New York

[cl94]

Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph.  Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.

I would dispute that.  FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.

I would dispute that as well.  AFAIK the normal rural Interstate standards remained at 70 mph from the 1970s onward.

Everything I can find supports that rural interstates outside of mountainous terrain had to be designed for 70+. Mountainous areas have always been 55 if higher speeds were cost-prohibitive. And yes, mountainous areas in other states are 55. Even in West Virginia, those curves have higher radii.

[froggie]

^ Per AASHTO's Policy on Interstate System Design Standards, design speed in mountainous areas (and urban areas as well) can be dropped to 50 MPH.

[jeffandnicole]

Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph.  Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.

I would dispute that.  FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.

I would dispute that as well.  AFAIK the normal rural Interstate standards remained at 70 mph from the 1970s onward.

Everything I can find supports that rural interstates outside of mountainous terrain had to be designed for 70+. Mountainous areas have always been 55 if higher speeds were cost-prohibitive. And yes, mountainous areas in other states are 55. Even in West Virginia, those curves have higher radii.

But the highways seicer is referencing aren't Interstate highways, so these 'disputes' aren't looking at the correct criteria.

[cl94]

^ Per AASHTO's Policy on Interstate System Design Standards, design speed in mountainous areas (and urban areas as well) can be dropped to 50 MPH.

Guess I remembered wrong. Explains why I-70 around Glenwood Canyon is posted at 50.

By current standards, NY 17 would be a design speed of 50-55 for the Catskills and Shawangunk Ridge sections. I actually did run it against my copy of the Green Book a few years ago. Could NYSDOT raise it above 55 if they really wanted to? Certainly. But their current policy is to not go above 55 unless there is good geometry.

But the highways seicer is referencing aren't Interstate highways, so these 'disputes' aren't looking at the correct criteria.

Any upgrades made to NY 17 since the 70s have been to Interstate standards.

And going back to the higher speed limits thing:

- Maine's 75 section is relatively flat and straight. Gets virtually no traffic. I did not see another vehicle in my direction and relatively few in the other when I drove it in Summer 2016. It is one of the least-used sections of the Interstate system.
- New Hampshire's 70 sections are not particularly mountainous by northeast standards.
- PennDOT's 70 sections are I-79 between the Pittsburgh metro and Erie, I-80 between OH and Luzerne County, and much of I-99. That section of 79 is mostly flat and 99 is relatively new.
- PTC's 70 sections are almost everything away from the tunnels and toll plazas, outside the eastern climb to Allegheny Mountain. Generally built to high standards, even if shoulders are narrow.
- Nothing on WV Interstates that is 70 is as windy as NY 17 through the Catskills. And NY won't post 60, so 55 it is.

[J N Winkler]

There have been Interstate standards since the early 1940's, long before there was dedicated funding for Interstates, let alone the Interstate Construction program with 90% federal match.  Where horizontal curvature is concerned, the original criteria are easy to remember:  desirable maxima of 3°, 4° 5°, and 5° 7° for 70 mph (flat terrain), 60 mph (rolling country), and 50 mph (mountainous terrain) respectively.  (Divide 5730 by degree of curvature to obtain radius in feet.)

Choice of design speed for a facility is determined largely by its location and purpose and has not changed much since the early days.  70 is still common for rural in flat country, 60 in the suburbs, etc.  However, the specific criteria associated with a design speed have evolved over time, generally in the direction of greater commodiousness.  And, because we Americans are weird, the maximum side friction demand a driver experiences at a given design speed varies according to the maximum superelevation chosen for design (4% superelevation, necessitated by frequent icing, is less forgiving than 6% or 8% superelevation).

Edit:  Criteria given above corrected to accord with diagram given in a later post.

[Beltway]

There have been Interstate standards since the early 1940's, long before there was dedicated funding for Interstates, let alone the Interstate Construction program with 90% federal match.  Where horizontal curvature is concerned, the original criteria are easy to remember:  maxima of 3°, 4°, and 5° for 70 mph (flat terrain), 60 mph (rolling country), and 50 mph (mountainous terrain) respectively.  (Divide 5730 by degree of curvature to obtain radius in feet.)

