 3-4 minutes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 13, 2023, 09:56:52 PM
293 would be considered the more important road if it was washed out. That said, my bet is NYSDOT rebuilds.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on July 13, 2023, 10:03:52 PM
From what I understand they want redundancy.

With Highland Falls a disaster area the Thayer Gate is of no use.  Both the Washington and Stony Lonesome Gates are accessible from 9W but that was shut down.  While 293 would provide access, in the aftermath of this storm it couldn't be used because US 6 was closed on its opposite end. If 218 hadn't bee damaged it would have been the access route to the post.

Personally, from the pictures I've seen, I doubt that 218 can be rebuilt.  But with a Can Do attitude, ...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on July 13, 2023, 10:11:45 PM
From what I understand they want redundancy.

With Highland Falls a disaster area the Thayer Gate is of no use.  Both the Washington and Stony Lonesome Gates are accessible from 9W but that was shut down.  While 293 would provide access, in the aftermath of this storm it couldn't be used because US 6 was closed on its opposite end. If 218 hadn't bee damaged it would have been the access route to the post.

Personally, from the pictures I've seen, I doubt that 218 can be rebuilt.  But with a Can Do attitude, ...
Please provide some sort of evidence that the Army has actually stated a position on the matter, rather than just your speculation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on July 13, 2023, 10:16:46 PM
It is not my speculation it is a rumor I had heard earlier this week.  As I have stated I doubt if it can be rebuilt.

Also, Mountain Road is currently closed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on July 16, 2023, 06:16:45 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/hXWqWmHJUvP39APF8
Interesting way to inform motorists that NY 440 South is to become NJ 440.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on July 16, 2023, 08:57:50 PM
That is kind of cool, but I doubt if most drivers even notice the difference in the route shields.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on July 16, 2023, 11:51:16 PM
That is kind of cool, but I doubt if most drivers even notice the difference in the route shields.

I wonder why the black border NJ shield though. NY, since the MUTCD forbade the use of text, has used border less shields on their own routes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 17, 2023, 10:00:58 AM
Evidently, the flooding was responsible for an accident on NY 27 at the CR 17 interchange;
https://longisland.news12.com/amp/suffolk-pd-police-officer-injured-in-sunrise-highway-crash
I want to know about places like Coram and Middle Island, though. And I wouldn't be surprised if NY 112 north of I-495 in Medford was back to its old ways.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 17, 2023, 08:17:21 PM
That is kind of cool, but I doubt if most drivers even notice the difference in the route shields.

I wonder why the black border NJ shield though. NY, since the MUTCD forbade the use of text, has used border less shields on their own routes.
Maybe NJDOT provided the shield?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 18, 2023, 01:30:43 PM
That is kind of cool, but I doubt if most drivers even notice the difference in the route shields.

I wonder why the black border NJ shield though. NY, since the MUTCD forbade the use of text, has used border less shields on their own routes.

I thought NJ always put black border markers on the guide signs outside of the NJ Turnpike. Probably NYSDOT trying to make the marker look as NJ typical as possible.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ran4sh on July 18, 2023, 02:51:57 PM
The MUTCD has never "forbade the use of text"...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on July 18, 2023, 03:24:38 PM
The MUTCD has never "forbade the use of text"...

I was just scanning the MUTCD to see if there was something I missed there as well and I couldn't find any reference to it.

Off topic but I've always thought post interchange distance signs should be all text and the markers should just appear on the interchange guide signs (but still optionally)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on July 25, 2023, 01:13:00 PM
That is kind of cool, but I doubt if most drivers even notice the difference in the route shields.

I wonder why the black border NJ shield though. NY, since the MUTCD forbade the use of text, has used border less shields on their own routes.

I thought NJ always put black border markers on the guide signs outside of the NJ Turnpike. Probably NYSDOT trying to make the marker look as NJ typical as possible.

Traditionally NJDOT did but the MUTCD has made the rules about contrast more stringent and they've stopped doing that. All newer signs from the last 2-3 years do not have the black backplates anymore.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CtrlAltDel on August 01, 2023, 03:38:13 PM
I was reading the Interstate Facts of the Day, you know, like you do, and I came across this entry for July 5:

Quote
Crossing Allen Creek in Rochester, New York, I-490 is carried across a 75 to 80-foot section of a structure that was built in 1905 for the Rochester to Syracuse interurban railroad.  The twin-cell concrete rigid frame structure with an arch top was built to look like stone.  In 1956/1957 when that section of the Interstate was built in Rochester, traffic on one side of the Interstate was carried on this 1905 structure, with the other side carried on a new concrete structure.  In 1991, the structure was lengthened to accommodate a widened Interstate, but the 1905 structure remains in use.

I've been looking for this bridge on Google Maps and elsewhere, and while I've found a lot of interesting information on I-490, the Rochester and Syracuse Railroad, and the Erie Canal, I cannot for the life of me locate this bridge. Does anyone know where it might be?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 01, 2023, 04:20:56 PM
I was reading the Interstate Facts of the Day, you know, like you do, and I came across this entry for July 5:

Quote
Crossing Allen Creek in Rochester, New York, I-490 is carried across a 75 to 80-foot section of a structure that was built in 1905 for the Rochester to Syracuse interurban railroad.  The twin-cell concrete rigid frame structure with an arch top was built to look like stone.  In 1956/1957 when that section of the Interstate was built in Rochester, traffic on one side of the Interstate was carried on this 1905 structure, with the other side carried on a new concrete structure.  In 1991, the structure was lengthened to accommodate a widened Interstate, but the 1905 structure remains in use.

I've been looking for this bridge on Google Maps and elsewhere, and while I've found a lot of interesting information on I-490, the Rochester and Syracuse Railroad, and the Erie Canal, I cannot for the life of me locate this bridge. Does anyone know where it might be?
must be this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1303559,-77.526911,18.71z?entry=ttu
over here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/bridgedata
you need Monroe county, on the first page it's BIN 1048880, Year Built: 1900; Year Reconstructed: 2001
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on August 01, 2023, 04:26:05 PM
Seriously, the Poiponen13 filter needs to have the fourth letter wildcard turned off.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on August 01, 2023, 09:32:12 PM
must be this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1303559,-77.526911,18.71z?entry=ttu
over here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/John Madden
you need Monroe county, on the first page it's BIN 1048880, Year Built: 1900; Year Reconstructed: 2001

Re the bolded,

1) I clicked on the link (minus "Madden") and got (from the NYSDOT site)

Error
Were you looking for something?
You have reached this page in error. We apologize for the inconvenience. Please use our feedback form to report this issue and help us improve the web site.

(HTTP ERROR CODE 404: Page Not Found)

and

2)  Is there a reason for the gap between "John" and "Madden"?  A typo?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 01, 2023, 09:48:37 PM
must be this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1303559,-77.526911,18.71z?entry=ttu
over here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/John Madden
you need Monroe county, on the first page it's BIN 1048880, Year Built: 1900; Year Reconstructed: 2001

Re the bolded,

1) I clicked on the link (minus "Madden") and got (from the NYSDOT site)

Error
Were you looking for something?
You have reached this page in error. We apologize for the inconvenience. Please use our feedback form to report this issue and help us improve the web site.

(HTTP ERROR CODE 404: Page Not Found)

and

2)  Is there a reason for the gap between "John" and "Madden"?  A typo?
I have no idea what is going on. I posted, and I am seeing, a completely different link
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on August 02, 2023, 06:33:57 AM
It's an overzealous forum filter. Because of Poiponen13, there's a filter where any word that begins with "mai" and ends with "a", regardless of what's in between, is replaced with John Madden. I've complained several times, and it's still not fixed.

I have emailed Scott5114.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 02, 2023, 06:53:52 AM
Weird way of moderating the forum.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr. Matté on August 02, 2023, 12:16:13 PM
Maybe can you just do a bit.ly or tinyurl link for now while the spokesman for the Popcorn Popper does his thing?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Scott5114 on August 02, 2023, 05:28:53 PM
Fixed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 03, 2023, 10:05:21 AM
Along the one block, wrong-way concurrency of US 202 and NY 59, there is no sign westbound on NY 59 telling motorists that eastbound US 202 makes that right turn onto Wayne Avenue. So why not mount one on the right side of this overhead directional sign right here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1166959,-74.1546956,3a,75y,344.5h,89.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5z3wIVGm9RHaeqZ6bLfLLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu

Title: Re: New York
Post by: CtrlAltDel on August 04, 2023, 12:11:05 PM
I was reading the Interstate Facts of the Day, you know, like you do, and I came across this entry for July 5:

Quote
Crossing Allen Creek in Rochester, New York, I-490 is carried across a 75 to 80-foot section of a structure that was built in 1905 for the Rochester to Syracuse interurban railroad.  The twin-cell concrete rigid frame structure with an arch top was built to look like stone.  In 1956/1957 when that section of the Interstate was built in Rochester, traffic on one side of the Interstate was carried on this 1905 structure, with the other side carried on a new concrete structure.  In 1991, the structure was lengthened to accommodate a widened Interstate, but the 1905 structure remains in use.

I've been looking for this bridge on Google Maps and elsewhere, and while I've found a lot of interesting information on I-490, the Rochester and Syracuse Railroad, and the Erie Canal, I cannot for the life of me locate this bridge. Does anyone know where it might be?
must be this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1303559,-77.526911,18.71z?entry=ttu
over here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/bridgedata
you need Monroe county, on the first page it's BIN 1048880, Year Built: 1900; Year Reconstructed: 2001

Getting back to the bridge itself, it seems like you're right and that the bridge is just essentially unnoticeable:
(https://i.imgur.com/bfrIQwZ.png)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on August 05, 2023, 11:01:40 AM
The  Popolopen Arch Bridge on Route 9W in Orange County has been reopened.

It had been closed since the July 9 storm when some of its underpinnings were washed out.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 05, 2023, 10:37:09 PM
The  Popolopen Arch Bridge on Route 9W in Orange County has been reopened.

It had been closed since the July 9 storm when some of its underpinnings were washed out.
Anyone else read that as Poiponen arch?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 07, 2023, 07:46:26 PM
The  Popolopen Arch Bridge on Route 9W in Orange County has been reopened.

It had been closed since the July 9 storm when some of its underpinnings were washed out.
Looks like they fixed it more easily than I thought they would. When I heard what the floods did to it, I thought they were going to need a total replacement.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 17, 2023, 10:22:46 AM
This seems to me as a completely random question, but is there any information out there about CR 11 previously being NY 866?  I noticed it on OSM as I was looking at I-86/NY 17 on Travel Mapping.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on August 17, 2023, 12:49:35 PM
This seems to me as a completely random question, but is there any information out there about CR 11 previously being NY 866?  I noticed it on OSM as I was looking at I-86/NY 17 on Travel Mapping.
I'm guessing you mean Steuben County CR-11:
CR-11 only exists south of I-86; the road from I-86 to NY-415 is reference route NY-960U. However, due to NYSDOT policy discouraging changing route numbers on reference markers, the RMs still have NY-866 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3247888,-77.2858134,3a,15y,171.82h,73.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s47aEvSurO_IBWnZG9vlqiw!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1), the reference route number from the old RR system most likely, on them, rather than NY-960U. Likewise, NY-415 itself still has NY-15 reference markers, (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3255435,-77.2881026,3a,15y,123.9h,82.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saQrigQXhoK8Af_41Pvjomg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) since it was previously NY-15.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr. Matté on August 17, 2023, 11:18:36 PM
Likewise, NY-415 itself still has NY-15 reference markers, (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3255435,-77.2881026,3a,15y,123.9h,82.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saQrigQXhoK8Af_41Pvjomg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) since it was previously NY-15.

