New York

[Duke87]

Fills have been occurring on both sides of Manhattan for some time. It's not out of the realm of possibility to see land added for a FDR Boulevard and park.

The question is, why do this. The West Side Highway quite literally fell down, during a period in time where New York City was falling apart in general, and the money to replace it simply wasn't there.

The South Street section of the FDR Drive is not about to collapse anytime soon, so it's a very different story when your'e talking now about removing a perfectly good piece of infrastructure.

Improved river access, more walkable neighbourhood

Bullshit.

The South Street Viaduct allows pedestrians to walk under it at any cross street, and in some places where there isn't a cross street if you don't mind jaywalking, while the majority of vehicular traffic passes harmlessly overhead. Were it to be removed and replaced with a ground level boulevard, the option of crossing midblock would be lost in places where it currently exits, and at intersections pedestrians would have to contend with longer crosswalks and longer waits for the light to change (since FDR traffic would need more green time than South Street currently has, and you wouldn't feasibly be able to cross against the light anymore). You would also see an increase in the number of traffic injuries and fatalities (particularly to pedestrians and cyclists) since grade separation is an extremely effective method of preventing these things while wider intersections create more opportunities for them.

In what upside-down dimension does this represent improved river access and walkability? Looks an awful lot like a step backwards on both of those metrics to me.

What's actually happening here is that humans are insane and irrational creatures and, when confronted with a big elevated structure, they perceive it to be a barrier when really it isn't.

[Michael]

(urbanist hat on  )
Those money are better spent on improving public transportation, and not on fixing something that shouldn't be there to begin with. Improved river access, more walkable neighbourhood, quality of life, less parking demand...
(urbanist hat off  )

Improved river access, more walkable neighbourhood

Bullshit.

The South Street Viaduct allows pedestrians to walk under it at any cross street, and in some places where there isn't a cross street if you don't mind jaywalking, while the majority of vehicular traffic passes harmlessly overhead. Were it to be removed and replaced with a ground level boulevard, the option of crossing midblock would be lost in places where it currently exits, and at intersections pedestrians would have to contend with longer crosswalks and longer waits for the light to change (since FDR traffic would need more green time than South Street currently has, and you wouldn't feasibly be able to cross against the light anymore). You would also see an increase in the number of traffic injuries and fatalities (particularly to pedestrians and cyclists) since grade separation is an extremely effective method of preventing these things while wider intersections create more opportunities for them.

In what upside-down dimension does this represent improved river access and walkability? Looks an awful lot like a step backwards on both of those metrics to me.

What's actually happening here is that humans are insane and irrational creatures and, when confronted with a big elevated structure, they perceive it to be a barrier when really it isn't.

As someone who lives near Syracuse, replace the word river with downtown, and that sounds awfully familiar.

I don't understand how people see a viaduct as a barrier since it's easier to cross than a grade level street or boulevard.

[seicer]

*shrugs*

I don't mind 9A the way it is.

I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.

I wonder what will happen to FDR and the east side highway once it reaches the end of its lifespan. Would a boulevard work better than the rather obsolete freeway that exists now?

Nice trolling. Ever seen the 12 mile delays up there? Sure, that'll flow better with less capacity.

Yes - I rarely take transit in NYC, despite the urbanist hat I wear here often. I don't enjoy lugging a 40 lb. camera backpack, tripod and gear all around the subway or bus - which also leaves me open to a lot of other vulnerabilities. I make do pretty well driving - even in those awful backups. I am down in NYC on a near-weekly basis and have the displeasure of driving in rush, at night, in rain, etc.

That said, I am not sure freeways are always the best solution in many cases. This is more of a thought than a wish - and to open the discussion to see what others think.

[Roadsguy]

I don't understand how people see a viaduct as a barrier since it's easier to cross than a grade level street or boulevard.

Feels before reals. :P

[kalvado]

I don't understand how people see a viaduct as a barrier since it's easier to cross than a grade level street or boulevard.

Feels before reals.

And enough groups who think urban highway is a bad thing to begin with.
Makes me wonder if anyone has a coherent vision of NYC transportation in 2040...

[seicer]

Actually, yes: https://www.nymtc.org/Required-Planning-Products/Regional-Transportation-Plan-RTP/RTP-2040

[kalvado]

Actually, yes: https://www.nymtc.org/Required-Planning-Products/Regional-Transportation-Plan-RTP/RTP-2040

That's a great vision!
Is it just me, or that plan is basically stagnation with some regular upkeep?

