New York

[Bumppoman]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[route17fan]

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

[vdeane]

I found a lone Cuomo sign on I-88 EB between exits 2 and 3 yesterday.  Large sign only, nothing WB.

[Rothman]

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)

[cl94]

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.

[Buffaboy]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[burgess87]

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. 

[froggie]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[Rothman]

I have never had a problem getting through Latham Circle.  Must be a rush hour thing.

[cl94]

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.

[vdeane]

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).

[cl94]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[vdeane]

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)

[cl94]

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.

[Michael]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[Rothman]

I like the idea of a bridge over the circle, if only for how spectacular it would be.

Of course, ROW costs would be obscene for any major changes to the circle.