As does I-86 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1839193,-77.1292921,3a,19.6y,147.38h,81.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh8KHH3iudTiCpfDsFwfMxA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 17, 2023, 11:55:06 PM
Earlier today I was looking at the signage history of the New York State Thruway as it approaches the Plattekill Service Area:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5729249,-74.0844378,3a,75y,333.24h,86.09t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1slQ-UmDHvM1VvwDT8HbEXBw!2e0!5s20151101T000000?hl=en&entry=ttu
What a disappointment.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 18, 2023, 09:08:15 AM
Earlier today I was looking at the signage history of the New York State Thruway as it approaches the Plattekill Service Area:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5729249,-74.0844378,3a,75y,333.24h,86.09t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1slQ-UmDHvM1VvwDT8HbEXBw!2e0!5s20151101T000000?hl=en&entry=ttu
What a disappointment.
Yeah, man. No more TTY available there. :D
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 18, 2023, 11:47:10 AM
Earlier today I was looking at the signage history of the New York State Thruway as it approaches the Plattekill Service Area:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5729249,-74.0844378,3a,75y,333.24h,86.09t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1slQ-UmDHvM1VvwDT8HbEXBw!2e0!5s20151101T000000?hl=en&entry=ttu
What a disappointment.
Yeah, man. No more TTY available there. :D
It's not just that. It's all the other amenities they used to brag about.

For the record, Florida rest areas still have pay phones with TTY, which is probably the only reason they still have pay phones.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 18, 2023, 08:19:45 PM
The sign doesn't indicate any dining or refreshment facilities. Do they not exist there?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr. Matté on August 18, 2023, 11:34:45 PM
I liked this order of little services signs from my trip earlier this month:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2217702,-78.288277,3a,50.4y,98.33h,84.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO3bYj0KQJocIdwqDuZPrtA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on August 19, 2023, 01:27:02 AM
The sign doesn't indicate any dining or refreshment facilities. Do they not exist there?
At the time when the GSV car went by in 2022, the service area was being demolished and rebuilt. It has since reopened with full services.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 19, 2023, 04:32:33 AM
New question. Can anyone get any photographs of New York State Route 25D when it ran from Oakland Gardens in Queens through Lake Success and the North Hills/Roslyn area?


Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 19, 2023, 03:21:07 PM
The sign doesn't indicate any dining or refreshment facilities. Do they not exist there?
At the time when the GSV car went by in 2022, the service area was being demolished and rebuilt. It has since reopened with full services.
That particular sign wouldn't advertise that anyways; those are on the advance signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5580882,-74.0809319,3a,28.6y,2.89h,92.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8k6IQyVLxx7Ouo80acBtCw!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) further back.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 20, 2023, 08:01:38 AM
The Adirondacks are the more proper place to find icon sign salad, anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 20, 2023, 10:33:35 AM
According to a 1947 map found on Historic Aerials, NY 101 originally ran on Middle Neck Road at NY 25A (east of the Searingtown Road/Port Washington Boulevard intersection) in Flower Hill, and instead of ending at Astor Lane in Sands Point ran all the way up to the Beacon Towers at the tip of Sands Point on the Long Island Sound.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=12&lat=40.7825&lon=-73.641389
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on August 20, 2023, 12:25:07 PM
The sign doesn't indicate any dining or refreshment facilities. Do they not exist there?
At the time when the GSV car went by in 2022, the service area was being demolished and rebuilt. It has since reopened with full services.
That particular sign wouldn't advertise that anyways; those are on the advance signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5580882,-74.0809319,3a,28.6y,2.89h,92.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8k6IQyVLxx7Ouo80acBtCw!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) further back.

And here it is when Plattekill was in a fairly advanced state of reconstruction.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5770484,-74.0857379,3a,47.3y,18.06h,89.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saQt0tidWf2TGpNtLtr4XAw!2e0!5s20220901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 20, 2023, 01:28:16 PM
That reminds me that I made my first stop at the new Plattekill service area last week.  While it still feels small, I was happy to see it's significantly larger than the others among the new ones I've been to so far.  Looks to me like sufficient seating and the bathroom was much more reasonable in size as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on August 20, 2023, 01:41:48 PM
That reminds me that I made my first stop at the new Plattekill service area last week.  While it still feels small, I was happy to see it's significantly larger than the others among the new ones I've been to so far.  Looks to me like sufficient seating and the bathroom was much more reasonable in size as well.
Level 3... That's the size of 5 out of 24 service areas.  Another 10 are sized as a quarter of of Plattekill one or smaller
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 20, 2023, 03:56:58 PM
That reminds me that I made my first stop at the new Plattekill service area last week.  While it still feels small, I was happy to see it's significantly larger than the others among the new ones I've been to so far.  Looks to me like sufficient seating and the bathroom was much more reasonable in size as well.
Level 3... That's the size of 5 out of 24 service areas.  Another 10 are sized as a quarter of of Plattekill one or smaller
The official size classifications are weird.  IMO levels 2A and 2B have more in common with level 3 than they do with level 2.

Incidentally, the map has been updated with new completion dates for most of the service areas.  Based on the dates, I suspect the four being renovated rather than rebuilt are Sloatsburg, Malden, Guilderland, and Pattersonville.  Also, Ontario appears to be getting Sbarro, which would make it the only one with pizza outside of whatever is sitting in the warmer at the convenience store.

Fun fact: If there aren't further delays, next fall Modena will be the last one not reopened under the new model.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 20, 2023, 10:21:38 PM
That reminds me that I made my first stop at the new Plattekill service area last week.  While it still feels small, I was happy to see it's significantly larger than the others among the new ones I've been to so far.  Looks to me like sufficient seating and the bathroom was much more reasonable in size as well.
I'd like to see more pics of that service area in Wikimedia Commons, along with the Sloatsburg and Ramapo Service Areas. The only reason I don't grab them myself is because I'm stuck in Florida.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 21, 2023, 12:32:09 PM
Does NYSDOT maintain US 11 in Syracuse?  I ask because I see on GSV where the US route changes alignment on N. state Street to N. Salina Street there is lacking trailblazing. Ditto SB from N. Salina to N. State.

I see though NY 5 is signed where it changes alignments plus US 11 is signed from NY 5 in both directions at State Street.

It makes me wonder if one route is state maintained and the other is not. Or both are municipal roads, but Syracuse, unlike Albany, is somewhat better at signing routes than the capital is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on August 21, 2023, 01:22:24 PM


Does NYSDOT maintain US 11 in Syracuse?  I ask because I see on GSV where the US route changes alignment on N. state Street to N. Salina Street there is lacking trailblazing. Ditto SB from N. Salina to N. State.

I see though NY 5 is signed where it changes alignments plus US 11 is signed from NY 5 in both directions at State Street.

It makes me wonder if one route is state maintained and the other is not. Or both are municipal roads, but Syracuse, unlike Albany, is somewhat better at signing routes than the capital is.

Yeah, the lack of signage for US 11 in that area has been a thorn in my side.  I'll ask around about it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr. Matté on August 21, 2023, 06:19:41 PM
Having driven all of US 11 through Syracuse last month, at least where the random turns are (Raynor Avenue, Salina Street, Wolf Street) and some of the other state highway intersections, the route is signed. Per NYSDOT GIS data I downloaded last year, it's all city-maintained.

The city did put up the relatively-neat-for-NY signal street sign blades with route shields at NY 173 though:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/US_11_sb_at_NY_173%2C_July_2023.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 21, 2023, 06:23:41 PM
That's a DOT design. R5 has them too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 21, 2023, 06:26:07 PM
The city did put up the relatively-neat-for-NY signal street sign blades with route shields at NY 173 though:

Those are nice, there's some in Auburn also. I do wish they were used more frequently.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 21, 2023, 08:53:05 PM
NJs with the cardinal directions were and are vastly superior.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on August 21, 2023, 09:15:37 PM
Personally, I don't mind the inclusion of cardinal directions, but it can be a lot of information to fit on a small sign, as shown here (https://goo.gl/maps/fPNGSpPGwPvE4aQH8). The NJ 27 sign is great, but the Wood Ave one is a bit dense for my liking, and too close to the signal head. I'd like to see more ground-mounted "LGS" style signage at state route junctions (à la Washington (https://goo.gl/maps/189k1gV2jeobLHqe6), but with directions combined on a single line and any route destinations listed below).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on August 22, 2023, 10:39:36 AM
Having driven all of US 11 through Syracuse last month, at least where the random turns are (Raynor Avenue, Salina Street, Wolf Street) and some of the other state highway intersections, the route is signed. Per NYSDOT GIS data I downloaded last year, it's all city-maintained.

The city did put up the relatively-neat-for-NY signal street sign blades with route shields at NY 173 though:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/US_11_sb_at_NY_173%2C_July_2023.jpg)

I'm a fan of this new layout, but depending on the context I like side mounted blades. Particularly if you're in a city, like NY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 22, 2023, 05:55:18 PM
Personally, I don't mind the inclusion of cardinal directions, but it can be a lot of information to fit on a small sign, as shown here (https://goo.gl/maps/fPNGSpPGwPvE4aQH8). The NJ 27 sign is great, but the Wood Ave one is a bit dense for my liking, and too close to the signal head. I'd like to see more ground-mounted "LGS" style signage at state route junctions (à la Washington (https://goo.gl/maps/189k1gV2jeobLHqe6), but with directions combined on a single line and any route destinations listed below).
the Wood Ave one is indeed too dense. I would have designed it with more room. You should see my signs. (:
https://goo.gl/maps/jPcmbMB1HnzM9dfX7
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on August 30, 2023, 07:43:32 PM
I see our friends at NYSDOT Region 10 are putting a detour for US 135 out on Long Island.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42125&p_is_digital=Y (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42125&p_is_digital=Y)

They're also keeping it retro with some centered exit number tabs, so good for them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 30, 2023, 07:56:05 PM
The centered exit number tags are probably an error.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 30, 2023, 08:04:38 PM
I see our friends at NYSDOT Region 10 are putting a detour for US 135 out on Long Island.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42125&p_is_digital=Y (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42125&p_is_digital=Y)

They're also keeping it retro with some centered exit number tabs, so good for them.
NYM5-1 isn't US 135. NYM5-1 is custom signs for parkways. A 135 shield would just be a straight "M" from the MUTCD. (M1-4 for US, M1-5 for state)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on September 02, 2023, 07:57:28 AM
The centered exit number tags are probably an error.

Exit 1E from the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway (NY 135) isn't an exit off to the right.  It's the highway straight ahead turning into an exit as it ends.  That's probably why they're using a centered tab.  There's currently signage there from circa 2013 that has a centered tab.  See https://www.eastcoastroads.com/states/ny/state/ny135/photogal/south#1.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on September 05, 2023, 06:07:05 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/iHJU5uoxYa74vx3SA
I-87 is an E-W running route?  The PIP Exit 9E guide shows it running East with I-287.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 05, 2023, 06:46:41 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/iHJU5uoxYa74vx3SA
I-87 is an E-W running route?  The PIP Exit 9E guide shows it running East with I-287.
Given the location, sure, why not?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on September 05, 2023, 10:26:56 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/iHJU5uoxYa74vx3SA
I-87 is an E-W running route?  The PIP Exit 9E guide shows it running East with I-287.
Given the location, sure, why not?

