New York

[mariethefoxy]

I noticed that today at Exit 37A eastbound on N.S. Pkwy. There is now both an overhead and ground mounted sign for 1/4 mile.

It baffles me why they even did that since the overhead signs arent even that old, they were put in around 2012-2013 when NYSDOT basically wiped out all the button copy on the parkway.

[steviep24]

Cross-posting this from another thread, regarding the intersection of NY 286 and Five Mile Line Road in Penfield:

intersection improvements at this intersection are now complete! There's new left turn lanes on all approaches and a southbound right turn lane. Sidewalks, crosswalks, and striping aren't quite finished yet, but functionally it's more or less complete, and it's about time! Now a much smoother experience than the previous shoulder-bumping stop-and-go slugfest.

I was in that area today. Looks really nice there.

In addition the new signals they installed there (which as of today are not yet in operation) appears to have video detection cameras installed in addition to the surveillance cameras. If that is the case that will be a first intersection with video detection at least in the Rochester area as far as I know. We'll see how that works out when we have a heavy snow fall.

I was at this intersection this morning and the new signals are in operation. They have three section FYA (permissive only) signals for the left turns in all directions. Given the amount of traffic this area has during morning and afternoon rush hours they really should have four section FYA.

[webny99]

Cross-posting this from another thread, regarding the intersection of NY 286 and Five Mile Line Road in Penfield:

intersection improvements at this intersection are now complete! There's new left turn lanes on all approaches and a southbound right turn lane. Sidewalks, crosswalks, and striping aren't quite finished yet, but functionally it's more or less complete, and it's about time! Now a much smoother experience than the previous shoulder-bumping stop-and-go slugfest.

I was in that area today. Looks really nice there.

In addition the new signals they installed there (which as of today are not yet in operation) appears to have video detection cameras installed in addition to the surveillance cameras. If that is the case that will be a first intersection with video detection at least in the Rochester area as far as I know. We'll see how that works out when we have a heavy snow fall.

I was at this intersection this morning and the new signals are in operation. They have three section FYA (permissive only) signals for the left turns in all directions. Given the amount of traffic this area has during morning and afternoon rush hours they really should have four section FYA.

Nice! I actually just looped back to this thread to say that you were a day too soon with your last post! 

New signals must have gone up at some point yesterday as they were up last evening. No protected phase as of now, but as you note they do have the FYA's, I would guess that's to allow for a future protected phase.

[vdeane]

Region 10 seems to be doing the Connecticut thing where they are eliminating overhead signs and replacing them with ground mounted ones. There are a few examples of this on Northern Parkway by Exits 37-37A and 44-45 and Sunken Meadow Parkway by Exit SM1. A handful of the overhead gore signs on Sunrise Highway are now ground mounted or missing entirely.

Region 2 has been doing that the past few years as well.

I noticed that today at Exit 37A eastbound on N.S. Pkwy. There is now both an overhead and ground mounted sign for 1/4 mile.

It baffles me why they even did that since the overhead signs arent even that old, they were put in around 2012-2013 when NYSDOT basically wiped out all the button copy on the parkway.

That triangle-style gantry is an older design.  They likely re-used it when replacing the signs; it might be getting to the end of its life.

[cl94]

Ground-mounted signs are cheaper than overheads, so it makes perfect sense if the gantry needs to be replaced anyway and there aren't too many lanes. Most states don't have MA's fetish for overhead signs.

Tons of gantries have come down statewide in the past decade or so without replacement, many of which were unnecessary. A few more are coming down within the next year or two. Overheads aren't needed unless you have a lane drop, 2+ exits in quick succession, or a ton of lanes.

[SignBridge]

NYSDOT's getting too carried away with this idea of eliminating overhead signs. In the case I cited above at Exit 37A, eastbound on the Northern State Pkwy, the new 1/4 mile sign is just beyond the gore sign for Exit 37. It's absurdly too close. The Manual used to recommend at least an 800 ft. distance between signs, but I don't see that in the 2009 Manual.

I've noticed in the past that Region-10 sometimes bends the signing rules on the Long Island Parkways. I'm guessing they figure that on these sometimes only two lane (each way) parkways with no big trucks on the road, that a slightly lower level of signing might be acceptable compared to a typical freeway carrying a lot of truck traffic. 

[machias]

Ground-mounted signs are cheaper than overheads, so it makes perfect sense if the gantry needs to be replaced anyway and there aren't too many lanes. Most states don't have MA's fetish for overhead signs.

