New York

[Flyer78]

...Was it money, NIMBYs, or environmental concerns.

Growing up not far from this interchange, I was always told it was probably all of the above. They did fully rehab that bridge in the not-so-distant past, then again that might be 15 years ago at this point. The bypass through that stretch had to deal with unstable slopes; and relocated/truncated several other roads in the village of Camillus. The redid the entry from Newport Rd (by the DOT residency) around the same time, removing the need to merge (three lanes now begin after the onramp) and removing some local canoe access to Nine Mile Creek.

If I remember reading correctly (probably on a post in this thread) they did need to realign part of what is (now) NY 174 to that end.

Funny on the other end of the bypass, a bridge onto the road would be beneficial to traffic, but instead we gained direct-access to an expanded Wegmans supermarket.

[vdeane]

Yes, Freeway Jim is the social media crap we discussed in another thread that is there for entertainment, but the technology is there and it's not whether if it's going to happen, but when.

They'd have to change the law first, so I think it's safe to say that we'd have plenty of warning.

Obviously it's whatever. I'm not going to argue for trying to start a discussion.  I'm not the first user on here and I certainly won't be the last who shares what they think might be interesting that doesn't grab attention.

Just so happens that Rothman and his usual critiquing of users posting repeat posts got into this. If he said nothing it would be like another person pointing out the previous without sarcasm. 

Hey I make mistakes and I'm well enough to admit, but I don't have time to go through every post to see if someone else beat me to it.

As far as the project goes, I'm glad it's happening even though I think removing the viaduct is a bad move. I always like proposals put into action as new roads is the best part of roadding. I'm not going to sulk like some over I-74, I-99, and southern I-87 or the fact Breezewood will never have the proper interchange it should have.

I'm ready to move on from this and have moved on.  Yes this is old but new and it's one of many things out there that can be brought up for discussion.

I think you meant to reply to a different post.

[Great Lakes Roads]

https://www.wshu.org/long-island-news/2023-11-22/atlantic-beach-bridge-e-zpass

It's official: the Atlantic Beach Bridge in Nassau County will be accepting E-Z Pass sometime in mid-December (next month)!

[SignBridge]

https://www.wshu.org/long-island-news/2023-11-22/atlantic-beach-bridge-e-zpass

It's official: the Atlantic Beach Bridge in Nassau County will be accepting E-Z Pass sometime in mid-December (next month)!

It's about time !

[webny99]

NY 17 Exit 131 in Woodbury appears to be closed. Though it's unclear why, my assumption is it's closed to control the traffic entering Woodbury Commons. The traffic situation is about as nightmarish as you'd expect for the busiest shopping day at (one of?) the biggest shopping destinations in the Tri-State area. Exit 129 is overwhelmed and traffic is backed up in both directions between 131 and 129. There are also backups on I-87, US 6, NY 32, and significant spillover onto local streets in Harriman and Monroe.

[SGwithADD]

NY 17 Exit 131 in Woodbury appears to be closed. Though it's unclear why, my assumption is it's closed to control the traffic entering Woodbury Commons. The traffic situation is about as nightmarish as you'd expect for the busiest shopping day at (one of?) the biggest shopping destinations in the Tri-State area. Exit 129 is overwhelmed and traffic is backed up in both directions between 131 and 129. There are also backups on I-87, US 6, NY 32, and significant spillover onto local streets in Harriman and Monroe.

According to 511NY and nearby VMSes, the parking lots at Woodbury Common are full, so I'm guessing they're trying to prevent backups onto the Thruway by forcing traffic up NY 17.

[Rothman]

Oof.  People still going to malls after all.

[webny99]

According to 511NY and nearby VMSes, the parking lots at Woodbury Common are full, so I'm guessing they're trying to prevent backups onto the Thruway by forcing traffic up NY 17.

If that's the case, it probably has more to do with slowing down the rate of traffic entering the area. It certainly didn't stop backups onto the Thruway, as the backup from Exit 129 still extended for several miles down I-87 NB. And anyone that knew about the closure would just use US 6 or NY 17, both of which were also backed up horrendously.