There is a newer sign that does use I-87 SB on the SB PIP and New York City over White Plains right at Exit 9E. 

Most of all I’m surprised that both NJ & NY agreed to raise the speed limit from 50 to 55 south of the Thruway as I see no more 50 mph signs South of Bardonia.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: astralentity on September 06, 2023, 11:43:56 AM
So what's going on with the intersection of Upper Glen and Aviation/Quaker in Queensbury?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 06, 2023, 12:45:01 PM
So what's going on with the intersection of Upper Glen and Aviation/Quaker in Queensbury?
I think I remember hearing something about a water line break on the news.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 07, 2023, 07:02:04 AM
I see a large cluster of spotlight trailers gathered around the former Shenandoah Service Area on the Taconic State Parkway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5467322,-73.7747536,3a,75y,1.63h,95.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFiBnJzmn149A4_km3FP1-w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu
NYSDOT Region 8 isn't planning to demolish the remains of the place, are they?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 07, 2023, 11:11:04 AM
When did the Shenandoah Service Area close? I assume it was a gas station-only service area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on September 07, 2023, 12:07:33 PM
Having driven all of US 11 through Syracuse last month, at least where the random turns are (Raynor Avenue, Salina Street, Wolf Street) and some of the other state highway intersections, the route is signed. Per NYSDOT GIS data I downloaded last year, it's all city-maintained.

The city did put up the relatively-neat-for-NY signal street sign blades with route shields at NY 173 though:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/US_11_sb_at_NY_173%2C_July_2023.jpg)

I noticed 1-2 of these last weekend on US 6 in Brewster: https://goo.gl/maps/nGL6VhYKo26BXt1d7
There's also one on NY-376 in Wappinger/Hopewell at Lake Walton Rd though I think the sign for 376 says "NY 376" instead of the 376 shield
Title: Re: New York
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 07, 2023, 04:23:55 PM
When did the Shenandoah Service Area close? I assume it was a gas station-only service area.
1999, maybe?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 07, 2023, 08:08:02 PM
I see a large cluster of spotlight trailers gathered around the former Shenandoah Service Area on the Taconic State Parkway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5467322,-73.7747536,3a,75y,1.63h,95.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFiBnJzmn149A4_km3FP1-w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu
NYSDOT Region 8 isn't planning to demolish the remains of the place, are they?

I think that's just for the resurfacing they've been doing in that area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 08, 2023, 05:38:51 PM
Not totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
A follow up: a preliminary engineering report says that whoever designed the bridge basically didn't realize girders are not straight but have a step "to mimic previous 3-span structure"
Nice to see that design firm also does consulting for NYSDOT...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 09, 2023, 09:00:31 PM
When did the Shenandoah Service Area close? I assume it was a gas station-only service area.
1999, maybe?

Tanks were removed in 2004.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 10, 2023, 02:12:46 AM
Not totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
A follow up: a preliminary engineering report says that whoever designed the bridge basically didn't realize girders are not straight but have a step "to mimic previous 3-span structure"
Nice to see that design firm also does consulting for NYSDOT...

link
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 10, 2023, 09:12:40 AM
Not totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
A follow up: a preliminary engineering report says that whoever designed the bridge basically didn't realize girders are not straight but have a step "to mimic previous 3-span structure"
Nice to see that design firm also does consulting for NYSDOT...

link
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/albany-county-releases-report-rail-trail-bridge-18353527.php?IPID=Times-Union-Capital-Region-spotlight
Cannot make standalone scribd link to work.
Fun fact: this is not the first bridge collapse from the same designer:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2003/2003204
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 10, 2023, 07:41:22 PM
Does anybody see this New York State Department of Public Works plaque at the Bellerose Long Island Rail Road station?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Bellerose_LIRR_Station%3B_DPW_Mark.jpg/640px-Bellerose_LIRR_Station%3B_DPW_Mark.jpg)
These also used to be located at various bridges over roads in New York State, including this one covered by Steve Alps on the former NY 113 in Quogue.
(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/cr_104/nrr.jpg)
I've even seen them on NY 27 east of East Patchogue, Sometime around the turn of the millennium, most of them were removed.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 10, 2023, 09:20:06 PM
Not totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
A follow up: a preliminary engineering report says that whoever designed the bridge basically didn't realize girders are not straight but have a step "to mimic previous 3-span structure"
Nice to see that design firm also does consulting for NYSDOT...

link
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/albany-county-releases-report-rail-trail-bridge-18353527.php?IPID=Times-Union-Capital-Region-spotlight
Cannot make standalone scribd link to work.
Fun fact: this is not the first bridge collapse from the same designer:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2003/2003204

Me neither, but this suffices. Thank you.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 11, 2023, 09:02:34 AM
Someone was remarking in a thread I came across (local newspaper) about how the old bridge was still in good condition. Could it have been raised on new abutments or the roadway lowered to provide the clearance needed? Could an "off the shelf" bridge from someplace like the Bridge Brothers (https://bridgebrothers.com/trail-bridges/) saved taxpayers a lot of money versus trying to mimic the old design of the bridge? (Which really wasn't that special.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 11, 2023, 10:34:45 AM
Someone was remarking in a thread I came across (local newspaper) about how the old bridge was still in good condition. Could it have been raised on new abutments or the roadway lowered to provide the clearance needed? Could an "off the shelf" bridge from someplace like the Bridge Brothers (https://bridgebrothers.com/trail-bridges/) saved taxpayers a lot of money versus trying to mimic the old design of the bridge? (Which really wasn't that special.)
It was an old railroad bridge, raising it would be difficult due to design I would imagine. A very narrow roadway under the bridge was a bigger problem.
Off the shelf bridge... One of stated goals I heard is that bridge should be passable for emergency vehicles.  Similarity....  Well, compare for yourself: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6296033,-73.8638858,3a,75y,250.6h,76.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxjW17LNx8Ndi35nlAmtzuA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 11, 2023, 11:17:47 AM
Ah - thanks for the GSV. It still makes me wonder if just lifting the old superstructure out of there, replacing the abutments, and raising the bridge would have been sufficient. It probably wouldn't have widened the roadway as the supports would need to be reinstalled in the same location.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 11, 2023, 12:16:42 PM
Ah - thanks for the GSV. It still makes me wonder if just lifting the old superstructure out of there, replacing the abutments, and raising the bridge would have been sufficient. It probably wouldn't have widened the roadway as the supports would need to be reinstalled in the same location.
Pedestrian/bicycle access is a big thing these days, so some widening was probably a must.
On a personal level, that thing felt scary to drive under.  Dark and narrow...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 11, 2023, 06:28:36 PM
Rather than mimic 3 spans of different heights, they could have done something like a trapezoid that wouldn't buckle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 11, 2023, 08:25:23 PM
Rather than mimic 3 spans of different heights, they could have done something like a trapezoid that wouldn't buckle.
I suspect this is the problem with engineers' perception of structural FEA. There was a pretty high profile (as in billions lost) similar case in Boeing 787 program.
And I am afraid even to think of how many things end up deep into their safety margins in similar scenarios.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 11, 2023, 09:12:05 PM
Rather than mimic 3 spans of different heights, they could have done something like a trapezoid that wouldn't buckle.
I suspect this is the problem with engineers' perception of structural FEA. There was a pretty high profile (as in billions lost) similar case in Boeing 787 program.
And I am afraid even to think of how many things end up deep into their safety margins in similar scenarios.
Engineers are responsible for structural feasibility. The structural engineers should have been the ones to decide design.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 11, 2023, 11:10:43 PM
Does everybody here see these traffic signals?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/North_End%3B_Adirondack_Drive_%40_NY_25%2C_Selden%2C_NY.jpg/640px-North_End%3B_Adirondack_Drive_%40_NY_25%2C_Selden%2C_NY.jpg)
That's Adirondack Drive at the north end with NY 25 in Selden. I took that picture in November 2021. The latest GSV view (October 2019) still has a stop sign there. So, the simple question is, when were they installed?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 12, 2023, 08:14:54 AM
Rather than mimic 3 spans of different heights, they could have done something like a trapezoid that wouldn't buckle.
I suspect this is the problem with engineers' perception of structural FEA. There was a pretty high profile (as in billions lost) similar case in Boeing 787 program.
And I am afraid even to think of how many things end up deep into their safety margins in similar scenarios.
Engineers are responsible for structural feasibility. The structural engineers should have been the ones to decide design.
Well, the buck (I mean DA) stops at PE stamp on the design. Those working for the firm without PE doing actual FEA and design also didn't do well.
Overall, I am not going to apportion the responsibility - there is always many things to consider and multiple people to blame. But I hope you're not going to deny responsibility of design team?
 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 12, 2023, 10:06:25 AM
Does everybody here see these traffic signals?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/North_End%3B_Adirondack_Drive_%40_NY_25%2C_Selden%2C_NY.jpg/640px-North_End%3B_Adirondack_Drive_%40_NY_25%2C_Selden%2C_NY.jpg)
That's Adirondack Drive at the north end with NY 25 in Selden. I took that picture in November 2021. The latest GSV view (October 2019) still has a stop sign there. So, the simple question is, when were they installed?

Well LOL, obviously sometime between Oct. 2019 and Nov. 2021. This is very typical example of NYSDOT Region-10's current installation practices. Long curving mast-arms in a diagonal-span configuration. Good to see all heads with 12-inch lenses. Mounting brackets that extend up above the signal heads giving a very sloppy appearance. And back plates that will probably break and fall off in a few years going by the history of recent NYSDOT installations. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 12, 2023, 11:33:46 AM
The back plates are flimsy as crap. The ones at US 20A and South Taylor Road in Orchard Park and US 62/NY 179 in Hamburg are already missing parts of their backplates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 12, 2023, 05:20:34 PM
The back plates are flimsy as crap. The ones at US 20A and South Taylor Road in Orchard Park and US 62/NY 179 in Hamburg are already missing parts of their backplates.
And prices for signal replacements are skyrocketing due to material costs...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on September 12, 2023, 06:09:25 PM
The back plates are flimsy as crap.

Concur. I've seen more than a few that are broken or missing pieces despite being relatively new. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 12, 2023, 07:05:31 PM
The one at US 20A and South Taylor looks like the backplate was chewed by an alligator because one has an entire corner missing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 12, 2023, 08:42:52 PM
So how is it that in California and Illinois their backplates don't break and fall off?

The funny thing is that NYS DOT went through exactly this same circus thirty years ago on Long Island and all the backplates from back then are long gone. NYS DOT obviously didn't learn from the experience as now they seem to be re-inventing the wheel.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 12, 2023, 09:15:31 PM
Rather than mimic 3 spans of different heights, they could have done something like a trapezoid that wouldn't buckle.
I suspect this is the problem with engineers' perception of structural FEA. There was a pretty high profile (as in billions lost) similar case in Boeing 787 program.
And I am afraid even to think of how many things end up deep into their safety margins in similar scenarios.
Engineers are responsible for structural feasibility. The structural engineers should have been the ones to decide design.
Well, the buck (I mean DA) stops at PE stamp on the design. Those working for the firm without PE doing actual FEA and design also didn't do well.
Overall, I am not going to apportion the responsibility - there is always many things to consider and multiple people to blame. But I hope you're not going to deny responsibility of design team?
 
