New York

[Alps]

How to take over NY: A comprehensive guide for NJDOT

3. Add black backgrounds to everything

NJDOT stopped that a few years ago. FHWA threatened to take away funding if it continued.

(citation needed)
I thought they just did it because the MUTCD was explicit and they decided to be more compliant. I haven't heard of FHWA threatening over pretty much anything.

[cl94]

(citation needed)
I thought they just did it because the MUTCD was explicit and they decided to be more compliant. I haven't heard of FHWA threatening over pretty much anything.

Did they? My apologies then.

I guess I'm too used to dealing with NY, which doesn't budge on anything unless you threaten to take money away.

[SignBridge]

How to take over NY: A comprehensive guide for NJDOT

3. Add black backgrounds to everything

NJDOT stopped that a few years ago. FHWA threatened to take away funding if it continued.

(citation needed)
I thought they just did it because the MUTCD was explicit and they decided to be more compliant. I haven't heard of FHWA threatening over pretty much anything.

I was sorry NJ had to change that feature. While I don't agree with all of New Jersey's signing practices, I did like the circular state route number symbol placed on the black square. I thought it stood out better that way.

[vdeane]

I don't remember whether they kept them in Port Jefferson, though, and I was there in November 2019. If anything that was one of the locations they should've stayed, because they were aimed at all the people coming off the Port Jeff-Bridgeport Ferry.

Are you thinking of the Orient Point ferry? I'm pretty sure there was a sign once you turned onto NY 25. I lived near Port Jeff for about a decade until 2015 and don't ever remember a Welcome to NY sign there- there's not really space for one anyway.

It looks like there is one.

[dkblake]

I don't remember whether they kept them in Port Jefferson, though, and I was there in November 2019. If anything that was one of the locations they should've stayed, because they were aimed at all the people coming off the Port Jeff-Bridgeport Ferry.

Are you thinking of the Orient Point ferry? I'm pretty sure there was a sign once you turned onto NY 25. I lived near Port Jeff for about a decade until 2015 and don't ever remember a Welcome to NY sign there- there's not really space for one anyway.

It looks like there is one.

So there is! Though I stand by my "there's not really space for one anyway" position 

[D-Dey65]

I don't remember whether they kept them in Port Jefferson, though, and I was there in November 2019. If anything that was one of the locations they should've stayed, because they were aimed at all the people coming off the Port Jeff-Bridgeport Ferry.

Are you thinking of the Orient Point ferry? I'm pretty sure there was a sign once you turned onto NY 25. I lived near Port Jeff for about a decade until 2015 and don't ever remember a Welcome to NY sign there- there's not really space for one anyway.

No, I was thinking of Port Jeff. I'm familiar with the one on NY 25 coming off the Orient Point Ferry (I've been one of many who have taken pictures of them), but I still remember seeing some in Port Jefferson.

[fmendes]

out of curiosity I was looking on the NY's 2020-2024 TIP plan and i found a project which has future operational improvements on the Southern state parkway so I emailed a Dot staff director and this is the response I got...

Dear Mr. Mendes,

Thank you for your email of November 25, requesting information on a 2020-2045 TIP plan item.  I have looked into the matter and have the following information to share:

The New York state Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has initiated a Southern State Parkway (SSP) Mainline Safety & Operational Study from Eagle Avenue to the Wantagh State Parkway (WSP).  The study was initiated this year, within the department, to evaluate potential mainline safety enhancements and operational improvements.  This study, expected to be completed late next year, could be used to provide the groundwork for future project proposals.  The study is ongoing, so it is premature to discuss any findings at this time.

Again, thank you for your question and I wish you a happy and healthy holiday season as well.

Regards,

Mary L. Byrne, P.E
Staff Director, Nassau Suffolk TCC

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
250 Veterans Memorial Highway, Rm 2B-46C, Hauppauge, NY 11788
(631) 952-6930 | mary.byrne@dot.ny.gov
www.NYMTC.org

[Roadgeek Adam]

Some of this I presume will have to do with the bridge meeting trucks problem. SSP is notoriously bad on the commercial vehicle violation on LI.