[D-Dey65]

https://www.wshu.org/long-island-news/2023-11-22/atlantic-beach-bridge-e-zpass

It's official: the Atlantic Beach Bridge in Nassau County will be accepting E-Z Pass sometime in mid-December (next month)!

I must be one of the few people who was okay with the bridge still accepting cash and change. The last time I looked it up on Google maps, every reviewer seemed to be like some old fuddy-duddy repulsed that women had skirts above the knees.

"With just a glimpse of an ankle and I
React like it's 1805."
--"Turn a Square," by The Shins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2aJpT3ypiU

The Storm King Highway portion of NY Route 218 is now listed on Google Maps as being closed until next July.

The road was severely damaged in a bad storm in June.

It was actually damaged in July, but I don't see the closing listed.

[webny99]

Big news in Rochester-area signage: The Can of Worms may finally be getting a signage upgrade, which in NY these days means APL's!

With apologies for the image quality, this one popped up on I-590 NB sometime in the last week or so:



This one gets a 10/10 from me. Great to see the addition of Irondequoit as a control city here, and I'm hoping they'll pick a control for I-590 SB as well (Brighton? Henrietta?) to include on the rest of the signage. I'm interested to see if this is just a one-off, or a sign of more new installs to come. All four approaches have "overlapping" exits that would need to be co-signed to at least some degree (á la I-490/Mount Read, at minimum), so it'll be fascinating to see how each approach is handled and to what extent the adjacent exits affect the use of APL's. And perhaps more importantly, do we see an increase in advance signage for this junction? There's currently just 1/2 mile advance on I-490 EB/NY 590 SB, and 3/4 mile on I-590 NB, but should be at least 1 mile for a junction of this nature.

[webny99]

A project of potential relevance: 4T5024

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.

[Rothman]

A project of potential relevance: 4T5024

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.

Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

[webny99]

A project of potential relevance: 4T5024

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.

Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

Well, it's an acknowledgement that the wayfinding system isn't in compliance with modern standards, so an important first step at least.

[Rothman]

A project of potential relevance: 4T5024

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.

Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

Well, it's an acknowledgement that the wayfinding system isn't in compliance with modern standards, so an important first step at least.

Heh.  It's a routine term contract.

[vdeane]

A project of potential relevance: 4T5024

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.

Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

Well, it's an acknowledgement that the wayfinding system isn't in compliance with modern standards, so an important first step at least.

Yeah, what Rothman said.  This is just one location in an overhead sign structure contract (specifically, this one).  The only other location in this interchange in this contract is the I-490 EB exit 21 ramp split, which sadly lacks control cities.  The other locations are elsewhere.

Speaking of Region 4, the new reference markers on I-490 in Victor all say "43" even though it's Ontario County.  The county count is correct, as is the distance from the county line, just the county code is wrong.  In a way that's worse than just having Monroe County accidently annex Victor; while things are fine if you know it's the county code that's wrong, if you assume the county count is wrong, you'll get a location near Bergen.

[webny99]

A project of potential relevance: 4T5024

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.

Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

Well, it's an acknowledgement that the wayfinding system isn't in compliance with modern standards, so an important first step at least.

Yeah, what Rothman said.  This is just one location in an overhead sign structure contract (specifically, this one).  The only other location in this interchange in this contract is the I-490 EB exit 21 ramp split, which sadly lacks control cities.  The other locations are elsewhere.

Isn't signage at an interchange usually all replaced at once, or is that only during larger construction projects? Seems weird to leave a diagrammatic and APL there together.

I did see what I thought might be a new install at the latter location, but there had been no sign at all there for quite a while, so I was thinking it might have just been a replacement for a damaged sign. If the other signs aren't being replaced right now, that would be a bummer but would also make sense as to why there are no control cities.

[vdeane]

A project of potential relevance: 4T5024

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.

Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

Well, it's an acknowledgement that the wayfinding system isn't in compliance with modern standards, so an important first step at least.

