New York

[D-Dey65]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[mariethefoxy]

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.

[noelbotevera]

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"?

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[mariethefoxy]

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.

[vdeane]

Yeah, it's too bad nobody pointed that out.

[machias]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[Snappyjack]

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. 

[empirestate]

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!

[Buffaboy]

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?

[kalvado]

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.

[D-Dey65]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[Buffaboy]

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?

[cl94]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[kalvado]

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... 

[cl94]

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.

[kalvado]

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?