[seicer]

It's a plan, but the execution is another issue. When it costs several billion to build such a short section of the 2nd Avenue Subway - when it costs FAR less in other developed nations, you have to question the role of our bureaucratic quagmire, powerful public sector unions, and project management. After all, the majority of the costs went not to the tunnel itself but to the stations.

Then there is the issue of why it costs so much - and why it's so delayed, to upgrade the signals in the subway. And why it's so darn antiquated, to begin with. But this might be going towards a tangent that is more mass transit than highway. I'm not sure that the highway rebuilds or works in New York are ever so delayed or mired in cost overruns to the percentage that mass transit is in the NYC metro area.

[Beltway]

It's a plan, but the execution is another issue. When it costs several billion to build such a short section of the 2nd Avenue Subway - when it costs FAR less in other developed nations, you have to question the role of our bureaucratic quagmire, powerful public sector unions, and project management. After all, the majority of the costs went not to the tunnel itself but to the stations.
Then there is the issue of why it costs so much - and why it's so delayed, to upgrade the signals in the subway. And why it's so darn antiquated, to begin with. But this might be going towards a tangent that is more mass transit than highway. I'm not sure that the highway rebuilds or works in New York are ever so delayed or mired in cost overruns to the percentage that mass transit is in the NYC metro area.

The above is mainly an NYC and an NYS issue.  Not a general U.S. issue.

[D-Dey65]

Not everyone has to be in supportive of every road project. I made it quite clear years ago that I was not in favour of highways that were rammed through inner cities, many of which were done under racial pretences. Robert Moses is one of the worst offenders of this, an outright racist, but many planners across the United States deliberately placed highways through the "worst" neighbourhoods for "slum clearances" and "urban renewal."

Not this crap again. Did you ever think that Moses simply wanted to create a connection between the George Washington Bridge and the (future) Throgs Neck Bridge? Also the Cross Bronx Expressway goes through some non "slum" neighborhoods and if the Sheridan had been finished it would've done the same.

Meanwhile Port Morris and Mott Haven are nowhere near the Cross Bronx, so to blame Moses and that expressway for their decline is foolish.

[Alps]

Not everyone has to be in supportive of every road project. I made it quite clear years ago that I was not in favour of highways that were rammed through inner cities, many of which were done under racial pretences. Robert Moses is one of the worst offenders of this, an outright racist, but many planners across the United States deliberately placed highways through the "worst" neighbourhoods for "slum clearances" and "urban renewal."

Not this crap again. Did you ever think that Moses simply wanted to create a connection between the George Washington Bridge and the (future) Throgs Neck Bridge? Also the Cross Bronx Expressway goes through some non "slum" neighborhoods and if the Sheridan had been finished it would've done the same.

Meanwhile Port Morris and Mott Haven are nowhere near the Cross Bronx, so to blame Moses and that expressway for their decline is foolish.

The part you're contesting is true, though. He absolutely believed in slum clearance, was unquestionably racist (parkways were low-bridges so that buses couldn't take blacks to beaches), and specifically routed I-95 the way he did because it was slightly shorter and was his idea, and did not see the value in saving that particular neighborhood because he considered it too slummy.

[seicer]

The Power Broker is a fantastic read. It explains the methodology behind Moses' planning, how and why he routed freeways and parkways through certain neighbourhoods, and so forth. There are listings out there (the link below has a comparison) of the comically absurd low bridge heights. They weren't done at 108 inches high for aesthetic purposes, you know.

A summary can be found via CityLab: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/how-low-did-he-go/533019/

Just a snippet: "Caro reveals that Moses ordered his engineers to build the bridges low over the parkway to keep buses from the city away from Jones Beach–buses presumably filled with the poor blacks and Puerto Ricans Moses despised. The story was told to Caro by Sidney M. Shapiro, a close Moses associate and former chief engineer and general manager of the Long Island State Park Commission."

It goes on, and on, and on. It's fascinating that someone who -didn't- drive, and someone who never held office, could hold such unchecked power. There are some fantastic projects that he was able to accomplish - the beaches on Long Island, for instance (which require tolls and are generally only accessible by automobile), and those scenic but now horribly congested/manipulated parkways (ignoring where they cut through).

