New York

[Duke87]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[Buffaboy]

This is a left field question. Which highway(S) in the Buffalo area could be widened with HOV lanes if needed?

[cl94]

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.

[empirestate]

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?

[Buffaboy]

I think that's a sufficient answer though.

[machias]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[Buffaboy]

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  .

[empirestate]

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  .

They'd also gain the right to enact No Turn On Red city-wide.

[Duke87]

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  .

They'd also gain the right to enact No Turn On Red city-wide.

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.

[ixnay]

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  .

They'd also gain the right to enact No Turn On Red city-wide.

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

[cl94]

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  .

They'd also gain the right to enact No Turn On Red city-wide.

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.

[mariethefoxy]

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.

[cl94]

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

[Rothman]

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.

[steviep24]

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.

[empirestate]

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

[Duke87]

(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.

[mariethefoxy]

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.

[empirestate]

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.

[Buffaboy]

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?