Tons of gantries have come down statewide in the past decade or so without replacement, many of which were unnecessary. A few more are coming down within the next year or two. Overheads aren't needed unless you have a lane drop, 2+ exits in quick succession, or a ton of lanes.

A few years ago Interstate 790 in Utica was shut down as an emergency and the overhead signs were taken down because the structures were failing inspection. Region 2 has removed a lot of overhead signs that were installed in the late 1980s and gone with ground mounts.

[vdeane]

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

[kalvado]

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

Uptown state office campus is still there...

[cl94]

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

This happens every few years. It's a case of "I'll believe it when I see it". There's also the little problem of needing movable bridges over the Hudson at the heights they're proposing. I don't see 787 going anywhere anytime soon. Developers want it because gentrification increases land values.

[kernals12]

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

This happens every few years. It's a case of "I'll believe it when I see it". There's also the little problem of needing movable bridges over the Hudson at the heights they're proposing. I don't see 787 going anywhere anytime soon. Developers want it because gentrification increases land values.

Fucking downtown real estate developers.

[Rothman]

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

Uptown state office campus is still there...

Wut?

Campus is far away from I-787.

Last time I was in Corning Preserve, it was carpeted in litter and trash.  Turning the whole area into a park per the rendering...yeesh.

[kalvado]

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

Uptown state office campus is still there...

Wut?

Campus is far away from I-787.

Last time I was in Corning Preserve, it was carpeted in litter and trash.  Turning the whole area into a park per the rendering...yeesh.

I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.

[Rothman]

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

Uptown state office campus is still there...

Wut?

Campus is far away from I-787.

Last time I was in Corning Preserve, it was carpeted in litter and trash.  Turning the whole area into a park per the rendering...yeesh.

I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.

The desertion of the campus happened a long time before Cuomo.  NYSDOT moved to its current location (also far away from I-787) in about 2004, if not earlier.

How does the campus tie into the proposal for I-787?

[kalvado]

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

Uptown state office campus is still there...

Wut?

Campus is far away from I-787.

Last time I was in Corning Preserve, it was carpeted in litter and trash.  Turning the whole area into a park per the rendering...yeesh.

I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.

The desertion of the campus happened a long time before Cuomo.  NYSDOT moved to its current location (also far away from I-787) in about 2004, if not earlier.

How does the campus tie into the proposal for I-787?

I suspect that if 787 is ever removed, Albany would see a lot of things shifting out of downtown. State facilities are the biggest thing there. WFH, uptown campus, maybe new locations in Saratoga county?
I wonder what is the service life of all those high rises anyway - plaza and around it. If a lot of road structures from the era gets to the limit....
My impression is that 787 removal crowd would eventually win - but beware of what you want, you may get it

[Rothman]

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

Uptown state office campus is still there...

Wut?

Campus is far away from I-787.

Last time I was in Corning Preserve, it was carpeted in litter and trash.  Turning the whole area into a park per the rendering...yeesh.

I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.

The desertion of the campus happened a long time before Cuomo.  NYSDOT moved to its current location (also far away from I-787) in about 2004, if not earlier.

How does the campus tie into the proposal for I-787?

I suspect that if 787 is ever removed, Albany would see a lot of things shifting out of downtown. State facilities are the biggest thing there. WFH, uptown campus, maybe new locations in Saratoga county?
I wonder what is the service life of all those high rises anyway - plaza and around it. If a lot of road structures from the era gets to the limit....
My impression is that 787 removal crowd would eventually win - but beware of what you want, you may get it

I don't think so.  I am sure access to downtown will be preserved somehow of this thing actually happens.

Makes me wonder about the Port, though, and the more industrial sector in the south end.  I'd imagine they'd be against it.

[kalvado]

I suspect that if 787 is ever removed, Albany would see a lot of things shifting out of downtown. State facilities are the biggest thing there. WFH, uptown campus, maybe new locations in Saratoga county?
I wonder what is the service life of all those high rises anyway - plaza and around it. If a lot of road structures from the era gets to the limit....
My impression is that 787 removal crowd would eventually win - but beware of what you want, you may get it

I don't think so.  I am sure access to downtown will be preserved somehow of this thing actually happens.

Makes me wonder about the Port, though, and the more industrial sector in the south end.  I'd imagine they'd be against it.

Would be hard to find an un(der)used ROW in Albany. And given the project would be pretty expensive - probably above the I-81 one - there will be no extras included. I don't expect any new river crossings nor major tunnels.
So, I assume we're talking replacement of 100k+ highway with the 40k-capable boulevard. Half of that capacity will be plaza commuters, and that would be an upfront disaster.