I thought that the horizontal curvature maxima for 70 mph was 3 degrees and 30 minutes.

[J N Winkler]

Actually, I need to apologize for posting incorrect information--I misremembered the following diagram:



The source is D.W. Loutzenheiser, "Proposed design standards for interregional highways," Proceedings of the Highway Research Board, vol. 24 (1944), pp. 105-126.  It synopsizes the design criteria given as Appendix V of the 1944 Interregional Highways report.

[Rothman]

There have been Interstate standards since the early 1940's, long before there was dedicated funding for Interstates, let alone the Interstate Construction program with 90% federal match.

Heh.  Although the 90% match still exists, the fun part here is that the standards have now existed before the dedicated funding was established and now also after such funding dissipated with MAP-21 (albeit absorbed into NHPP).

[webny99]

Apparently the ORT gantries on the GI bridges are in and ready to go by March. But the toll booths will still remain? So that means that you have to fly into these booths doing 55+ hoping you don't crash into the sides I guess.

Indeed; I drove over both Grand Island Bridges last weekend. I was ecstatic to see the gantries installed and seemingly ready for use.

I'm sure the long-term plan involves removal of the booths, does it not? Leaving them there would be detrimental to traffic flow on the approaches and pretty much defeat the purpose of the conversion.

Perhaps they'll pave a segment wide enough for two lanes so traffic can flow by at-speed until the booths are removed. Looking forward to going to Canada again mid-March and seeing how the booths are ultimately handled.

[Michael]

Graphs of the current curve radii for various speeds and degrees of banking can be found in Chapter 5 of NYSDOT'S Highway Design Manual.  Look at pages 5-56 and 5-57 (pages 62 and 63 in the PDF) for graphs on skidding.  Pages 5-59 and 5-60 (pages 65 and 66 in the PDF) have graphs for avoiding truck rollovers.

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.

There are two 55 MPH advisory curves I'm aware of (and a third I found while writing this post), all at both ends of NY 695.  One is on the NY 695 north to I-690 east ramp, another is on the NY 695 south to NY 5 east ramp, and the one I found is on the NY 695 north to I-690 west ramp.  The I-690 west to NY 695 south ramp isn't signed at all, but I feel like 60 is pushing it a bit on the curve.  I've also done 60 on the NY 695 north to I-690 east ramp, and I may have done a bit more while passing a slower car once.  60 is definitely pushing it on that curve, and when I was passing, I felt uncomfortable going so fast on that curve, but I wanted to get around the slower car to avoid being in their blind spot or right next to them for too long.

[vdeane]

Apparently the ORT gantries on the GI bridges are in and ready to go by March. But the toll booths will still remain? So that means that you have to fly into these booths doing 55+ hoping you don't crash into the sides I guess.

Indeed; I drove over both Grand Island Bridges last weekend. I was ecstatic to see the gantries installed and seemingly ready for use.

I'm sure the long-term plan involves removal of the booths, does it not? Leaving them there would be detrimental to traffic flow on the approaches and pretty much defeat the purpose of the conversion.

Perhaps they'll pave a segment wide enough for two lanes so traffic can flow by at-speed until the booths are removed. Looking forward to going to Canada again mid-March and seeing how the booths are ultimately handled.

My understanding is that there is a separate contract to remove the booths ready to be let.  Unlike the MassPike, the Thruway is not commiting to a specific date for when the booths will be removed, but I can't imagine it will be too long (especially since Thruway booths are easier to remove than MassPike booths... the Thruway uses crosswalks to get toll takers to the booths instead of tunnels).  Obviously, the Thruway can't remove the booths until the gantries go into effect (or were you hoping for free trips during the transition?).

[Sam]

How did the Thruway handle removing the Black Rock and City Line barriers? I would assume they corralled traffic to one half of roadway and removed the barrier on the other half, but I didn't see any of the process.

[webny99]

Obviously, the Thruway can't remove the booths until the gantries go into effect (or were you hoping for free trips during the transition?).

I was hoping  I've used the thruway enough that I've probably earned it. Although IMO, even one trip using AET is worth the potential savings

How did the Thruway handle removing the Black Rock and City Line barriers? I would assume they corralled traffic to one half of roadway and removed the barrier on the other half, but I didn't see any of the process.

