News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

New York

Started by Alex, August 18, 2009, 12:34:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Duke87

Ehm... that article is talking about the southern section, above the falls.

And even then they're not changing much: the western end will be one way westbound (as it already is), traffic calmed a bit compared to it current state, with the disused eastbound roadway removed in favor of a permanent pike/ped path.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.


empirestate

Quote from: Duke87 on August 07, 2014, 01:16:00 AM
Ehm... that article is talking about the southern section, above the falls.

There are some documents in there pertaining to the northern section too.

cl94

Quote from: empirestate on August 07, 2014, 09:12:28 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 07, 2014, 01:16:00 AM
Ehm... that article is talking about the southern section, above the falls.

There are some documents in there pertaining to the northern section too.

They just did semi-major realignment work and turn lane installation on the northern section, completely removing traffic from the former southbound carriageway. I don't picture them taking out the super two that currently exists any time soon.

That being said, only alternatives 5 and 6 take out any significant amount of the parkway. I think they'd be stupid to take out the section north of the Whirlpool Bridge and retaining the road south of there, while parallel to residential Whirlpool Street, would keep traffic moving at a decent pace through the residential area.

I'm not particularly fond of the ideas put forth in Region 5 lately (NY 198, anyone?), but one would think that they'd want to keep park traffic off of the residential streets.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

vdeane

Oddly enough, it seems that only alternative 2 uses that work; all the others would rip it up.

I've long been a proponent of if they're gonna do the super-2, they should do it right.  I liked it when they did the realignment work because it made it a permanent configuration rather than an indefinite work zone configuration (as the rest of it still is).  I favor alternative 2 with a modification to allow Parkway traffic to get to I-190 (ideally both directions, I never understood why the interchange never had the RMSP south to I-190 movement or how they consider it OK to have removed the RMSP north to I-190 movement).  I don't see the RMSP south of I-190 having enough traffic for four lanes.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cl94

Completely agree. As there is no Rochester connection as planned, none of it needs to be more than a super two. Even the section up north rarely has more than a few cars. As it currently exists, the local streets really can't handle any more traffic south of the power plant and it takes twice as long as the parkway. NY 104 is basically a residential street in this area. I wouldn't have a problem with fixing the parking lots and pedestrian crossings, as they could be at grade with button-operated signals.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

mtantillo

I've used the Parkway to get from downtown up to the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge, which requires overshooting the bridge and coming to the bridge on Whirlpool Street from the north. I've determined that the detour there means it is essentially faster to just use Whirlpool/Third from downtown.

My guess as to why they eliminated I-190 access...there is an alternative: the exit to NY 104 south of the power plant. From I-190 to the parkway south, there is no alternate.

I was up there this weekend, and there was a fair amount of traffic on the Parkway north of I-190 going up to Fort Niagara. But not enough to need 4 lanes. The interchange leading into Fort Niagara State Park was probably one of the most overbuilt interchanges I've ever seen. Really, we need a 55 MPH flyunder to connect a barely used road to a state park?

cl94

Quote from: mtantillo on August 11, 2014, 07:39:21 PM
I've used the Parkway to get from downtown up to the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge, which requires overshooting the bridge and coming to the bridge on Whirlpool Street from the north. I've determined that the detour there means it is essentially faster to just use Whirlpool/Third from downtown.

My guess as to why they eliminated I-190 access...there is an alternative: the exit to NY 104 south of the power plant. From I-190 to the parkway south, there is no alternate.

I was up there this weekend, and there was a fair amount of traffic on the Parkway north of I-190 going up to Fort Niagara. But not enough to need 4 lanes. The interchange leading into Fort Niagara State Park was probably one of the most overbuilt interchanges I've ever seen. Really, we need a 55 MPH flyunder to connect a barely used road to a state park?

The only movement at the I-190 interchange not provided within half a mile is RM south to I-190. I-190 to south still exists. I used it within the past couple months. The NY 104 interchange south of the power plant provides the movement removed when it became a super two.

That being said, most people using tbe parkway to access the park stuff wouldn't be able to use the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge because it requires a NEXUS membership, which most people up here do not have due to the cost. That movement is primarily locals who would just go up Whirlpool St anyway.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

cl94

While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update. Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including:


  • I-90 widening between I-290 and I-190 to 8-10 lanes
  • Replacing I-90/I-290 interchange (Exit 50)
  • Widening and/or reconstructing the entire length of I-290 to improve LOS
  • Replacing South Grand Island Bridge on I-190

Any thoughts?
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

mtantillo

Quote from: cl94 on August 11, 2014, 09:38:20 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 11, 2014, 07:39:21 PM
I've used the Parkway to get from downtown up to the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge, which requires overshooting the bridge and coming to the bridge on Whirlpool Street from the north. I've determined that the detour there means it is essentially faster to just use Whirlpool/Third from downtown.