Port area would likely retain a stub of 787, and will be sending traffic to Thruway mostly. Maybe a stub all the way to Dunn bridge.   

So I would expect plaza to be demoted, traffic circulation becoming even worse.
Two ways from there - gentrification in gated WFH communities, supplied mostly via deliveries; or detroitization. Either way Alice Green would hate it.

[vdeane]

Yeah, I wouldn't be too optimistic about I-787 staying over the long haul.  Sure, as they laid out there are issues (the most notable of which is the Dunn being too low for a fixed span over a navigable river; they also severed the connection to US 9 and 20, which I would think would be an issue given how major that road it, and there's also the lack of direct access to Empire State Plaza), but those can be worked on, and momentum for freeway removals has only been growing over time nation-wide.  We're essentially looking at a second, larger, freeway revolt.  In fact, one of the reasons the progressives were willing to block the hard infrastructure bill was because they did not like how it preserves the status quo and doesn't go as far as they would like to transform our infrastructure away from cars in favor of bikes and transit; for them, opposing the bill wasn't just a tactic to get the soft infrastructure bill that they really wanted, it was their actual position because, in their view, letting the hard infrastructure bill pass at all was itself a compromise, one they were only willing to make to get the soft infrastructure bill through.

Specific to I-787, a boulevard would count as "access" as far as supporters of removing I-787 are concerned.  It's also worth noting that the AADT along I-787 south of I-90 is already well under 100k for the most part.  Yes, it's 90k immediately south of I-90, but it drops to 42k south US 9 (exit 4B).  It shows as 61k south of the Dunn and 47k south of the Port (and only 30k to the Thruway).  To the extent that removing I-787 as a freeway would move freight to the Thruway, it would probably be viewed as a good thing, especially if exit 2 remains as-is, because that would also make it more difficult for freight to go through the public housing (exit 2 drops traffic to/from the north right there, but traffic to/from the Thruway and US 9W go to Green Street instead).

Honestly, I don't see why getting rid of the circle stack would require removing I-787 entirely, especially since that seems to be the main complaint.  If the interchange were replaced with something smaller, it would solve a lot of issues, both in terms of accessibility through the interchange for bicycles and pedestrians, and in terms of the fiscal costs to keep those ramps maintained.  That interchange is massively overbuilt for the traffic it actually carries, and the South Mall doesn't really need to exist as it does given that it was never completed and never will be.  That could easily be made into a boulevard.  If I had my way, we'd boulevard the South Mall, replace the circle stack with something smaller (as much as the roadgeek in my loves it), and keep I-787 an interstate.

It's also worth noting how these freeway removals can sneak up on us.  A decade ago, nobody thought I-81 was going to come down, and now it's practically inevitable.  And the Inner Loop went from looking like it would never go away until three months before it was shut down.  I wouldn't have even had a chance to say goodbye if Buffalo hadn't gotten seven feet of snow dropped on it, preventing the demolition equipment from getting to Rochester before Thanksgiving.

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

This happens every few years. It's a case of "I'll believe it when I see it". There's also the little problem of needing movable bridges over the Hudson at the heights they're proposing. I don't see 787 going anywhere anytime soon. Developers want it because gentrification increases land values.

I expect it will happen at some point.  If not in the near term, eventually I-787 is going to come due for major work again, and it's going to be hard to argue with this much more organized front, barring a massive political shift in favor of cars.

Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.

https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php

https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/

Uptown state office campus is still there...

Wut?

Campus is far away from I-787.

Last time I was in Corning Preserve, it was carpeted in litter and trash.  Turning the whole area into a park per the rendering...yeesh.

I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.

The desertion of the campus happened a long time before Cuomo.  NYSDOT moved to its current location (also far away from I-787) in about 2004, if not earlier.

How does the campus tie into the proposal for I-787?

Region 1 too.  It moved from its original location at 84 Holland Ave to Schenectady for a few years before Cuomo moved us in with Main Office.

[empirestate]

If I had my way, we'd boulevard the South Mall, replace the circle stack with something smaller (as much as the roadgeek in my loves it), and keep I-787 an interstate.

I'm drawn to this particular quote, because I've long considered this general area of highway engineering to be the "flagship" of the state's roadway system (and that it's overbuilt probably has a lot to do with that perception). But I've also lived enough years and seen enough changes–to anything and everything that would once have felt permanent to me–that I can't really view any given proposal as intrinsically wrong or right. It really just depends on what can be made from it.