[D-Dey65]

The part you're contesting is true, though. He absolutely believed in slum clearance, was unquestionably racist (parkways were low-bridges so that buses couldn't take blacks to beaches), and specifically routed I-95 the way he did because it was slightly shorter and was his idea, and did not see the value in saving that particular neighborhood because he considered it too slummy.

I'm not saying he didn't believe in slum clearance. I'm just saying it's not the primary reason he built any of the roads he built. Throgs Neck, and it's subsidiaries never went down the toilet the way Port Morris, Mott Haven, Highbridge, Morris Heights, Melrose, and Tremont did. The Cross Bronx doesn't even go near Port Morris, Mott Haven, Longwood, and Hunts Point. The Long Island Expressway didn't turn Fresh Meadows, Douglaston or Little Neck into slums. Meanwhile many of the neighborhoods that the Cross Brooklyn and Bushwick Expressways were supposed to go through became slums anyhow.


I've got another snippet from Seicer's link:

He gave Harlem a glorious pool and play center–now Jackie Robinson Park–one of the best public works of the New Deal era anywhere in the United States. A crowd of 25,000 attended the opening ceremony in August, 1936, the 369th Regiment Band playing "When the Music Goes "˜Round and "˜Round"  before Parks Commissioner Moses was introduced–to great applause–by Bill "Bojangles"  Robinson.


And contrary to a claim in The Power Broker, Moses clearly meant buses to serve his "little Jones Beach"  in the Rockaways–Jacob Riis Park. While oriented mainly toward motorists (the parking lot was once the largest in the world), it is simply not true that New Yorkers without cars were excluded. The original site plan included bus drop-off zones, and photographs from the era plainly show buses loading and unloading passengers. "Bus connections with the B.M.T. and I.R.T. in Brooklyn,"  reported the Brooklyn Eagle when the vast seaside playground opened 80 years ago this summer, "make the park easily accessible to non-motorists."

Also, there are bus stops at Jones Beach too. And if Moses truly had his way, not only would the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway have gone up to the Bayville-Rye Bridge, but down to Wantagh State Parkway south of Merrick Road, providing access to those buses and trucks taking boats and other goods to the beach. Weird for someone who supposedly was so hell-bent on keeping minorities from using Jones Beach.

If I recall, Caro also mentioned the fact that the Suffolk County Ku Klux Klan, got pissed when they heard he wanted to build parkways into the county. They actually had a significant amount of power in the 1920's and briefly controlled the Republican Party. I want to believe the low bridges were some kind of compromise with them.

[seicer]

I said "generally only accessible by automobile." Unless you live near the LIRR (which has a bus connection to Jones and Long - and I think another?), it's an extensive venture just to get down there.

While Moses didn't -create- the slums, he helped turn what were working class neighborhoods and ghettos (minority heavy area) into derelict districts. When you push a highway through an established neighborhood, one of the off-shoots is the decimation of the neighborhood-local population and the loss of the fabric of a community. And in Moses' instance, he chose routes that would provide the least resistance. Minorities were and are still underrepresented and are seen as push-overs. It's why and how major interstates were routed through some of the most minority-heavy neighborhoods: Cross Bronx, anything in Detroit, I-75 through the west end of Cincinnati.

This isn't me diminishing Moses' accomplishments. It's merely putting it into perspective.

[D-Dey65]

Actually, yes: https://www.nymtc.org/Required-Planning-Products/Regional-Transportation-Plan-RTP/RTP-2040

That's a great vision!

Unless it includes transforming NY 347, NY 454, NY 27 west of NY 109, and Suffolk CRs 83 and 97 into limited-access highways, I'd have to disagree with that. Don't get me wrong. There are certainly some good ideas in there.

[Stephane Dumas]

A new residential area had popped up in Eastern Long Island resulting of a new traffic light on CR-46/William Floyd Parkway.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=40.84433,-72.89692&z=16&t=H

However, looks like a on-ramp to I-495 from the C-D road/service road will be moved a bit further west.

[D-Dey65]

A new residential area had popped up in Eastern Long Island resulting of a new traffic light on CR-46/William Floyd Parkway.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=40.84433,-72.89692&z=16&t=H

However, looks like a on-ramp to I-495 from the C-D road/service road will be moved a bit further west.

