New York

[Alps]

I wouldn't speculate on the traffic light. It's something that can easily be modeled and studied to determine how it would function. Your main phase would be 6-202, second phase would be EB left/SB right, and then SB left would occasionally get a phase if needed.

The issue wouldn't be so much the timing/phasing, but rather the terrain. Coming down the Goat Trail requires enough attention as it is; to add a signal into the mix would possibly require a greater justification than is provided by the volume of traffic needing to go north on 9D. (That traffic would typically include me, now that I live in that direction.)

Pardon? Greater justification? Traffic volumes are a sufficient justification. Backups onto the bridge are undesirable. You do the analysis and see if you can make it work based on all of the demands present. It may or may not work, but it's easy to figure out.

[empirestate]

Pardon? Greater justification? Traffic volumes are a sufficient justification. Backups onto the bridge are undesirable.

Right, but do those traffic volumes or backups exist? If they don't, then of course they aren't a greater justification.

You do the analysis and see if you can make it work based on all of the demands present. It may or may not work, but it's easy to figure out.

Me do the study? I'm not a DOT actually undertaking this project, I'm a guy sitting at home having a conversation on a roads forum. The stakes here aren't all that high for me.

[Alps]

Pardon? Greater justification? Traffic volumes are a sufficient justification. Backups onto the bridge are undesirable.

Right, but do those traffic volumes or backups exist? If they don't, then of course they aren't a greater justification.

For the last time, this is why you do the study.

You do the analysis and see if you can make it work based on all of the demands present. It may or may not work, but it's easy to figure out.

Me do the study? I'm not a DOT actually undertaking this project, I'm a guy sitting at home having a conversation on a roads forum. The stakes here aren't all that high for me.

I didn't say you specifically. This is why NYSDOT does the analysis. I'm done here.

[empirestate]

Pardon? Greater justification? Traffic volumes are a sufficient justification. Backups onto the bridge are undesirable.

Right, but do those traffic volumes or backups exist? If they don't, then of course they aren't a greater justification.

For the last time, this is why you do the study.

You do the analysis and see if you can make it work based on all of the demands present. It may or may not work, but it's easy to figure out.

Me do the study? I'm not a DOT actually undertaking this project, I'm a guy sitting at home having a conversation on a roads forum. The stakes here aren't all that high for me.

I didn't say you specifically. This is why NYSDOT does the analysis. I'm done here.

Yeah...maybe a good idea? I'm not sure what all went wrong. I feel like we suddenly jumped seven pages into an argument nobody else even realized was going on–least of all myself!

[lstone19]

Pardon? Greater justification? Traffic volumes are a sufficient justification. Backups onto the bridge are undesirable.

Right, but do those traffic volumes or backups exist? If they don't, then of course they aren't a greater justification.

For the last time, this is why you do the study.

You do the analysis and see if you can make it work based on all of the demands present. It may or may not work, but it's easy to figure out.

Me do the study? I'm not a DOT actually undertaking this project, I'm a guy sitting at home having a conversation on a roads forum. The stakes here aren't all that high for me.

I didn't say you specifically. This is why NYSDOT does the analysis. I'm done here.

Yeah...maybe a good idea? I'm not sure what all went wrong. I feel like we suddenly jumped seven pages into an argument nobody else even realized was going on–least of all myself!

Seems like Alps and empirestate are writing/reading "you" to mean two different things. Alps colloquially said "You do the analysis and ..." to mean "An analysis is done and ...". Empirestate interpreted it as Alps was saying "You (empirestate) need to do an analysis and ...". Just a simple misunderstanding of what was being said.

[empirestate]

Seems like Alps and empirestate are writing/reading "you" to mean two different things. Alps colloquially said "You do the analysis and ..." to mean "An analysis is done and ...". Empirestate interpreted it as Alps was saying "You (empirestate) need to do an analysis and ...". Just a simple misunderstanding of what was being said.