You are missing the fact that the design is done by engineers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on September 12, 2023, 09:20:36 PM
Rather than mimic 3 spans of different heights, they could have done something like a trapezoid that wouldn't buckle.
I suspect this is the problem with engineers' perception of structural FEA. There was a pretty high profile (as in billions lost) similar case in Boeing 787 program.
And I am afraid even to think of how many things end up deep into their safety margins in similar scenarios.
Engineers are responsible for structural feasibility. The structural engineers should have been the ones to decide design.
Well, the buck (I mean DA) stops at PE stamp on the design. Those working for the firm without PE doing actual FEA and design also didn't do well.
Overall, I am not going to apportion the responsibility - there is always many things to consider and multiple people to blame. But I hope you're not going to deny responsibility of design team?
 
You are missing the fact that the design is done by engineers.
Talking about engineers... there had been a great tradition of an engineer standing under the newly built bridge...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 29, 2023, 12:59:06 PM
The potential concepts for the Troy-Menands Bridge alignment have been posted to the study website.  Note that the concepts are just of the bridge alignment; exact details of how it would tie in on each side are beyond the scope of this study and what is shown is just placeholders, although reducing the footprint of the I-787/NY 378 interchange is a goal.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/troymenandsbridge/reports
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 01:20:16 PM
All 9 of the Concept Corridor alternatives have the Interstate 787/NY 378 interchange being converted into a diamond interchange. I wonder if the ramp terminals of the converted interchange will have stop signs, signals, or roundabouts? Which one would be most likely?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on September 29, 2023, 02:47:31 PM
^ Given traffic volumes, I think it's safe to say that stop signs aren't even in the picture.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on September 29, 2023, 04:38:43 PM
That's interesting - aren't there queueing problems going to and from Troy that make a diamond configuration an issue with backups? Or were the backups because of the mess of intersections east of the river?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 29, 2023, 08:24:34 PM
The backups are due to the intersections east of the river, especially with all the traffic trying to get to HVCC and then trying to cut the corner down Morrison instead of heading up to US 4.  Even trucks occasionally try to do that, only to get stuck because there isn't enough turning radius for them at that intersection.

As for the I-787/NY 378 interchange, do note that the diamond is only a placeholder.  The actual interchange could be a SPUI, DDI, or something completely different (and could well be affected by the findings of the related I-787 study).  They just needed to put something there to have a rendering.  The point of the study is mainly to engage stakeholders and the public and document feedback and issues relating to the bridge alignment concepts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 30, 2023, 01:56:10 AM
They need to do something for 378 west to 787 south. That is a heavy movement; the corresponding N-E is a direct right turn under any scenario.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on September 30, 2023, 06:27:16 AM
They need to do something for 378 west to 787 south. That is a heavy movement; the corresponding N-E is a direct right turn under any scenario.
So, coming from Troy?  Yep, definitely.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on October 17, 2023, 02:51:19 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/8ZXs1kn1K2pqbazg9
Didn’t know that the Henry Hudson Parkway had its own shield.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on October 18, 2023, 07:44:04 PM
All of the NYC parkways do now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on October 21, 2023, 07:58:27 AM
All of the NYC parkways do now.

In theory.  In practice, there are very few signs up, so for many of the parkways, we don't know what the new signs look like.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 21, 2023, 09:12:34 AM
All of the NYC parkways do now.

In theory.  In practice, there are very few signs up, so for many of the parkways, we don't know what the new signs look like.
Didn't someone post a link to a page with all the shields to one of the Facebook groups a while back?  Unfortunately I can't find it at the moment, but I remember using it to make the shields for my site (minus the Belt, which still uses one I found elsewhere (I presume contract plans posted to a Facebook group); I did make the other (https://nysroads.com/images/shields/bpne.png) and I have a note to compare and potentially switch should a shield ever appear in the wild to confirm which one is right).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 06, 2023, 02:56:22 PM
The Storm King Highway portion of NY Route 218 is now listed on Google Maps as being closed until next July.

The road was severely damaged in a bad storm in June.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 06, 2023, 10:24:35 PM
The Storm King Highway portion of NY Route 218 is now listed on Google Maps as being closed until next July.

The road was severely damaged in a bad storm in June.
Closes every winter season.

Google Maps used to have a glitch where if you wanted to visit an overlook while the road was closed, the route would have you swim across the Hudson.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on November 10, 2023, 10:03:01 AM
All of the NYC parkways do now.

In theory.  In practice, there are very few signs up, so for many of the parkways, we don't know what the new signs look like.

Some are def signed more than others. The Jackie Robinson Pkwy (https://maps.app.goo.gl/BMdgCtvGJEZod7SV8) has several shields up. There's at least one on the KWV Pkwy (https://maps.app.goo.gl/xpv3GU4hkubB8pLh7) on Staten Island. There are some of the newer ones on the Grand Central (https://maps.app.goo.gl/sm2pzxbahMZPyzFZ9), replacing the old oval shield it was unique for having. Here's one for the Bronx River (https://maps.app.goo.gl/y7SihTSsgWL4DmxY8).

So they are out there. They're just really haphazardly out there. I think the reason is that these shields are a NYCDOT thing and not a NYSDOT thing so it's up tot the city to get them posted. The state just posts their standard BGS's with the parkway names on them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 10, 2023, 01:32:57 PM
Quote
Google Maps used to have a glitch where if you wanted to visit an overlook while the road was closed, the route would have you swim across the Hudson.

I am sure our favorite bridge selfie girl would consider doing that.   ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on November 12, 2023, 11:38:04 AM
Are speed bumps/humps legal in NYS? The town of East Fishkill opened a new road to service the new Amazon warehouse. It is a signed route to I 84 and connects Lime Kiln Rd (CR 27) and NY 52. But despite it being a truck route, it's got speed bumps and NO ENGINE BRAKE signs. It's a road through an abandoned IBM complex, why is traffic calming needed here?

East Fishkill also lowered the speed limit on Lake Walton Rd (from 40 to 35) without the DOT, they just passed an ordinance which I'm pretty sure isn't legal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 12, 2023, 11:58:33 AM


Are speed bumps/humps legal in NYS? The town of East Fishkill opened a new road to service the new Amazon warehouse. It is a signed route to I 84 and connects Lime Kiln Rd (CR 27) and NY 52. But despite it being a truck route, it's got speed bumps and NO ENGINE BRAKE signs. It's a road through an abandoned IBM complex, why is traffic calming needed here?

East Fishkill also lowered the speed limit on Lake Walton Rd (from 40 to 35) without the DOT, they just passed an ordinance which I'm pretty sure isn't legal.

Yep, humps are legal.  Rules apply dependent upon jurisdiction.  Sounds like the Town opened the doors for Amazon and then the neighborhood threw a fit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 16, 2023, 12:25:36 PM
The potential concepts for the Troy-Menands Bridge alignment have been posted to the study website.  Note that the concepts are just of the bridge alignment; exact details of how it would tie in on each side are beyond the scope of this study and what is shown is just placeholders, although reducing the footprint of the I-787/NY 378 interchange is a goal.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/troymenandsbridge/reports
Quoting my own post to note that the draft Troy-Menands Bridge PEL report and questionnaire are both online, as are updated renderings of the nine concepts that are easier to see.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/troymenandsbridge/reports
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 21, 2023, 06:19:37 AM
https://www.facebook.com/groups/96206174878/permalink/10162179526174879/

https://wpdh.com/automated-speeding-tickets-begin-for-i-84-and-i-87-in-new-york/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

Be careful now on some NY State roads.

Speed cameras are now going to be the enforcers on some NY Interstates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 21, 2023, 06:45:21 AM
https://www.facebook.com/groups/96206174878/permalink/10162179526174879/

https://wpdh.com/automated-speeding-tickets-begin-for-i-84-and-i-87-in-new-york/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

Be careful now on some NY State roads.

Speed cameras are now going to be the enforcers on some NY Interstates.
Read more than the headlines -- thanks for forwarding clickbait.  FreewayJim is a haven for this crap. 

It's only for work zones, which has been the case for a whole lot of months now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 21, 2023, 07:11:19 AM
Still they have construction constantly to warrant this.

Yes, Freeway Jim is the social media crap we discussed in another thread that is there for entertainment, but the technology is there and it’s not whether if it’s going to happen, but when.


https://maps.app.goo.gl/Vxspq2hDDx7JHJmAA
Back to Camelot, I often found this interchange ( both sign and ramp configuration to be most fascinating. Considering it’s for an extension of NY 5 that will never be built, I find it interesting that NYSDOT kept alive part of old Route 5 to keep NY 174 tied into to relocated NY 5 so no orphaned Route here.

I’m just curious why NYSDOT abandoned extending Route 5 as a freeway to Auburn. Was it money, NIMBYs, or environmental concerns.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on November 21, 2023, 12:36:20 PM
https://www.facebook.com/groups/96206174878/permalink/10162179526174879/

https://wpdh.com/automated-speeding-tickets-begin-for-i-84-and-i-87-in-new-york/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

Be careful now on some NY State roads.

Speed cameras are now going to be the enforcers on some NY Interstates.
Read more than the headlines -- thanks for forwarding clickbait.  FreewayJim is a haven for this crap. 

It's only for work zones, which has been the case for a whole lot of months now.
NY 104 in Rochester currently has camera enforcement in multiple work zones. They have a truck parked at each end of the zones with the equipment.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 21, 2023, 12:53:08 PM
Yes, Freeway Jim is the social media crap we discussed in another thread that is there for entertainment, but the technology is there and it’s not whether if it’s going to happen, but when.
They'd have to change the law first, so I think it's safe to say that we'd have plenty of warning.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 21, 2023, 01:06:41 PM
Yes, Freeway Jim is the social media crap we discussed in another thread that is there for entertainment, but the technology is there and it’s not whether if it’s going to happen, but when.
They'd have to change the law first, so I think it's safe to say that we'd have plenty of warning.

Obviously it’s whatever. I’m not going to argue for trying to start a discussion.  I’m not the first user on here and I certainly won’t be the last who shares what they think might be interesting that doesn’t grab attention.

Just so happens that Rothman and his usual critiquing of users posting repeat posts got into this. If he said nothing it would be like another person pointing out the previous without sarcasm. 

Hey I make mistakes and I’m well enough to admit, but I don’t have time to go through every post to see if someone else beat me to it.

As far as the project goes, I’m glad it’s happening even though I think removing the viaduct is a bad move. I always like proposals put into action as new roads is the best part of roadding. I’m not going to sulk like some over I-74, I-99, and southern I-87 or the fact Breezewood will never have the proper interchange it should have.

I’m ready to move on from this and have moved on.  Yes this is old but new and it’s one of many things out there that can be brought up for discussion.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on November 21, 2023, 01:17:20 PM
...Was it money, NIMBYs, or environmental concerns.

Growing up not far from this interchange, I was always told it was probably all of the above. They did fully rehab that bridge in the not-so-distant past, then again that might be 15 years ago at this point. The bypass through that stretch had to deal with unstable slopes; and relocated/truncated several other roads in the village of Camillus. The redid the entry from Newport Rd (by the DOT residency) around the same time, removing the need to merge (three lanes now begin after the onramp) and removing some local canoe access to Nine Mile Creek.

If I remember reading correctly (probably on a post in this thread) they did need to realign part of what is (now) NY 174 to that end.