[kalvado]

Yeah, I wouldn't be too optimistic about I-787 staying over the long haul.  Sure, as they laid out there are issues (the most notable of which is the Dunn being too low for a fixed span over a navigable river; they also severed the connection to US 9 and 20, which I would think would be an issue given how major that road it, and there's also the lack of direct access to Empire State Plaza), but those can be worked on, and momentum for freeway removals has only been growing over time nation-wide.  We're essentially looking at a second, larger, freeway revolt.  In fact, one of the reasons the progressives were willing to block the hard infrastructure bill was because they did not like how it preserves the status quo and doesn't go as far as they would like to transform our infrastructure away from cars in favor of bikes and transit; for them, opposing the bill wasn't just a tactic to get the soft infrastructure bill that they really wanted, it was their actual position because, in their view, letting the hard infrastructure bill pass at all was itself a compromise, one they were only willing to make to get the soft infrastructure bill through.

Bridges within Albany area are fairly consistent:
Dunn - 60'
Patroon island (I90) 60'
Troy-Manands Bridge    61'
Congress Bridge    55'
Collar City Bridge    61'

Green Island Lift Bridge and Albany RR Swing Bridge are lower
But my strong impression is that circular stack basically enables climb to 60 feet from the low river shore

[74/171FAN]

Honestly, I don't see why getting rid of the circle stack would require removing I-787 entirely, especially since that seems to be the main complaint.  If the interchange were replaced with something smaller, it would solve a lot of issues, both in terms of accessibility through the interchange for bicycles and pedestrians, and in terms of the fiscal costs to keep those ramps maintained.  That interchange is massively overbuilt for the traffic it actually carries, and the South Mall doesn't really need to exist as it does given that it was never completed and never will be.  That could easily be made into a boulevard.  If I had my way, we'd boulevard the South Mall, replace the circle stack with something smaller (as much as the roadgeek in my loves it), and keep I-787 an interstate.

This with rerouting US 9 to follow NY 32 to its current alignment would probably be the best compromise to keep I-787 IMO.

[lstone19]

Yeah, I wouldn't be too optimistic about I-787 staying over the long haul.  Sure, as they laid out there are issues (the most notable of which is the Dunn being too low for a fixed span over a navigable river;

Why do you think it's too low? Bridges don't just get built over navigable waters without appropriate review and approval. If it were too low, the Army Corps of Engineers (I think that's who regulates this) would not have approved it. At worst, it just has to be as high as the lowest bridge or overhead obstruction downstream of it. Based on what kalvado posted, it's as high as other bridges in the area so even if it were higher, it would do no good.

[kernals12]

Why was the Hawthorne Circle Interchange built without ramps allowing traffic going NB on one parkway to go SB on another and vice versa? And has anyone proposed adding those missing movements?

[cl94]

Yeah, I wouldn't be too optimistic about I-787 staying over the long haul.  Sure, as they laid out there are issues (the most notable of which is the Dunn being too low for a fixed span over a navigable river;

Why do you think it's too low? Bridges don't just get built over navigable waters without appropriate review and approval. If it were too low, the Army Corps of Engineers (I think that's who regulates this) would not have approved it. At worst, it just has to be as high as the lowest bridge or overhead obstruction downstream of it. Based on what kalvado posted, it's as high as other bridges in the area so even if it were higher, it would do no good.

She's talking about the replacement in the removal proposal, which involves a low-level bridge.

[lstone19]

Yeah, I wouldn't be too optimistic about I-787 staying over the long haul.  Sure, as they laid out there are issues (the most notable of which is the Dunn being too low for a fixed span over a navigable river;

Why do you think it's too low? Bridges don't just get built over navigable waters without appropriate review and approval. If it were too low, the Army Corps of Engineers (I think that's who regulates this) would not have approved it. At worst, it just has to be as high as the lowest bridge or overhead obstruction downstream of it. Based on what kalvado posted, it's as high as other bridges in the area so even if it were higher, it would do no good.

She's talking about the replacement in the removal proposal, which involves a low-level bridge.

I misunderstood. Thanks.

I just took a look at that idea. I had to laugh at the picture of sailboats along with them depicting low bridges both for the Dunn and the Livingston Ave. railroad bridge (in a style that is totally unsuitable for trains due to their weight - railroad bridges may look massively overbuilt but they aren't.


iPad