Oh, you're right–I may have misread that, indeed! And for some reason, it worked out to be something of a hair-trigger moment. I think there was already a mix-up about whether anyone was disputing that a study could determine the warrant for a signal installation. I certainly wasn't, I just wasn't anywhere near that far into the process. I was still way back at where somebody said they might put a traffic signal there, and I was thinking that mightn't be such a good idea, as there aren't all that many people going north, compared to the approach coming down the hill.

But yes, I really do need to start putting a disclaimer or something on all my posts (and really, most of my everyday conversations, too). What I consider to be my simple observations are far, far too often mistaken for arguments. :-)

[Alps]

Seems like Alps and empirestate are writing/reading "you" to mean two different things. Alps colloquially said "You do the analysis and ..." to mean "An analysis is done and ...". Empirestate interpreted it as Alps was saying "You (empirestate) need to do an analysis and ...". Just a simple misunderstanding of what was being said.

Oh, you're right–I may have misread that, indeed! And for some reason, it worked out to be something of a hair-trigger moment. I think there was already a mix-up about whether anyone was disputing that a study could determine the warrant for a signal installation. I certainly wasn't, I just wasn't anywhere near that far into the process. I was still way back at where somebody said they might put a traffic signal there, and I was thinking that mightn't be such a good idea, as there aren't all that many people going north, compared to the approach coming down the hill.

But yes, I really do need to start putting a disclaimer or something on all my posts (and really, most of my everyday conversations, too). What I consider to be my simple observations are far, far too often mistaken for arguments. :-)

Sweet, let's move on and remember this happened as a colloquial anecdote.

[kalvado]

I just went through affected area of I-87. Traffic situation is nowhere close to the total collapse we feared.
Right lane is separated by jersey barriers, steel support columns are installed in the right lane. Other two lanes are open for traffic.
No entry at Exit 9, removing a lot of traffic and a heavy merge just upstream of accident location.  Exit 8A is probably a mess during commute, but traffic is still suppressed by covid.
The only thing I would do differently is extending lane closure by another mile to exit 8A to facilitate that merge.

Biggest issue would be on weekends, when a lot of NYC vacation traffic would be coming from Adirondack and Lake George.

And the latest update: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/After-crash-section-of-bridge-over-Northway-to-16118979.php
Section of a bridge is coming down, as @cl94 said - I assume the span over southbound lanes?. Highway closed overnight on weekend.
That's a lot of aftermath from a single impact...

And an end of the story - for now: Sitterly is open with a temporary bridge installed, highway is fully open for  past 2 weeks. Temporary bridge being higher than the old one - maybe by a foot or so-  is a small perk for highway traffic
I assume permanent bridge is the next thing to happen, but I wouldn't be surprized if it takes a year or two to be built.

And yet another update:
apparently, plans for new bridge are in, and work is underway on west side of the highway. Looks like a new support wall is getting built.

While I didn't realize that original crash was almost half a year ago,  I didn't expect anything to happen before next year.

[vdeane]

I'm curious what the forum consensus is on where the Sunken Meadow State Parkway ends.  The reference route for it ends at the fee booths (this is reflected in Traffic Data Viewer; the part south of the fee booths is the reference route, and the part north of there isn't included); the part north is just a park road as far as the inventory is concerned, and it used to be signed as such.  There's also a "parkway ends" sign more than a mile south of NY 25A.  Newer signage, however, muddies the water (although the sign on NY 25A west lacks the directional banner seen on the signs for the SB parkway on both directions of NY 25A).

Contrast with the Bay Parkway, which has the reference route only between the Meadowbrook Parkway and Wantagh Parkway (not including the part west of the fee booths to the west end), but signage has always had the full extent to the west end.  Traffic Data Viewer also has the whole parkway, although the part west of the Meadowbrook Parkway is included as a local road, not a reference route or touring route.

So I guess the question is - is the park of the Sunken Meadow State Parkway just a park road like any other road in a state park north of the fee booths, or is the situation more like the Bay Parkway, where the parkway continues but not as a state route?