Funny on the other end of the bypass, a bridge onto the road would be beneficial to traffic, but instead we gained direct-access to an expanded Wegmans supermarket.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 21, 2023, 09:53:40 PM
Yes, Freeway Jim is the social media crap we discussed in another thread that is there for entertainment, but the technology is there and it’s not whether if it’s going to happen, but when.
They'd have to change the law first, so I think it's safe to say that we'd have plenty of warning.

Obviously it’s whatever. I’m not going to argue for trying to start a discussion.  I’m not the first user on here and I certainly won’t be the last who shares what they think might be interesting that doesn’t grab attention.

Just so happens that Rothman and his usual critiquing of users posting repeat posts got into this. If he said nothing it would be like another person pointing out the previous without sarcasm. 

Hey I make mistakes and I’m well enough to admit, but I don’t have time to go through every post to see if someone else beat me to it.

As far as the project goes, I’m glad it’s happening even though I think removing the viaduct is a bad move. I always like proposals put into action as new roads is the best part of roadding. I’m not going to sulk like some over I-74, I-99, and southern I-87 or the fact Breezewood will never have the proper interchange it should have.

I’m ready to move on from this and have moved on.  Yes this is old but new and it’s one of many things out there that can be brought up for discussion.
I think you meant to reply to a different post.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on November 23, 2023, 01:06:24 AM
https://www.wshu.org/long-island-news/2023-11-22/atlantic-beach-bridge-e-zpass

It's official: the Atlantic Beach Bridge in Nassau County will be accepting E-Z Pass sometime in mid-December (next month)!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 23, 2023, 06:19:24 PM
https://www.wshu.org/long-island-news/2023-11-22/atlantic-beach-bridge-e-zpass

It's official: the Atlantic Beach Bridge in Nassau County will be accepting E-Z Pass sometime in mid-December (next month)!


It's about time !
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 24, 2023, 01:55:59 PM
NY 17 Exit 131 in Woodbury appears to be closed. Though it's unclear why, my assumption is it's closed to control the traffic entering Woodbury Commons. The traffic situation is about as nightmarish as you'd expect for the busiest shopping day at (one of?) the biggest shopping destinations in the Tri-State area. Exit 129 is overwhelmed and traffic is backed up in both directions between 131 and 129. There are also backups on I-87, US 6, NY 32, and significant spillover onto local streets in Harriman and Monroe.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SGwithADD on November 24, 2023, 04:00:14 PM
NY 17 Exit 131 in Woodbury appears to be closed. Though it's unclear why, my assumption is it's closed to control the traffic entering Woodbury Commons. The traffic situation is about as nightmarish as you'd expect for the busiest shopping day at (one of?) the biggest shopping destinations in the Tri-State area. Exit 129 is overwhelmed and traffic is backed up in both directions between 131 and 129. There are also backups on I-87, US 6, NY 32, and significant spillover onto local streets in Harriman and Monroe.

According to 511NY and nearby VMSes, the parking lots at Woodbury Common are full, so I'm guessing they're trying to prevent backups onto the Thruway by forcing traffic up NY 17.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 24, 2023, 05:52:24 PM
Oof.  People still going to malls after all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 24, 2023, 06:31:08 PM
According to 511NY and nearby VMSes, the parking lots at Woodbury Common are full, so I'm guessing they're trying to prevent backups onto the Thruway by forcing traffic up NY 17.

If that's the case, it probably has more to do with slowing down the rate of traffic entering the area. It certainly didn't stop backups onto the Thruway, as the backup from Exit 129 still extended for several miles down I-87 NB. And anyone that knew about the closure would just use US 6 or NY 17, both of which were also backed up horrendously.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 24, 2023, 10:27:10 PM
https://www.wshu.org/long-island-news/2023-11-22/atlantic-beach-bridge-e-zpass

It's official: the Atlantic Beach Bridge in Nassau County will be accepting E-Z Pass sometime in mid-December (next month)!
I must be one of the few people who was okay with the bridge still accepting cash and change. The last time I looked it up on Google maps, every reviewer seemed to be like some old fuddy-duddy repulsed that women had skirts above the knees.

"With just a glimpse of an ankle and I
React like it's 1805."
--"Turn a Square," by The Shins.


The Storm King Highway portion of NY Route 218 is now listed on Google Maps as being closed until next July.

The road was severely damaged in a bad storm in June.
It was actually damaged in July, but I don't see the closing listed.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 27, 2023, 09:00:03 PM
Big news in Rochester-area signage: The Can of Worms may finally be getting a signage upgrade, which in NY these days means APL's!

With apologies for the image quality, this one popped up on I-590 NB sometime in the last week or so:

(https://imgur.com/BveQTot.jpg)

This one gets a 10/10 from me. Great to see the addition of Irondequoit as a control city here, and I'm hoping they'll pick a control for I-590 SB as well (Brighton? Henrietta?) to include on the rest of the signage. I'm interested to see if this is just a one-off, or a sign of more new installs to come. All four approaches have "overlapping" exits that would need to be co-signed to at least some degree (á la I-490/Mount Read (https://maps.app.goo.gl/PutP98V7n699nvXu9), at minimum), so it'll be fascinating to see how each approach is handled and to what extent the adjacent exits affect the use of APL's. And perhaps more importantly, do we see an increase in advance signage for this junction? There's currently just 1/2 mile advance on I-490 EB/NY 590 SB, and 3/4 mile on I-590 NB, but should be at least 1 mile for a junction of this nature.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 27, 2023, 09:30:07 PM
A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 27, 2023, 09:42:49 PM
A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.
Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 27, 2023, 10:53:02 PM
A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.
Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

Well, it's an acknowledgement that the wayfinding system isn't in compliance with modern standards, so an important first step at least.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 27, 2023, 10:58:39 PM
A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.
Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

Well, it's an acknowledgement that the wayfinding system isn't in compliance with modern standards, so an important first step at least.
Heh.  It's a routine term contract.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 28, 2023, 12:52:28 PM
A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.
Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

Well, it's an acknowledgement that the wayfinding system isn't in compliance with modern standards, so an important first step at least.
Yeah, what Rothman said.  This is just one location in an overhead sign structure contract (specifically, this one (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5022)).  The only other location in this interchange in this contract is the I-490 EB exit 21 ramp split, which sadly lacks control cities.  The other locations are elsewhere.

Speaking of Region 4, the new reference markers on I-490 in Victor all say "43" even though it's Ontario County.  The county count is correct, as is the distance from the county line, just the county code is wrong.  In a way that's worse than just having Monroe County accidently annex Victor; while things are fine if you know it's the county code that's wrong, if you assume the county count is wrong, you'll get a location near Bergen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 28, 2023, 01:05:03 PM
A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.
Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

Well, it's an acknowledgement that the wayfinding system isn't in compliance with modern standards, so an important first step at least.
Yeah, what Rothman said.  This is just one location in an overhead sign structure contract (specifically, this one (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5022)).  The only other location in this interchange in this contract is the I-490 EB exit 21 ramp split, which sadly lacks control cities.  The other locations are elsewhere.

Isn't signage at an interchange usually all replaced at once, or is that only during larger construction projects? Seems weird to leave a diagrammatic and APL there together.

I did see what I thought might be a new install at the latter location, but there had been no sign at all there for quite a while, so I was thinking it might have just been a replacement for a damaged sign. If the other signs aren't being replaced right now, that would be a bummer but would also make sense as to why there are no control cities.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 28, 2023, 08:36:15 PM
A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.
Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

Well, it's an acknowledgement that the wayfinding system isn't in compliance with modern standards, so an important first step at least.
Yeah, what Rothman said.  This is just one location in an overhead sign structure contract (specifically, this one (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5022)).  The only other location in this interchange in this contract is the I-490 EB exit 21 ramp split, which sadly lacks control cities.  The other locations are elsewhere.

Isn't signage at an interchange usually all replaced at once, or is that only during larger construction projects? Seems weird to leave a diagrammatic and APL there together.

I did see what I thought might be a new install at the latter location, but there had been no sign at all there for quite a while, so I was thinking it might have just been a replacement for a damaged sign. If the other signs aren't being replaced right now, that would be a bummer but would also make sense as to why there are no control cities.


Only during larger projects generally, especially these days.  Region 4 did a lot of spot sign replacements during the Great Recession because they needed shovel-ready projects fast to take advantage of the ARRA money, so I'm not sure how quickly they'll get back into corridor-wide sign rehabs.  That said, even the regions that don't have as many ARRA signs aren't really into those, either.  In fact, the only recent corridor sign rehabs I can think of in recent memory are in Regions 3 and 8 - I-81, I-84, and the Taconic.  It doesn't seem to be something that NY usually does these days.

As for that one gantry missing control cities because the other signs weren't replaced... it seems to me that, like pretty much any infrastructure features when a bridge is replaced, you should probably add them now, even if just at that one location, lest you become unable to add them later because the signs at the split are missing them.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 28, 2023, 09:00:26 PM

As for that one gantry missing control cities because the other signs weren't replaced... it seems to me that, like pretty much any infrastructure features when a bridge is replaced, you should probably add them now, even if just at that one location, lest you become unable to add them later because the signs at the split are missing them.

I would agree if it was a mainline sign - as seen with Irondequoit being added to the new I-590 install - but it seems pointless to add control cities to post-gore signage when they're not on any of the mainline signs. I'm still hoping they could be added later, considering they seem to be big enough with the space currently being used for a ramp speed warning (I'll try to get a picture later this week).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on November 28, 2023, 09:40:31 PM


A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.
Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

Well, it's an acknowledgement that the wayfinding system isn't in compliance with modern standards, so an important first step at least.
Yeah, what Rothman said.  This is just one location in an overhead sign structure contract (specifically, this one (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5022)).  The only other location in this interchange in this contract is the I-490 EB exit 21 ramp split, which sadly lacks control cities.  The other locations are elsewhere.

Isn't signage at an interchange usually all replaced at once, or is that only during larger construction projects?

Yep, what vdeane said.  Not usually at all.  Job Order Contracts address flagged structures, rather than all structures within an interchange.

Larger construction projects -- entire interchange reconstructions -- are a rarity in NY, so sure, but don't expect them too often. :D

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2023, 11:29:37 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qhxCAfkZK8ScDq3w7
Was noticing that this intersection with the LIE Service Road uses traditional NY signal installations with span wire and green signal heads.

Yet Nassau County uses these signature mast arms chosen for county maintained installations.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zMPtKPBFarsNhikaA

Both on New Hyde Park Road in Lake Success, a county maintained road.

Am to assume the state has jurisdiction over the LIE service roads hence the span wire at that location and has taken over jurisdiction of traffic control along it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 29, 2023, 08:35:31 AM

Isn't signage at an interchange usually all replaced at once, or is that only during larger construction projects?

Yep, what vdeane said.  Not usually at all.  Job Order Contracts address flagged structures, rather than all structures within an interchange.

Larger construction projects -- entire interchange reconstructions -- are a rarity in NY, so sure, but don't expect them too often. :D

Recent replacements in the Rochester area seem to have been the exception, not the rule. I-390/I-490 was a large project, I-390/I-590 were replaced during adjacent Exit 16 reconstruction, and NY 590/NY 104 were all replaced at once about 8-10 years ago (which may have been part of a larger project, though I can't recall).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 29, 2023, 12:52:24 PM

As for that one gantry missing control cities because the other signs weren't replaced... it seems to me that, like pretty much any infrastructure features when a bridge is replaced, you should probably add them now, even if just at that one location, lest you become unable to add them later because the signs at the split are missing them.