Yeah, what Rothman said.  This is just one location in an overhead sign structure contract (specifically, this one).  The only other location in this interchange in this contract is the I-490 EB exit 21 ramp split, which sadly lacks control cities.  The other locations are elsewhere.

Isn't signage at an interchange usually all replaced at once, or is that only during larger construction projects? Seems weird to leave a diagrammatic and APL there together.

I did see what I thought might be a new install at the latter location, but there had been no sign at all there for quite a while, so I was thinking it might have just been a replacement for a damaged sign. If the other signs aren't being replaced right now, that would be a bummer but would also make sense as to why there are no control cities.

Only during larger projects generally, especially these days.  Region 4 did a lot of spot sign replacements during the Great Recession because they needed shovel-ready projects fast to take advantage of the ARRA money, so I'm not sure how quickly they'll get back into corridor-wide sign rehabs.  That said, even the regions that don't have as many ARRA signs aren't really into those, either.  In fact, the only recent corridor sign rehabs I can think of in recent memory are in Regions 3 and 8 - I-81, I-84, and the Taconic.  It doesn't seem to be something that NY usually does these days.

As for that one gantry missing control cities because the other signs weren't replaced... it seems to me that, like pretty much any infrastructure features when a bridge is replaced, you should probably add them now, even if just at that one location, lest you become unable to add them later because the signs at the split are missing them.

(personal opinion)

[webny99]

As for that one gantry missing control cities because the other signs weren't replaced... it seems to me that, like pretty much any infrastructure features when a bridge is replaced, you should probably add them now, even if just at that one location, lest you become unable to add them later because the signs at the split are missing them.

I would agree if it was a mainline sign - as seen with Irondequoit being added to the new I-590 install - but it seems pointless to add control cities to post-gore signage when they're not on any of the mainline signs. I'm still hoping they could be added later, considering they seem to be big enough with the space currently being used for a ramp speed warning (I'll try to get a picture later this week).

[Rothman]

A project of potential relevance: 4T5024

Leaves a lot to interpretation but could definitely be applied to Exit 21... and/or Exit 8 WB, which also still has the old style diagrammatical signs.

Heh.  The "T" stands for temporary.  Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).

And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...

Well, it's an acknowledgement that the wayfinding system isn't in compliance with modern standards, so an important first step at least.

Yeah, what Rothman said.  This is just one location in an overhead sign structure contract (specifically, this one).  The only other location in this interchange in this contract is the I-490 EB exit 21 ramp split, which sadly lacks control cities.  The other locations are elsewhere.

Isn't signage at an interchange usually all replaced at once, or is that only during larger construction projects?

Yep, what vdeane said.  Not usually at all.  Job Order Contracts address flagged structures, rather than all structures within an interchange.

Larger construction projects -- entire interchange reconstructions -- are a rarity in NY, so sure, but don't expect them too often.

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/qhxCAfkZK8ScDq3w7
Was noticing that this intersection with the LIE Service Road uses traditional NY signal installations with span wire and green signal heads.

Yet Nassau County uses these signature mast arms chosen for county maintained installations.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zMPtKPBFarsNhikaA

Both on New Hyde Park Road in Lake Success, a county maintained road.

Am to assume the state has jurisdiction over the LIE service roads hence the span wire at that location and has taken over jurisdiction of traffic control along it?

[webny99]

Isn't signage at an interchange usually all replaced at once, or is that only during larger construction projects?

Yep, what vdeane said.  Not usually at all.  Job Order Contracts address flagged structures, rather than all structures within an interchange.

Larger construction projects -- entire interchange reconstructions -- are a rarity in NY, so sure, but don't expect them too often.

Recent replacements in the Rochester area seem to have been the exception, not the rule. I-390/I-490 was a large project, I-390/I-590 were replaced during adjacent Exit 16 reconstruction, and NY 590/NY 104 were all replaced at once about 8-10 years ago (which may have been part of a larger project, though I can't recall).

[vdeane]

As for that one gantry missing control cities because the other signs weren't replaced... it seems to me that, like pretty much any infrastructure features when a bridge is replaced, you should probably add them now, even if just at that one location, lest you become unable to add them later because the signs at the split are missing them.