[dgolub]

I'm curious what the forum consensus is on where the Sunken Meadow State Parkway ends.  The reference route for it ends at the fee booths (this is reflected in Traffic Data Viewer; the part south of the fee booths is the reference route, and the part north of there isn't included); the part north is just a park road as far as the inventory is concerned, and it used to be signed as such.  There's also a "parkway ends" sign more than a mile south of NY 25A.  Newer signage, however, muddies the water (although the sign on NY 25A west lacks the directional banner seen on the signs for the SB parkway on both directions of NY 25A).

Contrast with the Bay Parkway, which has the reference route only between the Meadowbrook Parkway and Wantagh Parkway (not including the part west of the fee booths to the west end), but signage has always had the full extent to the west end.  Traffic Data Viewer also has the whole parkway, although the part west of the Meadowbrook Parkway is included as a local road, not a reference route or touring route.

So I guess the question is - is the park of the Sunken Meadow State Parkway just a park road like any other road in a state park north of the fee booths, or is the situation more like the Bay Parkway, where the parkway continues but not as a state route?

It's ambiguous.  I'd just note that there are signs for the NY 25A exit on the southbound side that begin inside the park, for whatever that's worth.

[empirestate]

I'm curious what the forum consensus is on where the Sunken Meadow State Parkway ends.  The reference route for it ends at the fee booths (this is reflected in Traffic Data Viewer; the part south of the fee booths is the reference route, and the part north of there isn't included); the part north is just a park road as far as the inventory is concerned, and it used to be signed as such.  There's also a "parkway ends" sign more than a mile south of NY 25A.  Newer signage, however, muddies the water (although the sign on NY 25A west lacks the directional banner seen on the signs for the SB parkway on both directions of NY 25A).

Contrast with the Bay Parkway, which has the reference route only between the Meadowbrook Parkway and Wantagh Parkway (not including the part west of the fee booths to the west end), but signage has always had the full extent to the west end.  Traffic Data Viewer also has the whole parkway, although the part west of the Meadowbrook Parkway is included as a local road, not a reference route or touring route.

So I guess the question is - is the park of the Sunken Meadow State Parkway just a park road like any other road in a state park north of the fee booths, or is the situation more like the Bay Parkway, where the parkway continues but not as a state route?

It's ambiguous.  I'd just note that there are signs for the NY 25A exit on the southbound side that begin inside the park, for whatever that's worth.

I'd go with the inventory data over any newer signage, especially if it contradicts, as it's unlikely to reflect an actual underlying change.

How does it work with the Heckscher Parkway?

[vdeane]

Heckscher and Ocean both end at their respective fee booths officially as well, with no local continuation in Traffic Data Viewer; same deal as the Sunken Meadow except much shorter, with the roads physically ending at a circle just past the booths (the Ocean Parkway contributes to the case for ignoring signage, as the Robert Moses Causeway has the shield on the signs to Captree State Park - especially with the "parkway ends" sign indicating a point just below the cloverleaf with NY 25A).

[crispy93]

I'm curious what the forum consensus is on where the Sunken Meadow State Parkway ends[...] 

So I guess the question is - is the park of the Sunken Meadow State Parkway just a park road like any other road in a state park north of the fee booths, or is the situation more like the Bay Parkway, where the parkway continues but not as a state route?

Funny you mention the SMSP, I was think about it yesterday. Last time I was on it, as you reach the northbound terminus, there's an END / STATE SPEED LIMIT 55 sign attached to one of the 25A exit signs, rather than the traditional "[30 mph symbol] AHEAD." Then it continues as a divided road with an absurd 30 mph limit!

Would you guys move the LI parkways to mile-based exits? LI doesn't have any mile markers to my knowledge. I'm leaning towards no because the sequential ones are (apparently) confusing enough that some of them start with a prefix (SM1E in Commack is a personal fave haha). Maybe the RM, SM, and SA should share the same mile markers and exit numbers even though they have different reference routes since they pretty seamlessly flow into each other.