My guess as to why they eliminated I-190 access...there is an alternative: the exit to NY 104 south of the power plant. From I-190 to the parkway south, there is no alternate.

I was up there this weekend, and there was a fair amount of traffic on the Parkway north of I-190 going up to Fort Niagara. But not enough to need 4 lanes. The interchange leading into Fort Niagara State Park was probably one of the most overbuilt interchanges I've ever seen. Really, we need a 55 MPH flyunder to connect a barely used road to a state park?

The only movement at the I-190 interchange not provided within half a mile is RM south to I-190. I-190 to south still exists. I used it within the past couple months. The NY 104 interchange south of the power plant provides the movement removed when it became a super two.

That being said, most people using tbe parkway to access the park stuff wouldn't be able to use the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge because it requires a NEXUS membership, which most people up here do not have due to the cost. That movement is primarily locals who would just go up Whirlpool St anyway.

The Parkway south to I-190 movement might be more than half a mile away, but it is on very high quality 4 lane road with only a couple of signals, connected to the parkway by a flyover. Definitely well served.

Very good point about different user bases for the park attractions and the Whirlpool Bridge. My point was basically that Whirlpool Street is a good fast road, as good (if not better because most of it is 4 lane and you can pass) as the parkway in that general stretch.

NYhwyfan

Quote from: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 05:46:32 PM
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update. Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including:


  • I-90 widening between I-290 and I-190 to 8-10 lanes
  • Replacing I-90/I-290 interchange (Exit 50)
  • Widening and/or reconstructing the entire length of I-290 to improve LOS
  • Replacing South Grand Island Bridge on I-190

Any thoughts?

Thanks for posting!
I-290 could definitely use widening especially from I-990 to I-90 as well as widening between exits 50 and 53.

vdeane

Quote from: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 05:46:32 PM
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update. Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including:


  • I-90 widening between I-290 and I-190 to 8-10 lanes
  • Replacing I-90/I-290 interchange (Exit 50)
  • Widening and/or reconstructing the entire length of I-290 to improve LOS
  • Replacing South Grand Island Bridge on I-190

Any thoughts?
I think I've heard about the I-290/I-90 interchange and South Grand Island Bridge projects before.  I wonder if the Thruway widening is related to their Buffalo Corridor Study that's been on their site since forever.

Of course, simply being on a metropolitan master plan doesn't mean much with NYSDOT in preservation mode.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cl94

Quote from: vdeane on August 12, 2014, 07:03:35 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 05:46:32 PM
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update. Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including:


  • I-90 widening between I-290 and I-190 to 8-10 lanes
  • Replacing I-90/I-290 interchange (Exit 50)
  • Widening and/or reconstructing the entire length of I-290 to improve LOS
  • Replacing South Grand Island Bridge on I-190

Any thoughts?
I think I've heard about the I-290/I-90 interchange and South Grand Island Bridge projects before.  I wonder if the Thruway widening is related to their Buffalo Corridor Study that's been on their site since forever.

Of course, simply being on a metropolitan master plan doesn't mean much with NYSDOT in preservation mode.

Certainly not. Thruway widening and I-90/I-290 interchange are related to the study that was due out a couple months ago, now expected later this year. Thruway Authority seems committed to these projects (as they should be, as both areas are at LOS E or worse).

With I-290, Region 5 is completely replacing a couple bridges around Exit 1, complete with temporary bridges. If someone can find the plans, we could see if there's anything more with that. I'll note that they did some preservation work this summer at the Maple Road bridge without widening, possibly the worst spot on the highway not counting the eastern terminus.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

ARMOURERERIC

FWIW, from what I read at City Data, Buffalo city has started to have small uptics in population.

cl94

I found something interesting this week that is not on GSV. On Webster Road in Amherst, just west of NY 263, there is a reference marker for NY 952T (I think) in the median if one is heading east. From what I can tell, neither this section of road nor NY 263 was ever NY 952T, which is located over a mile away with no direct connection. While every road on the SUNY Buffalo campus is state-maintained, none are controlled by NYSDOT (with the exception of I-990 Exit 1, NY 263, and NY 952T) and thus none carry a route number. I'll try and get a picture this weekend.