I would agree if it was a mainline sign - as seen with Irondequoit being added to the new I-590 install - but it seems pointless to add control cities to post-gore signage when they're not on any of the mainline signs. I'm still hoping they could be added later, considering they seem to be big enough with the space currently being used for a ramp speed warning (I'll try to get a picture later this week).

I would think the split would be even more important to have the control cities, as that determines where people need to go to get on each direction.  Say they added Henrietta and Irondequoit as control cities on the main signs, but had none at the split.  Someone knowing they needed to go to Henrietta, but not which direction, would know to get off there, but then be lost at the actual split.  The reverse, while not ideal, is at least not too different from what things are like on 590 now.

Like I said, it's like a bridge project.  When you're replacing a bridge, if there are plans to add a sidewalk in an area, you add it, even if the connecting pieces on either side won't be built for a long while, because that's better than building the rest later only to find that you have to replace the bridge early or will be stuck with a sidewalk gap for decades.  Gantries are a limiting factor in that they're designed for specific sign sizes and you can't just go and change the size of the signs on them.

I don't see why they would remove the ramp speed warnings.  Those aren't placeholders for eventual control cities, they're just something NYSDOT now often includes.  They're also at the new sign on I-590 south at exit 2B, and will be on the new sign for I-390 north at exit 19 once it's installed.  The signs on I-87 south at exit 1 also have them, so it's not just a Region 4 thing.

Isn't signage at an interchange usually all replaced at once, or is that only during larger construction projects?

Yep, what vdeane said.  Not usually at all.  Job Order Contracts address flagged structures, rather than all structures within an interchange.

Larger construction projects -- entire interchange reconstructions -- are a rarity in NY, so sure, but don't expect them too often.

Recent replacements in the Rochester area seem to have been the exception, not the rule. I-390/I-490 was a large project, I-390/I-590 were replaced during adjacent Exit 16 reconstruction, and NY 590/NY 104 were all replaced at once about 8-10 years ago (which may have been part of a larger project, though I can't recall).

Those assorted signs on 590 and 104 were part of the ARRA signs, I believe.

[webny99]

I don't see why they would remove the ramp speed warnings.  Those aren't placeholders for eventual control cities, they're just something NYSDOT now often includes.  They're also at the new sign on I-590 south at exit 2B, and will be on the new sign for I-390 north at exit 19 once it's installed.  The signs on I-87 south at exit 1 also have them, so it's not just a Region 4 thing.

It does seem to be the new trend, but not one I endorse unless there's something really unique or substandard about the ramp that requires extra caution. I-590 SB Exit 2B is one I'm OK with - definitely worth the tradeoff for an overhead sign there, and it's warranted because of the tight loop. But generally speaking it just adds clutter to the BGS and doesn't convey anything that isn't already conveyed on supplementary signage.

[vdeane]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/qhxCAfkZK8ScDq3w7
Was noticing that this intersection with the LIE Service Road uses traditional NY signal installations with span wire and green signal heads.

Yet Nassau County uses these signature mast arms chosen for county maintained installations.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zMPtKPBFarsNhikaA

Both on New Hyde Park Road in Lake Success, a county maintained road.

Am to assume the state has jurisdiction over the LIE service roads hence the span wire at that location and has taken over jurisdiction of traffic control along it?

Looking at the RIS Viewer, the LIE service roads show as mostly county-maintained in Region 10, though there are a few state-maintained sections and they have reference route numbers even on the county-maintained sections, which is unusual.  There might be some mixed jurisdiction or maintenance agreements or something.

I do know of at least one location where NYSDOT maintains a signal off the state route system, so that isn't unprecedented either.

[mariethefoxy]

Most of the traffic lights on the LIE service road in Nassau are state installs, the only exceptions that stick out in my mind are at South Oyster Bay Road, the pedestrian signals in Jericho between Exit 40 and 41, and where the Eastbound service road ends at Woodbury Road.