[vdeane]

Regarding the suffixes on the LI parkways: the north-south parkways were all originally spurs of the Northern State Parkway (Meadowbrook, Wantagh, Sagtikos, Sunken Meadow) and Southern State Parkway (Robert Moses Causeway), just like the Berkshire Spur is a part of the Thruway.  Hence the suffixes.  I'm not sure how much people think of them that way these days, and I don't really see any reason why they'd be harder to convert than anything else on the Island.

Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow already are one reference route.  Adding the RMC would be interesting given that it would then overlap the Southern State Parkway - and northbound that would include making multiple lane changes in a very short distance (right entrance, left exit - the exact same thing that made the old Can of Worms interchange in Rochester such a big problem).

[D-Dey65]

Pardon? Greater justification? Traffic volumes are a sufficient justification. Backups onto the bridge are undesirable.

Right, but do those traffic volumes or backups exist? If they don't, then of course they aren't a greater justification.

I've seen GSV images of overcrowded cars parked on the sides of NY 9D on both sides of the Breakneck Hill Tunnel. I have no reason to doubt they exist.  And yes, it should be pretty obvious there's no room for a roundabout. Unless they're not from the New York Tri-State Area, and don't do GSV's of the bridge, I can't imagine anyone thinking that there is.

[empirestate]

I've seen GSV images of overcrowded cars parked on the sides of NY 9D on both sides of the Breakneck Hill Tunnel. I have no reason to doubt they exist.  And yes, it should be pretty obvious there's no room for a roundabout. Unless they're not from the New York Tri-State Area, and don't do GSV's of the bridge, I can't imagine anyone thinking that there is.

I see those parked cars regularly, as part of my everyday travels, and here I am asking the question. Heck, just last week I went over the bridge on foot at mid-morning on a gorgeous October Saturday. If the volume was going to be there, that's when it would have been. So, I guess there's the reason to doubt that you're looking for, maybe?

But I'm not sure there's much value in that line of logic. It's possible that each of us could observe the exact same volume of traffic, and each use it as evidence of the opposite conclusion. What's more important, I think, is that the cashless tolling is brand new, and we don't have a lot of anecdotes yet as to whether that will, in fact, remove any kind of metering effect that the toll collection process used to have and thus result in new congestion–at least, no more so on account of the left turn to 9D than any other aspect of the traffic there.

[D-Dey65]

Hey, another topic; What's being built on US 9W between Depew Avenue and Main Street in Nyack? Because the GSV images of that construction has a wooden wall blocking the sidewalk that's also blocking the road signs on the southeast corner of 9W and Main.

[Alps]

I've seen GSV images of overcrowded cars parked on the sides of NY 9D on both sides of the Breakneck Hill Tunnel. I have no reason to doubt they exist.  And yes, it should be pretty obvious there's no room for a roundabout. Unless they're not from the New York Tri-State Area, and don't do GSV's of the bridge, I can't imagine anyone thinking that there is.

I see those parked cars regularly, as part of my everyday travels, and here I am asking the question. Heck, just last week I went over the bridge on foot at mid-morning on a gorgeous October Saturday. If the volume was going to be there, that's when it would have been. So, I guess there's the reason to doubt that you're looking for, maybe?

But I'm not sure there's much value in that line of logic. It's possible that each of us could observe the exact same volume of traffic, and each use it as evidence of the opposite conclusion. What's more important, I think, is that the cashless tolling is brand new, and we don't have a lot of anecdotes yet as to whether that will, in fact, remove any kind of metering effect that the toll collection process used to have and thus result in new congestion–at least, no more so on account of the left turn to 9D than any other aspect of the traffic there.

And I'm qualified to analyze traffic as an engineer and I'm telling you that I don't care what either of you observe with traffic, the proof is in the actual demands.

[empirestate]

And I'm qualified to analyze traffic as an engineer and I'm telling you that I don't care what either of you observe with traffic, the proof is in the actual demands.

Right, that's what we're saying. At the moment, we're not balancing our individual qualifications or trustworthiness of observation to rebut or support the results of any specific analysis. We're just at the point of casual discussion.