[fmendes]

Some of this I presume will have to do with the bridge meeting trucks problem. SSP is notoriously bad on the commercial vehicle violation on LI.

i think so to but on top of that probably lengthen aux lanes add lanes realign curves but also eliminate that clusterf*ck at the wantagh pkwy

[SignBridge]

What issues are you talking about at the Wantagh Pkwy. and what improvements  would you suggest?

[fmendes]

What issues are you talking about at the Wantagh Pkwy. and what improvements  would you suggest?

i accually happen to live off the exit to wantagh ave and i suggest on EB SSP they relocate the exit from south WSP to EB SSP to a loop ramp to make it so people have more merge length and so they have time to merge before the ramp from north WSP merges sorta like how the LIE/NY-135 interchange is setup with the lanes and loop ramps but a flyover would connect EB SSP to NB WSP

[SignBridge]

Interestingly, before the Wantagh/S.S. Pky. interchange was rebuilt and reconfigured in 1966, the S/B to E/B ramp was a cloverleaf, which resulted in too much weaving traffic under the Wantagh Pkwy. bridge. The current ramp was configured to eliminate that issue and handle the large amount of traffic using that  ramp.

[fmendes]

Interestingly, before the Wantagh/S.S. Pky. interchange was rebuilt and reconfigured in 1966, the S/B to E/B ramp was a cloverleaf, which resulted in too much weaving traffic under the Wantagh Pkwy. bridge. The current ramp was configured to eliminate that issue and handle the large amount of traffic using that  ramp.

yes i have seen this if you go on historical images and you'll see the construction but now u have 5 lanes going into 3 which creates weaving between there and 28S which creates a major bottleneck as seen here its out the merging ***PS "i drew these myself on google earth pro these are not actual plans"

[SignBridge]

Well yes, there is still lots of weaving but at least it's a longer stretch of road, maybe a half-mile. Still better than what the old set-up would have been with today's traffic.

[fmendes]

Well yes, there is still lots of weaving but at least it's a longer stretch of road, maybe a half-mile. Still better than what the old set-up would have been with today's traffic.

Yes 100% i agree with u but there is room for improvements not just at the wantagh but west all the way to eagle ave and maybe to the cross island as well but thats a whole other ball game

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/bg5UFpvmec75J7bz9
Found this sign bridge for the RFK Bridge Manhattan approach on the ground below the viaduct.   Interesting that the contractor would lay the sign bridge here and not on the Manhattan Side of the lift span.

[storm2k]

https://goo.gl/maps/bg5UFpvmec75J7bz9
Found this sign bridge for the RFK Bridge Manhattan approach on the ground below the viaduct.   Interesting that the contractor would lay the sign bridge here and not on the Manhattan Side of the lift span.

Even neater, you can see it installed in this in this new GSV.

[mariethefoxy]

Does anyone have any info or old photos from the original Northern State/Meadowbrook interchange before it was changed in the early 90s? All I can find is old satelite photos on historic aerials.

How were the exits numbered?

Westbound there looks like a

31N for North Glen Cove Road to 25
31S for South Glen Cove Road to Meadowbrook

and a third ramp to Glen Cove Road where the current Exit 31 is.

Going eastbound you have a

ramp to 25 West
ramp to Glen Cove Road south and 25 East

and obviously the Meadowbrook Exit which was 31A

[SignBridge]

No photos but I kind of remember the old interchange. It was pretty much the way you figured it.

[D-Dey65]

Well yes, there is still lots of weaving but at least it's a longer stretch of road, maybe a half-mile. Still better than what the old set-up would have been with today's traffic.

Yes 100% i agree with u but there is room for improvements not just at the wantagh but west all the way to eagle ave and maybe to the cross island as well but thats a whole other ball game

The biggest problem is east of the Wantagh Parkway interchange. I almost want to believe that eliminating Exit 28S and converting Exit 28N into an east to both directions off-ramp would do the trick, but I'm not sure that would be enough.