I would agree if it was a mainline sign - as seen with Irondequoit being added to the new I-590 install - but it seems pointless to add control cities to post-gore signage when they're not on any of the mainline signs. I'm still hoping they could be added later, considering they seem to be big enough with the space currently being used for a ramp speed warning (I'll try to get a picture later this week).
I would think the split would be even more important to have the control cities, as that determines where people need to go to get on each direction.  Say they added Henrietta and Irondequoit as control cities on the main signs, but had none at the split.  Someone knowing they needed to go to Henrietta, but not which direction, would know to get off there, but then be lost at the actual split.  The reverse, while not ideal, is at least not too different from what things are like on 590 now.

Like I said, it's like a bridge project.  When you're replacing a bridge, if there are plans to add a sidewalk in an area, you add it, even if the connecting pieces on either side won't be built for a long while, because that's better than building the rest later only to find that you have to replace the bridge early or will be stuck with a sidewalk gap for decades.  Gantries are a limiting factor in that they're designed for specific sign sizes and you can't just go and change the size of the signs on them.

I don't see why they would remove the ramp speed warnings.  Those aren't placeholders for eventual control cities, they're just something NYSDOT now often includes.  They're also at the new sign on I-590 south at exit 2B, and will be on the new sign for I-390 north at exit 19 once it's installed.  The signs on I-87 south at exit 1 also have them, so it's not just a Region 4 thing.


Isn't signage at an interchange usually all replaced at once, or is that only during larger construction projects?

Yep, what vdeane said.  Not usually at all.  Job Order Contracts address flagged structures, rather than all structures within an interchange.

Larger construction projects -- entire interchange reconstructions -- are a rarity in NY, so sure, but don't expect them too often. :D

Recent replacements in the Rochester area seem to have been the exception, not the rule. I-390/I-490 was a large project, I-390/I-590 were replaced during adjacent Exit 16 reconstruction, and NY 590/NY 104 were all replaced at once about 8-10 years ago (which may have been part of a larger project, though I can't recall).
Those assorted signs on 590 and 104 were part of the ARRA signs, I believe.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on November 29, 2023, 08:09:46 PM
I don't see why they would remove the ramp speed warnings.  Those aren't placeholders for eventual control cities, they're just something NYSDOT now often includes.  They're also at the new sign on I-590 south at exit 2B, and will be on the new sign for I-390 north at exit 19 once it's installed.  The signs on I-87 south at exit 1 also have them, so it's not just a Region 4 thing.

It does seem to be the new trend, but not one I endorse unless there's something really unique or substandard about the ramp that requires extra caution. I-590 SB Exit 2B is one I'm OK with - definitely worth the tradeoff for an overhead sign there, and it's warranted because of the tight loop. But generally speaking it just adds clutter to the BGS and doesn't convey anything that isn't already conveyed on supplementary signage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 29, 2023, 08:45:14 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qhxCAfkZK8ScDq3w7
Was noticing that this intersection with the LIE Service Road uses traditional NY signal installations with span wire and green signal heads.

Yet Nassau County uses these signature mast arms chosen for county maintained installations.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zMPtKPBFarsNhikaA

Both on New Hyde Park Road in Lake Success, a county maintained road.

Am to assume the state has jurisdiction over the LIE service roads hence the span wire at that location and has taken over jurisdiction of traffic control along it?
Looking at the RIS Viewer, the LIE service roads show as mostly county-maintained in Region 10, though there are a few state-maintained sections and they have reference route numbers even on the county-maintained sections, which is unusual.  There might be some mixed jurisdiction or maintenance agreements or something.

I do know of at least one location where NYSDOT maintains a signal off the state route system, so that isn't unprecedented either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 30, 2023, 05:39:10 AM
Most of the traffic lights on the LIE service road in Nassau are state installs, the only exceptions that stick out in my mind are at South Oyster Bay Road, the pedestrian signals in Jericho between Exit 40 and 41, and where the Eastbound service road ends at Woodbury Road.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2023, 06:43:25 PM
In many places ramp end traffic signals usually are state installs, especially when the freeway is a state route.

In Florida we have no state installs as they dump signal responsibility to county and local road departments. Some of the smaller counties contract out signal maintenance to private companies due to the lack of need to have full time signal techs.  So all exit ramps on state roads are either municipal or county installs. That’s why the Sunshine State don’t have an official install because each county or city have their own way of erecting signals. Miami- Dade uses bare metal mast arms with horizontal mounted heads. Yet Orange County will use whatever the signal manufacturer is offering. Tampa Bay loves span wires and very few mast arms there. Those are a few of the variances, however at one time all 67 counties agreed on span wires between concrete poles despite different county politics.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on November 30, 2023, 08:48:52 PM
NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on November 30, 2023, 10:24:51 PM
Solid updates! This was one of the more narrow parkways I've been on because of bridges like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/oVa26Tw3AFqVMEPJ6
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 01, 2023, 02:23:27 PM
Will Parkway Rd. be cul-de-saced, and this house located along the parkway be demolished as part of the plan?: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1558343,-73.8342378,3a,75y,68.71h,87.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stp0-KguZ4JIZsNfC63Q_cg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dtp0-KguZ4JIZsNfC63Q_cg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D346.6874%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. What about the Forgotten Way intersection and the right-in/right-out at the Ossining Public Works Department? I didn't see any of those addressed in the presentation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on December 01, 2023, 11:44:13 PM
Will Parkway Rd. be cul-de-saced, and this house located along the parkway be demolished as part of the plan? What about the Forgotten Way intersection and the right-in/right-out at the Ossining Public Works Department? I didn't see any of those addressed in the presentation.
I don't think they have gotten that far yet. This is just a study. That stuff will probably be addressed in final design.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 03, 2023, 03:03:20 PM

As for that one gantry missing control cities because the other signs weren't replaced... it seems to me that, like pretty much any infrastructure features when a bridge is replaced, you should probably add them now, even if just at that one location, lest you become unable to add them later because the signs at the split are missing them.

I would agree if it was a mainline sign - as seen with Irondequoit being added to the new I-590 install - but it seems pointless to add control cities to post-gore signage when they're not on any of the mainline signs. I'm still hoping they could be added later, considering they seem to be big enough with the space currently being used for a ramp speed warning (I'll try to get a picture later this week).
I would think the split would be even more important to have the control cities, as that determines where people need to go to get on each direction.  Say they added Henrietta and Irondequoit as control cities on the main signs, but had none at the split.  Someone knowing they needed to go to Henrietta, but not which direction, would know to get off there, but then be lost at the actual split.  The reverse, while not ideal, is at least not too different from what things are like on 590 now.

Like I said, it's like a bridge project.  When you're replacing a bridge, if there are plans to add a sidewalk in an area, you add it, even if the connecting pieces on either side won't be built for a long while, because that's better than building the rest later only to find that you have to replace the bridge early or will be stuck with a sidewalk gap for decades.  Gantries are a limiting factor in that they're designed for specific sign sizes and you can't just go and change the size of the signs on them.

I don't see why they would remove the ramp speed warnings.  Those aren't placeholders for eventual control cities, they're just something NYSDOT now often includes.  They're also at the new sign on I-590 south at exit 2B, and will be on the new sign for I-390 north at exit 19 once it's installed.  The signs on I-87 south at exit 1 also have them, so it's not just a Region 4 thing.


Isn't signage at an interchange usually all replaced at once, or is that only during larger construction projects?

Yep, what vdeane said.  Not usually at all.  Job Order Contracts address flagged structures, rather than all structures within an interchange.

Larger construction projects -- entire interchange reconstructions -- are a rarity in NY, so sure, but don't expect them too often. :D

Recent replacements in the Rochester area seem to have been the exception, not the rule. I-390/I-490 was a large project, I-390/I-590 were replaced during adjacent Exit 16 reconstruction, and NY 590/NY 104 were all replaced at once about 8-10 years ago (which may have been part of a larger project, though I can't recall).
Those assorted signs on 590 and 104 were part of the ARRA signs, I believe.
Pictures of the new signs in question:

I-490 EB exit 21: https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i490&state=NY&file=102_6378.JPG

I-590 SB exit 2B: https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i590&state=NY&file=102_6357.JPG

I-87/Northway SB exit 1: https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i87a&state=NY&file=102_6113.JPG (incidentally, the ramp speed to I-90 east was recently dropped; it used to be 45)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 05, 2023, 09:01:46 AM
NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)
It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more at-grade intersections on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.

Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on December 05, 2023, 10:44:22 AM
NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)
It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more intersection on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.

Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.
Oh.  Is that all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2023, 03:21:42 PM
NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)
It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more intersection on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.

Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.
Seems like a good start but the rest of what you said hopefully comes to fruition someday.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 05, 2023, 05:43:28 PM
NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)
It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more intersection on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.

Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.
Oh.  Is that all.
Any road that feels like a freeway should be. So I agree that Saw Mill should get finished. That's my one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on December 05, 2023, 05:52:03 PM
NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)
It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more intersection on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.

Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.

I dont think the bronx river (north of the split with the sprain), taconic parkway (south of the sprain) or Cross Westchester Parkway need to get full blown interchanges, the Saw Mill River Parkway on the other hand...yeah I think its time for a modernization of the saw mill too (removing all at grade intersections and replacing them with interchanges)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 05, 2023, 11:14:38 PM
NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)
It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more intersection on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.

Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.
Oh.  Is that all.
No, I just remembered that the Rye Playland Parkway could use some intersection replacements.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 06, 2023, 07:14:48 PM
NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)
It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more intersection on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.

Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.
Oh.  Is that all.
No, I just remembered that the Rye Playland Parkway could use some intersection replacements.
No it can't. Unless you're funding it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 07, 2023, 08:59:17 AM
^^^
Yeah, I'll bet the people who live in the area love getting traffic from all over the country, not to mention the residents of one dead end street.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 09, 2023, 12:00:57 PM
Something else I feel I should bring up. I've always believed that the Cross County Parkway should be extended as it was originally planned to the Playland Parkway.  The trouble is, north and west of the New England Thruway you've got the Greenwood Union Cemetery and the Rye African-American Cemetery, both of which are historic, the latter of which is on the National Register of Historic Places.

There is no way you can connect those two roads without disturbing those cemeteries. There's no way you can even reconfigure the interchange between the Playland Parkway and New England Thruway without disturbing those cemeteries. Sure, you could double-deck the Cross County Parkway over I-95 and bring flyover ramps away from the existing interchange, but you'd have to bring the new ramps too close to the ones on "Old Route 1."

BTW, I'm sorry I can't add any links to show you what I'm talking about. My computer is still screwing up my ability to cut, copy, and paste text.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on December 10, 2023, 10:41:10 AM

I-590 SB exit 2B: https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i590&state=NY&file=102_6357.JPG

This and the new APL at Exit 5 are two of the single biggest improvements I've seen in the Rochester area maybe ever for straight replacements. Regarding this one specifically:

1) switch from ground mounted to overhead is great, especially with the auxiliary lane here
2) location is much improved, old sign was around a slight curve and so far back you could hardly even see the gore
3) Exit 20 mph warning is very warranted given the tightness of the loop

Given the curve and the length of the auxiliary lane here, the cherry on top would be a separate "Exit Only" sign near the Allens Creek Rd overpass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: baugh17 on January 01, 2024, 08:09:48 PM
Are there any HAWKs outside of the Buffalo area?