And, importantly, so far nobody's position is "a traffic study wouldn't demonstrate whether there's sufficient volume to warrant a traffic signal," which nevertheless seems to be a sticking point. If it clarifies, my position is best stated as, "I haven't noticed a whole lot of traffic going north on 9D, such that a traffic signal would be needed–particularly when compared to the traffic on the Goat Trail approach."

Indeed, even if somebody did a formal study and decided that a signal was in fact warranted, it would still be the case that I haven't noticed it. As I say, it's an anecdote.

[hotdogPi]

How did you get onto the grass? You're not supposed to pull over just to take pictures of road signs.

[SignBridge]

Spelling error on a new BGS at the I-287/I-95 interchange project.  Put up by NYS DOT for Exit 2 in CT. Photo by me.

That sign was probably erected by the Thruway Authority, not NYS DOT. And the spelling of Byram is not the only error. The numeral "1" should be taller than the word "mile". They must have really sharp people doing the sign work these days.

[SignBridge]

Regarding the suffixes on the LI parkways: the north-south parkways were all originally spurs of the Northern State Parkway (Meadowbrook, Wantagh, Sagtikos, Sunken Meadow) and Southern State Parkway (Robert Moses Causeway), just like the Berkshire Spur is a part of the Thruway.  Hence the suffixes.  I'm not sure how much people think of them that way these days, and I don't really see any reason why they'd be harder to convert than anything else on the Island.

Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow already are one reference route.  Adding the RMC would be interesting given that it would then overlap the Southern State Parkway - and northbound that would include making multiple lane changes in a very short distance (right entrance, left exit - the exact same thing that made the old Can of Worms interchange in Rochester such a big problem).

Vdeane, I'm not sure what you meant in your statement that the Sunken Meadow and Sagtikos Pkwys. are one reference route. In fact they have separate sets of exit numbers going north and south from Northern State Pkwy.

[odditude]

Spelling error on a new BGS at the I-287/I-95 interchange project.  Put up by NYS DOT for Exit 2 in CT. Photo by me.

(image omitted)

That sign was probably erected by the Thruway Authority, not NYS DOT. And the spelling of Byram is not the only error. The numeral "1" should be taller than the word "mile". They must have really sharp people doing the sign work these days.

the 1 actually is taller, although it shares the same baseline - that photo is straight-on enough you can confirm it with a straightedge (like the top of another window).

[vdeane]

Regarding the suffixes on the LI parkways: the north-south parkways were all originally spurs of the Northern State Parkway (Meadowbrook, Wantagh, Sagtikos, Sunken Meadow) and Southern State Parkway (Robert Moses Causeway), just like the Berkshire Spur is a part of the Thruway.  Hence the suffixes.  I'm not sure how much people think of them that way these days, and I don't really see any reason why they'd be harder to convert than anything else on the Island.

Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow already are one reference route.  Adding the RMC would be interesting given that it would then overlap the Southern State Parkway - and northbound that would include making multiple lane changes in a very short distance (right entrance, left exit - the exact same thing that made the old Can of Worms interchange in Rochester such a big problem).

Vdeane, I'm not sure what you meant in your statement that the Sunken Meadow and Sagtikos Pkwys. are one reference route. In fact they have separate sets of exit numbers going north and south from Northern State Pkwy.

I take it you're not familiar with NY's reference route system, then.  Anything NYSDOT (and a few other state agencies) maintain that doesn't have a signed route number, including the parkways, is given an internall number in the 900 series.  Normally separate parkways have separate numbers - this is true even of the Laurelton (907B), Shore (907C), and Southern (907D - not to be confused with the Southern State Parkway, 908M) sections of the Belt Parkway (as well as the Cross Island - 907A).  The Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow, however, are both reference route 908K.  The Robert Moses Causeway is 908J.

[yakra]

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9146312,-72.6616973,3a,27.2y,290.38h,90.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY_Z0QGeYjqgh6HOddxr8bg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192