I saw that last time I was up there. The Town of Brookhaven would've been better off letting Suffolk County DPW revive that formerly proposed extension of Suffolk CR 101.

In the meantime, they should still add an interchange at William Floyd Parkway and Longwood Road. Diamond or SPUI, it doesn't matter which to me.

Regarding Central Westchester, I think I brought this up before, but despite the fact that the Hawthorne Circle between the Saw Mill and Taconic State Parkways was eliminated in 1971, another Hawthorne Circle was built along Taconic State Parkway just south of the northern terminus of the Sprain Brook Parkway. Why?

[Rothman]

Huh?  You talking about the emergency vehicle circle or Kensico Dam?

[D-Dey65]

It must be the emergency vehicle circle you're talking about, because this is northwest of Kensico Dam.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/41°06'34.3%22N+73°48'06.4%22W/@41.0972966,-73.7975495,711m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d41.109528!4d-73.801778?hl=en

I really wish I got the chance to post an image of this circle on imgur.

[cl94]

Alright, who wants to email Region 8 to complain about the US 9A shields going up at the 9A/100C bridge replacement? I'd say I'm surprised, but given the amount of NY 202 shields in Region 8...

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=20302&p_is_digital=Y

[D-Dey65]

Is this one still in Region 11?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_9A_Error_Sign_in_Spuyten_Duyvil-South_Riverdale,_Bronx.jpg

Because if so, we can e-mail them about it too.

[cl94]

Is this one still in Region 11?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_9A_Error_Sign_in_Spuyten_Duyvil-South_Riverdale,_Bronx.jpg

Because if so, we can e-mail them about it too.

Unless it's right at a ramp, probably a NYCDOT install if it still exists.

[seicer]

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/14/love-ny-signs-state-wanted-swap-signs-almost-identical-ones/335041002/

Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration has pledged to erect revamped I Love NY road signs to replace the current controversial ones, which are at the center of a years-long dispute that led the federal government to withhold $14 million in highway funding on Feb. 1.

But just days before, the state submitted a proposal calling for new signs nearly identical to the ones already lining the state's highways – with the same size, colors, tourism logos, web address and mobile application that are currently on display.



-

I think that region based tourism signs are not a bad idea, but their latest proposal, before the feds nixed $14 million in highway funding, solved pretty much nothing.

[seicer]

A while back, I was wondering why much of NY 17/Future I-86 is 55 MPH when it's reasonable to drive 70 MPH - or at least the state maximum of 65 MPH. Curious, I decided to look up the 85th percentile speeds - also finding out that much of NY 17 through the Catskills, especially west of Liberty, are under 10,000 VPD.

* West of Deposit, the speeds top out at nearly 75 MPH for the 85th percentile whereas the speed limit is 65 MPH
* Just east of Deposit, the speeds top out at 76 MPH for the 85th percentile whereas the speed limit is 65 MPH
* There is no speed data on the (frustratingly) 55 MPH portion between Deposit and Horton
* East of Horton (Exit 90), the speeds top out at 74 MPH for the 85th percentile whereas the speed limit is 55 MPH (but shown in the logs as 65 MPH)
* West of Parksville, before the segment bypassing Parksville opened, the speeds topped out at 74 MPH whereas the speed limit was 55 MPH
* Around Monticello, the speeds top out at 72 MPH whereas the speed limit is (frustratingly) 55 MPH
* The downgrade/upgrade at Wurtsboro, the speeds top out at 76 MPH whereas the speed limit is (frustratingly) 55 MPH

My question on this is: how are speed limits set? The accident rate isn't any higher on the 55 MPH portions than any other segment of I-86/NY 17. The AADT is quite low and well within capacity. The lower speed limits aren't deterring people from driving a reasonable speed.

[cl94]

Geometry. The curve radii on the 55 section are too small for 65. The hairpin just east of Deposit has a 50 MPH advisory. Multiple other curves would require advisory speeds of 55 and I don't think I've ever seen an advisory below 60 on a 65 in New York. The area around the Shawangunk Ridge drops for a few 50-55 mph curves as well.

I also happen to know that, if an I-86 upgrade does happen, the 55 section minus the at-grades is mostly staying as-is. Qualifies for the mountainous area exemption.