Revisiting this topic as some random GSV browsing this evening turned up a HAWK signal on State St. (NY 434) by the hockey arena in downtown Binghamton.

Also curious about what became of the new mast arms that were put up last fall on NY 23/NY 205 by the Cooperstown All Star Village outside of Oneonta.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on January 01, 2024, 09:10:03 PM
There should be no new HAWKs in central NY for years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on January 02, 2024, 04:08:04 PM
There's a new HAWK signal in downtown Rochester on E. Main.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 12, 2024, 07:49:02 PM
What's the website of the library of NYS DOT plans?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on January 13, 2024, 10:31:18 AM
Right here man! https://data.ny.gov/Transportation/Compact-NYSDOT-Highway-Record-Plans-Beginning-1900/6bx3-2s36/data
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SGwithADD on January 19, 2024, 07:05:03 PM
Right here man! https://data.ny.gov/Transportation/Compact-NYSDOT-Highway-Record-Plans-Beginning-1900/6bx3-2s36/data

Wow - I had no idea this existed. Thank you!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mariethefoxy on January 23, 2024, 09:54:19 PM
I just wanna say, I dont know when it was built, but the 2 lane in each direction divided highway Sound Ave (Truck 25/Suffolk County 48) is a godsend coming from the Ferry terminal, its so tedious getting stuck in that large line of cars coming off the ferry because you are guaranteed to get stuck behind old man rivers driving below the speed limit and they took away the passing zones over the years on the 1 lane in each direction sections.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 23, 2024, 10:09:25 PM
Yeah that County Route 48 is a great alternative to NY 25. Don't know when it was built but it's been there over thirty years since I first used it in about 1991.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 26, 2024, 07:32:50 AM
If I recall my New York highway history, it was built in the early-1970's like a lot of Suffolk County divided highways were, but it was previously Suffolk County Road 27.

Speaking of road "improvements" in New York, I just learned that the anti-highway zealots of Upstate New York are winning their fight to cancel the plans to upgrade NY 17 into I-86.
https://hudsonvalleypost.com/controversy-over-route-17-widening-new-york-hudson-valley/

The Cross Bronx is also having lanes removed on the service roads.
https://www.crainsnewyork.com/transportation/cross-bronx-expressway-connector-road-advances-150m-federal-grant
I could read the rest of it if the article didn't have that stupid paywall. But judging by that one delusional image, it doesn't look so good.




Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 26, 2024, 01:00:00 PM
Speaking of road "improvements" in New York, I just learned that the anti-highway zealots of Upstate New York and winning their fight to cancel the plans to upgrade NY 17 into I-86.
https://hudsonvalleypost.com/controversy-over-route-17-widening-new-york-hudson-valley/
That's a bit hyperbolic.  Yes, they're voicing their opinion against the widening (quite loudly, given the number of articles this past week), but NYSDOT hasn't even selected a preferred alternative to upgrade the segment from US 209 to the Thruway, much less definitively confirmed where or even if it would be widened.  And the upgrade to I-86 doesn't actually require widening.  Prior to the 17 Forward 86 Coalition pushing the issue, the plan was to upgrade the road to I-86 and afterwards consider whether to widen it.

That said, I am curious of the chances of the upgrade if the widening is sunk, since that seems to be the main driver right now.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on January 26, 2024, 03:14:44 PM
Couldn't the Hale Eddy projects (and thus the upgrade to I-86) still be advanced independently of a widening south of Monticello?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 26, 2024, 09:50:07 PM
Couldn't the Hale Eddy projects (and thus the upgrade to I-86) still be advanced independently of a widening south of Monticello?
All of the projects could (Hale Eddy, despite being the most visible piece, is just one of many, many things that need to be done).  That was my point.  But does the energy exist without the widening push?  The reason the whole thing stagnated in the first place was because NYSDOT can't afford to put too much money into "beyond preservation" projects ("beyond preservation" isn't just "something more than what's there"; renewal projects like major pavement rehabilitation and bridge replacements are beyond preservation as well), and that's still the case.  So, if the widening doesn't happen, there wouldn't be anything engineering-wise preventing the upgrade from proceeding, the question is, would the political will still be there?

As for Hale Eddy specifically, it will be interesting to see where it goes.  On the one hand, the presentation (https://www.route17.dot.ny.gov/docs/Rt%2017%20EIS_Public%20Meeting_1_17_24_Boards_Website.pdf) at the recent public meeting shows it as having a planned upgrade project.  On the other, it doesn't show up on the NYSDOT projects site under "in development" or even "future development", and every time Hochul brings up the upgrade, she only says Orange and Sullivan Counties, not Delaware (or Broome, for that matter).

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 13, 2024, 12:27:58 PM
Is the name of the hospital being on the hospital sign specifically a New York thing?  It seems so to me.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219980234256702&set=a.10219980370460107)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53527384284_b7e441420f_c.jpg)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: elsmere241 on February 13, 2024, 12:30:37 PM
Is the name of the hospital being on the hospital sign specifically a New York thing?  It seems so to me.


We have them in Delaware, especially when there's more than one hospital at the freeway exit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on February 13, 2024, 04:43:42 PM
Is the name of the hospital being on the hospital sign specifically a New York thing?  It seems so to me.


We have them in Delaware, especially when there's more than one hospital at the freeway exit.

Meanwhile, this is not typical upstate, not even when there are multiple hospitals reached from a single exit. I-490 Exit 17 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Qq7ArLf6jEkTqqKS9) is one such example (signage is for Highland Hospital, but Goodman St is also the primary route to Strong (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Strong,+Rochester,+NY/@43.1199282,-77.6278734,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x89d6b4d2f591c489:0x320ae8fd0b62e3ee!8m2!3d43.1198225!4d-77.6163803!16s%2Fg%2F1wnby_j9!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) from the northeast quadrant of the metro).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 13, 2024, 09:37:43 PM
Is the name of the hospital being on the hospital sign specifically a New York thing?  It seems so to me.


We have them in Delaware, especially when there's more than one hospital at the freeway exit.

Meanwhile, this is not typical upstate, not even when there are multiple hospitals reached from a single exit. I-490 Exit 17 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Qq7ArLf6jEkTqqKS9) is one such example (signage is for Highland Hospital, but Goodman St is also the primary route to Strong (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Strong,+Rochester,+NY/@43.1199282,-77.6278734,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x89d6b4d2f591c489:0x320ae8fd0b62e3ee!8m2!3d43.1198225!4d-77.6163803!16s%2Fg%2F1wnby_j9!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) from the northeast quadrant of the metro).
And to think I remember when the hospital signage there pointed straight for Genesee.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on February 14, 2024, 11:49:03 AM
Is the name of the hospital being on the hospital sign specifically a New York thing?  It seems so to me.


We have them in Delaware, especially when there's more than one hospital at the freeway exit.

Meanwhile, this is not typical upstate, not even when there are multiple hospitals reached from a single exit. I-490 Exit 17 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Qq7ArLf6jEkTqqKS9) is one such example (signage is for Highland Hospital, but Goodman St is also the primary route to Strong (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Strong,+Rochester,+NY/@43.1199282,-77.6278734,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x89d6b4d2f591c489:0x320ae8fd0b62e3ee!8m2!3d43.1198225!4d-77.6163803!16s%2Fg%2F1wnby_j9!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) from the northeast quadrant of the metro).
And to think I remember when the hospital signage there pointed straight for Genesee.

Wow! Not quite before my time considering I was born there, but I do not have any memory of it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: crispy93 on February 14, 2024, 03:50:06 PM
Speaking of road "improvements" in New York, I just learned that the anti-highway zealots of Upstate New York and winning their fight to cancel the plans to upgrade NY 17 into I-86.
https://hudsonvalleypost.com/controversy-over-route-17-widening-new-york-hudson-valley/

The Cross Bronx is also having lanes removed on the service roads.
https://www.crainsnewyork.com/transportation/cross-bronx-expressway-connector-road-advances-150m-federal-grant
I could read the rest of it if the article didn't have that stupid paywall. But judging by that one delusional image, it doesn't look so good.

Here's the Cross Bronx article, archived: https://archive.is/GwMxW

And anything from HudsonValleyPost is going to be clickbait, ChatGPT-level quality
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 14, 2024, 10:57:38 PM
The Cross Bronx Expressway Service Road article is paywalled. I know the article is a few weeks old, but is there any way to provide what the article says without having to get a subscription to the Crain's New York Business website?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on February 15, 2024, 06:10:10 PM
The link directly above your post works fine. No paywall.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: TheDon102 on February 17, 2024, 09:32:21 PM
So more stuff on the proposed 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway" :  https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Report.pdf
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on February 20, 2024, 02:01:04 PM
Am I correct that NYSDOT has released renderings for the proposed tunnel on Route 33 in Buffalo or is this old news?

Someone posted it on FB via a link to Local News in the Greater Buffalo Area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on February 22, 2024, 06:43:10 PM
I’m going to guess the answer is  no.^^^^

Another Google Search Fluke or someone else anxious to be a journalist posting old articles that Google posts for whatever reason.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 22, 2024, 08:41:26 PM
Am I correct that NYSDOT has released renderings for the proposed tunnel on Route 33 in Buffalo or is this old news?

Someone posted it on FB via a link to Local News in the Greater Buffalo Area.
The article is from the 19th.  Just saw it yesterday.

https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/buffalo/renderings-of-kensington-project-released/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on February 22, 2024, 10:26:12 PM
Am I correct that NYSDOT has released renderings for the proposed tunnel on Route 33 in Buffalo or is this old news?

Someone posted it on FB via a link to Local News in the Greater Buffalo Area.
The article is from the 19th.  Just saw it yesterday.

https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/buffalo/renderings-of-kensington-project-released/

A+ on the video. It looks like almost the entire acceleration lane from Best St to 33 EB will be in the tunnel, which is a cool feature. Seeing this just makes it even more of a bummer that a tunnel wasn't an option in Syracuse.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on February 22, 2024, 11:33:02 PM
Am I correct that NYSDOT has released renderings for the proposed tunnel on Route 33 in Buffalo or is this old news?

Someone posted it on FB via a link to Local News in the Greater Buffalo Area.
The article is from the 19th.  Just saw it yesterday.

https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/buffalo/renderings-of-kensington-project-released/

A+ on the video. It looks like almost the entire acceleration lane from Best St to 33 EB will be in the tunnel, which is a cool feature. Seeing this just makes it even more of a bummer that a tunnel wasn't an option in Syracuse.
Can you not see the significant main difference between the two projects?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on February 23, 2024, 10:31:03 AM
Am I correct that NYSDOT has released renderings for the proposed tunnel on Route 33 in Buffalo or is this old news?

Someone posted it on FB via a link to Local News in the Greater Buffalo Area.
The article is from the 19th.  Just saw it yesterday.

https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/buffalo/renderings-of-kensington-project-released/

A+ on the video. It looks like almost the entire acceleration lane from Best St to 33 EB will be in the tunnel, which is a cool feature. Seeing this just makes it even more of a bummer that a tunnel wasn't an option in Syracuse.
Can you not see the significant main difference between the two projects?