Unlike the rest of Region 5, NY 263 in this area does have ramp reference markers, but this one was certainly for a reference route in the 952 series.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

route17fan

That's interesting!

Speaking of Region 5 and reference routes, I found TWO NY950A's

One is at I-86 Exit 17 from interchange to PA state line.
The other is in Niagara Falls - First Street

I will post photos in my Flickr page shortly..
John Krakoff - Cleveland, Ohio

route17fan

John Krakoff - Cleveland, Ohio

cl94

Quote from: route17fan on August 28, 2014, 11:29:16 PM
NY 950A - the Buffalo edition. Just look far bottom.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/17152429@N03/14882497160/in/photostream/

Interesting. Except the real NY 950A is a hundred miles south of there.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Mergingtraffic

Are there any plans to fix the bottleneck on I-95 by the Hutch and Pelham Pkwy?
It's a huge backup for a seemingly small issue. Ie: the on-ramps in the area
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

cl94

Here is the phantom RM for NY 952T. The one way sign is in the median of NY 263.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

route17fan

WOW! Excellent find!
John Krakoff - Cleveland, Ohio

cl94

Quote from: route17fan on August 29, 2014, 09:20:47 PM
WOW! Excellent find!

Had to have been installed since September 2007. That's the GSV date. Standard RM post with a spec reflector (of the wrong color). Given that said RM is missing from the northbound side of NY 952T (at least on GSV from 2011), it's very possible that someone grabbed it and moved it over.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Duke87

#496
Quote from: doofy103 on August 29, 2014, 09:48:11 AM
Are there any plans to fix the bottleneck on I-95 by the Hutch and Pelham Pkwy?
It's a huge backup for a seemingly small issue. Ie: the on-ramps in the area

Not to my knowledge. Seemingly small issue, yes, but any fixing it in a way that isn't expensive and highly objected to by members of the community might be rather difficult.

Here's one thing I could see as a reasonable solution:
- remove both of the ramps in the northeast quadrant of the I-95/Pelham Pkwy interchange and the current EB-NB loop
- make the NB to WB movement happen by taking the NB to EB ramp and using what's now just a park access point to turn left onto Pelham Parkway. This turn is already legal but would be beefed up to allow for it becoming the primary means of doing things.
- have the WB to NB movement happen by modifying the same park access to allow WB traffic to get into it. Then restripe the NB-EB ramp (there's a lot of spare space) to allow a lane of traffic going the other way, and build a connection off the back of it to curve that traffic onto I-95 NB
- have the EB to NB movement use this same extended loop.

So now you have something like this:


For extra effectiveness but also extra expense and disruption (probably requires eminent domain), add a C/D road to I-95 north.



I suppose you could also do something more boring and just make the interchange an ordinary parclo with the two ramps for 95 NB in the southeast quadrant.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

route17fan

Had to have been installed since September 2007. That's the GSV date. Standard RM post with a spec reflector (of the wrong color). Given that said RM is missing from the northbound side of NY 952T (at least on GSV from 2011), it's very possible that someone grabbed it and moved it over.
[/quote]

I had not thought of that - very possible
John Krakoff - Cleveland, Ohio

cl94

Spotted this gem en route to a party. Erie CR 11 shield, East River Road in Grand Island. Northbound at Ransom Road. This one is pretty out of the way and I don't know of other pictures. Was pretty shocked to see one. I don't know where the other CR 11 sign is/was (the southbound one on Gribblenation), but I know of fewer than half a dozen that remain even if that one is included.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

MikeSantNY78

Quote from: cl94 on August 30, 2014, 09:02:52 PM
Spotted this gem en route to a party. Erie CR 11 shield, East River Road in Grand Island. Northbound at Ransom Road. This one is pretty out of the way and I don't know of other pictures. Was pretty shocked to see one. I don't know where the other CR 11 sign is/was (the southbound one on Gribblenation), but I know of fewer than half a dozen that remain even if that one is included.
Good find, and that raises a topic: Erie County has too many designated County Roads (mostly unsigned, and only lasting a few miles at best), a situation that truly needs to be rectified/streamlined (no idea how offhand); also, go to the standard CR pentagon, like most everywhere else.   

And while I'm venting, whose bright idea was it for the "Ramp" signs that popped up about 6-7 years ago? (ex.: RAMP Harlem Rd. to NY33 West) Do NYS drivers really need that kind of nannying, or are we truly that stupid not to read the route markers already there? 



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.