[fmendes]

Well yes, there is still lots of weaving but at least it's a longer stretch of road, maybe a half-mile. Still better than what the old set-up would have been with today's traffic.

Yes 100% i agree with u but there is room for improvements not just at the wantagh but west all the way to eagle ave and maybe to the cross island as well but thats a whole other ball game

The biggest problem is east of the Wantagh Parkway interchange. I almost want to believe that eliminating Exit 28S and converting Exit 28N into an east to both directions off-ramp would do the trick, but I'm not sure that would be enough.

also the existing 5th lane that merges before 28s make that exit only to the loop ramp which would be exit 28N-S and the 4th lane on right extend that to the Seaford oyster bay expressway and move the exit to RT 135 north into a flyover ramp removing the weaving between ramps and construct a C/D road on east bound SSP in the median all the through the 135/107 interchanges to remove the weaving between 135 and exit 29 and on westbound ssp close the on ramp from sb 107 and exit 29s and extend the aux lane from the loop ramp the NB 135 and make it a 2 lane ramp kinda like LIE-135 interchange

[mariethefoxy]

if they had built the southern extension of 135, it would help a lot since a lot of that traffic especially in summer is people coming up from the beaches since that interchange suffers from a horrid design weakness, three lanes of traffic merge into one then become an exit only for another exit, causing a terrible weaving problem. This is also the biggest design flaw of the LIE-135 interchange, going east to south you have a two lane ramp that quickly merges into one, then that lane quickly you have to merge right with two lanes coming in from the westbound ramp, a very tight turn then you quickly have to move over again. I cant imagine that was the final design, to me it seems like somewhere down the line they made a lot of bad compromises to it, to keep the Plainview/Woodbury/Syosset people happy

[Mergingtraffic]

All the button copy signs on Westchester Ave in Harrison have been replaced.  The I-684 and Merritt signs on the I-287 EB mainline still are up.

[SignBridge]

if they had built the southern extension of 135, it would help a lot since a lot of that traffic especially in summer is people coming up from the beaches since that interchange suffers from a horrid design weakness, three lanes of traffic merge into one then become an exit only for another exit, causing a terrible weaving problem. This is also the biggest design flaw of the LIE-135 interchange, going east to south you have a two lane ramp that quickly merges into one, then that lane quickly you have to merge right with two lanes coming in from the westbound ramp, a very tight turn then you quickly have to move over again. I cant imagine that was the final design, to me it seems like somewhere down the line they made a lot of bad compromises to it, to keep the Plainview/Woodbury/Syosset people happy

The original interchange built circa 1961 was a standard cloverleaf design. The current configuration was a rebuild in the 1990's around the same time the HOV lanes were added to the LIE. NYS DOT wanted C-D roads thru that area but yes the affluent Syosset community brought political pressure to bear and forced DOT to scale down the project to what it is now.

[fmendes]

if they had built the southern extension of 135, it would help a lot since a lot of that traffic especially in summer is people coming up from the beaches since that interchange suffers from a horrid design weakness, three lanes of traffic merge into one then become an exit only for another exit, causing a terrible weaving problem. This is also the biggest design flaw of the LIE-135 interchange, going east to south you have a two lane ramp that quickly merges into one, then that lane quickly you have to merge right with two lanes coming in from the westbound ramp, a very tight turn then you quickly have to move over again. I cant imagine that was the final design, to me it seems like somewhere down the line they made a lot of bad compromises to it, to keep the Plainview/Woodbury/Syosset people happy

it looks to me they designed it like that considering that the proximity of the LIE to the NSP that 75% of people are not gonna get off at the northern state considering its going west where they just came from and or the direction they were headed but the demand was there to keep the ramp open honestly i think they should close that interchange and build a full interchange at the lie and the NSP but there would be lots of weaving but the LIE 135 interchange has been designed very well if i could say so my self for using the existing 135 bridge and not using service roads like at the sag how ever it could be better