I'm picturing something along those lines. Removing it in segments could probably work as well.

[J N Winkler]

My understanding is that there is a separate contract to remove the booths ready to be let.

It has already been let--bid opening was last January 31.  The contract in question is D214649 (TAN 18-8).

http://www.thruway.ny.gov/business/contractors/documents/index.shtml

(Plans will no longer be available at the above link after six months.)

[webny99]

My understanding is that there is a separate contract to remove the booths ready to be let.

It has already been let--bid opening was last January 31.

Thanks for that. Estimated date of completion June 29th of this year. No free tolls, I guess 

[seicer]

Graphs of the current curve radii for various speeds and degrees of banking can be found in Chapter 5 of NYSDOT'S Highway Design Manual.  Look at pages 5-56 and 5-57 (pages 62 and 63 in the PDF) for graphs on skidding.  Pages 5-59 and 5-60 (pages 65 and 66 in the PDF) have graphs for avoiding truck rollovers.

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.

There are two 55 MPH advisory curves I'm aware of (and a third I found while writing this post), all at both ends of NY 695.  One is on the NY 695 north to I-690 east ramp, another is on the NY 695 south to NY 5 east ramp, and the one I found is on the NY 695 north to I-690 west ramp.  The I-690 west to NY 695 south ramp isn't signed at all, but I feel like 60 is pushing it a bit on the curve.  I've also done 60 on the NY 695 north to I-690 east ramp, and I may have done a bit more while passing a slower car once.  60 is definitely pushing it on that curve, and when I was passing, I felt uncomfortable going so fast on that curve, but I wanted to get around the slower car to avoid being in their blind spot or right next to them for too long.

Thanks for that - responding partly to

Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph.  Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.

I would dispute that.  FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.

I would dispute that as well.  AFAIK the normal rural Interstate standards remained at 70 mph from the 1970s onward.

Everything I can find supports that rural interstates outside of mountainous terrain had to be designed for 70+. Mountainous areas have always been 55 if higher speeds were cost-prohibitive. And yes, mountainous areas in other states are 55. Even in West Virginia, those curves have higher radii.

But the highways seicer is referencing aren't Interstate highways, so these 'disputes' aren't looking at the correct criteria.

I found no mention of NY 17 being built as part of some interstate plan in casual newspaper searches - other than it being an upgrade of existing NY 17 through the Catskills. As far as design speed, interstates during the NMSL era were not designed to 55 or 60 MPH - there are quite a few highways built during this era that had design speeds of 70 MPH or greater.

And my mention of West Virginia is just that - a mention of another state I am well versed with. It's not something that has to be replicated but only serves as an example of a state that has a lower design speed on some stretches of highway with it signed at a higher speed. There is no reason that other states could go around that with a variance and just sign the curves with advisories.

And yes, I am well aware that the Hale Eddy segment is not interstate grade - and I mentioned that earlier. I am pretty keen on its defencies and aware of its future upgrade. Interestingly enough, there is no speed data for that portion.

To throw an example from the weekend: 70 MPH on the Turnpike Extension in Pennsylvania with 60 MPH advisory speeds. and 70 MPH on the mainline Turnpike with 55 MPH advisory speeds. Even with the lowest signed advisory on NY 17/I-86, absent of the Hale Eddy segment, the biggest derivative between an advisory and maximum speed limit is within reason.

[cl94]

New York generally won't sign an advisory speed below 60 MPH on a 65 MPH road outside of an interchange. They won't. Suggesting otherwise strays into fictional territory.

[Beltway]

I found no mention of NY 17 being built as part of some interstate plan in casual newspaper searches - other than it being an upgrade of existing NY 17 through the Catskills. As far as design speed, interstates during the NMSL era were not designed to 55 or 60 MPH - there are quite a few highways built during this era that had design speeds of 70 MPH or greater.

