News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

New York

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

Previous topic - Next topic

froggie

Quote from: webny99As 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...


empirestate

Quote from: cl94 on April 04, 2020, 12:12:50 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".

cl94

Quote from: empirestate on April 04, 2020, 11:59:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 04, 2020, 12:12:50 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.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

interstate73

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...
🎶 Man, there’s an opera on the Turnpike 🎶

Morris County if the Route 178 Freeway had been built:

webny99

Quote from: froggie on April 04, 2020, 10:50:59 PM
Quote from: webny99As 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...
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.

webny99

Quote from: 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...

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... 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!

Alps

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.

empirestate

Quote from: cl94 on April 05, 2020, 01:03:22 PM
Quote from: empirestate on April 04, 2020, 11:59:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 04, 2020, 12:12:50 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.

Alps

Quote from: empirestate on April 06, 2020, 03:45:48 AM
Quote from: cl94 on April 05, 2020, 01:03:22 PM
Quote from: empirestate on April 04, 2020, 11:59:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 04, 2020, 12:12:50 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.

cl94

Quote from: Alps on April 06, 2020, 12:29:08 PM
Quote from: empirestate on April 06, 2020, 03:45:48 AM
Quote from: cl94 on April 05, 2020, 01:03:22 PM
Quote from: empirestate on April 04, 2020, 11:59:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 04, 2020, 12:12:50 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.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

D-Dey65

Quote from: cl94 on April 06, 2020, 02:28:34 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.


webny99

Quote from: cl94 on April 06, 2020, 02:28:34 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 06, 2020, 12:29:08 PM
Quote from: empirestate on April 06, 2020, 03:45:48 AM
Quote from: cl94 on April 05, 2020, 01:03:22 PM
Quote from: empirestate on April 04, 2020, 11:59:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 04, 2020, 12:12:50 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!

Dougtone

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/

empirestate

Quote from: cl94 on April 06, 2020, 02:28:34 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

QuoteAnd 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).

Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 06, 2020, 03:14:35 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.

D-Dey65

Quote from: empirestate on April 07, 2020, 05:07:37 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 06, 2020, 03:14:35 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



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.


route17fan

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
John Krakoff - Cleveland, Ohio

storm2k

Quote from: 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

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.

RestrictOnTheHanger

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.

shadyjay

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. 

jp the roadgeek

#4669
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

Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

shadyjay

#4670
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?






Alps

Quote from: 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


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.

vdeane

Quote from: 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


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

SignBridge

#4673
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?

storm2k

Quote from: 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 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 for the street names.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.