Yeah, of course I can. It's ultimately a result of I-81 being built as an elevated freeway instead of a depressed one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 23, 2024, 01:33:38 PM
I would have liked to have a tunnel in Buffalo constructed that followed the former alignment of the unbuilt segment of the NY 33 freeway, connecting its existing western terminus to its previously proposed western terminus at Interstate 190's Exit 8. Alas, I realize that is as likely to happen as an Interstate 81 tunnel being constructed in Syracuse.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: machias on February 23, 2024, 06:48:55 PM
But will NYSDOT finally number the interchanges on the 33 in Buffalo? There are more interchanges on NY 33 than on I-290.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on February 23, 2024, 07:23:38 PM
I would have liked to have a tunnel in Buffalo constructed that followed the former alignment of the unbuilt segment of the NY 33 freeway, connecting its existing western terminus to its previously proposed western terminus at Interstate 190's Exit 8. Alas, I realize that is as likely to happen as an Interstate 81 tunnel being constructed in Syracuse.

I would be opposed to that. The city doesn't have enough need for it. Traffic flows just fine on 33/954D. All they need to do is swap 33 and 954D's directions.

Keep in mind, this is a perfect solution to two problems: community improvement and freeway preservation. There are people who want 33 filled in entirely, the 198 torn out, etc. Buffalo will never have enough traffic to justify a freeway extension, but at least moving 33 onto 954D (Oak & Elm) to 190 would fix part of it, rather than have 33 die at 2 different points.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: seicer on February 28, 2024, 10:41:46 AM
https://www.route13ithaca.com/

"The City of Ithaca obtained a BUILD Grant to reimagine and redesign the Route 13 Corridor on the north side of the City. This project will analyze and design potential transportation improvements that would allow for the redevelopment of the City's waterfront and reconnection of the waterfront district to the neighborhoods and downtown area on the east side of the corridor.

This project will consider the Route 13 corridor between Fall Creek to the north to the Meadow/Fulton Split of Route 13 to the south."

This project affects a road that should be reconfigured to offer better connections between the Fall Creek neighborhood and Farmers Market, Stewart Park, and the emerging Waterfront district. The road as it is currently built has four lanes with full shoulders and turn lanes with limited access except at controlled intersections. An expressway was once proposed through the city decades ago, but that project is long dead - and this highway is a remnant of that development.

IMO, this road would be better served as a four-lane roadway with sidewalks and bike paths and new cross street connections between the two disconnected sides.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/fX8YQYExnJrhdkgcA
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on February 28, 2024, 10:53:29 PM
NY-12E Realignment (Fall 2025 Completion): (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=778009)
NY-12E will be relocated from its existing bridge over the Black River in Brownville to a new bridge approximately 0.5 miles to the west. The existing bridge will be demolished, and the rest of the existing alignment in Brownville will revert to Jefferson County as an extension of CR-190.
Contract plans are here. (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42342&p_is_digital=Y) Scheduled completion for the new bridge, and thus the reroute, is November 30, 2024 (slide 10) (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42604&p_is_digital=Y). The demolition of the existing bridge and other work will be done after.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on February 29, 2024, 02:27:15 PM
Thanks for sharing. This will be a minor inconvenience for residents of Brownville who will have to travel an additional mile or so to get to I-81. Is there any reason why a new bridge could not be built in the same location?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on February 29, 2024, 03:20:27 PM
Due to the narrow right-of-way (no room for an adjacent temporary bridge), any replacement in the same location would result in a full closure during both demolition and construction, so there would basically be two years with no bridge at all. With building a bridge on a new alignment first, there will always be one bridge operational.

Also, the intersections at the north end of the existing bridge in Brownsville will become unsignalized once the new bridge is open, so that is a plus I would say.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 01, 2024, 10:55:41 PM
NY-12E Realignment (Fall 2025 Completion): (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=778009)
NY-12E will be relocated from its existing bridge over the Black River in Brownsville to a new bridge approximately 0.5 miles to the west. The existing bridge will be demolished, and the rest of the existing alignment in Brownsville will revert to Jefferson County as an extension of CR-190.
Contract plans are here. (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42342&p_is_digital=Y) Scheduled completion for the new bridge, and thus the reroute, is November 30, 2024 (slide 10) (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42604&p_is_digital=Y). The demolition of the existing bridge and other work will be done after.
a) Brownville, no S
b) This kills the town. You've just moved all the traffic on a state highway from downtown to a bridge that avoids it completely. I'm shocked they're okay with this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 02, 2024, 03:26:37 PM
b) This kills the town. You've just moved all the traffic on a state highway from downtown to a bridge that avoids it completely. I'm shocked they're okay with this.

Have you been through the town?  There's extremely little in the way of traffic-dependent businesses along there...basically just a Stewart's and a couple of pizza places that are probably frequented by locals to begin with.  I think you're overreacting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2024, 04:37:56 PM
b) This kills the town. You've just moved all the traffic on a state highway from downtown to a bridge that avoids it completely. I'm shocked they're okay with this.

Have you been through the town?  There's extremely little in the way of traffic-dependent businesses along there...basically just a Stewart's and a couple of pizza places that are probably frequented by locals to begin with.  I think you're overreacting.
Goodbye Stewart's and pizza places...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 02, 2024, 04:56:58 PM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2024, 05:35:12 PM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2024, 05:35:57 PM
I hate the lack of Stewart's in central NY.  Stupid Byrne Dairy...doesn't match up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 02, 2024, 07:16:59 PM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.

Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2024, 08:19:21 PM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.

Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
So...okay...town's gonna die.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 02, 2024, 10:59:09 PM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
Does that make a difference?  I'm not really sure why a few have the gas branded Sunoco while most don't.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on March 02, 2024, 11:00:21 PM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.

Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
So...okay...town's gonna die.

If that's the case, the town is already dying and moving the bridge isn't going to change or affect that...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2024, 11:08:42 PM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.

Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
So...okay...town's gonna die.

If that's the case, the town is already dying and moving the bridge isn't going to change or affect that...
We must help the town die.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2024, 11:09:25 PM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
Does that make a difference?  I'm not really sure why a few have the gas branded Sunoco while most don't.
Gas stations tend to be a little more dependent on more than just locals.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 03, 2024, 03:41:21 AM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.

Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
So...okay...town's gonna die.

If that's the case, the town is already dying and moving the bridge isn't going to change or affect that...
We must help the town die.
If reduced traffic at gas station means the town is dead, I would say that town is already dead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Rothman on March 03, 2024, 08:33:51 AM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.

Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
So...okay...town's gonna die.

If that's the case, the town is already dying and moving the bridge isn't going to change or affect that...
We must help the town die.
If reduced traffic at gas station means the town is dead, I would say that town is already dead.
We must beat a dead town.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 03, 2024, 02:59:08 PM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
Does that make a difference?  I'm not really sure why a few have the gas branded Sunoco while most don't.
Gas stations tend to be a little more dependent on more than just locals.
I was thinking more along the lines of why the gas being branded Sunoco makes a difference, given that most Stewart's locations with gas do not have the Sunoco branding (or any branding at all, other than Stewart's).  They're even in the process of slowly phasing out the stores that don't sell gas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kalvado on March 05, 2024, 12:52:20 PM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.

Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
So...okay...town's gonna die.

If that's the case, the town is already dying and moving the bridge isn't going to change or affect that...
We must help the town die.
If reduced traffic at gas station means the town is dead, I would say that town is already dead.
We must beat a dead town.
Necrophilic animal cruelty?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: webny99 on March 06, 2024, 02:56:24 PM
Is it weird that my takeaway is that I-81 needs an exit north of the river at CR 190? Not just for Brownville; Glen Park is just as much or more of a pain to access from I-81.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cockroachking on March 06, 2024, 10:46:38 PM
It would probably be too close to Exit 47 (NY-12), plus there is the Black River on the other side. Also, CR-51 seems to me to be a viable connection.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 07, 2024, 07:04:27 PM
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though.  They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.
It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.

The Srewart'ses in Ulster County sell Ethanol-free (E0) premium gasoline.  Is that a Sunoco product?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 13, 2024, 02:09:59 PM
For generations, I've seen map companies (most notably Hagstrom's) post a non-existent westbound loop on-ramp from Veterans Memorial Highway (before it was designated as NY 454), and the Long Island Expressway (back when it was still NY 495). Yet I've never seen this ramp, so I assumed it was something that existed years ago before the L.I.E. went east of Exit 57, and the map companies still hadn't caught on that it wasn't there anymore.

So within the hour, I was looking through some papers, which include hand-written notes regarding source material for the previous ramp and service road configurations for Wikipedia articles on the Long Island Expressway. Then I looked up Historic Aerials of the vicinity, and what I found was something I wish I could say was completely bonkers, but instead the most I can say is that those who set it up may have had a few screws loose.

Instead of a fairly reasonable temporary on-ramp, I saw westbound only turning ramps onto the eastbound service road, and northbound Blydenburgh Road, both of which lead to the eastbound on-ramp, which itself ended at a temporary U-turn to the westbound lanes of the expressway.

This has to be seen to be believed.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=40.8047&lon=-73.1728

And I still want to know about the loop ramp between the Vets Highway and Long Island Expressway.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 13, 2024, 06:24:44 PM
For generations, I've seen map companies (most notably Hagstrom's) post a non-existent westbound loop on-ramp from Veterans Memorial Highway (before it was designated as NY 454), and the Long Island Expressway (back when it was still NY 495). Yet I've never seen this ramp, so I assumed it was something that existed years ago before the L.I.E. went east of Exit 57, and the map companies still hadn't caught on that it wasn't there anymore.

So within the hour, I was looking through some papers, which include hand-written notes regarding source material for the previous ramp and service road configurations for Wikipedia articles on the Long Island Expressway. Then I looked up Historic Aerials of the vicinity, and what I found was something I wish I could say was completely bonkers, but instead the most I can say is that those who set it up may have had a few screws loose.

Instead of a fairly reasonable temporary on-ramp, I saw westbound only turning ramps onto the eastbound service road, and northbound Blydenburgh Road, both of which lead to the eastbound on-ramp, which itself ended at a temporary U-turn to the westbound lanes of the expressway.

This has to be seen to be believed.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=40.8047&lon=-73.1728

And I still want to know about the loop ramp between the Vets Highway and Long Island Expressway.


(1966 for those who click the link)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 13, 2024, 08:45:09 PM
For generations, I've seen map companies (most notably Hagstrom's) post a non-existent westbound loop on-ramp from Veterans Memorial Highway (before it was designated as NY 454), and the Long Island Expressway (back when it was still NY 495). Yet I've never seen this ramp, so I assumed it was something that existed years ago before the L.I.E. went east of Exit 57, and the map companies still hadn't caught on that it wasn't there anymore.

So within the hour, I was looking through some papers, which include hand-written notes regarding source material for the previous ramp and service road configurations for Wikipedia articles on the Long Island Expressway. Then I looked up Historic Aerials of the vicinity, and what I found was something I wish I could say was completely bonkers, but instead the most I can say is that those who set it up may have had a few screws loose.

Instead of a fairly reasonable temporary on-ramp, I saw westbound only turning ramps onto the eastbound service road, and northbound Blydenburgh Road, both of which lead to the eastbound on-ramp, which itself ended at a temporary U-turn to the westbound lanes of the expressway.

This has to be seen to be believed.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=40.8047&lon=-73.1728

And I still want to know about the loop ramp between the Vets Highway and Long Island Expressway.


The road east of there is clearly not open yet.  I imagine they figured it would be easier to provide a ramp on the right than to build a left turn for all the traffic, which they may have anticipated being lower after the road opened.