The Southern Tier Expressway, that being NY-17 west of I-81 and connecting to I-90 near Erie PA, got most its funding from being ADHS Corridor T which was authorized in 1964.

https://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/ADHSMap9-30-2017.pdf

[Buffaboy]

I found no mention of NY 17 being built as part of some interstate plan in casual newspaper searches - other than it being an upgrade of existing NY 17 through the Catskills. As far as design speed, interstates during the NMSL era were not designed to 55 or 60 MPH - there are quite a few highways built during this era that had design speeds of 70 MPH or greater.

The Southern Tier Expressway, that being NY-17 west of I-81 and connecting to I-90 near Erie PA, got most its funding from being ADHS Corridor T which was authorized in 1964.

https://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/ADHSMap9-30-2017.pdf

It's funny how the Eastern section is called the "Quickway," when it's anything but.

[seicer]

New York generally won't sign an advisory speed below 60 MPH on a 65 MPH road outside of an interchange. They won't. Suggesting otherwise strays into fictional territory.

What I did was compare what other states do to New York and voiced my displeasure. So who cares about what you believe? That would run against the purpose of a forum - to exchange new ideas, to voice opinions, and to gather new insights? Fin.

[cl94]

I found no mention of NY 17 being built as part of some interstate plan in casual newspaper searches - other than it being an upgrade of existing NY 17 through the Catskills. As far as design speed, interstates during the NMSL era were not designed to 55 or 60 MPH - there are quite a few highways built during this era that had design speeds of 70 MPH or greater.

The Southern Tier Expressway, that being NY-17 west of I-81 and connecting to I-90 near Erie PA, got most its funding from being ADHS Corridor T which was authorized in 1964.

https://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/ADHSMap9-30-2017.pdf

It's funny how the Eastern section is called the "Quickway," when it's anything but.

Because former NY 17 through there was a 2-lane death trap with several hairpin curves. See this one near Hancock and this one near Wurtsboro.

[hotdogPi]

I've found upstate New York to be pretty good with surface road speed limits. Consistently 55 in places where Massachusetts would sign it at 35-40. My experience is from NY 206 and NY 79 from I-88 to Ithaca, but I also remember someone saying the speed limit changes dramatically on NY/MA 23 crossing the state border.

[cl94]

I've found upstate New York to be pretty good with surface road speed limits. Consistently 55 in places where Massachusetts would sign it at 35-40. My experience is from NY 206 and NY 79 from I-88 to Ithaca, but I also remember someone saying the speed limit changes dramatically on NY/MA 23 crossing the state border.

It does. 55 in NY to 30 in MA. Not the only place a 15+ MPH jump happens at the eastern border, either. NY/MA 2 is 55/40, as is MA 295. The only places NY and MA speed limits match are NY/MA 43 (both 55) and I-90 (both 65).

What I did was compare what other states do to New York and voiced my displeasure. So who cares about what you believe? That would run against the purpose of a forum - to exchange new ideas, to voice opinions, and to gather new insights? Fin.

No, I'm stating facts and you're beating a dead horse.

[vdeane]

It's funny how the Eastern section is called the "Quickway," when it's anything but.

The Quickway probably was considered quick before I-84 and I-81 were around.  It also provides access from NYC to the Catskills.

It does. 55 in NY to 30 in MA. Not the only place a 15+ MPH jump happens at the eastern border, either. NY/MA 2 is 55/40, as is MA 295. The only places NY and MA speed limits match are NY/MA 43 (both 55) and I-90 (both 65).

What's amazing is just how much the speed limits do match on the NY/VT border.  US 2 matches (though largely due to how short it is in NY... no point in posting 55 if you're just going to slow to 50 immediately afterwards), as does US 4 (because the VT side is limited access), NY 185/VT 17 (because of the historic stuff and a hamlet, both sides post it 30), and VT 279 (due to the Bennington Bypass).  I'd count NY 149, too - while the speed limit does change (30 to 40 entering VT), such is actually due to leaving the Village of Granville, and the change would still happen regardless of whether the state border happened to be there.

[cl94]

And even where NY and VT don't match, it's rarely more than a 5 MPH difference. I think VT 31/Washington CR 25 is the only jump of 10+ that doesn't involve a settlement (but you could argue that the NY side is overposted, as it drops to 30 a mile into New York).