New York

[cl94]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[steviep24]

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.

[SignBridge]

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?

[kalvado]

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..

[steviep24]

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.

[SignBridge]

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.

[SignBridge]

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........

[cl94]

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.

[Buffaboy]

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.

[vdeane]

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........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto
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).

[SignBridge]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[D-Dey65]

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.

[vdeane]

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

[Duke87]

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.

[amroad17]

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.

[Rothman]

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*

[Alps]

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.

[noelbotevera]

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

[kalvado]

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

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.

[cl94]

22K actually seems right. It would F up several bus routes as well.

[vdeane]

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.

[Buffaboy]

Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!